Andrew Perron pwerdna at gmail.com
Sat Nov 22 09:03:08 PST 2014

On 11/21/2014 10:44 PM, Tom Russell wrote:
> On Friday, November 21, 2014 9:47:02 PM UTC-5, Andrew Perron wrote:
>> Interesting. (We've definitely managed to lose Island when the starting
>> difficulty's turned up.) But that's definitely been on the To-Get list for a
>> while. Pandemic's on there more vaguely, since we don't often get above three
>> players available at once.
> Oh, you don't need more than 3 for Pandemic; it plays 2-4 in the base set (2-5 with the expansion, IIRC). The game is actually easier (i.e., it's actually possible to win) with *less* players because there's a limit on the total number of turns that you can take. With 2 players, each player's going to have something like 12 turns, and our win rate is about 30-40% (pretty high for a co-op!); with four, each player's going to have six or seven turns, and our win rate is two games out of forty. PANDEMIC's definitely just as much fun, and as addictive, with two players, and is well-suited for 2 or 3 players.

Ahhhhhh. Interesting... maybe it's just on there vaguely for cost reasons.

Andrew "NO .SIG MAN" "Juan" Perron, so many board games we want to play tho

More information about the racc mailing list