Settlers of Catan vs Cities & Knights of Catan

WELCOME TO EURODOME!




EURODOME is a series of sophisticated competitions for the favor of MAN-TINA, the EURODOME QUEEN. Show support for your favorite game so it will score more VPs. EURODOME uses an auction mechanic. You have been supplied with exactly one EURODOME FLORIN that you will use to pay for your bid. Please bid clearly for your preferred game. I will eventually get around to tallying the totals and declaring a winner.

Although you should be familiar with both games, there is no rule that says you have to have played both (or either) of them. The only rule in EURODOME is this;

Two games enter! One game politely excuses itself!

This week's matchup: Settlers of Catan(base game only) vs Cities & Knights of Catan.

Tough choice. The base game is classic but its shorter playtime makes the extended setup all the more painful. C&K would probably get the nod if the three advancement tracks were more balanced; I just think the base game overall works better. Seafarers ruins either one, but there are Das Buch scenarios that use Seafarers that are great, so I own basically everything that expands the base game, but not the standalone variants (e.g., Stone Age).

Vote: Settlers.

SETTLERS on its own is great, but its fullest potential is reached in C&K. More theme, more conflict, more options...it boggles my mind that people prefer the base game when there's just so much more to do and see in C&K.

Plus that third die makes the Deck of Dice unusable in it.

I've only ever played Cities and Knights once, and that game took over three hours. The wildest thing about it was that I loved every minute of it. I've played two-hour games of regular Settlers that felt too long, but Cities and Knights could totally support the extra time it took.

I've played regular Settlers more times than I can count, and it remains one of my very favorite games. Cities and Knights though feels fresher to me, with more depth, interaction, and competition. So I think that I may have to cast my bid for

C&K.

Yep, I'm in the same boat as barnes and sanildefanso: C&K is basically SETTLERS OF CATAN++.

Vote: CITIES AND KNIGHTS OF CATAN.

I also can't fathom liking the base game and not digging C&K.

I usually play with C&K, Seafarers and some other minor variant stuff (fisherman, river etc.)

With everything in the mix, it's really just a great civ building sort of game, only without direct combat. The lack of fighting is a bummer, but everything else works so well that combat would really muck it up so I don't mind at all what would usually be a deal breaker for me in another game.

Easily one of my favorite games of all time. I'd vote for it over almost everything in Trashdome.

Edit: Oh yeah, Vote: C&K

Yeah, once we played with SEAFARERS and C&K, there was no turning back. Like Matt says, it makes the base game into a more full-featured city building and development game. Most of the add-ons like the river, the fisherman, etc. are easy to implement even with multiple expansions.

I don't think C&K is that long...with people who have played it before, it's not much longer than regular SETTLERS. And you know, you can always play to less points...

Haven't played with Cities & Knights, so my vote goes to

Settlers

SETTLERS ONLY

We use this game to introduce people to gaming. It's fun, it's quick, and it's easy to learn.

None of us play it regularly. It's a springboard for new people to the game group for them to see if they're game for more.

Adding anything to it would ruin that.

Vote: Settlers (base game)

Cities and Knights is one of those "we needz MOAR everything!!!11" expansions, which usually I'm all over, but I don't think it works that great with Settlers. Sure it adds more CIV-type aspects and even a little tech-tree, but in the end it just feels like Settlers with some extra mechanisms thrown on top. Adds too much to play time and overhead without adding enough fun.

Anybody got wood for florin?

Base Settlers is good for introducing people to the game.

But once you can play, you should be playing C&Ks, cause it's 100x better. Turns a good base game into an even better game.


We always play with Seafarers too and then do a completely random map. Great times.

C&K all the way!

This is really tough... The base game is so brilliant and classic, IMO. C&K is much more fun for me now because I've played out the base game. But trying to look objectively at what's the real long term "hall of fame" or time capsule kind of choice, I think it's the base game on its own. It took me a few plays of C&K to decide if more was really more. I do think C&K is "more" now in every respect, but just having asked that question for a while sort of makes it a little less of a sure thing for me... I have to wonder, if just Catan:C&K had been released, without the base game ever being known, would it have become such a big phenomenon? I don't think so.

But on the other hand, Star Wars was fantastic and Empire Strikes Back was even better and deeper, and perhaps if Empire came out first it wouldn't have caught on in such a big way. Still, although it's the better film, overall, without the incredible impact of the original Star Wars, the context of what Empire was all about wouldn't mean as much.

So I'm going with the base game.

C&K

The base game is good for the beginners but it's the expansion which makes the game enjoyable for me.

C&K is what seperates the men from the boys. Sure the base game is great at first, but it quickly becomes predictable and tiresome. Once the shiny wears off, then you can add in Seafarers for some new maps, exploration and to make wool more important. Eventually the shiny of Seafarers will wear off too. When that happens it's time to add in C&K. Yes it adds more overhead to the game, however the interaction, screwage and bluffing is turned up to 10. The end result of this is a brilliant game. So in my book base Settlers is good for teaching, but once that's done it's time to move on to C&K.


Vote: C&K


-Will

ps - And no matter which version you play, never play Settlers with more than 4.