Skip to Content

Euphrat & Tigris - Chat transcript 19 January

3 replies [Last post]
Joined: 12/31/1969

Learning Curve

Random_Person> no, E&T is sitting on my diningroom table... it just hasn't made it "to the table" yet. I'm actually pretty dissinterested in it.
zaiga> Random: why are you desinterested in it then?
Scurra> E&T is a very hard game to get "to the table" IME. But once it's there, it's hard to dislodge!
Scurra> It's one of a very few games I know that a lot of people find hard to understand even after playing it once
Random_Person> Hm. It seems to be a multiplayer version of GO... with more rules. )
Scurra> ...when you "get it" though, it's like a revelation
zaiga> Interesting, E&T is a game I also have trouble brining to the table... the time or the combination of people never seems right
FastLearner> Nah, it's not like Go.
FastLearner> I mean, mostly not.
Scurra> (that would be "Durch die Wuste", wouldn't it? )
zaiga> Random: why do you think it is like Go?
FastLearner> Aye, DdW/TtD is a lot more like Go.
Random_Person> Well, it's a tile laying (read stone laying) territory game... much like go. Only you aren't rewarded for capturing/owning territory... you are rewarded for having your dude in the formation that you play too....
zaiga> Well, you play tiles, that's true
Random_Person> Maybe it's the learning curve that turns us off? I dunno.
zaiga> But the exact location of tiles is often less important in E&T
FastLearner> Yeah. Definitely a learning curve.
Scurra> The learning curve in E&T is very steep
zaiga> I agree that is has a pretty steep learning curve
Random_Person> This is true... and disturbing at the same time.
zaiga> I'm actually surprised that it ranks so high on the Geek
Scurra> Oh, because it's the ultimate "gamer's game" surely?
Scurra> Right up until Puerto Rico, at least
zaiga> That must be it...
Scurra> I mean "non-gamers" will never *ever* understand E&T!
Random_Person> I would actually consider PR the "ultimate gamer's game"...
zaiga> OK, why is it such a good "gamer's game" then?
Random_Person> I don't think that's all that true actually.
Random_Person> I believe I could teach a non-gamer T&E effectively much easier than I could teach a non-gamer to understand the importance of your role choice in PR
Scurra> Ah, now I think the opposite.
zaiga> Well, there's a difference between explaining rules and explaining strategy
Scurra> I agree you could teach someone E&T fairly easily
zaiga> I think "E&T" is harder to grasp
Scurra> but that wouldn't mean they had any idea of what was going on. Whereas in PR the repercussions are more immediate
Random_Person> Exactly. And I think the strategy in T&E is a bit on the lighter side than PR
zaiga> The rules for PR are more straightforward
Scurra> How often have you played it, RP?
Random_Person> There's a bit of Guillotine in T&E
FastLearner> My limited experience with E&T says: the first time I played E&T I lost horribly and was mostly confused. The first time I played PR I immediately understood how to choose roles in order to benefit me and hinder my opponents.
zaiga> Fast: agreed
Tube_Maxwell> Is the cause and effect not so evident in E&T?
Random_Person> Played what, T&E or Guillotine?
Scurra> I don't think it is, no
zaiga> Tube: it is very easy to mess up in E&T
zaiga> Tube: and it is very hard to see what you did wrong
Tube_Maxwell> I think that the farther away the concequences are from your move, the harder it is to "get"
Random_Person> In the one time that I've played it... and the mock games I've played with myself, I think the cause and effect is more evident in E&T than it is in say PR.
Scurra> Yes, and that's why PR has supplanted it, I think
Scurra> Yeah, I think I guessed you hadn't played it much!
Scurra> (that's not meant as a criticism, btw!)
Random_Person> I say that for this reason: non-gamers, playing PR, think about "me me me"... *I* need colonist's, I'll Mayor! They don't think of the possible outcomes for their opponents
Scurra> In PR you can almost always point to the move that cost you the game. In E&T it isn't nearly so easy
Random_Person> wherease non-gamers player T&E MUST see. The immediacies of a certain tile play are in their face as they look at the board. They don't need to glance around to other peoples boards or whatever to see the outcome of their play.
Scurra> And once again, I think I have to disagree with you.
Scurra> The immediate effects of a tile-play in E&T are less than the longer term ones
FastLearner>> Though I'd argue that they can't glance around at other people's boards, making it more difficult.
Random_Person> Well, thats where my Guillotine reference comes in there FL...
zaiga> RP: that would mean you never look ahead more than a turn
Random_Person> When playing T&E, you kinda have to hold on until your turn... then size up the board and pick the best move. There really isn't a way to say "he'll do this and she'll do that" because you have NO idea what tiles people are holding....
FastLearner> Again with my limited experience, E&T requires a TON of looking ahead. Much more than PR.
Random_Person> ...the "best move" may not be possible for everyone. In PR you can see it all. Nothing hidden...
Tube_Maxwell> My comfort zone is thinking 2-3 turns ahead. Any more and I get bored always checking the permutations.
Tube_Maxwell> (but it always depends, of course)
zaiga> You have to play the odds in E&T, take risks, play on intuition
Random_Person> T&E has a sort of "ideal" looking ahead.... if you have 4 strong players, you can say "Ideally he will do this"... which means if he has the tiles to do so... you can't actually PLAN it though
FastLearner> No, but it's worse... I think this is a classic "hidden info makes your turn easier or makes it harder" argument: In the case of E&T (for me) there's much more thinking on my part, along the lines of "what if he plays a green, and he plays it here?"
Scurra> And that's why I think certain gamers rate E&T above so many other games. Because you can do that analysis
Tube_Maxwell> Yeah, if there's too many possibilities, I get overwhelmed and just kinda play with my gut. It's fun that way for me though.
Scurra> and E&T is like PR in that one inexperienced player can wreck the whole experience
Tube_Maxwell> This is unfortunate.
zaiga> Yeah, but at least it doesn't always depend on seating order
FastLearner>> Aye, true on both counts.
Scurra> (I know another game like that, and we're discussing it next week )
Scurra> I think what I like so much is that inherent simplicity in the basic ruleset
Scurra> place a tile, place a leader, see what happens...
zaiga> I would do that the other way around, Scurra>
Scurra> yeah, OK
benedict>> I think that once you have played a couple of games the rules are straightforward, but one complaint about E&T is that it is quite difficult to teach to newcomers.

Setbased scoring

zaiga> One of the things I like so much, and was pretty original at the time, is the fact that you score for the color in which you have the least number of VP's
Scurra> Or, as someone observed, you score for "sets" of colours
Random_Person> Yeah, that mechanic has inspired me.
zaiga> True, it's basically a set collection game
Scurra> But portrayed in an interestingly different way
zaiga> I like it, because it means the game becomes assymetric... different colors will be of a different worth to different players
FastLearner> I dig that the most of everything in the game.

Open vs. closed scoring

Scurra> And, of course, the "open" versus "closed" scoring is about to come up
Scurra> E&T epitomises one of the horrendous aspects of that argument
zaiga> Yes, set based scoring
Tube_Maxwell> Ah, this is the game where all that open/closed debating was meant for.
Scurra> since "counters" can be hugely rewarded
zaiga> Oh yeah
Snoop> I think it all has to boil down to a matter of preference
Snoop> The same debate has been going on for years about Acquire
zaiga> I have decided that I love hidden but trackable information
Scurra> Oh sure. The thing is that I think E&T really does have to be played with closed holdings.
Scurra> And yet...!
Snoop> Your point is well taken, Scurra. But that gives folks with better memories a big advancate
Snoop> and advantage, even
zaiga> Yes, agreed. Horrible kingmaker scenarios ensue with open vp's in E&T
Scurra> Exactly. And that's one of the very few niggles I have with the game
Snoop> and that's the flipside, zaiga
zaiga> Snoop: so be it, it still works great for the other 98% of humanity
zaiga> I understand the problem, though
Snoop> Agreed.
Scurra> As I say, I play PR with open VPs when introducing people, because I know that it works fine when they move on to closed holdings
Scurra> But I don't think you can do that with E&T
Tube_Maxwell> Can someone explain briefly (I've never played) why counting would make you too strong? Is this possible to explain simply even?
Scurra> It's to do with how much information you can assimilate at once
zaiga> Perhaps because conflict is more direct in E&T it is easier to play Kingmaker
zaiga> Than in PR
Scurra> Your score is, essentially, how many complete "sets" of the four colours you have collected
FastLearner> In E&T your scoring is hidden by screens, so unless you have a great memory you can't know precisely what colors a player needs to improve his/her score. If you can count, though, you'd always know exactly what each player needs.
Scurra> And the reason that counting is hard is that there is slightly too much information to track
Scurra> when you're also trying to work out what to do!
zaiga> Scurra: agreed, there are too many "transactions" to keep track of all of them, at least for peopel with a normal memory
Tube_Maxwell> So the counters only know who's in the lead, or does it come into play every round?
Snoop>> only the counters
Scurra> It's a final score thing
Snoop> you find out the cube count at the end
FastLearner> It comes into play because you know how they're in the lead (or not)
Tube_Maxwell> I kind of like being able to keep track of these things in my head for a couple turns, get a feel for who's pulling out ahead, then forgetting.
Scurra> And the great thing with E&T is that you probably have to play "unbalanced" too which makes it even harder to track
Snoop> I think that's the ideal way to play
zaiga> And because of the set based scoring, a couple of cubes in a certain color can make a HUGE difference in the final standings
Scurra> oh, I think you have to have a feeling for it, certainly. But proper "counters" do have an edge
Snoop> But I've known gamers who could tell me (and all other players) exactly how many stocks of each type I held in a game of Acquire.
Scurra> Mind you, the group I play with like to "table talk" a lot as well, and try to confuse everyone
Snoop> But as zaiga says, that's probably only about 2% of the population
Tube_Maxwell> If I understand correctly, I score for whatever my least colour is. It would be easy to remember "A has lotsa blue, B has yellow," but their least is the last one you'd think of. That sounds really really hard.
Snoop> but probably a larger percentage of gamers
Scurra> And of that 2%, only a small proportion actually abuse that too
zaiga> Tube: true
Random_Person> Sorry, I'm behind the curve on the chat... Work picked up suddenly.
Scurra> RP, I dunno. I think you suddenly "get it" and it all clicks
Snoop> you consider it abuse?
Scurra> only a small proportion abuse their "counting" ability. IME a lot of them don't "exploit" it
Scurra> because they want to enjoy the "game"
FastLearner> This version of Kanaloa -- -- uses a similar type of scoring but the info is entirely public. However, you have less ability to control precisely what other players do and do not get. In E&T I think you have more control
Snoop> hmm. I'd have thought it would be hard *not* to do it if you had the ability
zaiga> Knizia also used the same scoring method in "Einfach Genial" and the scoring is open in that game too
Snoop> But I can't speak for counters. I sure ain't one. I can never remember how many damn cubes are in the castillo in El Grande
Scurra> Snoop, tell me about it
FastLearner> Same here, no hope of remembering. Heck, I can't ever remember how many cubes I put in the castillo.
Snoop> I'm amazed whenever I play Hearts and there's still a few rounds left -- someone will throw down the rest of their cards and say "I take all the rest". Amazing
Random_Person> LOL. I'm that guy Snoop>
Snoop> or maybe I'm just thick
Scurra> Well, I can win Acquire when we play with open holdings. Come last when we play with closed holdings...
Random_Person> Funny thing is, I couldn't tell you what I ate for lunch today.... but I could tell you anything and everything you want to know about a game I'm playing.
Tube_Maxwell> But with hearts, you only need to keep track of the high stuff (generally) of a couple suits.
Scurra> (hmm, I have the same problem with "Trivial Pursuit". Can't tell my left from my right, but I do know the order of the Kings and Queens of England...)
Random_Person> I could meet you, and a half-hour later forget your name... but at any given point in a Settlers game I could tell you what numbers have been rolled, how many times, and in what order.
Scurra> So you just remember the useful things, then?
Random_Person> It actually ticks me off a bit... I don't have memory in "real life" and it's a detriment to my career...
Scurra> That's probably why you can't see what's so great about E&T though
Scurra> If you can track short-term stuff that accurately...
Scurra> ... then you can probably do tile estimation as well as cube counting
Tube_Maxwell> RP, can you "turn it off" if you wanted to? If it would make whatever game more fair/fun?
Random_Person> TM> Yeah... it's called Wild Turkey!
Scurra> I think my favourite mechanic in E&T is the leaders though.
Random_Person> It depends though... there are some games that are so light there is either nothing to track or it is not rewarding.
Random_Person> When playing "gamer games" there is some sort of competitive edge that comes out of me and my desire to know EVERYTHING that is going on has lead to this "ability"
Random_Person> And Scurra>, I have actually REFUSED to count how many of each tile there is in T&E, so although I prolly could estimate, I simply can't


zaiga> All right, let's discuss another aspect of E&T... the wonderful internal and external conflicts...
Scurra> I usually use the terms "war" and "revolution" because they are just easier to grasp
zaiga> I think the external conflicts are a great example of what Jonathan Degann calls "the bomb"
zaiga> Can't have war in a German game though
Tube_Maxwell> so war=external, revolution=internal?
Random_Person> Hm, actually that is a great way to reference the conflicts Scurra>
zaiga> Tube: yup
Random_Person> Heck, I could prolly even get my wife to understand it using those terms! (I never said that!)
zaiga> War is between different kingdoms and revolution is within a single kingdom
Scurra> Both can be devastating at the right time
zaiga> There is nothing more gutwrenching than starting a crucial external conflict and hoping your opponent doesn't have the right tiles for defence
zaiga> "He doesn't have 4 black tiles, does he???"
Scurra> Indeed.
Scurra> And those also tend to lead to the memorable moments in the game too
Scurra> "You mean he had *five*!!"
Random_Person> Actually, I pulled T&E out last night at our Wed session (a few martinis into the night) and when I got to the conflicts suddenly I was told "lets play Puerto Rico, my head hurts"
zaiga> It's the conflicts that make the game
Scurra> I must confess that I usually find myself saying that though - "what do you mean, you've got five?!"
Scurra> But it's the planning that makes the conflicts...
Scurra> It's the careful positioning of everything so that you can stick the right tile down at the right moment
zaiga> It's extremely important to plan the conflicts properly... since they are so often an "all or nothing" gamble
Scurra> The key is minimising what sort of a "gamble" it is IME
zaiga> It's very easy to ruin your own position with a poorly thought out conflict
Scurra> And, of course, getting multiple conflicts executed in the right order!
zaiga> Scurra: aye, you have to play the odds, but you are almost never sure if you will emerge victorious
Scurra> I've lost too many games that way
zaiga> Which is what makes the game so gutwrenching
Scurra> And I think it's why people keep coming back to it
zaiga> Oh yeah, multiple external conflicts...
Scurra> because once you understand how it works, you start to be able to plan, and still find yourself coming unstuck...
zaiga> It's also a very deep game, there's so much to learn
Tube_Maxwell> I'm a big fan of gut wrenching
zaiga> So many cool tricks you can do... it's a very tough game to master
benedict>> and of course it embodies the classic characteristic of a 'eurogame' in that you have many things you would like to do, but only 2 actions per turn.
zaiga> benedict>: true
Scurra> (and the number of times you have to give one of them up to change your tiles hurts too. Or maybe that's just me? )
zaiga> It's actually very simple to accomplish... just give a player 6 cards (or tiles) and tell them that they may only play 2 per turn
zaiga> Scurra>: I hardly ever use the swap tile option... I feel it is a waste of actions
Scurra> Yes, exactly
Scurra> But I think that the red tiles hide from me in the bag or something...
zaiga> However, one of the players in our group likes to swap a tile right before he starts a crucial conflict, to improve his hand....
zaiga> Or tiles, rather
zaiga> Ah, that brings me to another point. Each color has a different function in the game
Tube_Maxwell> Are there an equal number of each tile?
Scurra> That's why I said I like the "leader" mechanic so much.
Scurra> The differences between the colours are subtle but important
zaiga> Red is for internal conflicts, blue can be played on river, black leader takes unclaimed vp's, green leader takes treasures
zaiga> Tube: no, the distribution is unbalanced
Tube_Maxwell> Interesting...
zaiga> However, I think red tiles are much more crucial than the others
Scurra> Indeed they are.
zaiga> If you cannot start internal conflicts... well your options become much more limited
Scurra> But I've started playing on the assumption that I won't see many! It's improved my game a lot I think
zaiga> It's OK if you don't draw green for example, because you can fight your way into a green kingdom, if necessary
Tube_Maxwell> Is this a counting issue too, then? Knowing exactly how many reds are left?
zaiga> But, if you don't draw red...
Scurra> I think that not drawing blue can be more of an issue than not drawing red sometimes
Scurra> Tube, yep - but not to the same extent. But a good counter will have a very good idea of what's out there
Scurra> towards the end of the game
zaiga> Scurra>: well, at least you can fight your way into a kingdom with a lot of blue and start an external... or connect to a blue monument
Scurra> Indeed.
Scurra> But you can get trapped by accident if you are unlucky
Scurra> (yes, OK, so it has happened to me )
zaiga> Of course, you cannot always solve the problem
Scurra> and it can take a lot of resources to fight your way out...
zaiga> But at least you can try, if you have red tiles
Scurra> I don't consider that a flaw in the game though. Not drawing red tiles can be.
Scurra> (a flaw, I mean)
zaiga> Agreed. I wish there was some way to mitigate that...
zaiga> It's the only real gripe I have with the game
Scurra> There probably isn't a decent solution, sadly
zaiga> I think it is just something you have to accept
Scurra> As I said, I've started to learn to play around it now
Scurra> (which has the nice side-effect of making me much more ruthless at internal conflicts when I get the chance!)
Scurra> I think I was always too cautious before


Tube_Maxwell> How long does a game take? How many turns are expected?
zaiga> Perhaps... I still haven't found the "right" way to play this game
Scurra> Oh agreed
zaiga> 90 mins on average
Scurra> I've been playing it for ages, and still don't feel totally confident. Which is the sign of a truly great game I think.
zaiga> Howmany turns? Haven't got a clue....
Scurra> nope, no idea here either.
Tube_Maxwell> I just don't like when I have to wait 20 mins. between my turns.
zaiga> Infinite replayability
zaiga> Tube: oh players usually go by quickly enough
zaiga> And you can do some planning during other players turns, although sometimes it is all for naught, when the board changes a lot
Scurra> And you get caught with your metaphorical pants down...
zaiga> And if you are involved in a conflict, you need to do stuff durinbg another player's turn
zaiga> So, I wouldn't say there is excessive downtime
zaiga> I do think that that is the reason why it plays only up to 4 though
Scurra> Not compared to Princes of Florence which has the sort of downtime that means you can go and read a book during a round
Tube_Maxwell> I hate that in a game.
zaiga> Scurra>: it's amazing, when people complain about downtime because of AP, it often is a Wolfgang Kramer game
zaiga> Tikal, Java, El Grande
zaiga> Wildlife, PoF
Scurra> But some people like AP!
Scurra> (not me, which makes me wonder why I like PoF so much)
zaiga> Really? Not many I think!
Scurra> What I mean is that they don't necessarily perceive it as AP


Scurra> Oh yeah, we need to discuss things like scalability in these chats. I personally think that E&T is a good example of a game that works with 3 but shines with 4.
zaiga> Scurra: actually I like E&T with 3 better
Scurra> I made a typo. I meant it the other way around too.
zaiga> That's great for them, but a lot of people don't like downtime
zaiga> Oh OK
zaiga> I think every game has a "sweet spot" when it comes to number of players
Scurra> I was going to cite it as being a good three-player game
Scurra> because of the "balance-of-power" issues
Scurra> which are rather too easily lost in a four-player game
zaiga> I usually design a game for 4 players and then adjust it a bit so that it works with 3 and 5 too
zaiga> Scurra: also, you get less turns in a 4-player game and sometimes the board situation changes a lot in between turns, making it very hard to plan ahead
Scurra> I don't think I've ever thought conciously about the optimum number for a game except once
zaiga> So you have less control with more players
Scurra> when I did a game that *only* worked with four...
zaiga> I think it will be hard to selll a design that only works with a fixed number of players (except 2 player games, of course)
Scurra> zaiga, sadly, yes. I hated giving up that design, but it was "unfixable"
Tube_Maxwell> My gaming group is mostly always five, which seems to rule out games like this.
Tube_Maxwell> And it cost a lot go get all those settler expansions
zaiga> Urban Construct and Gheos were mostly tested with 3 players and work best with that number I think
Scurra> My test group is four (including me) which is useful
zaiga> That's a good number for most strategy games
Tube_Maxwell> Why is four so common though? Does it go back to the idea that Mom, Dad and 2 kids would be the group?
Scurra> This week we're hoping to reach the giddy heights of *six" people!
zaiga> Gheos and UC just didn't work with 5... same problems as E&T
Scurra> Yes, I think the "nuclear" family was the most common
Scurra> but I think a lot of the German games try to scale to 5 because I think statistically that was closer to their average size (2.7 children rather than 2.4)
zaiga> Tube: perhaps... but I think it also has to do with what works in a design and what not
zaiga> 2-player games are often too "zero-sum"
zaiga> Games with 6 players or more often suffer from too much downtime
Scurra> I don't think the marketers care if the game works with 4 or 5 though
Tube_Maxwell> I see the trade-off. To not have too much chaos between turns, you would need less to do per turn, risking booring turns. How much chaos is too much, I guess.
Scurra> they just want to sell it to the maximum number of people
zaiga> I think the larger the range of possible number oif players, the better, marketing-wise
zaiga> The ideal game works for 1 or more players
Tube_Maxwell> I agree, but I think realistically, a large range is impossible with high complexity/depth games.
zaiga> Tube: agreed
Scurra> My GDW design (coming up in a couple of weeks) should scale to 6. But I think it'll be a disaster with that many
zaiga> I think 5 is the maximum, perhaps 6 if you have short turns and/or a lot of simultanous actions
zaiga> For strategy games
Scurra> (mind you, it's a bit of a disaster all round - it's more of an experiment in mechanics than anything else)
zaiga> Sounds cool
Tube_Maxwell> The key seems to be to have some sort of system that alters play a bit for # of players.
zaiga> Well, in the ideal game that would not be needed
Scurra> And then to disguise those changes behind the mechanics. It's what Puerto Rico does so very well
Tube_Maxwell> Maybe each player has less actions, or less cards (speaking hypothetically about no game in particular)
zaiga> You could add some setup rules... for example, in Web of Power you remove some cards before the game to accomodate less than 5 players
Tube_Maxwell> Ah, the ideal game... Does such game exist that is equally fun from 2 to 6? (and replayable, and deep, and fun)
Scurra> Actually, we talked about this with Medici, didn't we?
Scurra> There you randomly remove some cards with fewer players
zaiga> Hmm, Durch die Wuste plays fine with 2-5... but it has quite a bit of setup rules
Scurra> but this actually leads to a (slightly) flawed game
zaiga> You removes some camels, or use less space on the board
Scurra> ah yes, "Through the Sausage" as all UK players used to call it..
zaiga> Although DdW also has a "sweet spot"... which in my opinion is 3 players
Scurra> Yes, again I think I agree
Scurra> And it's that "balance of power" thing again
zaiga> Union Pacific? Needs a variant to work with 2... drags a bit with 6
Tube_Maxwell> "Let's you and him fight"
Tube_Maxwell> I prefer odd numbers for this reason.
zaiga> Citadels? Seems amost a different game with any different number of players... more on that next week
Scurra> True (on both counts!)
zaiga> Tube: I love odd numbers as well
zaiga> I hate the number 6, I avoid it in my designs
zaiga> I love 5 and 7 though!
zaiga> Or, number of players plus one
zaiga> Or, number of players minus one... even better

IngredientX's picture
Joined: 07/26/2008
Euphrat & Tigris - Chat transcript 19 January

I really wish I could make these Thursday chats, but I slack off at work enough as it is... :)

A couple of things: I was surprised during the scalability conversation that no one brought up an unusual thing about E&T. Few games scale from "multiplayer" (3-5 players) to "duel" (2 players) so well. In fact, I almost prefer playing this with two.

Secondly, if anyone would like to try to play some sample games, but is intimidated by the idea of getting their butts kicked several times (par for the course while learning this game), go to You can play against an AI opponent that's solid enough to learn the rules against, but is quite beatable. It's how I learned the game.

Joined: 12/31/1969
Euphrat & Tigris - Chat transcript 19 January

IngredientX wrote:
A couple of things: I was surprised during the scalability conversation that no one brought up an unusual thing about E&T. Few games scale from "multiplayer" (3-5 players) to "duel" (2 players) so well. In fact, I almost prefer playing this with two.

E&T plays with 2 to 4, not 5. I agree that it is a pretty solid game with two players as well as with more. I think this is because of the "assymetry" of the game, which makes things more interesting. However, as I said in the chat, I prefer it with 3.

- René Wiersma

IngredientX's picture
Joined: 07/26/2008
Euphrat & Tigris - Chat transcript 19 January

zaiga wrote:

E&T plays with 2 to 4, not 5. I agree that it is a pretty solid game with two players as well as with more. I think this is because of the "assymetry" of the game, which makes things more interesting. However, as I said in the chat, I prefer it with 3.

- René Wiersma

Oops, you're right... I consider the "multiplayer" tag to count up to five, but yes, E&T doesn't go to five.

Syndicate content

forum | by Dr. Radut