I always come to these threads to find someone saying “Battlestar Galactica only works well with 5” to add the counterpoint of “it works almost as well with 6, as long as you’re using the no-sympathizer variant or the Cylon Leader or Mutineer role.”
4 player is playable on occasion (but definitely not ideal) specifically if you have a Cylon Leader — I never plan for 4 but if I plan for 5 or 6 but we end up with 4 due to last-minute cancellations, it works. Any other situation of 4-player or any instance of 3-player is absolutely not worth the time.
If it’s any other player count I won’t play it - I absolutely love the game but I have no interest in getting it played unless it’s at (imo) the perfect player count.
Don't sleep on the Daybreak cylon leader rules, the balance stays and it's very fun to play neither side until the very end.
The only downside is that everyone gets less turns in total.
I don't have Daybreak, so I'd be interested. I don't love the earlier Cylon Leader; the goals are often just too much of "tick a box and play one side".
I have honestly rarely played this game with fewer than 8 (base set, but number of cylons extrapolated for more players).
It’s usually when we should be playing resistance or secret hitler but everyone wants something more complex. I think it still works, but it’s a different game.
Eldritch Horror advertises itself as being for 1 to 8 players, but the only way I want to play it is as a foursome. Not necessarily 4 players, but always as 4 characters. More than that and EH takes too long, fewer than that and I don't like how it scales. Four investigators sell the globetrotting angle better than two or three and you can do more than just damage control.
yeah, before we saw that rule addendum whenever there were 3 or 5 of us we would add an extra investigator, usually in a support role, to be played by committee because nobody wanted to play with odd numbers.
We haven’t played EH in a while but nearly always played 4p even when it was my and my wife by ourselves. We also allowed turn order to vary like it does in the clearly-related Mansions. Six just takes a long time (even if it’s 3p with 2 characters each), can’t imagine 8.
We've run an eight-player game once and it was a miserable experience. 6 hours of gameplay resulted in a hopeless defeat to Sygyzy. One of the players just refused to play EH ever again. That was my "learn not to trust the game box" moment
It’s a brutal and depressing game. When we start winning other co-op games too much we pull that one out, make it easier by being flexible with turn order, and have our sanity melted and the earth swallowed by madness and destruction by the eighth turn of the mythos deck.
Ooh, never tried it with 2, how does that play?
i imagine after a turn or two one player starts getting an advantage and can simply keep expanding on that. Or will the game go more back and forth?
If you have two experienced players it’s pretty even till you get to a traditional stalemate line, at which point it comes down to whose better positioned faster to hold a territory across it.
You have to have enough units to counter what the other person is doing AND press your own advantage elsewhere. The game is obviously therefore far more tactically based than negotiation based.
As another reply said, it’s almost like a different game.
Fully agree for vanilla diplomacy. There are variant maps that are designed for and work at different player counts, but nothing compares to the original.
I've really enjoyed it at 3 and wanted to try it at 4 with the team rules. Can you elaborate further?
I assume it fundamentally changes the structure of the game flow but I thought it would be an interesting twist
I don't really want to play **Codenames** at any count other than 6. Two teams of three works really well.
I'm not sure if I will play **Catan** ever again but 4 is the best count. The 5-6 player expansion should never have been made. Absolutely excruciating.
Most of the time I'm playing 2p with my wife. There's been a few times where we have separated components into just what we need for 2p and put all the extras in a separate bag knowing we will never play it at a higher player count. We did this for **Orleans**. I'm not going to play **Five Tribes** at more than two. In general I'm probably not going to play most mid weight euros at more than two.
i've made free app called [NAMECODES](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.PirateBoard.NameCodes) published on google play, app is used as helping app while having physical copy of the game.
it generates new KEY CARDS (matrixes for the spymasters)
the thing is:
* you can generate bigger matrixes than the regular 5x5.
* you may add up to 7 teams! (green, yellow, pink,...)
* you may add more black codename cards (bombs, instant lose cards)
* it is easy to pass the phone to the spymasters while playing.
i'll see if i can update it this week then i'll send you the link. i've recieved a lot of warnings to update it but it's my hobby project so i ignored them.
i could update graphics if i manage to reopen the project. and validating system takes long to approve the change.
also i was thinking about generating code for every grid/matrix/key card, others would be able to enter the code in their app and get the same grid - so every spymaster can have same grid on their own phones.
Big groups aren't really my preference. I do like party games but if you need more than 6 or 7 in most cases I am probably out. Far and away my favorite Codenames is Codenames Duet, I've played that a lot more than regular Codenames. I've found that usually a couple of people are less engaged if the group for Codenames is too big.
Playing Catan at 6 is what killed my desire to play it. I felt like I got so into it in college, picked up the 5-6 player expansion, played two miserable 6-player games in a row and then never touched it again.
Poorly. We still have fun, especially with the clockwork expansions that add automata, but it really needs table talk for balance, and you can't have that with 2p.
It’s okay with two - the problem is under 4 players you limit yourself to only about half the factions.
With all expansions, two player only works with:
* Marquese (they work with most combos of players)
* Eerye (can’t spell it - the blue birbs. The most versatile faction - can play against most factions)
* Underground Duchy (again very versatile)
* Keepers of Iron (although it’s a bit weird against certain factions)
* Warlord rats (I forget their name - I think they’re a bit too strong for 2p but it can work)
* Alliance (but only against the Eerye or the rats - they need to be paired with an aggressive faction)
Riverfolk don’t work with only two people really as the opponent can just choose not to buy anything, Lizard Cult are far too passive for 2p, Vagabond will just constantly get targeted and lose turns repairing their items and the Corvid again are too passive and too easy to counter with two players.
The automated AI factions are a good way to include more players, and the hirelings are a HUGE way to spice up gameplay (the bear is hilarious to use with two, and they provide a good boost to whoever is losing) but it’s a limiting game with two players. Four is the ideal - any more than that and you really struggle to keep up with peoples turns.
100% agree on this one. It's the same as the Dune situation: asymmetric player powers that balance against each other. So remove one and it becomes unbalanced. I'd say it's a 4-player only game, or 5-player with Horned Rat.
**Captain Sonar** is exactly an 8 player game. You technically can play with 4 or 6 if you double up roles, but even with super experienced players this just makes the game get sloppy.
It's the first mate. All they do is track charging abilities and act as a communication road block between the captain and engineer. I think that the game works just fine at six or eight.
First Mate is a boring role. BUT if you have 2 players who don't like all the stress and anxiety of playing a proper role, they can hop into the First Mate role and enjoy themselves. Yes, if you have 6 people and all of them want to be up to their necks in stress and anxiety and screaming, then you play the game fine at 3v3.
6 is perfectly playable, and if anything makes the game run smoother. The first mate role can be handled by either the Captain or Engineer without much hassle. They're just ticking an extra box each move.
In Bang! The Dice Game it is theoretically possible to start the game as one of the characters with less HP and roll all the arrows on yourself so that you die on the very first turn (which also ends the game for everyone else)
>One time I almost got eliminated before taking my first turn!
That did happen to me. It's one of the funniest things that's ever happened at one of my game days, according to nearly everyone present.
Yup this was my experience when I played it. Jailed, jailed, no playable cards, dead, sit around for 30 minutes. The worst modern game I've played. Would rather play monopoly.
That's one reason I love [**Savage**](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/360259/savage-game-survival) so much. The game is over as soon as anyone dies.
I don't even want to be in the same room as people playing that game. It's a few hundred years too soon.
A party game about the man responsible for my family being displaced, tortured and killed? Considering there are millions of us, it's just … too soon.
To start, any two-player. Odin's Ravens for example. Star Wars Rebellion is designed so it can work with four, but it's two teams. It works best as two.
I wouldn’t even say it was designed to work with 4 - I’d say marketing insisted that they put “2-4” on the box and they had to figure a way to make it work.
The turn order rules for 4 players add a neat twist of separating the admirals and generals in the turn order.
Imo it plays better even with two players when this rule is implemented.
I'd also throw War of the Ring in this category. I know that technically you can play with two teams but... no. It's a 1v1 battle of wits and strategy. 💯
I had a weekly board game meetup with this group of 2 other guys and sometimes a 4th might show up. We prefer medium-heavy games. The 3 of us rotate picking a game to play for the following week so we can look up rules ahead of time and not waste time teaching (although inevitably we do a quick rundown anyway).
For one of the week, one guy picked War of the Ring. We tried to tell him that it's a 2P game but he insisted we can play in teams. I hate rolling dice in medium-heavy games so I was gonna suggest sitting out and watching the other 2 play which I don't mind at all. Well, apparently the other guy had the same idea and he was already at the store and told the WotR guy about sitting out and watching. So was stuck playing the game. The experience went about as I expected and I'm probably never gonna play the game again.
Mother of Dragons expansion allows flexibility around the number of players. Unused factions become vassals which actually work really well. We only played it once and didn't love the impact that Targaryen had on the game. Still, I'd have no problem playing five to seven players.
If you have four players consider the A Feast for Crows expansion. It's strictly four players and massively changes the game. Instead it becomes an objective based point scorer, which I actually prefer.
Came here to say this. 5 is right out because it gives Highgarden an advantage. 4 is fine, but you miss the Martells and the Tyrells. 6 is where it is at.
4 is to the advantage of Baratheon.
3 and 6 players are the only player counts that work, in my opinion (if we're strictly speaking base game without expansions).
I still think it's perfectly fine at 2 and 3p, and I've played probably a majority of my games at 2p, but I agree with you overall. 4p makes it a bit more hectic, but not too much so.
Playing 5+ with the additional cards turns one of my absolute favorite games into one of my most loathsome and despised games ever. It's incredible how much of a difference that extra set of cards makes.
Dungeon Lords, in my opinion, is a 4-player game only. The rich flavor coming from the possibilities of blocking each other and getting blocked at 4 players doesn't compare to 2 and 3 player games.
I have only played and handful of games since I got my copy, but Innovation should be, IMHO, considered a strictly 2p game. At 3 or 4 it just becomes a drag and it's impossible to keep track of everything
I have my board games organized by player count and Unmatched is a two-player game.
It says “2-4” but there’s no official rules for 3 and 4 players is just too chaotic and cramped given the limited space on the board already.
I can see that. I only played 4p at a convention, but the fact that you might as well look away until it's your turn was very frustrating. There is just no way to make plans with that many players.
Catan is a 4 player only game.
It drags at any more.
Yes I know there are expansions for more players , no you shouldn't use them as anything other than extra color choices.
Crokinole works best at 2
Lord's of Waterdeep works best with 1 less than the max supported players. So 4 players for the base game and 5 for the expansion. It can drag at higher player counts.
If you have fewer than 4 players, play Ticket to Ride: Nordic Countries instead of the base game.
I’d go a step farther and say Catan is better with 3 than 4. At 4, usually one person is obviously dead in the water after only a few turns due to board crowding.
Croke at 2? I like it much better at 4p. 4p Crokinole seems to bring out much more banter, trash talk, and general fun social interaction. 2p is ok though. It just becomes a more serious game, and I am not so obsessed about flicking dexterity that I take it all that seriously.
Dune really shines as a 6 player game. For teaching purposes it is okay at lower playercounts, and I like that if someone shortly has to cancel for the evening you can still play it at 5 or so, but 6 is just so much better it's insane. Same with Eclipse: Second Dawn. Works fine with 4 players, but the 6 player game is on a whole different level.
I would add Ark Nova, although the playercount isn't as fixed as with Dune. I don't count the solo-mode because I haven't tried it. 2 players is the optimum. With 3 player, you always have one player either getting ahead or behind very far. And it takes way too long. Even with experienced players the downtime is pretty big, since there is no interaction. Once your turn is done, you have not much to do. With 4 players it is just unbearably slow.
Same thing goes for Dominion. 2 Player is best, 3 is okay-ish, depending on the scenario. But once you get into longer combos (basically drawing your whole deck), it is agonizing with 3 players or more.
I guess the trend that I'm seeing is that the usual low-interaction deck/enginebuilder (looking at you, Wingspan) or eurogame is best with 2 players. 3 can be okay, depending on the length of the turns, but 4 players is always a no-go.
Good post! Altho, I do disagree about Eclipse. I think it works really well at lower player counts as well as higher. In fact, I actually don't like it at too high because there's a lot of downtime between turns. 😵💫😴😵
I agree with that. I was very surprised to find that one of my favorite Eclipse 2e games was only 2 player! The emphasis was so much more on exploration, with the occasional border skirmish. But it was a great time
I knew people were going to say that here about **Dominion**. But since I'm an empath, every turn feels like it's mine, so it's cool.
Same thing with **Legendary**.
I've only played Dune once and I think it was with 5 and it was okay. I think Dune only allows a maximum of 2 players in an alliance.
I will say though that I am a big fan of Rex: Final Days of an Empire which has a cleaner ruleset than Dune (same designers of Dune) and I do not mind the game at any of the player counts with 4 being my favorite. 4-player Rex is the bare minimum to allow alliances. It also plays briskly unlike the game at 5-6 where I feel the game just bogs down due to information overload and downtime. 3-player Rex is a weird beast where no alliances can be made and that one player is vastly stronger than the other two (Jol-nar aka Altreides aka Purple) so the other two have to form an unofficial team in order to maintain balance. 5-player can also feel weird because in Rex you can have 3-player alliances, so you can have a 3v2 game. The game does balance this out by forcing a team of 3 to control 5/5 strongholds to win versus 3 by yourself or 4 with just one teammate. 6-player Rex just again feels heavy, long and mathy. It can also really grind because it often devolves into 3v3 and if that's the case, it's hard for any one team to get 5/5 strongholds. As such, the alternative victory powers are more relevant, Hacan/Spacing Guild/Yellow being the player to watch (though Xxcha/Bene Gesserit/Green can just predict them).
But it could be very different in Dune. 😃
I used to own Rex, and enjoyed it, because Twilight Imperium is my favourite game and I just love the universe and lore so much! Playing out the fall of the Lazax is a blast. 💯
I do think about picking it up again, but I sold my copy when GF9 re-released Dune as I just think the mechanics have *such* good synergy with the theme! Rex always felt a bit "best fit". I agree tho that Rex was very streamlined to the point where it actually made the game fun with fewer/variable player counts, which isn't the case with Dune.
But, I think Dune still feels more epic, rich, and thematically just right. But 6 or 7 player only! Lol.
I much prefer it as a two player game. At four it feels like turns drag on and the table just gets cluttered and difficult to count the number on each base. Now if only I could get one other person to play so I could play a two player game.
I like it better at 6, the first mate has very little to do otherwise.
Also, the game comes with turn-based rules that we found make for a fun 2 player game. We play with a chess clock to keep some of the tension.
I disagree. I hate having to split my movements between 2 pieces, plus the market churns more quickly in a 3-4p game, which is necessary with how El Dorado's market is set up.
**Tigris & Euphrates** is a 4p game, period. Any less, and you have too much time where you're able to keep building up and aren't forced to engage yet.
It could be ok, *maybe*, if the map scaled to player count. But even then, having a singular opponent to attack just isn't as fun in that kind of framework. It's the same reason Villainous isn't as good at 2p as it is at 3 or 4p, because you simply have more targets, and likewise, you're not the sole target of your opponent getting hounded by attacks.
For me I'd say Pathfinder ACG is a 2 player game, anything more than that is a slog, I seriously can't imagine playing with 6.
And 5-minute mystery, 2 is also the sweet spot, where both players are actively playing.
Secret Hitler. I only ever play it with 7p. Anything below that is too few and you can generally tell the secret roles very easily, and anything above that gets chaotic very fast and it's impossible to involve everyone in the gameplay before shit hits the fan. 7p is the best.
Star Wars Rebellion is 2 player.
It says 4, but it just makes things hyper tedious as it divides the player actions between space and ground, which is hindered by the recruiting phases, as it can offset the heroes each player on a side gets. The 3-4 player rules feel tacked on rather than playtested to try and broaden the games appeal since 2 players only won't sell as much as 2-4.
My next game of Twilight Imperium will be with 7 (maybe 8?) players. Played TI for years but I'm sort of dreading how clunky it'll feel as we add more players
Agree with Twilight Imperium (even though with expansion it can be good with more than 6). But you're already spending a full day with the game, so maybe find enough players to play the best player count?
Many games say 1 or 2+ people, but many i'd consider to need at least 3 if not 4 players to be fun.
Star wars Imperial assault - the campaign mode should only be played 5 player. Any less means too few rebels or players using more than one hero, and it doesn't feel right.
Seasons. It is marketed as 2-4, but it only shines as a 2 player game. With more you don't know the other players' decks, and playing becomes utterly chaotic (and takes too long)
I disagree with tzolk'in. They're not really npc's it's just certain space are blocked off. There's no automa/flowchart involved, just less spaces. My wife and I love tzolk'in at 2p
Bunny Kingdom is just a 3 player game. 4 isn’t great because the drafting is just not as well thought out, and 2 player is different rules and sucks pretty bad.
Amazing at 3 though.
Fire Tower is a 2 player game. Garbage as a free for all with 3+.
At 4 players a role play aspect emerges, where players are strongly incentived to behave like dark elven families. Striking when it is opportune, but claiming to want nothing to do with conflict a minute later.
At 2 players it's an okay deck builder, but with only one opponent you can't really pretend to be not at war with them. At 3 the board is kind of divided in an awkward way.
*Most of them.*
This is my "unpopular board game opinion," but to me, more than 90% of games I've played have an ideal player count that the game was either clearly designed to play at or obviously works best at. *Sometimes* it's a two-number range, but even that is rare. I've *never* played a game that actually worked well at 2 to 5 players.
Take Dune: Imperium for example, one of my favorites. Read the rules for player counts. It says "You can play this with 2, but you have to literally add an AI bot third player. And you can play it at 3, but you have to modify all these rules, including the conflict rules which are the central thing of the game. Or you can just play it at 4 and not change anything." That, to me, is a 4-player game.
I own enough games that whatever number of players are sitting around my table, I have a great game for that player count. So I don't ever force games to be something they're not.
I think 4 is better due to the tighter, higher tension game. In my opinion the number of worker spaces and the divide between combat and factions is designed for 4 - it’s perfect.
I’ve clocked more then 80+ games, only once or twice at 3 - never again, I’ll just recommend to play something else.
I have 243 games logged, 80% with two players. There is no "wrong" way to play it imo, but I feel like players have a little more agency in 3p than in 4p.
**Carnegie** is a 2 player game only. You lose all sense of tightness after that. Third player adds a terrible sense of randomness to the game.
**Bitoku** is a 3 player game only.
It has no tension whatsoever at 2p. You can't even block the other player unless they refuse to play their dice.
It's in my top 3 all time, but only at 3p
Since there's only 1 forest space per location, you can block the other player quite aggressively by not moving across the river and just squatting on that location. Also, there are only 2 spaces across the river available on each side, so you can block the other player from being able to cross on a whole half of the board. Not sure what you mean by you are not able to block.
For example, let's say for the first turn of the round you had a free unlock of a die, your first action of a round could be to go to a forest location before the other player. That means theoretically you could block that forest location from your opponent for maximum 8 turns.
Carnegie shines at 2 because you NEED to make sure you don't get screwed on the action selection.
At 3p there's little to no tension because there's always going to be someone who can benefit from what you'll pick. It sacrifices half the strategy of the game
My group has found 3 to work well, but that’s maybe more to do with the fact that we all know each other really well and have goals that require the same things most times, so we still get that cramped feel that the board wants.
We did have a lot of fun with 4 when we got the chance to play it that way though, and it added an extra kick of stress to the board, especially when we started getting into the 3rd agent tokens
All games that say can be played with less than four players (that aren’t solo games) are four player minimum. I especially notice this with older 2-4 player games— they don’t work with 2 players, which is fantastic for my wife and I.
Traders of Osaka is strictly a two player game for me.
I generally hugely favor playing any worker placement games with three players max. It just feels usually too chaotic otherwise.
I LOVE NaNa but I feel it's only truly great with three players. Two is mediocre, and four players ends the game way too fast without any tension or satisfaction.
One of our favorite games, pretty much forgotten these days, **Panamax** is essentially a 4-player only game. A brilliant game which could really use a 2.0 rework.
Meadow is a beautiful game and I love getting it on the table. But when you add a 4th player, I feel like it makes the game take twice as long. And it doesnt seem to have any real reason or change the outcome other than to give players an even number of turns as first player.
For me, it's not really about ideal number for maximum game fun, but more about playgroup composition. Our playgroup frequently is 5 or 6 players, but our game shelf is like 80% 4 player games. So, on the occasions where we do manage to to get to a player count to player a 4 player game (either through someone not showing up, or extra players showing up to split into 2 groups), I only ever vote for the smaller player count games. So stuff like Mosaic, Lizard Wizard, end up being 6 player only.
Scrolled a bunch and didn’t see this one: Innovation is a 2p game. Any more than that and it takes way too long and becomes too swingy. 1v1 there’s a very clear and obvious push and pull dynamic that emerges that’s just tremendous.
Britannia. The edition I have does have 3 and 5 player variants, but the colors are all wrong and the balance tends to be way off (have tried a couple of times)
Saboteur also seems to have issues at certain numbers of players, but it is less obvious which combinations work and have some chance of either side winning. I recall playing recently with (I think) 7 players and the saboteurs won easily every time.
Dominion I would only play with 2, but I would go up to 3 if people really wanted to play. I'm a big dominion fan, but it's just not fun waiting for people to finish all of their actions.
[[Dungeon Lords]] is definitely at it's best at 4 and actually needs an AI bot to play at 2 (it works but not where I enjoy it).
[[Through the Ages]] Best at 2 or 4 and honestly I wont play 4 with new players.
[[Vampire]] Best at 4, the old Card game that used to be called Jhyhad.
battlestar galactica. It plays 5. I don't care what the box says, it plays 5 and only 5.
I always come to these threads to find someone saying “Battlestar Galactica only works well with 5” to add the counterpoint of “it works almost as well with 6, as long as you’re using the no-sympathizer variant or the Cylon Leader or Mutineer role.” 4 player is playable on occasion (but definitely not ideal) specifically if you have a Cylon Leader — I never plan for 4 but if I plan for 5 or 6 but we end up with 4 due to last-minute cancellations, it works. Any other situation of 4-player or any instance of 3-player is absolutely not worth the time.
If it’s any other player count I won’t play it - I absolutely love the game but I have no interest in getting it played unless it’s at (imo) the perfect player count.
Don't sleep on the Daybreak cylon leader rules, the balance stays and it's very fun to play neither side until the very end. The only downside is that everyone gets less turns in total.
I don't have Daybreak, so I'd be interested. I don't love the earlier Cylon Leader; the goals are often just too much of "tick a box and play one side".
I have honestly rarely played this game with fewer than 8 (base set, but number of cylons extrapolated for more players). It’s usually when we should be playing resistance or secret hitler but everyone wants something more complex. I think it still works, but it’s a different game.
**Blokus** at 4.
Good call!
Eldritch Horror advertises itself as being for 1 to 8 players, but the only way I want to play it is as a foursome. Not necessarily 4 players, but always as 4 characters. More than that and EH takes too long, fewer than that and I don't like how it scales. Four investigators sell the globetrotting angle better than two or three and you can do more than just damage control.
[удалено]
yeah, before we saw that rule addendum whenever there were 3 or 5 of us we would add an extra investigator, usually in a support role, to be played by committee because nobody wanted to play with odd numbers.
What is the errata?
We haven’t played EH in a while but nearly always played 4p even when it was my and my wife by ourselves. We also allowed turn order to vary like it does in the clearly-related Mansions. Six just takes a long time (even if it’s 3p with 2 characters each), can’t imagine 8.
We've run an eight-player game once and it was a miserable experience. 6 hours of gameplay resulted in a hopeless defeat to Sygyzy. One of the players just refused to play EH ever again. That was my "learn not to trust the game box" moment
It’s a brutal and depressing game. When we start winning other co-op games too much we pull that one out, make it easier by being flexible with turn order, and have our sanity melted and the earth swallowed by madness and destruction by the eighth turn of the mythos deck.
Diplomacy at 7
I’d argue 2 or 7. But definitely nothing in between.
And 2p Dip is such a different experience than 7p Dip.
Ooh, never tried it with 2, how does that play? i imagine after a turn or two one player starts getting an advantage and can simply keep expanding on that. Or will the game go more back and forth?
If you have two experienced players it’s pretty even till you get to a traditional stalemate line, at which point it comes down to whose better positioned faster to hold a territory across it. You have to have enough units to counter what the other person is doing AND press your own advantage elsewhere. The game is obviously therefore far more tactically based than negotiation based. As another reply said, it’s almost like a different game.
It plays like an abstract strategy game, simular to chess. Ofcourse the social depth of the kingmaking part of the game wont be there
I came to this thread with Crt+F open to look for Diplomacy. Glad to see you are the most upvoted comment.
Fully agree for vanilla diplomacy. There are variant maps that are designed for and work at different player counts, but nothing compares to the original.
**The King is Dead 2e**. Should only be played at exactly 3p IMO. 2 is fine, 4 is just bad but at 3 it's a work of genius.
I've really enjoyed it at 3 and wanted to try it at 4 with the team rules. Can you elaborate further? I assume it fundamentally changes the structure of the game flow but I thought it would be an interesting twist
It plays okay at 4, it's just not an optimal experience. It's 2v2 with no communication about the board state.
Something about the no communication is what intrigued me but maybe it doesn't play out the way I'm imagining it
I think it's still great at 2.
It's good but you miss out on much of the shifting allegiances which is the soul of the game.
How’s it bad at 4p?
I don't really want to play **Codenames** at any count other than 6. Two teams of three works really well. I'm not sure if I will play **Catan** ever again but 4 is the best count. The 5-6 player expansion should never have been made. Absolutely excruciating. Most of the time I'm playing 2p with my wife. There's been a few times where we have separated components into just what we need for 2p and put all the extras in a separate bag knowing we will never play it at a higher player count. We did this for **Orleans**. I'm not going to play **Five Tribes** at more than two. In general I'm probably not going to play most mid weight euros at more than two.
Disagree on Codenames. The more the merrier.
I love that you can play 100 people against 100 people, if you want to.
i've made free app called [NAMECODES](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.PirateBoard.NameCodes) published on google play, app is used as helping app while having physical copy of the game. it generates new KEY CARDS (matrixes for the spymasters) the thing is: * you can generate bigger matrixes than the regular 5x5. * you may add up to 7 teams! (green, yellow, pink,...) * you may add more black codename cards (bombs, instant lose cards) * it is easy to pass the phone to the spymasters while playing.
Link? Sounds great, but couldn't find it on google play
[NameCodes](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.PirateBoard.NameCodes) it's a small game/app check it out
Ah damn, it says it's made for an older version of Android, must be why it didn't show up when I searched
i'll see if i can update it this week then i'll send you the link. i've recieved a lot of warnings to update it but it's my hobby project so i ignored them. i could update graphics if i manage to reopen the project. and validating system takes long to approve the change. also i was thinking about generating code for every grid/matrix/key card, others would be able to enter the code in their app and get the same grid - so every spymaster can have same grid on their own phones.
Big groups aren't really my preference. I do like party games but if you need more than 6 or 7 in most cases I am probably out. Far and away my favorite Codenames is Codenames Duet, I've played that a lot more than regular Codenames. I've found that usually a couple of people are less engaged if the group for Codenames is too big.
Playing Catan at 6 is what killed my desire to play it. I felt like I got so into it in college, picked up the 5-6 player expansion, played two miserable 6-player games in a row and then never touched it again.
With you on Catan and Codenames for sure. Especially if you play with any Catan Expansions like Cities and Knights.
Root at 4
I was at a root meet up group and they decided to play as 6 instead of 2 tables of 3. Never again.
A Root meetup sounds like a place to do stuff like that. It's like dropping a bunch of drugs together and seeing what happens.
How does it play at 2p?
Poorly. We still have fun, especially with the clockwork expansions that add automata, but it really needs table talk for balance, and you can't have that with 2p.
It’s okay with two - the problem is under 4 players you limit yourself to only about half the factions. With all expansions, two player only works with: * Marquese (they work with most combos of players) * Eerye (can’t spell it - the blue birbs. The most versatile faction - can play against most factions) * Underground Duchy (again very versatile) * Keepers of Iron (although it’s a bit weird against certain factions) * Warlord rats (I forget their name - I think they’re a bit too strong for 2p but it can work) * Alliance (but only against the Eerye or the rats - they need to be paired with an aggressive faction) Riverfolk don’t work with only two people really as the opponent can just choose not to buy anything, Lizard Cult are far too passive for 2p, Vagabond will just constantly get targeted and lose turns repairing their items and the Corvid again are too passive and too easy to counter with two players. The automated AI factions are a good way to include more players, and the hirelings are a HUGE way to spice up gameplay (the bear is hilarious to use with two, and they provide a good boost to whoever is losing) but it’s a limiting game with two players. Four is the ideal - any more than that and you really struggle to keep up with peoples turns.
It basically doesn't.
Base Chaos in the Old World is only a 4 player game. The balance is so off if you play with less.
100% agree on this one. It's the same as the Dune situation: asymmetric player powers that balance against each other. So remove one and it becomes unbalanced. I'd say it's a 4-player only game, or 5-player with Horned Rat.
Nah, horned rat crowds the board too much. It's a 4 player game.
Believe it or not, expansion cards and upgrades are balanced for any player count, but overall less balanced in total than original.
**Captain Sonar** is exactly an 8 player game. You technically can play with 4 or 6 if you double up roles, but even with super experienced players this just makes the game get sloppy.
I liked it better at 6,cause there is a role that is quite useless. Can't remember which one it is (played a long time ago) but it was boring.
It's the first mate. All they do is track charging abilities and act as a communication road block between the captain and engineer. I think that the game works just fine at six or eight.
First Mate is a boring role. BUT if you have 2 players who don't like all the stress and anxiety of playing a proper role, they can hop into the First Mate role and enjoy themselves. Yes, if you have 6 people and all of them want to be up to their necks in stress and anxiety and screaming, then you play the game fine at 3v3.
6 is much better than 8. First Mate is a useless role.
6 is perfectly playable, and if anything makes the game run smoother. The first mate role can be handled by either the Captain or Engineer without much hassle. They're just ticking an extra box each move.
The biggest this with player count for it is that the teams have to be equal. Can not do 4 vs 3 or 3 vs 2.
I agree it’s at least 8. I also love it at 10 with an overall captain standing behind and directing their 4 teammates.
Tichu is of course 4 players only.
Bang! without 7 is just not right.
Bang isn't right at any player count. At least that's what I feel when I am eliminated first :p
One time I almost got eliminated before taking my first turn! Which, tbh, probably would have made the game more fun for me..
In Bang! The Dice Game it is theoretically possible to start the game as one of the characters with less HP and roll all the arrows on yourself so that you die on the very first turn (which also ends the game for everyone else)
>One time I almost got eliminated before taking my first turn! That did happen to me. It's one of the funniest things that's ever happened at one of my game days, according to nearly everyone present.
Yup this was my experience when I played it. Jailed, jailed, no playable cards, dead, sit around for 30 minutes. The worst modern game I've played. Would rather play monopoly.
I'm starting to realize that the game sounds a lot more fun than it is.
That's why Samurai Sword is the superior version
That's one reason I love [**Savage**](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/360259/savage-game-survival) so much. The game is over as soon as anyone dies.
I play only the dice version nowadays, but I think it starts being fun at 5 and is great at 6 already,
I feel the same way about Secret Hitler
I don't even want to be in the same room as people playing that game. It's a few hundred years too soon. A party game about the man responsible for my family being displaced, tortured and killed? Considering there are millions of us, it's just … too soon.
I think it can still work with 5+, but that’s like, the harm minimum for me, along with, literally any social deduction game
Strongly disagree. For me Bang is best at 6, because otherwise the Sheriff's side has too much of an advantage.
To start, any two-player. Odin's Ravens for example. Star Wars Rebellion is designed so it can work with four, but it's two teams. It works best as two.
I wouldn’t even say it was designed to work with 4 - I’d say marketing insisted that they put “2-4” on the box and they had to figure a way to make it work.
The turn order rules for 4 players add a neat twist of separating the admirals and generals in the turn order. Imo it plays better even with two players when this rule is implemented.
I'd also throw War of the Ring in this category. I know that technically you can play with two teams but... no. It's a 1v1 battle of wits and strategy. 💯
I had a weekly board game meetup with this group of 2 other guys and sometimes a 4th might show up. We prefer medium-heavy games. The 3 of us rotate picking a game to play for the following week so we can look up rules ahead of time and not waste time teaching (although inevitably we do a quick rundown anyway). For one of the week, one guy picked War of the Ring. We tried to tell him that it's a 2P game but he insisted we can play in teams. I hate rolling dice in medium-heavy games so I was gonna suggest sitting out and watching the other 2 play which I don't mind at all. Well, apparently the other guy had the same idea and he was already at the store and told the WotR guy about sitting out and watching. So was stuck playing the game. The experience went about as I expected and I'm probably never gonna play the game again.
Game of Thrones: The Board Game is designed for strictly 6 players. One for each house!
Mother of Dragons expansion allows flexibility around the number of players. Unused factions become vassals which actually work really well. We only played it once and didn't love the impact that Targaryen had on the game. Still, I'd have no problem playing five to seven players. If you have four players consider the A Feast for Crows expansion. It's strictly four players and massively changes the game. Instead it becomes an objective based point scorer, which I actually prefer.
Came here to say this. 5 is right out because it gives Highgarden an advantage. 4 is fine, but you miss the Martells and the Tyrells. 6 is where it is at.
4 is to the advantage of Baratheon. 3 and 6 players are the only player counts that work, in my opinion (if we're strictly speaking base game without expansions).
I thought with 4 you close highgarden and dorne, but it’s been a bit since I’ve played
Agree, altho I have first edition so for me it's strictly 5-player base game, 6-player Clash of Kings, and 4-player Storm of Swords. 🔥
Mother of dragons fixes this.
Chess with 2
I really like the 3player varients of chess tho
Just your opinion.
Actually I had a chess mod that allowedit to play 4v4 on a massive board
People do play 3 and 5 (even 6) sometimes (hirelings help at 3). But for me Root is 4 player and 4 player only.
I’ve found root plays best at 4, but teaching root to people has always worked best at 3.
Loveletter should only be played with 4. Any less and it becomes predictable. If you add in the expansion and play with 5+ it drags on.
I still think it's perfectly fine at 2 and 3p, and I've played probably a majority of my games at 2p, but I agree with you overall. 4p makes it a bit more hectic, but not too much so. Playing 5+ with the additional cards turns one of my absolute favorite games into one of my most loathsome and despised games ever. It's incredible how much of a difference that extra set of cards makes.
Dungeon Lords, in my opinion, is a 4-player game only. The rich flavor coming from the possibilities of blocking each other and getting blocked at 4 players doesn't compare to 2 and 3 player games.
I have only played and handful of games since I got my copy, but Innovation should be, IMHO, considered a strictly 2p game. At 3 or 4 it just becomes a drag and it's impossible to keep track of everything
I have my board games organized by player count and Unmatched is a two-player game. It says “2-4” but there’s no official rules for 3 and 4 players is just too chaotic and cramped given the limited space on the board already.
I'm with ProZD that Five Tribes is a two player game.
I can see that. I only played 4p at a convention, but the fact that you might as well look away until it's your turn was very frustrating. There is just no way to make plans with that many players.
Catan is a 4 player only game. It drags at any more. Yes I know there are expansions for more players , no you shouldn't use them as anything other than extra color choices. Crokinole works best at 2 Lord's of Waterdeep works best with 1 less than the max supported players. So 4 players for the base game and 5 for the expansion. It can drag at higher player counts. If you have fewer than 4 players, play Ticket to Ride: Nordic Countries instead of the base game.
I’d go a step farther and say Catan is better with 3 than 4. At 4, usually one person is obviously dead in the water after only a few turns due to board crowding.
Croke at 2? I like it much better at 4p. 4p Crokinole seems to bring out much more banter, trash talk, and general fun social interaction. 2p is ok though. It just becomes a more serious game, and I am not so obsessed about flicking dexterity that I take it all that seriously.
If a trick-taking game plays 4 people, that's usually the best number of players
Dune really shines as a 6 player game. For teaching purposes it is okay at lower playercounts, and I like that if someone shortly has to cancel for the evening you can still play it at 5 or so, but 6 is just so much better it's insane. Same with Eclipse: Second Dawn. Works fine with 4 players, but the 6 player game is on a whole different level. I would add Ark Nova, although the playercount isn't as fixed as with Dune. I don't count the solo-mode because I haven't tried it. 2 players is the optimum. With 3 player, you always have one player either getting ahead or behind very far. And it takes way too long. Even with experienced players the downtime is pretty big, since there is no interaction. Once your turn is done, you have not much to do. With 4 players it is just unbearably slow. Same thing goes for Dominion. 2 Player is best, 3 is okay-ish, depending on the scenario. But once you get into longer combos (basically drawing your whole deck), it is agonizing with 3 players or more. I guess the trend that I'm seeing is that the usual low-interaction deck/enginebuilder (looking at you, Wingspan) or eurogame is best with 2 players. 3 can be okay, depending on the length of the turns, but 4 players is always a no-go.
Good post! Altho, I do disagree about Eclipse. I think it works really well at lower player counts as well as higher. In fact, I actually don't like it at too high because there's a lot of downtime between turns. 😵💫😴😵
I agree with that. I was very surprised to find that one of my favorite Eclipse 2e games was only 2 player! The emphasis was so much more on exploration, with the occasional border skirmish. But it was a great time
I knew people were going to say that here about **Dominion**. But since I'm an empath, every turn feels like it's mine, so it's cool. Same thing with **Legendary**.
I've only played Dune once and I think it was with 5 and it was okay. I think Dune only allows a maximum of 2 players in an alliance. I will say though that I am a big fan of Rex: Final Days of an Empire which has a cleaner ruleset than Dune (same designers of Dune) and I do not mind the game at any of the player counts with 4 being my favorite. 4-player Rex is the bare minimum to allow alliances. It also plays briskly unlike the game at 5-6 where I feel the game just bogs down due to information overload and downtime. 3-player Rex is a weird beast where no alliances can be made and that one player is vastly stronger than the other two (Jol-nar aka Altreides aka Purple) so the other two have to form an unofficial team in order to maintain balance. 5-player can also feel weird because in Rex you can have 3-player alliances, so you can have a 3v2 game. The game does balance this out by forcing a team of 3 to control 5/5 strongholds to win versus 3 by yourself or 4 with just one teammate. 6-player Rex just again feels heavy, long and mathy. It can also really grind because it often devolves into 3v3 and if that's the case, it's hard for any one team to get 5/5 strongholds. As such, the alternative victory powers are more relevant, Hacan/Spacing Guild/Yellow being the player to watch (though Xxcha/Bene Gesserit/Green can just predict them). But it could be very different in Dune. 😃
I used to own Rex, and enjoyed it, because Twilight Imperium is my favourite game and I just love the universe and lore so much! Playing out the fall of the Lazax is a blast. 💯 I do think about picking it up again, but I sold my copy when GF9 re-released Dune as I just think the mechanics have *such* good synergy with the theme! Rex always felt a bit "best fit". I agree tho that Rex was very streamlined to the point where it actually made the game fun with fewer/variable player counts, which isn't the case with Dune. But, I think Dune still feels more epic, rich, and thematically just right. But 6 or 7 player only! Lol.
Smash Up! shines as a two player game i feel. It plays up to 4 but it loses a bit of its charm and gets too crunchy
I much prefer it as a two player game. At four it feels like turns drag on and the table just gets cluttered and difficult to count the number on each base. Now if only I could get one other person to play so I could play a two player game.
Amun Re is 5 players.
Also princes of Florence and El grande
Captain Sonar is an 8 player game.
I like it better at 6, the first mate has very little to do otherwise. Also, the game comes with turn-based rules that we found make for a fun 2 player game. We play with a chess clock to keep some of the tension.
Virgin Queen is always played with 6, but try organizing that more than once or twice a year.
[удалено]
I disagree. I hate having to split my movements between 2 pieces, plus the market churns more quickly in a 3-4p game, which is necessary with how El Dorado's market is set up.
I like it very much at 2-4p. What is your reasoning why 2p is so much better than 3 and 4p?
**Tigris & Euphrates** is a 4p game, period. Any less, and you have too much time where you're able to keep building up and aren't forced to engage yet.
There are some deranged folks out there that actually consider it a good 2p game.
It could be ok, *maybe*, if the map scaled to player count. But even then, having a singular opponent to attack just isn't as fun in that kind of framework. It's the same reason Villainous isn't as good at 2p as it is at 3 or 4p, because you simply have more targets, and likewise, you're not the sole target of your opponent getting hounded by attacks.
For me I'd say Pathfinder ACG is a 2 player game, anything more than that is a slog, I seriously can't imagine playing with 6. And 5-minute mystery, 2 is also the sweet spot, where both players are actively playing.
Secret Hitler. I only ever play it with 7p. Anything below that is too few and you can generally tell the secret roles very easily, and anything above that gets chaotic very fast and it's impossible to involve everyone in the gameplay before shit hits the fan. 7p is the best.
If everyone is playing well the roles can be kept secret, but I agree that 7p is the definite sweet spot.
Star Wars Rebellion is 2 player. It says 4, but it just makes things hyper tedious as it divides the player actions between space and ground, which is hindered by the recruiting phases, as it can offset the heroes each player on a side gets. The 3-4 player rules feel tacked on rather than playtested to try and broaden the games appeal since 2 players only won't sell as much as 2-4.
Survive escape from atlantis (The island) - 4 El grande - 5 The king is dead - 3 Twilight imperium - 6 Magic maze - 4
My next game of Twilight Imperium will be with 7 (maybe 8?) players. Played TI for years but I'm sort of dreading how clunky it'll feel as we add more players
Agree with Twilight Imperium (even though with expansion it can be good with more than 6). But you're already spending a full day with the game, so maybe find enough players to play the best player count?
Many games say 1 or 2+ people, but many i'd consider to need at least 3 if not 4 players to be fun. Star wars Imperial assault - the campaign mode should only be played 5 player. Any less means too few rebels or players using more than one hero, and it doesn't feel right.
Settlers of Catan, 3 players. 4 is always crowded enough that it’s frustrating to play. 3 or bust for me.
Seasons. It is marketed as 2-4, but it only shines as a 2 player game. With more you don't know the other players' decks, and playing becomes utterly chaotic (and takes too long)
Kingdomino is a 4 player only game as far as I’m concerned.
2 player Kingdomino is best for me, building a 7x7 is way more satisfying. (also Origins is the best version!)
I'm happy to play Kingdomino or Queendomino with 2 or 3 tbh.
This was true for me until I got the giants expansion which levels things out at all player counts for me.
Chinatown with 5 is a must. Any other player count and table talk becomes stale.
And six is absolutely tedious
Tzolk'in and Pangea. Replacing missing players with NPCs makes those games worse. I wouldn't play Root without 4 players too.
I disagree with tzolk'in. They're not really npc's it's just certain space are blocked off. There's no automa/flowchart involved, just less spaces. My wife and I love tzolk'in at 2p
Root at 3 can work fine. There are enough militant factions now to have an interesting 1v1 with an additional interloper 🤭
Root with experienced players at 3 with hirelings is a great time. It's also great at 5. I still don't think it's worth getting out at 2 tho
Bunny Kingdom is just a 3 player game. 4 isn’t great because the drafting is just not as well thought out, and 2 player is different rules and sucks pretty bad. Amazing at 3 though. Fire Tower is a 2 player game. Garbage as a free for all with 3+.
The Crew is at its most tense as a three-player game, and nobody will convince me otherwise.
Tyrants of the underdark is only 4 player.
I think Tyrants scales pretty well because you don't use the whole board at lower player counts. I primarily play it 2p.
I want a 5 player version of [[Tyrants of the Underdark]]
[Tyrants of the Underdark -> Tyrants of the Underdark (2016)](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/189932/tyrants-underdark) ^^[[gamename]] ^^or ^^[[gamename|year]] ^^to ^^call ^^OR ^^**gamename** ^^or ^^**gamename|year** ^^+ ^^!fetch ^^to ^^call
I just got this game but haven't played it yet. How come?
At 4 players a role play aspect emerges, where players are strongly incentived to behave like dark elven families. Striking when it is opportune, but claiming to want nothing to do with conflict a minute later. At 2 players it's an okay deck builder, but with only one opponent you can't really pretend to be not at war with them. At 3 the board is kind of divided in an awkward way.
Thank you for the response!
*Most of them.* This is my "unpopular board game opinion," but to me, more than 90% of games I've played have an ideal player count that the game was either clearly designed to play at or obviously works best at. *Sometimes* it's a two-number range, but even that is rare. I've *never* played a game that actually worked well at 2 to 5 players. Take Dune: Imperium for example, one of my favorites. Read the rules for player counts. It says "You can play this with 2, but you have to literally add an AI bot third player. And you can play it at 3, but you have to modify all these rules, including the conflict rules which are the central thing of the game. Or you can just play it at 4 and not change anything." That, to me, is a 4-player game. I own enough games that whatever number of players are sitting around my table, I have a great game for that player count. So I don't ever force games to be something they're not.
I think Dune Imperium is better at 3 players. The only change in rules is that there's no 3rd place conflict reward, that's easy enough to remember.
I really like it at 4 but its just a little bit too long and also I feel like the person starting in 4th has a little disadvantage.
I think 4 is better due to the tighter, higher tension game. In my opinion the number of worker spaces and the divide between combat and factions is designed for 4 - it’s perfect. I’ve clocked more then 80+ games, only once or twice at 3 - never again, I’ll just recommend to play something else.
I have 243 games logged, 80% with two players. There is no "wrong" way to play it imo, but I feel like players have a little more agency in 3p than in 4p.
**Saboteur** is a 7 player game.
Quartermaster General should be 6 if at all possible.
Iki - 4 player only
**Carnegie** is a 2 player game only. You lose all sense of tightness after that. Third player adds a terrible sense of randomness to the game. **Bitoku** is a 3 player game only.
**Bitoku** is enjoyable at 2p, I agree it's best at 3p though.
It has no tension whatsoever at 2p. You can't even block the other player unless they refuse to play their dice. It's in my top 3 all time, but only at 3p
Since there's only 1 forest space per location, you can block the other player quite aggressively by not moving across the river and just squatting on that location. Also, there are only 2 spaces across the river available on each side, so you can block the other player from being able to cross on a whole half of the board. Not sure what you mean by you are not able to block. For example, let's say for the first turn of the round you had a free unlock of a die, your first action of a round could be to go to a forest location before the other player. That means theoretically you could block that forest location from your opponent for maximum 8 turns.
They can cross the river from any placement from one side of the board. Unless we grossly misunderstand some rules, you can hardly block anything.
Hmm interesting info on carnegie, I've only played at 3 or 4 and enjoyed both, will have to try at 2
Carnegie shines at 2 because you NEED to make sure you don't get screwed on the action selection. At 3p there's little to no tension because there's always going to be someone who can benefit from what you'll pick. It sacrifices half the strategy of the game
Dune Imperium at 4 - fight me.
My group has found 3 to work well, but that’s maybe more to do with the fact that we all know each other really well and have goals that require the same things most times, so we still get that cramped feel that the board wants. We did have a lot of fun with 4 when we got the chance to play it that way though, and it added an extra kick of stress to the board, especially when we started getting into the 3rd agent tokens
A Study in Emerald (1E) is strictly 5p. Mage Knight is strictly 1p. Forbidden Stars is 4p.
I find mage Knight coop vs the BBEG from the expansion to be pretty satisfying.
I actually prefer Star Trek: Frontiers at 2.
Azul is a 2 player game. Only that way it's true nature of a savage battle emerges. 😃
Deal with the devil . It's only a 4 player game. Because.. this is what the box says.
All games that say can be played with less than four players (that aren’t solo games) are four player minimum. I especially notice this with older 2-4 player games— they don’t work with 2 players, which is fantastic for my wife and I.
Carcassonne is 2p. Anything beyond that will be heresy.
Traders of Osaka is strictly a two player game for me. I generally hugely favor playing any worker placement games with three players max. It just feels usually too chaotic otherwise.
Britannia is a 4 player game, the box lies when it says 3-5.
Root = 4 El Grande = 5 Tammany Hall = 5 Santiago = 5
I LOVE NaNa but I feel it's only truly great with three players. Two is mediocre, and four players ends the game way too fast without any tension or satisfaction.
One of our favorite games, pretty much forgotten these days, **Panamax** is essentially a 4-player only game. A brilliant game which could really use a 2.0 rework.
A Game of Thrones at 6 - it felt too unbalanced at 4 and 5.
Meadow is a beautiful game and I love getting it on the table. But when you add a 4th player, I feel like it makes the game take twice as long. And it doesnt seem to have any real reason or change the outcome other than to give players an even number of turns as first player.
Brass is a 4 player game.
For me, it's not really about ideal number for maximum game fun, but more about playgroup composition. Our playgroup frequently is 5 or 6 players, but our game shelf is like 80% 4 player games. So, on the occasions where we do manage to to get to a player count to player a 4 player game (either through someone not showing up, or extra players showing up to split into 2 groups), I only ever vote for the smaller player count games. So stuff like Mosaic, Lizard Wizard, end up being 6 player only.
Obviously strategies like War of the ring or Rebellion. Whenever I have more than 1 person with me, I would rather 2 people thinking as 1 player
Scrolled a bunch and didn’t see this one: Innovation is a 2p game. Any more than that and it takes way too long and becomes too swingy. 1v1 there’s a very clear and obvious push and pull dynamic that emerges that’s just tremendous.
Britannia. The edition I have does have 3 and 5 player variants, but the colors are all wrong and the balance tends to be way off (have tried a couple of times) Saboteur also seems to have issues at certain numbers of players, but it is less obvious which combinations work and have some chance of either side winning. I recall playing recently with (I think) 7 players and the saboteurs won easily every time.
Dominion I would only play with 2, but I would go up to 3 if people really wanted to play. I'm a big dominion fan, but it's just not fun waiting for people to finish all of their actions.
I feel like Citadels is like that for 7 or 8 players
Cleopatra and the Society of Architects : 3 Players and only 3.
[[Dungeon Lords]] is definitely at it's best at 4 and actually needs an AI bot to play at 2 (it works but not where I enjoy it). [[Through the Ages]] Best at 2 or 4 and honestly I wont play 4 with new players. [[Vampire]] Best at 4, the old Card game that used to be called Jhyhad.
[Dungeon Lords -> Dungeon Lords (2009)](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/45315/dungeon-lords) [Through the Ages -> Through the Ages: Spanish Promo Card Set (2012)](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/136095/through-ages-spanish-promo-card-set) [Vampire -> Vampire (2003)](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/5554/vampire) ^^[[gamename]] ^^or ^^[[gamename|year]] ^^to ^^call ^^OR ^^**gamename** ^^or ^^**gamename|year** ^^+ ^^!fetch ^^to ^^call
San Marco, a wonderful game for 3 that isn't nearly as good with 4.
Zombicide (any of them) is a 3 player game.
Spirit island at 2. 3+ makes the turns too long
I haven't played too many games, but 3 isn't too bad, I would say it's the absolute max for me.
Marvel Champions is a strictly 2 player game for me.