I have been eyeing this game, but I noticed the rulebook "recommended" 4 players. With these types of strategy games I can usually only get 2 of my friends to play, and usually not at the same time.

How well does it actually scale?...

I've played three in both games that I've played and they were good games. Usually boiling down to all three players within a turn of victory when one of them pulls away with it. I'm excited to try out four and two player games just to see what they are like too.

Over on boardgamegeek they say 2 players is fun too...more food for thought...

i have played this game with two players quite a bit. it works well and is fun. i have even played this game by myself, it's tricky when you get to battling the villages. i just shuffle there cards and place one then do the same with mine. it works i mostly did it to get an understanding of each character.

Well I played a 2 player game on Saturday with my Brother in Law.We didn't get finished unfortunately as life intruded (darned pesky life) but it was very tense.

He was playing the Germans and was doing very well on the agressively building armies and generally being scary type thing, he was also racking up gold coins having got to 7 with 3 of the coin techs in play. I was powering my way towards a tech victory with the Egyptians and due to him getting a bit confused had just pummelled two of his armies. He hadn't noticed I'd been buying lots of Artillery (because I HAD noticed he'd bought lots of infantry and upgraded them) and thought that my recent upgrade had been to Catapults not Cannon. Plus I built the Samuri Castle that turn before he got round to it.

Which meant when he attacked (with 2 barracks on his side) he ran into a wall of Cannon and got his armies wiped out. He was all set to give up at this point when I pointed out that he could probably manage a economic victory in 3-4 turns.

Like I say we had to call it off early but it was a fun game and very intense with little room for mistakes.

I think the upside of a two player is that you can spend your time reading one opponent and you can adjust. You don't have to depend on two other people to help you. I played a two player yesterday and seeing all his potential victory avenues was simple. It helped me make the right plays to prevent him from running away with tech (he was the russians). The culture victory was mine! (as the Chinese). It was still a good battle. He probably could have rushed me early and won, but he didn't so I built up with walls and a general. He couldn't overcome that.

I went ahead and ordered it; hopefully I can find a time to play it soon!...

You have to remember that the game strategy and experience changes quite a bit with more players.

In a two player game, you can focus on that one person and setting them back - sets you back a little but it stays balanced. It becomes a one on one dual to a victory condition.

In a 3 or 4 player game, if you focus on a player - it usually sets both you and him back - allowing the other players to advance. You can make deals with players to help you stop down a player where you cant in a two player game. Since you have several players racing to a victory condition, you have to keep you eyes out for all the players - not just one and race to the win in a such a way that is balanced to set some players back while not impacting your own advancement. Make the wrong decision and get into a slug match with another player - can lose you the game in favor for the others who arent in the fight. Even if your not in the fight - you may end up setting yourself back as well because you may have to start buying units to protect your cities vs using your action to increase your advancement towards that coin, tech or culture win.

What I am saying is that both a 2 and a 3+ player game are completely different experiences - both worthy of trying. Try using two copies of Civ - with 8 players and play 4 one on one battles.... like a tournament - letting the winners play the winners. There are lots of ways to enjoy the game.