Catan: Ambiguous Board Game Morality

[EllieK]

I recently learned how to play Catan. I don't mean to imply a sudden understanding of the rules but a sudden understanding of the strategy. Sometimes it's better to own all the brick spaces and the 2:1 brick harbor than it is to own a couple 6s or 8s. I spent years badmouthing the game, calling it nonsensical and cruel. Now that I have strategy, the game is much more fun. Still nonsensical. Still cruel. But more fun to play.

I recently made a move that is wholly supported strategically but preys upon another player's frustration. It reminded me of what I don't like about Catan. Every game's balance hangs upon the integrity of the players and, as I recently discovered, sometimes it is hard to draw a line on what is a strategically good move and what is underhanded.

Here's what happened. I was tied with another player at 8, we each had a Dev card, and we each had six resource cards. Third place had 7 and last place had 4 points and was totally trapped. Player 4 could upgrade a couple of towns but really had no hope of winning. On my turn I offered a 3 to 1 trade with the resources player 4 might need to upgrade to a city and I only asked for one brick in return. Player 4 accepted and I scored 10 to win.

And I think maybe Catan is ruined again.

Any thoughts?

[Romain672]

That's the problem of this kind of game played competitively.
You want at the same time:
- give points to the 1st one to incentive players to win
- give a way for the last player to try to gain any advantage on the tournament/game

The second point can be done by giving point's to the second player too, which gives an alternative goal for players. But then you don't want players to create an alliance of 2 players where one will get the win, and the other one will get the 2nd place reward.
Another way for very high player count (hello recent tv show), is to give a way to reward any player for the winner. Per example: 10 players. The winner of the game decide who finish second. That make you be able to 'force' alliances of 2 players, where one player want the win, and the other player hope the first player give their reward to them. And so if one player has 0 chance to win, they will try to do an alliance with a player who have a chance to win, to try to finish second.

A way which was more done recently in video games and is done on bga, is to give equal gain of points between players. That incentive all players not to win, but to rank the highest possible. Alliances are still a good idea if that can make players from that alliance in the top of the game.

You want too for players to only play against themselves once. Or to not put any value on the future games. Else just being friendly is usually nice to have more gain in the later games.

Many things has been tested, nothing look great. I wouldn't be surprised if in 20 years from now a totally new method has become the norm, and more than half the systems use it.