Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - kothmann

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
2
News and Events / Re: Carcassonne Central's New Owners
« on: Today at 12:15:29 PM »
…might it be possible to setup some kind of Patreon or similar…
Yes!  How can we all help?

Also thanks to Dan, Tom, & Hector.  Very grateful.

Your tireless enthusiasm & patience, to say nothing of knowledge, are inspiring.

Great diversity of skill & interest among the 3 of you as well.

3
...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!  >:D



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.

4
My preference would be that the Note prevents the city from becoming a Castle.  This makes tactics with the Note more interesting, because a player with a large city could place the Note in an unoccupied city cap that is adjacent to the city, in order to prevent another player from making that city cap into a Castle.

5
General / Re: I love the postman...
« on: January 22, 2022, 03:58:31 PM »
Would have been great if this plus Carc für 2 added up to a base game.  Maybe they can publish a 4-tile add-on with CCCC, CRFF, CFFR, and something like RRRF with roads connected…

My whole C2 collection is these little tiles and I like that…

6
General / Re: I love the postman...
« on: January 22, 2022, 01:39:58 PM »

Another item moved from "no interest" to "owns"!  >:D

Played right away after opening, and even 20 tiles is still a great game!  This goes everywhere now...

7
Unofficial Rules / Re: Avoiding Analysis Paralysis
« on: January 21, 2022, 11:06:57 AM »
For Abbeys or German Castles we put that tile on hold for next move.
We put the tile back in the bag.  This makes the Abbey & GC more valuable because you can use them to get rid of a "bad" tile.

Quote
I also recommend trying strategic variant with having 3 tiles on hand and choosing one.
I like the idea of this, too, but we tried it one time and immediately abandoned, because it was paralysis on steroids.

8
Unofficial Rules / Re: Instead of scoring.
« on: January 21, 2022, 05:23:52 AM »
cities are built, roads are built, the map and the landscape is growing.
Oh!  Cooperative!  Nice.

I googled "cooperative carcassonne" and found this:

   https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/62910/cooperative-carcassonne-variant

Pretty interesting implementation of a variant, with different missions as the goal, and a constraint that you must complete a feature every 5 turns.  (I think--just quickly skimmed the rules.)  There are lots of comments that suggest people actually played and enjoyed it.

That sounds like fun!

9
Unofficial Rules / Re: Instead of scoring.
« on: January 21, 2022, 04:20:13 AM »
Hi @szjozsi79.  Welcome to the Forum!

I love variants (rule changes with no new hardware) and yours is certainly interesting!

if an object is completed, the player could get some tiles from the common into their set, based on the size of the completed object
So, each player collects "private" tiles as the game goes on?

Quote
the value they can use at any time during the game.
Does this mean that on my turn, I am allowed to place one tile from the common (we use a bag to hold the tiles) and then play as many tiles as I want from my private set?  The idea would be that I could use multiple tiles to get into someone else's city right away, or complete my cloister, or make it impossible for you to finish your big city?  That would be pretty crazy.

Quote
I haven’t thought about how to solve it if one player has more tiles but no more in common and another player doesn’t have their own tile. That's another question.
Is the game still a contest, or is it cooperative?  Is each player trying to win or everyone trying to win together?  If there is a winner, there has to be some criterion.  Maybe the first player to run out of tiles loses?  Then tiles are like points, but they are points you can "spend" to get more points (use one extra tile to complete a big city and get even more tiles).

Quote
What do you think about this?
need to be tested. Did you play some test games with this type of scoring?
So many ideas sound great but don't work well when played.  And play-testing often inspires new ideas.

One option that this made me think about was playing some form of "Go" with Carcassonne tiles?!  When you complete a feature, you place a "stone" on all the tiles in your feature that haven't been claimed by any other player.  Not sure if you should remove stones that have no "liberties", as in regular Go, or just count stones at the end.

Thanks for sharing a fun idea.  +1 merit from me!

10
The Marketplace / Re: WTB / WTT : Belagerer / Besiegers
« on: January 20, 2022, 05:12:57 AM »
Nope, not me.

The sale evidently didn't happen on eBay, because it says, "seller ended".

Maybe the seller is going to open the box and sell Belagerer separately...

11
The Marketplace / Re: WTB / WTT : Belagerer / Besiegers
« on: January 20, 2022, 04:14:39 AM »
I already asked and got this reply:
Quote
Dear kothmann,

Sorry, nur Deutschland
Sorry, only in Germany

-schnaeppchenolympshop24

If anyone is willing to pay shipping twice, maybe a CC member in Germany would receive and re-send.  Might still be a bargain.

I decided to let this one go, tempting as it is.

12
Strategy Guide / Re: Project 1A: Carcassonne Game Notation
« on: January 19, 2022, 05:58:14 PM »
Wow, this is amazing.  Thanks!  No time tonight, but I’ll go thru it this weekend.  +1 from me for such a great effort!

13
The Marketplace / Re: WTB / WTT : Belagerer / Besiegers
« on: January 19, 2022, 11:40:06 AM »
Meanwhile a Müller Exklusiv edition which includes Belagerer is available for less than 100 Euros!
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Carcassonne-Muller-exclusive-extension-metal-box-/125043475959

14
The Marketplace / Re: WTB / WTT : Belagerer / Besiegers
« on: January 19, 2022, 11:35:06 AM »
The last couple I saw sold for more than that.
Sale on ebay closed just now for 157 Euros!  Wow.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Carcassonne-The-Sieger-Mini-Extension-VERY-RARE-Old-Layout-/175102684670

15
General / Re: Help—I need help with acronyms
« on: January 14, 2022, 11:17:41 AM »
>> Ferries:
- One of the FRRR lake tiles becomes a RRRR lake tile.
I'm fascinated by this.  How does the decision get made?!

I have been meaning to post for a while about how thoughtful I think the tile designs are in the expansions.  Two quick examples:

-->4 cloisters among the 8 Goldmines tiles; these are important to draw the active player away from the often easy points + Gold, with the expectation that there will be a "gold rush" and the cloister will complete quickly.
-->2 CCCC tiles among the 12 in Bridges: because bridges make fields bigger, it is important to have these tiles to reduce the number of completed cities, on average (at least, this is my speculation).

I don't play Ferries, but does anyone think that this decision to add one more road ending / Ferry dock will have an important effect?  Does HiG have game simulators that they use to evaluate such things?  Play testing?!  Seems like such a crazy small change to me, but can't be an accident, right?  Or is it just to keep crazy fans on their toes?  Who's in the room when that decision is made?!

(As an aside, this thread has drifter pretty far from the acronym glossary topic...should part of it be moved for improved search when people are arguing about BB-2035?)

Thanks for sharing all of these observations and knowledge.  Crazy stuff.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10