Recommend
5 
 Thumb up
 Hide
11 Posts

Ora et Labora» Forums » General

Subject: Two players rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Mark Higginbottom
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi All,

I am very interested in this game but I know the target audience in my game group is going to be limited. Has anyone got any comments on how this game plays with just two players?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Manuel Pasi
Switzerland
Zürich
flag msg tools
Ka Mate Ka Mate
badge
Ka Ora Ka Ora
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It plays very nicely...I'd say it's the sweet spot...
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas Wegner
Germany
Bremen
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It plays very well with just 2 players.

Even with 2 players, you'll need a large table and good eyes, to see your opponents buildings. Regarding clarity, 2 players might indeed be the sweet spot.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cedric Venet
France
Montpellier
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
On the presentation video posted recently, they put the two play board on the same side of the table (ie players sit side by side instead of on opposite side of the table). This is probably a good idea since it allows to read your opponent building more easily.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justin Dee
United Kingdom
Lancaster
Lancashire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There's also no hidden information (like hands of cards) that could hinder such a side-by-side arrangement.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jan Erb
Austria
Vienna
flag msg tools
mb
We just played our first two persons game (normal variant), final score was 373-292. It was really fun, even though it took us quite some time (2.5 hours). We played the France variant. I had great fun producing as much pottery and ornaments as humanly possible, clearing vast tracks of land in the process.

I was a bit unhappy with the end, though: Since the game does not end at a fixed point, we were both just sitting there happily producing goods, and noone felt the need to end the game by constructing the remaining buildings. In the end we agreed to build them just so we could finish the game, even though neither of us gained much by it...

Did anyone else experience this? Why not simply end the two persons game like the multiplayer game, at a fixed point? Or did we miss something awesome about the buildings that would make you wanna build them asap?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas Wegner
Germany
Bremen
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jan,

Andreas Odendal, den man zum vertrauten Kreis um Uwe Rosenberg zählen darf, gibt hier eine Antwort auf deine Frage:

http://www.spielbox.de/phorum4/read.php4?f=1&i=258290&t=2582...&


Ich bin jetzt zu müde und zu faul, das zu übersetzen.


Ich finde das Ende im 2er auch eher suboptimal, aber ich denke, ich kann damit leben. Außerdem spricht auch nichts gegen eine Hausregel, wenn es euch überhaupt nicht gefällt.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jan Erb
Austria
Vienna
flag msg tools
mb
Thanks for the answer, Thomas!

For anyone interested in an english reply, he basically says that, in a duel, being able to control the length of the game is very nice. The person who needs to catch up can try to score points as efficiently as possible, while his opponent needs to try and build everything asap to end the game while still in the lead.

(The rest of the discussion is about a comparison with Le Havre, which I have never played)

Sadly, since the game is quite complex, none of us had any idea who was in the lead : ) I guess that comes with more plays?
Also, if the one in the lead has more efficient scoring mechanisms, why would he risk trying to end the game when he can simply extend his lead?

I am somewhat hesitant to introduce a house rule after a single game, so I will try and get a couple more games in before deciding if a fixed end is better (sadly, with the game length being 2-3 hours, there will be little opportunity outside the weekend).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris F.
United States
Atlanta
Georgia
flag msg tools
Avatar
fragfisch wrote:
...english translation...
Thanks - I was curious about your question.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
France
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
fragfisch wrote:
Thanks for the answer, Thomas!

For anyone interested in an english reply, he basically says that, in a duel, being able to control the length of the game is very nice. The person who needs to catch up can try to score points as efficiently as possible, while his opponent needs to try and build everything asap to end the game while still in the lead.

(The rest of the discussion is about a comparison with Le Havre, which I have never played)

Sadly, since the game is quite complex, none of us had any idea who was in the lead : ) I guess that comes with more plays?
Also, if the one in the lead has more efficient scoring mechanisms, why would he risk trying to end the game when he can simply extend his lead?

I am somewhat hesitant to introduce a house rule after a single game, so I will try and get a couple more games in before deciding if a fixed end is better (sadly, with the game length being 2-3 hours, there will be little opportunity outside the weekend).


the same happened in our 2p games...noonne wants to finish !!
this makes game ending really boring, too bad because the rest of the game is just very good.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grzegorz Kobiela
Germany
Hanover
Lower Saxony
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Editor at Lookout Games
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Then obviously one of you was playing to lose... See the other thread, where I explain why.
 
 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.