Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
8 Posts

Ora et Labora» Forums » Rules

Subject: Alternative (dynamic) ending rule for 2pl games - why? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Christoph M.
Germany
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In contrast to the usual 24+1 rounds in a 3 or 4 player game, the tower player game only ends when all but a specified number of buildings are built (1 in the short, 3 in the long game).
Just played both one short and one long 2 pl game; especially in the long version the game tends to be confusing and neverending. With nearly all buildings built, the game becomes an exercise in calculating the different posibilities of making victory points, including calculating als needed prerequisites (resources), and adding in the possibility of settlements (with castle). If the game would end after 24+1 rounds, less buildings will be built, the card display will be much less confusing, game time will be much shorter.
Does anyone have an idea why the end game ruling for 2 pl is different from the rules for 3 or 4 pl?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John LaRuffa
United States
Hudsonville
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, pray for us!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't know why they did this. I played one 2 player long version and completely disliked it compared to the 1, 3 and 4 player game. It just lacked the end game tension of, "I am running out of time and I need to figure this out before I blow it!"

I will never play the standard end game 2 player rules again. I basically just agree with the other player when we will end it which is roughly with an E phase about opposite the D marker on the 2 player standard production wheel. I really like it that way because it is just like the other player setups. In general, I don't know what they were going with, but never fear, a fixed ending makes it just as solid as the other player modes.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Pessano
United States
Tampa
Florida
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
magnus1515 wrote:
I don't know why they did this. I played one 2 player long version and completely disliked it compared to the 1, 3 and 4 player game. It just lacked the end game tension of, "I am running out of time and I need to figure this out before I blow it!"

I will never play the standard end game 2 player rules again. I basically just agree with the other player when we will end it which is roughly with an E phase about opposite the D marker on the 2 player standard production wheel. I really like it that way because it is just like the other player setups. In general, I don't know what they were going with, but never fear, a fixed ending makes it just as solid as the other player modes.


I have only played the 2 player game w/o a real ending so if you use this alternate way to end, I assume you get 1 last settlement building phase, right?

Thx
jonpfl
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken Marley
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That is the way we played.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jake Waltier
United States
Brooklyn
New York
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree that the standard 2P ending feels off. I will add a final settlement E-step where it would appear next (following the ABCD pattern) next time.

I for one am still curious why the designer and developers chose to modify the 2P game in this way.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mathue Faulkner
United States
Austin
TX
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TwentySides wrote:
I agree that the standard 2P ending feels off. I will add a final settlement E-step where it would appear next (following the ABCD pattern) next time.

I for one am still curious why the designer and developers chose to modify the 2P game in this way.


After only a couple plays, I'm guessing that it may be more difficult to pursue a goods strategy with a fixed ending (at least if it ends at approximately the same interval as the other rounds). It seems like a settlement strategy would be more powerful than the other two strategies...

The posted rules actually nerf the settlement points, and increase the building and resource points.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob White
United States
Richmond
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've played one 3-player, two 2-player, and a few solo games. I like the flow of the game a lot. But I'm disappointed with the ending of the 2-player game. I love how 2-player Agricola is a dependable 60 minutes. I'd be cool if O&L had a smoother ending. I realize that's not what Uwe wanted and I certainly respect that. It's not like I've ever tried to design a game. I just think I'd end up playing it a lot more if not for the different 2-player ending.

Rob
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mathue Faulkner
United States
Austin
TX
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rob in Richmond wrote:
I've played one 3-player, two 2-player, and a few solo games. I like the flow of the game a lot. But I'm disappointed with the ending of the 2-player game. I love how 2-player Agricola is a dependable 60 minutes. I'd be cool if O&L had a smoother ending. I realize that's not what Uwe wanted and I certainly respect that. It's not like I've ever tried to design a game. I just think I'd end up playing it a lot more if not for the different 2-player ending.

Rob

Plenty of people seem to being playing and enjoying the fixed ending variant. The balancing may be a bit different, but it doesn't seem to be that big of an issue..
 
 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.