by Sizzla
schm0 wrote:
travvller wrote:
Sometimes user recommended player counts are just flat out wrong. I wonder if all the people who voted this not recommended for two actually played it with two. Two player is the least chaotic of all the player counts. I'd argue that 2p is in fact the preferred player count.
This is interesting, indeed, and something I too call into question. I most often check the forums when there is anything under 30 votes for player count. Usually there's a valid reason to be found for or against. Seems like a non-competitive third player/pawn is harmless enough and only serves to fill a needed slot on the board in order for the mechanics to work well.
What I want to know is: does this mean it plays differently with more? Or similarly, just a bit more crowded?
It certainly plays differently with more. There is as you'd expect, more competition for spots (even with the second player spots). I don't know that I necessarily prefer it to the two player game though. I think the two player game is slightly more tactical, whereas the larger player game (primarily 4 and 5 player) is more about adaptation and optimization of limited options. I like both experiences, and actually find it to be a positive aspect of the game that it plays differently based on player count.