Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
15 Posts

Pandemic Legacy: Season 1» Forums » General

Subject: 2 player take 2 teams or 4 rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
David Carlile
United Kingdom
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Hello all.
I'm sure there is a thread somewhere but I am abut to embark on the journey with my daughter to rid the world of disease and can't decide to have one team each or two. Are there significant benefits to either means of playing? I realise more teams out there means more special skills available but, per turn, more cards come out increasing the potential frequency (per turn) of epidemics. We have played a few introductory game with one team each and managed to cure three diseases. Advice would be appreciated. David - thank you
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Bauer
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
general consensus is that 4 characters is easier harder than 2.
I'd also say it's more fun because you have more special abilities and more space and opportunities for "other kinds of sticker that might show up later".
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
D Miller
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Anduin wrote:
general consensus is that 4 characters is easier than 2.
I'd also say it's more fun because you have more special abilities and more space and opportunities for "other kinds of sticker that might show up later".


I have heard the opposite everywhere I had looked; 2 players is easier than 4. So as you can see...it just depends.

Also you can change midcampaign, so if you don't like whatever you pick that's ok.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Bauer
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
sorry... totally mixed that one up in my head...
yes, 4 players is harder than 2 players.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Amanda Zimmer
United States
Decatur
GA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You could always go the middle road and play with 3 characters: you both decide what the 3rd character would do. It's like the best of both worlds; easier than 4-player, but you get to play with more characters/abilities.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob Rangi
New Zealand
Porirua
Wellington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
2 is easier because of
(a) the four Card start instead of 2 for the 4 player game
(b) access to better characters upgrades/add-ons later on
(c) the time between epidemics will be longer
(d) the additional cards between epidemics should result in quicker cures
The downside is covering the board if the diseases are board-wide.

2 x 2 is a tighter game with more options but requires some good management and logistic skills.

To be honest, I am not sure which I would prefer. We are currently playing with four because I enjoy the interaction but would be happy to play at two if I had no other option.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Bauer
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Zanhammer wrote:

(c) the time between epidemics will be longer
(d) the additional cards between epidemics should result in quicker cures

either my mind is completely gone for today again or this seems off. Just because you play 2 players does not mean that time between epidemics is longer, only that a single character gets more turns between epidemics. There are no additional cards in the deck with 2 players.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Stewart
United Kingdom
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Anduin wrote:
Zanhammer wrote:

(c) the time between epidemics will be longer
(d) the additional cards between epidemics should result in quicker cures

either my mind is completely gone for today again or this seems off. Just because you play 2 players does not mean that time between epidemics is longer, only that a single character gets more turns between epidemics. There are no additional cards in the deck with 2 players.


Yeah, the difference between player counts is in terms of how many special powers are available, and how often a given character gets to act, against a background of epidemics happening at the same rate regardless (strictly speaking, in 3 player there's 1 less card in the deck, so 1 gap between epidemics will be half a turn less)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Amanda W
United States
Georgia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rmsgrey wrote:
Anduin wrote:
Zanhammer wrote:

(c) the time between epidemics will be longer
(d) the additional cards between epidemics should result in quicker cures

either my mind is completely gone for today again or this seems off. Just because you play 2 players does not mean that time between epidemics is longer, only that a single character gets more turns between epidemics. There are no additional cards in the deck with 2 players.


Yeah, the difference between player counts is in terms of how many special powers are available, and how often a given character gets to act, against a background of epidemics happening at the same rate regardless (strictly speaking, in 3 player there's 1 less card in the deck, so 1 gap between epidemics will be half a turn less)


This. With fewer characters, you get access to fewer special abilities, but each player gets more turns between epidemics and it's a bit easier to get the right cards to the right people. The number of cards between epidemics doesn't change.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Patterson
United States
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Keep in mind that you decide on characters after the initial infection has taken place. So, depending on the board state, you can decide how many characters to play. If the cubes are clustered pretty well, 2 characters may work well, but if the cubes are more spread out, you might want more characters.

We've played most of our games 3p, usually winning. We've had mixed results when playing 4p. One game was played 2p, and actually went really well. So I realize that may not help much, but again, let the board state guide your choice of team size.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clive Jones

Cambridgeshire, UK
msg tools
mb
KogarashiKaze wrote:
This. With fewer characters, you get access to fewer special abilities

Mmm. Though that's only a benefit to the extent that diversity of special abilities is useful within the game.

Normally, if comparing a four-player game with a two-player game, consider the best available special ability. Which would you prefer: that ability twice as often, or that special ability plus a less good one?

Also, character game-end upgrades are twice as powerful if, once applied, you get to use them twice as often.

I can see why people say the Generalist is a really strong character with two players, despite the fact we never Created them with four players.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Bauer
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
yes, this is all very subjective.
I can imagine many situations where I want a diverse set of powers than a focused one. A certain character might becomes less useful over the course of one game but is nevertheless needed. You need to handle the cubes on the board and the cards and the movement and so on.

You work with the premise that there are great abilities and less great ones.
What would you rather have: The ability to trade cards easily TWICE as often but no one who can treat diseases properly
OR
trade cards easily less often but also treat diseases more efficiently.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clive Jones

Cambridgeshire, UK
msg tools
mb
Anduin wrote:
yes, this is all very subjective.


I'd disagree. There's a very solid consensus around the notion that Pandemic, and Pandemic Legacy Season 1, are easier at lower player counts.

Quote:
What would you rather have: The ability to trade cards easily TWICE as often but no one who can treat diseases properly
OR
trade cards easily less often but also treat diseases more efficiently.

With two players, that's easy: I'll take Treating every time.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Bauer
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
clivej wrote:
I'd disagree. There's a very solid consensus around the notion that Pandemic, and Pandemic Legacy Season 1, are easier at lower player counts.

oh sorry, I didn't want to imply that. I'd just argue that it is subjective whether you prefer to use the same special ability more often or more special abilities less often.
lower player counts is definitely easier than higher, but I'd say it comes more from the fact that single characters have more turns, can therefore be more effective with their tasks.

clivej wrote:

With two players, that's easy: I'll take Treating every time.

I don't get that
That was not a question based on player counts. It was just building on your example.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Stewart
United Kingdom
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Hypothetical example:

You have a character with the abilities "This character cannot treat or cure diseases. This character can take the unique plant a flower action." and an optional objective "Plant 3 flowers."

With 2 players, you probably want to avoid the character in order to be able to actually cure and treat diseases effectively, but with 4 players, getting an easy optional objective could well be worth it.
1 
 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.