...has anybody had a chance to reproduce the game yet? I believe kothmann was about to get to it.
So, I started going through this game this morning, trying hard to take each tile without looking at placement information in the log and think about what I might do. I wrote comments after looking at what actually happened, but mostly without looking ahead at the next move. (A couple of times I misinterpreted the log and then had to backtrack.) This is super fun and interesting, though it does take time to give it so much thought. I had to stop part way through and didn't carefully proofread, because I actually have some work to do today.
Hope to go through the rest of this game soon. I’ll post again when that happens.
Also important disclaimer: these are comments with the benefit of having minutes to think when needed
, and having all the remaining tiles right in front of me. Many of the interesting decisions would definitely be tough to make in real time.
Thanks again for posting this. Your system is definitely a great tool for learning from games. Particularly if people are willing to add to the conversation. Hopefully someone will disagree with some (many?) of my ideas, so I can learn from my mistakes!
03. I don’t like [0;-1]. This will leave a city cap that B can use to score a quick 4 points. If A plays [0;2]N:cfcf-S>N:K, the points for the south city cap might be shared with B, but there is a chance A gets all those points with a ccff-S, and at least A will share the points, instead of let B have them outright.04. Alternatives: [-1;0]S:crfr>S:K, to attack the other city. I also think [-1;0]Ncrfr>W:R is good. Gives away a 2-point city cap, but in exchange for avoiding a 3-point open road. I don’t understand “keep up point momentum”?
05. Early in the game there is no big rush to close 4-point cities? Especially when there are so many “free” road points on the landscape? I prefer [-1;0]W:crrf>N:R, to claim the 4-point road with a pretty easy close on the north side. [2;1]Wcrrf>W:K, tries to win back control of what will now be a huge city. This second idea is definitely risky, because if [1;1] becomes a hole, A will have 2 stuck meeples.
06. Good to make that open city cap harder to claim. But having only 1 meeple on the board so early seems bad to me, so again, maybe I prefer claiming the road with [3;0]E:crrr>W:R? (Lots of deployed meeples = lots of ways to get points on future turns?)
07. I thought [1;1]S:ccrr-S was an automatic play here. Both players get 1 tile added to their cities, but A keeps B from sharing the 3-net-tiles of A’s larger city. Is the threat of B attacking from the west side of [1;2] big enough to make this play foolish? Interesting…
08. There were a total of 16 tiles (5xccrr, 5xccff, 4xcccf, 2xcccr) that would have cut off A’s attempt to come back into this city. More evidence that A’s play on turn 7 was not strong?
09. “Player A …and sets up an opportunity for further invasion for either player.” Yes, this seems poor, because they give B first bite at the attack apple! That little football city was not vulnerable, so no rush to close. Again, get meeples on the landscape! Something like [0;-2]S:cfff>S:K would be good.
10. This is risky for the same reasons that I mention for A placing at [2;1] in turn 5: it isn’t too hard for [2;1] to become a hole here, and then B will have 2 stuck meeples.
11. Now A has a
lot (20+) that will turn [2;1] into a ccrf-hole. B has to close that big city ASAP! If A plays [3;0]N:ffrr>W:R, they still have the same hole-making odds, but now they also claim the road—is this too risky because it might be difficult to fill in [-1;0] (this is obvious in the current game, after the next move).
12. Is “[-1;+1]” a typo that should be “[-1;0]”? Is the advantage of having only a single open end on a road really worth the extra 2 points this early in the game?
13. There are now 7 tiles that connect B to the big city, but still over 20 tiles that make [2;1] a ccrf-hole, so A could wait. On the other hand, if B gets any cfxx or ffxx, then they place this at [3;1] and make it very likely that B eventually connects and wins, so A playing for the big-city tie here is good? I guess so, but huge bummer for A not to have drawn one of the very many hole-making tiles here. Here's a photo showing the big pile of dangerous tiles that A didn't get (Yellow=A, Red=B):
16Interesting. My inclination would be to play [-2;1]S:cccr>N:K=+3B. But I think I might be too eager to start a large open city, and should be more cautious, like this. Hmm…
17. Finally! :-)
18. Did you think about [1;3]W:cfff>N:F? That field has 3 completed cities already and that big one will get completed when someone needs meeples, or just by you to grab the farm points? I know it is not well guarded from invasion at [4;0], and also still a bit early, but just curious for thoughts about farming at this point.
19. Haha, now a farmer. Playing the third city on an unoccupied farm is always such a pain, because you don’t want to give up those 4 points, but you know the opponent is likely to grab the farm. Yes, I like this farm, but I don’t love giving away a ccff+ tile to get it. Those turn into 8-point cities very quickly.
20. I think [0;4]W:cfcf-S>E:K is much better? Why leave the pennant city open for A?! Also, this creates another 3-city field with plenty of chances for A to grab it, and they now have the incentive to close the huge city and free up more meeples after playing another farmer.
22. Again, no big rush to complete here? That farmer seems pretty weak? Is the plan to connect with 2 more tiles to a bigger field? Could also try that with [3;-2]W:crrr>NE:F and then try to connect thru [4;0] and [4;1]? I thought about attacking with [-1;5]S:crrr>S:K, but then A can just play any rfxx tile at [-1;4] to make a ccfr-hole trapping one of each meeple, with a 2-point net gain. What about [3;-2]W:crrr>W:K, to grab the open city? Things are getting very complex
23. Agree this is a blunder. [3;3]N:ffff>N:M is one point less but much better.
24. Interesting! I agree that claiming a huge and wide-open city in the south is bad. And completing the big shared city is terrible, because you have the meeple advantage and don’t yet have the farm in the west, while A gets the farm points for that shared city. What about [-1;4]W:cccf+>W:K? There are still 3xcfcf-J, 2xcccf and no cfcf-S, so he can’t finish that city in the north without sharing with you. Furthermore, you have to be very worried that he gets a tile to play at [0;4] to claim the farm (even though he would probably have to share with you anyway). There are 13 tiles that allow him to place a farmer and grow his city. You would cut that down to just 5 tiles, and they all would connect you to the city.
Show Posts