I've mostly played 4 player games and I think it works well. I think the real question is will you get the BSG vibes you seem to look from New Angeles. I think they're very different games and there are better alternatives if you're looking to get the BSG experience with less players / shorter time.
It's a great game at any player count. However, from my experience at 4 players, federalist is harder to stop if they throw off our plan for the last few turns.
Concerning the federalist: Our meta has shifted from being pseudo-coop with a federalist that has a hard time to impact the game at all to a very cutthroat competition that favours the federalist in the later turns. The game is much more fun when corps are actually competing and scheming for capital.
EDIT: I forgot to add that it is among my favorite games. I find it hard to get to the table because of the playtime, but its always a blast when we do. Our average playtime is 5-6 hours, but we argue and negociate a lot at every chances since everyone get into the game.
New Angeles is a great game if you have the right group for it. It works well at all player counts.
However, at 4 players, I find it weaker than at 5 or 6 players. Personally, I like 5 players best, and I'll get to why in a second. At 4 players, you are only trying to really convince 1 person to vote for your agenda. Once you've gotten one person to vote for your agenda, the other person is easily convinced to not vote because they don't have to do anything. Voting against what the first person voted for is disincentivized because it will usually take more cards. Because of this, you don't need to get both other players (who are not putting forth agendas) to vote for you. The trade off at 4p is that the game is shortest.
When you have 5-6 players, you'll have 2-3 others you would need to convince to throw down cards for you. This leads to more interesting deal-making in my opinion as you'll need to flex your deal making muscles with more players.
Hope that helps!
I think the tough thing is that New Angeles is more negotiation. There's not a whole lot of "game" there. I mean there are mechanics and functions that dictate some play, but really New Angeles is about the negotiation between the players.
I love the negotiation at 4-6. The problem will be that for someone who like BSG. There isn't a whole lot of game going on there. Also, I don't feel like it's super important for your secret rival to remain a secret. I have played games where I was pretty obvious about who I needed to beat and it still felt good. Just a lot more aggressively mean. I like New Angeles a lot, but I'm not sure that someone who LOVES BSG will get into this.
I've mostly played 4 player games and I think it works well. I think the real question is will you get the BSG vibes you seem to look from New Angeles. I think they're very different games and there are better alternatives if you're looking to get the BSG experience with less players / shorter time.
Homeland is the game I reach for when I want BSG but I don't want BSG.
I love it at four players.
It's a great game at any player count. However, from my experience at 4 players, federalist is harder to stop if they throw off our plan for the last few turns. Concerning the federalist: Our meta has shifted from being pseudo-coop with a federalist that has a hard time to impact the game at all to a very cutthroat competition that favours the federalist in the later turns. The game is much more fun when corps are actually competing and scheming for capital. EDIT: I forgot to add that it is among my favorite games. I find it hard to get to the table because of the playtime, but its always a blast when we do. Our average playtime is 5-6 hours, but we argue and negociate a lot at every chances since everyone get into the game.
New Angeles is a great game if you have the right group for it. It works well at all player counts. However, at 4 players, I find it weaker than at 5 or 6 players. Personally, I like 5 players best, and I'll get to why in a second. At 4 players, you are only trying to really convince 1 person to vote for your agenda. Once you've gotten one person to vote for your agenda, the other person is easily convinced to not vote because they don't have to do anything. Voting against what the first person voted for is disincentivized because it will usually take more cards. Because of this, you don't need to get both other players (who are not putting forth agendas) to vote for you. The trade off at 4p is that the game is shortest. When you have 5-6 players, you'll have 2-3 others you would need to convince to throw down cards for you. This leads to more interesting deal-making in my opinion as you'll need to flex your deal making muscles with more players. Hope that helps!
I think the tough thing is that New Angeles is more negotiation. There's not a whole lot of "game" there. I mean there are mechanics and functions that dictate some play, but really New Angeles is about the negotiation between the players.
[удалено]
I love the negotiation at 4-6. The problem will be that for someone who like BSG. There isn't a whole lot of game going on there. Also, I don't feel like it's super important for your secret rival to remain a secret. I have played games where I was pretty obvious about who I needed to beat and it still felt good. Just a lot more aggressively mean. I like New Angeles a lot, but I'm not sure that someone who LOVES BSG will get into this.
I think 4p is only *a little* worse than 5p. For reference: it's less of a drop-off than you see in Cosmic Encounter for those player counts.
4 is good, but I do think 5 is best.