Upper Carcassonne

[Gwommy]

I've been thinking about a new expansion to perhaps include some upper levels of Carcassonne.  I figured stairs could be added to the city tiles.


I was thinking a 6 tile set with tiles similar to the pic above.  The stairs will always lead off of the tile going up, so that the next city piece placed would be one floor higher.  For each city tile higher than the ground floor, those tiles would score extra +1 per tile.  If another staicase is added to the second floor, then the city tiles on the 3rd floor would be worth 2 extra points per tile (for a total of 4 each).

Stairs can also be played to go down floors, this would make a lower floor worth 1 less per tile.  If it goes down two floors, then those tiles are essentially worth 0 points each. Going down another floor would then start counting as negative points.

The ground floor will be determined by the floor which has the most number of followers on it when the city is scored.  In case of a tie, the ground floor is the floor with the followers on the higher floor. 

Opinions?

[Whaleyland]

I like the idea and the images you made but I'm a bit confused. The obvious optical illusion with the stairs is my main point of contention. You state that:

The ground floor will be determined by the floor which has the most number of followers on it when the city is scored.  In case of a tie, the ground floor is the floor with the followers on the higher floor. 

My problem is that if most of the followers are in the center of a city and there are stairs on either side of the followers, which side is up and which is down? If a player that has a follower in a lower level and another on the middle (ground) level, how do they score? They did win after all. Your last sentence doesn't even make sense to me. I guess the problem is that there is no direction with the stairs. I think arrows like in "King's Gate" need to be added on the stairs to note or make clear the direction in which they go. Otherwise, I feel people will just claim all stairs as ups. The problem with this solution, though, is that then stairs may go up and then down again. Honestly, I just can't see how this expansion idea can work as it is currently planned. Perhaps more tiles are needed?

[CKorfmann]

I'm with the Sarge on this one I think.  Having arrows on the tiles won't really help either because if I'm sitting across the table from you, the arrow points in the opposite direction.  That could be hard to keep straight all by itself.  If this is going to work, I'd suggest that it be done as "upstairs" only.  It makes the most sense to me to have the lowest level on the "ground" floor.  Sure, there may have been some levels that went lower, but then your getting into catacombs, aren't you?  Interesting idea though.

[Gwommy]

The stairs will always lead off of the tile going up

I figured that this description would be obvious enough which way the stairs were going.  I agree that I don't think arrows would help.

And going below the ground floor wouldn't necessarily put it in the catacombs, it could be building into a valley.

And for the tiles, I don't think I'd use anything except CFCF, CFCR, or CRCR.  I was thinking just 2 of each.

I suppose it could be done where you calculate the score from the lowest floor.  That would make that city a no-brainer to fight over it.

[Whaleyland]

I suppose it could be done where you calculate the score from the lowest floor.  That would make that city a no-brainer to fight over it.

I like this option better. I remember another problem that could occur otherwise: what if a city looped around on itself (which is fairly common) and the stairs were on one side of the loop. In reality, the other side would be ramping down but there would be nothing to note that. Basically, the city would be both upper and lower but only in one location. I don't know how that would affect your rules, but it's something to consider.

[Gwommy]

what if a city looped around on itself (which is fairly common) and the stairs were on one side of the loop.

Very good point, Whaley.  I guess I'd have to add a rule where you can not place a tile to loop the city around.  With the suggested tile formats, it would take a minimum of 6 city tiles for it to loop around on itself.  So it would be highly unlikely to happen, but still possible.

[gunpowdertea]

What about a simple

to differentiate upstairs or downstairs.

[loganmann1]

That looks good but still leaves the looping problem. 

[Gwommy]

I don't think they need any extra symbols.  Just assume that if you're standing in the center of the tile, that any stairs on that tile are always going to lead up. Let's look at an example:

The city on the left has 2 stairs placed against each other.  Since the stairs go up from the center of each tile separately, then that makes the entire city on the same floor.

The city on the right has 2 stairs going the same direction.  From the center of each tile, the stairs go up on the left side.  If a follower was on the far right tile, then that would be the ground floor, the next tile would be 2nd floor, and the last is the 3rd floor, which would score 2+3+4=9pts for those tiles when it is comleted.  If the follower was on the tile on the left side of that city, then it'd be 2+1+0=3pts, since the stairs would then be going down.

[loganmann1]

The city on the right has 2 stairs going the same direction.  From the center of each tile, the stairs go up on the left side.  If a follower was on the far right tile, then that would be the ground floor, the next tile would be 2nd floor, and the last is the 3rd floor, which would score 2+3+4=9pts for those tiles when it is comleted.  If the follower was on the tile on the left side of that city, then it'd be 2+1+0=3pts, since the stairs would then be going down.

In your city example on the right with the 3 levels...what happens when blue has a meeple on the left most and then red has a meeple on the right most tiles. Then they get connected.  They are now the "top" and "bottom" floors respectively, but which becomes ground level.  Does blue get the negative points cause the other floors are down and red the positive cause to him they are up? That would introduce mixed city scores based purely on placement in the city.  This could be a cool mechanic to work with but does it make sense in terms of levels in a city?  What would be the logic in my floor being more important then any other?  My knights more important cause its on top? I suppose you could change it such that the meeples in the city are not all knights but different levels of hierachry.  ie ground floor is a Knight, "basement" is a scullery maid, and "upstairs" is nobles or royalty or something.  But this probably takes your idea in a direction you hadn't inteded to go.

Also from your tile example, what happens if red has two meeples, one on each end, top and bottom floors?  What score do they get?  The mixed score interpretation I just proposed wouldn't work here I realize.  You'd negate your own score.

You had said the ground floor is where the majority of meeples are.  But both these options would lead to equal numbers on multiple floors.  You'd need a rule for when a tie exists between floors.  Maybe the lowest floor in the tie is the ground floor.  Its a simple rule to clarify ground floor and determine what score everyone gets.

Also, do pennants get a bonus for the floor they are on?

[Gwommy]

In my original post, I mentioned that in case of a tie, the ground floor would be chosen from the follower that is on the highest floor of all the floors that tied for follower strength, no matter who owns the follower.  Although there is potential to score many points in a city using the stairs, it seems just as easy to de-value a city, if not easier. 

Although, having each player score according to where they are located is an interesting idea, I just don't see it working.  If someone is building upwards, then if I were to spend the time to join their city, I'd be on a higher level and not get as many points, making it almost pointless for me to join.  But if I were to join using the rules where the follower who ties on the highest floor becomes ground level, then I could at least prevent my opponent from gaining lots of points.

[loganmann1]

Oh yeah, sorry, I guess I just missed your tie breaker condition.

[Scott]

That looks good but still leaves the looping problem. 

What looping problem?



 

[Gwommy]

LoL!  I could just say that any player that breaks the game and causes an infinite loop scores no points.

In Scott's example, he scores nothing!

[Gwommy]

First draft ready for editing, comments, and questions.  The tiles have also been made.

First Draft:
http://gwommy.tripod.com/carcassonne/UpperCarcassonne.pdf

Tiles
http://gwommy.tripod.com/carcassonne/StairTiles.pdf