Game: Carcassonne: The City

Thread: Re: During End-game wall placement, can you still place guards?

PThron — 2008-11-04T16:37:26+00:00

Excellent. That's the way we played it, but as this thread demonstrates, the first time through the game leaves many questions...even for those familiar with the original.

Thanks for the quick response.

Thread: Re: During End-game wall placement, can you still place guards?

Philip Thomas — 2008-11-04T14:54:28+00:00

Yes. You pretend for scoring purposes that walls go all the way round, completing any features as a normal wall would. The only incomplete features at game end are ones which connect to a hole inside the city. Everything else scores.

Thread: Re: During End-game wall placement, can you still place guards?

PThron — 2008-11-04T14:38:45+00:00

ColtsFan76 wrote:
With the situation given, the game ended and no one was able to place any walls. Therefore, no one should placed any guards, or towers. The "wall finishing move" is not an actual part of scoring or placing guards, it is just a means to finish out the city for a completed look. So no one in particular builds this wall.

During this "wall finishing move" placement, are points still awarded for completed features in the city tiles themselves? Ie, if the placement of the finishing wall completes a road with a citizen on it, does the player with the citizen score the points for the road, etc.?

Image

rober — 2008-10-28T13:17:09+00:00

game material

Image

jsper — 2008-09-11T16:00:37+00:00

Promotional sheet in english

Thread: Re: Carcassonne: The Review

Rock Photo Star — 2008-08-26T18:33:37+00:00

martin47 wrote:
I found your review very useful, Marcus. When I want to know how a game isplayed, I rether read reviews thatn plain rules. It is like if s friend is teaching you how to play, so I don´t consider explaining the rules as a bad review.

Me too.

I just started gaming this year. Play Settlers of Catan, Ticket to Ride, Around the World in 80 Days, Nexus Ops, among others, and been looking at Carcassonne and it's spin offs as another light game to add for quick enjoyable play and introducing others to new board games.

I have checked out Carcassonne the City before on Amazon and on other reviews and still did not have a thorough or succint clue what the game actually was about. This review really helped me understand what the game is about/what people are suppose to do and how stressful/complex those choices are.

I think statistics do provide a lot of information, but the huge mistake and ego is to think it tells everyone. Statistics often tell the "cost" of everything but not the "value."

In this case, Dan's analysis shows him that the cost/effort of this review was cheap. Maybe it's components/parts/materials are cheap but it was extremely valuable for me. Something his analysis completely misses.

Image

sauron19 — 2008-08-21T14:19:01+00:00

Completed 2-player game

Thread: Re: OK for kids?

cdunc123 — 2008-08-20T11:25:20+00:00

Thanks for the replies. I'm leaning toward The City now. The only thing that tempts me toward the original Carcassonne is the possibility of adding expansions...

Thread: Re: OK for kids?

baalrukh — 2008-08-19T19:23:47+00:00

Carcassonne the city.
It’s easier and nicer, some rules have been simplified and the layout is only about roads.
Two of the “complex” rules can be turned off, the buildings, and the number of adjacent markets.
Finally, the box it’s a must.

Thread: Re: OK for kids?

bucklen_uk — 2008-08-19T08:37:12+00:00

I play H&G with my son (he's 8) and also the city with no problem.

You could start off ignoring the scoring for putting meeples on the walls (so the white buildings will have no significance) if you think it is too much for them - but if they've played H&G they should manage it fine.

Main advantage is the only thing you have to match is roads, so there is less frustration with placing tiles.

Thread: OK for kids?

cdunc123 — 2008-08-19T08:30:23+00:00

A relative of mine has Carcassonne Hunters and Gatherers, which my kids (age 6 and 8) enjoy. So I'm thinking of getting a Carcassonne game for my own family of four. But which version? I don't want to get Hunters and Gatherers since we can play that with my relatives.

A number of people on BGG seem to think Ark of the Covenent is easiest for kids. But the religious theme is something of a turn-off for me, secular guy that I am.

So it looks like a choice between the original game and The City. In your opinion, is one of these easier / more fun for kids to play? Or should I get past my religious hang-up, realize that the religious theme is just pasted-on in the Ark of the Covenant, and buy it instead of either the basic or the The City version?

Thanks in advance for any advice!!

Thread: Re: Do I score this twice for myself?

ColtsFan76 — 2008-08-18T23:54:54+00:00

Yes.

Thread: Do I score this twice for myself?

Fardog — 2008-08-18T23:19:22+00:00

Just played a game where I had guards facing each other across the tiles. It was legal since there was an open tile area between them.

As the game went on, I was able to fill in the empty tile area. At end game scoring can I now score both of my guards, getting double for the row. That is what would happen if me and an opponent were in that position.

Thank you for any help.

Image

peterk — 2008-08-08T10:38:54+00:00

Carcassonne - De Stad. Dutch box cover

Thread: Re: Is this game heavy?

gmonk — 2008-08-04T03:01:10+00:00

I took mine to Korea in my carry-on. It's a bit heavier than some games but the wood box is deceptively light for its size. Frankly I think Mwahahaha! (also in carry-on) was heavier and the box is tiny.

And yes, I filled my carry-on with the heaviest games I had hoping that it wouldn't be weighed. Surprisingly, it was just at the limit with a total of 12 games (and a small case of poker chips.)

I'd probably see about ordering more than one game, the cost of shipping scales better (to a point) with a larger order.

Thread: Re: Can this game be simplified?

Karlsen — 2008-06-23T14:39:51+00:00

I don't think it needs any simplification. There's no farmers

Thread: Re: Can this game be simplified?

Felkor — 2008-06-19T12:53:18+00:00

One of the great things about this game is that not all the rules get introduced at once. you're half way into the game before walls come into play, so if you want to play with wife/kids, just don't explain the wall rules until they come into play, and they won't have any problems keeping a good grasp on this game. This is how I teach it, and nobody's ever had a problem in figuring out the game.

Thread: Re: Can this game be simplified?

Gamer DC — 2008-06-19T12:23:25+00:00

I don't feel this version of Carc is too complicated but if you wanted to simplify by leaving out the walls you could. Just play with the tiles as the original does and complete markets & roads.

If anything gets complex in Carcassonne it seems to be adding ALL the expansions to the original and playing them altogether. We've played a couple times with almost all of them and it got a little confusing.

Thread: Can this game be simplified?

Jools — 2008-06-19T04:24:35+00:00

This seems like a great, complex Carcassonne variant. Could it be simplified to play with ones' better halves/kids etc? Could you remove the walls or something like that?

Thread: Re: Can you build city and use original Carcas. scoring rules?

sundaysilence — 2008-06-19T01:44:30+00:00

Okay, already. I played about 20+ self playtests of carcassone back in Feb. It is fun for sure. I tried all sets of different scoring variants and rules and stuff. Including scoring roads that connect cities, scoring them double if the connect a city to a gate. Meeples that do not come off, meeples that come off but dont score unles they do, etc. etc.. I come to three, tentative, conclusions:

1) This is not really a strategy game so much as a social experience. The only way to make a real strategy game out of it, would be to have a hand of 2, 3 or even more tiles and when you get to that pt. the game really drags on. Like 2 hour+. Which shows you that the designers at least had the good sense to not over do it and make the game something it should not be. Strategy game, no. Good social fun, yes. So pts for an elegant design/system.

2) My last, final, attempt to fix farmer scoring would be: Farms score based upon the total number of tiles in the farm. Not how many whatevers they touch, not how many farms a wherever, touch. Just basic number of tiles. Even this presents some problems, perhaps too high socring, but you could say only the top 2 farms score, or it's total area minus some number.

3) I tried a lot of different variations on whether meeples need to lay down, whether they should lay down in certan places but not others, whether they should score when the leave or not score if they leave an area. I dont think it makes a real big difference, but I do think it shoudl be one rule. Like you can leave any area, even a farm, but you only score for what you exist in at the end. Even that leaves some problems, but it makes for a somewhat cleaner rule and perhaps more elegant strategy.

Thread: best game box ever?

omarthetentmaker — 2008-06-16T02:04:44+00:00

First let me say that the gorgeous wood-burned box has enough room to hold not only the city, but the original game, ALL expansions including a few homemade ones, meeples in 12 colors, scoreboard and all rules sheets! The only things not in there are the cloth bags and the goofy tower shaped tile holder. Eggs in one basket anyone?

And of course in this game the bits are what it's about! Carc can be intense with few players, light hearted but screwdly cooperative with lots of players, and throughout we also really enjoy playing with the wood bits!

To look at the City in pure game mechanic terms sort of misses the point, but it boils down to this. For tile laying, bigger markets (formerly known as cities)are encouraged, as are longer roads because of the point multipliers. This is balanced by the fact that any structures large or small trigger wall building, which is also important for getting points. Plus, small markets are valuable, just like those football shaped cities(in our world will forever be worth only two points) for boosting farmer/steward points at the end of the game.

I don't think the game is quite as good as the original in any incarnation, but it is close. I've recently come to love the Castle, and am too infatuated with it to give an honest comparison.

But the bits make this one gorgeous game to play, and that's enough to make it a part of our regular rotation. Plus, did I mention how cool the box is? It is a pity that the tiles themselves are not also made out of wood or even plywood. Carc seems to be SCREAMING to be made into an all-wooden game, even in some outrageously overpriced collectors edition or something! I may have to draft up some files to send to [url][/url]http://www.ponoko.com/makeandsell to fully realize the dream!

Thread: Re: Can you build city and use original Carcas. scoring rules?

MisterG — 2008-06-10T01:05:51+00:00

sundaysilence wrote:
I havent even laid a single tile of Carcasonne yet

Maybe you should then...

I thought of a much different reply to that line, but decided that discretion was the better part of humor.

Thread: Re: Castle or The City? Whats best?

NateStraight — 2008-06-03T03:23:46+00:00

Jools wrote:
They both seem quite similar, but which one is best? I'm thinking of buying one of these as my sole entry into the world of Carcassonne.

As a sole Carcassonne title, I'd probably actually recommend Carcassonne: Hunters and Gatherers or Ark of the Covenant as they capture more of the flavor of the entire line in a scaled-down stand-alone. Both City and Castle are significantly thinkier and meatier and clumsier than the typical Carcassonne game, which may or may not be what you're looking for.

Of the two, I prefer the Castle, but City gives you a better feel for what the basic game system is about and what it can do (you get a better sense of long-term vs short-term scoring possibilities, defensive vs. offensive tile play, careful management of your scarce "meeples", etc). Also, the City is really quite stunning with its abundance of cool wooden bits and awesome wood-burned box.

Thread: Re: Castle or The City? Whats best?

Gamer DC — 2008-06-03T02:44:44+00:00

I'd go with The City since (as mentioned) you can play with 2-4. There is also a nifty set of solitaire rules here on BGG my wife and I really enjoy. We like the Castle but would rate the City a little higher.

Thread: Re: Castle or The City? Whats best?

Capitaine Grappin — 2008-06-03T01:59:14+00:00

I like both more than regular Carc.

I'd say The City is a better choice because you can play with 2 to 4 players, but is a bit more expensive.

Thread: Re: Castle or The City? Whats best?

ekted — 2008-06-03T01:16:46+00:00

Depends on what you are looking for. The City is the meatiest of the bunch, and my favorite. The Castle is 2-player-only, and is perhaps the most different game in the Carc series. Neither uses "standard" Carc connection rules. All the other versions require city to touch city, grass to touch grass, etc. In both City and Castle, you can abut arbitrary features however you like (roads/paths must still connect).

Thread: Re: Is this game heavy?

ekted — 2008-06-03T01:13:32+00:00

Awww. I had a whole reply all ready until I realized what you were really asking...

Thread: Re: Is this game heavy?

wwscrispin — 2008-06-03T01:00:52+00:00

The game is 2 lb and 11 oz.

Thread: Is this game heavy?

Jools — 2008-06-03T00:54:10+00:00

I'm thinking of getting this shipped to Japan from one of the businesses on the marketplace. Is it a heavy, heavy beast? That might change things!

Thread: Castle or The City? Whats best?

Jools — 2008-06-03T00:51:09+00:00

They both seem quite similar, but which one is best? I'm thinking of buying one of these as my sole entry into the world of Carcassonne.

Thread: Re: Can you build city and use original Carcas. scoring rules?

guzerat — 2008-05-30T08:29:55+00:00

sundaysilence wrote:
I havent even laid a single tile of Carcasonne yet

Maybe you should then...

Thread: Neat gimmick, but not worth the money unless you really like Carcassone

Rush2112 — 2008-03-03T18:19:39+00:00

I got this as a free demo from Rio Grande. And there are definite ups and downs to this game.

Fitst, I love the components;
(all images are from the game's BGG gallery, I take no credit for them)

1. nice hard wood box

]]>

2. attractive wooden towers,

]]>

walls and gates,

]]>

and of course meeples.

]]>

The tiles are also especially nice;

]]>

]]>

]]>

Gameplay:
similar to carcassone in most respects. the difference comes in the placement of walls and towers which affect tile expansion and point scoring.

The new areas to be score are markets & residences and individual buildings. The markets are further divided by type of goods sold, and are used for scoring (more types = more points).

These areas can be confusing as to borders (I had the same issue with Carcassonne the Discovery) and what constitued a fished area.
Meeple placement on buildings leads to wall and tower building. Meeples can further be placed on walls as guards. I found the rules on these issues to be lacking in clarity. It took my opponent and I a number of rereadings during our first game to ensure that we were playing correctly.

I might have purchased the game were my income higher. Having had a chance to play it, I will say that I enjoyed it overall and would play again. I could justify spending the money because of the quality of the components. But I found game play a bit cumbersome, and don't know if I would buy a game at this price when I might only play it once every 6-8 months.

for an overall rating I'd give it to maybe out of 5 stars

Thread: Slain so foully by a Dame so faire

cturnitsa — 2008-03-01T04:51:08+00:00

My wife, the Fair Lady Anita, and I ventured to try our hands at a game of Carcassonne: The City this evening, while the Princess was off at a Church function.

It started innocently enough, with both of us playing tiles and cathars (our name for Meeples in this version - different because of the odd headgear they seem to be sporting). Building up roads, markets, and more during phase one, before the "walling in" begins, was a pretty typical opening to this, or most other Carcassonne games.

The trouble was that I didn't pay attention to what my wife was building. We have been playing a lot of Carcassonne: Hunters and Gatherers and Carcassonne: The Discovery, and so not worried AS MUCH about big contiguous areas. But some of her Markets grew, and grew, and grew. Not to mention the ever lengthening King's Highway she was laying down, with its many competing branches, offshoots, brothers and sisters.

At some point during the play, it hit me - "uh oh, this chick is banking some major points".

Then the walls began to grow up, and my meeples took up their rightful place (as servants of the Geek of the House) guarding the faire city. Here a public building (worth a cool 2vp to the right investor), there a fabulous work, worth no less than 3vp.

Through the tense second phase (a quick glance at the score sheet - I'm only merely in a competetive play - only merely.

Then the third round - big score after big score comes her way. The guards mount up for her on better and better sections of city, and finally - This is it! - the last tile is played. We tally the pieces on the board - here for me, there for here.

She won. +56 points. Embarrassing and humiliating.

I will now retire and dwell in the countryside as a hermit.

Chuck

Image

Angry Duck — 2008-02-25T00:05:17+00:00

What a beautiful game - first play

Thread: Re: I draw the double road tile. What am I supposed to think?

sundaysilence — 2008-02-04T05:41:59+00:00

I know I know. At first I played the "T"s the right way and then I made up my own rules where you just try to extend the roads as far as you can. But you have to link them to cities...

ANyhow, I finally did figure out what the double road tile is used for. ANytime two or three or possibly four roads are coming together at an intersection the double road tile can dramatically control how that intersection turns out.

Say two roads are coming together at 90 degree angle. You place the double road tile so each road goes a separate way, and you have an instant farm extending right through where the intersection would have been.

Or rotate that same tile, 90 degrees and you can join those two roads together. It is a great strategic tile because it can control the future development of an intersection.

Of course you would have to hold the tile for several turns before anything like this is remotely possible. WHen you have to draw and play the tile immediately, the double road tile will almost never have an impact because the intersection has to be just about to form.

But if you play with a hand of tiles, then this tile and others can have great strategic effects.

Personally at this pt. I have played about 15 times and while I agree the game is fun and a good introductory game I am not sure if the game gets much deeper. You can make the game deeper by playing with a hand of tiles, but this really leads to much longer games. My games are taking close to two hours by myself.

And in hte end it still seems to come down to drawing that one great tile, or there is some battle for a road or a field and you manage to win it somehow. I guess what I am saying is that if the game is dragged out longer for a more deeper strategy game it does not really seem fulfilling in that way.

But as a fun puzzle for two or three or four seems quite nice..

Thread: Re: I draw the double road tile. What am I supposed to think

ze_stom — 2008-02-04T02:22:45+00:00

sundaysilence wrote:
Thats funny yesterday I was playtesting my dumbed down version w/o the walls/guards and got into a serious road war. the road began to look the Burma road with all its twists and turns, player 2 put two Meeples together and was ready to attach, meanwhile player 1 builds the other guys road into a loop, then player 2 builds a road on the other side and finally joins them all together. I guess I drew a lot of "T" and elbows. It was at that pt. where player 2 had build the road on the other side that I drew the double road for player one and was worried about placing it and having him link them all. Fun game, really interesting..

I was playing this game wrong for a long time - but those T-joints DON'T join up roads- anytime there is a crossroads it actually ends each road it is connected to. This made my roads a lot shorter and made them a lot harder to attach to each other.

Image

matthew.marquand — 2008-01-30T04:26:20+00:00

Standing Guard

Thread: Re: I draw the double road tile. What am I supposed to think?

sundaysilence — 2008-01-24T20:19:29+00:00

no actually what I should have said was that I am playing without scoring for the guards and towers. But I do build the walls, I find this to be a great basic strategic element. What I find fiddly is having guards that only look straight ahead. I mean, okay if this was Carcassonne: Stalag 17; then yes the guards would always look straight ahead and see NOTHING...

For those Europeans who didnt get the reference this is to "Hogan's Heroes," an american show about a WW II POW camp that aired in the 1960s. You may have seen a sort of expurgated version in Germany but the show was sanitized for obvious reasons. It was actually a pretty good show for the first 2 or 3 years, with the prisoners helping the French underground, blowing up bridges, and helping with the D Day invasion. In fact General Dwight Eisenhower actually guest starred in one episode playing himself as the prisoners had to hide the allied Commander in Chief from visiting Gen. Burkhalter.

Later, in an effort to boost ratings, Col. Hogan eventually married Hilda, the secretary. At first this was good ratings gimmick because it allowed the prisoners to steal all the plans from Col. Klink, but eventually like most TV mariages (see Rhoda) the lustre faded and they had to get rid of Hildy somehow.

Finally in an effort to divorce Hildy, the show "jumped the shark" when Col Hogan joined the fledgling German underground pornographic cinema industry and recieved a penis enlargement. Critics went ballistic on the realism aspect as the German porn industry was actually not around in 1944. Nixon chief staff of Robt Haldeman was concerned about the network making any close comparisons between their administartion and the Nazis and so CBS was forced to cancel.

You probably never saw these episodes in Europe...

ANyhow, getting back to the game. Yes the wall is a great strategic propsition and I am building it. What I find fiddly is the towers and the guards, there is plenty of meat here just based on roads/cities/farms.

Thread: Re: I draw the double road tile. What am I supposed to think?

Philip Thomas — 2008-01-24T19:23:31+00:00

Oh, you play without walls. Forget my advice then, as its predicated on roads ending: without walls there is no guarantee of that.

I guess its not entirely pointless since you have a differnet tile mix and placement/scoring rules from the original Carcassonne, but it does seem a rather odd choice to make: its not as if the game is very complicated to start with.

Thread: Re: I draw the double road tile. What am I supposed to think?

TermiGator — 2008-01-24T08:49:01+00:00

Hmm... If I want to play Carcassonne: The City without walls I just play Carcassonne.
I always thought the walls are the one thing that makes the City interesting to play!
To many Tiles are near to useless without the guard scoring.

Thread: Re: I draw the double road tile. What am I supposed to think?

sundaysilence — 2008-01-23T23:53:32+00:00

Thats funny yesterday I was playtesting my dumbed down version w/o the walls/guards and got into a serious road war. the road began to look the Burma road with all its twists and turns, player 2 put two Meeples together and was ready to attach, meanwhile player 1 builds the other guys road into a loop, then player 2 builds a road on the other side and finally joins them all together. I guess I drew a lot of "T" and elbows. It was at that pt. where player 2 had build the road on the other side that I drew the double road for player one and was worried about placing it and having him link them all. Fun game, really interesting..

Thread: Re: I draw the double road tile. What am I supposed to think?

Philip Thomas — 2008-01-23T18:07:27+00:00

The tile's pretty useless, maybe ok to extend a district with. Otherwise connect it with your road, why not? You almost certainly won't join up with the other road, but you are lenghthening your own road and in City most roads end one way or another.

I have never seen two roads join together which have different players' meeples on them, still less 2 meeples of one player and 1 of another on the same road. I don't think it is worth getting into a road war.

Thread: Re: I draw the double road tile. What am I supposed to think?

sundaysilence — 2008-01-23T17:52:21+00:00

That's the tile yes. I had a lot of twisty roads in my last play test so it looked like maybe I could do a road war, but I'm still getting the hang of where to place pieces for a war.

I was wondering if that was a good piece to use for a road war and I guess the answer is "maybe not."

Same wth channeling, it was hard to see how to channel with it as the options for placement here are limited.

As far as risk I was trying to figure how difficult the tile would make for further builds but I dont have enough experience to know that really. For example it would take 3 more tiles to make those roads connect up with each other, is that realistic to expect or not?

So what use do you generally find for the tile? Offensive? Defensive?

Thread: Re: I draw the double road tile. What am I supposed to think?

TermiGator — 2008-01-23T09:02:40+00:00

I assume you're talking about the two road curves passing each other on one tile.
(The middle tile in the lowest row on this picture).
]]>

- Why do you consider this tile risky to add to your own road?
- Channeling into a bad direction seems to be difficult to me unless you already got some defined dead end you could lead him to.
- I cannot see how you'd start a road war especially with this tile. This heavy depends on how and where the road is built.

Thread: I draw the double road tile. What am I supposed to think?

sundaysilence — 2008-01-23T06:02:42+00:00

What do I look for when I get this? Try to channel the other guys residential area in a bad direction? or try work into a road war? this looks somewhat risky if I add to my own road. WHat do you think?

Thread: Re: The City with Surroundings

sundaysilence — 2008-01-23T00:40:20+00:00

A mapquest search shows a number of roads leading into Carcassonne. But I have no idea how many gates it had in the old days. Does anyone have a link to a city plan for this city that shows the walls and the old gates?

I would bet that most medieval cities of any significance had more than one gate. I think Stefan would allow it to have more than one gate as well.

Personally I would junk the towers and the guards and use the towers to show the city gates. I am also thinking that only one player who completed a market or a road, would be able to build on the wall. Having more than one gate would then create multiple choices for wall builds with the idea of cuting off some roads, closing down markets, cutting off residential etc.

There is plenty of strategy already with roads, residences, markets adn the wall itself. The guards and buildings seems a fiddly add on. I want to get the game down to a pure form and see where it goes...

I think if Stefan goes with the outer and inner variant he will need to have some sort of different rule on the wall builds. Unless he wants to build from the non walled section of the city and go from there. I thought a little about it and it seems to me that you would have a separate pile for original Carc. You dont start original carc until the gate has been built on the city.

The wall strategy should reward those who score quickly, as wall building is serious strategy part of the game, there should be more choices with more than one gate. Every street does not have to be a gate perhaps only those with Meeples on them.

Gatekeeper Meeples..?

Thread: Re: The City with Surroundings

stenkul — 2008-01-22T21:30:10+00:00

What I ment was that a road ending against a wall, continue outside the wall. I then imagined that there actually is a (maybe closed) gate. Your suggestion to skip over a wall segment, might be a good alternative.

The idea behind the connected roads inside and outside the wall, is that the integration of the two games increase. And it also adds some restrictions for how you can place the tiles outside the wall, that I otherwise thought was to free.

EDIT:

Yes I have been visited a few medievel cities, and at least in those there where roads ending againts the wall, and sometimes following the walls for a while.

Thread: Re: The City with Surroundings

Philip Thomas — 2008-01-22T20:54:21+00:00

Have you ever been to a walled city? There aren't many about these days, but back in the Middle Ages when a wall was an essential part of a city's defences, there would be plenty of streets which ran up against the wall- dead ends. Its perhaps a little unrealistic to have only one gate, but it is not unrealistic for streets to be ended by walls.

Thread: Re: The City with Surroundings

sundaysilence — 2008-01-22T20:48:34+00:00

I am not quite sure what you mean when you say that the roads inside and outside the city much match. Are you saying when there is a wall ouside the city and the road in the city runs right up to the wall? WHy shoudl they match if the road is cutoff by the wall?

THis brings up something I dont quite understand, cutting off the roads with the walls seems but unaesthetic and non historical. Who would want to do that?

In your case, would you prefer to leave all the roads leaving the city unwalled so that they can join up with the roads from the original tile set? I think that would make sense in your game but not sure...

Another idea for the plain City version: Is it possible that when you lay down the walls, you can leave a space for the roads? SOrt of having multiple gates in the walls.

It also may lead to some strategy if the wall player gets an extra move for goign over the road. I can play a wall to the north, or if I play to the south, I get to skip over the wall (place a gate) and then add another wall. Have just begun to experiment with this.

Thread: Re: Q: Meeple on/Build wall/Score Meeple. A different questi

Sagrilarus — 2008-01-22T00:53:40+00:00

Sounds legit to me.

Sag.

Thread: Q: Meeple on/Build wall/Score Meeple. A different question..

sundaysilence — 2008-01-21T19:47:42+00:00

There are a couple threads where people asked: Can you score a Meeple, build a wall, place that recently scored Meeple on the wall? A: No, you cant use that same Meeple in the same turn...

BUt this question is slightly different: You place a tile and score for Meeple 1 (say a merchant); you place a Road Meeple 2, on this tile. Now you build a Wall section and you score for the Road Meeple, who had just been placed this turn.

This seems legit, but w/o the official rules, I am not so sure.

Thank you.

Thread: What if U place 2 Meeples/Turn? More skill? Or just stupid?

sundaysilence — 2008-01-21T19:34:35+00:00

I have just started to get into this game w/ a mock up version until my game arrives. I played with some dumb down rules; two player only; and did not score markets w/ the color bonus just count tiles. (I did use roads and residence scoring of course).

ANyhow as I am still figuring out the game; Meeple turnover is obviously a big factor. One game saw a lot of Meeples sitting around until we figured out that you have to have at least one or two Meeples on roads and markets as much as possible.

It occurred to me what if you could place two meeples on one tile in one turn? Obviously this would require some judgment and just as obviously it is a mistake to get a meeple on residential area (or road or market) that is difficult to complete. So there is still some skill in placing them, it would not be so easy.

And the other guy can do the same thing. He can place two as well. So it's not as if it would break the game. Would it?

On the one hand, everyone loved the big meeple from the expansion. So 2 is better than one you'd think. So more is better?

On the other hand, maybe it would depend more on the luck of the draw as some tiles favor two builds and others dont. Like a road/market tile is nice to get, but a road/residence you probably would only want to build put a Road guy and probably not a Steward.

So i.e the opponent draws a road/market tile on you,place two guys and you get just a residence, so he is up two meeples on you. Bad? But still you've got two meeples more in reserve to maybe okay?

The meeple management thing seems to be a balancing mechanism in itself. So what do you think?

I have tested one game, two player, and it seems fine....

Thread: Re: tile edges don't match!

sundaysilence — 2008-01-21T07:41:38+00:00

ekted wrote:
sundaysilence wrote:
Given 5 random locations, 1 will almost always stand out as the best. It's like playing tic-tac-toe.

The simplicity of your argument makes it appealing to the reader in a sort of Neadethal way.

The only problem is you are looking at it from one player's pt of view. Not both. Just like your previous analogy where you said if the expert had only 5 moves and the novice had a billion, the novice would win. If you dont think about it too much, that argument almost sounds reasonable.

But think about both players...You have only 5 choices to make. It's harder to wrong, therefore a somewhat easier choice. Okay I but that up to a pt.

But now its the other guys turn, and he has only 5 choices. So...Same reasoning. He has less chance to wrong. HIS CHOICE is somewhat easier too. Right? It's your own argument.

So now we go back and forth and each player has supposedly an easier time of it, but how does that make the overall game easier. They are now requied to see even deeper because their opponent has easy choices just like them....

Thread: Re: 2 Question

Sagrilarus — 2008-01-21T02:47:36+00:00
If all players run out of towers then no one scores additional points from the wall from that point on. But -- the last player to place a tower really blundered (and likely the one before him as well) as they should have waited until the absolute last moment to claim the vast amount of otherwise unclaimable wall points. Likely that mistake won't be made again by anyone who was in that game.

Sag.

Thread: Re: 2 Question

masdero — 2008-01-20T20:54:46+00:00
jtj608 wrote:
masdero wrote:
During our game, ran out of towers. What happens in this case?
You keep on building the walls, without scoring points?

The only things that end the game are the last tile being played, the last wall being played, or the two ends of the city wall being 5 walls or fewer from each other. The towers do nothing to trigger the end of the game. However, walls can still trigger scoring by completing roads and markets.

My fault sorry: with the word scoring, I was referring to the point you get when you place your tower and calculate the distance between that tower and the closest one (or the city gates).

Thread: Re: 2 Question

jtj608 — 2008-01-20T20:43:24+00:00
masdero wrote:
During our game, ran out of towers. What happens in this case?
You keep on building the walls, without scoring points?

The only things that end the game are the last tile being played, the last wall being played, or the two ends of the city wall being 5 walls or fewer from each other. The towers do nothing to trigger the end of the game. However, walls can still trigger scoring by completing roads and markets.

masdero wrote:

What happens if the drwan tile can't be placed?

The rules here aren't explicit. I would just default to the rules of basic Carcassonne; if a tile cannot be placed it is thrown out of the game and the person whose turn it was draws another tile and tries again.

Image

stenkul — 2008-01-19T02:04:30+00:00
The City with Surroundings (detail)

Image

stenkul — 2008-01-19T01:53:50+00:00
The City with Surroundings

Image

DaMarsh — 2007-12-12T04:18:04+00:00

Image

patchwerq — 2007-12-10T01:44:46+00:00
Xmas Spirit Carc the City with two new handmade bags!