Less than 6 survivors

[Archon Shiva]

The easiest game seems to be the 2-player version: you have the maximum number of characters and nearly maximum control over the order in which they act.

Single player loses some serious firepower, whereas 6-players has a very strict activation order. 4- and 5- players are worse in every way. Remember that less survivors means less kills before being forced into yellow.

I propose that there should be something to compensate a tiny bit. At the very least, 4- and 5- players games should receive one free action per character under 6, per turn. Only one of these actions may be used by any single character. It's a bit like missing characters were waiting off-map with the leadership ability. I still don't think the game would be any easier than a 2-players game.

I might give one free action to the single player, as well. It far from makes up for two missing characters, but it would help a bit. It's not like anything else scales to the number of players/survivors

Thoughts / suggestions / death threats?

 

[Scorpion0x17]

Something I proposed elsewhere is to scale the number of spawn-site-activations each turn according to the number of survivors in play, and then rotate round the sites each turn.

So, for example, if you're playing solo with 4 survivors and there's 3 spawn sites on the board, on the first turn you spawn zombies at sites 1 and 2, on the second turn at site 2 and 3, on the third at 3 and 1, and so on.

This reduces the number of zombies being spawned (and therefore how quickly you go up danger levels) but doesn't change their distribution around the board.

 

[Slippery]

As far as activation order goes, even when we play two players it's a strict order chosen and stuck to from the first turn.

But as for playing with less, I think decreasing the spawn zones makes sense. Guillotine even mentioned in their custom scenario contest that the idea is to have one spawn zone per two characters (and to round up)...so if you're playing with 4, it should be 2 and if you're playing with 5, it should be 3.

I would test it a few times to make sure it's not too easy if you drop a zone or too impossible if you leave it.

 

[Archon Shiva]

Actually, according to the rules the order of players is predetermined, but the player chooses the order in which to activate their characters. Therefore, sinle player has the most control, but lacks two survivors. Two players is best, as each half of the roster can act in any order they choose.

 

[Slippery]

So it would seem. That certainly made it different last night. ^.^

 

[Jimmy35]

I have considered using 6 survivors for a 5 player game, but have the 6th be controlled by the first player every turn. This could be done for adding 2 more survivors into the 4 player game also, perhaps make one controlled by the first player and one by the last player (ie: previous turns first player, sitting to the right of the current first player).
It is worth noting however that I have not tried this yet.