I have a bit of a weakness when it comes to board games that check three specific boxes: they’re on sale (cheap), they’re for two players (so my daughter and I can play), and they’re short (so we can actually finish them). If a game meets those criteria, it’s almost an automatic purchase. I don’t read reviews, I don’t check the designer, I just click “buy” and hope for the best.
So imagine my surprise when the game I blindly added to my cart turned out to be designed by none other than Uwe Rosenberg.
Now, if you’re a board game fan, that name probably means something to you. And if you’re like me, it might even come with baggage. My history with Rosenberg’s games is… complicated. They tend to pass through my collection like a summer storm, brief, intense, and ultimately fleeting.
It’s not that I think he’s a bad designer, far from it. He’s clearly talented, with a devoted following and a long list of critically acclaimed titles. But his games and I just don’t click. They usually fall into one of two camps for me: either they’re sprawling, overly complex point salads (Feast for Odin and Agricola, I’m looking at you), or they’re great for a few plays and then dry up completely (RIP, Le Havre).
So when I discovered that Cave vs. Cave, the game I had bought on a whim, was a Rosenberg title, my expectations dropped faster than a poorly-timed worker placement. Still, I cracked it open, gave it a shot, and, well, here we are.
Overview
Cave vs. Cave is a sort of action selection game in which players choose from a shared pool of available actions, and build their personal tableu of of tiles that offer various benefits and score you points.
The tableu is meant to be a cave that your excuvating, but as you execuvate the cave spaces become available which you can then fill with rooms. Each room offers you some benefit (as well as victory points) that allow you to build engines for scoring points, gaining resources and ultimatetly (hopefully) winning the game.
It’s a relatively straightforward game rules wise.
The Cleverness (The Pros)
What Cave vs. Cave does well, really well, is give you that classic Rosenberg-style puzzle in a bite-sized package. The core of the game revolves around the timing of actions and the availability of rooms, and how those two factors interact creates a satisfying little brainteaser. Figuring out how to best sequence your moves, when to grab a key room, or how to squeeze one more action out of a tight round, that’s where the game shines.
In typical Rosenberg fashion, a seemingly simple mechanic reveals surprising depth. Even though the game clocks in at around 30 to 45 minutes, there’s still plenty to chew on. Every decision matters, and the game doesn’t pad things with catch-up mechanics or point explosions. It’s a slow burn, a deliberate race where small efficiencies add up and the player who makes the fewest mistakes usually wins.
What I appreciate most is how dynamic it feels. The randomized room layout and action tile order keep each playthrough just different enough to force you to adapt. There’s real replay value here, and multiple viable strategies to explore. Want to focus on early gold production? Go for it. Prefer to expand aggressively and build up infrastructure? That works too. It never feels like there’s just one obvious path to victory.
In short, Cave vs. Cave is unmistakably a Rosenberg game. From the economic engine-building to the quiet solo-race format, it’s got all the hallmarks, just boiled down into a leaner, faster experience. Exactly what I think fans would enjoy and expect from a 2-player version of Caverna.
The production is of great quality, its pretty, feels good in the hand, nicely illustrated.
The Bad Stuff (The Cons)
One of my ongoing gripes with many of Uwe Rosenberg’s designs and really, with a lot of Euro-style games, is the almost complete lack of player interaction. To be clear, I don’t think this is a flaw per se; it’s a conscious design philosophy. But it’s one that just doesn’t always land for me.
Cave vs. Cave is no exception. You and your opponent might as well be playing two separate solo games with a shared component tray. The only real difference between the solo mode and the two-player mode is the win condition: in solo, you’re trying to hit 50 points; in multiplayer, you’re just trying to beat the other person’s score. That’s it. That’s the interaction.
Sure, every now and then, you might grab an action or room tile your opponent had their eye on, but I’d argue that’s more accidental overlap than meaningful competition. You’re not going to intentionally do this to block your opponent, it’s more of that classic, “Oh, I was going to do that,” moment that’s more of a shrug than a strategic block or decision.
So if you’re looking for tension, take-that mechanics, or even just a little tactical disruption, Cave vs. Cave won’t deliver. It’s a parallel play experience through and through, which, again, might be exactly what fans of Rosenbergs probably want and expect. But for those of us who like a little friction in our games, it can feel a bit… sterile.
Conclusion
At the end of the day, my biggest gripe with Cave vs. Cave, its near-total lack of player interaction, isn’t really a flaw, just a matter of taste. And despite that, I have to admit: this game works. It’s a light, fast, and clever little two-player experience that you can set up, teach, and play in under an hour without breaking a mental sweat.
Honestly, every game shelf needs titles like this, games you can pull out on a whim when a friend drops by and says, “Hey, want to play something?” Cave vs. Cave fits that role perfectly. It doesn’t demand a full evening, it doesn’t require a deep dive into the rulebook, and it delivers a tight, thinky puzzle with just enough variety to keep things fresh.
Unlike most of Rosenberg’s heavier titles that briefly haunted my collection before being sold off, this one might actually stick around. Not because it’s a masterpiece, but because it knows exactly what it is: a quick, streamlined Rosenberg engine-builder that doesn’t overstay its welcome.
And that, in itself, is pretty rare.