Tiles we would like to see . .

[dwhitworth]

With the advent of two new sets of tiles in the near future we got to talking over the game tonight about new tiles we would like to see in the game. Not tiles with new properties (like Abbeys, Cathars, etc) but just tile configurations that are not represented in the sets so far.

I wondered what members of this forum would like to see if you were designing these new sets. What tiles would help the game - or just annoy your opponent sometime.

I will start the list with a request for a tile like the single straight road that ends in two small houses in the centre of the tile so that it ends both road segments and does NOT cut the farm in half.



Any other ideas?

(I ought to offer a prize for anyone who comes up with something Jay actually produces  )

[Novelty]

My river tiles perhaps?

[Gantry]

I started a line of thinking about tiles one day around Christmas, but never really pursued the thought because at the time it seemed unworkable, overly complex, or totally useless.  I only mention it now in case one of you geniuses can rework one of the ideas into something fruitful.

I thought that instead of thinking about possibilities of features on a simple square tile, with 1 feature per side (the tile "universe", if you will), consider changing the universe.

You can change 4 things: (1) change the number of sides of the tiles, (2) change the number of features per side, and (3) change the scale of the tiles.  Finally, (4) if you count making the game surface 3D instead of 2D.  This isn't really workable, although you could introduce tile stacking but that would become far too complex.

If you change the number of sides to the tiles, the only thing I can think of that might work would be to cut the tiles in half diagonally, that is to make triangle-shaped tiles with 3 sides.  The only thing this would accomplish though would be to make it much tougher to match pieces, and I see no real advantage to these half-tiles.

If you change the number of features per side, one method might be to double the size to 1x2 (length x width) making it longer so that you have 1 feature on each end an 2 features along each of the longer sides.  This change wouldn't really add much possibility, but it would be easier than triangular tiles to match up.  Useless, since I can't see how the combinations of features in the joined area would make any difference at all, since it's the joined sides that really make placement interesting.

If you change the scale of the tiles, you could either double the tile size length & width dimensions, which would make a situation similar to the above.  Alternatively halving tile size wouldn't work because then it would bisect rivers and roads, but thirds might work, since the middle would match up with roads, but what good would the outside 2 thirds be? Useless.

So there you go, a gaggle of useless ideas. It's late, I'm bored but not sleepy, forgive my rants
 

[mjharper]

I thought the three-way road tile was nice, but I don't see how you could duplicate that effect…

So, here's my suggestions for new tiles. I don't know if they fit the criteria, but…

- a replacement tile for The Count which has the has a river leading away from the city. Kind of like the normal city/lake tile. I think the 'either Count or River' idea is rubbish, and this tile would solve it.

- my other suggestion are similar actually. I'd like an expansion which precisiely didn't avoid all the other expansions, but actually used elements from all of them in new combinations. So I want a shrine with a dragon symbol it. A Cathar tile with a tower foundation. Instead of the usual 'independent' status—you can play this expansion with the basic game or any expansion—I want one that can only be played in combination with other expansions. To expand the expansions, so to speak. Something for the fans.

[Alricthemad]

If you change the number of features per side, one method might be to double the size to 1x2 (length x width) making it longer so that you have 1 feature on each end an 2 features along each of the longer sides.

Hmmm I wonder how much some tiles like this might change a game. I'd throw them in as a separate set of tiles. Possibly with some modification on the rules that creates a minor penalty for choosing the double length tile. Could lead to some interesting maps.

[Scott]

With regards to Gantry's post, I can't personally think of any advantages to doing stuff like that. Might be more trouble than it's worth? Even the Count was divided into twelve tiles instead of being a 4x3 single tile.

As for tiles that could be produced, there are some opportunities for small modifications to existing tiles to create "new" ones. Remove a trade good, add a shield, remove a shield, etc.

Then you get into combining features, like what Novelty has done. Lots of potential there too.

I'd like to see some new landscape features added, like forests and mountains.

[Joff]

My river tiles perhaps?

They are quite good

Just one question... are the small houses next to the lake and spring 'inns'? lol    

Just my poor attempt at humour.

[dwhitworth]

- a replacement tile for The Count which has the has a river leading away from the city. Kind of like the normal city/lake tile. I think the 'either Count or River' idea is rubbish, and this tile would solve it.

When we play the Count we place the city/lake tile against one of the city segments just outside Carcassonne and use that as a starting point for the river. Nobody scores the small city created, but it counts for the farm.

Purists who might object to a lake as a source of a river should think of the Nile. Or better still think that in a medieval city there would be a steam passing through that would have  been co-opted as a sewer - this lake is the sewer outlet. It flows to the junction and then joins the river that is flowing "normally" from spring to lake.

Two of Novelty's river tiles could be used in the same way . . .

[mjharper]

As for tiles that could be produced, there are some opportunities for small modifications to existing tiles to create "new" ones. Remove a trade good, add a shield, remove a shield, etc.

That's what a lot of the 'new' and 'never seen before' tiles from GQ11 were… and we all know how popular that was

- a replacement tile for The Count which has the has a river leading away from the city. Kind of like the normal city/lake tile. I think the 'either Count or River' idea is rubbish, and this tile would solve it.

When we play the Count we place the city/lake tile against one of the city segments just outside Carcassonne and use that as a starting point for the river. Nobody scores the small city created, but it counts for the farm.

That's a good solution, but it doesn't stop the fact that the two expansions should not be combined under the current official rules. Having a single 'mixed' tile would legitimise the combination.

I'm just too much of a mega-Carc freak 

[Tobias]

I'd like tiles with naked women on them, but part from that ..

How about a tile that you can place to connect two cloisters with eachother - like an underground passage (these were common and is in no way out of "character" for a game like this), and thus score some bonus for when you build around two cloisters instead of one? We all know that we usually end up grouping them togheter anyway. These tiles could be placed anywhere (have any motif) since the tunnel runs under ground!

Tunnels could be used for all sorts of things: meeples could hide there and not be eaten by the dragon, one could set up a trap for other people's wagons etc. Or you could use them for black markets to steal goods from cities not your own. Lots of ideas right there and then.

Yepp, tunnels it is.

[Scott]

I agree that tunnels were common in those days, but hard to represent well in a 2D game. Fancy tunnel tiles could potentially cause issues with surrounding features I think.

Poking around the Carcassonne article on Wikipedia for some inspiration, and I'm now wondering: where are the castles/chateaus?

[Tobias]

Hard to represent? Nah. Either draw them out or represent them with lids. Or by external marks of some sort; tiles or markers or anything. If you don't use the tunnel it will still not be in the way of anything, it'll just be an underground cave or something ... hmm.. guano farm?

[Gantry]

A second cloister placed within X distance of a first is automatically assumed to have a tunnel?

see, 3D representation in a 2D universe....!

[Tobias]

A second cloister placed within X distance of a first is automatically assumed to have a tunnel?

see, 3D representation in a 2D universe....!

Not a bad idea, but I'd like to be able to cause more mischief than that 

[Wishmaster]

(1) change the number of sides of the tiles.....

If you change the number of sides to the tiles, the only thing I can think of that might work would be to cut the tiles in half diagonally, that is to make triangle-shaped tiles with 3 sides.  The only thing this would accomplish though would be to make it much tougher to match pieces, and I see no real advantage to these half-tiles.

I've thought about this area myself - indeed it was quite a lot of thinking when designing Solstice Wars. I disagree that your options are the only ones though... IMHO the best option (for an alternative that is) would be to go for hexagon shaped tiles. They would then all fit and still create a game world. Your triangles struck me as a bit bizzare as the sides would not be equal! You would be better going with equalateral triangles, which again would allow for a matching game world...

All this said, it depends if you are going for tiles to play with what's already there or, in my case, going for a completely different (standalone) take on the game.

Novelty: How were those excellent river tiles created? I do like them and very pro-looking they appear.