# Caracassonne vs. Settlers of Catan?



## Iron_Chef (Jul 27, 2004)

I've seen glowing reviews of Carcassonne and Settlers of Catan. The graphic design of both leave a lot to be desired, IMO, coming from an Avalon Hill/Zombies!!! type boardgame background (lots of cool plastic minis, nice maps). Still, I'm interested in trying them. But at $30 each and seemingly equal praise, I'm not sure which to buy. 

How do these games compare to Avalon Hill games (like A&A, not the old school brainiac "Squad Leader" type stuff with billions of chits) or Zombies (variable map tiles)? 

There seem to be a lot of expansions/supplements for Settlers of Catan, while I didn't see any for Carcassonne. Lots of expansions are cool if I love the game, but not at the playability/fun expense of the main game (like you need suplement "X" to make the basic set play better). 

I want something that's easy to learn, fairly fast to play (1-2 hours) but still complex and devious enough for my adult mind to develop evil "screw my opponents over while buillding myself up" strategies around. 

So, which is it? Caracassonne or Settlers of Catan?


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jul 27, 2004)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> I've seen glowing reviews of Carcassonne and Settlers of Catan.
> 
> I have never played Carcassonne.
> 
> I have played Sttlers of Catan and I have some very bad news.  It is exceptionally fun and all of those expansions are worth it.  The base game is for 3-4 people (you can't really play with two).  So not only do you need the city and sea expansions you need the 5-6 person version of those, which makes more sense once you see that hte board is assembled and not static.


----------



## morbiczer (Jul 27, 2004)

1. I think this thread will be moved somewhere else. 

2. I don't know any of the games you mentioned, but I own both Settlers of Catan and Carcassone. Both are very good games. I think the look of them is very good, but this might be due to different personal tastes. I like simple wood tokens, but don't like plastic minis in my games. 

3. Carcassone is a really simple game, it doesn"t take more then 10 minutes to explain the rules. Game time is around 30-45 minutes, up to 5 players. I really like it because it is so simple, yet really fun. There are several expansions to the base game, but I only know the German names of them. Check boardgamegeek.com or somewhere, I'm sure you'll find the English names. They aren't needed to run the game, but I think it is more enjoyable with the first expansion. The second expansion is good too, but there are some new rules due to which the game looses some of it simplicity. Not everyone lieks that. But there are also drawbacks to the expansions: more tiles means it takes longer to finsh the game, but this doesn't have to be a bad thing. Depends on your persnal tastes. 
There is also a variant of Carcassone, something like Carcassone the Stone Age. It follows the same basics as the normal Carcassone, but there are also differences. This version is a game on its own, you don't need the normal Carcassone to play it, you can't combine them. 

4. Settlers of Catan is a very good game. There are basically two expansions, one is called something like Seafarer's Expansion, the other one Cities and Knights. You don't need any of these to have fun with Catan. I don't think the Seafarer's Expansion adds a lot to the game, but I like Cities and Knights, although it isquite different from the original game (more randomness). A sesssion of Catan takes at least an hour, most likely even 90 minutes or more. It's a more complex and somewhat more complicated game then Carcassone, but really not diffucult to master. Catan can be played by 3-4 people, but there is a special expansion set for 5-6 players. There are also 5-6 player expansion sets for the expansions!
There are also a lot of variants of Catan available, which are based on the basic game mechanics, but also introduce many new elements. ("Space-Catan", "Nuremberg Catan" , 2-3 "historical scenarios", Settlers of the Stone Age.) These are standalone games, you don't need Catan to play them. I only know some of these. They are good, but they don't have random maps, so there is no big replayability (is this a word?). 

5. From what little I know of Avalon Hill games, the two have not a lot in common with them. 

6. My suggestion: buy both!  Both are really good.


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 27, 2004)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> I've seen glowing reviews of Carcassonne and Settlers of Catan.



I can recommend Carcassone -- particularly if you're looking for a decent abstract-strategy game that you can play with just two people or with a larger group.  Settlers, which I haven't played yet, requires a larger group.


			
				Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> The graphic design of both leave a lot to be desired, IMO, coming from an Avalon Hill/Zombies!!! type boardgame background (lots of cool plastic minis, nice maps).



I didn't think of the graphic design as "leaving a lot to be desired" at all -- but it is fairly stylized.


			
				Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> Still, I'm interested in trying them. But at $30 each and seemingly equal praise, I'm not sure which to buy.



I'd base the decision on whether you're looking for a two-person game or a group-only game. 


			
				Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> How do these games compare to Avalon Hill games (like A&A, not the old school brainiac "Squad Leader" type stuff with billions of chits) or Zombies (variable map tiles)?



They tend to have simple rules that lead to complicated strategies -- like chess, go, etc.


			
				Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> There seem to be a lot of expansions/supplements for Settlers of Catan, while I didn't see any for Carcassonne. Lots of expansions are cool if I love the game, but not at the playability/fun expense of the main game (like you need suplement "X" to make the basic set play better).



Carcassonne has a number of supplements, but they've been selling a version with all of them combined into one box.


			
				Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> I want something that's easy to learn, fairly fast to play (1-2 hours) but still complex and devious enough for my adult mind to develop evil "screw my opponents over while buillding myself up" strategies around.
> 
> So, which is it? Caracassonne or Settlers of Catan?



It sounds like either could fit your needs.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jul 27, 2004)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> I've seen glowing reviews of Carcassonne and Settlers of Catan. The graphic design of both leave a lot to be desired, IMO, coming from an Avalon Hill/Zombies!!! type boardgame background (lots of cool plastic minis, nice maps). Still, I'm interested in trying them. But at $30 each and seemingly equal praise, I'm not sure which to buy.



Carcassonne bores me. It is a tile laying game and your only decisions during the game is where you are going to place the next random tile. No look ahead, no planning, little strategy. (Of course if you like Zombie, another brain-dead game, you might like Carcassonne's randomness.)

Settlers of Catan was the best strategy game ever (until Puerto Rico came out 2-3 years ago). It is not a brainiac game but your decisions have a high effect on both your and your opponents' success. I would recommend just buying the base Settlers of Catan game and if you like it, also getting Cities and Knights. Seafarers is hit and miss with players. Some like it, some don't. It can add a lot of frustration to the game. It's played with senarios which may be reminiscent of wargames where you replay specific battles. (Note, settlers is not a wargame by any stretch of the imagination.)


> How do these games compare to Avalon Hill games (like A&A, not the old school brainiac "Squad Leader" type stuff with billions of chits) or Zombies (variable map tiles)?



I know Squad Leader is very calculation heavy. Neither Settlers or Carcassonne suffer from analysis paralysis: the condition where you are throwing stuff at your opponent because he won't make a move without making sure he's maximizing everywhere he can. Carcassone has more randomness. If you like randomness, go with it. Settlers has less randomness (and that makes it better in my opinion).

Aside: Randomness in a strategy game is an axis along which some people evaluate the brainyness of the game. Chess has no randomness. Candyland is completely determined by the shuffling of the cards and thus is completely random - the players have no effect on the outcome.


> There seem to be a lot of expansions/supplements for Settlers of Catan, while I didn't see any for Carcassonne. Lots of expansions are cool if I love the game, but not at the playability/fun expense of the main game (like you need suplement "X" to make the basic set play better).



Carcassonne has 2-3 expansions. Each adds a new dimension of play by adding about 16-20 tiles to the game. Game play remains the same though. There is also another game Carcassonne: Hunters and Gatherers which is the same game (draw a tile, place a tile) with a different scoring method using different tiles. It also has an expansion.


> I want something that's easy to learn, fairly fast to play (1-2 hours) but still complex and devious enough for my adult mind to develop evil "screw my opponents over while buillding myself up" strategies around.



Puerto Rico is a thinker's game that non-thinkers can enjoy. It's one of those "I need two extra turns with no one else interrupting me so I can get ahead" kind of games. It has the lowest amount of randomness short of chess. PR also has more little bits and pieces compared to the other games. PR is the more "pure" strategy game of the three. It has one unpublished expansion.

All three games are 1-2 hour playing times. Carcassonne and PR have more vicious interactions compared to Settlers.

I'd recommend reading reviews for each game at boardgamegeek.com and at funagain.com. 

None of these games are "good" 2 player games. Not even Carcassonne, though it comes closest to playable at 2 players.


----------



## vic20 (Jul 27, 2004)

I agree with the other posters' glowing about Settlers. Fun stuff! 

There is a Settlers card game that utilizes the same resource-development core that is 2-player only. There are many expansions for this as well.


----------



## Capellan (Jul 27, 2004)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Carcassonne bores me. It is a tile laying game and your only decisions during the game is where you are going to place the next random tile. No look ahead, no planning, little strategy.




I'll tell that to the person who consistently cleans our clocks in Carcassonne.  Because believe me, if he's not strategising, he must be the luckiest man alive 

The game also plays quite differently when you are not using the river to when you are, so I think there is more strategy than you realise.



			
				Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> How do these games compare to Avalon Hill games (like A&A, not the old school brainiac "Squad Leader" type stuff with billions of chits) or Zombies (variable map tiles)?




They're better 

I found Zombies a nice concept, but the gameplay rapidly became tedious.

As for a comparison of your two options ... Carcassonne is the stronger option as a 2 player game (we've certainly had no problems playing it with two).  It's also got more direct competition in it than Settlers (where actions against opponents tend to be oblique).  Carcassonne also allows for up to 5 players, whereas the base Settlers only goes to 4.  So it has more flexibility in terms of player numbers (Settlers has a 5-6 player expansion, but that means extra expense).  These considerations might affect your choice.

These things are all a matter of taste, but I would personally give the nod to Settlers.  They are both very good games.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jul 28, 2004)

Capellan said:
			
		

> I'll tell that to the person who consistently cleans our clocks in Carcassonne.  Because believe me, if he's not strategising, he must be the luckiest man alive



I didn't say there wasn't strategy to Carcassonne. I just find the game too reliant on randomness. I like games that are purer in strategy. (Though chess goes to far that direction) The less randomness in a strategy game, the more I like it.


> The game also plays quite differently when you are not using the river to when you are, so I think there is more strategy than you realise.



I haven't played without the river in ages.


> I found Zombies a nice concept, but the gameplay rapidly became tedious.



Agreed.

Another low randomness game is Power Grid. Very cool. The trickiness about low randomness is that those kinds of games tend to lead toward analysis paralysis. Puerto Rico has a slight problem with that. The real problem with Puerto Rico is that with mixed level of skill opponents, the player to right of the worst player wins. But with equally skilled players, it is a 3-5 player chess game.


----------



## Capellan (Jul 28, 2004)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> I haven't played without the river in ages.




Try it - we've actually found it is a more tactical game without the river than with it.


----------



## MerricB (Jul 28, 2004)

I've played Settlers of Catan and Carcassone extensively over the past few years.

Settlers is _the_ board game to get, although it only handles 3-4 players. (An expansion makes it a 3-6 player game).

If you have a choice between _Carcassone_ or _Carcassone: Hunters and Gatherers_, choose the latter. It fixes all of the former's flaws and is a much superior game.

Cheers!


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jul 28, 2004)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Carcassonne bores me. It is a tile laying game and your only decisions during the game is where you are going to place the next random tile. No look ahead, no planning, little strategy.



Have you played the game? Carcassonne is a numbers game - you're gambling that you get the right tile, and that your opponent won't. Once you've worked out roughly how common or rare tiles that fill certain holes are, you can make some quite vicious plays.


> Carcassone has more randomness. If you like randomness, go with it. Settlers has less randomness (and that makes it better in my opinion).



Isn't settlers that game where each turn a randomly generated number determines who gets resources and who doesn't, and therefore who can actually make a move? I mean sure there's trading, but by the same token carcassone players can negotiate joint ownership of assets and the like.


> Aside: Randomness in a strategy game is an axis along which some people evaluate the brainyness of the game. Chess has no randomness. Candyland is completely determined by the shuffling of the cards and thus is completely random - the players have no effect on the outcome.
> None of these games are "good" 2 player games. Not even Carcassonne, though it comes closest to playable at 2 players.



Eh? I've never had a problem playing carcassonne 2 player, nor have I seen much in terms of radical departures from standard gameplay - the sole exception being that multiple ownership of an asset is never negotiated.

Frankly - my recommendation is carcassonne. The expansions that I've got (the river and inns and cathedrals) are more or less superfluous - the river changes the game significantly (it reduces the pressure to compete for resources), which is more or less a flavour consideration, while inns and cathedrals big add is extra gamepieces for a 6th player, along with some interesting extra tiles.

I'd suggest if you want to try the two out, there's a website where you can play online for free:

www.brettspielwelt.de

for help in english, try

www.brettspielwelt.com


----------



## talinthas (Jul 28, 2004)

i can't imagine why any discerning gamer wouldnt have BOTH of these in their collection.  Carcassonne for smaller groups, Catan for bigger ones.  both have seen equal use in my house, and both are regarded with equal joy =)


----------



## babomb (Jul 28, 2004)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Carcassonne bores me. It is a tile laying game and your only decisions during the game is where you are going to place the next random tile. No look ahead, no planning, little strategy.




There's a fairly common (in my experience) house rule where each player is dealt a hand of 3 tiles and can choose any one to play on his turn. Try it!

As to the original post, I like them both, but I've played _Settlers_ a bit more and lean slightly toward that game. This online version of _Settlers_ might help ease your decision (but I say get both if possible).


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jul 28, 2004)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> I didn't say there wasn't strategy to Carcassonne. I just find the game too reliant on randomness. I like games that are purer in strategy. (Though chess goes to far that direction) The less randomness in a strategy game, the more I like it.



I find Carcassone has less luck the more you play it, because you get to know the tileset. This is especially true, I think, with Carcassone: Hunters and Gatherers, which is my favorite of the games (it's a standalone, not an expansion). My 90%+ win rate on Brettspielwelt speaks to the amount of strategy over luck. 

If you're going to play Carcassone, I highly recommend playing it with both Traders & Builders and Inns and Taverns. The river is weird to me, but I don't think it adds or detracts from the game (I prefer without, though).

I wore out of Settlers really fast, talk about a luck game!


----------



## SpringPlum (Jul 28, 2004)

I really, really like Settlers of Catan but I have not played Carcassone.  Settlers is great and the Seafarers expansion is nice.

However, although Settlers says it is for 2-4 players, the board gets really crowded if you have more than 3 players and no expansion set.

But don't take my word for it...


----------



## billd91 (Jul 28, 2004)

They're both awesome games. Carcassone is better for 2 player options (important if your wife or other significant other is a gamer) and there are a few expansions for it that increase the complexity of the game. There's also a 2-player only version called Carcassone Castle in which the tiles are all played inside a puzzle border.

They both kick the ass of most current Avalon Hill Games (with the possible exception of Diplomacy). But they also play very differently. They're both quicker than many other board games with faster setup and takedown (especially with Carcassone).

I would also classify both games as rules-lite. That's good for casual gamers (while Advanced Squad Leader is not for the faint-hearted). And the fact that there is a significant random element in them means that inexperienced players have a fighting chance of doing reasonably well. I find that the people who complain about that element the most (I know 2 who prefer a house-rule version with a 'hand' of tiles) are the most competitive at board gaming in general. A greater random element means that their highly-developed skills won't necessarily allow them to dominate the game. One player I know is particularly like this. I think he's getting mellower in general (parenthood, I think, is helping) but you can still see it from time to time.

I own both games and a number of expansions (Cities and Knights is my favorite expansion of Settlers) and find both games well worth owning. If you can only afford one, buy one now and plan to buy the other later when you can work up the scratch for it. You won't be disappointed.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jul 28, 2004)

billd91 said:
			
		

> They're both awesome games. Carcassone is better for 2 player options (important if your wife or other significant other is a gamer).



This point can't be overstated in a comparison of the two. If you think you're going to have the opportunity for some 2-man gaming, Carcassone is the clear winner. It plays excellent with 2,3,4, or 5.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 28, 2004)

I had a holiday in Carcassone a couple of weeks ago, and visited some of the wonderful, precariously perched fortresses in that region of France. Very inspiring in a fantasy-setting sort of way.

I might look into Carcassone the game, since although Settlers is great it can't be played with just two people - and the name of Carcasonne might convince my wife that it is worth giving it a go 

Cheers


----------



## reanjr (Jul 28, 2004)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> So, which is it? Caracassonne or Settlers of Catan?




I don't know about Caracassonne, but there is an online Java version of Settlers that you can play to see what the game play is like.


----------



## Ed Cha (Jul 28, 2004)

They're both great games. I own Carcassonne: Hunters & Gatherers and Settlers of Catan: Travel Edition. I'd say Carcassonne is better for quick games, while Settlers of Catan takes a little bit longer and generally requires more players. I prefer Settlers of Catan though. It's more mathematically-oriented with lots of strategy and yet easier to pick up in some ways. If you can, get both!


----------



## Joshua Randall (Jul 28, 2004)

Can't believe no one has posted this link yet:

www.boardgamegeek.com

Settlers of Catan -- http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/13
Carcassonne -- http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/822


----------



## Cor Azer (Jul 28, 2004)

I own both. I prefer Carcassonne myself (check that, I have Carcassonne: Hunters and Gatherers). I've also tried the Carcassonne: Castles (another stand-alone variant) which is a nice twist, but Ark of the Covenant (another stand-alone variant) doesn't interest me.

I don't feel there's any more randomness in it than with Settlers, and the fact that you can play with only 2 players gives it a big boost in my opinion.


----------



## Setanta (Jul 28, 2004)

Of the two, I prefer Carcassonne. Settlers just feels too much like craps to me, without the possibility to win money or the free drinks. Both of them boil down to playing probabilities.

I strongly prefer the meatier, less luck intensive games in the genre, such as Puerto Rico, Princes of Florence, Goa, Power Grid, Tigris and Euphrates, etc.


----------



## Maerdwyn (Jul 28, 2004)

I own both, and will reiterate the 2 person vs group argument.  

I will also say that of my non-gaming friends, most seem to prefer Carcassone (And more specifically Carcassone: Hunters and Gatherers) to Settlers.  Two of my friends, who had never boardgamed before, played it, loved it, and now own several other "German" games besides.  It's a great gateway drug.  The husband's mother (A very conservative Indian lady) visited them in New York City last summer, and they introduced her to the game.  In the week she stayed with them, the three of them played C:H&G eight times, times 2-8 at the mother's request.


----------



## JesterPoet (Jul 28, 2004)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> Can't believe no one has posted this link yet:
> 
> www.boardgamegeek.com
> 
> ...





Me either... I was waiting for someone to post that.


----------



## FungiMuncher (Jul 28, 2004)

As for Settlers, once I got a little deeper into the strategy, the random factors make it feel like I'm competing against the board itself - how do I force out resources more consistantly, and do it better than the other players.

Also check out the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlers_of_Catan

There are several additional places to play online listed there.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jul 28, 2004)

JesterPoet said:
			
		

> Me either... I was waiting for someone to post that.



I mentioned boardgamegeek.com (and funagain.com) in reply #5. I post there too.


			
				Setanta said:
			
		

> I strongly prefer the meatier, less luck intensive games in the genre, such as Puerto Rico, Princes of Florence, Goa, Power Grid, Tigris and Euphrates, etc.



Yes, yes. All excellent games. Only T&E (I think) can handle 2 players well though.


			
				SpringPlum said:
			
		

> However, although Settlers says it is for 2-4 players, the board gets really crowded if you have more than 3 players and no expansion set.



That's part of the strategy of the game. It is possible to get surrounded and still win at Settlers (if you got good location at the beginning)


			
				d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> I wore out of Settlers really fast, talk about a luck game!



Just like you can vary Carcassonne with giving each player an initial hand. You can reduce the luck in Settlers by creating a set of 36 cards numbered 2-12 in 2d6 distribution and draw them rather than rolling randomly. Amusingly, the brettspielwelt version of Settlers actually provides a histogram of the dice rolls so you can see if some die roll is rolling more often than it should.


			
				Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> I'd suggest if you want to try the two out, there's a website where you can play online for free:
> 
> www.brettspielwelt.de
> 
> ...



I do believe that www.brettspielwelt.info for English. Gaming on brettspielwelt is a great place to become good at playing these and other strategy board games. If you see the term BSW on boardgamegeek, they are referring to brettspielwelt.


			
				Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I might look into Carcassone the game, since although Settlers is great it can't be played with just two people - and the name of Carcasonne might convince my wife that it is worth giving it a go



If you primarily play with only 2 players (as couples often do), I would recommend Lost Cities, Hera & Zeus, Caeser & Cleopatra and other games in the Kosmos 2 player series published by Rio Grande Games. (Lost Cities is also online at BrettSpielWelt.)

I'll still take Puerto Rico over all the above any day of the week.


----------



## robberbaron (Jul 28, 2004)

Don't know Carcassone, but Settlers is brill!

Re. graphic style:
I have the early English version where the tiles are basically photographs (at least they look like them), rather than the pretty poor stylised pics of the more recent versions.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jul 28, 2004)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> If you primarily play with only 2 players (as couples often do), I would recommend Lost Cities, Hera & Zeus, Caeser & Cleopatra and other games in the Kosmos 2 player series published by Rio Grande Games. (Lost Cities is also online at BrettSpielWelt.).



Balloon Cup is a really fun 2-player game, too.


----------



## scadgrad (Jul 28, 2004)

Of the two, I greatly prefer Settlers. I do find that Carcassonne has a stronger appeal to "non-gamers" (spouses, etc.) than does Settlers. You might call it a Tetris Effect. Both are outstanding games though; why not buy 'em both.

Chalk me up as yet another Puerto Rico fan. It is the most enjoyable resource mgmt/strategy game on the market IMO. Beautifully designed, elegent graphics, infinitely replayable; I can't imagine that anyone who likes board games would not adore this game.

Other great games in addition to those already mentioned in the posts above:

Medici
Web of Power


----------



## Staffan (Jul 29, 2004)

SpringPlum said:
			
		

> However, although Settlers says it is for 2-4 players, the board gets really crowded if you have more than 3 players and no expansion set.



It's supposed to be. If everyone can expand to their heart's content, it wouldn't be much of a game now, would it?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 29, 2004)

Moved to Off-Topic 

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## Setanta (Jul 29, 2004)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Yes, yes. All excellent games. Only T&E (I think) can handle 2 players well though.



T&E is for 3-4. Goa and Power Grid both work fine with two, and Puerto Rico works fine with a variant.


----------



## Clint (Jul 29, 2004)

Really enjoyed both of these games, too. Simply: Carcassone is milder on strategy and faster on gameplay than Settlers, but check out boardgamegeek for detailed analysis.

Settlers has a small problem of runaway losers, though. The game is moderately long, but by halfway into it (when the expansion phase is mostly done), it is easy to identify at least one person who has absolutely no shot at victory. It becomes an extremely long game for that person. This problem is compounded with the expansions, which increase the length of the game.

-Clint


----------



## Iron_Chef (Jul 29, 2004)

My main concerns are 1) it looks like you don't get to kill anything in either game, and resource management doesn't interest my group by itself (at least at first glance --- I'm not ruling it out, but we never play games where we don't get to kill and dominate our opponents, LOL), and 2) the boards/pieces don't look "cool" like AH or Zombies (Carc's abstract wooden "people" vs. AH/Zombies realistic plastic minis for example), making them harder for me to immerse myself in. Knowing this, does it sound like my group would still enjoy either game?


----------



## Seonaid (Jul 30, 2004)

After reading all of the thread up until your "main concerns" post, I would have agreed with the majority and added that I prefer Carcassonne (with a possibly lengthy discourse as to why). After that post, though, I would say that of those two, your best bet is Settlers with the Cities & Knights expansion. It's not exactly killing, but it's as close as you'll get with those two games.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Jul 30, 2004)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> My main concerns are 1) it looks like you don't get to kill anything in either game, and resource management doesn't interest my group by itself (at least at first glance --- I'm not ruling it out, but we never play games where we don't get to kill and dominate our opponents, LOL), and 2) the boards/pieces don't look "cool" like AH or Zombies (Carc's abstract wooden "people" vs. AH/Zombies realistic plastic minis for example), making them harder for me to immerse myself in. Knowing this, does it sound like my group would still enjoy either game?




Once you have started to build a map in Carcassone it quickly becomes all about the tiles.  I found the tiles to be beautifully done and monsterous cities build up out of a few people vieing for control of it.  It is an easy game to learn but can be difficult to master.  There is a great deal of competition in it but no 'combat' per say.  That being said I have seen games of Carcassone get more competitive than any game of Axis & Allies.

Settlers of Catan is overshadowed, IMO, by Starfarers of Catan.  I liked Settlers of Catan but found I enjoyed Starfarers much, much more.  It involves exploring the galaxy at large and placing colonies on far flung planets while making contact with alien races and battleing pirates.  You still don't get to fight each other but it feels like you do as pirates (drawn from an event deck) are played by your opponents (cards will say stuff like - 2nd person on your right plays the pirates).  Settlers is good but is beaten by Starfarers.  If you want more interaction and 'combat' between players Starfarers does come closest to this.  Regretfully the cost of the game is quite high - about $60 US with one expasion bringing in 5& 6 players pieces (and more planets and alien races) for about $30 US.


----------



## qaaral (Jul 30, 2004)

As has been mentioned there are several variations of Settlers of Catan available. One that has not been mentioned is Settlers of Caanan. I played this recently with my game group. The game's owner discribed it as "Settler's Greatest Hits" since it seems to combine the elements that most of the players prefer from the other games.

That said I still like Carcassonne better. It tends to be a nail-biter down to the final tile with my group.


----------



## jmucchiello (Aug 1, 2004)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> My main concerns are 1) it looks like you don't get to kill anything in either game, and resource management doesn't interest my group by itself (at least at first glance --- I'm not ruling it out, but we never play games where we don't get to kill and dominate our opponents, LOL), and 2) the boards/pieces don't look "cool" like AH or Zombies (Carc's abstract wooden "people" vs. AH/Zombies realistic plastic minis for example), making them harder for me to immerse myself in. Knowing this, does it sound like my group would still enjoy either game?



None of the suggested games involve killing anything. They are strategy games. Strategy games tend to involve resource management. Neither game has a lot of "Ha HA Got YOu!!!!" moments. There's nothing immersive about either game either. I suppose you could name your settlements in Catan and make trades as the chieftain of each place. But since you can't go to war with one another, this would be silly.

Likewise, the tile-laying of Carc is very abstract.

Have you tried Runebound or Dungeoneer?


----------



## Maerdwyn (Aug 2, 2004)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> My main concerns are 1) it looks like you don't get to kill anything in either game, and resource management doesn't interest my group by itself (at least at first glance --- I'm not ruling it out, but we never play games where we don't get to kill and dominate our opponents, LOL), and 2) the boards/pieces don't look "cool" like AH or Zombies (Carc's abstract wooden "people" vs. AH/Zombies realistic plastic minis for example), making them harder for me to immerse myself in. Knowing this, does it sound like my group would still enjoy either game?



In this case, and depending on the size of the group, I would suggest some others instead. As stated by others, if 1) and 2) are concerns of the group, the two you're looking at may not be the best fit, despite the really excellent gameplay of both. Instead, I'm going to mention a few games I'd suggest you try first, if you haven't already. (If you've been boardgaming for longer than a few years, you've probably played/own some or all of these, as they've been around for a long time. If that's the case, sorry. Still, if you haven't got them, they're worth a look, as theme-wise, they seem to fit some of your criteria.) Re: the older games -- most of these are better with larger groups, and tend to run longer than some of the more modern games mentioned so far. Anyway, FWIW, here goes:

1) Age of Mythology - Actually, this one isn't old, and it's for 2-4 players - but it's still about 3-4 hours, rather than the 1.5 for Carc or Settlers. It came out last year or the year before and is the easily best game that Eagle Games has put out. All of their games have beautiful pieces, but Age of Mythology is, in fact, an excellent game based on the MS computer game of the same name. Very nice balance of resource management and combat. You can check out Eagles other games (Sid Meier's Civilization, American Civil War, etc.) for more *fantastic* bits, but the games themselves aren't as good, IMHO.

2) The new Hasbro edition of Diplomacy is very pretty, and seems like it would be great for you guys if you can come up with the players (5-7. 7 is easily best). There is absolutely no luck involved, and the negotiation leads to great immersiveness. 4+ hours.

3)A Game of Thrones, a (very light) wargame based on the George RR Martin books, which apparently takes a lot from Diplomacy, though I haven't played it yet. It's gotten great reviews since it came out at GenCon last year, and it might be worth a look.

4) Junta is another large-group, backstabbing-oriented game, with added bonus of being rather un-PC, Banana Republic fun for a larger group. The bits aren't as attractive, but it's quite immersive, especially if your group can manage really bad accents. 4 hours+

5) Illuminati - The money chits and the very funny, full-color cards are all you get for bits, but it's very satisfying to use the Orbital Mind Control Laser to transform the Congressional Wives into a Communist organization so they have better chance to destroy California, all in the service of Cthulhu. Playable with 3, best with 5-6. 2-4 hours.

6) Formula De - Lighter than the others mentioned, but a blast to play. Car racing theme; polygonal dice-based. No outright killing, but you can use your secondary car to crash into an opponent  Comes with a pretty, double sided gameboard, and other gameboards are available to mix up the racing. 1-2 hours, 2-10 players.


----------



## jmucchiello (Aug 2, 2004)

Maerdwyn said:
			
		

> 1) Age of Mythology - Actually, this one isn't old, and it's for 2-4 players - but it's still about 3-4 hours, rather than the 1.5 for Carc or Settlers. It came out last year or the year before and is the easily best game that Eagle Games has put out. All of their games have beautiful pieces, but Age of Mythology is, in fact, an excellent game based on the MS computer game of the same name. Very nice balance of resource management and combat. You can check out Eagles other games (Sid Meier's Civilization, American Civil War, etc.) for more *fantastic* bits, but the games themselves aren't as good, IMHO.



Yes, it's a real-time strategy computer game adapted to board play. The pieces are nice to look at.


> 2) The new Hasbro edition of Diplomacy is very pretty, and seems like it would be great for you guys if you can come up with the players (5-7. 7 is easily best). There is absolutely no luck involved, and the negotiation leads to great immersiveness. 4+ hours.



Kinda boring to look at. This game is all immersion. It is 1901 and you are the leader of one of 7 powers of Europe. Your goal is to conquer Europe. There is nothing random in this game. It is pure negotiation and strategy. Play it only with extremely close friends or people you will never see again. It really only plays well with 7 people (on the default board). The best information about Dip is found at The Diplomatic Pouch.


----------



## Staffan (Aug 2, 2004)

My favorite boardgame is unfortunately out of print - Civilization with Advanced Civilization. I'm talking about the old game, not the one based on the computer game.

Unfortunately, Advanced Civ is unlikely to ever see the light of day again, on account of rights issues. As I understand it:
* Civilization is made by some company (I *think* Gibson Games, but I'm not sure).
* Avalon Hill licenses it, and produces their own version with slight differences.
* Avalon Hill makes an expansion called Advanced Civilization (they also made the Western Expansion Map, but that's beside the point).
* Long time passes.
* Avalon Hill goes bankrupt, is bought by Hasbro, and placed under the WOTC umbrella. The rights to Civilization revert to Gibson Games (or whomever).

This means that AH-via-Hasbro/WOTC doesn't have the rights to the basic Civilization game, and Gibson Games doesn't have the rights to Advanced Civilization. Which is a darn shame, because Advanced Civilization is a lot better than original Civ (two types of trade goods and two different calamities for each trade number, no limit on the amount of techs available or how many you can have, more techs, all techs have game effects, and so on, improved trade system).


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 3, 2004)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Play it only with extremely close friends or people you will never see again.




My parents' primary piece of advice for Diplomacy has always been "Couples should take separate cars".

-Hyp.


----------



## jmucchiello (Aug 8, 2004)

Staffan said:
			
		

> My favorite boardgame is unfortunately out of print - Civilization with Advanced Civilization. I'm talking about the old game, not the one based on the computer game.



But that's not a casual game. It's a 12 hour investment. In fact it can take 6 hours just to get the game to the interesting parts. It's also a game that need 6 or more people to play correctly.


----------



## Staffan (Aug 9, 2004)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> But that's not a casual game. It's a 12 hour investment. In fact it can take 6 hours just to get the game to the interesting parts. It's also a game that need 6 or more people to play correctly.



True. But if you can get the people together for long enough, it's a *wonderful* game. And it beats the honkytonk out of that namestealing board game based on the computer game.


----------



## Capellan (Aug 9, 2004)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> But that's not a casual game. It's a 12 hour investment. In fact it can take 6 hours just to get the game to the interesting parts. It's also a game that need 6 or more people to play correctly.




Bah.  12 hours?  That's nothing!  Try World in Flames, some time


----------

