Quantcast
Channel: Le Havre | BoardGameGeek
Viewing all 5563 articles
Browse latest View live

Thread: Le Havre:: General:: If I like The Castles of Burgundy, will I like Le havre ? (2 players)

0
0

by Nidale

Most of the time (90%) I play 2 players games. I like The Castles of Burgundy, will I like Le havre with only 2 players?

Reply: Le Havre:: General:: Re: If I like The Castles of Burgundy, will I like Le havre ? (2 players)

0
0

by Cannibal Ox

They are totally unrelated games. Nothing like each other at all.

Reply: Le Havre:: General:: Re: If I like The Castles of Burgundy, will I like Le havre ? (2 players)

0
0

by Elltrain

The games are not similar. If your question is, "Does Le Havre play well with 2?", the answer is yes. In fact I think it is best with 2.

Reply: Le Havre:: General:: Re: If I like The Castles of Burgundy, will I like Le havre ? (2 players)

0
0

by tkzubaran

Games are completely different, also Le Havre plays best with 3 IMO. Based on your ratings Le Havre may not suit your taste.

Reply: Le Havre:: General:: Re: If I like The Castles of Burgundy, will I like Le havre ? (2 players)

0
0

by bigloo33

Don't know much about Castles, but Le Havre is wonderful. It plays great with 2, but better with 3. I would say that it would be a substantial step up on depth and complexity, from other games you own now.

Might also look at Agricola, too.;)

Reply: Le Havre:: General:: Re: If I like The Castles of Burgundy, will I like Le havre ? (2 players)

0
0

by opticode

If it will help, we love Castles of Burgundy as a 2 player game, and would put the following in the same category:

* Le Havre
* Agricola
* Troyes
* Trajan

Reply: Le Havre:: Variants:: Re: can I play with all buildings in any number of players?

0
0

by davypi

I want to preface this by saying that I normally respect Gregorz opinions on Le Havre, but in this particular case, I think actual experience trumps speculation.

For our two player house variant, we start with all of the 2P buildings plus one other we both agree on (usually Hardware). Take the remaining buildings (and sometimes the Football stadium) shuffle and deal them evenly to each player. Then have a four round draft where each player picks a card and then swaps hands. We then shuffle everything and deal as normally. (Sometimes we simply shuffle and pull eight instead of drafting.) It does play differently than 2P standard, but it still mostly balanced. We've played this way at least 20 times. The only real problem we run into is that the bank and the Town Hall start to become very powerful. Its the only issue we've not yet been able to balance.


[02] Sawmill
There are enough construction buildings. This one would make the 2p game even too easy.


Probably true, but it does not unbalance the game. This is actually more interesting to put in the game because of the 14 point value on the card. It changes the dynamic of first round acquisition of clay and steel.


[04] Joinery
Too easy access to money in the early game. With more players there is more competition to wood than in 2p. Players would be able to buy Wooden ships too easily.


Possibly, but you are also forgetting that having more buildings in the game means that you need more wood in order to get them built. This may be groupthink at work, but we rarely use the Joinery in the first place and the 3 wood -> 8 point is a pretty bad deal compared to other buildings. We are often loathe to build it. In our case, its more of a hinderance because somebody has to bite the bullet and build it in order to get to the better stuff underneath.


[06] Hardware Store
Wouldn't hurt, but I don't like the easy access to bricks in 2p here.


As with wood above, having extra access to brick is not terribly offsetting. Since you have added more buildings to the stack, you need more brick in the game.


[11] Arts Centre
Utterly useless.


Agreed. This is the only building that has never made it into our 2P game.


[13] Black Market
Likely over-powered in 2p.


You would think so, but its not. Unless it sneaks to the top of a pile, by time its built you are already at the point in the game where you are passing up offers to use buildings. The first time we included it in a two player game, it only got used once. I think three times in one game was the most. It also adds an interesting strategy change. Maybe you don't want to take that two iron because your opponent can hit the black market for the same two iron + something else. We did have one game recently where the black market could have been overpowered, but because we both realized the consequences of taking offers, we were dancing around each other to prevent that from happening. It added an extra layer of strategy and made it that much better of a game. In fact, because of that, we've talked about possibly making creating a variant where the black market is a "third round start building."


[15] Local Court
Useless in 2p. Players will get rid of their loans via shipping more easily. In multiplayer it is not guaranteed that you'll ship often enough as there is much more competition for that.


I would not say useless as our group prefers loan strategies. As with other comments above, you are also forgetting to take into consideration that there are larger building stacks. Because the stacks are larger, pursuing a few-ships/heavy-building strategy is plausible. You may need the local court to help with the loans if you don't get enough boats. Still, I will admit we rarely include it.


[17] Wharf
One Wharf is enough, you don't need another one.


Need no, but similar to my comments with the Joinery, sometimes its a rather interesting annoyance to have in the building stack.


[19] Grocery Market
Rather useless, but unharmful.


Actually, given how fast food escalates in a 2P game, being able to take 8 food can be a life saver. It does get occasional use in a 2P game but yes, mostly harmless. As with the sawmill, the point payout for the building is what makes it interesting.


[24] Storehouse
Rather useless due to (rather) easy access to the Shipping Line.


Agreed. Rarely makes it into our draft.


[26] Dock
Over-powered in 2p. A minimum of 3 ships per player is the norm.


Definitely agreed. This is the only card we actually have a 2P ban on.


[27] Bridge over the Seine
See Storehouse.


Somewhat agree. Players never actually use it in a two player game, but as with some other buildings above, its good for endgame points given what you spend to acquire it. 2 Iron -> 16 points is a really good deal.


In addition to the above, sometimes we will also remove some 2P buildings (i.e. the seldom used tannery) then increase the number of rounds in the draft accordingly. We've had some pretty interesting games where, for example, there was no cokery, so the wood to charcoal conversion became VERY important. There only three rules you really need to follow. 1) You need to be able to make bricks. 2) you need to be able to make steel. 3) you need to be able to convert every good into money/points. You simply need consider the ramifications of what you are doing. The thing to always remember is that whatever consequences or advantages such a change brings, they apply to both players. Very few changes to the building stack are unbalanced, they simply force you to change your strategy. Le Havre can actually be a very versatile game if you're willing to experiment with the cards and it gets even better once you start monkeying with the special buildings deck.

Another level that is fun to consider is rigging the build piles. You still want to order the three piles from high to low, but having a game where the claymound can be bought on the first turn or where the only wharf is buried underneath 6 or 7 other cards also change the way you play.

(Edits for grammar only.)

Reply: Le Havre:: General:: Re: If I like The Castles of Burgundy, will I like Le havre ? (2 players)

0
0

by Karlsen

Le Havre is different and somewhat heavier than Burgen Burgen Burgen Burgen Burgen aka Castles of Burgundy. That said I like them both two player.

Reply: Le Havre:: Variants:: Re: can I play with all buildings in any number of players?

0
0

by Ponton

Thank you, David, for the input. You're right it may be interesting to include some of the other buildings. I was rather trying to justify why they aren't included in 2p games. Most of them add extra stuff that really isn't needed in 2p anyway, even with more buildings around.

However, cool to hear that it works for you. Gives me some inspiration to try something like this myself.

Reply: Le Havre:: General:: Re: If I like The Castles of Burgundy, will I like Le havre ? (2 players)

0
0

by bionic1982

i saw an interview on www.cliquenabend.de with uwe rosenberg where he presentes an essen 2012 release for an 2player only le havre game - so something like agricola for 2 players only i think.

dunno if there are further information already online...

Reply: Le Havre:: General:: Re: If I like The Castles of Burgundy, will I like Le havre ? (2 players)

0
0

by Nidale

bionic1982 wrote:

i saw an interview on www.cliquenabend.de with uwe rosenberg where he presentes an essen 2012 release for an 2player only le havre game - so something like agricola for 2 players only i think.

dunno if there are further information already online...

Are you refering to Agricola: All Creatures Big and Small ?

Reply: Le Havre:: General:: Re: If I like The Castles of Burgundy, will I like Le havre ? (2 players)

0
0

by bionic1982

yes - and in the video uwe talked about 2 player only game in style of le havre for essen 2012 planned release

Reply: Le Havre:: General:: Re: If I like The Castles of Burgundy, will I like Le havre ? (2 players)

0
0

by bigloo33

Don't really get what is wrong with the 2-p versions of Le Havre and Agricola, but I guess if these provide a different enough experience, or fill a lighter game niche.....

Reply: Le Havre:: Sessions:: Re: iOS Le Havre scores - am I really that bad?

0
0

by Ansbach

OK, so I'm in the same boat (ship?) - I've played quite a few games on the iPad and we aren't scoring that high either. I typically play four-player against a buddy with two AIs, and our scores are usually in the 150-180 range. The AI scores are usually in the 120-150 range.

I'm not super experienced at this game, but I would love to know if I'm still doing something fundamentally wrong because I'm having a hard time seeing how I could score too much higher. I know the basics and have read all the forum posts here on strategy. If I'm going for a shipping strategy I typically buy ships early, use the Shipping Line 2-4 times per game shipping coke, cattle, maybe steel, etc. I still make the ocassional sub-optimal move, but I don't think I'm making any big or rookie mistakes.

I think the crappy AI must be holding back our scores to some degree... I just have no idea how much.

For those of you playing 4 player on the iPad - what are your typical scores?

Reply: Le Havre:: Sessions:: Re: iOS Le Havre scores - am I really that bad?

0
0

by JohnRayJr

Scores are lower in a 4-player game, and lower still in a 5-player game. I don't have a lot of experience with 4-player, but I would estimate that 170-200 would be the range of competitive scores most of the time.

Reply: Le Havre:: Sessions:: Re: iOS Le Havre scores - am I really that bad?

0
0

by icedrakin

I play 5 player games with the hardest level. IMO, winning score from 100 to 150 is reasonable. Mostly, I win with the score from 120 to 130. AI players also get score from 80 to 120.

Thread: Le Havre:: General:: Some observations playing as a 2 player game

0
0

by Macrawn

I've been playing this game a lot lately mostly with the ios app which by the way is a great way to get a game going that can take place over a series of days.

I know most people say this game is best with 3 players, it might be, but there are some things about the 2 player game that that I don't think you get as much with the 3 player version that make it very interesting.

In a 3 player game it becomes increasingly difficult to predict future moves of players. You get an element of chaos, making predicting more than one round of moves difficult because you have to correctly predict what each player will do, correctly. In a two player game you can usually narrow it down to a couple choices. When you have a couple choices between 2 additional players that adds considerably more possibilities as to what the board will look like when it gets back to your turn.

In a 2 player game you have one person to focus on and your turn is every other turn. It makes it more interesting to determine if you want to try and deny your opponent something, and it's easier to calculate the consequences of that move. It makes the game much more like chess which has no element of chaos in it. Every move has a predictable consequence which can be understood and planned for. You know what the board will look like when you get your next turn, or at least you know the strongest possibilities as to what the board will look like when you get your turn. In a 3 player game there's a lot more uncertainty. You have to rely more on flexibility, which is generally true with games that have elements of randomness or chaos. You have greater control over managing the other players in a 2 player game. I know people want to believe that a game without dice doesn't have any elements of chaos in it. The chaos does come in with the uncertainty of what the other players will do. Too many possible options. Try predicting a future move in a 3 player chess game if there were such a thing. Very difficult and only effective one or two moves ahead. So you have to trade long term thinking for flexibility, sort of a war game type approach. (that's not a bad thing at all, I like those kinds of games, it's just a different type of game play)

I've got a history with playing chess which is really the ultimate 1 on 1 competitive game because it has zero chaos factor.

Like chess when you walk away from a 2 player game of Le Havre, you know your decisions directly caused you to win or lose. There was no random thing that happened, or chaos and uncertainty from having more than 2 players. You are managing your position and at the same time your single opponent's position and balancing the two objectives.

I wouldn't disagree if someone said that the game is more fun with 3, it probably is. But as far as competition element goes it seems pretty ideal for 2.

I totally understand why people would not want to play this with 5 players. The chaos would be exponentially higher. Maybe 3 player is the perfect balance between a little chaos and the ability to manage what your opponents are doing.

With 2 players though, the chaos is totally taken out making this game play a lot like chess and for a lot of competitive people I think 2 player may be where this game shines the most.


Reply: Le Havre:: General:: Re: Some observations playing as a 2 player game

0
0

by NBAfan

Indeed, the two player game is pretty good.

Reply: Le Havre:: General:: Re: Some observations playing as a 2 player game

0
0

by cjfoster

I think I've fallen for the 3p Le Havre hype. I have more opportunities to play 2p games than other player counts, and I've passed on Le Havre (which I own), usually sticking to 2p Agricola. You've convinced me to give 2p Le Havre a closer look.

Reply: Le Havre:: News:: Re: New LeHavre Hamachi network

0
0

by bigg00

Hi,

I created another one.

Name: Lehavre_00
Password: Lehavre_00

Please join. Thanks
Viewing all 5563 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images