Just bought "Revolution!" and it's good fun
 

I don't have much more to say, really.

First game was with a group of relative casual gamers with limited board game experience. Second game was with a group of fairly experienced board gamers, none of whom had played Revolution! before.

The pieces and bidding cards looked intimidating to the newbies, but they picked them up very quickly (since the average four-step turn is so simple). The experienced players went fairly quickly into all sorts of analytical modes. At one point they were even passing paper notes around to each other to try to influence each other's bids.

A fun game, and I'm keeping it with my Munchkin collection for parties. The only slight drawback is the logistical requirement of 3 or 4 players - possibly because the number of influence spaces is fixed to be optimal to that number. I wonder if you could mathematically extrapolate suitable influence spaces for 5 or more players according to group size.

I may get the expansion too.

Re: Just bought "Revolution!" and it's good fun
 

Rather than try to kludge the rules for 5 players, you really SHOULD get the expansion; IMO, it makes the game a lot more fun anyway.

Re: Just bought "Revolution!" and it's good fun
 

If you want to play with more people, it's well worth it. Although The Palace can be played with 4, I find it's significantly more fun with 5/6.

Re: Just bought "Revolution!" and it's good fun
 

I really want to get this game, but the most people I can usually get to game together is myself and my wife. I did see a thread on Board Game Geek for handling two payer games. Has anyone tried to play this game with two players, and if so, did it work? (ie: did you have fun)

Thanks!

Re: Just bought "Revolution!" and it's good fun
 

It's a bidding game, so with two players it would quickly favor the player who gets an early lead, and there will be much less competition in general. You could try to play with some kind of randomized dummy player, I suppose.

Re: Just bought "Revolution!" and it's good fun
 

Oh, I didn't know that!

In that case, I'm definitely looking into it now.

Once again, my dollars are going to SJGames.

And once again, they have richly earned it.

Re: Just bought "Revolution!" and it's good fun
 

I've been forced to improvise when demoing to a single player and found that by simply picking a neutral color and placing 2 cubes onto each location before the game starts will make for a playable 2-player variation. It's not as good as having 3-4 players certainly and sir_pudding is correct that it becomes tough to catch up to someone who manages to take the lead, but it is possible and does make for a decent but not great game.

Re: Just bought "Revolution!" and it's good fun
 

Well you could do something with a dummy. There's what 12 personalities? You could roll say 1d6 to get the number of personalities the dummy bid. Then 1d12 to determine which ones. Then roll 1d3 or 1d2 (coin-flip) for the token used (obviously you don't have to roll for the Merc and Spy). Then roll 1d4 for the amount bid or something. The dummy places influence cubes but otherwise doesn't get tokens or score.

Re: Just bought "Revolution!" and it's good fun
 

I absolutely love Revolution, especially with the expansion and a full six players. What really surprised me was when I saw how they play Revolution here in Austin, though . . .

No, I don't plan to say any more than that. Sorry!

Part of being told where the bodies are buried is that you don't discuss where the bodies are buried. I thought we made that EXPRESSLY clear.

You could, sure, but the real answer is, "Revolution! isn't designed to be a two-player game. Find a third player."

Some games just don't lend themselves to head-to-head play, and Revolution! is one of them.

Re: Just bought "Revolution!" and it's good fun
 

"Find a two-player game, instead." is probably an even better answer. csm wants to play games with his wife, I'm not sure a third player would even be welcome. :)

Re: Just bought "Revolution!" and it's good fun
 

That is true, and I apologize.

Hey, csm, did you see that we're bringing out a new edition of Awful Green Things?

Re: Just bought "Revolution!" and it's good fun
 

For csm, a good two player board game is Munchkin Quest.

The original Munchkin card game really isn't good with just two players, but the board game version is designed to be good fun with two players.

Re: Just bought "Revolution!" and it's good fun
 

Yeah, we picked up Munchkin Quest. I'm just looking for other games to ensure SJGames is flush with cash add to our collection. Revolution looked like an intriguing game, but the third player requirement is making it a harder sell for me. No biggie, though.

I won't hijack the thread for hints on good two player games, though. I'll start another one. EDIT: The thread is over here

Thanks!

Re: Just bought "Revolution!" and it's good fun
 

The problem with 2 player Revolution isn't the number of influence spaces, it's the lack of competition in the bidding.

You have 12 spaces to fight over, with 3-4 people. That's 3-4 "spaces" per player.
Drop to 2 players, and that jumps to 6, which means it's possible for both players to bid on 6 different spaces (the max) and not conflict at all.

There's also far less board manipulation possible with the Apothecary. It pretty much turns into a weak Spy instead.

Revolution is a great game, probably my favorite SJG.

It's also wonderfully intuitive and self-teaching. Every time I demo it, I have a group of people with blank stares and mumblings of "This is confusing"

I assure them, they only need to play 2 turns to understand what's happening. (I also tell them to not bid on Spy or Apothecary for the first few turns)

Every single time, without fail, the game "clicks" for everyone by the end of the second turn, and the game suddenly becomes cutthroat.

Re: Just bought "Revolution!" and it's good fun
 

That's why I'd think you'd want a randomized dummy player instead (or better, just play a two-player game).

Re: Just bought "Revolution!" and it's good fun
 

Better to play a 2 player game. There are a LOT of really good 2 players out there, and most of them are pretty cheap too.

This thread got me thinking about ways to work 2 players though.

The best idea I have involves basically barring certain spaces from play.
By removing them, you shrink the bid board (which increases competition for the remaining ones) as well as reduce the amount of influence spaces in play. It can also help block chained combos.

I'm thinking if you removed
Captain
Magistrate
Merchant
And either Priest or Printer...

It might be workable.

Re: Just bought "Revolution!" and it's good fun
 

The problem with playing without a dummy is that you only have to outguess one other player. What's wrong with my dummy solution?

Re: Just bought "Revolution!" and it's good fun
 

For me it's 1) too much effort in having to roll multiple times every single turn just to fill in the dummy bids and 2) there's no 'outguessing' involved, it turns into random luck if the dummy player (ie dice) wind up blocking my bids or not. That might be OK for you, but it's not what (IMO) this game is about.

I do like Palmer's idea of removing some bidding spaces. I'd drop the Printer, Apothecary, & Mercenary. I might try that the next time my only option is a 2 player game.

Re: Just bought "Revolution!" and it's good fun
 

Just got the expansion too - I found a FLGS that actually lived up to the "friendly" bit and they ordered it in for me.

This big ol' box of game will make it to a few parties and we'll see how it goes over with the gaming group.

Re: Just bought "Revolution!" and it's good fun
 

I must be spoiled; almost every LGS I've been too has been very F indeed. I'm glad you found a good place, and I hope you'll throw more business their way -- in this economy, every bit helps.

Let us know how it turns out!

Re: Just bought "Revolution!" and it's good fun
 

I strongly recommend against removing the Mercenary.
The Merc and Rogue have a very particular role to fill - it enables someone who only has Gold to get back in the game with some Force and Blackmail. It keeps you from being "locked out" if someone manages to get a good chain going.

Imagine a scenario where a player manages to win General, Captain, Innkeeper, Magistrate, Merchant and Rogue. You win nothing and thus have 5 gold. This is under your scenario, so there's no Mercenary.
This means that every turn, they can put blackmail on General and Captain, Force on Innkeeper and Magistrate, blackmail on Merchant, and 5 gold on Rogue. Unless you waste a turn putting all 5 gold on the rogue to tie him, he has you locked down. He's placing 5 influence a turn in most of the high score locations, continually refreshing his stock of force and blackmail, and the only thing you can do is block his 2 blackmail for ONE turn.
The next turn, he splits his 5 gold between Merchant and Rogue... you still need to bid all 5 on the Rogue to get anywhere.
Meanwhile, he gets 5 more influence (and 9 support) and goes into the next round with 2F 2B 5G versus your 2B 3G. You're still screwed.

Merc and Rogue combined break that. He can't cover them both because he can't afford to. Without the Merchant, he has no gold to bid on them. With the Merchant, he only can bid on one, because of the 6 bid limit. And he has to guess which one you're going for... he's screwed either way, because you can just put 1 on both and guarantee getting one. Then you can either beat his rogue-blackmail on the Merchant with your Merc-force, or steal Captain and/or General with your 2 rogue-blackmail because his Merc-force won't help him there.

Removing either the Rogue or the Mercenary would completely upset the balance of the game.
I suggested Captain and Innkeeper because it reduces the number of spaces to fill, and also reduces the amount of force and blackmail in circulation

Re: Just bought "Revolution!" and it's good fun
 

<chuckle> I actually considered exactly the situation you describe before making my post.

You are correct that if that event happened, you'd be screwed. But in a two player game, if one player manages to take any kind of significant lead, it's already going to be nearly impossible to come back, so your best bet is simply to concede the game and start a new one.

To my mind, I'd rather not reduce the number of spaces to fill on the main board but use them all. Nor reduce the amount of force and blackmail in circulation but instead count on the fact that by having more force and blackmail chances, it's nearly impossible for someone to win them all while shutting the other player out. You'd have to be very unlucky (or very out-matched) for the circumstance you describe to happen... and if it did, just concede the game and start again.

The balance of the game is already being upset just by virtue of not having enough people to play the game properly. The only question is how to (hopefully) reduce that imbalance enough to salvage a decent 2-player game from a terrific 3-6 player game.

Having only played 2-player a few times when circumstances forced it on me, I've never tried using this idea, and I'm not planning on deliberately playing 2-player in the future to test it out. So I'd be curious if anyone does try out either variant (mine or Palmer's) and comes back to let us know. ... or preferably plays 2 games, one with each, and compares the two.

Re: Just bought "Revolution!" and it's good fun
 

We actually playtested with a 3rd "ghost" player, and tried it being a die roll. Like someone already said, you can't outsmart a random die roll.

In the end we decided to put 3-4 players on the box. If I had my way though, it would say it is only a 4 player game because while it does function with only 3, 4 is much more fun and complete feeling.