Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
5 Posts

The Princes of Machu Picchu» Forums » General

Subject: Difference in balance of victory conditions with 2 players? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Steve+Jackie McKeogh
United Kingdom
Okehampton
Devon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I’ve now played this 5 times, each time as a 2 player game with my wife. With each of the first three plays I felt that the 2 player game may not be balanced in the same way as it is intended with more players.

Mac Gerdts has explained that, 'it is easier to get points from Incas than from priests,' and that, 'in most cases players who have more points have less gold and vice versa'. But with 2 players you acquire a lot more priests and so get a much larger number of victory points from them. You also get so many cards that there will be ones with 2 resources on that neither of you are interested in and will score you perhaps only 2 VPs but have only 3 treasures; whereas any card with a priest on will score you more and have more treasure. So you end up taking the high treasure cards ASAP regardless of whether you want a Spanish victory or not. This does not seem to be the intention of the game so I’ve tried tweaking the set-up a bit. It could just be the way we play but by tweaking it the intended balance of VPs between priests and Incas and between treasures and resources seems to work better.

I tried altering it a bit on our 4th game and refined it with our last game: I’ve removed one of each priest, blocking out the space on the right of each row (the 4 movement space); also removed the three cards with 7 treasures; an Inca victory occurs if all the priests are acquired or if the deck of cards is reduced to 3 in number (if the other player is also entitled to a card then he gets 3 VP instead of taking one of the last 3 cards); the game lasts up to 8 days instead of 9.

Removing the priests lowers the number you can acquire and so the available VPs from them. Taking out the 3 cards with 7 treasures prevents the imbalance that can seem to occur when one player gets 2 or even all 3 of them, increases the relative value of the cards with only 3 treasures (that are not so attractive with 2 players) and again reduces the priest VPs. By ending with 3 cards in the deck, the timing of the card draw is balanced with the removal of the 3 priests/1 day and means you don't have to take the final cards which neither player actually want.

This seemed to work well and it felt that the 'balance of power' was more like the way it was intended to be.

I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has felt the same about the 2-player game, or whether it's just me!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paulo Soledade
Portugal
Leiria
Leiria
flag msg tools
designer
WYG Developer
badge
Avatar
mb
This could be a good variant. I had the opportunity to playtest the game and before the triple and double gold scoring rule, which happens in a spanish victory, the game was pretty much balanced with 2 players. I've played it about 10 times with 2 players and we've enjoyed it a lot.

Meanwhile the cards changed a bit (the priest/virgin with 7 gold is too powerfull) and the first player triples a scoring that the second player would double which makes almost impossible to win even if the second player with the most gold turned out to make an excelent result on the board. The relative advantage that a player has or can have when playing with more players doesn't happen when playing with only 2 players thus making it almost impossible to the second player with more gold to win in the case of a Spanish victory.

Taking 3 character cards (which means paying less 6 cloth, 3 pottery and 3 coca) out of the game and starting one day later could work. But I think that the economy of the game, with only one less day to produce couldn't be enough for the Spanish to win.

In order to buy all those characters left you both together need less products. Producing one day less maybe isn't enough to balance things between the spanish and the incan victory. It seems that it's easier for the incan victory this way.

It't a variant that should be tried though and I will.

Paulo

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve+Jackie McKeogh
United Kingdom
Okehampton
Devon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Our 5th play was actually the first time we managed an Incan victory and in each game we pretty much worked our Incas till they dropped!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Green Knight Games
United Kingdom
Cheltenham
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We've played 2 x 2-player games and found the same: he who has the priests, wins. Both games resulted in an Incan victory; in fact, we can't imagine how you could get a Spanish victory. I've thought of trying to force it, but there seems to be an awful lot of days to get through.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Rampson
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree with you in general but not in specific. I think that the imbalance in the scoring conditions in 2-player comes from the simple fact that, unless one player is TRYING to force the Spanish victory, it just isn't going to happen. This makes the gold value of cards almost meaningless. After three games, I thought that maybe it was just the way my girlfriend and I played, focusing on blowing through the Priests/Virgins in order to sacrifice and move up the Inca Trail, get cards, and score more points. So, in our fourth game, I focused much more on placing Incas in production districts, taking only a couple of Priests and relying heavily on Temple Stones to move up the trail (coupled with a few early sacrifices). Even with the majority of the Priest/Virgin buying burden on one player, we still had an Incan victory (although this time, it took us until Day 8 to finish).

So, I think that the Gold value of cards is almost useless in 2-player.
 
 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.