3 or 4 Player?

[JohnnyCyclops]

New player here and enjoying the game. I read the recent thread about the random number allocation and in there was chatter about 3 or 4 player impact being different.

It got me thinking is there a preferred number that many play at? My games so far have all been 3s, and Arena seems set to 3 (this season?). But when creating a ‘play now’ table the little dot denoting recommended best numbers is against the 4.

4 would seem like a cluttered board and more chance later on to be regularly with eight or more resources and ripe for the robber.

3 would likely be a faster game.

Apologies if this has been kicked around as a topic previously.

[Earthboundia]

I think 4 player is better if everyone is experienced in the game as at least one person is going to get the short straw on starting settlements despite how fair the system might appear on paper. Also someone is going to get the short straw on dice rolls and in Catan dice rolls dictate everything. So yes for newer players 3 is better and there are those who are on the ultracompetitive side who prefer 3 as well as everyone has a better chance of winning.

[euklid314]

Many competitive players believe that 3-player is too "easy" since there is too much space on the board and everybody can expand very easily - thus only the dice dictate who is going to expand most quickly and win the game.

In 4-player there is not a lot of space on the board and placing the initial settlements becomes much more important. Reducing the risk of being blocked in and having some expansion space on the shores (harbors!) becomes crucial. Also, if one player is getting far ahead in development there are 3 opponents (and not only 2) that can roll a 7 and slow down the leading player. 4-player games are usually more competitive and cut-throat.

Most live tournaments (World Championship downwards) play with 4-players per table. However, this could have different reasons besides 4-player being (presumably) more competitive. More participants on the same tournament space are possible if every table is filled with 4 players instead of 3...

[JohnnyCyclops]

Great replies and some good insights. Thank you.

[DVC]

It’s a 4-player game. I never play the base game with 3 if I can avoid it. All competitive real-life tournaments are for 4 for many reasons - better balance, more skill required, less reliance on the dice, more trading, to name a few. That’s why it amazes me that Arena mode has remained 3p since the game went live in 2022. It would be a much fairer arena, and an actual measure of skill, if it was set as the game is meant to be played competitively, at 4.

I have a lot of tournament experience and have represented the UK at the world championships five times, but I won’t play in the Arena until it changes to 4p, and I know several others like me who say the same. If the gurus want to step things up, they need to change the player count - otherwise the whole arena will remain a joke, with everyone competing at beginner level, with luck prevailing over skill.

3p games are invariably a race to get to the unclaimed good spots, with early dice dictating who leads and dominates. If two players fight over an area or a particular strategy, then the other guy usually wins. Trading is minimal at best. It’s very hard to slow a leader down. But most of all, it’s predictable and lacking in any real challenge. If 3p was all I could play, I would have stopped years ago. With 4, it’s perfect.

[SilkySapper]

Many competitive players believe that 3-player is too "easy" since there is too much space on the board and everybody can expand very easily - thus only the dice dictate who is going to expand most quickly and win the game.

In 4-player there is not a lot of space on the board and placing the initial settlements becomes much more important. Reducing the risk of being blocked in and having some expansion space on the shores (harbors!) becomes crucial. Also, if one player is getting far ahead in development there are 3 opponents (and not only 2) that can roll a 7 and slow down the leading player. 4-player games are usually more competitive and cut-throat.

Most live tournaments (World Championship downwards) play with 4-players per table. However, this could have different reasons besides 4-player being (presumably) more competitive. More participants on the same tournament space are possible if every table is filled with 4 players instead of 3...

I disagree, having four players makes it far more likely to be blocked in, some players can even be blocked in almost from the start. Having three players might make you think that you had more room to expand, but you weren't watching the other players close enough.

three vs four players involves different strategies. Longest Road becomes more important in three player early game, whereas in four player games you'll quickly see that only one or two players can actually compete for it. In four player games, how good your game will be is more dependent on who gets to place their initial settlements first due to the increased congestion rather than what moves you make to expand in which direction.

And your point about tournaments is moot. Tournaments have four players per table because it means 25% less games to manage/referee and it's easier to create the playoff brackets (hence why six player expansion also isn't used). It's not because four players is a superior game.

[fiscused]

I prefer 4 player as 3 is too easy to expand, and I like more competition and a more challenging game. I don't know if it takes more skill to win with 4p, but it seems you pay more attention to the game when it isn't your turn, so the game is more involved.