Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
15 Posts

Clans of Caledonia» Forums » General

Subject: Why “settlement scoring”? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Steve Schlepphorst
msg tools
I’m researching the game, have never played it. The settlement scoring rules mentally compute fine (like, they’re clear enough), but I don’t understand what they’re trying to reward. If they are just adding another complex objective, ok, but they seem to have some thematic goal or strategic trade-off that’s not apparent to me. And it seems inelegant and counterintuitive. I’ve seen this question asked and references to this discussion (which I haven’t been able to locate).

Why are settlements scored this way? Why is it better to have shippable-but-non-adjacent territories, in the eyes of the game (designer)? What do people appreciate about this point? Why is it better than TM’s counterpart?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonas Geiregat
Belgium
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
After two play sessions here are my 2 cents about the settlement scoring.

It enforces players to take full usage of the map, including port usage, and their shipping possibilities and with that comes some contention over the map.

It also enforces players, that are interested in battling over the points, to think about slaughtering their animals or not. Therefore also enforces players to think about which contract they select or not (with or without meat).

To me it all fits nicely together, it never felt awkward in anyway while playing any of the two games.
14 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver Kinne
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think one reason is that it does reward people (to some degree) for slaughtering their sheep or cows, which can be a bit costly, even if it allows you to complete contracts. After all, chances are you have to get another sheep or cow out in the future.

However, with the settlement scoring as it is, you can split up your one big settlement into smaller ones and benefit from it, as long as you have the correct shipping reach to connect them all back again.

Mind you, I do agree that the settlement scoring seems a bit artificial and doesn't fit into the theme of the game. It does help to balance the game though, in my view.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonas Geiregat
Belgium
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
oliverkinne wrote:
I think one reason is that it does reward people (to some degree) for slaughtering their sheep or cows


I don't see how ending up with a `smaller` settlement after a slaughter action can benefit a player ? That is regarding the settlement scoring ofcourse.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Krzysiek
Poland
flag msg tools
mb
eniac_g wrote:
oliverkinne wrote:
I think one reason is that it does reward people (to some degree) for slaughtering their sheep or cows


I don't see how ending up with a `smaller` settlement after a slaughter action can benefit a player ? That is regarding the settlement scoring ofcourse.


It's not that you get a smaller settlement after slaughtering an animal, but about the fact that by doing so you potentially end up with more settlements to count toward the end-game scoring.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alessandro Mongelli
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kinoji wrote:
eniac_g wrote:
oliverkinne wrote:
I think one reason is that it does reward people (to some degree) for slaughtering their sheep or cows


I don't see how ending up with a `smaller` settlement after a slaughter action can benefit a player ? That is regarding the settlement scoring ofcourse.


It's not that you get a smaller settlement after slaughtering an animal, but about the fact that by doing so you potentially end up with more settlements to count toward the end-game scoring.


Unless the cow/sheep is on an hex bordering a lake, in most cases slaughtering it will worsen your settlement score instead of improving it
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Hill
United Kingdom
Cambridge
Cambridgeshire
flag msg tools
designer
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
jelerak wrote:
kinoji wrote:
eniac_g wrote:
oliverkinne wrote:
I think one reason is that it does reward people (to some degree) for slaughtering their sheep or cows


I don't see how ending up with a `smaller` settlement after a slaughter action can benefit a player ? That is regarding the settlement scoring ofcourse.


It's not that you get a smaller settlement after slaughtering an animal, but about the fact that by doing so you potentially end up with more settlements to count toward the end-game scoring.


Unless the cow/sheep is on an hex bordering a lake, in most cases slaughtering it will worsen your settlement score instead of improving it

Not sure that is absolutely true (but not sure it isn’t either).

But, either way, it encourages more strategic and thoughtful placement of buildings and livestock.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben O'Steen
United Kingdom
Bishops Stortford
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jelerak wrote:
kinoji wrote:
eniac_g wrote:
oliverkinne wrote:
I think one reason is that it does reward people (to some degree) for slaughtering their sheep or cows


I don't see how ending up with a `smaller` settlement after a slaughter action can benefit a player ? That is regarding the settlement scoring ofcourse.


It's not that you get a smaller settlement after slaughtering an animal, but about the fact that by doing so you potentially end up with more settlements to count toward the end-game scoring.


Unless the cow/sheep is on an hex bordering a lake, in most cases slaughtering it will worsen your settlement score instead of improving it


It doesn't have to be like that but that is a clear strategy to use to make sure you end up with more settlements afterwards. You can use it to break up a larger settlement that is joined to the rest of your network at either end. Breaking it in two will leave the other parts still joined - go from 1 to 2 settlements for it.

What is quite interesting is that this does encourage people to leave gaps in their growth, letting players sneak through. Last game I played, I pushed towards a port and was blocked by one player who put down a worker (woodcutter IIRC) on purpose. However, this also caused him to have a large settlement where he could have had two and he had no livestock within it to fix it. He came third in the settlement bonus at the end.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan Politis
United States
Utah
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
benosteen wrote:
What is quite interesting is that this does encourage people to leave gaps in their growth, letting players sneak through.
I almost guarantee that this is what Juma was aiming for. With Neighborhood bonuses such an important aspect (strategically and thematically) forcing players to spread out and leave gaps makes perfect sense.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Juma Al-JouJou
Germany
Berlin
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
jpolitis wrote:
benosteen wrote:
What is quite interesting is that this does encourage people to leave gaps in their growth, letting players sneak through.
I almost guarantee that this is what Juma was aiming for. With Neighborhood bonuses such an important aspect (strategically and thematically) forcing players to spread out and leave gaps makes perfect sense.


Exactly. It makes neighborhood bonus much more likely and thus makes the market more dynamic. Also, it does not just reward plain expansion (which would disadvantage players who buy more than produce) but only smart expansion. Also, it results in the expansion to be more multidimensional trather than going for the cheapest spot all the time. Also The settlement scoring makes the rivers and the way you produce meat more meaningful.
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Schlepphorst
msg tools
This makes strategic sense; is there any thematic reason? I guess I can see it being hard to convince somenone that slaughtering to split up a large settlement has done something better/glorious for their clan.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Inno Van
United States
San Francisco/East Bay
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Good fences make good neighbors? More space means less quarreling among the clan from overcrowding?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom McGreevy
United States
Naples
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
For the designers. Did you ever consider scoring connected settlements with progression scoring (1-3-6-10-15-21-28-36)? If so, why did you rule it out? Just wondering.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jesse
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
kinoji wrote:
eniac_g wrote:
oliverkinne wrote:
I think one reason is that it does reward people (to some degree) for slaughtering their sheep or cows


I don't see how ending up with a `smaller` settlement after a slaughter action can benefit a player ? That is regarding the settlement scoring ofcourse.


It's not that you get a smaller settlement after slaughtering an animal, but about the fact that by doing so you potentially end up with more settlements to count toward the end-game scoring.


I don’t get this either. I can’t think of a scenario in which you’d divide a larger settlement into two smaller settlements by slaughtering an animal while still keeping that two settlements connected for scoring.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brodie
United States
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
atomheartmother wrote:
kinoji wrote:
eniac_g wrote:
oliverkinne wrote:
I think one reason is that it does reward people (to some degree) for slaughtering their sheep or cows


I don't see how ending up with a `smaller` settlement after a slaughter action can benefit a player ? That is regarding the settlement scoring ofcourse.


It's not that you get a smaller settlement after slaughtering an animal, but about the fact that by doing so you potentially end up with more settlements to count toward the end-game scoring.


I don’t get this either. I can’t think of a scenario in which you’d divide a larger settlement into two smaller settlements by slaughtering an animal while still keeping that two settlements connected for scoring.


It can happen very easily, depending on your shipping level.
1 
 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.