First session - basic game - some thoughts:

[Jambo]

First of all, fantastic! Both me and my wife thoroughly enjoyed the game, with my wife finding my tendency to build 4-segment circular roads particularly amusing.

One point which raised some discussion was the scoring of small cities (i.e. 2 segments). The newer rules state that scoring should proceed normally (i.e. 2 per segment and 2 per pennant), whereas the RGG ruleset I got with the game stated that small cities should be scored 1 point per segment and 1 point per pennant. From experience in our first game the 1 per segment and pennant felt the fairer rule, since it seemed somewhat too easy to complete 2-segment cities all the time and then drop a follower in the city claiming 4+ points and get your follower back instantly!

Is there any good reason why they should score normally? Perhaps later expansions make the difference?

The other rule that interested us was the 1st edition farming vs 3rd edition. Certainly 3rd edition was easier to follow and score.  However, the 1st edition seemed to afford more ways to compete for the points since it seemed easier in terms of game mechanics for followers placed as farmers to compete for cities than directly for farms. What do people here think about this?

Cheers!

[Joff]

This was a recent post by myself on BGG:

I used to play 3rd edition rules with 1st edition two tile city (football) scoring, but later changed to the more uniform 3rd edition scoring completely. I prefer the 3rd edition rules, and in our games it has not affected the amount of two tiled cities appearing. Of course, everyone has that same advantage so does not really affect overall strategy and gameplay.

We prefer 4 points per small city (3rd edition rules) as it is more consistent overall. To play 2 points per city would thus become a 'house rule'. When we teach the game to others we find it is better to use 3rd edition rules completely, so as not to confuse should they play with others in the future. Once you get into the game (especially using T&B), scoring small cities becomes 'pointless' , as you will find yourself developing larger cities so you can get your hands on the trade goods.

Edited for typos.

[Tobias]

We usually play with the rule that small cities yield no points at all. The reason for this is to balance farms. With the introduction of barns this might be a non issue, but we have not played enough to be sure yet.

[canada steve]

Once you get into the game (especially using T&B), scoring small cities becomes 'pointless' , as you will find yourself developing larger cities so you can get your hands on the trade goods.

Joff, dont see how you think small cities will become pointless. Yes the large city syndrom always happens as it yields large points and commerce, but small cities are big must for mega-farming, especialy with the barn in play.

[Joff]

Joff, dont see how you think small cities will become pointless. Yes the large city syndrom always happens as it yields large points and commerce, but small cities are big must for mega-farming, especialy with the barn in play.

I take the point about farming small cities. Of course, I tend to place 'starting' city segments within my farm to tempt my opponents to actually build small cities. it diesn't always pay off, but what I mean is that to collect trade goods cities have to be larger than two tiles and consequently more larger cities tend to get built in order to collect trade goods.

I did not mean that the cities were literally pointless (which would be silly as they are worth 4 points ) and neither pointless completely (in view of end game scoring). I was thinking in terms of trade goods where more players will attempt to harvest them from larger cities (using T&B). Sorry, forgive me. My choice of word in that post was rather pointless.