mindstalk: (gaming)
G S and I play Catan a lot, but it doesn't seem as good with 3 players. Partly the really open board, partly not many rolls between turns so hard to do stuff, and more chance of building up cards between every second turn and losing half. G' has learned, so we've played some 4 players games, but in a few days it'll be down to G S and G'. So we've been exploring how to improve the game. G's first was to have two deserts, replacing one fo the sheep tiles. This tended not to do much, as the deserts likely end up on the edge. Tonight we're trying having one of the deserts replace the innermost sheep, and this does make for tighter boards, though not so tight as to stop S's longest road.

My idea was to have a dummy placement, rolling to place two settlements of the unused color. G pointed out that they'd often end up in stupid places on the edge, but one can easily have them on the inner ring. (Roll 2 dice for a number, roll one die for vertes on an inner tile, or inner vertex for the 8 2 and 12 that always end up on the edge. For two deserts we take the 12 H out, and now add it to the 2 to make it more valuable.

Other houserules: re-roll 7s the first two turns... 3 turns now, after I pointed out there weren't many rolls with 3 players; we're still doing it even with a dummy roll, my other idea. Namely that the 4 player game is good, so we should try to emulate it as much as possible, so there's a roll after the 3rd player, where we get income. 7 moves the robber to the desert.

A suggestion we haven't used yet is having longest road and largest army being only 3 points together, rather than 4, after a string of games won on those plus 5 settlements and vp card, or 6 points on board, but we haven't decided.

[ETA] G notes that dummy settlements shut out game income, not just make the board tighter, and I don't like piling on house rules (e.g. food stamps) to fix house rules. Dummy rolls seem to work well, though in that case we should go back to having only 2 safe rounds, not 3. There may be a second player disadvantage: 1st gets best spot, especially when 3-commodity junctions seem rare, 3rd gets to coordinate. But hard to tell; second players have been visibly screwed by die rolls as much as anything else.

So current 'rules are second desert, one internal; H out of sequence and added to 2 (unless you end up with a 6 8 junction, in which case reverse); two rounds of re-rolling 7; dummy roll after 3rd player to generate more income between turns and more chances to more the robber]


Boring nerdy game retrospective.
I almost want to rant about our latest games, where rolls have been very odd; I've had good placements ruined by large spikes of 3 or 11, sometimes 9. Haven't won a game in the last 5. I've tried some odd port strategies, or being a stone baron -- 3 11 11 stone, I had 3 11, which we didn't roll. Last game went back to my pip dominated strategy, and did better, but G blew past somehow... lots of grain heavy games, too.

Been having *fast* games though, about an hour... last one was under 50 minutes. Third game tonight... I have great placement, but but we've rolled 5 9s in the first 7 rolls, and I'm not getting anything.... well, wasn't, game's doing better now. Now we've had lots of 5, as my hand of 4 stones indicates.

[ETA: S won, 7 on board, plus last minute longest road and VP card; I had 6, losing longest road, and was going to build at least another point; G 5. I placed first this time, G second; we never rolled 4, which hurt G a lot. I'm 0 for 6 now, though doing better these past two games. Under an hour again, maybe even less. Guess dummy roll means the income of 4 players, but 3/4 of the trade negotiations.]
mindstalk: (Void Engineer)
Boring self-aggrandizing game geekery ahead:

Gamer's Guild has a joke houserule about automatically winning Catan if you build 3 cities around the desert. I verified this was a joke by doing so tonight, though as it happens I won anyway. It all made sense, though.

Desert in the inner tier of tiles. First to build, picked 5-10-9 stone-stone-wheat. Last to build... there were better places pip-wise than the 4-3 wood-brick I chose, but none that would give me those cards, and being able to build a road out the gate is nice. The obvious candidates to build next were 5/ocean/3:1 port, 8 wheat around the desert, 5 sheep around the desert. I went for the wheat, then sheep (my only sheep), picking up more wood and clay, and the port last. Perfectly natural settlements around the desert. First city was the stone-wheat triple, duh! But second? The 5 just turns 3 stones into 4 stones, doesn't give anything else, and risks getting suppressed as an attractive nuisance. Desert cities at least doubled two tiles each, thus not being squelchable by the robber. Thus, cities around the desert. Finally won with a breakout road, and a last settlement -- rolled a 7, but I had a year of plenty in my hand, and might have had enough cards to win anyway, didn't check; would have needed 11 cards total, losing 5 to keep wood wheat sheep and 3 stone to turn into brick. Alternately, the next dev card was a VP, though of course I didn't know that.

It was a close game, two others were one VP card or settlement away from victory, and the last guy still had 8 VPs. Started slow since inland deserts often do that, plus we rolled a ridiculous number of 7s -- discarded all the ones in the first two turns, which was a lot. Later the game picked up, though often was choked for brick or wood at various times, though it really oscillated -- I'd go from having 4 wheat and clay each to having no clay and needing it.

anima got a solid lock on largest army without any natural stone, just by buying it with clay or other stuff. P. never had 3:1 till the end, but still did pretty well trading in sheep, sheep, sheep, and sheep.
mindstalk: (robot)
Some not very deep thoughts:

To build a city from scratch, without exploiting branching roads, takes
* 3 brick (2 roads, settlement)
* 3 wood (ditto)
* 3 wheat (settlement, 2 for city)
* 3 stone (3 for city)
* 1 sheep (settlement)

I believe this helps explain why sheep are in such surplus. I knew this roughly, but not how even the numbers were. If you use branching roads, brick and wood go down to 2, which is still more than sheep.

There's 3 stone tiles to 4 wheat, so you'd think stone would be more valuable, and maybe it is if you count carefully enough, but wheat usually feels more reliably valuable... probably because the demand is more constant -- more spread over time, and more useful in small quantities, vs. "do I accumulate stone and risk going over the 7 card limit?"


Also, I've wondered how many resources it takes to win. This varies a lot, depending on how you get your points. Almost the cheapeast possible way to win is:
* Buy a road building card, and connect your two starting segments; build another road for Longest Road. 5 cards, 2 points.
* Buy 3 soldiers and get largest army. That'd be 9 cards, except you get to steal cards, so 6 resources, for 2 points.
* Buy 4 Victory Point cards, 12 cards.
So, 23 cards, 8 points. This of course takes extreme luck. Nearly as bad is 5 VP cards, 2 cities, one settlement: 15+10+6 = 31.

More honest-feeling is lots of cities. If you use branching and minimal roads, that's 4 cities, 2 settlements, or 4*(2+4+5) = 44 resources.
A Monopoly on stone is a good way to cut that down if you're luck, turn 3 cards into the 12 stone you need, for 32 cards.

The upper bound is fun in a twisted way:
* compete for longest road *and lose*: 26 resources spend on roads, 0 points.
* compete for largest army and lose: 7 soldier cards, 14 resources, or 21 if you don't steal from other players.
* Buy road-building cards after you've run out of road segments, 6 resources.
* Buy Monopolies and fail to get anything for them: 6 resources.
* Use Year of Plenty to turn 3 resources into 2: net loss 2 resources. (Or don't bother using them, 6 resources.)
* Finally win via settlements and cities. Normally building settlements would be more expensive, but here you've already built roads, so cities become more expensive for you. 4*9=36 resources.
So: 26+14+6+6+2+36=90 resources. Or 101 with the worse assumptions. And this doesn't count resources lost to theft or rolled 7s.

So, ridiculously easy: 3 cards/VP; sensible, 5.5 cards/VP (44/8); ridiculously hard: 11+ cards/VP

Profile

mindstalk: (Default)
mindstalk

May 2025

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11 121314151617
1819202122 23 24
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Page generated 2025-05-27 17:49
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios