Carcassonne question
Rodney Somerstein
once with five players. While I enjoyed the game, a couple of the members
of the group complained about the fact that it seems to come down to who
gets the most points for farmer placements at the end of the game. Is the
the experience that others have had as well? In the two games, the people
who tied for most cities serviced outscored the others by around 40
points.
Does it sound like we are doing something wrong or are we just not being
agressive enough on trying to block people's farmers from connecting?
Both times we ended up with a very large field connected to 7 or more
completed cities. To my way of thinking, the game does seem to depend a
lot on the farmers, but this just means that you have to plan on how to
use them during the game, placing them in non-connected spots and then
managing to get them connected up during the game.
How much of an effect does scoring on other areas have? Are the
city/road/cloister scores just going to be enough extra points to give
the successful farmer players the edge they need to win or can they
overcome the points for large farms?
-Rodney
rod...@nospam.io.com
(remove the nospam. to reply via email)
JJWEBLEY
In our experience (5 games so far) the farmers are very important, but come at
a price, tying up a man for the whole game rather than recycling him. We
certainly haven't had any players winning by 40 points, I think that the best
winning margin has been 5, although we have had some massive fields, so I would
suspect that you are building far more small (2 tile) cities than we did, so
boosting your farmer scores and depressing the city scores. Blocking off
fields isn't easy,
but competing more strongly for the farmer points certainly is, and I would
suspect that the best scoring farmer will always be there or there abouts at
the end.
John Webley
Richard Dewsbery
Rodney Somerstein <rod...@nospam.io.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1493ba675...@news.io.com...
I've played the "farmer" strategy three times now, won twice (once by a big
margin) and lost heavily once. In order to make effective use of farmers,
you usually need 3 or 4 of them, at least 2 of which need to be in any
"super field" that develops. They have to be placed early, before the
cities they service, or there'll be an opponent's farmer there already, but
missing over half of your men for most of the game holds you backk from
scoring well with bandits and knights.
The farmers generally score well if no-one else has dedicated enough
resources to stop them, or if there are more of them than there are of the
opponents', but work poorly if they are placed early and the cities develop
elsewhere, or late and the cities are already serviced.
I think farmers are the best way to score points, but not as easy to pull
off as the other three placements.
Richard
Brady Severns
three farmers in a large field. Two other players then invested heavily in
farmers in the seond game and had four pieces each tied up to my one. (They
shared a large field at game's end.) Instead, I put out lots of thieves and
invested knights in small towns that they wanted to complete to link their
farms. A farmer still won that game but I still placed a close second by
picking up the slack in other areas. Farmers are important for wins, but if
people become compeitive with them, they become a liability by tying a large
part of your available pieces down.
My dream construct is a "university" composed of a 4 cloister cluster. If
yer lucky enough, that's 36 uncontested points through the placement of 16
tiles (others will probably help out with those) AND your pieces come back
to your stock! Thieves on short stretches are a bargain, too. I'm learning
to keep my last piece available for snatching quick thief or "stadium"
(2-tile cities) points to avoid an empty stock in the end game.
Brady
R. Hoekstra
> once with five players. While I enjoyed the game, a couple of the members
> of the group complained about the fact that it seems to come down to who
> gets the most points for farmer placements at the end of the game. Is the
> the experience that others have had as well? In the two games, the people
> who tied for most cities serviced outscored the others by around 40
> points.
>
How many complete cities do you build ? Each city gives only 4 points. Even
if there are 10 complete cities there are only 40 points to divide...
Ronald Hoekstra
Andrew W.
Contrary to the farm theory that seems to be emerging, I was prince of
the pastures, but did not win. I was frozen out of a shield-studded
mega-tropolis, shared between the other two. The winner finished with
91.
On the basis of a few plays and a little thought, I think that the game,
appropriately enough, is all about the cities. If players go for big
cities, scoring is skewed towards cities and away from farms, in a few
related ways:
- there are more meeples (Alison Hansel's name for the dudes) tied up in
cities-in-progress, and hence fewer available as farmers
- bigger cities mean fewer cities, since the number of city tiles is
constant
- bigger cities are (I think) less likely to be completed, and farmers
score only for supplying completed cities
To look at the other side of this coin: farmers get really huge payoffs
when there are many completed cities. In this case, players have gone
for small, completed cities. Once again, though, it is decisions about
cities that drive the game and the scoring.
Of course, whether or not players go for big cities is a function of the
tiles, and of the luck of the draw. Which brings us to the other concern
about Carcassonne. I propose the following variant.
Meeple Manager. Arrange four tiles as for Showmanager. One is free, the
second costs a point on the scoring track, the third, two points, the
fourth, three points. You can take a tile at the appropriate cost, or
you can clear the tiles for two points. Cleared tiles go back into the
box. You start at 20 (?) on the scoring track. You may not go negative.
Andrew.
ps My apologies to Dave Bernazzani for proposing this variant on one of
his current favorites. If he'd died of shock when coffee was spilt on
his copy of LotR, he's be spinning wildly in his grave on hearing about
Meeple Manager!
Mark Edwards
> ps My apologies to Dave Bernazzani for proposing this variant on one of
> his current favorites. If he'd died of shock when coffee was spilt on
> his copy of LotR, he's be spinning wildly in his grave on hearing about
> Meeple Manager!
You did know that Dave is the head of the AVF (Anti-Variant Front) before posting this message. On top of that you knew it was his favorite game of late. Me thinks this was a political maneuever on the part of the VLL (Variant Liberation League) to push Dave over the edge (you know how close he is!). ;-)
Mark
--
Mark Edwards
dange...@mediaone.net
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/dangermouse/index.htm
P****Master
they are impassable. This'll help break up the ridiculously huge farm at
the end.
Dave Bernazzani
> [Carcassonne snip]
>How many complete cities do you build ? Each city gives only
>4 points. Even if there are 10 complete cities there are only
>40 points to divide...
Points are not divided for ties in Carcassonne. They are given
equally to all tied players. I somewhat like this feature in a
light game only because so many games I play have the other
method (ties split move to the next lowest rung or do not score
at all!).
--
Dave Bernazzani
db...@gis.net
http://www.gis.net/~dber (South Shore Gamers)
Dave Bernazzani
>ps My apologies to Dave Bernazzani for proposing this
>variant on one of his current favorites. If he'd died of
>shock when coffee was spilt on his copy of LotR, he's be
>spinning wildly in his grave on hearing about
>Meeple Manager!
Excellent post Andrew - and the variant you suggest might work
out really well. Other suggestions of drawing in advance, having
2 tiles to select from each turn (ala Metro variant), etc. are
all fine suggestions as well.
But I do want to state my opinion that this game is quite good
with the 'standard' rules. Sometimes variants are looked on as
'fixes' (I've already read that word in relation to Carcassonne
here in r.g.b and elsewhere) which I don't think this game really
needs. In 6+ plays, I've not seen it to be broken and many
people seem to enjoy the light luck element of it - and there is
still a good dose of strategy mixed in. If you want to make it
more strategic or less luck-driven, that's fine, but it does
change nature the game. I think (and could well be wrong!) that
it's supposed to be light, quick and fun with a healthy luck
element mixed with some planning. Sometimes farms score big
(especially if everyone built little cheapo-short-cities) and
sometimes they do not (more larger cities where those
metropolises score heavy). I like the fact that the landscape
looks so very different from game to game forcing you to adapt as
best you can. And that it scales really well from 2 to 5
players. And it's fast. And... oh heck, it's one of my favorite
new games and a relative gaming bargain!
Rodney Somerstein
> How many complete cities do you build ? Each city gives only 4 points. Even
> if there are 10 complete cities there are only 40 points to divide...
I thought that ties were scored equally for all players, not split. I'm
out of town for the moment so I can't check the rules until next weekend.
This would cause the game to play really differently.
-Rodney
(remove the nospam. from my email address to reply)
Rodney Somerstein
> On the basis of a few plays and a little thought, I think that the game,
> appropriately enough, is all about the cities.
I agree with this. However, if you want to play for a big farm, then you
need to also build lots of small cities. That gives short term points to
help put you slightly ahead of everyone before you leap to a large lead
in the endgame. If you end up sharing the farm with others, then it is
those small scores that give you the needed edge.
-Rodney
(remove the nospam. from my address to reply)
Rodney Somerstein
master@*****.com says...
> Here's the fix: Draw little fences around every cloister -- to show that
> they are impassable. This'll help break up the ridiculously huge farm at
> the end.
One of the players in the two games that I was playing was pushing for
this as well.
-Rodney
Christopher L Weeks
> In article <90dqj0$12m62$1...@reader2.wxs.nl>, gamem...@planet.nl says...
>
> > How many complete cities do you build ? Each city gives only 4 points. Even
> > if there are 10 complete cities there are only 40 points to divide...
>
> I thought that ties were scored equally for all players, not split. I'm
> out of town for the moment so I can't check the rules until next weekend.
> This would cause the game to play really differently.
No, you're right. But, unless every completed city is connected by farmland
(which I haven't yet seen even come close) then the farm points are split up by
nature of being different farms.
Chris
Christopher L Weeks
> I purchased this game today and played twice, once with four players and
> once with five players. While I enjoyed the game, a couple of the members
> of the group complained about the fact that it seems to come down to who
> gets the most points for farmer placements at the end of the game. Is the
I have only played three two-player games. I'm looking forward to a
multiplayer game or two this Thursday. In these games, there were usually
two biggish farms and several smaller ones. Our games have each had score
differences of 15-25 points between the winner and loser. Farms mattered but
were not the end-all of scoring.
In your games, what were the raw scores of the players? Were your pieces
getting tied up in farms early on and thus not scoring lots during the game?
I guess that would be less of a problem in multiplayer games where each
player plays fewer tiles.
> Does it sound like we are doing something wrong or are we just not being
> agressive enough on trying to block people's farmers from connecting?
I try to limit my oponent in their farm size. It seems like a good strategy.
Chris
Bob Scherer-Hoock
Well, I threw my two cents in on another Carcassone thread, so I
won't repeat my enthusiasm for the game. But I did want to back
Dave's assessments here, especially the comment about the landscape
changing each game and needing to adapt - personally one of my
favorite gaming elements. He's also right about the short cities. I
think making these is a valid late-game strategy when you know whose
farm you're boosting and you can safely grab the two points and get
your piece back. But making a lot of them early in the game
guarantees some farm will score huge points, and in a multi-player
game, again early on, it's more likely you're handing 4 points a
crack to someone other than yourself.
Bob Scherer-Hoock
Steffan O'Sullivan
I don't see farms to be a problem - that's where the heart of the
game is, so play them. I don't find luck of the draw to be a
problem - make the best of every piece you get. My only problem
is with the monastaries - that *is* just pure luck.
The one time I've played (which means my comments aren't heavily
grounded, I know), the game was won by someone who got three
monastaries when no one else had more than 1. There's no skill
involved - just draw them, play a monk, and you'll probably get at
least 8 points from it unless it's close to the end of the game.
If you get three, that's roughly a final 24 points ... considering
that the game was won by only 14 points by that person, that's a
significant number of VP based purely on luck.
Personally, I'm just going to remove the monastaries and play with
only Thieves, Knights, and Farmers. I think it'll be a much better
game that way.
--
-Steffan O'Sullivan, www.io.com/~sos || "I have wept only 3 times in
my life: the 1st time when my earliest opera failed, the 2nd time when,
with a boating party, a truffled turkey fell into the water, and the
3rd time when I first heard Paganini play." -Gioachino Rossini
Dave Bernazzani
> [Carcassonne snip]
> This is a great game, but I have a complaint about the monastaries.
I think the monasteries do give a definite edge to the player who draws 3 or
even 4 of them. No question there - but you do have to commit a meeple (the
name we use for the little wooden dudes) for much of the game since it does
take a while to finish out a monetary. That same meeple only needs to
support 2 cities to get 8 points - just shy of the max you can get for a
monastery.
But generally I agree with you and the point is well taken. Maybe allow
each player to _start_ with a monastery tile that they can place anytime
during the game instead of drawing a tile. Oh wait, I suggested a variant!
Back to the AVT (Anti-Variant-Training) center for me!!
BTW - I noticed you (Steffan), Bob and I all like Carcassonne - but I think
we are also a bit predisposed to this type of game. It appears we are all
suckers for tile-laying games. This is partially evidenced during our game
of Entdecker this weekend which I think everyone at the table enjoyed (even
if Bob got a bit squished :). Also there is out shared liking for Ta-Yu.
I'm sure there are other games that possibly fit the same mould.
Steffan O'Sullivan
>Steffan O'Sullivan wrote:
>> This is a great game, but I have a complaint about the monastaries.
>
>each player to _start_ with a monastery tile that they can place anytime
>during the game instead of drawing a tile.
Maybe. I think the game would be improved by simply removing them,
though. I don't think they add that much. However, I can see
combining this variant with the other I heard proposed: everyone
starts with a monastary, and on their turn draws a tile. You can
play either tile and hold the other for your next turn. If you
play your monastary, you hold the other tile, so that next turn
you'll have two non-monastary tiles to choose from, and so on.
>Oh wait, I suggested a variant!
>Back to the AVT (Anti-Variant-Training) center for me!!
Uh, Dave, remember who you're responding to? I *like* variants!
>BTW - I noticed you (Steffan), Bob and I all like Carcassonne - but I think
>we are also a bit predisposed to this type of game. It appears we are all
>suckers for tile-laying games. This is partially evidenced during our game
>of Entdecker this weekend which I think everyone at the table enjoyed (even
>if Bob got a bit squished :). Also there is out shared liking for Ta-Yu.
Bob deserved to get squished. It was revenge for beating me in Ta
Yu. Plus it was the curse of Pitt, upon whom Bob inflicted the
worst string of luck ever seen in Entdecker.
Bob Scherer-Hoock
Dave Bernazzani wrote:
> Steffan O'Sullivan wrote:
> > [Carcassonne snip]
> > This is a great game, but I have a complaint about the monastaries.
>
> I think the monasteries do give a definite edge to the player who draws 3 or
> even 4 of them. No question there - but you do have to commit a meeple (the
> name we use for the little wooden dudes) for much of the game since it does
> take a while to finish out a monetary. That same meeple only needs to
> support 2 cities to get 8 points - just shy of the max you can get for a
> monastery.
>
> But generally I agree with you and the point is well taken. Maybe allow
> each player to _start_ with a monastery tile that they can place anytime
> during the game instead of drawing a tile. Oh wait, I suggested a variant!
> Back to the AVT (Anti-Variant-Training) center for me!!
>
> BTW - I noticed you (Steffan), Bob and I all like Carcassonne - but I think
> we are also a bit predisposed to this type of game. It appears we are all
> suckers for tile-laying games. This is partially evidenced during our game
> of Entdecker this weekend which I think everyone at the table enjoyed (even
> if Bob got a bit squished :). Also there is out shared liking for Ta-Yu.
> I'm sure there are other games that possibly fit the same mould.
>
> --
> Dave Bernazzani
> db...@gis.net
> http://www.gis.net/~dber (South Shore Gamers)
No question much of the reason I like Carcassone is its resemblance to
Entdecker, one of my all-time favorites (although I still insist they must be
entirely different games, as Carcassone has no water or ships, unless you count
the obvious underground water and sewer systems in the cities. Both have a nice
balance between luck and strategy to suit my tastes, and both are games in which
the playing area evolves in a way that forces you to adapt (or however you put
it in your earlier post).
Bob Scherer-Hoock
Bob Scherer-Hoock
> "Dave Bernazzani" <db...@gis.net> wrote:
> >Steffan O'Sullivan wrote:
> >> This is a great game, but I have a complaint about the monastaries.
> >
> >But generally I agree with you and the point is well taken. Maybe allow
> >each player to _start_ with a monastery tile that they can place anytime
> >during the game instead of drawing a tile.
>
> Maybe. I think the game would be improved by simply removing them,
> though. I don't think they add that much. However, I can see
> combining this variant with the other I heard proposed: everyone
> starts with a monastary, and on their turn draws a tile. You can
> play either tile and hold the other for your next turn. If you
> play your monastary, you hold the other tile, so that next turn
> you'll have two non-monastary tiles to choose from, and so on.
>
> >Oh wait, I suggested a variant!
> >Back to the AVT (Anti-Variant-Training) center for me!!
>
> Uh, Dave, remember who you're responding to? I *like* variants!
>
> >BTW - I noticed you (Steffan), Bob and I all like Carcassonne - but I think
> >we are also a bit predisposed to this type of game. It appears we are all
> >suckers for tile-laying games. This is partially evidenced during our game
> >of Entdecker this weekend which I think everyone at the table enjoyed (even
> >if Bob got a bit squished :). Also there is out shared liking for Ta-Yu.
>
> Bob deserved to get squished. It was revenge for beating me in Ta
> Yu. Plus it was the curse of Pitt, upon whom Bob inflicted the
> worst string of luck ever seen in Entdecker.
>
> --
> -Steffan O'Sullivan, www.io.com/~sos || "I have wept only 3 times in
> my life: the 1st time when my earliest opera failed, the 2nd time when,
> with a boating party, a truffled turkey fell into the water, and the
> 3rd time when I first heard Paganini play." -Gioachino Rossini
I deserved to get squished much more for lousy play than anything else.
Bob Scherer-Hoock
Bob Scherer-Hoock
Dave Bernazzani wrote:
> Steffan O'Sullivan wrote:
> > [Carcassonne snip]
> > This is a great game, but I have a complaint about the monastaries.
>
> I think the monasteries do give a definite edge to the player who draws 3 or
> even 4 of them. No question there - but you do have to commit a meeple (the
> name we use for the little wooden dudes) for much of the game since it does
> take a while to finish out a monetary. That same meeple only needs to
> support 2 cities to get 8 points - just shy of the max you can get for a
> monastery.
>
> But generally I agree with you and the point is well taken. Maybe allow
> each player to _start_ with a monastery tile that they can place anytime
> during the game instead of drawing a tile. Oh wait, I suggested a variant!
> Back to the AVT (Anti-Variant-Training) center for me!!
>
> BTW - I noticed you (Steffan), Bob and I all like Carcassonne - but I think
> we are also a bit predisposed to this type of game. It appears we are all
> suckers for tile-laying games. This is partially evidenced during our game
> of Entdecker this weekend which I think everyone at the table enjoyed (even
> if Bob got a bit squished :). Also there is out shared liking for Ta-Yu.
> I'm sure there are other games that possibly fit the same mould.
>
> --
> Dave Bernazzani
> db...@gis.net
> http://www.gis.net/~dber (South Shore Gamers)
Dave: I should add that although I like Ta Yu very much, I don't consider it the
same type of game as Entdecker and Carcassone, tile laying aside (i.e. I like
Ta Yu for very different reasons). Ta Yu, to me, is more of a territory
aquisition game by placement, like Twixt and Isi, and to a lesser extent
Lowenherz (all games I also like). It's less the tile laying I like (a number of
Knizia games that don't do much for me at all - Through the Desert comes
primarily to mind - are basically tile-laying games) and more the sense of
evolution of the "board" by way of exploration (Tikal, Entdecker) or development
(Metropolis, Big City, La Citta) that I enjoy.
Bob Scherer-Hoock
Rodney Somerstein
> No, you're right. But, unless every completed city is connected by farmland
> (which I haven't yet seen even come close) then the farm points are split up by
> nature of being different farms.
In the two games that I've played so far, almost every completed city has
been connected by one large farm. Granted, two games isn't a good sample
to judge from. That's part of why I asked the original question. In any
case, I plan on playing this game a good bit more as I really like it so
far.
-Rodney
Rodney Somerstein
> I have only played three two-player games. I'm looking forward to a
> multiplayer game or two this Thursday. In these games, there were usually
> two biggish farms and several smaller ones. Our games have each had score
> differences of 15-25 points between the winner and loser. Farms mattered but
> were not the end-all of scoring.
It seems like the game may play a bit differently with only two players.
There would be much more control over what you are doing since you don't
have everyone else messing up your plans with their tile plays. I suspect
that the note on the back of the box about this game being especially
good for two players is right on. I look forward to giving this a try
when I get a chance.
> In your games, what were the raw scores of the players? Were your pieces
> getting tied up in farms early on and thus not scoring lots during the game?
> I guess that would be less of a problem in multiplayer games where each
> player plays fewer tiles.
The scores ranged from about 40 - 90 in the first game and 40 - 120+ in
the second game. Most of us committed at least one piece early on. Then,
there were lots of small scores. It seems pretty tough to get in on big
farms later in the game. Staking your claim early makes it much easier to
get connected in as tiles get played.
> > Does it sound like we are doing something wrong or are we just not being
> > agressive enough on trying to block people's farmers from connecting?
>
> I try to limit my oponent in their farm size. It seems like a good strategy.
With multiple players you have a bit less control due to three or four
other people placing tiles before you get to place again. This can make
it tough to impossible to cut farms into pieces.
-Rodney
Holger Peine
So far, we've had people annoucing here that Carcassonne is "all cloisters",
then "it's all about the cities", and finally "it's all about the farms"
(claiming no less than three of the four scoring elements of the game as
the dominant factor).
I think this indicates what a gem of tactical variety we have in this
wonderful little game. A great achievement.
Kind regards,
--
Dipl.-Inform. (comparable to MSc) Holger Peine
University of Kaiserslautern, Germany
Phone +49-631-205-3292 Fax -205-3289
http://wwwagss.informatik.uni-kl.de/Mitarbeiter/peine
roob...@my-deja.com
Bob Scherer-Hoock <bobs...@mediaone.net>
wrote:
I'm a bit puzzled that, in all the praise for
Carcassonne, nobody appears to have mentioned
its most obvious relative, namely El Caballero.
I would have thought it was clear that
Carcassonne is heavily derived from El Cab;
possibly not quite so closely that I'd actually
call it a rip-off, but its not that far away
either.
Now the thing is that I don't mind games that
borrow mechanics from other games when they
improve on the original, but in this case it
also seems to me that El Cab is much the more
interesting and subtle game.
So what's the story here ? Have you guys simply
not encountered El Cab ? If so, I'd strongly
recommend that you seek out a copy, as if you
like Carcassonne as much as you imply, I think
you'll love El Cab.
Adam
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dave Bernazzani
<roob...@my-deja.com> wrote :
> [Carcassonne snip]
>So what's the story here ? Have you guys simply
> not encountered El Cab ? If so, I'd strongly
> recommend that you seek out a copy, as if you
> like Carcassonne as much as you imply, I think
> you'll love El Cab.
Yes, I've played El Caballero a few times. It feels heavier than
Carcassonne and the bidding and caballero usage feel more like El Grande.
But it was enjoyable - but somehow dry and just not the same "fun" factor as
Carcassonne has had for me. I guess I never really equated them but I can
see they are similar. Clearly they are both tile laying games but there are
lots of those floating around over the years. I enjoy tile laying games and
right now Carcassonne is preferred to El Cab for my tastes.
Bob Scherer-Hoock
> In article <3A2C1094...@mediaone.net>,
> Bob Scherer-Hoock <bobs...@mediaone.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dave Bernazzani wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > BTW - I noticed you (Steffan), Bob and I all
> like Carcassonne - but I think
> > > we are also a bit predisposed to this type of
> game. It appears we are all
> > > suckers for tile-laying games. This is
> partially evidenced during our game
> > > of Entdecker this weekend which I think
> everyone at the table enjoyed (even
> > > if Bob got a bit squished :). Also there is
> out shared liking for Ta-Yu.
> > > I'm sure there are other games that possibly
> fit the same mould.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dave Bernazzani
> > > db...@gis.net
> > > http://www.gis.net/~dber (South Shore Gamers)
> >
> So what's the story here ? Have you guys simply
> not encountered El Cab ? If so, I'd strongly
> recommend that you seek out a copy, as if you
> like Carcassonne as much as you imply, I think
> you'll love El Cab.
>
> Adam
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Yes, I have El Cab, and I've played it. But it never once
occurred to me to equate the two games. Now that you mention it I
can see the similarity in that the tiles are the same shape and
about the same size, but that's where it ends for me. El Cab
struck me much more like El Grande with fluid regions than a game
like Entdecker or Carcassone or Big City where the point is
exploration or development. Granted there is a clear exploration
aspect to El Cab, but for some reason, to me, it never
overwhelmed the more tedious aspect of using the cabs to
manipulate control. This seemed to me to be much more the point
rather than exploration and development. Given that and the
amount of time El Cab takes, I'd much rather spend the time
playing the original - El Grande
Carcassone, on the other hand, is quicker, simple to teach, hard
to manipulate and just has a significantly higher fun factor for
me. It's definitely not a heavyweight; it's just fun, something
that I never really got much out of El Cab.
Bob Scherer-Hoock
Huw Morris
[snip]
> see they are similar. Clearly they are both tile laying games but there are
> lots of those floating around over the years. I enjoy tile laying games and
> right now Carcassonne is preferred to El Cab for my tastes.
I played Carcassonne once, and I didn't hate it or love it. I just
wondered in what circumstances I'd rather play it over El Caballero.
Maybe I just like "heavier" games.
Huw