ackmondual
United States
SoCal
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I've only played one game so far, and it seemed to be such a disadvantage to not have a neighbor with a commercable resource. All I got to go on was the player between Pis and Catan came in dead last be around 15pts from 2nd to last place.

Anyone else feel the same way? It seems like this is moreso for novelty rather than any semi-serious game.

* In retrospect, Roma side A from 7W Leaders does have the same thing, but FWIW, no1 has EVER choosen side A over side B.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
PenumbraPenguin
Australia
Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I've experimented with giving the neighbours of Rome A the same 1 coin reduction as Rome B, and that seemed fine (not that I think it's a huge issue). By analogy with Rome, we have had the neighbours of Manneken Pis start with 2 coins. This seems really strong for the neighbours - I would much prefer 2 coins to my neighbour having a resource for trade. This also never comes up, because we don't really like Manneken Pis, and it is seldom used.

I suppose you could give Catan's neighbours access to a 3-->1 port, or the ability to pay 1 or 2 to use the 2-->1 port or something, but I haven't even tried these.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Conan Meriadoc
France
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I wouldn't consider this *broken* by any means, but it always disturbed me slightly, especially for Rome A and Catan.

For Manneken Pis, the fact that it starts with extra gold and no resource gives an indirect advantage to their neighbours, as they're more likely to get some of that gold from trading. This probably doesn't compensate the lack of a neighbouring resource, so as a variant, I would also consider 1 extra coin to each neighbour.

Keeping the (-1 cost to leaders) neighbour bonus from Rome B when playing Rome A sounds interesting, but it might be an incentive for the player on Roma's left to keep the higher-priced, more powerful leaders, potentially weakening Roma A slightly.

Having a 3:1 exchange rate for resources for Catan's neighbours could be interesting (and preserve the reference), I'd like to see how it affects the worth of double-resource Age II cards. This one would require playtesting, as it might prove too flexible and powerful.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
P.D. Magnus
United States
Albany
New York
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Not having a resource that your neighbors can buy goes both ways. Your neighbors won't get the resource, and you won't get the coins from trade. So, insofar as this is a real problem, just giving something extra to the neighbors won't magically balance it.

That does make me think it's self-balancing, though. When you don't have a resource that your neighbors can buy from you, then they may need to develop it themselves. But then you may end up buying it from them. So the lost opportunity to buy a resource is balanced by the fact that you are a ready-made customer.

So it seems to me that it's situational, not at all broken.

Because having one of the no-tradeable-goods wonders makes differences for both you and your neighbors, I think it is better to leave them as is. If they really rankle your sensibilities, then I suggest not playing with them: Leave out Brussels and Catan, and only play Rome on side B.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.