Catan

[epi_lj]

Okay, so most board gamers have some kind of opinion on the Catan franchise. It's the game that seems to set some people into an addictive fire from which they never emerge and which other people look upon with great disdain

Comments

[kimmekepunk]

I really like playing Catan, but not the base game, I prefer Cities and knights.

I think there is indeed a part luck involved, more so with the base game. The player who gets to set his villages last when starting, and thus can put his two villages at the same time, has an advantage over the rest, who probably won't have any place left.

And there is luck in numbers also. you have to roll the dice to get you resources, so this is also luck. I once had very good spots on the board, but the numers I had most, 4 and 10, where hardly thrown during the game.

I think I don't like the base game that much because of the too much luck part, but with cities and knights you have a little more other elements involved.

I also played most of the scenario's and there are some very good ones (like the Trojan War) and very bad ones (like the great wall of china)

I think the settlers of the stone age is very good: no moving tiles. And you start in africa, but eventualy you will have to move your settlements, because africa becomes a dessert.

So, in short, luck might be a part of the game, and more one time than the next, but it is not the only factor. Strategy also plays a role, but not as big a part as luck, and more depending on the game.

[epi_lj]

The "placing two settlements in a row" thing did seem to be a big advantage, because they're the only player who can completely coordinate their two placements, with no possible interference from the other players. Then again, that advantage might be compensation for the disadvantage of having to pick placements after most or all of the good spots were taken.