Cities and Knights of Catan
July 28th, 2005I got Cities and Knights of Catan a month or two ago in a BoardGameGeek trade for Bang!: High Noon, which I was pretty pleased about. Last night we finally got to play it with four.
I basically got what I expected. It is a fair bit longer than the basic set. Our game took 2.5 hours, after the rules explanation, which is a little too long for something this random. On the other hand, it is a much richer game. The commodity cards, progress cards and city improvement calendars are fun. The basic map seems biased against brick. The eventual winner, Ness, had a total brick monopoly. She was able to put walls around all her cities, which made her difficult to cripple with the robber.
After reading the rules I was a bit disappointed that there is not more direct conflict between knights, but at least there is continual tension from creating and activating knights before the barbarians arrive. Having played A Game of Thrones before C&K, it’s interesting to see how this mechanic was imitated/stolen. American designers are clearly picking up a few tricks from their German counterparts.
All in all, we enjoyed it but it’s a pity the game is so long. At least an official rule change keeps the robber in the desert until the Barbarians attack for the first time, which should speed it up.
July 28th, 2005 at 19:05
I don’t like C&K. I think it takes Settlers into the realms it doesn’t want to be. I always used to like Seafarers but to be honest am just as happy to play the standard version now. (And don’t even think about getting the C&K for 6 expansion!)
July 28th, 2005 at 22:40
C&K for 6… urgh.
July 29th, 2005 at 07:48
Ugh. I hate Cities & Knights. I played it back when I was really bored with Settlers and it was pure agony – our game took something like three hours. I threw the victory at one of the players in the end, just to make it end.
These days, I can even enjoy basic Settlers, but I wouldn’t touch Cities & Knights with a ten-foot pole. I haven’t tried the other expansions (bar a single five-player game), but I have a feeling they won’t improve the game either.
July 29th, 2005 at 08:33
I agree that overall it is not as good as basic Settlers, but I am not sure it is as poor as your rating of 2/10. I think it will be much better with three players, which will reduce game length.
You should at least try Seafarers sometime. It’s my favourite version, and one of my only perfect 10’s. It’s elegant, does not last too long, there is exploration and sheep become more valuable at the expense of brick.
The five/six player versions are the worst of the lot.
July 29th, 2005 at 12:02
After playing Settlers for a year and then C&K for a year, I reached an equilibrium with Settlers at 8 and C&K at 7. When I got tired of Settlers, C&K was higher for me. But ultimately, it blow the luck up too much at the beginning of the game, and it is longer. I still think it’s good, but not as good as vanilla Settlers.
Seafarers didn’t do it for me. I got the same enjoyment mising the water hexes in with the lands using a standard Settlers game.
Re: knights. You don’t think they are evil yet because you haven’t figured how to use them evilly. Try:
– Early round road and knight to block an intersection, as an alternative to having to build two roads.
– Breaking longest road with a knight.
– Bouncing the robber around a few times in a single turn to rob a player several times in a row.
– Killing another player’s knight by forcing it from an intersection when it has no place to retreat to.
– Purposely deactivating a knight in order to let the barbarians pillage someone else’s city.
Yehuda
July 29th, 2005 at 13:28
None of that occured to us. That’s truly evil.