Game: Settlers of the Stone Age, The

Thread: Re: Expansion bonus (2nd player)

TheCat — 2008-04-25T10:44:04+00:00

I thought it was intentional - the second player doesn't get the full bonus two points, but does get to deny someone a possible camp spot.

Image

Rokkr — 2008-04-25T10:38:29+00:00

rule book cover (includes inventory of parts)

Image

Rokkr — 2008-04-25T10:34:34+00:00

tribe counters

Image

Rokkr — 2008-04-25T10:33:32+00:00

exploration tiles

Image

Rokkr — 2008-04-25T10:32:28+00:00

art cards

Image

Rokkr — 2008-04-25T10:31:22+00:00

exploration card

Image

Rokkr — 2008-04-25T10:30:38+00:00

expansion card

Image

Rokkr — 2008-04-25T10:29:56+00:00

adaptation cards

Image

Rokkr — 2008-04-25T10:28:28+00:00

animal enemy

Image

Rokkr — 2008-04-25T10:27:44+00:00

human enemy

Image

Rokkr — 2008-04-25T10:27:03+00:00

desert tile

Thread: Re: Expansion bonus (2nd player)

Argus Panoptes — 2008-04-06T05:16:32+00:00

I think the intent is that one of the tribe markers still on the board is a convenient way to represent that bonus VP.

By the time two players have managed to spread like that, there probably isn't much of the game left anyway.

Thread: Re: Expansion bonus (2nd player)

bwingrave — 2008-02-29T18:52:11+00:00

This rule is printed in the rulebook that came with my copy. I think I have the Mayfair edition also.

Thread: Re: Waiting forever for meat or bone to arrive...

bwingrave — 2008-02-24T20:28:46+00:00

To speed the beginning of the game along, I have everyone start with one of each resource. This means nobody has to wait in order to do their first action (whatever they choose).

During the rest of the game, I guess I like the tension of scarce resources, combined with trading 3-for-1 with the bank (vs. 4-for-1 in regular Settlers). It makes it important to pick settlement areas that are on the scarce resources.

You could try a deck of dice, if you want to avoid the "You rolled 3 again?" problem.

Thread: Re: Expansion bonus (2nd player)

Sonja — 2008-02-24T19:48:54+00:00

gonso75 wrote:
According to the English (Mayfair) translation of the rules, the second player to achieve the exploration bonus (one tribe on each continent) gets 1vp. It states that "You may take any one of the tribe counters on the board and place it in front of you".

I think I missed this rule. Is it a variant? It would have helped our losing player with that one point.

Thread: Waiting forever for meat or bone to arrive...

Sonja — 2008-02-24T19:45:01+00:00

Maybe some sort of variant can be invented so that you can actually pick yourself which number is rolled, but then it's crossed out on a big list of number frequencies, and you have to keep picking from this list until it's all done.

Any ideas?

Sonja

Thread: Re: Camp placement - can they be adjacent?

Sonja — 2008-02-24T19:44:14+00:00

Why would you want to camp anywhere else than a racial token VP bonus anyway?

Thread: Re: Moving into a past camp location?

bwingrave — 2008-01-06T17:14:47+00:00

I have a couple of comments for you, based on four or so plays of the game. I'm by no means an expert, but maybe this perspective will be helpful.

The rulebook states three times that converting an explorer into a camp involves an intersection with a tribe counter. In my rulebook, it's in section C on page 6. First, it mentions "If you have moved one of your explorers to an intersection with a tribe counter...", then "When you create a camp, you must...place the tribe counter...in front of you", and finally, "Important: An explorer may be converted into a camp only on an intersection with a tribe counter!" So as written, this seems clear to me.

In our games, I don't think it has happened very often that players have picked up camps outside of Africa in order to place them elsewhere. Maybe one or two players per game would do this once or twice, and I think it was toward the end of the game, when building a new camp in the same location would not give a player many resources before the end. (Each player starts with three camps in Africa and places the next two (which begin off the board) first, followed by picking up and moving of the three from Africa. A player who has done this will have five victory points from tribe markers alone. The other VP sources (exploration chits, technology cards, and the two 2-point VP cards) make it possible for players to get to 10 points without needing to remove camps that are outside of Africa, should they choose this strategy.)

Thread: Re: Inaccessible spots?

laiernie — 2007-12-24T21:07:32+00:00

that's correct, explorers can only move on dots

Thread: Inaccessible spots?

TeeWee — 2007-12-24T14:18:44+00:00

In my last game, a simple question came up. There are some spots on the map which do not have any "dots" on them. Specifically, West Africa and North Africa. We interpreted that it means that your nomads can't move on those tiles. While west Africa was never a point of contention because nobody wanted to move a nomad there anyway, North Africa remained a small question mark.

Since the path through the Middle East did have "dots" on them, and the Gibraltar-area did not, we interpreted it as deliberate and that nomads were unable to cross from Africa into Spain, nor that they were able to walk along that piece of coastline.

For the difference, see the following image:
]]>

Is this correct?

Thread: Re: Stoneage or Starfarers for next step?

greengow — 2007-12-18T19:59:58+00:00

No, don't get Starfarers (*Fs). I recommend SoSA. Why?

- The theme is much better incorporated
- The game flows much nicer. Plus it mimics the way the world has been populated. *Fs is just too weird with a cosmic theme.
- The components are what you're used to in original Settlers, wooden pieces and nice. *Fs has a lot of plastic that just breaks all the time. Fiddly, I say.
- In SoSA you see the development of the game in a nicer way, as you look around the board. The 4 development paths are particularly nice touches. They add to the overall theme very well.

I was always fascinated with *Fs, but the more I look at the game, and the more I play SoSA, leads me to love SoSA much more, as it's very close to the original, yet very different.

Thread: Re: Moving into a past camp location?

Anarchosyn — 2007-11-28T21:06:07+00:00

Michael Ward wrote:
No. If you read on a bit down the page you'll see "Important: An explorer may be converted into a camp only on an intersection with a tribe counter."

Oh, I read that. The problems with interpreting it your way are:

1) The leader can strategically steal ideal resource placements and then vacate the zone merely to grief the rest of the table by removing any potential availability of the resource.

2) The rule you quoted could be interpreted as a pre-initial placement criteria and not a post-placement criteria. In other words, due to the probability distributions they calculated in play tests, they only want X number of locations for potential camps. The question is whether this number stays constant or whether it dwindles over time.

Since the legal spaces in a 3 player game are denoted with a triangle, and color denotes the placements in a 4 player game, it's not like one would be at a loss to determine whether a space in question was a legal spot at some prior time in play.

In all honesty, it's just issue #1 that has me worried. I could try the game both ways, but the point of the session is to try it the "official" way before putting in any mods.

[q="Michael Ward"
To me if it was legal I still wouldn't want to do it, as you get no victory point for expending valuable resources for a camp (and losing your explorer, that will have to be rebuilt).

That's true. The only reason you would want to do it is if the space in question outputted a valuable commodity coupled with a promising probability number.

For example, perhaps Player A has been starving for hides and Player B just left a forest space labeled with a 6 or 8. The next similarly plentiful forest might be a far march from the current zone of contention, so Player A inquires to me (the rules master) whether it would be legal to set up camp for a few turns in the space Player B just vacated.

?

Thread: Re: Moving into a past camp location?

Michael Ward — 2007-11-28T09:54:41+00:00

No. If you read on a bit down the page you'll see "Important: An explorer may be converted into a camp only on an intersection with a tribe counter."

To me if it was legal I still wouldn't want to do it, as you get no victory point for expending valuable resources for a camp (and losing your explorer, that will have to be rebuilt).

Thread: Moving into a past camp location?

Anarchosyn — 2007-11-28T06:08:40+00:00

I just finished a quick reread of the rules in preparation to an appraisal session* tomorrow with a focused subset of my group. One major question remains:

Q: The rules specifically state "If you have moved one of your explorers to an intersection with a tribe counter, you may convert the explorer into a camp." Are you allowed to establish a camp on an intersection that had an exploration marker on it in the past?

Thanks.

* - Appraisal sessions are explorations of questionable titles from a technically minded vantage. We then do a postmortem over our impressions after playing an introductory session (this is how we vet out the bad games from our real game nights).

Thread: Re: Starting Points?

Anarchosyn — 2007-11-28T06:00:29+00:00

Thanks a lot, Kusinohki.

Thread: Re: Starting Points?

kusinohki — 2007-11-28T02:13:06+00:00

From memory, no. All of your points are represented by the tribe chits (that you collect when forming new settlements) or cards (lv5 tech art, exploration bonus, etc.). Starting settlements do not give you these or any other points.

Thread: Starting Points?

Anarchosyn — 2007-11-28T01:11:45+00:00

Do you start with any points in this variant on Settlers? In both the core game and Cities and Knights your starting settlements are worth points. Is that the case in Stone Age?

I don't think so, but wanted to make sure before my first game tomorrow.

Thread: Re: Stoneage or Starfarers for next step?

Karlsen — 2007-10-12T13:43:27+00:00

I would.

Thread: Re: Stoneage or Starfarers for next step?

Anarchosyn — 2007-10-12T08:04:07+00:00

So, if they're just a few dollars difference, I should go Starfarers first?

Thread: Re: Stoneage or Starfarers for next step?

Karlsen — 2007-10-12T06:06:45+00:00

Octavian wrote:
I like them both, but it's a no brainer as far as which one I like better.

-MMM
Agreed.

Thread: Re: Stoneage or Starfarers for next step?

tonyfung1205 — 2007-10-12T05:43:01+00:00

Agree with Matthew. I like them both. If I have 5-6 players, I will choose to play Starfarers. with 3 or 4, it's good to play Stone Age, where its desertization mechanism is really nice to keep the game flowing without having a leader-run-away problem.

Thread: Re: Stoneage or Starfarers for next step?

Octavian — 2007-10-12T05:26:59+00:00

Far more trading in Starfarers. Starfarers is also deeper, IMO. Both feature upgrading your capabilities through paying resources, however Stoneage has a static board with the exploration chips being the only random element. Starfarers has a much more random setup, as well as an encounter deck that players will face on half of their turns with a wide variety of results. AND Starfarers features the special powers that can be earned through the different alien races, for which Stoneage has no analog.

I like them both, but it's a no brainer as far as which one I like better.

-MMM

Thread: Stoneage or Starfarers for next step?

Anarchosyn — 2007-10-12T04:23:18+00:00

Just curious, which title feels the deepest? I really like the tech trees and pseudo-historical basis for Stoneage, but also really LOVE the space theme.

However, when I look at the Starfarers board it looks so sparse. Is Stoneage really the richest of the two options for features and feel?

Which game promotes trading the most?

Thanks.

Thread: Re: The little triangles

Path — 2007-07-07T18:25:29+00:00

Fascinating, thank you.

Thread: Re: The little triangles

Octavian — 2007-05-22T05:34:35+00:00

Those are the only spots that receive chips (and thus can be settled) when playing with three players.

-MMM

Thread: The little triangles

Path — 2007-05-22T03:58:17+00:00

I am curious, does anyone know what the little triangles inside some of the circles signify? I have a set of rules in German that discuss them, but I can't read German. I have a set of rules in English that skips over the topic.

Any help would be appreciated.

-Pat

Thread: Re: Owl's House Rules ver. 1.0

Dredry Toenail — 2007-03-23T13:45:38+00:00

I've played with rule 2 and was the one left behind in the game as the runaway player continued gobbling up VP's. It didn't help that most rolls in the game came up 6 and I didn't have anything on a 6 hex anywhere - the runaway player was on several 6 hexes. When I play without that rule, our group has had no problem going into America or Australia. Try playing to 12 or 15 VP if you want to go further into the far-off continents. I like the idea of taking away those 2-VP exploration cards, though, because I agree it really makes it too easy to jump way ahead and become a runaway.

Thread: Re: Owl's House Rules ver. 1.0

vulsuck — 2007-03-21T22:42:26+00:00

I think rule number 2 is included in the original German rules. As soon as I get a chance, I'll test it out and let you know how it goes.

Thread: (Get) Out of Africa

Paul Mackie — 2007-01-04T05:23:01+00:00

Simplicity of play, aesthetic appeal, and a whole world to discover keep this one attractive to me. For this game, my strategy was to land two new camps in Eurasia as quickly as possible, before focussing on the discovery tokens as a priority. There was some success in this in the form of bonus vps, and the privilege of choosing which parts of Africa would be desertified first.

But Pat’s strategy was superior: Expand new campsites into then beyond Eurasia into America and Australasia. All without progressing past level 2 on the Movement track, but largely without any form of competitive pressure from the rest of us.
~92 minutes, incl. rules explan.
Results: Pat: 11. Paul: 5. Craig: 3. Mike: 2.

(Originally posted at www.themineshaftgap.com.)

Thread: Settlers of the Stone Age - A Light Review

Neil Thomson — 2007-01-02T23:33:11+00:00

All of my reviews aim to offer a brief overview that allows people to get a good feel for what the game may offer them. I feel that other reviews can be sought if detailed game mechanics is what you are after.

If you are unfamiliar with the Catan series please read the review, ‘The Settlers of Catan’ first. This will give you a basic overview of the game and save us time here.
This version of Settlers aims to replicate the early expansion of the human race. Unlike the original game, Stone Age uses a more traditional board (not hex based) and it displays the continents of earth as they looked at the time. Every player’s tribe will start in the lands of Africa and their aim is to expand into Asia, Australasia and the Americas in order to earn 10 victory points and be declared the winner.

Like all Catan games the concept of rolling the resource die, collecting resources and using them to build on favourable numbers for future rolls is how the game progresses. However in this title almost everything else is different. Stone Age introduces the use of explorers and camps. Explorers must move around the map and when they find a good area (good set of numbers) they can be converted into camps. Camps replace settlements but their function remains the same. However each tribe only gets 5 and you start with 2 in Africa. The supply of 5 will be used very quickly as explorers explore the earth. When it comes time to build a 6th camp, you will need to remove any 1 camp and use it, therefore potentially losing one set of numbers for another.

Resources also get a major overhaul to keep with the theme. In Stone Age it is hide, meat and tusks that are the resources of the day. They are needed for every action in the game including creating new explorers, allowing them to move and converting explorers to camps. But they also have 1 other function.

Stone Age incorporates progress charts and these are located on the 4 outer edges of the board. Each chart is essentially a skill track. Each track has 5 levels and they represent clothing, construction, food and hunting. To progress to the next level on any chart will cost resources and each chart offers a benefit. Clothing and construction are needed to access various parts of the map. Food progress allows your explorers to travel further in 1 turn as they are better supplied and hunting allows you to steal a resource card from another player for each level advance. The first person to reach level 5 in any track will also receive a 1 victory point bonus card.

The original robber is replaced with a Neanderthal and Sabretooth Tiger. They have the same effect as the robber but the Neanderthal patrols Asia and Africa whilst old ‘Toothy’ roams the Americas and Australasia. The last major difference is that a series of bonus tiles are scattered around the map. They require certain skill levels to reach them but they can offer great advantages such as turning Africa slowly into a desert wasteland!

The Final Word

Stone Age is a very good game and highlights how a solid gaming system can be modified into a different experience and still be very enjoyable. The artificial dead line to leave Africa before it turns to desert is great and adds a sense of urgency for all players. The theme is solid throughout and although the map is always the same, the game will play very differently thanks to the bonus tiles. Four and a half tusks!

Thread: Re: Expansion bonus (2nd player)

Teriyaki Donuts — 2006-12-19T16:16:54+00:00

I'm not sure about the answer to the first question. Although I don't see any reason not to take one of the tribe markers. You can prevent an opponent from gathering that VP.

For question 2, if the spot meets the settlement criteria, I don't see why not.

Great game, by the way!

Thread: Re: Owl's House Rules ver. 1.0

gonso75 — 2006-12-19T12:34:32+00:00

Has anyone tryied out rule 2?
I think is quite smart and give the game an extra conflict flavor....

Any comments?

Thanks

Gonso

Thread: Expansion bonus (2nd player)

gonso75 — 2006-12-19T11:45:16+00:00

I've just bought this game and I have several questions. I'm going to divide then on different threads, so the Subject is relevant and not just 'several questions'

According to the English (Mayfair) translation of the rules, the second player to achieve the exploration bonus (one tribe on each continent) gets 1vp. It states that "You may take any one of the tribe counters on the board and place it in front of you".

1) Can you choose not to remove any tribe marker?

2) If you take one tribe marker, does it mean that that spot is no longer available for any other player to settle there?

Thanks

Gonso

Thread: Neanderthal and Carnivore

gonso75 — 2006-12-19T11:36:49+00:00

I've just bought this game and I have several questions. I'm going to divide then on different threads, so the Subject is relevant and not just 'several questions'

1) Besides stoping the production of an hex and allowing the steal of resources, is there any other side effects to the Neanderthal or Carnivore being on a given hex? I've read some questions that kind of imply that they BLOCK the pass of explorers

2) The only way to move The Carnivore is by means of advancing in the Hunting technology track or with an exploration tile, right? (i.e. a 7 wont move it)

3) Can the Neanderthal occupy an hex in Afica? isn't this a little bit harsh, specially if a player is "left behind" and has only one camp while the other are already in Europe?

4) Can you keep a "Neanderthal or Carnivore move" exploration tile and use it later? (instead of using it right away)

Thanks

Gonso

Thread: Re: Camp placement - can they be adjacent?

Tobold — 2006-10-26T10:34:39+00:00

Oh boy, do I feel stupid!

I hadn't played the game when I first posted this question and missed the bit that stated that you could only place camps where there are tribe tokens. This, of course, makes it impossible to place new camps adjacent to each other as no tribe tokens are adjacent to each other.

Last night I played the game and it was completely obvious. For that matter, I found this to be one of those games that makes all the rules perfectly clear, even intuitive. Perhaps that's because of previous Settlers experience, but I still think everything is laid out very well.

Thanks again for your response. You were telling me about the tribe tokens but it didn't hit home until I read the rule that you could only build camps on these tokens. I'm not slow, I'm special.

Thread: Re: Camp placement - can they be adjacent?

Tobold — 2006-10-25T16:21:36+00:00

Thanks mate, I needed someone else to confirm this for me.

Thread: Re: Camp placement - can they be adjacent?

globetrotter — 2006-10-25T11:39:20+00:00

It's an easy question, which is not written but implied in the rules.

In the setup you put camp markers on all the circles (not all if 3-player game). It's on those you can place your new camps, as well as you get the marker as a victory point.
/Carl

Thread: Camp placement - can they be adjacent?

Tobold — 2006-10-25T09:51:29+00:00

In the original Settlers it was not allowed to place a settlement on an intersection that had any other settlements adjacent to it. This seems to be the case with Settlers of the Stone Age, as all the photographs of games in progress I have seen show no camps that are adjacent.

However, I cannot find anything in the rules that prohibit this. One can debate the merits of doing or not doing this, but I am a stickler for the official rules and would like to know if it is indeed possible to do so. Does anybody have a rules copy or FAQ that addresses this?

I realise that this is a bit of a common sense issue, and one perhaps shouldn't need clarification, but I am anal enough to require it.

Thank you for your time.

Thread: Re: Pleasantly surprised. Review and strategy

Salt-Man Z — 2006-05-19T21:27:57+00:00

It's a good game. I like that there are numerous strategies to try and get 10 VPs, including camp-building, exploration, and the 4 progress tracks.

The problem with trading, I think, stems from the facts that (a) there are only 4 different resources, and (b) everyone wants the same stuff.

Meat is always a necessity, as you can't get any VPs without exploring. The easiest way of getting VPs is just founding camps, which requires the other 3 resources; but the alternate methods of gaining VPs (all requiring progress track advancement) all require the other 3 resources as well. In fact, a camp and a level-5 advancement have the same resource cost!

I wonder how trade would be affected if the different progress tracks had different advancement costs, instead of all being the same.

Thread: Re: Pleasantly surprised. Review and strategy

Philip Thomas — 2006-04-15T13:06:05+00:00

Good review. If you submit this as a review,(under the Reviews section on the game page), you can get 3 Geekgold for it.

Thread: Re: Pleasantly surprised. Review and strategy

TheCat — 2006-04-15T12:42:27+00:00

I agree with sbuckler. You only need a small bit of meat to keep going, and you can always trade for it three-for-one. Too much meat is useless, where too much flint/bones can be parlayed into impressive technology gains.

Thread: Re: Rules question : Explorer blocking intersection

TheCat — 2006-04-15T12:39:35+00:00

I think it's a perfectly reasonable strategy to be the first to get your explorer to a prime campfire spot and then wait to build. Perhaps you have better things to do elsewhere, or maybe it takes a while to get the resources needed to build the campfire. At any rate, you got there first, so it's yours.

Each player only has two explorers. If they want to dedicate one to protecting a campfire spot, more power to them.

Thread: Re: Rules question : Explorer blocking intersection

Octavian — 2006-03-15T21:35:36+00:00

ferengi wrote:

I've checked the rules several times (Mayfair edition) but can't find anything to clarify this. I think there should be a rule that stipulates moving away on your next turn if you don't build a campfire.

BTW - this is unenforceable as there is no way to know if the person has meat or not due to 7s getting rolled and/or being stolen from.

-MMM

Thread: Re: Rules queries

Salt-Man Z — 2006-02-23T22:20:39+00:00

Regarding Explorer movement, according to Mayfair's "Settlers of the Stone Age" rules: Explorers can move a maximum of 2+X spaces per Meat card played (where X is your position on the green development track.) A player may play as many Meat cards as he wishes, and multiple Meat cards can be combined into a single "move", allowing Explorers to move through occupied spaces they would otherwise be unable to stop on.

Time-wise, we play a 3-player game in a little over an hour. 4-player takes just over 2 hours.

Thread: Re: Rules queries

Octavian — 2006-02-23T21:38:33+00:00

I don't recall if a Nomad is only allowed one movement per turn or not. I'm also playing from an english translation of the german rules so that rule might have been missed.

Otherwise I'm in complete and unqualified agreement with the answers given.

-MMM

Thread: Re: Rules queries

mark_biggar — 2006-02-23T21:23:42+00:00

I think I remember all that.

1) no, you don't have to use all your movement points.

2) If I remember right, each noamd many only move once per turn. If you have the movement development than spending a meat allows a single nomad to move the extra spaces based on the development level, for each additional meat spent for that nomad in a single turn, it may move an additional space. If you have a second nomad then you must spend meat(s) independently for it using the same above rules.

3) for experienced player that is a good average time.

Thread: Rules queries

Shandazar — 2006-02-23T21:07:44+00:00

Last night my friend Duncan and I tried out a 2-player game of Abenteuer Menschheit (I've got the German edition, with Alan How's translation of the rules), the first opportunity for me to have a look at the Essen 2005 purchase. As a 2-player game we weren't expecting a competitive game, more a familiarisation with the rules and the mechanics.

The upshot of this session is three questions about the rules:

1. Assuming that you don't have a "Nourishment" development, one Meat card allows a Nomad to move 2 spaces. Can the Nomad move only 1 space (ie stopping when he reaches a People Chip, for example) or does he have to use up all the movement points?

2. If you have a "Nourishment" development, this allows a Nomad to move 3 spaces (or 4, or 5, etc) for one Meat card. Does this increase in the movement allowance apply to each Meat card played, such that the first Meat card allows a Nomad to move 3 (for example) spaces, and then the next Meat card allows the Nomad (or another Nomad) to move another 3 spaces?

3. Is the 75 minutes playing time quoted on the box a good estimate?

Cheers

Shandazar

Thread: History, as written by the winners.

sdonohue — 2005-09-25T16:39:33+00:00

Long ago, when the world was young there were four clans who inhabited the ancient earth. The oompa loompa people were named after their orangy skin and led by Oompa Steve. The ghost clan, who were incredibly pale, was led by Mikey-boo. The smurfs were named after their blue-tinged skin and were led by Papa Tim. The last clan was called the red rovers and they were led by Ranger Joe. All the clans lived near each other, but it was clear that there was a wide world they could explore and that things were getting a little crowded on their home continent.
As the rainy season approached the tribes decided to send forth explorers to find new lands and new places to live. Each of the leaders sent forth their bravest hunter, except for Oompa Steve who had no good hunters and thus had no meat. He tried to trade with the other leaders by Ranger Joe pointed out that with no meat, he was no threat and the other leaders concurred . So it was that three of the four tribes set about exploring early while Oompa Steve could do nothing but sit around his campfire and curse his hunters.
The rainy season left and everyone again sent out hunters. The Red Rovers did well, bringing back much meat and many hides, the Ghosts brought back less meat but more bones, and the smurfs brought back meat and bone. The Oompa Loompas had short legs and so they could not chase game, instead they brought back bones and flint, both of which could be found lying around in abundance. Thus, while the others were out exploring new lands and settling new tribes, Oompa Steve and his people sat around in their caves and invented things.
It continued like this for many seasons although the Oompa hunters eventually became much better at collecting hides and the Smurfs, taking pity on them, traded them some meat for flint and at last they left home. The rovers, true to their name, ranged far and wide throughout Europe exploring the lands there thoroughly and converting many tribes to their banner. Still, they never settled down and did not develop proper clothing or shelter and so they could not cross to the Americas or even Australia. The ghost tribe did not explore meaninglessly but they did make it to North America first, sneaking past the large cats who guarded the border (yep, missed a rule ). The smurfs lamented their luck for though they had started with much meat, they were doomed never to have enough flint and the other clans showed little mercy insisting on two-for-one trades and worse.
For a long time, the Red Rovers were clearly the dominant clan, with the Ghosts nipping their heels and the Oompas and Smurfs, probably because they were named after cartoonish characters, trailing far behind. Then, suddenly, there was a change in the cosmic balance. It was revealed the three of any resource would make a good substitute for any other resource (yep, missed a second rule ). Suddenly the too many hides of the Oompa Loompas and the too much flint of the Smurfs was more valuable and they began to slowly re-enter the game. The Oompa Loompas made quick advancements in shelter and food and their hunters began to pursue the big cats of North America, driving them into the territories of the rival clans. Still, the Red Rovers continued to be the best explorers and gained many advantages. The Ghosts threatened to have one of each of the tribes they had encountered, but alas, they had no flint and the other clans, seeing their plan, would not help them.
The Oompas continued to advance becoming the masters of hunting, food, and shelter while the Rovers mastered clothing. The Oompas at last established a third camp outside of Africa deep in Australia and became the most diverse of all the tribes. Still, all was not well for them. They had begun exploring just as the Rovers did, but everything they found came to naught and this focus on exploring left their homeland of Africa a desert.
Finally, after many seasons, the Oompa Loompas established themselves as the dominant clan when they finally formed a fifth camp beyond their beloved Africa and catapulted themselves to victory on the backs of their three tribes in Australia. The Ghosts were nearly as good, followed by the Rangers and in dead last, the poor smurfs.

Thread: [SR] GSG 9/13

Spielfreak — 2005-09-23T22:13:29+00:00

SETTLERS OF THE STONE AGE: Bob, Phil, Jeremy

While we were all Settlers veterans, neither Bob nor Jeremy had played this version before. This session was somewhat unusual in that there wasn’t a whole lot of trading between players. It seemed that we were all always getting the same commodities, and similarly we all seemed to be lacking key commodities, so trading just didn’t happen. Once we secured some food, Bob and I quickly migrated to Europe and established new camps. I then took an explorer’s approach, trying to uncover exploration tokens that would nab me victory points. Jeremy tried this just once during the game, and wound up sneaking in to grab the last Series_I token just before I could claim it. And wouldn’t you know, it was the blasted 1VP marker that I was searching for. D’oh! Meanwhile Bob built a second camp, this one in Asia, while Jeremy and I each built another camp in Europe. I kept exploring, and wound up securing the 1VP markers in Asia and North America. Bob kept advancing on the movement and Neanderthal tracks, and secured the 1VP cards for being the first to reach level 5 in these tracks. Jeremy and I each secured the 1VP card in the remaining two tracks.

Bob then set out to do some exploring, and quickly reached and exceeded my 5 token total to take the lead (and the accompanying 2VP card). At this point Bob was leading with a total of 7pts (2 camps, 2 track cards, 1 exploration VP, 2 for most tokens) while Jeremy and I each had 5pts. I then acquired a supply of meat, and sent my explorer out, and eventually reached the 8 token level to steal back the 2VP bonus. At this point I had 7VP, while Bob and Jeremy each had 5VP. We then had some nice die rolls that yielded commodities to all players -- in particular Bob acquired some hides, which proved to be the toughest commodity to get during the game -- and then Bob took his turn. It was one helluva turn. Bob sent two explorers out, and reached a total of 10 exploration tokens, which gave him the outright lead and the 2VP card. In the course of acquiring tokens he uncovered a couple of sabertooth tigers (robbers), which netted him a couple more commodities. He then converted his two explorers into camps, one in Australia, the other in North America. Not only did this give him 1VP for each camp, but he also got the Camps-in-all-Continents bonus for an additional 2VP! This raised his total to 11 VP, giving him the game!! Well done, Bob! Jeremy and I were far behind at 5 VP each. Of course this game is unfair, as Bob has prior knowledge of the Stone Age, having lived through it…

Thread: Better than the Original?

angelotti — 2005-09-19T02:43:25+00:00

Little Saturday night gaming with long time family friends...

We played a full 4 player game with Mike and Christine, my wife Lisa and I.

Both Mike and I had played once before so we did the rules explaining. This is a relatively straight forward effort as we were all familiar with the basic mechanics of Settlers of Catan and were able to draw a number of comparisons.

I took a bit of an extreme strategy based on the outcome from my last play. I chose to go heavily after the exploration tiles and forego adding settlements to see what would happen. Well I found out pretty quickly. While the rest were placing settlements and pulling in resources, I racked up a couple of quick victory points and started shutting down production by turning tiles into desert. It was only after I started to get resource starved that I started worrying about putting in my other two settlements. As it was, I got stalled on a couple of turns waiting to get just the right resource.

Christine, despite not really taking to the game very quickly, was raking in the resources. Just seemed like we rolled a 9 more than anything else. My wife, on the other hand, seemed to be the victim of much of my caveman and desert actions. I wasn't trying to intentionally harm her position, just that in trying to prevent shutting myself down, I would wind up hurting her position as well. It was a long and not so fun game for her. Mike on the other hand played flawlessly and was able to hop down to Australia and onto North America. He tied me about half way through when I stalled and didn't look back.

Final scores: Mike 10, Christine and I 7, Lisa 4 (fortunately she blamed the game not me)

Observations - don't try my strategy, at least not completely. I needed to get my two extra settlements on the board and then chase the exploration tiles. That would have likely been a better approach. I also do like this version better than the original Catan. I like having the additional spending of resources on the abilities and the ability to pick up and move settlements.