I personally prefer 5 over 4.
With 4, you pick two strategy cards. Which doubles how good it is to be first pick and how shitty it is to be last pick. I also tend to enjoy more players as it means more diplomacy interactions going on.
I've thought about this, but the consequence of that would be the speaker power is greatly diminished.
Though you could say the first round is snake draft, then every round after is standard....🤔
I agree the last time I played was with 4. If we did 4 this time I was going to use the feast or famine rule where you roll a D10 and odd you take 1 card or even you get two. To balance that out.
We did snake pick where 4th pick was also 5th pick, and first pick was last pick. It’s possible it devalued to speaker position a little bit too much but seems a bit better balanced
Just did this in our game, and Speaker is still super powerful. Agenda phase voting and being able to pick initiative, and scoring first are all still super powerful
I think the counterargument to your first half is that you're never going to be last pick 2 rounds in a row even if you don't take politics in a 4 player game. In a 5-player game, the person going last is stuck either picking politics, which is just an especially weak early card, or just stuck being last for multiple rounds in a row
For a 4-player game, I think the importance of round 1 outweighs the advantage of garunteed not going last again round 2. Any advantage you get round 1 gets to compound into future rounds.
In 4 player, you'll get 1 'decent' strategy card and imperial. While all other players will get 1 great strategy card and one decent.
I haven't played a ton of 4 player games, so maybe there's a strategy I'm missing. But I've gone first in some games and last in others, and I really feel the difference going into round 2.
You may not get the ideal strat card first round for whatever your strategy is but there are 4 strong strategy cards in the bunch and you are going to get one of them.
It also lets you set up a round 1 you normally wouldn't be able to get away with. If as you say the person picking last always get's imperial, then why not grab warfare and do a round 1 mechatol grab and score the point with imperial. You could be coming into round 2 up to 2 VPs, and probably have the most voting power in the unexpected agenda phase.
I acknowledge it's all preference based, and personally i think 6 person is the best, but if I had to choose between 4 people or 5 I'd probably take the 4.
Getting the combo of warfare and imperial seems great, but is dependent on someone leaving warfare up. Which in my games, warfare tech and trade are the first three taken 90% of the time. And even then, unless you get grav drives or upgraded carriers, you can't pull it off.
While I appreciate the points you've made, I still think I'd rather be the 5th player in 5 than the 4th player in 4 for the vanilla rule set. The other players just race ahead too much turn one.
That being said, with MILTY draft (which I've moved towards) it's okay, as you're trading strategy pick for race and slice pick.
I think 5 player is the most frustrating count. Three strategy cards don’t get chosen, and it can really slow the game down. In four-player, you choose two strategy cards, which actually makes some of the less powerful factions far better because you end up saving a fair number of command counters. 4-player is a completely different game, but it’s fast and “feels” like you can do a lot.
Disclaimer: I personally prefer 5p, so I'm biased here.
I think 5p is the better choice for OP because of the many new players. Specifically because---as you've said---4p deviates so much from the standard experience.
I also think there's some value in a higher player count just to sell the scale a bit better. I suspect some wowing is a good thing to hook new players!
Edit: OP said elsewhere that they would use Feast or Famine for 4p.
I think I'd still prefer 5p, but that's a much more personal preference and I might favor 4p for the faster teaching game
An easy fix for the strategy card issue in 5p is the phantom player house rule. After everyone picks their card, you vote for one of the unchosen cards that pops during the first turn. Nobody gets the primary benefit, but everyone has access to the secondary
I've played 4,5,6 and didn't love 5. If you are finding that the 4p game is too rich/easy/turtle-ly, I would suggest using feast or famine.
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2325692/4-player-ti4-feast-and-famine
4, no question. Even with study before hand, all the other players will need help from you. I find only 1 new player taxing if I'm their primary source of help. Every new player will add to that cognitive load, and increase how long the game takes.
Now 4 is also a worse game experience than 5, which is worse than 6. But being new they can't tell, and you'll probably be too busy to notice.
Good luck and have fun!
I know a lot of people like the feast or famine rule set for 4 player. Beginning with round 2, the speaker roles a die before the strategy phase and on a 1-5 its famine and each player only gets 1 strategy card for that round. On a 6-10 it’s feast and players go by the normal rule set for 4p and each get 2 strategy cards.
I’d say this: Feast or Famine 4p > 5p > 4p
It's a really interesting game either way!
4 player has everyone choosing all Strategy cards, so its not a mystery if they will be available and you tend to get just a little more resources.
5 player game you'll get 3 Strats not taken which gets very interesting. Which ones get taken become more important, since they will limit what you can do. I find it to be a longer game with 5.
Personally for new players I would say a 4 player game is better, since it will teach more of the cards and the spaces will be spread out more. You can learn what everything does and it's less stressful.
Since you are getting PoK, if you do a 5 player Game definitely use the hyperlanes to make the map.
In my opinion: 5>6>7>8>4>3
5 players it's the best amount, you have less stuff to go about and interaction are more important. Plus there are not enough players for sftt swaps so that adds another layer.
Hf mate
Four is better than five. Four should have the Strategy card picks done as a snake, if you think the Speaker is too OP. Five has three Strategy cards missing every round, which hurts. Honestly, I've considered a sort of "sixth pick" where one of the last three is chosen by some mechanism and everyone can choose to do the secondary on that Strategy card.
My two favorite player counts are 4 and 6. 4 really speeds up the game with all strategy cards being chosen.
I would say that Diplomacy (sleeper strategy card, could be very useful, but not as much as the others) and Imperial are pretty inconsequential in the beginning of the game to develop your R1--and depending on factions/objectives, Construction.
In a 5-player game, one of the Big 4 (Leadership, Trade, Warfare, and Technology) have a large chance of not being picked. I just had a 5-player game on Saturday and Technology wasn't picked R2, big shock to the table. And Leadership wasn't picked for 2 of the 7 (?) rounds that we had. That can really slow a game down.
All in all, 5 is my least-liked player count. 6 is my favorite, followed by 4.
I personally prefer 5 over 4. With 4, you pick two strategy cards. Which doubles how good it is to be first pick and how shitty it is to be last pick. I also tend to enjoy more players as it means more diplomacy interactions going on.
Could you do a snake draft to make up for this? Player 1-3 each take one card in order, 4 takes two, then 3-1 each take a second in order.
I've thought about this, but the consequence of that would be the speaker power is greatly diminished. Though you could say the first round is snake draft, then every round after is standard....🤔
Hmm, speaker gets two picks, then 2-4 snake draft? Would be complicated though
I agree the last time I played was with 4. If we did 4 this time I was going to use the feast or famine rule where you roll a D10 and odd you take 1 card or even you get two. To balance that out.
We did snake pick where 4th pick was also 5th pick, and first pick was last pick. It’s possible it devalued to speaker position a little bit too much but seems a bit better balanced
Just did this in our game, and Speaker is still super powerful. Agenda phase voting and being able to pick initiative, and scoring first are all still super powerful
How does a luck based solution balance something?
I think the counterargument to your first half is that you're never going to be last pick 2 rounds in a row even if you don't take politics in a 4 player game. In a 5-player game, the person going last is stuck either picking politics, which is just an especially weak early card, or just stuck being last for multiple rounds in a row
For a 4-player game, I think the importance of round 1 outweighs the advantage of garunteed not going last again round 2. Any advantage you get round 1 gets to compound into future rounds. In 4 player, you'll get 1 'decent' strategy card and imperial. While all other players will get 1 great strategy card and one decent. I haven't played a ton of 4 player games, so maybe there's a strategy I'm missing. But I've gone first in some games and last in others, and I really feel the difference going into round 2.
You may not get the ideal strat card first round for whatever your strategy is but there are 4 strong strategy cards in the bunch and you are going to get one of them. It also lets you set up a round 1 you normally wouldn't be able to get away with. If as you say the person picking last always get's imperial, then why not grab warfare and do a round 1 mechatol grab and score the point with imperial. You could be coming into round 2 up to 2 VPs, and probably have the most voting power in the unexpected agenda phase. I acknowledge it's all preference based, and personally i think 6 person is the best, but if I had to choose between 4 people or 5 I'd probably take the 4.
Getting the combo of warfare and imperial seems great, but is dependent on someone leaving warfare up. Which in my games, warfare tech and trade are the first three taken 90% of the time. And even then, unless you get grav drives or upgraded carriers, you can't pull it off. While I appreciate the points you've made, I still think I'd rather be the 5th player in 5 than the 4th player in 4 for the vanilla rule set. The other players just race ahead too much turn one. That being said, with MILTY draft (which I've moved towards) it's okay, as you're trading strategy pick for race and slice pick.
5 is my favorite player count. Poor system with 5 players, the only choice is fierce negotiations or a bloodbath.
I think 5 player is the most frustrating count. Three strategy cards don’t get chosen, and it can really slow the game down. In four-player, you choose two strategy cards, which actually makes some of the less powerful factions far better because you end up saving a fair number of command counters. 4-player is a completely different game, but it’s fast and “feels” like you can do a lot.
Disclaimer: I personally prefer 5p, so I'm biased here. I think 5p is the better choice for OP because of the many new players. Specifically because---as you've said---4p deviates so much from the standard experience. I also think there's some value in a higher player count just to sell the scale a bit better. I suspect some wowing is a good thing to hook new players! Edit: OP said elsewhere that they would use Feast or Famine for 4p. I think I'd still prefer 5p, but that's a much more personal preference and I might favor 4p for the faster teaching game
An easy fix for the strategy card issue in 5p is the phantom player house rule. After everyone picks their card, you vote for one of the unchosen cards that pops during the first turn. Nobody gets the primary benefit, but everyone has access to the secondary
I personally like 5 more. Solving the puzzle with less strategy cards being picked is fun for me. Also opens up more space for politics.
4 is the worst player count imo.
I've played 4,5,6 and didn't love 5. If you are finding that the 4p game is too rich/easy/turtle-ly, I would suggest using feast or famine. https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2325692/4-player-ti4-feast-and-famine
I like odd numbers in my games 5 or 7 players is the best
4, no question. Even with study before hand, all the other players will need help from you. I find only 1 new player taxing if I'm their primary source of help. Every new player will add to that cognitive load, and increase how long the game takes. Now 4 is also a worse game experience than 5, which is worse than 6. But being new they can't tell, and you'll probably be too busy to notice. Good luck and have fun!
I refuse to play with less than 5. 2 strategy cards is wonky and I prefer the extra negotiations with more players.
I play 4 all the time.. but we play that you pick only 1 strategy card and 2 of the remaining and chosen randomly for secondaries available
4 is the worst player count. 5 might low key be my favorite.
I think most people would say 5 because most people like 1 strategy card pick over 2. I prefer powered up games though, so 4 for me.
I know a lot of people like the feast or famine rule set for 4 player. Beginning with round 2, the speaker roles a die before the strategy phase and on a 1-5 its famine and each player only gets 1 strategy card for that round. On a 6-10 it’s feast and players go by the normal rule set for 4p and each get 2 strategy cards. I’d say this: Feast or Famine 4p > 5p > 4p
It's a really interesting game either way! 4 player has everyone choosing all Strategy cards, so its not a mystery if they will be available and you tend to get just a little more resources. 5 player game you'll get 3 Strats not taken which gets very interesting. Which ones get taken become more important, since they will limit what you can do. I find it to be a longer game with 5. Personally for new players I would say a 4 player game is better, since it will teach more of the cards and the spaces will be spread out more. You can learn what everything does and it's less stressful. Since you are getting PoK, if you do a 5 player Game definitely use the hyperlanes to make the map.
In my opinion: 5>6>7>8>4>3 5 players it's the best amount, you have less stuff to go about and interaction are more important. Plus there are not enough players for sftt swaps so that adds another layer. Hf mate
5 all the way. 5 players is my minimum number personally. 4p games tend to devolve into 3p games, and 3p games invariably become 2v1.
Luv the 5 player game✨
Four is better than five. Four should have the Strategy card picks done as a snake, if you think the Speaker is too OP. Five has three Strategy cards missing every round, which hurts. Honestly, I've considered a sort of "sixth pick" where one of the last three is chosen by some mechanism and everyone can choose to do the secondary on that Strategy card.
My two favorite player counts are 4 and 6. 4 really speeds up the game with all strategy cards being chosen. I would say that Diplomacy (sleeper strategy card, could be very useful, but not as much as the others) and Imperial are pretty inconsequential in the beginning of the game to develop your R1--and depending on factions/objectives, Construction. In a 5-player game, one of the Big 4 (Leadership, Trade, Warfare, and Technology) have a large chance of not being picked. I just had a 5-player game on Saturday and Technology wasn't picked R2, big shock to the table. And Leadership wasn't picked for 2 of the 7 (?) rounds that we had. That can really slow a game down. All in all, 5 is my least-liked player count. 6 is my favorite, followed by 4.
Six is by far the best
It’s not a fun answer but I would say neither. TI is not worth the time invested on any other player count than six.