It's been a while, but for a time there I was doing four player games regularly. After getting a 2 player game in this evening and remembering those earlier sessions, I wanted to say something.

I mean, some of the ideas are good. The division of leaders and deck responsibility can be okay... but I think when it comes to delegating missions and action cards, it's flawed. In my case this was exasperated by having new players in both of those two player games, but I think as a whole it's not working.

Because for it to do so, you need to have both players compromise on what they want, and be familiar enough with the cards to know that certain leaders are best with some missions. It has to be enough that the General recognizes the Admiral really needs to have some good cards for his leaders, and "let" the Admiral take those mission cards. Why not just have the General assign all of those missions, since he has the hand of cards? That way he won't have to hand them over to the Admiral for the Admiral to look through and pick missions.

The only solution I've come up with so far is perhaps to create a new mission deck for each side, and then like how space/ground combat cards are divided, thematically divide the inside part by Admiral/General responsibility. That allows this new deck to be played combined, or separated for a better 4 player experience. Action cards could be similarly divided.

It's not a 4 player game, in the traditional sense. Honestly, I don't recommend that players on a team act independently. They should sidebar, agree, and then the individual players handle the individual tasks as suggested by the game rules. I think of it more as 1 player thinks about the ground game and the other the naval warfare. The United States Navy does not act independently from the Marines. They work together for a common goal. Same for this game.

2 players is the game's sweet spot. Which is great because most games for "2-4 players" suck with only two. This one is reversed. They just extended the possibility to four so the game wouldn't appear unattractive to people with large play groups. It's playable, not optimal with four.

And "Navel warfare", Stone? I attack ur belly button! Tee hee!

But if you "sidebar" with a new player, what ends up happening is the experienced player basically drives the entire faction, which is what happened to me. And if you have players who insist on being more independent, you're passing the action and mission cards back and forth and resolving disagreements on what is best for the faction from that player's viewpoint.

And the reason I started this thread was to find ways to make 4 player viable, so that I can play with my significant other instead of against her.

Ah, yes. Well, if you can avoid 'fight in a box' which is what I call almost any game that requires teaming up with a lover, power to you. I suggest Keeping the decisions separate, but at the beginning of the turn, discussin overall strategy for the turn with each person getting final say in their area. IT is hard for me to explain, but I use it as an opportunity for each player to basically say "Independent of anything else, I want to do this this turn." and the other player says the same.

THEN, knowing what they both want, they either

1 stick to it in whole (if it can all be done)

2 Stick to each most important thing and bend in others (if there is overlap of needed resources)

3 Totally rework what's going on. (if all objective and resource allocations conflict)

I find that generally, 2 is what happens which is good.

ex. (of an early turn with, say, 4 Leaders)

Gen. - I wanna investigate these 3 planets with boots on the ground and attack over here.

Adm - I need to draw project cards and increase loyalty here and here.

Gen. - Okay, I really want to look at this planet most for whatever reason.

Adm. - I want the project cards, because planets that aren't blown up are the worst.

Hmmmmm - Okay, lets do both of those. Two leaders left.

Gen - Boots on this planet?

Adm, Sure, but I still get loyalty mission here

Both - Agreed! Kumbaya m'lord, Kumbaya!

One of the keys to this working is simply setting it out as a template to be followed. that way, going into the game, each player knows that they can have final say to a chunk of resources and need to give final say to a chunk. That give and take alone, usually sets the tone for the compromise of the other resources.

Hopefully, this helps and works for you.

I've only played the game 3 times - x2 as the Imps in a 2P game, and x1 as the Rebels in a 4P game, with the other 3 players all new to the game.

So take this with a pinch of salt and YMMV.

I found the 4P experience to just as good as the 2P experience, but different of course. I really liked having a team mate to discuss with and bounce ideas off.

The only bit of the 3-4P ruleset that we properly followed was the different initiative order during the Command Phase. Everything else was just decided as a team. I know that's vulnerable to 'quarterbacking', where the more experience member of the team ends up largely 'in charge', but just try to avoid it I suppose...

Also what I found to be a HUGE help was the use of card stands. I gave each team 3 card stands (From the Ticket to Ride Asia Expansion - but there's plenty of other options out there)

This was really invaluable, as each team could display all of their mission/action/project/objective cards, all at once, for both players to see. Not only was this practically easier, because you're not handing back and forth a bunch of cards all the time, but it's easier for every card to be seen at once, and the cards feel more 'communally owned' reducing the risk of quarterbacking.

2 players is the game's sweet spot. Which is great because most games for "2-4 players" suck with only two. This one is reversed. They just extended the possibility to four so the game wouldn't appear unattractive to people with large play groups. It's playable, not optimal with four.

And "Navel warfare", Stone? I attack ur belly button! Tee hee!

Any naval attacks against my navel will be countered by my Imperial Navy navel defense force!

Any naval attacks against my navel will be countered by my Imperial Navy navel defense force!

You naive knave! Never shall your navy nullify my navel actions!

Also what I found to be a HUGE help was the use of card stands. I gave each team 3 card stands (From the Ticket to Ride Asia Expansion - but there's plenty of other options out there)

This was really invaluable, as each team could display all of their mission/action/project/objective cards, all at once, for both players to see. Not only was this practically easier, because you're not handing back and forth a bunch of cards all the time, but it's easier for every card to be seen at once, and the cards feel more 'communally owned' reducing the risk of quarterbacking.

And, I laminated a map sheet for the Imperials to chart their probes. Weeding through the revealed probe deck and trying to visualize the big picture is way to time consuming. Another one for the Rebels will help in communicating ideas between players on the same side. Just point at a mission card then where on the map you think it should be played. Then your partner can agree or shake you off like a pitcher does a catcher.

Any naval attacks against my navel will be countered by my Imperial Navy navel defense force!

You naive knave! Never shall your navy nullify my navel actions!

Admiral Belly and General Button say otherwise...