<p>Pick up the <strong>On the Brink</strong> <sup><a href="http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameexpansion/40849/pandemic-on-the-brink">BGG</a></sup> expansion.</p>

<p>The forums at Boardgamegeek state that it definitely eases up the difficulty of the 4 and 5 player versions as well as providing more options.</p>

CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-12-28T17:43:11.353Z
I agree; particularly if you're choosing roles, as it provides some more flexible choices, and one good fix to an existing role.  However, it's an expensive buy just for that; most of the expansion provides variants that make things harder...
Tynam
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-12-17T17:31:23.163Z
2010-12-17T17:31:23.163Z
Pat Ludwig
<p>Allowing players to choose their roles, rather than having them assigned randomly, is one way to lower the difficulty. The players can choose roles that they prefer to work with and that have better synergy.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-07-12T02:51:48.100Z
But it makes it a more limited and repetitive game.
Acccumulation
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-12-14T17:44:43.987Z
2010-12-14T17:44:43.987Z
Todd
<p>A big part of the variation in difficulty is the fixed number of event cards.  In the base game, you play with 5 event cards in the deck regardless of the number of players.  If you pick up "On the Brink" there are more event cards, so you play with 2 event cards in the deck per player.  This seems subtle but I've found that it smooths most of the effect of different numbers of players (assuming you are good at coordinating).</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-02-19T21:10:06.960Z
2015-02-19T21:10:06.960Z
Nolan
<p>I found that a nice touch is to not shuffle the top stack of cards when mixing in the epidemic cards.  In the first stack, place the epidemic card at the bottom and shuffle the rest normally.  This just lets you get a leg up on the game at the beginning while leaving the rest of the game unchanged.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-12-24T16:55:03.393Z
2013-12-24T16:55:03.393Z
user6416
<p>Consider making the epidemic cards predictable.  Space them out as stated in the rules, but always put them at the bottom of each pile.  This keeps the fun of dealing with the challenge, while enhancing the requirement that players work together to handle what they know is coming.  It does make it easier though, in general, due to this predictability. </p>

CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-12-16T17:53:03.903Z
In my experience, it's the timing of the first epidemic that has the most significant impact on difficulty.  The others don't matter as much as long as you have a chance to get on top of the outbreaks early on.
keithjgrant
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-12-28T17:44:51.260Z
Timing and position of the first outbreak are crucial.  If you don't like putting the card always at the bottom of each pile, consider always shuffling into the bottom *half* of each pile.  This is no more work than the regular way, and keeps randomness while preventing early wipe-outs.
Tynam
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-12-16T10:19:08.130Z
2010-12-16T10:19:08.130Z
Neal Tibrewala
<p>In a 4 player game, you can make sure the researcher is in play for one of the players, and deal the other 3 roles from the deck. I have played with almost every combination of roles (with 2 and 4 players) and the researcher has significant advantage and is very difficult to win with 4 player without her. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-02-20T14:36:55.447Z
2015-02-20T14:36:55.447Z
braingirl
<p>2 things to make the game a bit easier.</p>

<p>1) once a cure is found any player can cure a city of all diseases for only 1 action</p>

<p>2) shuffle all the infection cards back into the deck when an Pandemic occurs (may be to big of a change)</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-21T22:07:36.590Z
First one would make the game slightly easier and could be a nice touch, but the second one would break it entirely. Since you will always draw an epidemic card that puts the infection discard pile on top of the draw pile every several turns, this keeps the tension up that those cities will keep getting more cubes. If you shuffled the entire discard pile, you'd be drawing many cards for the first time after an epidemic, putting them on places with no cubes yet and not threatening outbreaks at all, which is exactly the opposite of what is supposed to happen (going on already infected cities :).
Gordon Gustafson
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-13T10:26:56.720Z
Number 1) is the actual rules.
Jontia
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-19T04:07:20.110Z
2012-02-19T04:07:20.110Z
Joe vago
<p>My group feels that Pandemic is <a href="https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/a/13127/1315">easier with fewer players</a>, so as player count goes down we increase the epidemic count to maintain the challenge level.  </p>

<p>Other adjustments will depend on <em>how</em> you think the difficulty changes.  In player counts that you consider harder, try dealing out multiple roles and letting players choose, or try choosing play order only after seeing roles and starting cards.  For player counts that you consider easier, reverse these decisions.</p>

<p>On the Brink adds some variability and complexity.  I'm not sure if (after you get past the learning curve of any new variant) it adds <em>difficulty</em>, but it might.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-12-24T17:27:18.263Z
2013-12-24T17:27:18.263Z
2017-04-13T12:38:50.353Z
Monica Cellio
<p>Normaly, you can trade city card on the city of that card. So, I suggest that you can trade city black card on a black city, blue one on a blue city, yellow on yellow and red on red. That way, you still restricted but it'll be easyer. It'll make a donw grade for the Researcher but...  your choice.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-12T04:43:35.103Z
2014-07-12T04:43:35.103Z
user8017
<p>If you're playing with 2p, use the next difficulty level in terms of # of Epidemics.  For example, if you play 4p on "Easy" (4 Epidemic cards), then with 2p, play on "normal" (5 Epidemics) to get the same effect of difficulty.</p>

<p>If you have On The Brink expansion, rather than adding another Epidemic, consider adding in the Virulent Strain.  The rules for that is only 1 page long, so you should be able to learn it in no time.  Mutation Challenge is more involving even if it's still only 1 page as well.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-09-11T21:20:04.327Z
2015-09-11T21:20:04.327Z
ackmondual
<p>I have a number of variations that I like, but I may not use every variation every game. I like the On-the-Brink expansion, but these rules are not specific to it.</p>
<p>Roles: Cures &amp; cards (Researcher &amp; Scientist); Treatments/prevention (Medic &amp; Quarantine Specialist); move/build (Operations Expert &amp; Dispatcher); and misc for everything else. For a 4 player game have at least one of each the first three types.</p>
<p>First research station (instead of Atlanta): When dealing the initial infected cities include 4 (instead of 3) cities with 1 cube; the first research station can go into any the of cities with 1 cube and all the players start there. If there are disagreements, the player going first decides.</p>
<p>Preparing the deck: (1) Put one event card in each the piles with one of the epidemic cards; any remaining cards are shuffled in as normal. (2) If there are extra player cards after put the same number cards in each pile, they go on the top of player deck to delay the earliest epidemic card.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-07-11T23:35:41.010Z
2021-07-11T23:35:41.010Z
Ken Mc
<p>You could for example always play with the same amount of pawns. If you have 3 players everyone gets a pawn for themself and you have to discuss what happens with the 4th. Considering there's already a lot of discussion on what to do with your own pawns it's not going to be much of a problem...</p>

CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-12-15T07:48:26.560Z
But what happens with the cards of the faceless players?
dan_waterworth
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-12-15T09:53:59.987Z
I suppose you could share them amongst everyone.
dan_waterworth
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-12-16T07:52:27.290Z
I'd probably place them in a separate spot. Just play as if there where a 4th player - just one who doesn't play on his own.
Kempeth
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-12-15T07:45:58.580Z
2010-12-15T07:45:58.580Z
Kempeth
<p>Pandemic varies vastly in difficulty depending on the number of players. Does anyone know of any custom rules that make it more even?</p>

CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-12-14T17:42:35.983Z
There seems to be differing opinions on this, so could you elaborate on how you think the number of players affects difficulty?
Todd
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-12-15T08:25:48.957Z
Most times I've played, it been with 4 or 5 players.  Is this why we get our a**es handed to us all the time?
keithjgrant
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-12-15T08:41:44.823Z
@Todd, it gets much more difficult with more players. @keithgrant, yes, play with 2 or 3 and it'll be easy.
dan_waterworth
<house-rules><pandemic>
Do you know any rules that make Pandemic's difficulty more even?
dan_waterworth
# Do you know any rules that make Pandemic's difficulty more even?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2010-12-14)

Pandemic varies vastly in difficulty depending on the number of players. Does anyone know of any custom rules that make it more even?

**Tags:** house-rules, pandemic

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: There seems to be differing opinions on this, so could you elaborate on how you think the number of players affects difficulty?  
> **username_2**: Most times I've played, it been with 4 or 5 players.  Is this why we get our a**es handed to us all the time?  
> **username_0**: @username_1, it gets much more difficult with more players. @keithgrant, yes, play with 2 or 3 and it'll be easy.  

---

## 12 answers

### Answer by username_17 on 2010-12-15. Score: 10 | Accepted answer

You could for example always play with the same amount of pawns. If you have 3 players everyone gets a pawn for themself and you have to discuss what happens with the 4th. Considering there's already a lot of discussion on what to do with your own pawns it's not going to be much of a problem...

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: But what happens with the cards of the faceless players?  
> **username_0**: I suppose you could share them amongst everyone.  
> **username_17**: I'd probably place them in a separate spot. Just play as if there where a 4th player - just one who doesn't play on his own.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2010-12-17. Score: 12

Pick up the **On the Brink** [BGG](http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameexpansion/40849/pandemic-on-the-brink) expansion.

The forums at Boardgamegeek state that it definitely eases up the difficulty of the 4 and 5 player versions as well as providing more options.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: I agree; particularly if you're choosing roles, as it provides some more flexible choices, and one good fix to an existing role.  However, it's an expensive buy just for that; most of the expansion provides variants that make things harder...  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2010-12-14. Score: 5

Allowing players to choose their roles, rather than having them assigned randomly, is one way to lower the difficulty. The players can choose roles that they prefer to work with and that have better synergy.

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: But it makes it a more limited and repetitive game.  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2015-02-19. Score: 4

A big part of the variation in difficulty is the fixed number of event cards. In the base game, you play with 5 event cards in the deck regardless of the number of players. If you pick up "On the Brink" there are more event cards, so you play with 2 event cards in the deck per player. This seems subtle but I've found that it smooths most of the effect of different numbers of players (assuming you are good at coordinating).


---

### Answer by username_7 on 2013-12-24. Score: 2

I found that a nice touch is to not shuffle the top stack of cards when mixing in the epidemic cards. In the first stack, place the epidemic card at the bottom and shuffle the rest normally. This just lets you get a leg up on the game at the beginning while leaving the rest of the game unchanged.


---

### Answer by username_8 on 2010-12-16. Score: 2

Consider making the epidemic cards predictable. Space them out as stated in the rules, but always put them at the bottom of each pile. This keeps the fun of dealing with the challenge, while enhancing the requirement that players work together to handle what they know is coming. It does make it easier though, in general, due to this predictability.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: In my experience, it's the timing of the first epidemic that has the most significant impact on difficulty.  The others don't matter as much as long as you have a chance to get on top of the outbreaks early on.  
> **username_4**: Timing and position of the first outbreak are crucial.  If you don't like putting the card always at the bottom of each pile, consider always shuffling into the bottom *half* of each pile.  This is no more work than the regular way, and keeps randomness while preventing early wipe-outs.  

---

### Answer by username_9 on 2015-02-20. Score: 1

In a 4 player game, you can make sure the researcher is in play for one of the players, and deal the other 3 roles from the deck. I have played with almost every combination of roles (with 2 and 4 players) and the researcher has significant advantage and is very difficult to win with 4 player without her.


---

### Answer by username_10 on 2012-02-19. Score: 1

2 things to make the game a bit easier.

1) once a cure is found any player can cure a city of all diseases for only 1 action

2) shuffle all the infection cards back into the deck when an Pandemic occurs (may be to big of a change)

> **Comments:**
> **username_11**: First one would make the game slightly easier and could be a nice touch, but the second one would break it entirely. Since you will always draw an epidemic card that puts the infection discard pile on top of the draw pile every several turns, this keeps the tension up that those cities will keep getting more cubes. If you shuffled the entire discard pile, you'd be drawing many cards for the first time after an epidemic, putting them on places with no cubes yet and not threatening outbreaks at all, which is exactly the opposite of what is supposed to happen (going on already infected cities :).  
> **username_12**: Number 1) is the actual rules.  

---

### Answer by username_13 on 2013-12-24. Score: 1

My group feels that Pandemic is [easier with fewer players](https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/a/13127/1315), so as player count goes down we increase the epidemic count to maintain the challenge level.

Other adjustments will depend on *how* you think the difficulty changes. In player counts that you consider harder, try dealing out multiple roles and letting players choose, or try choosing play order only after seeing roles and starting cards. For player counts that you consider easier, reverse these decisions.

On the Brink adds some variability and complexity. I'm not sure if (after you get past the learning curve of any new variant) it adds *difficulty*, but it might.


---

### Answer by username_14 on 2014-07-12. Score: 1

Normaly, you can trade city card on the city of that card. So, I suggest that you can trade city black card on a black city, blue one on a blue city, yellow on yellow and red on red. That way, you still restricted but it'll be easyer. It'll make a donw grade for the Researcher but... your choice.


---

### Answer by username_15 on 2015-09-11. Score: 0

If you're playing with 2p, use the next difficulty level in terms of # of Epidemics. For example, if you play 4p on "Easy" (4 Epidemic cards), then with 2p, play on "normal" (5 Epidemics) to get the same effect of difficulty.

If you have On The Brink expansion, rather than adding another Epidemic, consider adding in the Virulent Strain. The rules for that is only 1 page long, so you should be able to learn it in no time. Mutation Challenge is more involving even if it's still only 1 page as well.


---

### Answer by username_16 on 2021-07-11. Score: -1

I have a number of variations that I like, but I may not use every variation every game. I like the On-the-Brink expansion, but these rules are not specific to it.

Roles: Cures & cards (Researcher & Scientist); Treatments/prevention (Medic & Quarantine Specialist); move/build (Operations Expert & Dispatcher); and misc for everything else. For a 4 player game have at least one of each the first three types.

First research station (instead of Atlanta): When dealing the initial infected cities include 4 (instead of 3) cities with 1 cube; the first research station can go into any the of cities with 1 cube and all the players start there. If there are disagreements, the player going first decides.

Preparing the deck: (1) Put one event card in each the piles with one of the epidemic cards; any remaining cards are shuffled in as normal. (2) If there are extra player cards after put the same number cards in each pile, they go on the top of player deck to delay the earliest epidemic card.


---

