Settlers of Catan

[Dan Byrom]

Does anyone here play Settlers of Catan?

Since 'completing' Countdown, it's become my new addiction and thing which I want to get really good at. I just love it. And it's one of those games where everyone thinks it's just luck of the dice but the better you get, the more you realise that it's 90% skill.

Hoping to attend some Co:Event equivalents although I get the impression they are less community/social-oriented. Perhaps there are some other Countdown lovers who know more about them...?

[Callum Todd]

Think it's on boardgamearena nowadays to play online. And I think they play it at MSO? Not sure though, I've never played it.

[Gavin Chipper]

It was discussed a bit in the general board game thread as well.

I think 90% skill must be an exaggeration and in any case I think it's a bit like Monopoly in that someone can get themselves into what is effectively a winning position quite early on and then you're just rolling the dice waiting for the end. I think it can be quite fun but there are better games. It's seen as a gateway game and I think that's fair enough. Somewhere between your regular Monopoly type game and full-on geekery.

[Fiona T]

In terms of events, it looks like there were plenty of players at the MSO games - so look out for it next year!

[Ian Volante]

I quite enjoy it. Have played a reasonable version via Steam, but would be interested in playing in a more useful format.

[Ben Wilson]

Played it quite a bit when it first came out on Xbox 360, haven't played in a while but wouldn't say no to getting back into it. Carcassonne & Ticket to Ride too, especially the latter which is IMHO the best 'gateway game' out there.

[Dan Byrom]

I think 90% skill must be an exaggeration

That was my and everyone else's initial reaction but I've now spent quite a long time watching content of and playing against some of the very top players and they really have a knack for just winning constantly, with dice rolls only being a significant factor in rare occasions. I did pick that 90% figure out of the air though.

This Youtuber (who is excellent but not elite - in countdown terms, series champ level but not Jack/Elliott/Conor level) was able to win 4 out of his last 5 tournaments, each involving multiple matches and strong competition. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi9KKQ0 ... PlaysCatan

In the video he discusses an elite player who has won all 18 out of 20 tournaments entered, including playing USA nationals twice.

There's a lot more theory and logic behind initial placements and various decisions than you would think.

So I stand by my claim

[Gavin Chipper]

I think 90% skill must be an exaggeration

That was my and everyone else's initial reaction but I've now spent quite a long time watching content of and playing against some of the very top players and they really have a knack for just winning constantly, with dice rolls only being a significant factor in rare occasions. I did pick that 90% figure out of the air though.

This Youtuber (who is excellent but not elite - in countdown terms, series champ level but not Jack/Elliott/Conor level) was able to win 4 out of his last 5 tournaments, each involving multiple matches and strong competition. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi9KKQ0 ... PlaysCatan

In the video he discusses an elite player who has won all 18 out of 20 tournaments entered, including playing USA nationals twice.

There's a lot more theory and logic behind initial placements and various decisions than you would think.

So I stand by my claim

That is very interesting. But I suppose I'd question what it means to be 90% skill. How do you quantify and measure these things for a game? And how many games are in a tournament? If it's loads, then there can still be a lot of luck in each game, but it averages out over a tournament.

[Thomas Cappleman]

I've a friend who's particularly keen on Catan so played a couple of times recently, having previously played it a lot over a decade ago.

Do you have a good concept of what top tactics are, beyond the very obvious? I feel like I end up getting cities later than those who generally go on to win, but otherwise there's nothing obvious beyond whoever gets a better engine going will probably win. Maybe with some more idea of how to go into a game it'll be more fun, but for now it just ends up feeling more frustrating than plenty of others in the genre that I'd rather play instead.

[Matt Rutherford]

Firstly, the robber is called Dave. You swiftly learn to hate him.

Secondly, the various resources have different values. It goes (from most to least valuable) brick, iron/ore, wheat, wood, and sheep. Explained in far more detail here (https://www.alexcates.com/post/board-ga ... urce-value)

Thirdly, be aware of what a friend of mine calls 'tall poppy syndrome.' It being a group-based game, the other players will clock someone else doing well early on and form a brief pact in order to burn you to the ground. Tread carefully.

Finally, longest road and largest army cards can be the key. Get in a good position with those where you can.

Glad you've selected what is a very spiffing game. Have fun!

[Dan Byrom]

Secondly, the various resources have different values. It goes (from most to least valuable) brick, iron/ore, wheat, wood, and sheep. Explained in far more detail here (https://www.alexcates.com/post/board-ga ... urce-value)

Thanks for the comment Matt! I find this an interesting article but from my experience in games and from learning from some pro players I'm not convinced by its usefulness. Wheat and ore are generally considered far more valuable than brick.

Winning the game without cities is extremely rare, because you'd need longest road, 5 settlements, largest army and a vp from a dev card. (Or 3 vp devs and no army). Wheat is so important because it is needed for everything that can get you points - dev cards, settlements and cities. Ore is rarer and also essential to win the game, but good port strategies can be found so sometimes you can get away without starting with it. (The other good thing about starting without ore is that with the other 4 resources you have the capacity to build towards an ore spot with an early settlement.)

One really useful tip is that it is almost always optimal to point your roads from your starting settlements outwards, towards the ports. The ports are often undervalued, and getting into races with other players can be detrimental even if you win them, as it can be expensive to win those battles. Pointing to the ports avoids these races.

Dev cards also tend to be massively undervalued by most casual players. Early in the game, every type of dev card is really useful except VPs, but even these aren't that bad. In a lot of games, it can be a very tricky decision to choose between getting an early dev card or saving for a city. Often I would decide this based on my likelihood of getting robbed - if likely, I'll want to get dev cards to remove the robber and avoid getting my saved up cards repeatedly stolen.

Brick, on the other hand, is always massively overvalued (hence why the chart probably ranks at as the most 'valuable') because it's rarer than wood and people always want to get their settlements down early before thinking about cities. I've won quite a few games where I didn't even start with ore but players would gladly give me theirs for my brick, and allow me to get an early city.

Some other tips:
- Think very carefully about where others will place in the initial placements. When you put your first settlement down, think about what might be leftover for you for your second one.
- It's your relative position compared to the other players that matters. Sometimes you're better off placing to stop another player from getting a crazy good set up, even if it gets you something slightly worse than you might otherwise be able to get.
- Think about number diversity. If your starting settlements share 5 or 6 different numbers between them then your chances of getting something on any given roll increases a lot. Even if you don't get exactly the resource you want, having a higher turnover of cards allows you to make more trades with other players or get 'cheap' buys like dev cards or roads.
- Always start out with a plan for victory. You will almost always need to go for largest army or longest road to get the win, unless you are able to get really high production, so think about this from the start.
- Trading is really important. Suppose you make a trade which helps you and the player you traded with equally. Then you have gained an advantage over the other two players. If you trade more often, even if you sometimes help others more than yourself, you gain on the pack. Thinking about trades when placing can also be useful, e.g. noticing a player has lots of wood so taking a high brick spot and therefore likely getting lots of trades between each other.
- The 'meta' in high level games is to go for a heavy ore wheat sheep setup and crank out dev cards and cities, even without brick or wood. The abundance of dev cards means you can continually move the robber off yourself and pretty much lock down largest army. Knights, year of plenty, monopoly, road building also all give you routes to getting roads or wood/brick to help you get a settlement. With this set-up, it is common to win with only one settlement expansion, winning with 3 cities, largest army and 2 vp dev cards. This doesn't always win but it's common.
- If one player seems to be clearly in the lead, then it is important for the other players to team up to try and stop them. E.g. giving cheap trades to allow a different player to take longest road off the leader, or repeatedly robbing the leader. The thing to be wary of is that at a given moment in the game, the person with the most VPs might not be the person with the highest likelihood of winning!


I've been really enjoying learning more and more about the theory of the game and managed to get into the top 120 on Catan Universe (the platform I currently play on) and my goal is to hit top 100. Once I've done this I will probably switch over to colonist.io, which is what most people use these days and can be played in browser.

[Dan Byrom]

That is very interesting. But I suppose I'd question what it means to be 90% skill. How do you quantify and measure these things for a game? And how many games are in a tournament? If it's loads, then there can still be a lot of luck in each game, but it averages out over a tournament.

A tournament I think consists of three placement games, resulting in seedings. There are then 16 players in 4 semi finals. The winner of these goes to a 4-player final, and the winner of this gets the title. But I haven't actually been to one (yet) so don't quote me on that.

https://colonist.io/leaderboards/Classic4P/ According to these leaderboards it seems as though the highest ranked players tend to win 40-60% of their games, so well above random 25% but less than I thought. Then again, these players are probably playing each other at the top of the game so maintaining a high percentage is tough and very opposition-dependent.

[JackHurst]

Loving the level of analysis in this thread. I have a copy of Catan and would love to get more use out of it.

Sounds like Dan is already the expert. One additional piece of advice I would add is about timing when you pay your dev cards.

With monopoly ideally you time it just after somebody jas had a windfall. With the Knight if you know who has what and you need a specific resource then you know who to pick to give yourself the best chance.

[JackHurst]

I've not played it online, but I reckon it must lose a big dimension of the game. For me the personal interaction, persuasion and deception (not talking about breaking rules, but about throwing attention away from yourself) are all good parts of the game.

[Dan Byrom]

I've not played it online, but I reckon it must lose a big dimension of the game. For me the personal interaction, persuasion and deception (not talking about breaking rules, but about throwing attention away from yourself) are all good parts of the game.

This is true. And it really isn't quite the same online. There's a chat function but that doesn't compare. Being able to talk also allows for more elaborate deals, e.g. 'I won't block you with the robber if you trade me your brick' or 'I'll trade you whatever resource you need if you don't block me from reaching that settlement spot'.

[Matt Rutherford]

Separately, if you want a two player version, I've played with the following rules numerous times, and it's worked well...

-Both players roll twice per turn (if Dave/robber is activated, then that is sorted out before second roll)
-12 VPs to win rather than 10
-Each player starts with three settlements (P1 places one, P2 two, P1 two, P2 one)
-Victory point Dev cards are turned over straight away, and Dev cards can be used on the round they are purchased
-If one player has a lead of three points or more, the player behind gets three free dev cards for each turn they are behind
-No trading

It may seem a bit off, but I've play tested a good few times and it has worked sublimely

[JackHurst]

What do people think about groups of players conspiring against another? For example "James I will give you 3 brick and 3 wood for one ore so you can build three roads and take the longest road away from Bob"

Feels like a perfectly legitimate and fair thing to do in some circumstances. When another player is on the cusp of victory, it's critical for the rest of the players to work together in a way to stop that player claiming the victory.

[Gavin Chipper]

I think it's fine, though it's a weakness of some games that they can allow this to too great an extent and prevent the game from ever finishing. Basically if it results in unsatisfactory outcomes, it's poor game design.