Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
28 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Gaming Related » Recommendations

Subject: Good 7-8 players economical strategy game? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Pavel Kupriyanov
msg tools
In our group we have a good set of games for 2-5(6) players, and I personally ordered some little more classics and hits like Catan, Agricola, Race for the Galaxy. Our favorite is Puerto Rico, Power Grid was very fun for a while, but at some point we got tired of all this unforgiving randomness in the draw. We recently grabbed Age of Emires 3, and enjoy it very much so far.

But sometimes we gather a group of 7-8 people, and we can't play our favorite games, in fact we can play no games at all, because all we have are for 6 players max. I think AoE3 might work with 7 or even 8, but we'll have to make extra sets of players.

So what I want to find is an economical game - fun, enjoyable and smart, with little randomness, has the basic idea of collecting VPs in some way, not too short (not like Carcassone) and too long (no longer than 2-2.5 hours for 7-8 players).
At best, some combination of Puerto Rico, Power Grid, and Age of Empires 3.

I sorted the list here on boardgamegeek, and only high-rated games that suit these requirements are Civilization, Bohnanza and Citatels. However, they are not exactly what I'm looking for. I might still try these though, will definitely check Citadels since it's very cheap.

There probably are games that are for 5-6, but can be easily turned into 7-8 and still be fun? Out of ones I know the best candidate is probably Age of Empires 3. Puerto Rico and Powergrid would become too slow.

2 
 Thumb up
0.10
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Corban
Canada
Newmarket
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The answer is to break into two groups of 3-4 players. Trying to shoehorn in extra players to make a mega-game is a surefire way to turn people off to the game.

Why do you have that many players? When planning a game gathering, only invite enough to fill the games you wish to play. Pick and choose your players based on their personality/favorite type of game for that particular session.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Knauer
United States
Heathrow
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Struggle of Empires is the closest match but might be too heavy for what you are looking for. Party/filler games are better at those numbers.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cole Wehrle
United States
St. Paul
Minnesota
flag msg tools
designer
badge
"Work as if you live in the early days of a better nation"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
eknauer wrote:
Struggle of Empires is the closest match but might be too heavy for what you are looking for. Party/filler games are better at those numbers.


I find that medium and heavy games with 7-8 players should only be pursued if everyone has at least a couple of games under their belt. Struggle is a good option if that's the case, both in the sense that it supports seven players remarkably well and it scales down to smaller numbers with ease. Otherwise just break up into two groups.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pavel Kupriyanov
msg tools
dcorban wrote:
The answer is to break into two groups of 3-4 players. Trying to shoehorn in extra players to make a mega-game is a surefire way to turn people off to the game.


Well, it might work, but so far it didn't .
If I won't be able to find a proper game for that amount of people, I'll stick to that plan.
The basic problem here is that we have a core group of 5 people and wouldn't want to split.

Quote:

Why do you have that many players? When planning a game gathering, only invite enough to fill the games you wish to play.

They are not actually players, they are friends we like to be together with - drink some liquids, eat some biscuits, play some games. It's usually some holiday that we have that many people. The game is actually a filler for chat and stuff, but we (well, most of us) like games where you have to think, not just some "party stuff".

5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Fergus Hadley
United Kingdom
leeds
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The only game I like for those numbers is Shadows over Camelot. Or maybe Formula D. Neither of which is economics-based. Sorry.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pavel Kupriyanov
msg tools
Cole Wehrle wrote:
eknauer wrote:
Struggle of Empires is the closest match but might be too heavy for what you are looking for. Party/filler games are better at those numbers.


I find that medium and heavy games with 7-8 players should only be pursued if everyone has at least a couple of games under their belt. Struggle is a good option if that's the case, both in the sense that it supports seven players remarkably well and it scales down to smaller numbers with ease. Otherwise just break up into two groups.


After playing like 15-20 sessions of Risk I became a vivid hater of dice-based games . Well though - if there's no better choice I'll have to try this one. Thank you!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mitch Willis
United States
Kathleen
Georgia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's out of print, but you might try Outpost if you can find a copy. It handles up to 8, but with that many, I'm not sure 'bout the playing time. With 6, we can play within the 2 - 2.5 hour time frame...
3 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Minkoff
United States
Henrico
Virginia
flag msg tools
Dum, Dum, Dum dum dum, Dum!
badge
"Money isn't everything, but it's a tie-breaker in Power Grid!"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yeah, I'd have to agree about Outpost. There's a forum thread or two on creating your own set, and someone shared an Artscow art deck for the cards... It's not cheap to make your own set, but it's nice.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pavel Kupriyanov
msg tools
I wonder about Outpost - there's sequel/reworking of it http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/13884/the-scepter-of-... - if Outpost was playable with 8, it should be expandable to 8, too?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Larkin
England
Brighton
Sussex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Fearsome Floors can be played with 7 and could be adapted for a couple more.

Leader 1 can be played with up to 10.

Maybe not quite what your looking for but worth considering if you are determined to play with 7 or 8 and want a game with some strategy
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erik Tietz
United States
Bloomington
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dcorban wrote:
The answer is to break into two groups of 3-4 players. Trying to shoehorn in extra players to make a mega-game is a surefire way to turn people off to the game.


Yup.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Brain
United Kingdom
London, UK
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jaguard wrote:
The basic problem here is that we have a core group of 5 people and wouldn't want to split.
Whilst I appreciate this scenario, this is also clearly the problem. When you hit 7 or 8, your core group really does have to split. At least if you want to play anything that won't most likely result in a very bad experience, even for your core group.

Many games (especially economic Euros) have an exponential time curve - for each player you add, the game length grows more and more. The result is that the extra time required for that extra player is often more than the "fun" that is added by that extra player. (I suspect this is one reason why quite a lot of medium-to-heavy games have stopped at 4 players in the last few years. Although many of them could handle 5, the return on investment in time etc. simply isn't worth it for most groups. So the designer/publisher chooses not to make it an option.)

Having said that, I quite like Citadels with 7 or 8 (although I think I'm in a minority with that view.) And, in the non-economic category, Shadow Hunters works very well at that size.
3 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris
United States
Huntington Station
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
IIlluminati.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rick Weckermann
Canada
Powell River
British Coumbia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We just played Imperial last night with 7 players, using the Swiss bank variant. Took blank chit that comes with game and printed Swiss bank http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/203350/swiss-bank-varian..., and actually made a second card so we could have 2 Bankers. My favorite comment last night was "What its my turn already", most players were learning game for first time.
Quote:
Why do you have that many players? When planning a game gathering, only invite enough to fill the games you wish to play. Pick and choose your players based on their personality/favorite type of game for that particular session.
When we have our regular games night on Wed. it is difficult to know how many show up, and we really want players to show up planned or not.
I sypathise with you in regards to splitting group up, our core players want to play together and would prefer not splitting up no matter what. We have played Power Grid with 7, again variants are posted here.
Quote:
Whilst I appreciate this scenario, this is also clearly the problem. When you hit 7 or 8, your core group really does have to split. At least if you want to play anything that won't most likely result in a very bad experience, even for your core group.
We must be hard core then, because we have been playing games with more than 6 players for well over a year now, and have just started to split into two groups, reluctenly i will add. Have found more people displeased with the split up and are starting to go back to big group games. Fun is what you make it, can not force you to have fun, you will have to do that on your own.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
jaguard wrote:
dcorban wrote:
The answer is to break into two groups of 3-4 players. Trying to shoehorn in extra players to make a mega-game is a surefire way to turn people off to the game.


Well, it might work, but so far it didn't .
If I won't be able to find a proper game for that amount of people, I'll stick to that plan.
The basic problem here is that we have a core group of 5 people and wouldn't want to split.

Quote:

Why do you have that many players? When planning a game gathering, only invite enough to fill the games you wish to play.

They are not actually players, they are friends we like to be together with - drink some liquids, eat some biscuits, play some games. It's usually some holiday that we have that many people. The game is actually a filler for chat and stuff, but we (well, most of us) like games where you have to think, not just some "party stuff".



I have exactly this same problem..

One of our friends who is very sweet wants everyone to "be together"

We're all too nice to split everyone up.. even if it's at the same table

Scurra wrote:
jaguard wrote:
The basic problem here is that we have a core group of 5 people and wouldn't want to split.
Whilst I appreciate this scenario, this is also clearly the problem. When you hit 7 or 8, your core group really does have to split. At least if you want to play anything that won't most likely result in a very bad experience, even for your core group.

Many games (especially economic Euros) have an exponential time curve - for each player you add, the game length grows more and more. The result is that the extra time required for that extra player is often more than the "fun" that is added by that extra player. (I suspect this is one reason why quite a lot of medium-to-heavy games have stopped at 4 players in the last few years. Although many of them could handle 5, the return on investment in time etc. simply isn't worth it for most groups. So the designer/publisher chooses not to make it an option.)

Having said that, I quite like Citadels with 7 or 8 (although I think I'm in a minority with that view.) And, in the non-economic category, Shadow Hunters works very well at that size.


I agree with everything you said here. When mentioned.. I get a "let's play in pairs then" hahaha. It's not worth fighting for at the moment, but we'll see

Too bad you're not looking for other types of games. there's some good ones for larger groups


Edit: Oh.. have you considered playing in pairs? It's not my cup of tea, but maybe it might be yours.. that way you can play those smaller games
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We have the same 4 person er 5... uh oh 7 person issue at some conventions.

I agree with the others... too often, scaling games up to 6 players just eats the fun out of them unless they are parallel.

One good parallel game is Ricochet Robots (it scales virtually to infinity).

Any game where people plan their moves in parallel and then resolve them is going to scale better than a game where the person must plan and act on their turn.

Any game where the turns are very simplistic are going to scale better.

Negotiating games may scale better (since everyone is negotiating at the same time).

hmm..

PIT would probably work well up to 8 (it's fast, fun, loud).
QIRKLE might scale okay with two sets.



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pavel Kupriyanov
msg tools
ranoobu wrote:

Too bad you're not looking for other types of games. there's some good ones for larger groups

Edit: Oh.. have you considered playing in pairs? It's not my cup of tea, but maybe it might be yours.. that way you can play those smaller games


It's not that I don't consider other games at all, but I watched quite a number of games reviewed by Dice Tower, and a vast majority of them (even top-rated) don't seem fun. They might be, but they just don't look like they are .
So I decided to stick with "Euro" economic games, because I tend to like them most.

Pairs.. Doesn't work. People don't want to play in pairs, and I can say it's a good thing - otherwise it may end up with a very loud arguing on a good turn .


I consider getting another copy of Puerto Rico and try 6-7 players. Like Age of Empires 3 and unlike Power Grid, it's very interactive - even though it would take VERY long until you'll be able to actually pick a role, every role other players pick allows you to do something yourself, so you don't wait too long. The big disadvantage is that you lose control over the game, and yes it might take a while to finish it .

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pavel Kupriyanov
msg tools
maxo-texas wrote:

I agree with the others... too often, scaling games up to 6 players just eats the fun out of them unless they are parallel.



I wonder then, why there's no [good] parallel euro strategies? . I imagine it might work pretty good - like the Major phase in Puerto Rico, where all players decide their move at one time.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leonardo Martino
Italy
Milano
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hey man check this out! Fische Fluppen Frikadellen !

and also this thread:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/263925/ten-players-two-t...

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Forrest Bryant
United States
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I knew someone (this was a long time ago, I don't know details) who had a regular 8 player game night, at which they played Aqcuire. They all played together, using 2 sets. Not sure exactly how they worked it out though.

We often have large groups (6-8) and often play Shadows over Camelot, Apples to Apples or BANG! when we all want to play together.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mario Arnold
United States
Philadelphia
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
So what I want to find is an economical game - fun, enjoyable and smart, with little randomness, has the basic idea of collecting VPs in some way, not too short (not like Carcassone) and too long (no longer than 2-2.5 hours for 7-8 players).


Not a boardgame, but a game nonetheless...have you tried poker? Satisfies these requirements (the VP's are money!).
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
dcorban wrote:
The answer is to break into two groups of 3-4 players. Trying to shoehorn in extra players to make a mega-game is a surefire way to turn people off to the game.

Why do you have that many players? When planning a game gathering, only invite enough to fill the games you wish to play. Pick and choose your players based on their personality/favorite type of game for that particular session.


Yea, much better to split into 2 groups that have fun rather than 1 group that doesn't.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Larkin
England
Brighton
Sussex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
eyvindr wrote:
I knew someone (this was a long time ago, I don't know details) who had a regular 8 player game night, at which they played Aqcuire. They all played together, using 2 sets. Not sure exactly how they worked it out though.


You can play Factory Fun with 8 if you have two sets, or 12 if you have 3 sets. Its pretty hard to find one now though!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
eyvindr wrote:
I knew someone (this was a long time ago, I don't know details) who had a regular 8 player game night, at which they played Aqcuire. They all played together, using 2 sets. Not sure exactly how they worked it out though.

We often have large groups (6-8) and often play Shadows over Camelot, Apples to Apples or BANG! when we all want to play together.


You can play double acquire with two boards next to each other and distinguishing between the companies (Green "1" and Green "2") by marking the cards or chips.

I suppose you could play without distinguishing but we never did.

It took a long time (3ish hours).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
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.