Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
7 Posts

Carcassonne» Forums » General

Subject: Monasteries need help and question on the Dragon rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
B. Udral
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I almost always play Carcassonne with 2 players and we recently got Inns and Builders. We also play with King and Count. It used to be farms were the most important, with monasteries not far behind. With all the new tiles and rules, it seems like the focus shifted to making cities and roads more profitable.

I played a game today where I lost because I drew too many monasteries and couldn't finish them off because I kept drawing tiles with every side having a city or road. I think they were intended to cut down on field size. I don't think it has worked as planned. We still had one field that, with a pig, was worth over 80 points at the end of the game. Also, we had a city with 35 tiles in it, including a cathedral. Monasteries are not worth placing a meeple on unless it there is a place it can be placed that has 6 or 7 tiles already in place, and no low probability tiles required to finish. Taking another 4-5 turns to finish a monastery is just not worth the 9 points. Also, when playing with the Count, a monastery is just easy pickings for placing meeples into Carcassonne.

I think a future expansion ought to balance this out. Are there any variants that do this? Perhaps a bishop meeple who scores 3x when placed, but 0 if its not finished. Or a monastery worth 2x when completed, but allow it to be scored and the meeple returned at any time. If I can talk my partner into playing with new rules, I'll report back. I'd be interested to hear any other Carcassonniacs' reactions to my ideas.

Also, I'm getting the Dragon expansion this weekend. What is the best way to play with it with 2 players? I've heard using dice to determine how much the dragon moves for each player, which sounds interesting. Any thoughts on this?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Cote
United States
Maine
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Allowing an 80 point field or a city with 35 tiles just seems like plain old bad playing. There are enough kinds of tiles that you can break those things up.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas Tholén
Sweden
Norsborg
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Why would you not want to use the normal rules for dragon movement?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Depends really. If all players managed to break into the big field/big city, it could have been reasonable...maybe.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
Philip Thomas wrote:
Depends really. If all players managed to break into the big field/big city, it could have been reasonable...maybe.


Players that allow a dominatingly big city or field to form are poor players.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Lindus
Australia
Sydney
New South Wales
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I find that big cities and fields happen repeatedly in games I play. I don't put it down to poor play, but rather me trying to take points from them. If they have a city with 3-4 tiles and a reasonable chance i can get into it, i'll force it to happen. If they don't like it, they'll try and dominate by making another section to join in either simultaneously or after joining it. this can go on for a bit and end up with a city of around 10-12 tiles without too much problem. even with a city of 3, and a single infiltration attempt makes 5 tiles. if 3 of them have the shields that's 16pts already without a fight really happening.

as for the fields, well I like to steal the field at the end, so will set up a few places to join into the field, and will keep the big field getting opened up more. especially if i can do this in non obvious ways, like using the double curve road piece to create a choke point that can often get missed.

So it's not so much that I let them happen, but create them as I tend to stand a better chance of winning the points and at worst sharing them with my opposition.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Harper
Germany
Magdeburg
Thuringia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
clearclaw wrote:
Players that allow a dominatingly big city or field to form are poor players.

Frankly, I find that patronising, and wholly second ratticus's comment above.

When playing with only two players, large cities and/or fields are pretty common, especially if at least one of the players enjoys playing a 'parasitic' style game. True, it's possible for the player being attacked to block such moves, but again, with only two players, the chance of the parasite player finding the right tile to link into the opponent's city is fairly high. So if you're trying to build up a city of any size, there is a constant risk of losing it to another player.

And the more expansions you use, the larger the average size of the cities in any case.

For sure, if you allow your opponent to casually build an 80-point city without an appropriately all-out meeple war, then you may need to take a step back and think about tactics. But the existence of a large city alone does not in itself imply bad gameplay.
 
 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.