Francois-Xavier
Scotland
Edinburgh
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So is this still worth it for two player games only?

Thanks
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Brosius
United States
Needham Heights
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
My favorite 18xx game for six players is two games of 1846 with three players each.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It doesn't give the full experience, which includes grumbling by the subordinate generals when the commanding general doesn't give them the right cards.

But it's still fun to command a larger army over a more extensive map.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
david Gorman
Ireland
flag msg tools
mbmb
Defiantly yes
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Snow
United States
New York City
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Most Epic C&C games seem to have been played as much or more with only two players as with 4+ players, because not everyone can muster group play on a regular basis. I have been playing Epic CCN monthly, usually with less than 8. Last time we had only two. It played just fine.

You have to figure that the two player game is going to take 3-4 hours, and demand some effort from the players. So its up to you whether you enjoy the subtleties of a game system, or just like a simple dice rolling experience. You will get out of it what you put into it. Still, C&C is a "light" wargame, and you won't have to work too hard!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alec D.
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
I know I'm late to the party, but I prefer it as a two player experience. I don't like trying to coordinate with another player even if they are better at this game than me. I find the battles become much more strategic when they are fought 1v1.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Brosius
United States
Needham Heights
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
My favorite 18xx game for six players is two games of 1846 with three players each.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ultimos604 wrote:
I know I'm late to the party, but I prefer it as a two player experience. I don't like trying to coordinate with another player even if they are better at this game than me. I find the battles become much more strategic when they are fought 1v1.

True, Alec, but for me the chaos introduced when there are four players on a side is part of the fun. I love it when I, as the supreme commander, hand two of my subordinates a card and the third player glares at me as though I'm an idiot. I think to myself that Patton glared at his superior officers in exactly the same way.

One reason I enjoy wargames is not because I like to exercise my intellect, but because I enjoy experiencing some of the issues that the real-life commanders experienced. And no other game gives me this same feeling.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Snow
United States
New York City
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Epic of course works quite well as a two player game if you have the time. But I'm with you, Eric. The group dynamics of the officer corps usually has more to do with victory or defeat in both the real world and at the gaming table than anything else! I'm proud of my ability to be a good CinC, which many players can't even deal with.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Wiik
United States
Alexandria
Virginia
flag msg tools
mb
I think the Epic scenarios work best with experienced players, and that 2 such players will play faster than a greater number of players w/o the same level of experience. I may be biased just coming off a 4-player Epic Austerlitz wherein one player on each side was nowhere near as familiar with the game as the other; the game took all day (about 6 hours, including setup).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Apergis
United States
Virginia
flag msg tools
mwiik wrote:
I think the Epic scenarios work best with experienced players, and that 2 such players will play faster than a greater number of players w/o the same level of experience. I may be biased just coming off a 4-player Epic Austerlitz wherein one player on each side was nowhere near as familiar with the game as the other; the game took all day (about 6 hours, including setup).


I have played it several times as a two player game.

I recently played Epic as a team game and had the same experience. We were playing Austerlitz. My teammate and I were playing the Russian/Austrians. Every one had experience playing the basic. I was the only one with experience playing the Epic (as a two player game). Sadly my teammate and the commander of the French spent most of the time squabbling over the rules.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Royce
United States
St Cloud
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Avatar
How do they squabble over the rules? They are what they are and there is an excellent resource for rules questions - here and on the CCN site.
Or is one player constantly trying to do stuff he cannot? That can be a pain, as it is kind of uncomfortable to be constantly correcting someone. It is one thing when teaching the game, another when a player continues playing incorrectly and argues when corrected.
I look forward to playing Epic, either 1 on 1 or with multiple players. I haven't had the chance yet.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Bosmans
Belgium
Mechelen
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Since I played Mem44 Overlord historical scenarios solo, without problems (with the 3 card side deck mechanic) I think 2 is peanuts .

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.