You are not logged in.
This thread is open.
Posted by Hammerite 2009-02-22 23:57:27 GMT
There are lots of 3-player and lots of 4-player games that go on on the site, and the occasional 2-player game. I have to say that I quite enjoy the 3-player games. I enjoy the 4-player games too, but I tend to feel that much more involved in the 3-player games, and it leads me to prefer them.
The thing is, users of this site use it primarily as a play-by-email kind of site (though I think there are occasional near-realtime games taking place); this means that you might be waiting a while between turns in a four-player game. In a three-player game there are fewer people to move between your turns, and I think this brings benefits to the speed of the game.
I've only played 3-player Brass once "in real life" and I noticed then too that I liked it very slightly more than 4-player. I think the nature of internet play skews my preference further towards 3-player games.
(If you think about it, between your turns in a four-player game there could be up to 6 player turns taking place. Between your turns in a three-player game there are up to 4. Although you get more turns, it's no wonder the game feels like it moves faster.)
Posted by Henkka 2009-02-23 10:02:09 GMT
I enjoy 4 player games way more. 3 player games tend to be too friendly and the time pressure (you have 10 turns per era) isn't as great. I don't really care that much about the "down time" for play by email games.. :)
Posted by Tub 2009-02-27 13:07:10 GMT
Like Henkka, I do like 4-player games quite more than 3-player games for the same reasons.
I love to be under pressure gameplay-wise, and there is too much space on the board and too much turns to play in a 3-player game. There is also obviously less interaction (less players).
Posted by Golux13 2009-02-27 22:28:23 GMT
I'm much more used to 3P than 4P games because my regular gaming group has a core of three players who can almost always be counted on for a game night, and a more nebulous assortment of other players who are less consistent. (I.e., they have far more interesting lives than the core three.) As a result, I have a much better feel for the 3P game; I understand its flows and timing better. I'm about to get drubbed in my first 4P here, which I hope will enable me to do better next time.
Posted by jazzdream 2009-03-12 16:45:28 GMT
We'll I'm playing my first games here... So far so good, except I cannot stop myself from coming and checking whether it's my turn or not to play... Talk about productivity.
Posted by jazzdream 2009-03-12 16:47:15 GMT
...And to keep in the subject: I'm a 4P gamer. I think decisions taking is more important this way...
Posted by spitball 2009-06-05 14:42:43 GMT
having never played 2-player ( henkka-style ) until here, i've found i prefer head's up most of all. i find it chess-like in that i have to consider my opponents move/plans turns in advance, and plan my turns accordingly.
between 3 and 4-player, i prefer three. i find that i am less liable to be hamstrung by a weak run of cards in the three-player. also, another chess analogy, move order seems less important in the three player. in the four-player, if there is a player in the game continually making weak choices ( hanging one piece after another - say ) there can be a game-tilting advantage to playing your turns immediately following.
Posted by Aeek 2009-06-07 05:08:18 GMT
4 for me, and 2P just seems wrong, wasn't published that way.
Posted by Caradog 2009-06-07 09:36:37 GMT
I prefer four player because it feels 'tighter'. Was pleasantly surprised to find how well the two player variant plays out.
I don't necessarily agree with spitball's point about turn order as Brass seems rather fluid - you won't find players continually making moves in the same order or limiting their play to particular parts of the board.
Click here to return to the Board Page, or here to return to the Main Page.