Carcassonne is a tile laying game about a small city in France. And it is just as exciting as that first sentence makes it sound.

Components: The components are high quality, and they are easy to recognize. There are 8 meeples of 5 different colors made of wood, a bunch of sturdy tiles that make up the game board, and a scoring board. The art on the boards is fine, depicting roads, fields, cities, and monasteries on the map tiles and a scoring track on the score board. When the board is all together, the effects of the different aspects can be quite pleasing, but there are often holes in the board that can jar the eyes of those who go for an aesthetically pleasing board. As a result, some people play to fill in the holes in the board. Aesthetics can occasionally be a worthy goal.

Setup: A start tile is placed on the table, and a player is chosen to go first. Each player takes the 8 meeples of a given color, placing on the zero position of the scoring track and the others in front of themselves.

Game Play: On each players turn, they draw a tile and place it in the map adjacent to at least one other piece. When laying a tile, the edges must match up with the edges it is placed next to. For example, if there is a road on the edge being placed, there must be a road on the adjacent edge, and likewise for cities and prairies, maintaining a consistency in the map and making it so there are no areas that abruptly end.

A player may place a meeple on one of the features of the tile just placed. Meeples can be placed standing up on a city, road, or monastery. Meeples played in prairies are played laying down. Meeples can only be placed on a feature that does not contain meeples in adjoining regions. If there is a meeple anywhere on the road that is played connecting to the played piece, a meeple may not be played on the road, with similar rules for meeples in cities and prairies.

Multiple meeples may end up in any feature besides a monastery by placing meeples in unjoined tiles and later joining the features together. In this way, players can battle for control of cities, fields, and roads.

Finally, if a region is completed by the placement of the tile, the region is scored. If a city becomes completed (there is no open areas of the city where another tile can be placed), the player with the most meeples in the city scores 2 points per tile in the city plus 2 points for each shield in the city. If there is a tie, all tied players score full points for the city. A road is completed if the road has two ends. The player with the most meeples on the road scores one point for each tile in the road. A monastery is completed when it is fully surrounded by tiles. The monastery scores 9 points. Meeples in completed features are removed, and players may use them at future times.

End of Game: The game ends at the end of the turn when the last tile is played. All uncompleted features on the board are scored for the player with the most meeples in them. Roads score as normal. Monasteries score one point for each adjoining tile including diagonal tiles. Cities score one point for each tile and one point for each shield.

Scoring for farmers can be controversial and is based on the version of the rules being used, and a discussion of scoring farmers can be found here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/125832

Explaining the Game: The game is very easy to explain. I go over how to take a turn and score each feature, and I am almost done. I do give an example of how to join features containing meeples and how to try to fight for cities and farms. And then we play. This is one of the easier games to explain.

Conclusions: This game is simple to explain, but that is one of the few things I see going for it. While simple rules can lead to interesting decisions, I do not see it in this game. The game just does not grab me. I don’t get excited to play it, and the people I play with all feel the same way. Some may say that we just do not get it, and they may be correct. The general lack of excitement in those I play with may simply be spilling over from my lack of excitement about the game itself. Attitudes can be contagious. The game seems too simple with little excitement driving the play. I still try to play occasionally, only as something to increase the variety in what is played.

I think the game works best as a 2 player game. As the number of players increases, the control a player has over the game decreases to the point where in the 5 player game, a player’s piece can be completely blocked before they get a second turn to expand a feature they are trying to score. And if they do not quickly draw a tile that they can expand the feature with, the feature will be next to useless by the time they get a second chance. Thus, the scores for different players decline with each additional player to the point where I actively try to avoid 5 player games.

While this is generally considered one of the classic gateway games, I don’t introduce it to anyone anymore. All of my teaching of this game occurred in the first 15 plays, and I don’t intend to teach it much in the future. Since I did not enjoy the base game, I have only played the expansion that came with the game: The River. The River takes a rather drab game and makes it worse, increasing the power of the farmers by starting the game with at least one if not two large farms. Thus, we never play with this expansion anymore. I won't buy expansions to a game I only think is mediocre in an attempt to improve it. I can buy other games I am more likely to enjoy.

Rating by Number of Players:
2: 6
3: 5
4: 4
5: 3

Well, i have to agree with you mosly. I found it to be a ho-hum game. Nothing special in it. I much prefer my games, and I would not trade away my Rolling Thunder for it.

I understand your reasoning in not wanting to invest more in a game you don't enjoy, but to me your assessment of the the base game as uninspiring is pretty accurate... whereas with Inns & Cathedrals and Traders & Builders added, it becomes a great game worthy of its status as a modern classic. And not a cutesy little great game either - 2 and 3 player Carc are pretty cutthroat with experienced players. Like the base game, however, it becomes far too random with more than 3 players.

I recommend checking out I & C and T & B at BSW or Asobraingames.

Carcassonne was starting to bore me when I played a few games on BSW and had my ass kicked all over English Town. To really see this game shine, you need to play it with one or two very experienced players who know the tile sets, who know how to trap your meeples, and who will more than triple your points before the game is done.

The base game is not very interesting, but with a few expansions, it becomes much more interesting, try 4 players using the count of carcassonne, the expansion makes 4 or more players very interesting.

These people are called "kingmakers".

I gotta admit, sometimes my OCD gets the better of me, and I fill in the holes just because it'll make the board look better.

Just a quick comment; if you think that your options on a feature you've played on are usually closed by your next turn when there are more than two players, you likely aren't looking at the board right. It's kind of like saying about Checkers that "everytime I try to get _a_ piece across the board, it gets blocked" or about Pente "an opponent will always cut of my line before I can get five stones lined up", then saying "what's the point?". It's lateral thinking. You need rather to be seeing where your options are all over the board, and seeing multiple ways to attack the same feature. I can see reasons to dislike Carc, but I wouldn't agree that a lack of options is one of them.

Yay, a negative review! I love those.

However, I must admit I can sympathize with the OP. You would never catch me playing only vanilla Carcassone + river. I can see why it may seem drab and uniteresting.

But the facts about Carcassone are:

1) This is probably one game which really SHINES with expansions. By just putting in I&C you get an exponentially better game.

2) Carcassone can be played very competitively, although it may not seem obvious at first.

I remember my initial impressions of Carcassone were very much like "heh, a nice game, but a little bit too solitairy for me". Then I got I&C, checked out this new "big meeple" for a while and decided that city take-over is quite a fun tactic to try out. Before you know it, our nice and relaxing Carcassone sessions mutated in ugly cutthroat battles for each and every city and farm. One of our memorable four-player games was one huge battle for a humongous Cathedral city. I think there were more then twenty meeples in the city at the end of the game, and the kicker was the damn thing never got finished.

Anyway, this game has potential but it takes time to notice it and learn to play it the right way (by which I of course mean "competitive, ugly and as nasty as possible"). I suggest you go to [url]games.asobrain.com[/url] and try a few online games (but with real people, not bots!). There you will at least sample a true flavour of Carcassonne.

You are correct. It may be that I am just not seeing the board as well as I should. There are generally many options in the play. My problem in this regard is that on your next turn the likelihood of a) the other four players boxing in your spot and/or b) notdrawing a useful tile before the spot is completely boxed in is too high. As such, the game seems to work better with fewer players.

There are always tons of options in the game, and the lack of options is not a reason that I dislike it.

I still ahve the problem that I am just not compelled to buy any expansions for the game. I did not enjoy the game enough to want to invest more money in it. The games I have played have been quite competitive. We frequently fight for farmers and cities. We have played enough to know the relative abundance of tiles in the game, and we can trap meeples, although that last part is more difficult with fewer players. I still just don't care for the game, so I will simply let it sink to the back of the closet. I understand that there is a good game here, but it just doesn't seem to appeal to me. As a result, I haven't been motivated to get any of the expansions.

I agree with you that a good game should be good out-of-the-box. It's doesn't feel that good when you shell out money for something and then realize you need to shell out more and more for the game to be truly satisfying (cough.. cough.. magicthegathering..cough).

However Carcassone makes an exception in my opinion. First of all it's quite cheap. I got the original game with two major expansions for less then the cost of many boardgames in the shop (less than half the cost in many cases).

Secondly, I find the game to be quite satisfying and accomodating to vast range of player types. With people not really into boardgames you only play the original one until they catch on. If the people hate competitiveness, you play a friendly building-a-nice-landscape game. If your friends are competitive and like backstabbing, tactical thinking and long-term strategies, you pull out Carcassone, I&C, T&B and Count and have everyone at each other's throats in no time.

There are lots of options, lots of possibilites and you can tweak the game to almost anyone's taste. However, yes, you need expansions for that. With only vanilla Carcassonne (and a river which is quite a bad expansion as it is) your options are quite limited.

I honestly think you should at least try a competitive game of Carc+I&C+T&B with good players - and as I said, you can play for free at asobrain. If nothing, you will be sure that this game is really not for you then.

There are also tons of options for games, so no need to waste time on one you don't like.

Maybe I'm not following you correctly, but I find the phrase "your spot" telling. To me there is no more a "your spot" in Carc' than there is a "your path" in Checkers. It sounds to me like you are seeing the skirmish but missing the battle; there are always multiple fronts.

OTOH, with two many sides a battle isn't really gonna be about too carefully laid a strategy.

I suppose I like that chaotic feel a little more than some...

Spot on (pun intended). With seven meeples there is no "one" battle. You can usually either open up a new "front", fight on an old one, do a lateral move by boxing someone in..

With more players things can just get more interesting. Especially with the Traders in play, when you never know who'll get to play twice.

What?

I just got the Big Box today, and played my first three games this evening (vanilla, vanilla+river, and river+I&C...4 players for all three). I'm fortunate in that the people I game with thoroughly enjoy competition, chaos, and carnage, and I can honestly say that "solitary" didn't cross my mind at all at any time this evening. Even vanilla Carc can be cutthroat if you get the right group of people playing it, what with all the jockeying for farmland, hostile city raids, and strategic cloister placements to keep you occupied.

My initial impression is that Carc is a cruel and bloody game, which will definitely be seeing more gametime very soon . There's nothing quite as satisfying as dropping your big meeple on the edge of the map, then linking up and orchestrating a hostile takeover of half the farmland on the board, stranding the opponents' mini-meeples in your wake. I can't wait to crack out some more of these expansions, too.