Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Drab Emordnilap]

Innovation really isn't very strategic, except in some 2-player games. While I enjoy 4-player, it's certainly a lot more chaotic and possibly less interesting to "serious" gamers; I think 3 players is the "soft spot" where you really need your wits about you to maintain the right amount of control on the board. I would also recommend avoiding the expansion (Echoes of the Past) if you find the base game too chaotic, because it only makes it more so (and adds support for 5 players, which I haven't tried but which I can only assume works as well as it does in Dominion).

It sounds to me like you need to play Innovation in 4 player partnership. I never play any other way now.

Also, make sure you're using the updated setup rules for Echoes of the Past; that was a major improvement also.

[ConMan]

I haven't played the partner version, but I agree it sounds like it works well at bringing the four-player game down to a similar sanity level as 2- and 3-players. And I've tried Echoes with three set-ups, starting with just the Echoes cards (for maximum crazy but also to see what all the shiny new cards do), then the v1.0 rules set-up, then the revised rules since that. I think the set-up described in the rules is actually more logical if Echoes is the only expansion, although I wish they'd account for having more cards in Age 1 than other ages, and I understand that with more expansions on the horizon they need something a bit more methodical so they don't have to start saying "If you're playing with Expansion X and Y, shuffle n cards of expansion X and m of expansion Y with q cards from the base game; but if you're playing with Expansions X, Z and J, throw them all in the air and play with whichever ones you can catch".

In any case, I personally don't mind the craziness of 4-players and/or using lots of Echoes cards, but I know a lot of people would rather have more control over the game, especially if they're trying to find out what's so good about it.

[brokoli]

Innovation IS very strategic. Chance is not more decisive in Innovation than in Dominion !

[jonts26]

This board game is awesome and totally not scrabble

Side note: The amazon reviews are gold.

[brokoli]

Now that innovation is on isotropic, I think many people agree that innovation is strategic (or at least, tactic ^^) 

[theory]

Innovation is considerably more luck reliant, I'd say by design. You are rarely actually out of the game, unlike Dominion.

[Jfrisch]

Innovation is considerably more luck reliant, I'd say by design. You are rarely actually out of the game, unlike Dominion.

I don't follow how not having unrecoverable positions is quite the same as being low on luck. Dominion has a substantial bit of luck with respect to hitting 7s, getting the wrong opening split, getting 2P on a familiar board etc. Having unrecoverable positions is definitely a feature of (very) low luck games. Most games  with that feature, however, are not low luck. Smithy BM only wins are 75% of the time against BM. That seems to suggest that, at least when playing big money, luck ends up deciding in favor of weaker strategies a very large proportion of the time.

[jotheonah]

So I've been thinking a lot about Carcassone lately (just downloaded the iOS app).

The difference between how computers play and how people play, IMO, is that people are thinking of it on some level as a jigsaw puzzle. They have an innate aversion to making unsolvable gaps. There's an aesthetic pleasure to creating a functional city.

But the game (all I know is the base game, correct me if expansions change this) doesn't reward that functionality! At the end of a Carcassone game where people actually play to win, the city looks like swiss cheese, full of trapped Meeples.

Is this a design flaw in the game? This tension between the priorities people naturally want to have and the priorities that make them win the game?

[jotheonah]

More on topic: I keep ragequitting innovation when the key card in my strategy gets stolen off my board or something like that. It's just frustrating. Things in Dominion frustate me too, but for some reason not as much. It always feels like there's something I can do in Dominion, and I never lose a key card forever with no hope of getting it back in sight. (Well, yes, Sab and Black Market I guess)

[Watno]

So I've been thinking a lot about Carcassone lately (just downloaded the iOS app).

The difference between how computers play and how people play, IMO, is that people are thinking of it on some level as a jigsaw puzzle. They have an innate aversion to making unsolvable gaps. There's an aesthetic pleasure to creating a functional city.

But the game (all I know is the base game, correct me if expansions change this) doesn't reward that functionality! At the end of a Carcassone game where people actually play to win, the city looks like swiss cheese, full of trapped Meeples.

Is this a design flaw in the game? This tension between the priorities people naturally want to have and the priorities that make them win the game?

I think that is really a good thing. Carcassonne with exper players makes for a very citthroat and destructive game. But most families who get it for Christmas because it say "Spiel des Jahres" never realize this and play it as kind of a competitive puzzle, which is perfectly fine. I think its well possible that the game wouldn't be as popular if the rulebook included an example saying: "Hey look, if Alice places this tile there, she will totally screw up Bob."

[Jimmmmm]

More on topic: I keep ragequitting innovation when the key card in my strategy gets stolen off my board or something like that. It's just frustrating. Things in Dominion frustate me too, but for some reason not as much. It always feels like there's something I can do in Dominion, and I never lose a key card forever with no hope of getting it back in sight. (Well, yes, Sab and Black Market I guess)

I've found Innovation to be a very frustrating game when things seem to be going against you. The jury's out on how much I'll end up liking it, but I don't think it's particularly newbie-friendly. Not that that means it's not a good game.

[Kirian]

This board game is awesome and totally not scrabble

Side note: The amazon reviews are gold.

OMG I just saw this and started reading the reviews... priceless...

[jotheonah]

So I've been thinking a lot about Carcassone lately (just downloaded the iOS app).

The difference between how computers play and how people play, IMO, is that people are thinking of it on some level as a jigsaw puzzle. They have an innate aversion to making unsolvable gaps. There's an aesthetic pleasure to creating a functional city.

But the game (all I know is the base game, correct me if expansions change this) doesn't reward that functionality! At the end of a Carcassone game where people actually play to win, the city looks like swiss cheese, full of trapped Meeples.

Is this a design flaw in the game? This tension between the priorities people naturally want to have and the priorities that make them win the game?

I think that is really a good thing. Carcassonne with exper players makes for a very citthroat and destructive game. But most families who get it for Christmas because it say "Spiel des Jahres" never realize this and play it as kind of a competitive puzzle, which is perfectly fine. I think its well possible that the game wouldn't be as popular if the rulebook included an example saying: "Hey look, if Alice places this tile there, she will totally screw up Bob."

Here's another thing: The Carcassone app is so stuck in the physical realities mode. I would love to have a free play solitaire mode with infinite tiles, and you just have to fill up X-size of board. It would be cool to be able to do things like that in the app, that you can't do with tiles.

[blueblimp]

So I've been thinking a lot about Carcassone lately (just downloaded the iOS app).

The difference between how computers play and how people play, IMO, is that people are thinking of it on some level as a jigsaw puzzle. They have an innate aversion to making unsolvable gaps. There's an aesthetic pleasure to creating a functional city.

But the game (all I know is the base game, correct me if expansions change this) doesn't reward that functionality! At the end of a Carcassone game where people actually play to win, the city looks like swiss cheese, full of trapped Meeples.

Is this a design flaw in the game? This tension between the priorities people naturally want to have and the priorities that make them win the game?

The cut-throat-ness only ought to apply to 2 player. If you're playing 4 player, you're just wasting a turn if you spend it damaging another player. In fact, in 4 player, a little bit of co-operation is better game theory: if one other player tries to join with your city, let them! Your pseudo-ally will now share an interest in completing the city, which will help both of your points when compared to the other two players.

I find playing 4-player can be a bit frustrating though, because people generally have a strong aversion to sharing points. They'll often make it a priority to get a 2nd meeple on their city to deny you, even if it's not really worth it for them.

[jotheonah]

But sharing is an unsustainable status quo, especially the larger a city gets. The temptation gets greater and greater to backstab.  And I really do think that with 4 people, if you can play a mean tile and strand a city that each of them is competing for, that's totally worth it.

[Ozle]

Without the expansions its all about the farms anyway...

[jotheonah]

Without the expansions its all about the farms anyway...

Really depends on the kingdom board.

Actually those cutthroat games with the holes really diminish the effectiveness of farms too.

[Ozle]

Without the expansions its all about the farms anyway...

Really depends on the kingdom board.

Actually those cutthroat games with the holes really diminish the effectiveness of farms too.

Its rare to see a competitive game of carcassone thats not dominated by farms in my view. Although 4 player may be slightly different

[Robz888]

Carcassone is the game of self-denial. "Okay, now if I just draw two semi-castle pieces, the road that loops away from the end of a castle, and the last monastery adjoined to a dead-end road, I get to be on this farm, too. And I draw... ye old straight road, grr! Next time, next time..."

[eHalcyon]

Since we're all talking about Carcassonne, which expansions/spin-offs are best?

I've played the original without expansions, and I've also played Hunters and Gatherers.  I hear that some of the better spin-offs are The Castle, the City, and The Ark of the Covenant (which is still Carcassonne even if it doesn't have it in the title).

[Watno]

I think normal carcassonne with the first two expansions (inns and cathedrals, traders and builders) is best.

[Archetype]

I only own the base game. Used to hate it, but now I love it.

I hated it because for one game night with my family we misread the rules and thought that all followers couldn't come off the board, not just Farmers. I didn't play it for like a year, and then I brought it to a different group of people. I reread the rules and noticed that you could take workers off once you've completed it's section. Makes a bigger difference than you would think.

I've only played with that one group of people once, so I usually just have the family board game nights. I can never get it to the table, though, because everyone thinks the game sucks because of that one experience! I've even told them that all we did was just read the rules wrong. They still refuse to play.

Oh well, the one time I played game was pretty fun!

[Ozle]

I think normal carcassonne with the first two expansions (inns and cathedrals, traders and builders) is best.

Exactly this set up

Anything else and it gets silly.
These two balance it out great, makes cities better to compete with farms, makes roads marginally better but having them be quick point scorers.

[Adrienaline]

Whereas I completely disagree.

Princess and Dragon, with at least one other mini expansion thrown in (The Tower for that real backstab flavour).

Then again, I actually like The Catapult, and I prefer playing Carcassonne with more than 2 players. For two player games, the vanilla Carc with I&C and T&B is fine, but still kind of boring, imo.

[Ozle]

I have nothing against the sets like caapult and princess and dragon, but they mark. Big shift in the way the game is played to add an extra large portion of randomness.

My personal preference is 3 players