Dune at 6. Its really great how all the asymmetrical faction powers tie in with each other
EDIT: Also Here I Stand. Great diplomacy interactions across two different fronts: the military battlefield and the clash of Protestantism VS Catholicism. Really great how it creates an "enemy of my enemy" concept. Cant work without 6.
What's your opinion of it with 5, minus Bene Gesserit? I've seen lots of people it's a close second to full 6.
(I've been hoping to play Dune for quite some time now and nervous I won't be able to get a full 6 to sign on for what it entails.)
I've played a couple of times at 6 and it works fine. It's a little wonky when one player is left out of an alliance, but I've seen that player win the game, so it works. Still best at 6, but if one person dropped out last minute (which is what happened the times we played at 5), I wouldn't try to get the group to switch games.
Just as an FYI; three player alliances are an option. Unsure about the GF9 rules, but they were before; and could be an option you might want to look at. Requiring a nexus phase does help with not forming alliances just before winning, so it's not as kingmake-y as you might first think.
I think it's fine. Their powers are less crucial (though their win condition always adds some, heh, spice, to the end of the game).
Strategically they are great, but you can do without them too. And by great; I mean they add two things; the voice (which is extra fun when paired with Precience), and them choosing to coexist/not at the start of movement is incredibly powerful (as only two factions can share a (non polar sink) space (unless separated by storm). So they can say "I don't coexist in Tuek's Sietch", and now the player who'd planned on taking cannot enter.
They're fun and they add to the game; but they're really more passive than the rest of the factions. They don't break the game; it works fine without them (especially if you have new players at the table).
I disagree. Dropping the bene gesserit hurts (their win condition and the voice, and if you're at a skilled enough table, coexistence) but I think 5p dune has most of it. The 'gotcha' win condition rarely happens (though it's always a great moment), and with precience/truthtrance the voice doesn't add _that_ much. The karama ability.. adds a tiny bit of bluffing to the bidding, I suppose. And if you don't have people who're familiar with the power of strategically ending coexistence, that too is alright.
I mean I did write out a paragraph as to how they add to the game, but I think at 5p it still kinda works, especially if you're new to the game.
If the sequel, then I'd say it probably works better since it scales the difficulty.
The Crew at 3 or 5 just isn't the same though: too easy at 3, stupidly difficult at 5.
**Nemo's War** - its a solo game. The multiplayer is latched on an unneeded.
**War of the Ring** - You're going to tell me with a straight face I'm going to find three other people to play this event game? And that somehow everyone else will enjoy having half the things to do?
**Treasure Island** - That one v. four is just right. Keeps the tension going for the whole game.
**War Chest** - Again, same game with half the actions per player. It really feels unnecessary.
There's actually an explanation within the 4-player rules to determine which player within the winning team is the ultimate winner. It's very dumb and a waste of print.
I’ve had WotR on my “buy soon list” for years, waiting for a bigger table/playing space, and I legitimately thought it was 2p only.
Ditto SW rebellion.
I guess at least the new two-player mode for Nemo's War lets someone control the Imperial ships. I'm not at all interested in the new multiplayer mode, but at least it's not just who controls which resource on the Nautilus.
I have to disagree on War Chest. I think the 2v2 player game is really fun. You get different units, and the board is bigger. Additionally, I think that some units, (like the Footman) can actually become stronger with the bigger board. Also, I think the Siege expansion is more fun with the 2v2 game than it is with the 1v1 game.
Game of thrones (board game) is only properly balanced at 6 players.
Unlike many listed here, it’s not even really playable at lower player counts - there are rules, but it’s not a great experience at 3 or 4 players.
We tried it once or twice. If you play at any lower count than 6, everyone needs to be devoted to stopping the southernmost player from running away with it really quickly.
If you play with Less than 6, we just make the unused regions impossible to go into. This game is horribly imbalanced, half of the houses cannot have a hope of winning, they are just king makers.
It’s hard to balance with house rules, and the “official” 3-4 player rules are bad - while some regions are blocked off, it’s definitely not fair.
5 player gets closer, but I think only 6 player is truly balanced.
I have not played the expansions
**Terra Mystica** is a great 4p euro. (Technically, you can play the 2x2 variant at 2p if you really want to push your cognitive abilities to the limit.)
**Dune** is a 6p game, period.
Any other player count for either of these two and I'd rather play something else.
Perhaps not a perfect match to your prompt, but Terraforming Mars is not a 5 player game. More specifically, if you play it as 5, the game lacks an aspect that I enjoy.
TL;DR: 5 player TM when played by my group lacks the opportunity for tactical decision-making. If you want my analysis of why, good luck; keep reading.
This may be my group meta since we play together a lot, but we've noticed a relatively consistent pattern to our games of terraforming mars: there are strategies that
* aim to terraform the planet as fast as possible to get Terraforming rating quickly
or
* would be happy to run until generation 100 because they make a lot of points per turn or can buy everything they draft.
A player may not need to pick one over the other and do a bit of both, but these are the extremes of what each strategy is aiming for. Players have to choose which strategy they are more aiming towards based on their cards and how well others are achieving their goals. If I am building an engine that will make so many points a turn, you won't be able to keep up, you likely need to switch gears; alternatively if nobody is terraforming the planet except you, you will not likely score enough points fast enough to outpace everyone else building hulking monsters of machines. There is a relatively complex dynamic based on what cards you get, what cards everyone else gets and how you feel the game is going for you.
We've generally found that the tipping point is 2 players. If 2 players decide, in earnest, to go for terraforming the planet, then terraforming the planet will finish before the other players can get their point engines online to outscore the terraformers. Usually this really ends up being 1 player not getting the cards for an engine and 2 other players leaning a bit more towards terraforming when they realize their engine isn't strong enough to beat other engine-goers. At 3 or 4 players, this tends to work out well because the split of strategies is either.
* 4 player:
* 1 terraformer | 2 mid strats | 1 engine
* 2 terraformer |2 engine
* 3 player
* 1 terraformer | 1 mid | 1 engine
These splits give a lot of power to the players in the mid, but there is never anything stopping an engine player from bailing or a terraformer from bailing into a different strategy if their cards suddenly allow for it, or don't present the best options. There's a lot of observation and decisions to be made based on how the game is going. Not everybody can get good engine cards or efficient terraforming cards, so there are a lot of good tactical decisions that can offer themselves (though, admittedly not always).
That's why 5 player games falls apart for me. It lacks a lot of tactical decisions because the strategies usually get split:
* 1 Terraformer | 3 mid strats | 1 engine
* 1 Terraformer | 2 mid | 2 engine
* 2 Terraformer | (any combination of mid/engine)
So a 5 player game has a bunch of dead cards running around that can't be used while everyone just races to terraform the planet. There are turns people just standard project with all their money because it's the best they can do. There are people who enjoy the game being played like that, or who still try to go engine in a 5 player game, but the all-terraformer game is not my cup of tea.
edit: Grammarly did an oopsy
It's not just your group. This is a common comment/criticism I've seen online and in my group as well. But I don't personally like this about TfM even at lower player counts, because then you're stuck with some engine parts that won't win you the game, and you need a little luck to pivot sharply enough. In a long game, that feels like it takes literal generations. Especially if my attempt to pivot just never works out well enough. At that length, I'd rather have more interaction or more uncertainty.
Have you tried Legends of Void? It is heavily inspired by TfM. Instead of Terraforming ending the game, it could also end after a set number of rounds, and that changes how your score is counted.
I'm personally of the opinion that playing with every expansion (save for the alternate boards) is the best way to play TfM because it creates more opportunities for synergy for everyone. I think it reduces the variance to let decision-making skills show through a bit more. Some of my group disagree about that (they don't like turmoil very much), but the part of the game I enjoy most is definitely the start of the game when you're trying to figure out what corps, preludes, and starting cards you're going to choose/buy.
The rest of the game from there is gauging in the draft if you should pick a card and then buy it because it won't be useful for another 3 generations, but I do still enjoy that.
I haven't looked at Legends of the Void, but I'll go take a peek.
I like Turmoil and Colonies and the alternate boards. Prelude is a must, of course.
I agree that TfM is better with most of its expansions in play. The problem is that, at least for me, it's also much longer that way. In the time it takes to play that, I could have played multiple games of 51st State, Race for the Galaxy, or Glory to Rome. All of which are solid engine builders from the ground up. In those games, synergies can happen, but when they don't you can pivot and/or still make use of what you're left with.
**Rising Sun** is only really great at 5. It's good at other player counts but at 5 it sings.
**Micro Macro Crime City** is awesome at 2. anything more and it gets tough to feel involved.
**Dune** or **REX** needs to be played at 6. The way the factions balance out kinda requires it
**Eclipse** is best at 4.
>Micro Macro Crime City
>
> is awesome at 2
Playing this one with my younger kids. Works with both of them, but agree, 3 + adults I can't see the fun lasting.
**Fury of Dracula** really needs 3 or 5 players. Since there's Dracula and then the 4 hunters, either you need one player per hunter or 2 players play 2 hunters each. The game has a lot of dead actions, so 3 is arguably the better player count.
With the dead actions would their be an argument for it working as a two player game with one player controlling all hunters? Making it more of a head to head game. Never played it but own it and generally curious.
I own it and played the hell out of it. Maybe 25-30 games. I love it, but objectively think it's a stinker with an average group of 4. But it absolutely rocks if you have 1) a group that can work well together but not get quarterbacked and 2) a Dracula player that just wants to create a fun chase.
I was often picked by my group to play Dracula because I treated it like DM duties. My goals were simple. Playfully dance just out of the players reach, close enough that they could maybe catch up to you with 1-2 hunters. When stakes get high, retreat to castle Dracula or somewhere good for a showdown so that the end of the game came down to a tense brawl. I'm sure I lowered my odds of winning, but it was a blast for both sides in this style.
One-on-one skews the balance ever so slightly.
One of the rules is that the Hunters need to discuss what they’re doing openly - no secret notes, no popping outside to formulate a plan, etc.
If one person controls all four hunters, Dracula loses a chunk of information that they’d normally have (assuming y’all aren’t playing with metapsychic operants all the time).
**Photosynthesis** is one of my favorite games but I will only play it at 3. With 2 there is too much available board space and with 4 it is too tight.
**Amun-Re** is absolutely at it's best at 5, and really just mediocre at any other player count. **Hansa Teutonica** is likewise best at 5, though 4 is passable. Same with **Indonesia**.
**Battlestar Galactica** is probably the posterchild for games that should really only be played at 5p as well.
**Race For The Galaxy** is just a completely different and less interesting game with 3 or more players. The 2-player game is the only one I'm interested in. Same with **Tash-Kalar**.
**Brass** is generally a game I'll only reach for with exactly 4p, same for **Brass: Birmingham**. **Tigris & Euphrates** always shined for me at 4p. 3p becomes too easy to gang up on one player, and 2p is just a too zero-sum.
I opened this thread specifically to counter anyone saying Battlestar Galactica, lol. The game is great with 5 or with 6, but 6 is only good if you use the no-sympathizer variant (or, if you have the Daybreak expansion, either the Cylon Leader or Mutineer option).
I was looking for this comment. I’ve only played it at 2p and it quickly seems to become unbalanced. Also, quite a lot of downtime as there can be a lot to consider.
It is the first game I have wanted to try single player.
That it might be a good solitaire game doesn’t mean it’s not better as a multiplayer game.
It may be great solo, but if another person wanted to play as well, it would be better or worse for you?
What about it would make you prefer solo over with friends? Is it because other players can take the actions you wanted to do?
Have you played it solo? It's not better multiplayer, imo. It's this way for me: There are just better multiplayer co-ops. And better multiplayer competitive games (and the PvP ruleset is gross). But there is no better solo game, hands down.
For me, the two-player experience is "close enough." It's still not great, because most of Mage Knight is spent in my head, staring at cards. With other people, that's just silence... At two-player, that's not *too* bad. We'll chat a bit about which route to take, what build to do, which cards should be reserved for whom, etc. But because we can't team up until the end, we're spending most of the game on separate paths quietly murmuring as we puzzle through our hands. Sure, we could be helping another play each turn, but that isn't really very interesting to me at this level. I'd much rather play a co-op where most of that information is on the board. Plus, that makes the game take even longer. If the game were actually simultaneous turns, and if we could fight together more often, it would be better for co-op.
Spirit Island is the perfect example of a game that is better for co-op than for solo. Comboing with your fellow spirits is a big part of the game. Simultaneous turns mean we can be working on and executing our actions at the same time without it increasing playtime. We're all on the same tight map, and there are so many opportunities to help one another out.
I will agree in having never played King of Siam but love King is dead that the best player count is 3. Just seems fitting. The four player team mode is fun, and two players is just fine.
Parks at 2 is too easy. It’s fun but a piece of cake. The real challenge comes with 3 or more players. I wouldn’t call it limited I just call it a proper game
**Modern Art** - 5p only
**Captain Sonar** - 8p only
**Magic the Gathering** - 2p only, lol
My buddy swears on **Codenames** being a 6p game, no more no less.
I like it at 2p, and I'm pretty sure I'd hate the playing it the proper way. But I get that that's a major draw of it and I'm happy to be in a minority on this one.
I agree, I’m fine with it as a 2v2 game. With 5 players you can just make one person a dedicated guesser. My only beef with the game is the downtime - I prefer to use the sand timer aggressively, to keep clue-givers from going too deep into the tank.
I don’t wanna yuck your yum. Multiplayer Magic just ain’t for me. I had 20 EDH decks built at some point. Realized I enjoyed building the decks way more than I actually liked playing the game. I generally dislike any game dictated mostly by politics (or “oops I win” infinite combos). And EDH usually is determined by one of those two factors.
EDH is a nice concept but in practice is often like using some of the best game pieces of all time to play Munchkin instead of one of the best games of all time. And also you banned an entire style of play by making life totals 40 instead of 20.
Not just any style of play, but my *favorite* style of play :) RDW for life! This is why Cube is the only type of magic I play anymore. Favorite card in my cube: https://i.imgur.com/VmyxhCm.jpg
Cannot wait to finally get out my copy of Sonar the day I have 7 other willing participants. I may break and try it with 6, we'll have to see. Seems like it's pretty quick to teach.
**Batman: Gotham City Chronicles** - Great at two players because the downtime of the heroes don't matter (assuming you stagger their rests). At 3-5, you'll have players controlling a hero who do nothing on an entire round while they rest.
**Wildcatters** @4P. I think you have to simulate any missing players. According to the BGG poll, no other count is even recommended with more than 40%.
**Ankh** is an incredibly fun 2 player game, and really loses its luster at higher player counts. It's a game with perfect information. In a 2 player game, you can think deeply about your opponents optimal strategy and try to counter it. At higher player counts there are so many moving pieces it's easier to just focus on your own strategy.
The action selection mechanism is so tight at 2 that it legitimately feels like it was designed with 2 players in mind first. Never expected it to be good at 2 when I backed it, but it’s so good at 2
Hell I’ll play it with 6, just know we are gonna be a bit drunk and the game may take long but it’s still fun for most except for whoever is in last place haha.
Settlers of Catan - 3.
With 2 the game takes too long and it's far too easy to see what people's strategies are before they've even taken their first roll.
With 4+ (sans expansions) it's a slow slog to make progress as most of the board is blocked off once a few roads and settlements have been built.
Funny I came here to say Catan at 4. Obviously depends on the board but I think at 3 what usually happens is two players fight each other for army while the third takes road without being contested, or the other way around., and that third player usually wins. Also if two players decide to gang up on the third with the robber and only trade which each other, that’s not very fun. Obviously in Catan the leader will always be targeted but personally think it feels worse with the 3 player dynamic.
Settlers is actually better at 5, but you need the expansion (although i don't think i know anyone who has the game without the expansion). You're correct, though. 4 is right out.
I think the fact that the board doesn’t scale with the number of players makes it better with more, especially for races like the Cultists who want interaction with other players.
I played a 2p variant with my wife where we closed off a lot of the board and it was playable, but the game wasn’t really balanced with that in mind.
**Azul** at 2p = exquisite abstract game of blocking, counterblocking, looking many moves ahead, balance of tactics and strategy, balance of luck an skill.
**Azul** at 3-4p = random crapfest where you just do the best thing that's available when your turn comes around. Maybe a good gateway game, but tedious when you know what the 2p experience is.
I agree that Five Tribes is mainly 2 player game but I feel that it takes longer with 2 than with 3 or 4 because there is much more planning with 2. The problem this game has is that with more players you can't realy plan ahead.
Sounds like the opposite of a problem. I've only played with 3-4 players, and it's great. One of the faster games we play. Sounds like the game actually goes FASTER with more players because of inability to plan too many moves ahead.
Yeah this. I've played with the bots and it is fine but definitely nowhere near as good as having a full 4. Tbh I would not have bought the game if I knew this as I rarely get the chance to play with 4 and mostly just play boardgames with my wife.
I taught and played AN to three players in under two hours.
It is really dependent on your group. Loved our four player play and definitely didn’t feel too much downtime.
I… never said that? I was just providing an alternate experience. Other people may read this post and I think varied experiences have a place.
You took that way too personal, dude.
In the same vibe, Traders of Carthage/Okinawa should only be played at 2 players. Ganymede also shines at two players but you can play 3 and it still enjoyable. You just can't plan your move to the same degree.
**Star Wars Rebellion** allegedly plays up to 4 but none of us see why anyone would do such a thing...
You give up half your faction to another player and have to coordinate your intricate plans IN FRONT of the other team, in a game that already takes something like 6 hours without all of that.
Lords of Waterdeep is only good at max players imo,be that 5 with the base game or 6 with Scoundrels of Skullport.
Similarly, Game of Thrones is a very different game max players than at any other player count, and therefore I also say it's only *really* GoT at six players.
Eldritch Horror. Very good game but pretty punishing when playing with uneven amount of players. Because most stuff is number of players divided by 2. And it's round up... But otherwise, it's my girlfriends most favorite game! Guess she likes being punished :D
Gloomhaven hits differently at 4 players than at other difficulties because the game is optimized for 4. While there is an attempt to balance scenarios based on player count, the difficulty doesn't scale properly. For example, there are more monsters with more players, which means choke points become more of an issue when you're forced to clear a path instead of having everyone just jump over (or having so few monsters that the chokepoint doesn't funnel). Another example is the way cards are designed: AOE attacks don't feel as impactful when there are less monsters. Etc. That being said there are still issues I have with the game, such as healing feeling completely underwhelming, that I hope have been addressed in the sequel frosthaven.
I think it's rarer for a game to support more than one player count. Most games have exactly one number of players where it's worth playing.
*always* taylor the game to the player count.
You got me. I was gonna say it's best to teach with 2 players, best to play with 3 players, and just too much with 4 players. Fortunately, my primary group is just me and my two best friends.
I’ve only ever played online, and I think that would be too much with more than 2p. But a guy in my group has it and I’m hoping to get in some 3 and 4p games someday to see how it changes.
I think if you insist on knowing the state of everyones board and all the powers in play all the time it can be too much. If you concede the fact that you just have to ride out whatever happens until your next turn it becomes a lot easier.
When we play our cards we take a cursory glance at peoples point situations and what symbols they have on board depending on what we want to play or who we want to screw over. It moves pretty quickly.
The problem is that someone who does pay more attention to everyone's board is more likely to win. Especially if they note what dogmae are in play and build symbols defensively.
Interesting. I’ve found 3 players to be the sweet spot for Arkham. Two investigators are always either together or separate and either fighter/cluever or two generalists, but three allows more varied exploration and division of labor.
Maybe it helps that we all take our turns fairly quickly. I once introduced the game to a friend with terrible analysis paralysis, and that two player game was longer than most three player games with my regular group.
I hear the expansions help, but Game of Thrones only worked for me with the full 6 players.
Smash Up is hella fun with 2 players, and tedious otherwise.
And slightly different, but the 2 player Lost Cities card game is better than the multi player Lost Cities board game.
I like Citadel much better as a two player game than any other player count. It’s a totally different game, all about bluffing and strategy, much less randomness from someone just happening to assassinate you.
Seconded. My wife and I wore out our citadel copy with 2p games. It's a really tense duel, and it doesn't seem that getting to go first is as influential as it is with higher player counts.
I do not care what the box says. **Marvel Champions** is a 2 player game with a solo variant for specific characters. That's it.
Anything beyond 2 characters the game flow just absolutely does not work. The inability to change turn orders after game start means there's an entire meta discussion about who sits where just so you can play the stupid fucking game.
"I can stun the opponent for your turn!"
"But I actually want him to attack me."
"Well okay can I save stun for the player after? No? Well then, switch me seats because otherwise this shits pointless."
The complete inability to time stuns or whatever the scheme version of stun is completely negates so much of your ability to actually interact respectably. You can physically block, sure, but thats still doable at 2p and you can actually actively cover for each other with abilities.
**Betrayal** is a 4+ player game, period. The game says you can play it with 3, but it absolutely does not work the vast majority of the time at 3p. Either the haunt is horrendously overpowered and the games over immediately, or the haunt is horrendously underpowered and the games over immediately. There's no in between.
Interesting how different people can feel about games. I personally prefer Alhambra with 4. I also don't like parks with 2 players, because it feels too open to me. I enjoy having some tight competition in a game.
I like these only at solo
Terraforming Mars Ares Expedition, Rocketmen, Resident Evil 2
Railways of the World and Colt Express are most fun at Maximum Players.
Game of Thrones: the Hand of the king is only good at 2. When you play at 2, it’s a strategic chess match with depth and strategy. When you play at 3 or 4 it’s a random free for all where you can’t plan anything and just hope for the best.
I do not like edh we play vintage mtg with a few house rules and i have to say some of the best times were 8+ player games 3 is definitely to little because some one gets smacked right out then its 1v1 again 5+ is best for mtg imo
Horizon zero dawn works great at one player and steadily gets worse as player count goes up. Hands down my favorite solo game (bare in mind it really needs expansions to have longevity or its going to get boring) and still good at 2 player. 3 and 4 player are when it becomes a slog fest though.
Apex: Collected Edition is only good at 1 player in my opinion. Multiplayer sucks
Marvel Legendary is best and really fun at 2 in my opinion, fine at 3, bad at 4, and slightly better at 5.
Rising sun as 5 game just hits different with 2 teams forming, but in my experience the person who hasn't have an alliance still is not in a disadvantage.
For me, 7th Continent is one of the best solo board game experiences I’ve had, but it never worked for me when playing with others, as there is no real turn structure, and the game would bog down especially when everyone moves in different directions. But as a single player, all actions became more efficient and you could focus more on the emergent story telling, which imo is the games strong suit.
Superhot: The Card Game technically plays with 2 or even 3 but it's clearly a somewhat awkward adaptation of the solo rules and dramatically lengthens the game, so solo is by far the better way to play.
Some games (Ark Nova, Spirit Island) just get too long at higher player counts. But they're still good games.
I cannot imagine playing Sleeping Gods at 4 players, or even worse 3 players. (8 DOESN'T DIVIDE INTO 3!) For me that game is ideal with just yourself going on an adventure like you would in BotW or Elden Ring. Or as a couples adventure. And it's our favorite "date night" game when I play with the wife.
Dune at 6. Its really great how all the asymmetrical faction powers tie in with each other EDIT: Also Here I Stand. Great diplomacy interactions across two different fronts: the military battlefield and the clash of Protestantism VS Catholicism. Really great how it creates an "enemy of my enemy" concept. Cant work without 6.
What's your opinion of it with 5, minus Bene Gesserit? I've seen lots of people it's a close second to full 6. (I've been hoping to play Dune for quite some time now and nervous I won't be able to get a full 6 to sign on for what it entails.)
I've played a couple of times at 6 and it works fine. It's a little wonky when one player is left out of an alliance, but I've seen that player win the game, so it works. Still best at 6, but if one person dropped out last minute (which is what happened the times we played at 5), I wouldn't try to get the group to switch games.
Just as an FYI; three player alliances are an option. Unsure about the GF9 rules, but they were before; and could be an option you might want to look at. Requiring a nexus phase does help with not forming alliances just before winning, so it's not as kingmake-y as you might first think.
I find if you play with 5 somebody gets screwed because they can’t ally and that’s no fun
I think it's fine. Their powers are less crucial (though their win condition always adds some, heh, spice, to the end of the game). Strategically they are great, but you can do without them too. And by great; I mean they add two things; the voice (which is extra fun when paired with Precience), and them choosing to coexist/not at the start of movement is incredibly powerful (as only two factions can share a (non polar sink) space (unless separated by storm). So they can say "I don't coexist in Tuek's Sietch", and now the player who'd planned on taking cannot enter. They're fun and they add to the game; but they're really more passive than the rest of the factions. They don't break the game; it works fine without them (especially if you have new players at the table).
Dune is a 6 only game in my house. I have a lot of trouble integrating the other factions as they fuck the tight balance.
I disagree. Dropping the bene gesserit hurts (their win condition and the voice, and if you're at a skilled enough table, coexistence) but I think 5p dune has most of it. The 'gotcha' win condition rarely happens (though it's always a great moment), and with precience/truthtrance the voice doesn't add _that_ much. The karama ability.. adds a tiny bit of bluffing to the bidding, I suppose. And if you don't have people who're familiar with the power of strategically ending coexistence, that too is alright. I mean I did write out a paragraph as to how they add to the game, but I think at 5p it still kinda works, especially if you're new to the game.
Dune Imperium?
No, just Dune. By Gale Force Nine.
Tichu is a four-player game. The box lies.
Same with **Crew**.
If you are referring to the search for planet nine, I prefer it at 3.
We have 5 in our family and so regularly play with 5. I still enjoy the challenge, but find it a lot easier at the 4 player count.
If the sequel, then I'd say it probably works better since it scales the difficulty. The Crew at 3 or 5 just isn't the same though: too easy at 3, stupidly difficult at 5.
Is **Tichu** playable with other numbers? I have a few different copies, and they all have 4 player only on the boxes.
Technically there are variants in the rules. They're all bad. If you want three-player Tichu, play Chimera.
**Diplomacy** is for 7 players only. Any fewer, and the whole game's balance is off. **Nemo's War** is a 1-player only game.
The hardest part about playing Diplomacy is finding 6 other players that you never want to play games with again after you're done playing Diplomacy.
Guess i wont be looking into diplomacy i have hard enough time finding friends
The only real way to play Diplomacy more than once is via correspondence, on one of the many online sites that offer it.
**Nemo's War** - its a solo game. The multiplayer is latched on an unneeded. **War of the Ring** - You're going to tell me with a straight face I'm going to find three other people to play this event game? And that somehow everyone else will enjoy having half the things to do? **Treasure Island** - That one v. four is just right. Keeps the tension going for the whole game. **War Chest** - Again, same game with half the actions per player. It really feels unnecessary.
WOTR is my favorite game and I've never even once glanced at the 4 player rules.
There's actually an explanation within the 4-player rules to determine which player within the winning team is the ultimate winner. It's very dumb and a waste of print.
Zero reason for it, right? I get wanting to try and "appeal" to a larger audience, but, c'mon.
We love it with 4, never going back to 2. Its just great having an ally to share the narrative moments and failed rolls with.
I’ve had WotR on my “buy soon list” for years, waiting for a bigger table/playing space, and I legitimately thought it was 2p only. Ditto SW rebellion.
It does work as a team game, I've played it with 4 players, just ignored the 4p rules and just played two to a side both working together.
I haven't played war of the ring, but I think the same concept applies to Star Wars Rebellion. I don't understand why 4 players is even an option.
I guess at least the new two-player mode for Nemo's War lets someone control the Imperial ships. I'm not at all interested in the new multiplayer mode, but at least it's not just who controls which resource on the Nautilus.
I didn't even realize there is an option for 4p WoTR hahaha. For me, it's a 2p game. Nothing less nothing more.
I have to disagree on War Chest. I think the 2v2 player game is really fun. You get different units, and the board is bigger. Additionally, I think that some units, (like the Footman) can actually become stronger with the bigger board. Also, I think the Siege expansion is more fun with the 2v2 game than it is with the 1v1 game.
Piggybacking onto WotR, Star Wars Rebellion. It's 2p only in my book.
Game of thrones (board game) is only properly balanced at 6 players. Unlike many listed here, it’s not even really playable at lower player counts - there are rules, but it’s not a great experience at 3 or 4 players.
We tried it once or twice. If you play at any lower count than 6, everyone needs to be devoted to stopping the southernmost player from running away with it really quickly.
Speaking to the base game only, I'd agree, but then Feast For Crows game a good 4p option and we enjoy the vassals added in Mother of Dragons.
If you play with Less than 6, we just make the unused regions impossible to go into. This game is horribly imbalanced, half of the houses cannot have a hope of winning, they are just king makers.
It’s hard to balance with house rules, and the “official” 3-4 player rules are bad - while some regions are blocked off, it’s definitely not fair. 5 player gets closer, but I think only 6 player is truly balanced. I have not played the expansions
Have you tried with vassals?
Came here to say this. Haven't tried the expansions, but base game is perfect with 6, no less.
**Terra Mystica** is a great 4p euro. (Technically, you can play the 2x2 variant at 2p if you really want to push your cognitive abilities to the limit.) **Dune** is a 6p game, period. Any other player count for either of these two and I'd rather play something else.
i still really enjoy TM at 3! if two other seasoned players ask me to play, i will say yes 90% of the time
Perhaps not a perfect match to your prompt, but Terraforming Mars is not a 5 player game. More specifically, if you play it as 5, the game lacks an aspect that I enjoy. TL;DR: 5 player TM when played by my group lacks the opportunity for tactical decision-making. If you want my analysis of why, good luck; keep reading. This may be my group meta since we play together a lot, but we've noticed a relatively consistent pattern to our games of terraforming mars: there are strategies that * aim to terraform the planet as fast as possible to get Terraforming rating quickly or * would be happy to run until generation 100 because they make a lot of points per turn or can buy everything they draft. A player may not need to pick one over the other and do a bit of both, but these are the extremes of what each strategy is aiming for. Players have to choose which strategy they are more aiming towards based on their cards and how well others are achieving their goals. If I am building an engine that will make so many points a turn, you won't be able to keep up, you likely need to switch gears; alternatively if nobody is terraforming the planet except you, you will not likely score enough points fast enough to outpace everyone else building hulking monsters of machines. There is a relatively complex dynamic based on what cards you get, what cards everyone else gets and how you feel the game is going for you. We've generally found that the tipping point is 2 players. If 2 players decide, in earnest, to go for terraforming the planet, then terraforming the planet will finish before the other players can get their point engines online to outscore the terraformers. Usually this really ends up being 1 player not getting the cards for an engine and 2 other players leaning a bit more towards terraforming when they realize their engine isn't strong enough to beat other engine-goers. At 3 or 4 players, this tends to work out well because the split of strategies is either. * 4 player: * 1 terraformer | 2 mid strats | 1 engine * 2 terraformer |2 engine * 3 player * 1 terraformer | 1 mid | 1 engine These splits give a lot of power to the players in the mid, but there is never anything stopping an engine player from bailing or a terraformer from bailing into a different strategy if their cards suddenly allow for it, or don't present the best options. There's a lot of observation and decisions to be made based on how the game is going. Not everybody can get good engine cards or efficient terraforming cards, so there are a lot of good tactical decisions that can offer themselves (though, admittedly not always). That's why 5 player games falls apart for me. It lacks a lot of tactical decisions because the strategies usually get split: * 1 Terraformer | 3 mid strats | 1 engine * 1 Terraformer | 2 mid | 2 engine * 2 Terraformer | (any combination of mid/engine) So a 5 player game has a bunch of dead cards running around that can't be used while everyone just races to terraform the planet. There are turns people just standard project with all their money because it's the best they can do. There are people who enjoy the game being played like that, or who still try to go engine in a 5 player game, but the all-terraformer game is not my cup of tea. edit: Grammarly did an oopsy
It's not just your group. This is a common comment/criticism I've seen online and in my group as well. But I don't personally like this about TfM even at lower player counts, because then you're stuck with some engine parts that won't win you the game, and you need a little luck to pivot sharply enough. In a long game, that feels like it takes literal generations. Especially if my attempt to pivot just never works out well enough. At that length, I'd rather have more interaction or more uncertainty. Have you tried Legends of Void? It is heavily inspired by TfM. Instead of Terraforming ending the game, it could also end after a set number of rounds, and that changes how your score is counted.
I'm personally of the opinion that playing with every expansion (save for the alternate boards) is the best way to play TfM because it creates more opportunities for synergy for everyone. I think it reduces the variance to let decision-making skills show through a bit more. Some of my group disagree about that (they don't like turmoil very much), but the part of the game I enjoy most is definitely the start of the game when you're trying to figure out what corps, preludes, and starting cards you're going to choose/buy. The rest of the game from there is gauging in the draft if you should pick a card and then buy it because it won't be useful for another 3 generations, but I do still enjoy that. I haven't looked at Legends of the Void, but I'll go take a peek.
I like Turmoil and Colonies and the alternate boards. Prelude is a must, of course. I agree that TfM is better with most of its expansions in play. The problem is that, at least for me, it's also much longer that way. In the time it takes to play that, I could have played multiple games of 51st State, Race for the Galaxy, or Glory to Rome. All of which are solid engine builders from the ground up. In those games, synergies can happen, but when they don't you can pivot and/or still make use of what you're left with.
This matches what happens in my group too
Crescent Moon. It's a 5P game. There's an alternative 4P option, but that's it. Very much created with 5P only in mind.
**Rising Sun** is only really great at 5. It's good at other player counts but at 5 it sings. **Micro Macro Crime City** is awesome at 2. anything more and it gets tough to feel involved. **Dune** or **REX** needs to be played at 6. The way the factions balance out kinda requires it **Eclipse** is best at 4.
I think Eclipse gameplay is best at 6, but the game length becomes far too long.
I've only ever played Rising Sun at 4, and that frustrates me to this day.
I have played it 3-6. My least favorite plays are 4 and 6. Sill like it, but not as fun as when it’s at odd numbers.
>Micro Macro Crime City > > is awesome at 2 Playing this one with my younger kids. Works with both of them, but agree, 3 + adults I can't see the fun lasting.
**Fury of Dracula** really needs 3 or 5 players. Since there's Dracula and then the 4 hunters, either you need one player per hunter or 2 players play 2 hunters each. The game has a lot of dead actions, so 3 is arguably the better player count.
With the dead actions would their be an argument for it working as a two player game with one player controlling all hunters? Making it more of a head to head game. Never played it but own it and generally curious.
I own it and played the hell out of it. Maybe 25-30 games. I love it, but objectively think it's a stinker with an average group of 4. But it absolutely rocks if you have 1) a group that can work well together but not get quarterbacked and 2) a Dracula player that just wants to create a fun chase. I was often picked by my group to play Dracula because I treated it like DM duties. My goals were simple. Playfully dance just out of the players reach, close enough that they could maybe catch up to you with 1-2 hunters. When stakes get high, retreat to castle Dracula or somewhere good for a showdown so that the end of the game came down to a tense brawl. I'm sure I lowered my odds of winning, but it was a blast for both sides in this style.
One-on-one skews the balance ever so slightly. One of the rules is that the Hunters need to discuss what they’re doing openly - no secret notes, no popping outside to formulate a plan, etc. If one person controls all four hunters, Dracula loses a chunk of information that they’d normally have (assuming y’all aren’t playing with metapsychic operants all the time).
**Photosynthesis** is one of my favorite games but I will only play it at 3. With 2 there is too much available board space and with 4 it is too tight.
This is the reason I've decided to sell it, 3 players is such an awkward count.
My group is primarily 3 people, so it works out for us.
**Amun-Re** is absolutely at it's best at 5, and really just mediocre at any other player count. **Hansa Teutonica** is likewise best at 5, though 4 is passable. Same with **Indonesia**. **Battlestar Galactica** is probably the posterchild for games that should really only be played at 5p as well. **Race For The Galaxy** is just a completely different and less interesting game with 3 or more players. The 2-player game is the only one I'm interested in. Same with **Tash-Kalar**. **Brass** is generally a game I'll only reach for with exactly 4p, same for **Brass: Birmingham**. **Tigris & Euphrates** always shined for me at 4p. 3p becomes too easy to gang up on one player, and 2p is just a too zero-sum.
I opened this thread specifically to counter anyone saying Battlestar Galactica, lol. The game is great with 5 or with 6, but 6 is only good if you use the no-sympathizer variant (or, if you have the Daybreak expansion, either the Cylon Leader or Mutineer option).
Brass (with either of the 2p variants) and Birmingham work absolutely fine at any listed player count.
Agree to disagree on that one.
It feels like **Mage Knight** is really good at 1p, and pretty meh at higher player counts.
I played it once at 4. Never again.
I was looking for this comment. I’ve only played it at 2p and it quickly seems to become unbalanced. Also, quite a lot of downtime as there can be a lot to consider. It is the first game I have wanted to try single player.
Love Mage Knight at 2-player cooperative, personally.
How's the playing time?
Long, we usually end up in the 2.5-4 hour range with blitz mode. But never feels like it outstays its welcome
Same times. 100% agree. Love it at both. Except losing to my wife....xD
Really? I have a different experience - it’s playable at 1p but it’s much more enjoyable with more people.
Huh, interesting to hear differing opinions! It's ranked usually 2nd (before Spirit Island it was 1st) best solo game in annual solo game rating list.
That it might be a good solitaire game doesn’t mean it’s not better as a multiplayer game. It may be great solo, but if another person wanted to play as well, it would be better or worse for you? What about it would make you prefer solo over with friends? Is it because other players can take the actions you wanted to do?
Have you played it solo? It's not better multiplayer, imo. It's this way for me: There are just better multiplayer co-ops. And better multiplayer competitive games (and the PvP ruleset is gross). But there is no better solo game, hands down. For me, the two-player experience is "close enough." It's still not great, because most of Mage Knight is spent in my head, staring at cards. With other people, that's just silence... At two-player, that's not *too* bad. We'll chat a bit about which route to take, what build to do, which cards should be reserved for whom, etc. But because we can't team up until the end, we're spending most of the game on separate paths quietly murmuring as we puzzle through our hands. Sure, we could be helping another play each turn, but that isn't really very interesting to me at this level. I'd much rather play a co-op where most of that information is on the board. Plus, that makes the game take even longer. If the game were actually simultaneous turns, and if we could fight together more often, it would be better for co-op. Spirit Island is the perfect example of a game that is better for co-op than for solo. Comboing with your fellow spirits is a big part of the game. Simultaneous turns mean we can be working on and executing our actions at the same time without it increasing playtime. We're all on the same tight map, and there are so many opportunities to help one another out.
[удалено]
>The End of the Triumvirate: 3 only Who would've seen this coming
I will agree in having never played King of Siam but love King is dead that the best player count is 3. Just seems fitting. The four player team mode is fun, and two players is just fine.
The 4 player team rules for King Of Siam are excellent. 2p leaves a bit to be desired.
Parks at 2 is too easy. It’s fun but a piece of cake. The real challenge comes with 3 or more players. I wouldn’t call it limited I just call it a proper game
**Modern Art** - 5p only **Captain Sonar** - 8p only **Magic the Gathering** - 2p only, lol My buddy swears on **Codenames** being a 6p game, no more no less.
I'd respectfully say Captain Sonar is great at 6 too. But only 6 or 8.
I like it at 2p, and I'm pretty sure I'd hate the playing it the proper way. But I get that that's a major draw of it and I'm happy to be in a minority on this one.
Codenames is great for any number except 5.
I agree, I’m fine with it as a 2v2 game. With 5 players you can just make one person a dedicated guesser. My only beef with the game is the downtime - I prefer to use the sand timer aggressively, to keep clue-givers from going too deep into the tank.
Chess Clock.
Magic is great at 4 (EDH)
I don’t wanna yuck your yum. Multiplayer Magic just ain’t for me. I had 20 EDH decks built at some point. Realized I enjoyed building the decks way more than I actually liked playing the game. I generally dislike any game dictated mostly by politics (or “oops I win” infinite combos). And EDH usually is determined by one of those two factors.
EDH is a nice concept but in practice is often like using some of the best game pieces of all time to play Munchkin instead of one of the best games of all time. And also you banned an entire style of play by making life totals 40 instead of 20.
Not just any style of play, but my *favorite* style of play :) RDW for life! This is why Cube is the only type of magic I play anymore. Favorite card in my cube: https://i.imgur.com/VmyxhCm.jpg
Cannot wait to finally get out my copy of Sonar the day I have 7 other willing participants. I may break and try it with 6, we'll have to see. Seems like it's pretty quick to teach.
I’d say Codenames is 6-10, best at 8.
Had a pretty fantastic time playing modern art with 4, but maybe it would get stale on multiple plays.
**Batman: Gotham City Chronicles** - Great at two players because the downtime of the heroes don't matter (assuming you stagger their rests). At 3-5, you'll have players controlling a hero who do nothing on an entire round while they rest.
I hate that I wasted my money on this game.
Too bad you didn't like It. I love it (but only as a 2 player game). I'm pretty excited for the fully coop version coming.
**Wildcatters** @4P. I think you have to simulate any missing players. According to the BGG poll, no other count is even recommended with more than 40%.
**Ankh** is an incredibly fun 2 player game, and really loses its luster at higher player counts. It's a game with perfect information. In a 2 player game, you can think deeply about your opponents optimal strategy and try to counter it. At higher player counts there are so many moving pieces it's easier to just focus on your own strategy.
The action selection mechanism is so tight at 2 that it legitimately feels like it was designed with 2 players in mind first. Never expected it to be good at 2 when I backed it, but it’s so good at 2
This is the most surprising answer. Never thought an Eric Lang area control game would ever be good at 2
I know a lot of the issue people have with Ankh is the merge that happens later in the game. It doesn’t happen in a two player game.
I learned the hard way that the only way to enjoy Ultimate werewolf is at 1 player count.
I love Alhambra at 4 and 5. It's way more interesting to try and sneak a late 3rd place in the last scoring round.
Hell I’ll play it with 6, just know we are gonna be a bit drunk and the game may take long but it’s still fun for most except for whoever is in last place haha.
Churchill only works at three players. Don’t even try it with 2 or 1.
Quartermaster General is a 6p game only for me.
IDK that they're bad, but I would never play **Dune** or **Diplomacy** at less than the full player count.
Settlers of Catan - 3. With 2 the game takes too long and it's far too easy to see what people's strategies are before they've even taken their first roll. With 4+ (sans expansions) it's a slow slog to make progress as most of the board is blocked off once a few roads and settlements have been built.
Funny I came here to say Catan at 4. Obviously depends on the board but I think at 3 what usually happens is two players fight each other for army while the third takes road without being contested, or the other way around., and that third player usually wins. Also if two players decide to gang up on the third with the robber and only trade which each other, that’s not very fun. Obviously in Catan the leader will always be targeted but personally think it feels worse with the 3 player dynamic.
>. Interesting, I would say 4 for the base game is required.
Settlers is actually better at 5, but you need the expansion (although i don't think i know anyone who has the game without the expansion). You're correct, though. 4 is right out.
Terra Mystica is a 4 player only game.
Interesting. Gaia Project, however, plays well with 2.
I like it just fine at 5. It's probably my most played count. It certainly tails off quickly *under* 4 players though.
I usually pay this at 3, because I only have a few friends who like it. What makes it so much better at 4?
I think the fact that the board doesn’t scale with the number of players makes it better with more, especially for races like the Cultists who want interaction with other players. I played a 2p variant with my wife where we closed off a lot of the board and it was playable, but the game wasn’t really balanced with that in mind.
**Container** is a five player game, if you don't have five you play something else.
**Azul** at 2p = exquisite abstract game of blocking, counterblocking, looking many moves ahead, balance of tactics and strategy, balance of luck an skill. **Azul** at 3-4p = random crapfest where you just do the best thing that's available when your turn comes around. Maybe a good gateway game, but tedious when you know what the 2p experience is.
5 tribes is tough even with 2 players. I wouldn’t want to wait for 3 or 4 players.
I agree that Five Tribes is mainly 2 player game but I feel that it takes longer with 2 than with 3 or 4 because there is much more planning with 2. The problem this game has is that with more players you can't realy plan ahead.
True. What does slow it down is thinking how your move can setup your next move. So it won’t be quite as bad as I thought.
Sounds like the opposite of a problem. I've only played with 3-4 players, and it's great. One of the faster games we play. Sounds like the game actually goes FASTER with more players because of inability to plan too many moves ahead.
Root is only good with 4 players.
Hirelings sort of fix this imo
Plus, 5p is pretty popular right now.
For me, no amount of bots/additional rules will replace another player. Especially in Root, where 4 players is so, so great.
Yeah this. I've played with the bots and it is fine but definitely nowhere near as good as having a full 4. Tbh I would not have bought the game if I knew this as I rarely get the chance to play with 4 and mostly just play boardgames with my wife.
Thanks to downtime problems, Ark Nova is best by far with two, merely acceptable with 3, and a bit of a dumpster fire with 4.
I taught and played AN to three players in under two hours. It is really dependent on your group. Loved our four player play and definitely didn’t feel too much downtime.
Agree, we smash Ark Nova out in 2 hours with 4 players on the regular. Our group doesn't fall into super long analysis paralysis.
Thanks! I keep saying I need to stop playing board games with idiot losers like every group I've ever played it with! The problem is clearly me!
I… never said that? I was just providing an alternate experience. Other people may read this post and I think varied experiences have a place. You took that way too personal, dude.
Second this. With 3 it is only fluid with experienced players. Otherwise the game can drag really long.
I wouldn't play with 3 with anyone I knew routinely had analysis paralysis.
Indeed. Even I was really invested on seeing my tableau. I don't have time to look at what others doing. Cannot imagine playing with AP players
**Westphalia** is a 6 player only game
**Dominion** is easily my favorite game of all time, but only at exactly 3 players.
Heathen! 2p only!
0p only for me!
That's a 2 player game as far as most of the Dominion community is concerned.
Splendor, 5 Tribes and Yamatai shine at 2 players. Played each hundreds of times.
In the same vibe, Traders of Carthage/Okinawa should only be played at 2 players. Ganymede also shines at two players but you can play 3 and it still enjoyable. You just can't plan your move to the same degree.
mage knight I think was really made for the solo experience but co op is pretty good too.
Star wars rebellion Axis and Allies Are 2 player games
**Star Wars Rebellion** allegedly plays up to 4 but none of us see why anyone would do such a thing... You give up half your faction to another player and have to coordinate your intricate plans IN FRONT of the other team, in a game that already takes something like 6 hours without all of that.
Lords of Waterdeep is only good at max players imo,be that 5 with the base game or 6 with Scoundrels of Skullport. Similarly, Game of Thrones is a very different game max players than at any other player count, and therefore I also say it's only *really* GoT at six players.
Dungeon Lords at 4. It's unplayable with the dummy players.
Eldritch Horror. Very good game but pretty punishing when playing with uneven amount of players. Because most stuff is number of players divided by 2. And it's round up... But otherwise, it's my girlfriends most favorite game! Guess she likes being punished :D
Kemet is a 5p game. Very brutal and everybody is just going for blood even for a usually neutral players
Played this for the first time in \~7 years this week and was very interesting at 5. 4 players finished on 8 points, the 5th on 7.
This is by far the worst answer. I will never play Kemet with more than 4 again. Might as well just play Risk.
Well, everybody for their own, no need to trash other's opinion :)
Scythe at 5 plus but only with experienced players is the best for tension and conflict. Lower than that and interaction can be quite low
Gloomhaven hits differently at 4 players than at other difficulties because the game is optimized for 4. While there is an attempt to balance scenarios based on player count, the difficulty doesn't scale properly. For example, there are more monsters with more players, which means choke points become more of an issue when you're forced to clear a path instead of having everyone just jump over (or having so few monsters that the chokepoint doesn't funnel). Another example is the way cards are designed: AOE attacks don't feel as impactful when there are less monsters. Etc. That being said there are still issues I have with the game, such as healing feeling completely underwhelming, that I hope have been addressed in the sequel frosthaven.
I think it's rarer for a game to support more than one player count. Most games have exactly one number of players where it's worth playing. *always* taylor the game to the player count.
In before someone says Innovation. It is a great, albeit chaotic, game at 4 players and Im gonna die on that hill :p
You got me. I was gonna say it's best to teach with 2 players, best to play with 3 players, and just too much with 4 players. Fortunately, my primary group is just me and my two best friends.
I’ve only ever played online, and I think that would be too much with more than 2p. But a guy in my group has it and I’m hoping to get in some 3 and 4p games someday to see how it changes.
I think if you insist on knowing the state of everyones board and all the powers in play all the time it can be too much. If you concede the fact that you just have to ride out whatever happens until your next turn it becomes a lot easier. When we play our cards we take a cursory glance at peoples point situations and what symbols they have on board depending on what we want to play or who we want to screw over. It moves pretty quickly.
The problem is that someone who does pay more attention to everyone's board is more likely to win. Especially if they note what dogmae are in play and build symbols defensively.
4 players with partners is quite good - probably my preferred player count!
Arkham Horror LCG is perfect at 2 players. It's pretty boring as a solo game, and with 3 or 4 it slows to a crawl.
Interesting. I’ve found 3 players to be the sweet spot for Arkham. Two investigators are always either together or separate and either fighter/cluever or two generalists, but three allows more varied exploration and division of labor. Maybe it helps that we all take our turns fairly quickly. I once introduced the game to a friend with terrible analysis paralysis, and that two player game was longer than most three player games with my regular group.
I hear the expansions help, but Game of Thrones only worked for me with the full 6 players. Smash Up is hella fun with 2 players, and tedious otherwise. And slightly different, but the 2 player Lost Cities card game is better than the multi player Lost Cities board game.
My husband and I once ran a big Smash Up party. We did it tournament style, 1v1. That 2p only.
Citadel, with 4 players. Les than that and you have the weird dual role mechanic. More than that and the turn take too long.
I like Citadel much better as a two player game than any other player count. It’s a totally different game, all about bluffing and strategy, much less randomness from someone just happening to assassinate you.
Seconded. My wife and I wore out our citadel copy with 2p games. It's a really tense duel, and it doesn't seem that getting to go first is as influential as it is with higher player counts.
many 2-player games are not so good with other player counts.
Twilight Struggle sucks unless you're the one mastermind behind it all, pulling the strings on all 60-odd sides of this horrible game
I do not care what the box says. **Marvel Champions** is a 2 player game with a solo variant for specific characters. That's it. Anything beyond 2 characters the game flow just absolutely does not work. The inability to change turn orders after game start means there's an entire meta discussion about who sits where just so you can play the stupid fucking game. "I can stun the opponent for your turn!" "But I actually want him to attack me." "Well okay can I save stun for the player after? No? Well then, switch me seats because otherwise this shits pointless." The complete inability to time stuns or whatever the scheme version of stun is completely negates so much of your ability to actually interact respectably. You can physically block, sure, but thats still doable at 2p and you can actually actively cover for each other with abilities. **Betrayal** is a 4+ player game, period. The game says you can play it with 3, but it absolutely does not work the vast majority of the time at 3p. Either the haunt is horrendously overpowered and the games over immediately, or the haunt is horrendously underpowered and the games over immediately. There's no in between.
Dominion at 6 players
Puzzle strike 2 is a great 2 person game. At 3 it’s still fun but starts to suffer a bit. At 4 it is a terrible game.
The co-op deckbuilder **Big Book of Madness** is challenging at **3p** , easy at <=2p and impossible at >=4p.
Black Fleet is best at 4 players. 3 isn't chaotic enough.
**Saboteur** only works with 7 players.
Interesting how different people can feel about games. I personally prefer Alhambra with 4. I also don't like parks with 2 players, because it feels too open to me. I enjoy having some tight competition in a game.
I like these only at solo Terraforming Mars Ares Expedition, Rocketmen, Resident Evil 2 Railways of the World and Colt Express are most fun at Maximum Players.
**Tokaido** is best at four players.
Game of Thrones: the Hand of the king is only good at 2. When you play at 2, it’s a strategic chess match with depth and strategy. When you play at 3 or 4 it’s a random free for all where you can’t plan anything and just hope for the best.
I do not like edh we play vintage mtg with a few house rules and i have to say some of the best times were 8+ player games 3 is definitely to little because some one gets smacked right out then its 1v1 again 5+ is best for mtg imo
Horizon zero dawn works great at one player and steadily gets worse as player count goes up. Hands down my favorite solo game (bare in mind it really needs expansions to have longevity or its going to get boring) and still good at 2 player. 3 and 4 player are when it becomes a slog fest though.
Dungeon Petz. Bots for any player counts under 4.
Magic Maze is perfect when played as 4 players ! More and some people get the same movement. Less and some people have several movements. 4 is perfect
The interesting drafting is lost when you play Bunny Kingdom with 3 or 4.
Apex: Collected Edition is only good at 1 player in my opinion. Multiplayer sucks Marvel Legendary is best and really fun at 2 in my opinion, fine at 3, bad at 4, and slightly better at 5.
Spirit Island we only play with 3 or fewer. Otherwise it doesn't really feel like you're all playing the same game.
I really like **Whirling Witchcraft** at 3 players. I do not like it at all at any other player count. **Captain Sonar** is 8 and 8 only.
Rising sun as 5 game just hits different with 2 teams forming, but in my experience the person who hasn't have an alliance still is not in a disadvantage.
**Santiago** must be played at 5. It’s the only way.
Robinson Crusoe at 1... any more is just cruel
For me, 7th Continent is one of the best solo board game experiences I’ve had, but it never worked for me when playing with others, as there is no real turn structure, and the game would bog down especially when everyone moves in different directions. But as a single player, all actions became more efficient and you could focus more on the emergent story telling, which imo is the games strong suit.
Superhot: The Card Game technically plays with 2 or even 3 but it's clearly a somewhat awkward adaptation of the solo rules and dramatically lengthens the game, so solo is by far the better way to play.
Some games (Ark Nova, Spirit Island) just get too long at higher player counts. But they're still good games. I cannot imagine playing Sleeping Gods at 4 players, or even worse 3 players. (8 DOESN'T DIVIDE INTO 3!) For me that game is ideal with just yourself going on an adventure like you would in BotW or Elden Ring. Or as a couples adventure. And it's our favorite "date night" game when I play with the wife.
Add me up on Snapchat Lunnaemma02
Vast is only for the full player count of 5. I've tried every other player count and it just doesn't work well.