Daniel Corban
Canada
Newmarket
Ontario
-
BGG users in general seem to prefer their games to be "easier" or more "loose", so I wasn't completely surprised to see that the ideal player count voting had three-player in the lead as the best, with four-player trailing behind. 13% actually voted four-player as "not recommended"!
I played this for the first time last night with four players and without a doubt, this is how the game is meant to be played. The game included one other veteran and two new players, and the veteran agreed that it was better with four.
It just felt like everything was balanced. Shipping was not overly strong. There was serious competition for buildings. "Blocking" actually came into play. There was a nice tightness to the resource levels. Loans weren't overly strong.
I have played it a handful of times with two or three players, and it was enjoyable. I wouldn't turn down the game if I only had three players, but I will aim to have four in all of my future plays.
-
Железный комиссар
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
-
dcorban wrote:
I played this for the first time last night with four players and without a doubt, this is how the game is meant to be played.
This is completely bogus, and deserves to be called out as such. You and your group know nothing about how the game is meant to be played. You can only subjectively say that you like a game with fewer actions and less total accomplishment per player, and it's hardly an earth-shattering discovery that Le Havre gives more actions to players at lower counts.
You are not setting any records straight. You haven't arrived to tell us how it is. Anyone with even the slightest experience at Le Havre knows what varies between the 3 and 4 player game. So the majority votes against you as far as preference goes; get over it. You're not going to convince anyone that your way is somehow the way of true gamers or the way that requires more skill. It isn't.
-
Pawel Bulacz
Poland
Kraków
-
I love Le Havre because it is completely different game for different number of players.
-
Jason Reid
United States
Brooklyn
New York
-
dcorban wrote: BGG users in general seem to prefer their games to be "easier" or more "loose"
"Easier" or more "loose" than what? Non BGG users?
I prefer Le Havre with 3 simply because it takes less time.
-
Daniel Corban
Canada
Newmarket
Ontario
-
jasonwocky wrote: dcorban wrote: BGG users in general seem to prefer their games to be "easier" or more "loose" "Easier" or more "loose" than what? Non BGG users? I prefer Le Havre with 3 simply because it takes less time.
A similar discussion revolved around the difference between Brass: Lancashire with three and four players. I (and probably every other person I know who enjoys Brass) find three-player Brass to have a distinct lack of tension. It is "Brass made easy". The battle for turn order and city space is greatly lessened. You get more actions and more cards. The game as a whole is literally easier.
My comment is just an observation I have had over the years here, that the average gamer like an easier, faster game.
You statement about Le Havre being faster with three is true. However, as with Through the Ages, it's possible that the addition of the extra player increases the enjoyment of the game enough to warrant the extra play time. For reference, I am at the point where I would rather not play Through the Ages at all, than play it with less than four. I suspect that Le Havre will have the same fate soon.
-
Eric Rampson
United States
Chicago
Illinois
-
dcorban wrote: I played this for the first time last night with four players and without a doubt, this is how the game is meant to be played.
Everyone, hold the presses! He played it ONCE! His opinion must be true!
Oh, wait, it is true. For him. And his group.
May I suggest that you simply add your vote for 4-player being the sweet spot for you?
Personally, I find the three player game to be much more open and, therefore, requiring much more precision to win.
-
Geeky McGeekface
United States
Manassas
Virginia
It's time for baseball, people! Pitchers and catchers report soon and the national pastime is with us again!
-
I feel compelled to point out that the vast majority of voters also feel that Through the Ages is best with 3; they also prefer the two-player game to the four-player one. TtA is my favorite game of all time, but I have no intention of ever playing it with four players again. So clearly, these are matters of taste.
-
Lee Fisher
United States
Downingtown
PA
-
Scud-O wrote: dcorban wrote: I played this for the first time last night with four players and without a doubt, this is how the game is meant to be played. Everyone, hold the presses! He played it ONCE! His opinion must be true!
You realize he played it ONCE with 4 players right? Many times with other player quantities.
-
Daniel Corban
Canada
Newmarket
Ontario
-
Larry Levy wrote: I feel compelled to point out that the vast majority of voters also feel that Through the Ages is best with 3; they also prefer the two-player game to the four-player one. TtA is my favorite game of all time, but I have no intention of ever playing it with four players again. So clearly, these are matters of taste.
So, is it that people have bad taste? 
I can understand the voting results of Through the Ages. The four-player game is a four hour affair. That is too much time for some people. However, that doesn't mean it isn't the ideal player count!
I am curious why you will not play it with four players. Is it the play time?
I find that with four players, the card row timing and flow is perfect. With less players, the cards drop off the row very quickly. Less players also means less interaction with leaders and wonders. Most of these will drop off never to be seen. Only the absolute best are selected, which leads each session to feel similar as no one has an incentive to take the fringe cards. I also find that with fewer players, there are much fewer events played. In a two-player game, if one or both of the players don't have or wish to play events, the deck just sits there stagnant. With four players, there is always someone playing an event each round.
The two-player version is particular shaky, as the zero-sum scoring makes some combos ridiculously overpowered. Three-player is enjoyable, but for my three hours of play time, I'd rather just play something else, or find a fourth and make the game perfect for the addition of one more hour's worth of investment.
-
Andy Cassola
Italy
Piacenza
PC
Power player
http://www.orizzonteventi.org
-
Playing with 4 players the game is not even. That's it. It might be balancend (but I don't have enough plays to be sure of that), but it simply not even, the 4th player has to play a diferent game from star to end and, actually IMHO, it's not fair.
IMHO 4 players is NOT RACCOMANDED.
-
Stephen Allen
Australia
TERALBA
NSW
The space left intentionally blank
-
I Played StarCraft: The Board Game with all 6 players (twice) and I'll never do that again. Definitely 3-4p for that one.....
...wait what were we talking about again?
-
-
-
Humm, people do realize that the OP is stating his opinion, right? And that he did give us the context that resulted in that opinion?
I have no idea why that would warrant such harsh responses. The opinion is hardly some earth shattering sociopolitical stance. He's entitled to have an opinion and voicing it provides value to the community. I'm sure I'm not the only one that would rather read the counter-arguments instead of put-downs.
-
Jason Clague
New Zealand
Hamilton
Waikato
I can see my house from here!
-
Turbo Pascal wrote: Humm, people do realize that the OP is stating his opinion, right? And that he did give us the context that resulted in that opinion?
My thoughts exactly. So the majority vote 3p is best. I still want to hear the opinions of others. I'm sure we could all figure out that his comments were opinion only - by the fact his name wasn't Uwe!
-
Jason Reid
United States
Brooklyn
New York
-
dcorban wrote: A similar discussion revolved around the difference between Brass: Lancashire with three and four players. I (and probably every other person I know who enjoys Brass) find three-player Brass to have a distinct lack of tension. It is "Brass made easy". The battle for turn order and city space is greatly lessened. You get more actions and more cards. The game as a whole is literally easier.
But it's no easier to win. You still have to beat your opponents.
I unfortunately haven't played Brass. Le Havre, in my experience, is a member of an interesting class of games that are somewhat strategic with 3 players but devolve into heavily tactical engagements with 4 (I really need to put together a geeklist on this some day). As you point out, resources are "tighter"...however, I feel they get tightened to the point where it's nigh-impossible to plan much for the future. Instead, you're forced to react...to make the best out of every turn that's presented to you. Some people really like that style of play, but I prefer games that allow me and my opponents to plan a bit for the future. I like seeing plans either come together or go awry, and thinking about why they did or did not work, and 4-player Le Havre doesn't offer enough of that for my taste.
-
Daniel Corban
Canada
Newmarket
Ontario
-
From that I would say you prefer three-player Brass, and must hate Agricola.
-
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
SoRCon 11 23-25 Feb 2018 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk
-
Turbo Pascal wrote: Humm, people do realize that the OP is stating his opinion, right?
He got jumped on because while what he presented was his opinion, he didn't present it as that, by the use of phrases such as "without a doubt", where there clearly is doubt, or to be more accurate, there are differing opinions with good rationales.
-
Geeky McGeekface
United States
Manassas
Virginia
It's time for baseball, people! Pitchers and catchers report soon and the national pastime is with us again!
-
dcorban wrote: I can understand the voting results of Through the Ages. The four-player game is a four hour affair. That is too much time for some people. However, that doesn't mean it isn't the ideal player count!
I am curious why you will not play it with four players. Is it the play time?
The playing time is an issue, but the bigger one is downtime, Daniel. With 3, there's only a little downtime, since I have to start thinking about my own moves midway through my left-hand neighbor's turn. With 4, if I start the process then, I usually have to wait through an entire player's turn. This really adds up over the course of a long game and makes for a much less enjoyable experience for me.
I also had a very bad 4-player experience once (a 6 hour game!), but I'd overlook that if I felt that the fourth player added that much to the game. Clearly you do, but I don't, at least not enough to put up with the twin problems of total duration and downtime.
Not to mention, it's hard enough to schedule 3 players to play a game of this length and intensity--4 would really be tough!
-
Jason Reid
United States
Brooklyn
New York
-
dcorban wrote: From that I would say you prefer three-player Brass, and must hate Agricola.
As I've said, I haven't played Brass. I do rather dislike Agricola, but I don't think it's for those reasons. I don't mind tactical games, but if a game has a tactical player count and a strategic one, I'll tend to prefer the strategic count.
-
Lacombe
Louisiana
Suddenly a shot rang out! A door slammed. The maid screamed. Suddenly a pirate ship appeared on the horizon! While millions of people were starving, the king lived in luxury. Meanwhile, on a small farm in Kansas, a boy was growing up.
-
Dearlove wrote: Turbo Pascal wrote: Humm, people do realize that the OP is stating his opinion, right? He got jumped on because while what he presented was his opinion, he didn't present it as that, by the use of phrases such as "without a doubt", where there clearly is doubt, or to be more accurate, there are differing opinions with good rationales.
Oh, boo-effin-hoo.
Any time a human being opens their mouth they are presenting the words they speak as their opinion by the very nature of what we understand to be the tacit implications of communication and reasons for engaging in the same.
The phrase "That's just your opinion" is non-communicative, almost anti-communicative, in nature, and borders on intellectual blasphemy. To use the phrase indicates that one doesn't have a damned clue what communication is about.
And that's a fact.
-
Lacombe
Louisiana
Suddenly a shot rang out! A door slammed. The maid screamed. Suddenly a pirate ship appeared on the horizon! While millions of people were starving, the king lived in luxury. Meanwhile, on a small farm in Kansas, a boy was growing up.
-
I don't know much about Le Havre, but there are certainly a wide variety of opinions and playstyles for Agricola, also a game that has pieces and a board and I think was made with recycled bean pods, but I'm probably wrong and someone can correct me. For my own part, which really isn't anything as I know I haven't played the game enough times to form a solid judgment and certainly everyone is entitled to form their own opinion, I think I prefer to play the game with a good amount of players... maybe 2 or 3 or 4? I played one game with 5 players, I think, but it was really different and I don't know whether I liked it. Can you tell me if I liked it? Maybe I should try again to see if I was missing something. After all everyone who likes the game with 5 players keeps telling me that the game is great with 5 players and that it's also good with 4, 3, 2, 1, or even 0 players. I've tried leaving the game in my closet by itself, but set up to play, and sure enough it seems to be fun even while I can't observe it's being played, but I guess like Schrodinger's Cat there are varying interpretations that can all be true at the same time and make everyone [except the cat?] feel like they have something to add to the discussion. One time I peeked into the closet while the sheep were in there alone and I realized the game had substituted the sheeples I set up for the little cute white cubes again, of its own power! Apparently even the game itself is ambivalent to whether you use the Goodies from Lookout or the Goodies from Mayday or the pieces from the original game or a spare pack of Chiclets from your 80s highschool gym bag your mom just dropped off after going through the attic in her annual spring cleaning [by the way, if you don't clean your house, I think that's fine, ok? Just wanted to make sure you knew that]. I have my own personal preference to use white pieces to represent the white colored resource icons on the cards [do you call these "reeds" or "rushes"? I can't decide, but I think I like both equally well], but I can certainly see how some people might prefer the game with the red discs representing reeds since the words are so similarly spelled. But, anyway, hey try the game again if you haven't played it in a few hours, and let me know how it goes! I think it plays well, but I haven't played all the worker placement games yet! Haha! Can someone give me a recommendation for a good worker placement game? I'm thinking of getting Puerto Rico, which I think looks really great, and I'm told even though the tiles are just plain colors that the colors are particularly well chosen and everyone loves the graphic design of the game! I can't wait to get my hands on it. I'll let you know whether I think it's a game that can be played or not or something. Oh yeah, hey... Agricola! Lots of people say it's a good game, and that's good enough for me!
-
Jason Reid
United States
Brooklyn
New York
-
At this point, Nate, I have no clue what your social commentary is about. Thanks for taking the time, though.
-
Jason Reid
United States
Brooklyn
New York
-
NateStraight wrote: Dearlove wrote: Turbo Pascal wrote: Humm, people do realize that the OP is stating his opinion, right? He got jumped on because while what he presented was his opinion, he didn't present it as that, by the use of phrases such as "without a doubt", where there clearly is doubt, or to be more accurate, there are differing opinions with good rationales. Oh, boo-effin-hoo. [snip] The phrase "That's just your opinion" is non-communicative, almost anti-communicative, in nature, and borders on intellectual blasphemy. To use the phrase indicates that one doesn't have a damned clue what communication is about.
I think you meant to address the parent of the post you actually replied to.
-
Lacombe
Louisiana
Suddenly a shot rang out! A door slammed. The maid screamed. Suddenly a pirate ship appeared on the horizon! While millions of people were starving, the king lived in luxury. Meanwhile, on a small farm in Kansas, a boy was growing up.
-
jasonwocky wrote: At this point, Nate, I have no clue what your social commentary is about. Thanks for taking the time, though.
I aim to please.
jasonwocky wrote: NateStraight wrote: Dearlove wrote: Turbo Pascal wrote: Humm, people do realize that the OP is stating his opinion, right? He got jumped on because while what he presented was his opinion, he didn't present it as that, by the use of phrases such as "without a doubt", where there clearly is doubt, or to be more accurate, there are differing opinions with good rationales. Oh, boo-effin-hoo. [snip] The phrase "That's just your opinion" is non-communicative, almost anti-communicative, in nature, and borders on intellectual blasphemy. To use the phrase indicates that one doesn't have a damned clue what communication is about. I think you meant to address the parent of the post you actually replied to.
No, not at all.
-
Eddie the Cranky Gamer
Canada
Edmonton
Alberta
-
the_spy wrote: Playing with 4 players the game is not even. That's it. It might be balancend (but I don't have enough plays to be sure of that), but it simply not even, the 4th player has to play a diferent game from star to end and, actually IMHO, it's not fair.
IMHO 4 players is NOT RACCOMANDED. '
I'll be sure to let the Raccoons know.
-
Tim Seitz
United States
Glen Allen
VA
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
-
NateStraight wrote: Dearlove wrote: Turbo Pascal wrote: Humm, people do realize that the OP is stating his opinion, right? He got jumped on because while what he presented was his opinion, he didn't present it as that, by the use of phrases such as "without a doubt", where there clearly is doubt, or to be more accurate, there are differing opinions with good rationales. Oh, boo-effin-hoo. Any time a human being opens their mouth they are presenting the words they speak as their opinion by the very nature of what we understand to be the tacit implications of communication and reasons for engaging in the same. The phrase "That's just your opinion" is non-communicative, almost anti-communicative, in nature, and borders on intellectual blasphemy. To use the phrase indicates that one doesn't have a damned clue what communication is about. And that's a fact.
It's perfectly reasonable for one to assert his own opinion. He doesn't even need to qualify it, since we naturally assume that his words reflect his own opinion.
However, when someone starts to make explicit pronouncements about other people's opinions, as Daniel did, he opens themselves up to valid criticism, and cries of "bullshit."
-
|
|
