Game: Kreta

Thread: Re: Did this game ever get wide release in the U.S.?

claudio212 — 2008-09-06T23:00:37+00:00

Kiboko Hippo wrote:
TimeWellSpent's website says they have it in stock (at $32.50).

Cool! Thanks. Now I just need to convince my wife that its time for a new bale of games. The last one is just a month old with one still unplayed.

Thread: Re: Did this game ever get wide release in the U.S.?

Kiboko Hippo — 2008-09-06T21:29:31+00:00

I got mine from GameSurplus two years ago for slightly under $30 although it's out of stock there. TimeWellSpent's website says they have it in stock (at $32.50). When I got my copy I had one deformed green village, but I was sent a new replacement relatively quickly. You can see a picture of it in one of my threads. I seem to have bad luck with green houses.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/210971

It's an enjoyable game that plays in maybe just under an hour. I've played five games so far, and would like to play it more often.

Thread: Re: Did this game ever get wide release in the U.S.?

mdp4828 — 2008-09-06T21:19:57+00:00

It's so-so. You can play it on www.mabiweb.com to find out for yourself. The components are nice though.

Thread: Re: Did this game ever get wide release in the U.S.?

dreadpirate — 2008-09-06T21:03:46+00:00

I really like it, and am surprised the rating isn't higher.
No component issues in mine.

Thread: Re: Did this game ever get wide release in the U.S.?

ssmooth — 2008-09-06T17:30:35+00:00

A fine game. A shame it never got picked for publication in English.

No meeple deformities in my copy.

Thread: Re: Did this game ever get wide release in the U.S.?

kevinb9n — 2008-09-06T17:23:45+00:00

No, it never did. I ordered it from abroad, and it quickly became one of my group's "inner circle" of favorite games.

One thing, though, about the "nice components" ... very many of my wooden components came deformed in various ways. Won't sit flat, or taller than the others, or grossly asymmetrical, etc. Really disappointing.

Thread: Did this game ever get wide release in the U.S.?

claudio212 — 2008-09-06T16:58:28+00:00

I've been looking at reviews. This looks like a neat game with nice components from a designer I really like. Did it ever get wide distribution in the U.S. Is it OOP now?

Thread: Re: FAQ

Sonja — 2008-05-22T22:56:26+00:00

A 2nd abbot can't enter (and stay in) a province with 7 pieces though. Correct?

Thread: Re: English rules

Sonja — 2008-05-22T22:46:55+00:00

Under the Commander, the German rules say it's possible to pass through full provinces (with 7 pieces) with both villagers and abbots. (The English translation has an error and only mentions the abbot being able to.)

Under the Abbot, the German rules say it's possible to pass through abbot-controlled provinces with villagers of another colour and does NOT mention other abbots going through. The English translation adds "abbots", which is not literally in the German sentence, but is still a correct rule, because the next sentence makes it clear that more than one Abbot can live together (as long as they observe the 7-piece rule of course).

Looks like the translator did an accidental switcharoo.

Thread: Re: Movement through full provinces

Sonja — 2008-05-22T22:33:55+00:00

Under the Commander, the German rules say it's possible to pass through full provinces (with 7 pieces) with both villagers and abbots. (The English translation has an error and only mentions the abbot being able to.)

Under the Abbot, the German rules say it's possible to pass through an abbot-dominated province with villagers of another colour and does NOT mention other abbots going through. The English translation adds "abbots", which is not literally in the German sentence, but is still a correct rule, because the next sentence makes it clear that more than one Abbot can live together (as long as they observe the 7-piece rule of course).

Looks like the translator did an accidental switcharoo.

Thread: Re: Question Concerning Movement of Villagers

Sonja — 2008-05-22T22:09:25+00:00

What Michael said.

Thread: Re: FAQ

Sonja — 2008-05-22T22:07:59+00:00

The sequential vs. simultaneous ship moving is also discussed here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/103841

Thread: Re: English rules

Sonja — 2008-05-22T21:56:37+00:00

Yeah the Abbot does not block passage through. He just blocks putting things (villagers and village huts) in that province. (He has no control over the harbour.)

Something else I noticed in the English translation is the rule about villages (huts). Just to make it clear, basically, you need to own one agriculture chit for each village you want to build. The village doesn't have to be in the same province that you harvested from.

I'm thinking of making paste-up stickers for the role cards with very short descriptors:

-Move ships
-Populate (4)
-Move abbot (3)
-Build
-Export
-Re-use a card

Thread: Re: English rules

EvilTimmy — 2008-05-21T02:02:26+00:00

This entire thread is confusing to me!

Thread: Re: English rules

coolpapa — 2008-05-21T01:54:00+00:00

Oh, I wasn't really questioning the rule. I just think I've played it wrong in the past. The rule in question, though, seems to be in the section explaining the cards - under the abbot and commander cards, in the "Restriction:" section.

Thread: Re: English rules

Sonja — 2008-05-21T00:45:17+00:00

Which section of the rules is the uncertainty about? I'll retranslate it from the original German.

Thread: Re: English rules

coolpapa — 2008-05-21T00:06:10+00:00

Wait, it is permitted to do that? I thought full provinces were barriers to movement...huh.

Thread: English rules

Sonja — 2008-05-20T23:48:28+00:00

Looks like these two files are using the same rules translation.

http://bgg.cc/file/info/18702
http://bgg.cc/file/info/10773

One person said:
"There is one error in this translation that I know of: it says "It is permitted, however, to cross through [full] provinces with one's abbot". It should say "with one's abbot or villagers.""

Thread: Do you think the Kastellan has to be restricted?

kevinb9n — 2008-04-20T18:06:01+00:00

There's been discussion of whether the Kastellan is too powerful for the leading player if its use is completely unrestricted. Several variants have been suggested that involve prohibiting playing the Kastellan card in certain situations.

How many of you believe such a variant is the best way to play, and how many just like the standard rules?

I asked this question on this geek list, but there have been only very few votes so far:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/30317/item/629001#item...

Vote if you'd like! thanks.

Image

Firepigeon — 2008-04-13T14:23:18+00:00

AbrantesCON08 - Portugal game convention - Game in progress

Thread: Re: Focus on certain short term gain or plan for the long term?

out4blood — 2008-04-02T23:29:22+00:00

Not really. Once pieces start to hit the table, there's no guarantee of a "virgin" territory anymore. There might be villages or movable pieces that could come in and reduce your advantage significantly. This is not a situation that the first player must suffer.

Also, the first player has the choice of TWO cards, whereas every subsequent player only has ONE. The odds of getting an especially good scoring point thereby increases.

Thread: Re: Opening a strategy discussion of Kreta

out4blood — 2008-03-25T03:27:54+00:00

astroglide wrote:
kevinb9n wrote:
This is a great game. If it has any flaw, I don't know what it is.

turn order advantage? i've seen the first player in a game get a great fort spot on the first turn many times.

I wrote up a detailed analysis on why this was true, which sparked a sizable thread full of discussion. I was going to link to it. Unfortunately, it appears to have been deleted by some nefarious censor. (Maybe at the request of the publisher, since I declared the game broken and unsuitable for play without a rules modification.)

The bottom line was that the first player should ALWAYS (except in very rare cases where both scoring cards were horrible spots) play a fort to the best scoring card. The second player should take the next fort spot, if it's good and available. Then the first player should score as soon as possible. This ensures a sizable lead right off the bat. Other players have to subsequently get lucky card and timing to make equivalent scoring moves.

EDIT: Instead it was just apparently well-hidden. http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/1363161#1363161. In the thread, I suggested using a VP-auction for turn order. If you don't think there's an imbalance, feel free to bid 0.

Thread: Re: Opening a strategy discussion of Kreta

kevinb9n — 2008-03-23T17:59:06+00:00

astroglide wrote:
kevinb9n wrote:
This is a great game. If it has any flaw, I don't know what it is.

turn order advantage? i've seen the first player in a game get a great fort spot on the first turn many times.

That may be, but it doesn't bother me at all. If I play late in the turn order, I feel challenged to play so well that I can overcome this advantage. If I play first, my challenge is to not mess up and squander the advantage. Why does it really matter if every player has an equal chance of winning or not, as long as every player has important decisions to make that can affect those chances?

I'm probably an outlier in this. For me it's never about who wins and loses, just about playing as well as I can.

Thread: Re: Opening a strategy discussion of Kreta

kevinb9n — 2008-03-23T17:55:12+00:00

Drew1365 wrote:
One thing I noticed on my last game of Kreta is the extra importance of Ierapetra. Not only does it provide a lot of points, but it is the only region that stretches all the way across the island. If you can get it loaded up with bits, you can block players from moving their villagers through it. This became critical in the last game we played when the last couple scoring cards were on the eastern end of Crete, and a couple of us couldn't even get our villagers down there because Ierapetra had reached its bit-limit.

Drew, bad news -- you were playing it wrong. Villagers are allowed to move through full provinces. There's an error in the translated rules posted here, but the original German rules say "Es ist jedoch moeglich, solch eine Provinz mit dem Abt oder mit Voelkern zu durchqueren."

Thread: Re: Opening a strategy discussion of Kreta

astroglide — 2008-03-23T01:24:08+00:00

kevinb9n wrote:
This is a great game. If it has any flaw, I don't know what it is.

turn order advantage? i've seen the first player in a game get a great fort spot on the first turn many times.

Thread: Re: Opening a strategy discussion of Kreta

Drew1365 — 2008-03-23T01:02:15+00:00

One thing I noticed on my last game of Kreta is the extra importance of Ierapetra. Not only does it provide a lot of points, but it is the only region that stretches all the way across the island. If you can get it loaded up with bits, you can block players from moving their villagers through it. This became critical in the last game we played when the last couple scoring cards were on the eastern end of Crete, and a couple of us couldn't even get our villagers down there because Ierapetra had reached its bit-limit.

Thread: Re: Opening a strategy discussion of Kreta

kevinb9n — 2008-03-23T00:40:17+00:00

Region-wise, Ierapetra and Rethimnon are insanely good; by far the two most valuable regions on the board. You probably want to choose one of them to aggressively pursue and get and keep your majority through most of the game. Even a stable second-place position in these is worth real points.

Thread: Re: Opening a strategy discussion of Kreta

kevinb9n — 2008-03-23T00:25:16+00:00

When the game first starts I think it's more important to lay groundwork and come up with a farming plan, than it is to worry about what you will score in the first few scoring rounds.

Get some forts down in the key spaces -- best: 5 and 9; also excellent are 6, 19 and 20; depending on what numbers will score soon you may consider 2, 4, 13, 16 or 17.

Konig the Feldherr to build up villagers in a central location that can be swarmed later. Find a trio of like food tiles that you will attempt to acquire over the next several rounds, start getting the pieces in place for it, and get your first food tile as soon as you can because those villages are hot.

Now just ignore everything I've said, since I've only played twice and lost both times.

This is a great game. If it has any flaw, I don't know what it is.

Thread: Re: Any English publisher going to pick this up?

kevinb9n — 2008-03-19T09:45:03+00:00

2+ years later...

I'm extremely disappointed in the quality of my wood components. I've never seen such poor work:

* some villagers have uneven bases so they don't sit still
* one green fort is way, way taller than the rest, and slightly misshapen
* many of the village pieces are misshapen to a large degree

It really sucks because it could be such a beautiful game overall if not for all these screwups.

I guess I'll try to get a good photo of the messed up pieces and then write to Goldsieber.

Thread: Re: Kastellan variant

kevinb9n — 2008-03-19T09:41:26+00:00

noctua wrote:
Only if the player has no more cards left can he, who most recently played the Kastellan, do so again.

2+ years later...

I don't think that's possible. The player after the last Kastellan player would be the first to play a card and would therefore have to be the first to run out of all his non-Kastellan cards.

Image

yakos — 2008-01-17T23:33:40+00:00

Castle Cards (Kastellkarten)

Thread: Re: Opening a strategy discussion of Kreta

davedanger — 2008-01-16T18:22:42+00:00

How about needing some food for a fort build like villages?
Forts would then get built later.

Image

ArtEmiSa64 — 2007-12-10T22:43:31+00:00

unpunched game components

Image

Firepigeon — 2007-11-30T00:06:31+00:00

Game in progress (Lisbon, Portugal - 2007/11/23)

Image

Firepigeon — 2007-11-30T00:05:31+00:00

Fame in progress

Thread: Re: Opening a strategy discussion of Kreta

dcjackso — 2007-11-27T04:53:42+00:00

We played a 3P game of Kreta over the long weekend, and I was reminded what a great game this is! Here are some thoughts re: strategy:

1) Forts and admirals are typical first plays at our house. I tend to initiate scoring quite a bit, so it is rare that a fortress of mine won't be useful for multiple scoring rounds (since I have some control over which regions will be scored).

2) Getting villagers out is crucial, so that in the mid- and endgame you can lock up a province by using 4 MP to move multiple villagers. It's nice to have them in a central position, with access to multiple ports, to make farming less painful. Feldherr and Baumeister are the cards most often duplicated ("Konig'd") in our games.

3) In most games I find the Bauer to be extremely important. If one or more opponents can plop down villages and you are behind in goods chits, it can be hard to catch up. And don't forget that farming earns points in and of itself. I've only played 11 games of Kreta, but a majority of those games have been decided by 5 points or less. On the flipside, it's rare that our group will allow someone to farm multiple goods of one type, so they are typically worth only one point, or maybe two.

A related point is the psychological effect of plopping a village down on a empty territory. BAM!!! You *will* get first in that region: providing you don't abandon the effort, the best another player can do is tie you for first. Even if someone else immediately builds a village in the same region, it's clear that you are dictating the flow of the game, while all the other players are a move behind you.

4) The only point I really disagree with in the previous posts concerns His Clerical Personage. HCP rules! Apart from simply filling space (ports x 2 and land regions x 7 units), this is the only defensive piece on the board. IMO, this means that placing and moving His Holiness (Abt) are some of the most important and interesting decisions in the game. At least twice, you should be able to get the jump on other players by swift Abt placement/ movement. He's actually quite mobile with 3 MP. And while I agree that this will often prompt immediate Abt placement by other players, this is a good thing: as with "first village" placement," you are one move ahead and you are controlling the tempo of the game.

Speaking of tempo, perhaps my favorite abstraction in Kreta is how time expands and contracts, depending on who wants to score, and how much of a hurry they are in to do so. The second half of the game might be half or 1/3 the length of the first half, if people are trying to jump on quick scoring opportunities. I've seen the final 5 scoring cards take a total of 10 skimpy minutes to resolve--1/6 of a 60-minute game!
Other games start with some fast scoring right out of the gate as players try to press immediate advantages...and then the game can slow way down...

For me, part of the beauty of Kreta is scoring points RIGHT NOW, while also finding time to do the gruntwork that supports the high-visibility actions like building fortresses/villages and placement and movement of villagers: moving the Abt, moving ships, and farming. For a game with relatively few rules and equally simple mechanics, there is a lot going on out there!

One question I'll add, for others to weigh in: Do you like to play Kreta as the pace car (that is, do you prefer to lead)? Or do you like to ride shotgun (not leading, but staying close on the leader's tail)? I think about scoring track position in Kreta in the same way I do when playing Taj Mahal. (And El Grande, come to think of it, although that's because king-making and bash-the-leader tactics are inherent deficiencies in that otherwise excellent game. Not so in Kreta and Taj Mahal. Okay, no more El Grande-bashing. This is a Kreta thread.:wow

I very much prefer NOT to lead in this game. In fact, I'm comfortable in last place for the majority of the game. Laying back, often playing for the next (rather than the current) to-be-scored regions, allows you to jump on a scoring monopoly (if you are in last place, since you don't have to wait for X number of character cards to be played before playing the Kastellan). Nothing feels better than scoring six or more points while your opponents score zero! This can happen more often than you think, especially immediately after one of those huge central battles which include a 6-pt. space. Players concentrate so much on the currently contested areas that it's possible to come in second in multiple areas, allowing your main opponent(s) at that time to burn valuable resources while you set things up for the next scoring round. This also gives you some time to take care of "housekeeping"--moving villagers and ships, farming, and defensive Abt placement.

Finally, I always try to remember that "my time will come," by which I mean that even if I'm doing poorly in some big opening battles, the "dead zones" way on the other side of the board WILL come into play eventually, and I'll be poised to run up some points when they do. (I should say that although I've won my share of Kreta games, I've lost more than I've won. My wife is pretty dang good at this game!)

Great idea for a thread, Drew! Kreta has joined San Marco as one of the all-time greats of 3P games. (With 4P, the board gets a bit congested for me...although I will still happily play.)

Final thoughts:
1) The "variant" rules posted here make this a MUCH stronger game. In particular, the "scoring delay" rules is crucial and helps the game avoid a first-player advantage. Drew, I know the game plays very well without this rule, but you should give it a try sometime! At worst you won't notice it, and at best it will help prevent a runaway victory. (I also remember that you expressly asked people not to talk about variant rules. Sorry! This is not a hijack attempt!)

Another house rule that we always play with is to examine the first two scoring cards to make sure that adjacent regions won't be included in scoring rounds one and two. Again, this is primarily to avoid a built-in first-player advantage, but it also helps prevent one player from getting off to an incredible start due to dumb but good luck.

2) How does Kreta fare when compared with other area majority games?
With 3P, San Marco and Kreta are right up there. Recently, I've been playing Patrician a lot, and I really, really like it with 2P and 3P.
China (and Web of Power, although I've not played that game) should get mentioned here, but China isn't nearly as deep as Kreta and San Marco.

With 4P, Kreta may be the best area majority game out there. I can't think of anything else that comes close. El Grande, I guess. Others? What games am I forgetting!?

With 5P, El Grande seems like a clear choice--although that can be a very, very frustrating game.

Thread: Re: Opening a strategy discussion of Kreta

Scott Firestone IV — 2007-11-08T15:31:53+00:00

Drew1365 wrote:

Should the ships come out early, too? Playing the admiral allows you to place one ship into a harbor, or move up to two ships on the board. It seems a no-brainer to get your ships out as quickly as possible so that you have the ability to move two on a turn rather than just placing one. I see no reason to hold back a ship.

The Admiral is almost always my first role chosen, and I get my second ship out quickly, too. Since only two ships can be in a port, it's a great way to get points that only one other player can match.

Drew1365 wrote:

Is the Abbot worth the effort? The Abbot: worth only one influence point. Moves up to three territories. Prevents others from building villages or placing villagers in his territory. That is, until they place their own Abbot in the same territory. While the Abbot seems powerful to me, the fact that he only holds power over one territory makes him seem like a one-shot deal. Since it can be a fatal error to waste even a single turn in this game, I have only rarely found myself bothering to move him after he's been placed simply because I could gain the same amount of influence or more by using other pieces.

I like the Abbot less and less with each game. It just feels like a delay tactic--I move mine in, everybody else moves theirs in, and we're back to where we were before--though admittedly closer to the figure limit for the province. In our last game I think I played the Abbot once.

Drew1365 wrote:

Forts. Play quickly or hold back? So let's say the "2" card comes up, and you're the next player. You have a fort available. Should you place it on the 2 spot immediately? It would seem to make sense to do so, because if you do you'll get influence in all the regions scored for that card. Some say that the first two players in a given game have an advantage in that they'll immediately place forts on the locations specified by the first two scoring cards up. I would tend to agree that grabbing that spot immediately is a good move, however . . . I would only do this if I could place somewhere along the center border. Forts on the center border influence more territories. Another reason to grab those spots quickly. I lean toward playing them out while the open spaces are still good. I'd say that if you can place one at "2" and one at 9," you've got a good portion of the board covered.

If I don't play my Admiral first, I'm quite likely to get a fort on one of the spaces that influence four regions--especially if the first scoring card is for one of those regions. Interior is definitely better than exterior--usually.

Drew1365 wrote:

Is grabbing goods tokens more trouble than it's worth? Sure, you need a few so you can build villages, but given that you use a turn to take one, and that setting up your ships and villagers to be able to take one takes effort as well, is it worth it to focus on them given how few points they offer? Tentatively, I say no. I grab some if I'm already set up to do so, so that I may build villages. But otherwise I don't worry about it. Fatal mistake?

I usually don't pay enough attention to goods, but I'm coming around--especially if there's a cluster of the same goods in an area. As GeoMan said, that's 10 VPs if you can swing it, and you'll be able to place the powerful forts.

Thread: Re: Opening a strategy discussion of Kreta

GeoMan — 2007-11-07T21:02:58+00:00

Kreta is a very dynamic and delicate game in which you must also be able to react to your opponent's moves. You can rush to the scoring areas or you can build for future scoring.

All your points are valid, but i don't think that there is a fixed strategy that is going to always work, as a lot depends on what the other players do.

One point i'd like to note is that you must watch carefully what cards are in front of your opponents as this will show you what they can or can't do in the following turns.

Also note that since there are 16 agriculture tiles, in a 4-player game if you get 5 tiles one of the other players will be unable to build his last village. And the points from these tiles are significant if you get same tiles (getting 4 cheese for example will net you 10 VPs).

The Abbot is also a good piece but his power and use also depends on the current board situation (for example if all opponent's Abbot cards are already on the table your Abbot card may easily help you get a majority since it now may lock all other Villagers and Villages out of the area).

Thread: Opening a strategy discussion of Kreta

Drew1365 — 2007-11-07T19:56:53+00:00

I'd like to open up a discussion of strategy in Stefan Dorra's Kreta. This is a beautiful, well-designed area-majority game, but it's quite brutal.

I've played with three players and with four, and both are very different experiences. Four-player games seem the hardest to manage, three player games less so, but I always feel like I'm thisclose to just blowing it. Even when I feel like I'm playing my best every move feels like I'm playing catch-up.

The game is a tense one, and reminds me a lot of another very tense placement game, Web of Power. (In fact, Eric Burgess called it "Web of Power on Wheelz!")

Here are some things I'd like to discuss.

Is it an advantage or disadvantage to place your villagers early in the game? On one hand, having several (or all) out on the board gives you the ability to move more than one into a scoring region on a turn. (Four-space move limit total.) In my first couple games I didn't use their movement abilities to my advantage. I am only now recognizing the power of being able to "swarm" your villagers if the journey is short. However, keeping at least one (or more) off the board allows you to plop one into a space that you otherwise might not have been able to move to in one turn because of the distance. Right now I'm convinced that placing all your villagers early is a good idea.

Should the ships come out early, too? Playing the admiral allows you to place one ship into a harbor, or move up to two ships on the board. It seems a no-brainer to get your ships out as quickly as possible so that you have the ability to move two on a turn rather than just placing one. I see no reason to hold back a ship.

Is the Abbot worth the effort? The Abbot: worth only one influence point. Moves up to three territories. Prevents others from building villages or placing villagers in his territory. That is, until they place their own Abbot in the same territory. While the Abbot seems powerful to me, the fact that he only holds power over one territory makes him seem like a one-shot deal. Since it can be a fatal error to waste even a single turn in this game, I have only rarely found myself bothering to move him after he's been placed simply because I could gain the same amount of influence or more by using other pieces.

Forts. Play quickly or hold back? So let's say the "2" card comes up, and you're the next player. You have a fort available. Should you place it on the 2 spot immediately? It would seem to make sense to do so, because if you do you'll get influence in all the regions scored for that card. Some say that the first two players in a given game have an advantage in that they'll immediately place forts on the locations specified by the first two scoring cards up. I would tend to agree that grabbing that spot immediately is a good move, however . . . I would only do this if I could place somewhere along the center border. Forts on the center border influence more territories. Another reason to grab those spots quickly. I lean toward playing them out while the open spaces are still good. I'd say that if you can place one at "2" and one at 9," you've got a good portion of the board covered.

Is grabbing goods tokens more trouble than it's worth? Sure, you need a few so you can build villages, but given that you use a turn to take one, and that setting up your ships and villagers to be able to take one takes effort as well, is it worth it to focus on them given how few points they offer? Tentatively, I say no. I grab some if I'm already set up to do so, so that I may build villages. But otherwise I don't worry about it. Fatal mistake?

Any other thoughts on strategies for this game?

Also, I realize people have strong opinions regarding what they feel are problems with the rules as written, and several people employ variants to prevent what they see as a runaway leader problem. (For example, not allowing someone to play the Castellan immediately after playing it in the previous turn.) I'd rather not get into that at all in this thread and instead focus on the game as written (which I feel needs no fixes).

Image

GeoMan — 2007-11-05T22:12:45+00:00

4 players

Thread: FAQ

davedanger — 2007-10-25T17:49:26+00:00

Kreta FAQ Compiled

Player Order (Omission).We play that the person to the left of the castellan player starts the next round, as they would have been next in line to play a card.

Kastellan Scoring Variant.

A player may only play the Kastellan (and with it initiate a scoring) if he has already played at least as many character cards, as there are players behind him on the scoring track.

Example: In a 4 player game, player A is first (the leader) on the scoring track, he must have played at least 3 character cards, before he may play out the Kastellan.

Limits (Clarification).

The 7 figure limit is an absolute limit: nothing else can be placed there (Abbots, Villagers, Villages), but all playing pieces (Abbots, Villagers) can still move through.

An Abbot locks a province (if pieces there < 7) unless opponent has or moves his own Abbot there.

Admiral (Interpretation)
May move 2 ships sequentially. (for simplicity's sake)

Fort Variant.
You can try the following variant if you like a more analytical game:

Instead of 2 face-up Fort cards, use 3 face-up Fort cards at all times.

Image

Soledade — 2007-10-11T22:34:20+00:00

Decisions...

Image

spearjr — 2007-10-07T01:16:01+00:00

Online Interface on Mabiweb.com

Thread: Re: Kreta - rumors...an english version coming?

Sonja — 2007-10-01T20:48:14+00:00

It's sold out!! WAHHH

Image

rgatti — 2007-09-25T03:21:56+00:00

All of the game components (Board, wooden pieces, cards, agriculture tiles, and player aids)

Image

rgatti — 2007-09-25T03:20:28+00:00

All of the wooden pieces

Thread: Re: Slight change to setup

johncarlton — 2007-08-31T20:42:49+00:00

We played this last night and ran into that problem, with cards 4 and 6 coming out to start.

It made me think of a variation for the four player game:

Deal out 12 scoring cards (instead of 11). Flip over the first three. Always score the next two cards in the line, and let the person who plays the Castellan determine where the third area will be.

(i.e. - The first person to play a Castellan will decide where the 4th area is scored, and so forth.)

My thought is that would give players (especially those at the end of the turn order) a little bit more opportunity to plan ahead, but still maintain a pretty fair amount of conflict.

What do you guys think?

EDIT:
I'm two years too late! GeoMan has already suggested this variant, here:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/68055

Thread: Re: Focus on certain short term gain or plan for the long term?

cannoneer — 2007-05-24T22:46:50+00:00

I've not played the game yet (just starting a game on MaBiWeb), but it strikes me that this whole playing a single fort and then scoring it on your next turn could benefit all 3 players - aren't they all going to have first pick at placing a fort in a scoring region at some point, given that each also has to "waste" a turn actually playing the scoring card?

Seems that while in the first round Player C is stuck contesting a single region, in the 2nd round he will be placing a fort in the 3rd scoring area (which will be revealed at the beginning of the 2nd round when Player A scores his first fort), effectively becoming Player B for this turn, and will leave Player B (on the next turn, since he also has to use Round 2 to score) to have to contest a either C or A's forts (placed in round 2 and 3, respectively).

So the rhythm seems like it would then see Player C in the "first" place in Round 4, allowing him to do what Player A did originally.

I didn't count how many fort spaces are on the board vs. how many forts the players have (i.e. 3 per), but if the fort spaces exceed the number of forts, couldn't they all get the benefit of placing a fort in a "virgin" area where they automatically have the majority and can only be contested?

So it's like if the first several rounds see only forts and scoring cards played, then the "third" player in the chain will rotate each turn and will have to simply contest the best region available to him to pick up a few points.

Once everyone runs out of forts and has to start doing other stuff, I'd think they'd all be fairly even.

Thread: Re: Kreta at MaBiWeb

Drew1365 — 2007-05-21T16:58:56+00:00

JeffyJeff wrote:
You forgot the link

http://www.mabiweb.com/

Dang, thanks . . . I just assumed, y'know, that everyone knew about MaBiWeb. I've been among the Geeks too long.

Thread: Re: Kreta at MaBiWeb

JeffyJeff — 2007-05-21T16:43:26+00:00

You forgot the link

http://www.mabiweb.com/

Thread: Re: Kreta at MaBiWeb

Drew1365 — 2007-05-21T16:30:14+00:00

"I won I won I won," he gloated.

Thread: Re: Kreta at MaBiWeb

Scott Firestone IV — 2007-05-21T16:11:39+00:00

Drew1365 wrote:
Kreta has now moved to 'open beta' at MaBiWeb, and I just finished up a game. The implementation is awesome, and so is the game. And I'm not just saying that because I won.

You cheated by sticking that abbot on my seat. Those hurt.

Thread: Kreta at MaBiWeb

Drew1365 — 2007-05-21T16:01:16+00:00

Kreta has now moved to 'open beta' at MaBiWeb, and I just finished up a game. The implementation is awesome, and so is the game. And I'm not just saying that because I won.

Thread: TVB - 4P - An Island Divided....

RPardoe — 2007-03-08T01:31:19+00:00

With time left and 4 people still wanting to play, we decided to give Kreta a try with four. This was last played in the group about 1 year ago (Dave and Sam were in that game) as well as late in 2005 (Dave and Rich). So after 2 player and 3 player, Kreta hits the table for a full four player game. Briefly, Kreta is an area control game, but a very dynamic one as the scoring areas change as the game progresses. Some of your influence (villagers, ships, abbots) are mobile, while others (villages, forts) are not. The trick is that each type of influence can only be played at most one time before someone triggers scoring. So a key aspect of the game is when do you play the non-mobile forces and where is a key decision. One can see ahead a bit to know what will score the next two rounds, but beyond that, it is unknown. (Though the person triggering scoring can have some influence.)

The initial plays saw Dave/Sam at one end of the island while Rich/Kris were at the other end. But just before scoring, Dave planted a fort at the other end to share in some of the points for the first scoring round. Rich/Kris then maneuvered (or tried to) for the subsequent scoring, but after two scoring rounds - pretty even scores. The olive harvests had been nicely placed (randomly, mind you) in close proximity, so Rich focused on harvesting all the olive tiles for their 10 point harvest bonus (1 + 2 + 3 +4).

Unfortunately, time was getting late and folks faced drives home, so we called the game after 8 (of 11) rounds. Scores at that point:

Rich: 36
Kris: 36
Dave: 35
Sam : 34

As is typical with Kreta games - scoring is pretty tight. I wonder how the next three rounds would have borne out and who would have been the eventual winner.

Thread: Re: Focus on certain short term gain or plan for the long term?

jayjonbeach — 2007-03-02T05:55:20+00:00

out4blood wrote:
That sounds like groupthink to me.

Just to make a short story even longer, what I suggested was not "group think", that is something that is done in LOTR or On the Underground where people talk about the best move out loud. All I am saying that if player 2 is smart he will play into the 6 point region for 6 points since that is the most points you can score in one region, but everyone has there own way to play I guess and that would be a whole different subject for the strategy section...

out4blood wrote:
I'm not sure why we're even arguing this back and forth; you clearly agree that the game needed fixin'. If it needed fixin', then it musta been broke, right?

Yeah I'm not sure either as the horse was dead a long time ago. You said "the game is broken", I mearly tried to help and point out that no, the game is not broken it needs tweaking (suggesting that yes a part of the game improves by bending the rule, BIG difference IMHO). A broken game would be a game that is "not playable" by true definition, Kreta is playable with the original rules as your scores pointed out as do the ratings for the game here on this site, it just isn't as good as it is once tweaked. If Kreta was truly broken it would not have the ratings it has or the rank it now enjoys, it wouldn't even make the top 1000. Saying this is broken is like saying Puerto Rico is broken because the corn player has too much advantage or the first player in Chess has too much advantage but granted the score card rule seems as though it missed something, I gave you that in my first post.

Obviously calling a game broken is a pretty harsh critique and shouldn't be taken lightly which is why I responded in the first place. Like most people I would like to know before buying games if they are truly broken or whether they just need tweaking, fortunately most people's comments were accurate about this one agreeing it is a good game that a tweak makes better so I bought it and couldn't be happier. Not addressing the "game is broken" comment may have stopped other people reading this from at least trying the game and that would be a shame without seeing the whole story.

Hopefully Kreta will get a reprint someday and if so hopefully with at least the Kastellan variant included so other people will enjoy the game rather than end up discussing it in threads like this....

Thread: Re: Focus on certain short term gain or plan for the long te

out4blood — 2007-03-01T05:32:14+00:00

jayjonbeach wrote:
out4blood wrote:
No, we play it correctly. What I mean by "can't be contested" is that you are guarranteed to get those points, they can't be taken away.

At the beginning of the game the second player almost has to play into one of the regions should the first player choose to play a fort, as will the third player and maybe even the fourth, this means the first player will only win ONE REGION with his fort or MAYBE NONE, they could all be tied and now his fort is gone and he only has 2 left. Might be worth it, definitely won't be worth it if it is a 2 point region, you see the logic here I hope?

That sounds like groupthink to me. Player 2 does not have to play to the first area. If they play to area 2, then only player 3 could be contesting. Then it is to Player 1's advantage to play the Kastellan as his next play - waiting would only enable other players to erode his majority. Of course, then Player 2's best play is also Kastellan, because that region would have no opposition.

jayjonbeach wrote:
The second player may come along and tie you in 1 of those regions, but why would they? They have their own uncontested scoring node to which they can play a fort.

The second player can play his fort into the 2nd scoring region all he wants but that won't be scored until AFTER the first region, which means there is lots of time to CONTEST it. Clear right?

No, see above.

jayjonbeach wrote:
Personally I have never played with the original rules...

jayjonbeach wrote:
out4blood wrote:
This leaves the 3rd player with playing for a tie in 1 of those first regions, but the first 2 players still get those points.

I think you need to play the game a couple of more times before calling it broken as your logic here is flawed in execution, but the game is much better with a couple of tweaks as most people agree on. J

Well... I think that you should play at least once with the original rules before calling my logic flawed in execution. Given the number of rule tweaks you have already suggested and the fact that you admit to never having played by the original rules because of well-known problems with the game, you've lent credence and confidence to my assertion. So there!

I'm not saying I'd never play it again, just that it needs new rules to make it more playable. I'm not sure why we're even arguing this back and forth; you clearly agree that the game needed fixin'. If it needed fixin', then it musta been broke, right?

Thread: Re: Focus on certain short term gain or plan for the long te

out4blood — 2007-03-01T05:12:13+00:00

Thread: Re: Focus on certain short term gain or plan for the long term?

BlakkHole — 2007-03-01T04:52:06+00:00

Going a little bit more into our specific game: After the initial quick-scoring rounds, Tim and Tom ended up vying for majority in the 5-point province bordered by 16, 17, 19, 20 etc. We knew this province would be scored twice in quick succession.
Whilst they placed a lot of their game pieces into this one particular province, I decided to go out and secure the high-value provinces in other parts of the board. This put me significantly behind in scoring for quite some time but in the end we were all just 1 point apart. On principle, my strategy paid off as I achieved majorities that were hard to take away and therefore scored a lot more points in the last three scoring rounds.
There are a couple of options in game play I would like to explore next time - mainly: is it worth to score a province one is weak in for the advantage of neglecting an unfavorable fort card that gets turned over - what's the trade-off regarding timing?; how late/early in the game should one play the villages; how valuable is specializing in harvests really, etc.

PS: This will probably be debated by Tim & Tom but I strongly believe that I could have won this game with a little better endgame play. So I demand revenge!

Thread: Re: Focus on certain short term gain or plan for the long term?

jayjonbeach — 2007-03-01T02:39:10+00:00

tpancoast wrote:
jayjonbeach wrote:
Hey Tim. It looks like you might be playing wrong. The fort only counts for one point of influence, if you are the start player and you play it, yes you will have one point of influence on 3 regions (maybe 4). The other 2 people now have their turn and they can tie you in two of the regions and now your fort is used up so not as powerful or obvious as you make it sound although sometimes this is a good starting move (with 4 people they could tie you in every region). This can be a good play depending on how much the given regions are worth as they might come up again but it isn't an automatic majority in 3 regions that can't be contested as you imply AND I would much rather use my fort for the 4,5 and 6 point regions versus the 2,3 and 4 point ones. Now the city in the game which can be built is worth 2 influence points but can only be built only AFTER you have acquired a resource which won't be until a bit later and this can be defended against with the Priest as well.

We (Tim, Blakkhole, and I) were counting the value of the forts correctly. I believe that the 9 card was up first, which is surrounded by regions worth 6, 4, 3, & 2. I'm not sure I would call the game broken either, but that is alot of points to win with just a single placement, especially since that placement is likely to provide additional benefit later in the game. Sure, in a 3 player game, they could have tied me in two areas, but I still get points for all four, and they only get points for one. If all players went for different regions, that leads to an immediate score of 15 to 6 to 4. That is a pretty big early lead in both cases. This scoring assumes that all players act to directly counter the first player. The better play for the second player might be to play a fort to maximize the other scoring card. Since they are choosing second, it is unlikely that they will get as much advantage out of it, but it would help. As Tim suggested, this seems to leave the third (and perhaps forth) player out in the cold.

This scenario was exaggerated by a valuable fort card coming out first. Similar opportunities might become available any time a new for card is turned over by the person on a player's right, but the other players will have more pieces on the board and therefore have more flexibility to counter it. While I am not convinced it is a game breaker, it does suggest a need for improvement. I have really enjoyed my two playings, and it takes alot more than this before I would call call a game broken. It is a shame that it appears to need tweaking.

Next time I play the game, I will definitely try one of the tweaks.

Hey Tom, glad to hear you enjoyed the game. It does have a bit of a unique feel in a big realm of area control games which is another reason I like it.

You and Tim are absolutely right in that particular instance so I'm eating hat a little , that first play would be very strong and not even the tweaks mentioned can counter it very much at all. Now with 3 players it is magnified much more (4 at the table could counter it better) but it is probably considered to be optimal 3 by most so that arguement dies right there. Really there are only 2 cards out of the 26 that can cause that situation, 9 and 13 which give 4 regions to score. The other 24 cards are 2 or 3 regions only and things change a lot if that is taken out of the equation, especially playing the scoring card rule. Also, like you mentioned when the card comes out later on there are already pieces on the board so again the effect is lessened. Personally I have never played with the original rules (and after reading your experience I'm glad as I never had a bad game of Kreta), I researched before playing and then buying this game and enough people seemed to agree that you should never be allowed to play the scoring card on your first turn and only on your second turn if you are losing, this does alleviate some of the effect in most cases but not all and not so much in the example you give. I also noticed like Tim that turn order was too important to just leave to chance so I begun rotating it after my first game and have never looked back.

Hopefully you guys will give it another chance, it really does work well with the suggestions. Happy Gaming Guys!

Thread: Re: Focus on certain short term gain or plan for the long term?

tpancoast — 2007-02-28T18:19:02+00:00

jayjonbeach wrote:
Hey Tim. It looks like you might be playing wrong. The fort only counts for one point of influence, if you are the start player and you play it, yes you will have one point of influence on 3 regions (maybe 4). The other 2 people now have their turn and they can tie you in two of the regions and now your fort is used up so not as powerful or obvious as you make it sound although sometimes this is a good starting move (with 4 people they could tie you in every region). This can be a good play depending on how much the given regions are worth as they might come up again but it isn't an automatic majority in 3 regions that can't be contested as you imply AND I would much rather use my fort for the 4,5 and 6 point regions versus the 2,3 and 4 point ones. Now the city in the game which can be built is worth 2 influence points but can only be built only AFTER you have acquired a resource which won't be until a bit later and this can be defended against with the Priest as well.
We (Tim, Blakkhole, and I) were counting the value of the forts correctly. I believe that the 9 card was up first, which is surrounded by regions worth 6, 4, 3, & 2. I'm not sure I would call the game broken either, but that is alot of points to win with just a single placement, especially since that placement is likely to provide additional benefit later in the game. Sure, in a 3 player game, they could have tied me in two areas, but I still get points for all four, and they only get points for one. If all players went for different regions, that leads to an immediate score of 15 to 6 to 4. That is a pretty big early lead in both cases. This scoring assumes that all players act to directly counter the first player. The better play for the second player might be to play a fort to maximize the other scoring card. Since they are choosing second, it is unlikely that they will get as much advantage out of it, but it would help. As Tim suggested, this seems to leave the third (and perhaps forth) player out in the cold.

This scenario was exaggerated by a valuable fort card coming out first. Similar opportunities might become available any time a new for card is turned over by the person on a player's right, but the other players will have more pieces on the board and therefore have more flexibility to counter it. While I am not convinced it is a game breaker, it does suggest a need for improvement. I have really enjoyed my two playings, and it takes alot more than this before I would call call a game broken. It is a shame that it appears to need tweaking.

Next time I play the game, I will definitely try one of the tweaks.