3 Players: 5
4 Players: 9
5 Players: 6
6 Players: 3

2 Players: Never
3 Players: 1
4 Players: 6
5 Players: 10
6 Players: 7


Comments:
This game was meant to be one of conflict and the over coming of said conflicts and problems. Its way to wide open for any less than 4 and 4 isn't that good on it. Conflict comes with 4 but typically only late in the game.

3 Players: 4
4 Players: 10
5 Players: 9
6 Players: 4

3: 6 (good to learn the game)
4: 10
5: 10
6: 4 (too crowded, still playable)

I decided to calculate average scores for all maps that had a reasonable number of ratings.

3 Players   4.3       ( votes 7 )
4 Players   8.6       ( votes 7 )
5 Players   8.0       ( votes 8 )
6 Players   5.0       ( votes 6 )

3 Players: 5
4 Players: 8
5 Players: 8.5
6 Players: 6

Overall Rating: 7
5 Players: 7

Comments: I have only had one chance to play this, but it went well. It seemed like a decent map for new players because of the fairly small twists in the rules, but that at least added a bit of flavor to the play.

I quite like it. A nice easy map, plenty of opportunity to grab a route into London. No obvious choke points so players generally feel they're in with a chance.

5 players: 9/10

Maybe a little too open for 4 players.

Ben

England:

3 Players: 1
4 Players: 7
5 Players: 8

Comments:

Again, one must feel the anxiety of bidding and action. If there isn't any threat of someone building near you, causing problems, why bother taking first build or first move? Why bother taking Industrialization or Turn Order? You can wait and take them all next turn..

3 Players: Not Interested
4 Players: Not Interested
5 Players: -
6 Players: 10

I decided to calculate average scores for all maps that had a reasonable number of ratings.

3 Players   3.0       ( votes 2 )
4 Players   7.5       ( votes 2 )
5 Players   8.1       ( votes 4 )
6 Players   8.0       ( votes 2 )

Great map for three. I would not recommend it with any more than that.

Ireland:

3 Players: 7
4 Players: 10
5 Players: 1
6 Players: 1

Comments:

Great map!!

The more I play Ireland the less I've been liking it. There has been no tension or particular interest in the auctions. Firstbuild has some attraction pretty much only on the first move and Engineer and De-Urbanisation are mostly just nice-to-haves. Locomotive is mostly useless.

Ratings reduced:

3: 7
4: 4

3 Players: 10
4 Players: -
5 Players: Not Interested
6 Players: Not Interested

Average

3 Players   8.3       ( votes 6 )
4 Players   6.9       ( votes 4 )
5 Players   1.0       ( votes 1 )
6 Players   1.0       ( votes 1 )

This is the worst map I have ever played. The problem is extreme imbalance:
- The western half is full of mountains (which cost $5 here) nad the east is relatively flat (a few swamps and rivers (which cost $4).
- Towns start with a cube on them. And more towns are in the east.
- by rule, you have to start on either the east or west edge of the map and are not allowed to build nonconiguous links.

All of these things mean starting in the east is far better than starting in the west.

But on top of that: The east has has cities to start at, the three northern ones are red, the three southern ones are blue. The middle one (St. Louis) is yellow. And Denver (the nearest purple) is centrally located at as well.

Starting in St, Louis allows cheaper building, access to cubes (and places to deliver them) that no other starting point does. If properly played, the player who starts here whould win. You might as well quit after the first bidding round.

Nice idea if it worked but this fails due to the dollar auction. All this really means is that one player gets to suicide so that another may pay through the nose.

4 Players: 7 (after 1 play)

Last night, I got to play this map for the first time. Player 1 started with the top three red cities, and then shot out to Denver on future turns. Player 2 on turn one linked from New Orleans to Saint Louis (linking all cities in-between on turn one). Player 3 started in LA, SanFrancisco, Sandiego, and shot to Denver. Player 4 started in Portland/Seatle.

Player 3 won by only two points over player 2. Player 1 was close behind. Player 4 lost terribly.

I really enjoyed the map. I can see the balance issues but we did overall have a close game.

3 Players: Not Interested
4 Players: 5
5 Players: -
6 Players: -

Average

3 Players   3.3       ( votes 3 )
4 Players   5.6       ( votes 5 )
5 Players   4.0       ( votes 3 )
6 Players   6.7       ( votes 3 )

But pay particular notice to comments above

3 Players: 7
4 Players: 9.5
5 Players: 8
6 Players: 3

Have only played with 5 but it was a very interesting game. I like AoS maps which which change the base game a great deal. I would need to give it another try.

5 players: 8/10

Western Germany

3 Players: 3
4 Players: 6
5 Players: 10
6 Players: 5

Comments:

I'm so surprised at people's view of Age of Steam. People are voting for less players on these maps... I just can't understand playing a game like this without the pressure. It becomes Ticket to Ride then... where once or twice in the game someone builds where you wanted but "heck, not a big deal, I'll just do that in that WIDE open spot.." Wow. I'm shocked!

3 Players: -
4 Players: 10
5 Players: -
6 Players: -

Average

3 Players   5.0       ( votes 2 )
4 Players   8.6       ( votes 4 )
5 Players   8.6       ( votes 5 )
6 Players   5.0       ( votes 3 )

A good three player maps. Gets pretty tight with 4.

3: 9
4: 7.5

Unplayable with more.

3 Players: 8.5
4 Players: Not played
5 Players: 1
6 Players: 1

I think its a brutal map with some interesting choices. The issue can be the sea move. Once someone grabs it and is able to continue to grab it via the auction (ie they are richer) it seems as if its a foredrawn conclusion that he/she will win. The runaway leader issue is common to many games but with this map it is more pronounced, IMHO.

Average

3 Players   8.3       ( votes 6 )
4 Players   7.7       ( votes 3 )
5 Players   3.0       ( votes 2 )
6 Players   2.0       ( votes 2 )

With 3: 7

The Ferry action can exsaerbate the runaway leader problem.

Very good with 4 or 5.

Overall Rating: 8
4 Players: 8

Comments: More chaotic? Yeah, but I don't think it is that bad. It just takes a bit more thought to plan things out carefully. Then again, I like brain burners.

I don't find it particularly brain burning, merely random and overly tactical. Every production phase up to 20 cities on the board may change their colour. Typically almost a half dozen will change colour. Long routes appear and disappear capriciously without reasonable ability to control or predict. What was a nicely strategic game where you can largely plan your end-game track layout and deliveries from the first move is now tactical and reactionary. I fail to see how this is an improvement.

played the Korea map with 3 and loved it. It's very challenging in that your best laid plans may have to totally alter when new goods are placed. The tactical nature of the game is a great puzzle, forces you to be flexible in your plans.

Average

3 Players   5.0       ( votes 1 )
4 Players   6.7       ( votes 3 )
5 Players   3.0       ( votes 1 )
6 Players   2.0       ( votes 1 )


Again, make sure you read the comments for this one.

I've only played this map with three, and it was far too easy. The tension of balancing your costs with your profits was gone, and all the players wound up making a ton of money as early as 1/4 of the way into the game.

We talked some about how it would be a good map to introduce people to the game, but then again, it's a bad representation of how tense and tight the game can be.

Overall Rating: ?
3 Players: 3

Comments: I think I really need to try this map with more players to have a serious opinion. As verkisto said, it was too easy with 3, but I think it might be a lot more interesting with 5 or 6.

Overall Rating: 6
3 Players: 7 (when beginner) 5 (when skilled)
4 Players: 6.5 (beginners) 6 (skilled)
5 Players: 5 (very tough for skilled players too)
6 Players: n/a
Comments: small entry level map, but like every map if played with a number of players above the optimum it gets very tough.

3 Players: Not Interested
4 Players: 8
5 Players: -
6 Players: Not Interested

3 Players: -
4 Players: - 7
5 Players: -
6 Players: -

Average

3 Players   4.5       ( votes 2 )
4 Players   7.0       ( votes 3 )
5 Players   5.0       ( votes 1 )

Less cuttroat than it appears--It is almost always better for a player to deliver goods to increase you income than deliver a black cube to drop others.

Omly played once and need to tey again.

I've played a lot of AoS, but this is my least favorite ruleset (and therefore map.)

4 Player: 4

Overall Rating: 7.5
3 Players: 7.5 (optimal)
4 Players: 5.5 (very tough)
5 Players: n/a (already too many for this map?)
6 Players: n/a
Comments: I like the negative point black cubes rule for this map as it is a twist in tactics.

3: 4
4: 6
5: 5.5

Average

3 Players   5.8       ( votes 2 )
4 Players   5.2       ( votes 3 )
5 Players   5.5       ( votes 1 )

Overall Rating: 9
2 Players: 9
3 Players: NA
4 Players: NA
5 Players: NA
6 Players: NA
Comment: My favorite map.

hmmm. Not sure about this one.

Felt like tit-for-tat. The auction is almost totally uninteresting, we both built in seperate sections of the map. I only won because my opponent forgot to bid me up on Loco in the final turn.

Just do not see the appeal but then I've only played it once.

2 players: 3/10

2 Players: 9

Average

2 Players   7.0       ( votes 3 )

Austria is for 2 players.

John
Pittsburgh

Switzerland is for 3 or 4 players.

John
Pittsburgh

3 Players: -
4 Players: 8

The Netherlands is for 5, 6 or 7 players.

John
Pittsburgh

3 Players: 8.5
4 Players: 7
5 Players: 4
6 Players: 2

4 Players: 7
5 Players: 8.5

Age of Steam China is for 3 to 6 players