Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jeb Boyt
The only complaint I have about the game is that in the 3-player game, and I suspect the 2-player game, there is enough room on the map for each player to have an undisturbed area to expand in (i.e. Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Middle Mississippi River). This eliminates the head-to-head competition that makes the 4- and 5-player game so much fun. Has anyone developed an alternate where the map is limited for the 2- or 3-player game?
|
No, but we haven't found it to be a problem. If one player is gulping down enormous parts of the map without any competition, the others tend to go out and interfere. In one game, one player controlled nearly the entire Midwest, and would have won without ever crossing paths with another player, except that another player went out and managed to steal some key routes and block him from the win.
I haven't played it with 2 players. I don't think I would enjoy it nearly as much. But then, I have my collection split into categories, divided by ideal number of players and complexity. This one is in the 'mid-to-high complexity, 3 or more players' category. When I want a two-person game, I play something else. The beauty of reviewing games is that I've got a bunch of them.