Recommend
8 
 Thumb up
 Hide
11 Posts

Finca» Forums » Variants

Subject: Less fruits with less players rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Koby Shachar
Israel
Rehovot
flag msg tools
It says: Love thy gamer
badge
I have nothing smart to say... yet
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In the following thread http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/405674 it was suggested to reduce the number of fruits by 2 each in a 2 players game.

After my first game with 3 players, which we reduced the number of fruits by 2 too, I've noticed that still there is almost no limit to the fruits, only once we were close to giving up all of our fruits, and to remind you we took 2 aside, and yet it didn't happen.

If you have 18 pieces of each type in a 4 players game each person can hold 4.5 in average, so in order to simulate the same effect I think that:
4 fruits of each type should be taken out in a 3 players game and
8 fruits (or even 9) of each type should be taken out in a 2 player game.

This will make the game more interesting.

I would like to hear comments on this from more experienced players in this game. Thanks.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Evgeni Liakhovich
United States
Beaverton
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Less fruits for less players
Absolutely. Im puzzled as to why this is not included in the rules. They scale fincas, workers and donkeys, but not fruits. It seems like an oversight. We use your exact formula as well.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nick Fisk
United Kingdom
Stoke on Trent
Staffordshire
flag msg tools
Come on you Seagulls! Sami Hyppia's Blue & White army!
badge
That's weird. This bit used to mention Shire Games, and tell you all how wonderful we are. But it seems to have got deleted. Let's see what happens this time ....
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In a four-player game, there are 12 farmers on the windmill.

In a three-player game, there are also 12 farmers on the windmill.

I assume that this is the reason why they didn't think of adjusting the fruit down.

However, in a two-layer game, there are only 10 farmers, so it makes mathematical sense to reduce each fruit to 15 to compensate.

Of course, this doesn't take into account the fact that players don't hoard the stuff that much - In the two-player game above, for example, you'd still have to have 7.5 fruit each for it to run out, which is unlike as you're probably going to have sold them by then.


N.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joshua Harris
United States
Oshkosh
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
having played 4, 4-player games, we only ran out of a particular fruit 2 to 3 times total across all four games. (Donkey carts have run about the same frequency) Are we that far below average that there are problems arising with it not happening enough in games with fewer players?




Edit: for silly grammar.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
KAS
United States
Arlington
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
Cornbread46 wrote:
having played 4, 4-player games, we only ran out of a particular fruit 2 to 3 times total across all four games. (Donkey carts have run about the same frequency) Are we that far below average that there are have been problems arising with it not happening enough in games with fewer players?


I have seen about the same. The threat of running out seems to be a deterrent for most players hoarding.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Van Zandt
United States
South Ogden
Utah
flag msg tools
designer
badge
PlayTMG.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
the threat of running out is definitely a preventative measure. At 4 players, people realize very quickly that if 5 people jump on the same windmill blade, no-one's going to get to keep their fruit. once they realize that, the fruits don't run out any more.

there's no reason to scale down the fruits for less players, because the same preventative measure is there. the rule is not about limiting the resource, it's about making sure that nobody monopolizes it.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jamey Philipp
United States
Muskego
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
truekid wrote:


there's no reason to scale down the fruits for less players, because the same preventative measure is there. the rule is not about limiting the resource, it's about making sure that nobody monopolizes it.


I dunno. the few plays I've had I was able to use the rule to activly thwart someone's ability to buy a certain tile, allowing me to make a run for the same tile, by purposly making a fruit run out for everyone.

As a strategy it worked pretty well. It would be hard to pull off though with only 2 people and all the fruits available. I think I will try reducing the fruits in a two player and see how it works.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Van Zandt
United States
South Ogden
Utah
flag msg tools
designer
badge
PlayTMG.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
that would only be because people were holding rather than spending their fruits. once players realize that they should use it or lose it, they'll start spending them that much sooner. yes, it does give you the option to smash bad players who don't learn this after the first time you force the pool to recycle, but in most gaming groups, this will only happen a couple of times before everyone realizes hoarding is a bad plan... which again, is the function of the rule.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jamey Philipp
United States
Muskego
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Doesn't matter. Clever play can keep someone out of fruits, esp is that someone is winning and the rest of the players combine efforts so they can catch up.

Also, the result of the rule needs to exist so the "bad" players learn it. Until the situation actually happens it will be hard to convince the "bad" players to give them up out of the kindness of their heart. I can also see a situation where one player could purposly set himself up to monopolize a fruit for the entire game from the get go - if each player in a two player get 5 farmers that is a lot of consecuative moves to take all of one.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Van Zandt
United States
South Ogden
Utah
flag msg tools
designer
badge
PlayTMG.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
you can inhibit, you cannot prevent- and the play to inhibit is more based on wheel placement, not the anti-monopolization rule.

moreover, this statement:
Quote:
it will be hard to convince the "bad" players to give them up out of the kindness of their heart.

makes me think you're confused- whether they WANT to give them up or not doesn't matter. they will be FORCED to give them up when the pool runs out. if they're not smart enough to realize the first time they have to put all their figs back in the center that hoarding isn't valid, then they were going to lose pretty much regardless.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Geert
Netherlands
Voorburg
Zuid-Holland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
truekid wrote:
you can inhibit, you cannot prevent- and the play to inhibit is more based on wheel placement, not the anti-monopolization rule.

moreover, this statement:
Quote:
it will be hard to convince the "bad" players to give them up out of the kindness of their heart.

makes me think you're confused- whether they WANT to give them up or not doesn't matter. they will be FORCED to give them up when the pool runs out. if they're not smart enough to realize the first time they have to put all their figs back in the center that hoarding isn't valid, then they were going to lose pretty much regardless.

While I kind of agree with your overall point of view, I think he is talking about teaching the game to new players, using the standard 2-player rules. As there is no limitation, it is unlikely that "bad" players will run into that problem in a 2-player game. In a 4-player game they might learn soon enough - which is your point - but in a 2-player game those situations wouldn't occur that much if you don't limit the fruit.

Maybe only limit the fruit in the first couple of 2-player games? Thoughts?
 
 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.