Carcassonne is a well
known board game released in the year 2000. Set in the medieval age,
the players try to occupy as much of the land as possible. Roads,
farms, cities and cloisters are all fought over in an attempt to come
out with the most points in the end.
Objects
The main objects in
Carcassonne are the terrain tiles, which are used to build the board,
and the followers, which are used to gain points. Each player starts
with a set amount of followers while the terrain tiles are placed
face down in a common pile. Terrain tiles have one or more kinds of
terrain on them which changes how the tile interacts with other
objects, both followers and other tiles. The four types of terrain in
the main game are cities, roads, fields and cloisters. We also played
with the river expansion. The difference from the main game is that
instead of starting from a predetermined tile, the players instead
start by placing a river on the board, other than that nothing
differs from the main game.
Your followers change
depending on which of these terrains they are placed. If your
follower is placed in a city it becomes a knight, if it is placed on
a road it becomes a thief, if placed on a field it becomes a farmer
and if it is placed in a cloister it becomes a monk.
Relationships
In Carcassonne everything
is related to the tiles. When you place a tile it has to be connected
to another tile. It also has to fit into that tile. I can't for
example place a field so that it is attached to a city. I have to
place a field so that it connects to another field. This is true for
all types of terrain. Carcassonne is designed in way that it almost
always is somewhere where are allowed to place a tile. The only
exceptions to this that I can think of is if there are no incomplete
cities, but that is very rare and there is only one card in the game
that would cause it.
Tiles also relate to the
followers because depending on where they are placed they become
different followers, which in turn affects how they relate with the
terrain they are placed on. A knight for example has no relationship
with a thief. The relationship between the tiles and the followers is
also what determines the points you get. If you have a knight in a
city and the city gets completed you get points depending how big the
city is. Thieves and roads, as well as monks and cloisters follow the
same relationship. When the road or cloister is completed the player
with a thief or monk in it gets points. Farmers are a bit different
because they get points depending on how many completed cities are
touching the field they occupy at the end of the game.
Followers and tiles are
heavily related, but followers don't have much to do with each other
as mentioned. No matter how a farmer is placed, it cannot affect what
a thief can do or how many points it gets. Two followers of the same
type however do have a relationship with each other. You can't place
a knight in a city that already has a knight in it, or place a farmer
in a field in which there already is a farmer. The only way to have
multiple knights or farmers in the same city/field is by merging two
or more separate cities/fields. If that happens the player with the
most of the relevant follower get all the points. If all players
involved control the same number of followers in the city/field, the
points are split evenly between them.
The only follower that
doesn't have any sort of relationship with another follower is the
monk. Monks score points by counting the number of tiles adjacent to
the cloister it resides in, including the tile the cloister sits on.
Because the cloister only sits on one tile, and because you can only
place followers on a tile you just placed, there is no way a monk can
influence another monk. The closest two monks can get each other is
by sitting in two separate cloisters adjacent to each other, but the
monks still have no effect on each other.
Main mechanics
What really makes
Carcassonne, Carcassonne to me is the way you draw tiles to construct
the map. As stated earlier the tiles is what influences everything in
Carcassonne. If you were to give Carcassonne a static map, everything
that makes Carcassonne interesting disappears. Because the player are
drawing random cards there is no certainty that the player will be
able to complete to the city they have been building the whole game.
This, combined with the finite followers the player is given, makes
it an investment to place down a follower. Farmers have the potential
to give the player a big amount of points if there are many complete
cities around the farmer. This makes it tempting to place a farmer in
a field as soon as possible, but since the player can't control what
cards he or she will be given there is no certainty that there will
be cities around that farmer at the end of the game. If that happens
the player have effectively played with one less follower than the
other players have. On the other side of the coin however, the other
players may have built a bunch of cities in that field that turns
into the farmer into a worthwhile investment. I think that this kind
of risk and reward style is what makes Carcassonne interesting to
play, especially if you want to play it multiple times, and what
makes it happen is that the players draw random terrain tiles.
Although I keep talking
about unpredictable Carcassonne is, there is still an element of
strategy and planning involved. If the player draws a cloister and
knows that another player is trying to expand a city of his, the
player can place the cloister in the vicinity of the city and as the
other player expands the city, the player accumulates points from his
cloister next to it. There is also an element of sabotage involved.
If you are able to finish another player's road, you deny them from
expanding it and denying the other player points that way. Placing
odd city tiles next to an incomplete city can make hard or even
impossible to finish it. What all this results in is a game in which
you can never be certain that you are going to win. Although you can
gain a advantage by planning ahead, you are never the surefire winner
of every game of Carcassonne you play. This makes it so that novices
have a shot of keeping up with more experienced players, making
suitable to play with less experienced friends if you are just
looking to have fun. However, sometimes players go into a game of
Carcassonne with different expectations which can make the game less
enjoyable for some. The biggest example is if one player thinks
through every move he makes, while the rest of the players just want
to play for fun. This makes the game slow for most players, and the
thinking player might be annoyed that he is the only one playing the
game seriously.
Target group
Carcassonne is marketed at
people eight years or older. That they are aiming at a younger
audience can be seen in both how the game looks and how it is played.
Both the box art and the tiles are used to depict a colorful variant
of the medieval age. The medieval age is often portrayed as violent
and bloody, but this depiction focuses on building the land that the
medieval age was set in. There are no wars or battles in this game
that could make parents find it unsuitable for kids. Combining this
with the easy to understand rules and the random elements involved
makes it a game that is easy for kids to learn and play, that also
interests them with its setting. The random elements makes it so that
everyone has a shot at doing well while playing, even if they're not
thinking hard on the decisions they make.
The very same reasons
described above is also why Carcassonne is sometimes described as a
“gateway drug” into board games for people that have never played
them. Because most persons are able to grasp the rules of Carcassonne
by playing one or two rounds of it it is perfect for people trying to
get their friends into playing board games. By playing Carcassonne
for an hour or two, inexperienced board game players can experience
playing and understanding a board game and in turn decide if it is
something that they enjoy or not.
Summary
Carcassonne is a game built around a random draw mechanic mangages to not get overly frustrating as some games relying on random draw mechanics can get. Its lighthearted style as well as its easy to understand rules makes it easy to pick up and play for anyone. Although it isn't very complex Carcassonne still manages to make experienced players interested by challenging them to make smart investments and manage the risks of their decisions.
Positives
- Easy to pick up, learn and understand
- Random elements keeps the game fresh and interesting, even if you've already played it before
- You can never really be sure who the winner is until you've counted all the points
Negatives
- If people play the game differently the experience can be diminished
- Random is still random. You may play the odds, but you''re never really in control
Hello there, I am here to review your analysis. I will try my best to point out what I think could be improved with your analysis. Hopefully, the feedback I provide will give you some enlightenment to help you write even better analysis’s in the future.
SvaraRaderaConsidering your positive/negative points, I do agree with you to some extent: It is both simple and lots of fun, and players will rarely fall behind/leap ahead, at least not with the players knowing, thus the game mostly remains entertaining for all player throughout the entire game. However, I don't believe a diminished experience from players playing the game differently, should be a negative point. First off, I don't think it applies to Carcassonne in particular, but could probably be said about any board game. On top of that, I (personally) think Carcassonne plays even better than most games, with a mix of serious and laid back players. Then of course, that's only my experience. Apart from that point though, I fully agree with you.
I do not think I could agree with you more on what makes Carcassonne interesting. I do not think I have seen many, if any game that actually have the players build the board, rather than play on it. There aren't really that many other systems either, since it's quite a simple game. I guess one could argue that the way the 'followers' are placed and generate score, as well as the dynamics between them, could be an interesting system. However, I still agree with you on that the board building system is the more interesting one.
The 'relationships' chapter is the one part of the analysis that I find difficult to follow. From the description you provide, it becomes hard for me to build up a picture in my head of what the dynamics are. I think you could use some sort of summary of the relationships chapter, to help the reader make sense of it all. I suggest you list all of the objects and their properties under the 'objects' chapter, then focus on writing about the rules of the relationships, finally writing another list of which scoring systems are related which properties (terrain types). Adding a few pictures to illustrate the rules of the relationships could also be helpful.
I believe the target group is spot on. I played several board games, though I never played Carcassonne before this week. I can assure it is one of the most easily understood, as well as fun games I have played. At first glance it looked like a lot to learn, but already after placing your first follower, you started to get a grasp of how it all comes together. I bet the “gateway drug” idea is not an exaggeration either. I can imagine that a person who never actually played that many board games before would find an interest through this game. It's simplicity acts as both an easy start for a beginner, but as well as a teaser, when a player mastered a simple game such as this one, a lust for something more in-depth is bound to awaken in the player.
I don't see you writing that much about the core system. You've written about what makes Carcassonne what it is, the fact that players play by building the board. You've also written about what aspects of entertainment the game provides, the elements of risk and reward, and the different types of strategies players can use. However, you never went as deep as to actually analyzed the systems components; objects, properties and relationships. I think what you've written about is more of a game play analysis than an analysis of the core mechanics. All of it can without too much effort be extracted from what you have written in your text, so it appears you have understood it yourself. however, you do not really say what exactly the core mechanics are in the game. I find what you write about how the game play works, really interesting and again, easy to follow. However, I believe a look at how mechanics and dynamics in the game on a more technical level would have been a nice addition to the analysis.
SvaraRaderaIt feels like I am just repeating myself over and over, but in short, what I am trying to say is, I think you need to clarify how the mechanics work using terms like; verb, object, property and dynamic.
For instance, you wrote: “What really makes Carcassonne, Carcassonne to me is the way you draw tiles to construct the map. ” I think you would gain from trying to specify, what is it the player actually does? What is the verb? You then continue bay writing: ”As stated earlier the tiles is what influences everything in Carcassonne. ” As you said, you wrote about the dynamics of the 'map tiles' earlier, but what specific dynamic/dynamics is/are relevant for the core system?
In conclusion, your analysis is most cases structured and easy to follow. You explain most of the rules in a simple way that does not distract from the analysis, making it comfortable to read. However, there is a lack clarity and use of terminology, especially under the 'Relationships' and 'Main mechanics' chapters. It would also have been nice if you had some pictures, rather than just text,it could also have helped with providing clarity.
These are just some ideas on how you might be able to improve the analysis, though It feels like I am just rambling now. Please excuse me if this just sounds weird, if I am sounding like some self righteous douche, or I am missing some point you are making. I hope you will be able to get something positive out of this peer review. Maybe you had some sort of revelation that made you a better game designer, or maybe you just think I am stupid. Please, throw me a reply and tell me what you think of my feedback.
William Höglund Mayer
SvaraRadera