What makes Settlers tick?

Do you think it has to do with the uncertainty of Production? Or maybe the fact that there are more resources than you have access to? Something else entirely?

- Seth

I think the biggest reason people are compelled to trade is the anti-hoarding rule, which states that when a 7 is rolled, any player with eight or more cards must discard half his hand. If we could just hold onto all the cards we wanted, then it would be a much duller game.

Of course, trading becomes a meta-game itself, because once a clear leader is established, people will refuse to trade with her.

Another element is the dichotomy between the "horizontal" strategy (start on brick and wood; build roads and settlements) and the "vertical" strategy (start on ore, wheat, and sheep; build cities and collect development cards). A player will usually have to mix elements of both strategies in order to win. But these strategies are forced into action quickly, because if a player doesn't start building out of his hand soon, he will lose half of his cards.

Interesting... most of the talk I've heard about Settlers has been negative, because it's gotten relatively long in the tooth. It's still a fine game, but I wish it was just 30 minutes shorter. :)

- Seth

When I was creating Nova, I didn't plan on it being anything close to Settlers. But now as I look at it, especially in it's current form, it looks similar to a settlers in space clone. It may be, it may not be. I don't really know.

I've put trading into my game, and to step it up some, I've decided that almost anything is free game. In settlers you can't trade the cards you get or buildings, etc. but I'm allowing anything but colonists as up for trade. I don't know how this will work or if it is too much, as I will tell when I test this week. But I know if I could trade settlements, cities or cards in Settlers, it would make it a little more interesting game.

Going back to Settlers, I think people trade because the resources are limited. It is pretty tough to have them all cornered. If you do have them cornered and no one else can get them, then you trade at a premium.

The trading works because:

A). Not every player has access to all resources and therefore needs to trade with other players to get the specific resource he needs to build X.
B). Trading resources with the bank is expensive and less profitable than trading with an opponent, even when you factor in the fact that the opponent you trade with also gains from the trade.
C). If you hoard cards you may end up losing them because of the "7" rule or because of a "monopoly" card played. Also, when you hoard cards and don't build, you lose tempo on the board, which is crucial because of the runaway leader syndrome and you may miss out on access to crucial spots or see them being occupied by opponents.
D). In a multiplayer game, the player who can most efficiently cooperate (or avoid conflict) with his opponents will benefit the most. If player A makes a good deal with player B one turn, with player C another turn and with player D yet another turn and players B, C and D don't make trades, then player A will benefit the most.

What I don't like about Settlers is the fact that certain players can be virtually eliminated from the game quite early, through no fault of their own. Because of the runaway leader nature of the game it is nearly impossible to catch up when you are behind.

Also, the game drags at the end, because of trading embargo's against the leaders and because all the robbers will be used against the leaders. Then, it often comes down a lucky dice roll at the end to determine which one of the two leaders wins.

I don't like the Cities and Knights expansion. It makes the game a lot complicater and much longer, without adding anything substantial to the basegame nor does it address the base game's problems.

Good things about Settlers are the player interaction, the modualr setup and the various routes to victory. I also like the production system (various resources and the numbered chits) and the dice rolling. I don't mind the randomness, but would have liked to see a way to address the problem that a player who is behind has a hard time catching up. I think the game would have worked better as a VP/time based game (see my thread about "Settlers vs. Ra", but I am sure that a lot of people dig the "race" aspect of the game.

Finally, I think a lot of people like the "empire building" aspect of the game. It's fun to see your little empire expand and grow.

I am not a big fan of Settlers myself, but I do understand its appeal (I think).

- René Wiersma

I think the reason why trading is so prevalent in the game, is that you need multiple resources to get anywhere at the beginning of the game, and players are so eager to start building roads and settlements (at least in the games I play). It all has to do with the first third of the game, after that it just holding on to your position.