opinions on 2 point for 2 tile city

[wail]

I'm sure this has been discussed in the past, but I could not figure out good search terms to find it.  and it is matter of opinion anyway.  I was recently introduced to Carcassonee using the 2 point for 2 tile city rule (1st edition rule??).  The reason for this rule seems to make a lot of sense to me, to demotivate so many 2 tile cities.  I am planning to buy the game, and expect the rules I recieve to indicate 4 points for 2 tile city.  Don't know if I will be willing to give up the 2 point.  I am curious opionions on this rule change.

[Carcking]

In my group we always play 2 points for a 2 tile city. This makes sense to us as there is no challenge to completing a 2 tile city and it should not be valued the same as a larger city. Secondly, it limits the number of cities on farms, or at least is less rewarding to a player who is trying to pile on a bunch of small cities on his farm. We were very sad when HiG/RGG changed the rule because it prompted us to depart from that official rule. It is essentially now a house rule.

[Deatheux]

we are playing by the book, 4 pts a 2 tiles city... thus far we play by the book farm scoring, in my mind if you house rules the 2 tiles cities, you must house rule the farm scoring... then it makes the game more messed up...

[Whaleyland]

we are playing by the book, 4 pts a 2 tiles city... thus far we play by the book farm scoring, in my mind if you house rules the 2 tiles cities, you must house rule the farm scoring... then it makes the game more messed up...

I completely disagree. If you want to use the 2-point City house rule, there is nothing requiring you to use the Version 1 farmer scoring. The two are mostly independent of each other. I play with the standard 4-point City rules but have considered on numerous occasions trying out the 2-point City rules again. Never once have I thought, however, to revert to Version 1 farmer scoring.

[Carcking]

we are playing by the book, 4 pts a 2 tiles city... thus far we play by the book farm scoring, in my mind if you house rules the 2 tiles cities, you must house rule the farm scoring... then it makes the game more messed up...

Also disagree. The two are entirely independent.

But one of the beauties of this game is that it is so flexible - completely open to house rules and infinite expansions. Unless you are competing internationally there really is no right and wrong - it's a matter of individual taste.

[Deatheux]

i play by the book, 4 pts a 2 tiles city, exactly to avoid situations like that!

[Carcatronn]

I like how the 2 point city helps prevent farmers from getting so big. When I first got the game, it was after the rule change and had no clue there was an older ruling until much later.  Is there any reason why it changed? The only thing I can think of is the Siege or Cathar tile would make a 2 point city 0.

[CKorfmann]

I like how the 2 point city helps prevent farmers from getting so big. When I first got the game, it was after the rule change and had no clue there was an older ruling until much later.  Is there any reason why it changed? The only thing I can think of is the Siege or Cathar tile would make a 2 point city 0.

I don't see how that rule would have any effect on farmers unless it is to successfully discourge people from making small cities.  I pretty frequently build a bunch of those little cities on the farms I'm fairly confident of winning and they help a great deal.

[Scott]

I thought about replying to this thread yesterday, but didn't know how to express my reaction in a meaningful way. I still don't know how, but this discussion fundamentally bothers me enough that I'm going to try.

I've been playing 3rd edition rules ever since I discovered the CAR, including 4 points for a 2-tile city. I feel that it is not good to pick and choose which rule changes you want to "accept" and which to "reject". Much of the reason for the revisions to the rules was to address scoring imbalances between features. Farms were/are too powerful, so the point values were reduced to 3 per city. It's important that 2-tile cities are worth 4 points to the occupant to help balance the value of that city to the farmers, who are earning between 3 and 5 points for that city.

Making 2-tile cities worth only 2 points doesn't change the value of the city to the farmers. Discouraging people from building 2-tile cities doesn't address the root of the problem: a lot of small cities adds up to a lot of points for farmers. If you want to mess with the rules, it would make more sense to make the 2-tile cities less valuable (or even worthless) to farmers.

Since the release of BC&B, there is some encouragement to build a 2-tile city to convert it into a castle. Not only does the castle occupant score more points, the castle itself is more valuable than a city to the farmers. Theoretically these value increases are balancing each other out.

I think it's important that people are, for the most part, playing by the same rules. I'm definitely not against variants; I'm a big proponent of river variants. So far I've been introducing the game to people who have never played before; when the day finally comes that I get to play with one or more persons who have been playing before, there will probably be some struggle, especially for me because the odds are against me. Most people in North America are probably playing 1st edition rules because that's all they know.

This kind of frustration is the same frustration when you go to somebody's house and play Monopoly, and they have a million house rules. I think I read somewhere that the most common house rule for Monopoly is that when you land on Free Parking you receive all the money from Luxury Tax. This house rule has become so entrenched that many people actually believe it is an official rule. I'm ashamed to say that I used to be in that crowd; in my defense, I learned from other people teaching me and had never actually read the rules. The manufacturer discourages this house rule. It makes the game take longer, which in my experience has been one the reasons why people rarely choose to play Monopoly. When it comes to game selection, Monopoly is passed over because people think it takes all day to play. Giving the Luxury Tax money away at Free Parking creates an imbalance in the game. It is by design that you are supposed to go bankrupt early on.

If you want to pick and choose, choose Princess but not Dragon, or Builders without Traders, or Inns without Cathedrals. But for the love of Carcassonne, please don't mess with the scoring balance.

[Carcking]

I've been playing 3rd edition rules ever since I discovered the CAR, including 4 points for a 2-tile city. I feel that it is not good to pick and choose which rule changes you want to "accept" and which to "reject". Much of the reason for the revisions to the rules was to address scoring imbalances between features. Farms were/are too powerful, so the point values were reduced to 3 per city. It's important that 2-tile cities are worth 4 points to the occupant to help balance the value of that city to the farmers, who are earning between 3 and 5 points for that city.

Making 2-tile cities worth only 2 points doesn't change the value of the city to the farmers. Discouraging people from building 2-tile cities doesn't address the root of the problem: a lot of small cities adds up to a lot of points for farmers. If you want to mess with the rules, it would make more sense to make the 2-tile cities less valuable (or even worthless) to farmers.

We actually played 1st edition rules for a couple years before I stumbled upon this site and became aware of the CAR. That was our first introduction to the 3rd edition rules. For us the changes to farm scoring were welcome because we struggled with farms being to powerful at game end. It did not make sense however "fixing" farm scoring only to undermine the fix by inflating the value of 2-tile cities. Even valued at only 2 points we find farmers tend to pile on a bunch of two tile cities on their farms. Under 3rd edition those cities become worth 7 points to the farmer as opposed to 6 points under 1st edition. Our house rule makes them worth 5. Which seems balanced to us if you are going to "snipe" a bunch of small cities you don't really have to work for just to inflate your farm. Also, it is logical to us that 2-tile cities not be worth the same as larger cities that you have to work for.

Like I said though, IMHO, this game is very flexible and lends itself to a number of permutations. Fan-spansions and house rules guarantee infinite enjoyment. There have been a number of discussions and fan-spansions develped to limit the power of farms - to "fix" farm scoring. I understand your point Scott on not intermixing the various rule editions. I think HiG opened up that issue though by not getting the rules right in play testing. The 2-tile city rule seems to us an easy fix that is at least within the multiple editions of the official rules.

I'm not suggesting that anyone else adopt any particular rule change or variation - just throwing an opinion out there to add to the discussion.

[Carcatronn]

I like how the 2 point city helps prevent farmers from getting so big. When I first got the game, it was after the rule change and had no clue there was an older ruling until much later.  Is there any reason why it changed? The only thing I can think of is the Siege or Cathar tile would make a 2 point city 0.

I don't see how that rule would have any effect on farmers unless it is to successfully discourge people from making small cities.  I pretty frequently build a bunch of those little cities on the farms I'm fairly confident of winning and they help a great deal.

Right, I meant that it would discourage you from making small cities - at least a little bit anyway. We still use the updated rules as I like to play by what each expansion lists off, which just about all of the new ones list the new ruling in them. Im not one to pick and choose rules, just liked the idea of the 2 point city and would have preferred the ruling to have stayed.

[wail]

I guess I should chime in as I stated the discussion.  Thanks for all the points of view.  I am wondering the real orgins of the small city rule change.  Was it completely in reaction to farm scoring change, some possible aversion to exceptions in rules, or some other motivaiton? 

I am still convinced it is a brillliant rule for overall game balance, as I do think city building is still at the heart of the game, especially as you add some expansions.  In my opinion, if for some reason one wants to enhance farm scoring, then I would do it some other way (the pig was one small way).  The ironly I see is that since the original game there seems to constant efforts to break up large famrs, with more roads in expansions, river expansions, even the spring tile with road in the GQ expansion.  It's like people despise large farms being in the game, from game balancing standpoint of course.

By the way Scott, your score keeper is of course very brilliant!  I was going to wait until I acutually use it in a game before posting questions or suggestion.  However, my first request was proably going to be to add small city rule as optoin.  I fully understand your concern to add variants, I was hoping this a reasonable exception as small city was once an official rule.  But reading your comments, my suggestion seems doomed   

[Kokol]

We always play 4 points for a 2 tile city - everyone loves a cheeky 4!  We have a nickname for them, but it is rude - I wonder if you can guess