Recommend
6 
 Thumb up
 Hide
11 Posts

Glory to Rome» Forums » Variants

Subject: 2P Site Number rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Alex G

Flagstaff
Arizona
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
With two players, there seem to be an unfortunate number of games that end with someone gaining a semi-random, (usually the better player, admittedly) very early advantage -- random merchant when the other can't follow, for example -- and finishing the game with almost no buildings completed. This usually happens when Craftsmen are frequent in initial hands.

Some posts here suggest people play (or in the first edition the rules suggested?) three of each site for 2p. That seems to maybe make it too hard to end mid-game? Do people have suggestions? We're going to try the 3 of each, maybe, to lower the # of "degenerate" GtR sessions.

Such a good game in so many ways, but a lot of rough edges, seems like, in the middle of the amazing balance. Sigh.

The rules still need rephrasing, and the card text isn't what it should be, either. Amazing the learning curve was WORSE on the first edition.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mont A.
United States
Carbondale
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I definitely recommend playing with three of each site in a two-player game.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex G

Flagstaff
Arizona
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Typhon wrote:
I definitely recommend playing with three of each site in a two-player game.


Ok, if the "Glory to Rome avatar guy" says it's a good idea, I'm good with that.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mont A.
United States
Carbondale
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
alexd wrote:
Typhon wrote:
I definitely recommend playing with three of each site in a two-player game.


Ok, if the "Glory to Rome avatar guy" says it's a good idea, I'm good with that.

blush


Now if only my avatar would translate into me actually WINNING GAMES of it occasionally! laugh
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex G

Flagstaff
Arizona
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Typhon wrote:

Now if only my avatar would translate into me actually WINNING GAMES of it occasionally! :laugh:


I hear ya. I recently discovered that my wife (who is definitely the "smarter half" of us) had beaten me four games in a row, despite accidentally playing certain buildings without their full powers, due to my poor rules explanation our first game + the (IMO lacking) card text, which is, like the rulebook:

1) technically correct
2) given the definitions, largely unambiguous (mostly true for cards, totally true for rulebook)
3) somehow still difficult to get, unless you have internalized the definitions -- not the game, but the definitions.

I think the choice to make the examples (good though they might be) bear the work of the building definitions and clarification may be a lot of the issue.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eddie H
United States
Los Angeles
California
flag msg tools
badge
Sorry about that, Chief
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Under the 1st edition rules (before the "out-of-town sites" concept was introduced), this was a bigger problem. I think the balance is better now, and that 2 sites/material is a good length. The threat of a quick ending by running out the sites is a good way to keep players from overly focusing on building up a big engine. At the same time, the presence of out-of-town sites keeps players from being hamstrung by someone snapping up the only wood or rubble sites.

Also, the shorter game length under the 2 sites/material limit lets you play more 2er games in a session!

It might be a good idea to set the length to 3 sites/material for newer players in 2er, though. Let them get a feel for how the game works before introducing them to the quick stab in the back that a 2er with 2 sites/material can be!
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Vrabel
United Kingdom
Cambridge
UK
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
alexd wrote:
Typhon wrote:

Now if only my avatar would translate into me actually WINNING GAMES of it occasionally! laugh


I hear ya. I recently discovered that my wife (who is definitely the "smarter half" of us) had beaten me four games in a row, despite accidentally playing certain buildings without their full powers,

...


I've had that a lot. The "In Addition:" cards especially seem to have that problem. I think that might be because they don't work intuitively. For example, consider the (I think) Dock, which has "In addition: When performing laborer, may take material from hand." Initially I, and several other people, have interpreted that as "For each labourer action, you may take a material from the pool or from your hand." But that's not right.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Seitz
United States
Glen Allen
VA
flag msg tools
badge
Like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be recovered, so we must die. But God does not take away life; instead, he devises ways so that a banished person may not remain estranged from him. 2 Sam 14:14
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Typhon wrote:
I definitely recommend playing with three of each site in a two-player game.

I came to that conclusion after playing 6 2ers in a row.

We had 5 wins with building sites & 1 with a forum win. Scoring was very low in all games. They just seemed a tad too fast for some reason. I think I would prefer 3 sites.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randall Bart
United States
Winnetka
California
flag msg tools
designer
Baseball been bery bery good to me
badge
This is a picture of a published game designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LordStrabo wrote:
The "In Addition:" cards especially seem to have that problem. I think that might be because they don't work intuitively.

It's more that the game doesn't work intuitively. The correct interpretation of the "In Addition" cards is that you get the effect (card from hand or deck) in addition to getting the regular card. If you have Bar and Aqueduct, one Patron action can add three clients. This is how "In Addition" works all through the game, but in any other game you would use a card from your hand or the deck instead. The correct interpretation seems broken (like the rest of the game), so people get it wrong.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Jaffee
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Barticus88 wrote:
LordStrabo wrote:
The "In Addition:" cards especially seem to have that problem. I think that might be because they don't work intuitively.

It's more that the game doesn't work intuitively. The correct interpretation of the "In Addition" cards is that you get the effect (card from hand or deck) in addition to getting the regular card. If you have Bar and Aqueduct, one Patron action can add three clients. This is how "In Addition" works all through the game, but in any other game you would use a card from your hand or the deck instead. The correct interpretation seems broken (like the rest of the game), so people get it wrong.

That's why it says "In addition" and doesn't say "Instead." I don't see the confusion.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Jaffee
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
alexd wrote:
With two players, there seem to be an unfortunate number of games that end with someone gaining a semi-random, (usually the better player, admittedly) very early advantage -- random merchant when the other can't follow, for example -- and finishing the game with almost no buildings completed. This usually happens when Craftsmen are frequent in initial hands.

That's NOT random.

I have not tried 3 sites for a 2p game, but I also haven't noticed any sort of problem with only 2. I have played a whole lot of 2p GtR games and most all of them were very interesting and good. It's rare that random chance makes for an unsettlingly short game. Sometimes an unforseen good play can end a game quickly with a win for the guy who made the good play, but I don't see anything wrong with that.Seldom is a game of GtR decided by chance.
 
 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.