king & scout expansion

[raberjr]

I know that the rules state that the recipient of the baron card gets 1 point for each completed road at the end of the game.  if you are playing with multiple expansion sets, the number of completed roads can be significant (including roads that are only two tiles).  for instance, i was playing a two player game last night and ended up with the baron tile and the 'city' tile and received over 25 points for each card!!!  is that how that expansion is supposed to be scored?  It seems almost lopsided to get that many points.  10 points seems like a more realistic figure to receive for getting longest road or largest city?  how do others play with the baron card....has this ever been an issue for anyone else?

raberjr.

[Tobias]

Yes, we've noticed this as well. Most often though, due to our incredibly lousy memory - we forget to use any of the extra tiles.

10 or maybe 15 points seems like a fair amount of points if you do use them.

[Gantry]

some might say lopsided, others might say more strategic, I guess it depends on how you look at it.  The nice thing about Carc is that there are multiple paths you can take to win, no one strategy will guarantee a win (unlike so many games).  Nat & I have played K & Scout only once I think, I mentioned this to her on the weekend and we'll be playing it next match (along with another playtest of Hook, Line & Sinker)

[canada steve]

I played with all expansions last night, except the Tower, and ended the game with both King and Baron tiles. I had to fight all through teh game to retain them at the end so the extra 30/34 points that they yielded was justified. It made for an interesting game that we all enjoyed, and I won !!

Ganrty hope the fish are biting !! Have fun.

[raberjr]

after thinking about it, tend to agree now that the large amount of points are justified.  if you have to continually protect your longest road/largest city by completing other's roads and cities, this really hurts your ability to score points during the game (it also gives the other players on those roads/cities points when you complete them).  therefore, a (back-end loaded) high point value at the end of the game is justified. 

raberjr

[Johngee]

  after thinking about it, tend to agree now that the large amount of points are justified.  if you have to continually protect your longest road/largest city by completing other's roads and cities, this really hurts your ability to score points during the game (it also gives the other players on those roads/cities points when you complete them).  therefore, a (back-end loaded) high point value at the end of the game is justified. 

 

I have to agree with all the comments above, especially when Gantry said... "some might say lopsided, others might say more strategic, I guess it depends on how you look at it.  The nice thing about Carc is that there are multiple paths you can take to win, no one strategy will guarantee a win." 

YES, it is a lot of points (usually 25-35 for Baron and 20-30 for the King depending on which expansions are included), but it is justified because of the hard work to retain them throughout the game, which is a distraction from your normal strategies, and a "lucky" tile draw can allow anyone to take either one away from you, especially when the Builder is in play.  YES, it does seem lopsided giving that many points during the End Game process, but we've found that seldom does one player get both of them and they each make for a good counter balance to high Farmer scores that certain players always rack up. 

We've been playing Carc. for a couple of years and have added the expansions as they were published, thus watching the game's mechanics evolve.  I don't feel that the bonus points for the King & Baron are TOO HIGH as much as (in hindsight) the bonus points for the three commodities, which was one of the earliest releases, are now TOO LOW by comparison and maybe should be adjusted upwards to 20 points for the most of each kind or maybe even 10 points for each barrel, bolt, or bushel captured, thereby distributing a potential 200 points (90+50+60) more evenly among all the players. 

[Tobias]

In a game with 4-6 players, yes it's all true. But in a two player game it's fairly common for one of the players to have both.

That things can have too few points aren't an issue - if they have, no one will bother with them. I've yet to see a single game where people do not struggle to get that one extra barrel.

[Johngee]

When we started with the orig. Carc. with River-I and then added I&C and T&B, there was a struggle to see who would get the commodities.  They were an important 10% bonus to the final score.  Now we've also added in the K&S, P&D, and T expansions, they seem to be less of a consideration until someone realizes that somehow quite accidentally they acquire thee of one kind and only THEN will they make an extra effort to get a 4th to guarantee "cornering that market."  BTW:  We normally play with 4-6 players, very seldom with only three, and only twice have I participated in one-on-one, full contact, heads-up, cut-throat Carcassonne competition. 

[mjharper]

I think it works, because the value of the King and Robber Baron remains the same, relative to the number of expansions you use. Trade  goods, on the other hand, decrease in value as you add more expansions into the mix because they always score the same number of points. They end up being nothing but tie-breakers, whereas a player may choose to build a strategy around building the longest road/city.

More relative scoring, and less fixed, that's what I say! 

[Tobias]

I'm not convinced. Again - in a game with 4 or more players, yes - I agree. But since many of my games runs by the motivation to give Sara a good spanking (viz. 2-player game) there are some things to consider.

To get the most trade goods yield me a certain amount of points, and if I do I can equal out and ignore some of what she is building. It's a certain .. eh certainy about the game simply.

To have some fixed values gives a more strategic game. What will I choose to pursue?

Or am I totally wrong here?

[albie]

We play that the King and Robber Baron are each worth a flat 10 points at game's end. That way, we don't have to waste time counting cities and roads. However, I have come to the realization that with more expansions, 10 points is way too low, so I am going to propose we use 10 points for a basic game, 15 for 1-2 large expansions, and 20 for 3-4 large expansions. However, this still may be too low; maybe it should be 15, 20, or 25, or even 20, 25, 30. Whatever we decide to do, it will remain a fixed award; the less end-of-game counting, the quicker we get to move on to the next game!

I do like the idea of a point award for each commodity you earn; that seems better than an all or nothing for the majority owner (who should probably still earn some type of bonus). I may have to propose yet another house rule!

[mjharper]

Tobias: Look at it like this. Pretty much everything in the game increases in value slightly as you add more expansions into the mix. Take cities: the more expansions youn use, the more cities you can build, and the bigger they will be. That increases the value of deploying meeples to Carcassonne to be parachuted in at a later date, since, the average value of cities is likely to be higher. The King and Robber Baron reflect that increase perfectly. As a proportion of the total score of the game, I'm sure that their value stays the same. 70-odd points from the tiles in a 700-point game is about the same as 20 points in a 200-point game, obviously. Whereas Trade Goods offer the same maximum 30 points whether the total score of the game is 200 or 2,000,000. Strategically, fighting over barrels which are only worth 10 points at the end, in a 700 point game in which the average size of cities is probably larger, is futile. In our games (normally two-player, like yourself), Trade Goods no longer dictate strategy (although we still fight for them) - they are a nice addition to the other benefits of closing somebody-else's cities. Only very rarely do we bother to close a city just for the trade goods - usually a large city which encompasses many.

The King and Robber Baron may arguably be too powerful, relatively speaking - but I still think that the fact that they remain relevant to the game as it increases in size is a benefit. Trade Goods, and cloisters for that matter, become less significant - 10 points for a commodity is just not enough in mega-carc.

albie's suggestion might also work - I'd recommend adding 5 points for every major expansion (The Tower, for example), and 5 points for every two mini-expansions (The Cathars, The Count). Either that, or award a figure based on the number of tiles used - we'd have to figure that one out. But having a fixed score which increases is not a bad work-around: we just need something similar for Trade Goods.

And I like the idea of scoring for each Trade Good which the majority owner has - say 5 points for each. But it's impractical. While it would weaken their value in a multi-player game compared to a 2-player game (same number of goods split among more players), it would make Trade Goods too powerful in a game with only a couple of expansions. Unless you start adding 1 point for every major expanison, and 1 point for every two mini-expansions...

My guiding concern for any feature is that it remains proportionately relevant to the game as expansions are added to the mix. So Trade Goods should somehow offer approximately a 10% benefit at all times (for example).

Thinking out loud now: how about tying Trade Goods to farms in some way? Or even to cloisters? Or perhaps using them for actual trade?

[Tobias]

mjharper: I realised something when I read your post. We don't score small cities, at all. And in not doing so we usually don't have a lot of them.

I've got to play the game as it's supposed to maybe - before mouthing off

[mjharper]

LOL

It happens to us all, don't worry

Btw, I've just added a proposed variant for Trade Goods at http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=26&topic=87.0