Brettspiel-Forum

Hallo zusammen!

Wie genau werden eigentlich die Häuserketten bei Titicaca gewertet? Alle Häuser einer Kette inkl. Abzweigungen oder ohne Abzweigungen?

Danke, ciao,
Ingo

Ingo Kasprzak schrieb:
> Wie genau werden eigentlich die Häuserketten bei Titicaca
> gewertet? Alle Häuser einer Kette inkl. Abzweigungen oder
> ohne Abzweigungen?

Ohne Abzweigungen; etwa so, wie die laengste Handelsstrasse
bei Siedler (ist also wohl doch kein Zufall, dass die beiden
Spiele sich so aehnlich sehen :-)) )
Gruss, Volker

Ingo Kasprzak schrieb:
>
> Wie genau werden eigentlich die Häuserketten bei Titicaca
> gewertet? Alle Häuser einer Kette inkl. Abzweigungen oder
> ohne Abzweigungen?

Wie bei Siedler die Straßen - so haben wir es gespielt.
Wobei: So lang, daß wir Teile hätten mehrfach zählen können, wurden die Ketten gar nicht und Abzweigungen. Da fällt mir noch der Stern mit einem Mittelpunkt und 3 Spitzen ein, der ist dann eine 3er-Kette, obwohl er aus 4 Häusern besteht.

Gruß Carsten (3 im Kreis sind keine endlose Kette)

Moin Mitspieler,

die Intention des Autors lag in "zusammenhängender Gruppe von Häusern", d. h.
auch eventuelle Abzweigungen zählen mit. Wenn man es anders, also siedler-
like, besser mag, kann es ja so belassen. Bei all den Spielen während der Messe
spielte das auch meiner Erinnerung nach nur in einer der Partien eine Rolle.

Viele Grüsse,

Erik

Ingo Kasprzak schrieb:
>
> Wie genau werden eigentlich die Häuserketten bei Titicaca
> gewertet? Alle Häuser einer Kette inkl. Abzweigungen oder
> ohne Abzweigungen?

All the adjacent houses, so incl. abzweigungen.
Seems logic to me, but now I see it can be taken different.
The rules say:
Three points for each house in your longest chain of adjacent houses
And the rules say:
These houses may be in different countries.
That was not the question but I just want to write all the rules here,
but that would be too long. :-)

(Your question is clearly the number-1-question for an FAQ-site
(which I didn't make yet).

Groeten,
Corné, who is very happy with the latest inventive break-through in
world history, the real smilies ;-)

Volker L. schrieb:
> Spiele sich so aehnlich sehen

I don't think the landhexes in Siedler and Titicaca are so much like
each other. And I think in both games the graphics on the landhexes
are good for their purpose in the games.
In Siedler different landhexes must correspond to cards, and
playercolours are not on landhexes. Therefore it's good that different
colours are chosen in a few degrees for the graphics for the
landhexes.
In Titicaca the landhexes only correspond to same landhexes in the
landscape, and there mainly to same landhexes in the same area,
so small differenses in the graphics on the hexes would make the
different fields already clear in the game. And the player-colour parts
are on the hexes so that (in combination with the score-rules)
different coloured landhexes would make the game less clear (as
the proto-types proofed). Therefore all 5 different landhexes are green.
What makes a good contrast to the lake-hexes which play another
role in the game. And all the green landfields and blue lakes build a
nice landscape (see link above), while the playercolours are without
green and blue.
Other differenses are the vision right from above over the whole
landscape in Titicaca. That is above seen from a side-view in all (?)
Siedler fields. And the landhexes in Titicaca have no bordercolour,
which is also good in Titicaca but would look less good and clear in
Siedler. The Titicaca tiles (4 hexes on each of the 12 tiles) have tiny
dark lines between the hexes to take away the 12-tiles-structure a
little which you would see more by first eye without these lines.

So in my eyes the look is very different but it's not easy for me to
look at it as if I have a look by first eye.

And of course I did hear remarks about simularities by first eye.
Which was the same with Morisi (and happens with every new game
more or less). People who did play Morisi did never try to compare
Morisi with Siedler after the game, and the same counts for Titicaca
(as far as I know).
By the way: In Holland most people who see it first try to compare it
with Monopoly.

Groeten,
Corné

Hallo, Corne',
I'm not quite sure whether you noticed the smiley, indicating that
my remark "(ist also wohl doch kein Zufall, dass die beiden
Spiele sich so aehnlich sehen :-)) )" was a joke.

Of course I did not fall for the optical similarity (and I think
and hope other experienced gamers didn't either), but you should
be aware that (at least in Germany) many people who seldom play
any games often react like "Hey, that's like Siedler" if they
just recognize that the game has mobile hex-tiles. Fortunately
I don't know such persons, but other members of this forum did
report such reactions about e.g. "Tikal" or "Kings and Things".

Taking that into consideration, you should admit that Titicaca
with 5(!) different landscapes plus water [b]and[/b] the fact
that the borders remind to Siedler-streets in their shape and
the way they are placed between hexes, there is indeed a certain
optical similarity between Siedler and Titicaca [i]at least for
the eyes of an inexperienced person.[/i]
This first impression of course is completely wrong, but I fear
that some people might have overlooked your great game because
of that misunderstanding.

Gruss, Volker

Hi Corné,

>And of course I did hear remarks about simularities by first eye.
Which was the same with Morisi (and happens with every new game
more or less). People who did play Morisi did never try to compare
Morisi with Siedler after the game, and the same counts for Titicaca
(as far as I know).
By the way: In Holland most people who see it first try to compare it
with Monopoly.<

People always try to put their first impressions into well-known schemes. That's a basic fact of the way we recognise things, human perception can't do without it, for we can handle only few of the information we receive at first sight. I don't see any sense in arguing about it, although it surely often does not meet reality. If your only reference in boardgames is Monopoly, you compare every game to Monopoly. If you've played Siedler most of the time - then you know hex-tiles and you compare a game like "Titicaca" to "Siedler". "Titicaca" neither is a "Siedler"-clone nor another "Monopoly". It's a game in its very own right. EVERY game with hex-tiles, houses, sticks is compared to Siedler in Germany, for Siedler is the game which has made these game-elements popular in Germany - although Klaus Teuber definitely did invent neither of these, he "just" created an exquisite blend of all these elements which has earned an overwhelming popularity around here. So, at the moment, there's noone to blame for it ;-) Of course everyone who knows the differences likes to shake his head when hearing statements like these, I myself can't hear these Siedler-comparisons anymore, but you just can't help it and you can't blame people for it. You know that your games are different, and people who have played your games know that. That should - or must - suffice.

Ciao,
Roman