Number of players?

[Soetriet]

Curious how people think different number of players change the game? What strategies work with 2, but not 3 and more? And visa versa?

[drdeadpool]

• The major difference to my strategy is the end game goals. Lets assume that you fulfil the minimum criteria for the round. From that position in a two player game tieing for the lead is worth +3, and taking the lead is worth another +3. Which is a set value. If its not too much effort to do it, you try for it, and if it is, you focus on other things. However in a multiplayer game, you never know what the other people are planning, so you may end up committing resources towards the end game goals only to have it yanked out from under you. But you cant ignore it either because taking points away from the leader is important too.
  
  Some birds like the western meadowlark become super game changing . In a 2 player game if you need a bird of a certain nest type , you can usually get your hands on it. But in a multiplayer game, those birds may be in such high demand that if its combined with a bit of bad luck with your draws, theres a good chance you wont be able to. Then a trash bird like the meadowlark allows that person to get a 2 point lead over you every time they use it.
  
  The pink power birds get exponentially stronger the more players there are in the game. A brown headed cowbird in your starting hand in a 2 player game is always nice, but in a 5 player game is just so sweet. It might take care of your egg needs for the whole game on its own.
  
  This one is subjective, but I'm much more comfortable handing out "all players get resources" in a 2 player game than a 5 player game. I guess its because the chance that an opponent needs a critical card or food is much higher.
  
  But in the end, the major difference is that in a 2 player game you're mostly in charge of your own destiny (barring ridiculous differences in luck with the draws or birdfeeder). In a 5 player game you might play flawlessly but still lose because your opponents refuse to adapt their strategies. (eg a vulture that keeps giving a player free food because other opponents dont skip their predator powers)

[Fromper]

• The major difference to my strategy is the end game goals. Lets assume that you fulfil the minimum criteria for the round. From that position in a two player game tieing for the lead is worth +3, and taking the lead is worth another +3. Which is a set value. If its not too much effort to do it, you try for it, and if it is, you focus on other things. However in a multiplayer game, you never know what the other people are planning, so you may end up committing resources towards the end game goals only to have it yanked out from under you. But you cant ignore it either because taking points away from the leader is important too.
  
  Some birds like the western meadowlark become super game changing . In a 2 player game if you need a bird of a certain nest type , you can usually get your hands on it. But in a multiplayer game, those birds may be in such high demand that if its combined with a bit of bad luck with your draws, theres a good chance you wont be able to. Then a trash bird like the meadowlark allows that person to get a 2 point lead over you every time they use it.
  
  The pink power birds get exponentially stronger the more players there are in the game. A brown headed cowbird in your starting hand in a 2 player game is always nice, but in a 5 player game is just so sweet. It might take care of your egg needs for the whole game on its own.
  
  This one is subjective, but I'm much more comfortable handing out "all players get resources" in a 2 player game than a 5 player game. I guess its because the chance that an opponent needs a critical card or food is much higher.
  
  But in the end, the major difference is that in a 2 player game you're mostly in charge of your own destiny (barring ridiculous differences in luck with the draws or birdfeeder). In a 5 player game you might play flawlessly but still lose because your opponents refuse to adapt their strategies. (eg a vulture that keeps giving a player free food because other opponents dont skip their predator powers)

Some good insights here.

Somewhat off topic, but at the very end, you mentioned people skipping predator powers if the opponent has a vulture. Is that a common tactic?

I had never considered it before, but I actually just had an opponent do that in an arena game. I only kept the vulture in my starting hand because it was free to put out, and I didn't have any other starting cards that I could put in the forest easily. As luck would have it, the game started with my opponent putting down a predator in the forest, then I put down the vulture, and then he skipped his predator power whenever he gained food.

[PaulB-UK]

It depends, there are times when giving your opponent food can be worth way may than the point you get - it could allow them to overtake you in round end goals for example.

At other times the extra food can be worth very little, and a point is a point.

[Leopold Baum]

My experience on this board is small, but people here play different than we at home. Playing at home has more social aspects - especial when you're playing with kids. Most arena-players here just play because they wanna win - and if you wanna win you should watch the game and think about using a hummingbird or vulture - just like PaulB-UK wrote.

Back to the topic - in my oppinion the bigest difference inbetween two-player and more-players games are the birds with the pink-power. I remember a six-player game with friends in real-life - someone played five birds in the first round, three of them were pink. for next two rounds he only drawed cards and played birds only in the last round he used grasland to fill the nests....

[drdeadpool]

Some good insights here.

Somewhat off topic, but at the very end, you mentioned people skipping predator powers if the opponent has a vulture. Is that a common tactic?

I had never considered it before, but I actually just had an opponent do that in an arena game. I only kept the vulture in my starting hand because it was free to put out, and I didn't have any other starting cards that I could put in the forest easily. As luck would have it, the game started with my opponent putting down a predator in the forest, then I put down the vulture, and then he skipped his predator power whenever he gained food.

As a rough rule of thumb I consider food more valuable than 1 point in rounds 1-3 (you have to use the food effectively though). My mental arithmetic is that if a bird costs 1 food it needs to get me at least more than 4 points. 2 food at least 7 and 3 food at least 9. So a food to me is roughly worth 3 points. I dont know if this explanation makes sense outside my head. Another way to look at it might be food is worth is worth more as long as youre still playing bird cards. Once you're done playing cards food drops in value to almost 0 and the points are better.