Caracassonne vs. Settlers of Catan?

[Iron_Chef]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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!