I am new to Caylus Magna Carta and I've not played Caylus before. CMS seems like a good game, after ~4 complete 2-player games. I've tried different strategies; however, I find that there's only one way to victory--building castle every turn to accumulate points. I've tried to focus on building prestige buildings and getting tones of resources, but I could not win the game because the other player was able to buy up all the castle tokens and end the game. Does any of you feel that way? Have you won a game with prestige buildings or ways other than building the castle?

I really want to like this game, but if this is a flaw, then that's nothing much to do...

I haven't played the game but from what I have read, building the castle is the theme -- and the point -- of the game. It would surprise me if there were other ways to win than to build the castle. The question is only how well you can do that.

I'd imagine you cannot ignore building the castle completely, and the choice would become, "do I build the castle and also try to build other stuff, or should I try to exclusively build the castle?"

I haven't played CMC either, but in the original Caylus you could win by concentrating on mostly building prestige buildings instead, so I'd hope that the same would be be true of CMC.

While I agree that building castle is the goal, I guess I'm disappointed that it's the only way to victory. If everyone decides to build prestige buildings, the rule requires that 2 castle token be taken out of the game each turn. So there's a built in time factor here. IMHO, CMC is too short for other strategies to work.

Well, I HAVE played CMC, Mike, and you can certainly win by building prestige buildings. In fact, the first time I played, we didn't finish off the castle until ALL the prestige buildings were constructed. This is extreme (and probably poor play on our part), but it shows that these buildings are extremely lucrative, particularly compared to the last portions of the castle, which are only 2 VPs apiece.

Both of my games have been with four players, so I can't comment on how the game plays 2er against an opponent who is hell bent on building the castle. But maybe you could try to accelerate things by building the Lawyer and Gold Mine buildings as quickly as you can (and cycling through your cards if you don't draw them by midgame). That might help.

Thanks Larry. That's good to hear. I'll try experimenting with it more and hopefully play a 4-player game.

I tend to agree - delivering batches to the castle is the main route to victory. I am intrigued by Larry's post - how is it possible to have time to build all the prestige buildings, bearing in mind that if nobody delivers to the castle 2 tokens are removed?
OK I have only played 2 and 3 player games, and we are at the start of the learning curve, but it seems that cash is a problem, restricting worker use and provost movement etc. I intend to take CMC on holiday soon (smaller box required though), where we hope to play a few 4 player games, so maybe I'll be able to agree with Larry then.

I've played at least 7 times and in a competitive game (ie one where everyone has played before) what I've seen is that you can't fall behind in castle building. Since castle building is available to everyone though, it won't be the deciding factor in the game unless someone ignores it.

What I like about CMC so much is that it all depends on what buildings are built. If the cash generating building is not out at the start, then the game may see cash shortages. On the other hand, if folks build the cash generating buildings early, then you'll see more money. The game changes depending on what cards people get, what cards people build, and what cards are out at the start.

So I seriously doubt that there is a "one true strategy" again, particularly if you are playing with knowledgeable players.

And that randomness is exactly what makes CMC more appealing than the original Caylus to some gamers. A common critique of Caylus is that play became scripted, becuase you could follow a similar plan in every game.

I played CMC four times, but the person who taught me the rules forgot the rule that if nobody built at the castle two tokens are thrown out. I don't think that impacts the first few turns, though.

3 Cubes for 4VP + 1 Gold is a great trade.

Anyway, jockeying for the castle favor is very important. Whether it's a flaw remains to be seen.

http://gaming.powerblogs.com/posts/1176330004.shtml

we are suspecting there is a flaw there.
in 2-pl game, player 1 builds castle and gets a gold.
pl.2 doesnt build, because they want to build when they are starting player, so they get the gold. Since 4points are a lot, until we get to 3-point castle building (maybe even 2-point), it seems it is not worth it to build any proper buildings.
then, there is little time. If both players turn their attention to building and nobody castle builds, 2tokens are removed each turn and it is highly unlikely that there will be residence-lawyer-prestige building.

First, I played 3 games to date, all against the same player. In my extremely limited experience, a two player-game can go any direction. I always focussed on the castle favours, but my opponent once hogged the money economy---which forced me to drop out very early or use a building of my opponent with cubes on it because otherwise the Provost would be moved backwards far enough for me to be in serious trouble---and in another she built every card in her hand. In the first game I won by a few points, in the second case I won, too, but by a single point. That's not an awful lot for something that is supposedly 'flawed', or in other words, a sure way to guarantee victory.

I don't think there is a 'flaw' with CMC, really. It all depends greatly on the pink card which is drawn at random to complement the standard specimen, as well as the trio players draw (and possibly redraw) at the beginning of the game. When it's card producing wood, CMC has a hard time starting up the economy, and consequently, not many castle tokens can be obtained by the players before the game ends. If it is a stone card, people can begin immediately to vie for control of castle tokens. If one player has significantly more cash available, he is master of the Provost and can force the other player to go easy on card draws and worker placement. It is not easy to obtain the resources for lots of castle tokens that way. So far, I've been led to conclude that the nature of the 2P-CMC game changes considerably depending on the initial startup, as well as that this variability is quite intentional. I think that general statements as to CMC's reputed 'flaws' are therefore somewhat overreacting, or at the very least indicating that the raison d'être of this game is not appreciated, or perhaps not understood.

Unfortunately, the randomness has as a side effect that the game sometimes feels like it ends before it begins. There's about 12 to 14 turns in an average game (and at minimum 9---18 divided by 2), and you cannot do very much during that time unless the cards help you along. Although I cannot say I like that particular trait (building prestige buildings hasn't been easy to date), I do like the fact that CMC therefore remains mercifully quick by not degrading into the boring and endless race of its bigger brother, as well as a lot more unpredictable because there is a far bigger share of uncertainty built into the mechanics of the game.

I am not quite sure whether I like the core ideas of CMC yet (resource swapping, limitation of available actions through the Provost mechanism, etc.) but I do know that I will play this card game, flaws and all, any time over the full boardgame.

Dear Aristides,

We spend a lot of time testing our games in all configurations (hundreds of games should i say). I can assure you there's no flaw there, even if the 2-player game is rather different than the 3 and 4-player game.

Early buildings are good because they give you the secondary advantage for a longer time. There's also some other reasons (like influencing the game or for prestige building). Personnally, i always try to build one really early and my victory ratio is pretty high.

May I suggest you to try the online version ? Many games are played each day, some of them with a few buildings and some with more. Both strategies works pretty well. Until now 957 games were completed (mostly with 2 players) and no one is complaining (you can click on the top20 players games and watch the result).

Regards,
Cyril

Hello Cyril.

I enjoy the mechanisms in CMC very much and hope (and it seems that I am) wrong.
Its just that when we started our second game, we were both convinced that we should not build at least until the 4-point castle tokens were depleted. This led to an unpleasent beginning and not much development.(1st player always builds to get the gold cube, second player always holds resources until he is 1st player and so on.)
We will try it again. It seems our understanding was wrong. This is just our initial impression. It seems players need to gain a deeper understanding of the game to play properly than in other games.
I hope you dont preceive me as a fool trying to flame your game. I am not. (trying to flame your game, -a fool maybe I am!-)
Best of luck.

Aristides.

Don't worry, i just wanted to explain a few things since i think the game is deeper than expected (and really different from Caylus, should i add)

Regards,
Cyril

OK, a few more games, I think that it's not an issue in 3-4 players. In two players, the early builds do seem more important than buildings ... I can imagine an early building, however. Have to think about the strategy some more...

It is really a different game from Caylus. I found the play to be quicker. I did have the same issue in 2-player game early on (must keep up with castle building), but also found that building early is a huge advantage (particularly if you can put the marketplace out there while you are 2nd player in the turn and can prevent your opponent from using it that turn). Money is huge, and getting a money advantage early when there are many buildings to place workers on can win the game for you. Also, the issue with keeping up on castle building lessens as the game moves on and there are more building options. All-in-all, the variety is welcome.

9 isn't necessarily a minimum. It's possible (although I suppose not terribly likely) that someone could build multiple castle tokens. Even more possible if someone builds the building that lets you buy them with deniers.

Anyways, I've just played through my first 2 player game, and have the same feeling as others... it felt like building prestige buildings wasn't very fruitful (or even very possible) at the first half of the game, and the last half, it felt like the game was coming to a close so quickly that it wouldn't be worth the risk of trying to save up for it. I'm going to have to try a few more games though, and try a couple different strategies (especially building more, early on.) My wife and I talked about possibly reducing the number of tokens removed to one a round, as we felt like resources were always way too tight and were looking for more to be able to build the prestige buildings. Perhaps we just need to build a more finely tuned resource-gathering machine.

Anyways, we still enjoyed the game quite a bit, and will certainly play it again. I'm looking forward to seeing it with 3 or 4 players!

After a couple more games, I definitely do not see this as a flaw in the game, but really a feature that adds variety.

My first game had only a few buildings built, and one prestige building built, and somewhat low scores (35 points a piece.) However, even in that game, our castle tokens only made up about half our points.

I've now played 3 full games, and in my most recent game, we both got at least half our deck of cards out onto the table, and used up more than half of the prestige buildings (I had 2 10's, my opponent had a 10 and 2 6's.) Everything ended up being important for points, from resources, reguilr buildings, prestige buildings, to castle tokens. It ended up being a very high scoring game, with 54 points (for me) to 41 points for my opponent.

Overall, a more exciting game with more going on I suppose, but the strategies used were much different, and the cards that came out were different. What would often happen is one of us would build a castle batch, and the other person would wait until the next turn, so that he could get the extra gold cube. This meant that castle building wasn't going as fast, and also made for a longer game because only one castle token was removed each round, instead of 2+ tokens.

So overall, I'm quite pleased with this game... still hoping to get a 3 or 4 player game in soon to see what that's like... I can certainly see how some things would be different (more buildings, more using other people's buildings, probably a little less fighting for use of the provost.)

I agree. I've played a couple 2 and 3 player games and no longer feel like this is an issue. At first it does seem that way, but once you start to refine your strategy and tactics, a more balanced approach is definitely powerful. CMC is a great game and I'm looking forward to a lot more plays.

Just to clarify for myself -- can't either player get the castle "favor" by exiting to the bridge early? From the rules I thought the Castle was to be resolved in passing order, not based on where the #1 card lies.

You are correct. Castle building is resolved in passing order, not player order.

-MMM