Talk:Settlers of Catan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Knight chess piece. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Strategy games, an effort by several users to improve Wikipedia articles on strategy games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:SG
 SG Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within strategy games for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
Strategy games To-do:
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Settlers of Catan as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Portuguese language Wikipedia.
This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance within WikiProject Board and table games.

Contents

[edit] copyright and fair use

Discussion moved to /copyright and fair use.

[edit] game guide versus encyclopedia entry

Discussion moved to /game guide versus encylopedia entry.

[edit] official rules

Moved discussion to Talk:Settlers of Catan, Rules. --Fritzlein 01:53, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] strategic considerations

See discussion at Talk:Settlers of Catan, Strategic considerations.

[edit] vote against deletion

[edit] Comments from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

  • Settlers of Catan - good content, excellent graphics to guide the reader's eye, and an overall impressive overview of the game. --Chuck SMITH 02:30, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Strongly object. The creator refuses to compromise on any issues regarding this subject, including its copyright status. RickK 02:31, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I disagree. She has systematically stated all of her copyright arguments on her user page at User:Stardust. I may however decide not to argue here to eliminate my personal Wikistress. I just assumed that it was self-evident that it belonged here. --Chuck SMITH 02:38, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • She has stated them, and it's possible that the statement contains only one major error concerning copyright law, but that doesn't mean that the page's interpretations of law and fact are so indisputable as to show all objections to be baseless. A reliable source on copyright law would never say that "the copyrightable portions are not under copyright protection unless the registration process has been completed", because it's false: you must register before you can sue, but an infringement before it's registered is still an infringement. [1] Dandrake 03:22, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • Strongly question. Should an article that (apparently) is still violently controversial be even considered seriously? It's hard to see how anyone can expect a consensus, which is what we're supposed to have here, just yet. What harm is there in a delay till article contents and people's tempers settle down? Dandrake 08:24, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)
    • Support. Still a little early but this is looking like an excellent example of how to do a thorough game guide, with good description and excellent, lawful, use of images. Certainly shouldn't be discounted just because RickK is making baseless copyright infringement claims about it. [User:Stardust]] seems to have an excellent understanding of copyright law as applied to games, reviews and commentary on them. Jamesday 09:53, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Should really not have been listed here while still on VfD. Bmills 10:06, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • This particular article isn't on VfD, articles about rules variants to the game are. I object because this isn't an article about the game, but a guide for playing the game, as JamesDay states, which I believe should go to wikibooks. Additionally, the images are not from the game itself but from an un-offical java based program based on the game that is frowned upon by the game's copyright holder. Gentgeen 10:24, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • No, but if the merge suggestion on VfD is accepted, then this article will be significantly altered. I think it would have been better if the nomination had waited until after a consensus on the project was reached.Bmills 10:44, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Oppose. This just doesn't look to me like a true "brilliant prose" candidate. It's not exactly an ad for the game, but to me it resembles a magazine article—in one of those hobby magazines in which all the articles are flattering articles about products that just happen to have big ads in the magazine. All that stuff about how many awards it's won, why it suitable for every level from family play to competition, how it "showcases the heights of adaptive analysis, which the human mind does best" (whatever that means... how is that different from bridge or poker?) The lead photo looks like a pitchman hawking his wares. It even tells you where to buy the game and associated game paraphernalia, (covering this with a fig leaf "This article in no way takes a position on whether people should or should not buy this game...") It says that "Settlers is perhaps the first German-style board game to reach any degree of popularity outside of Europe," but does not explain what a "German-style board game" is, give any examples of other "German-style board games," or compare it against its rivals. The article's point of view is clearly that of a Settlers of Catan fan. That's not terrible, but in my opinion it is not a good exemplar of an ideal Wikipedia article. Dpbsmith 13:05, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree. It's well writtin, isn't it?
      • I didn't think that was supposed to be the only criterion. From the comments at the top of the page, I thought that Wikipedia:The perfect article was supposed to express the criteria, and it says the perfect article "is completely unbiased" and goes on to elaborate. If there's general agreement that an article can qualify as "brilliant prose" even if it is not a good example of a truly neutral point of view, then let me know and I'll withdraw my objection. Dpbsmith 17:38, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] More discussion

This article is really bloated right now. It would be much easier to read if the rules were moved to a separate article rather than piled onto the main page. Even without the many many images, the article is at least twice the size of chess. -Sean Curtin 21:29, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It is funny how different people perceive "bloat". In the case of chess, some people considered the complete rules to be bloated, and removed the rules about piece movement to articles about each piece, and details of time limits to a separate article as well. Now some people consider the rules of chess article to be less useful because it is no longer comprehensive, and bit by bit the missing information is creeping back in.
In the main Settlers article the complete rules double to some extent as a description of the game. If the rules were removed to another page (as the strategy has been removed) what would remain? We would have only a fairly terse description. In all probability, that description would be expanded bit by bit to something more informative by adding, among other things, bits of the rules and game mechanics.
The main article on chess has had everything removed except links, a brief history, and some introductory paragraphs which frankly do a pretty poor job of summarising the game, although it is gradually getting better as information seeps back in. The truly excellent Wikipedia information about chess is mostly on pages other than the main chess article. One of these days I will try to gather the courage to overhaul the summary information for chess, knowing that it will partially duplicate information available on sub-pages, but trying to create something more coherent and more to the point than what is there at present.
I am sympathetic to the idea that the current Settlers article is bloated, but moving the rules to a separate page, if nothing else is done, will make the main article worse than it is now. If the detailed, comprehensive rules are moved, then something else must take its place, something that conveys some idea of how the game is played and what it is about.
Just my $0.02, --Fritzlein 05:42, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree that a section or paragraph overviewing the rules would be quite helpful - as it stands now, the rules aren't especially clear on, for example, what the goals of the game are or how one wins. -Sean Curtin 06:21, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I like the way the chess article is layed out, personally. I would venture that most people looking for an article on wikipedia about chess or Settlers (and most games) want an overview of the rules: a brief synopsis of how the game is put together and the kind of game it is. This article presently does not do a good job of fufilling that expectation. I think it would be much better if we moved the detailed description of the rules to a seperate article and added a paragraph giving a concise explaination of the basic game mechanics to the main article. I agree with Fritzlein that the chess article would be helped by having a similar paragraph, but let's fix both rather than having a bulky, hard to skim article here and a slim, hard to skim article there. --The demiurge 22:06, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree. The detailed rules should still be present somewhere, perhaps further down the page, but I think this article strongly needs a summary at the top containing a brief outline of the rules. --AlexChurchill 23:05, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
OK, that's three votes (four if you count me), so I'll try for a game summary at the top and move the complete rules to a new article. --Fritzlein 00:18, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Excellent, I like your game summary. That was just the type of thing I was thinking of: a way to get people unacquanted with the game to get a quick feel for the type of play. Nice job. --The demiurge 04:37, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm glad you like it. I hope the changes are acceptable to Stardust, because she did some fantastic work which I don't mean to denigrate in any way. Hopefully the current layout can be both a good summary for those unfamiliar with the game, and a good resource for more serious players. --Fritzlein 06:36, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The importance of luck

Luck plays an important role in Settlers, and the current article states rather poorly the relationship between luck and skill, as follows:

The importance of random dice as a game factor varies inversely with a player's progress in skill.
The best players worldwide have shown that they can win slightly more than half of their games,
 consistently over long periods of time.

It is true that, the more skilled a player is, the more often he will win at Settlers, in spite of luck. What happens, however, when four experts of equal skill play? They will presumably each have a 25% chance of winning, based on luck, exactly as would be the case if four beginners of equal skill played. Thus the importance of dice does not "vary inversely with skill" in this sense. On the contrary, luck is just as important to experts as it is to amateurs if everyone is equally skilled. The role of luck is diminished only when people of unequal skill play.

Similarly it is logically impossible for experts to consistently win more than half their games when they play against each other. The statement can only be meaningful if it is quantified by the strength of the opposition. Perhaps an expert can win 90% of the time against three home players, 55% of the time against three club players, and 25% of the time against three other experts.

The depth of chess is sometimes expressed in the number of "75% levels". That is to say, a player rated 2800 wins 75% of the time against a player rated 2600, and a player rated 2600 wins 75% of the time against a player rated 2400, etc. There are about ten or twelve levels of chess understanding by this measure. A similar yardstick for Settlers would be the number of "50% levels" in four-player games. Say a home player beats three beginners 50% of the time, and a club player beats three home players 50% of the time, etc. I don't know what the exact figures would be, but I would guess that there would be about four or five levels of understanding of Settlers by this measure.

But this measure doesn't say that Settlers is not as deep as chess by virtue of having fewer levels of play. It merely means that in Settlers the importance of human understanding only goes a certain distance relative to the importance of luck.

Peace, --Fritzlein 06:25, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"The role of luck is diminished only when people of unequal skill play."
This is exactly what the case should be for a game that involves luck as a game element and where its role "varies inversely with a player's progress in skill".
"Similarly it is logically impossible for experts to consistently win more than half their games when they play against each other."
True, but I believe the intention was that experts can consistently win more than half their games overall when playing others with varying skill backgrounds. I suppose a clarity edit couldn't hurt.
- Korpios 06:55, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I do think one should clarify the "more than half" claim. Heck, even I can win more than half of my games against the right opposition, and I'm not one of "the best players worldwide" by a long shot. If I had some tournament experience I might have a better sense of what the original author was trying to claim.
As for the other sentence, it may be clear to you what it means that the importance of luck "varies inversely with a player's progress in skill", but it seems to me to be literally not true. It implies that if all the players in a game progress in skill, then the importance of luck will diminish for all of them. I know from experience this is false, because if all the players are equally versed in the various ways of coping with bad luck, then the person who gets luckiest still wins.
I think we probably agree about the role of luck relative to the role of skill, but we disagree about how to express it. Rather than saying luck is less important to more skilled players (which is at least misleading, and probably false), say simply that skilled players have a much better chance of winning than unskilled players. Then if we want to precisely quantify the relationship between skill and luck, we need some data I don't have.
Peace, --Fritzlein 22:00, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I tried my best to clarify that that luck and skill are both necessary in this game. I just don't think that skilled players will always win, though they may make generally better choices given the opportunity. This is true for every game that involves luck, so I'm not really sure why it is given such a spotlight here. I think it is a given that skill plays an important part of any game. Let's not make this entry about Skill vs. Luck.
Thrustinj 19:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gameplay image

Image:CatanSiedler.jpg should be deleted or replaced by a higher quality image — i.e., one that shows more of the board, does not have color distortion at the bottom, and has better content (e.g. the player's face should not be so obscured). Objections? --Flex June 28, 2005 14:17 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. The color distortion at the bottom certainly makes the picture look odd. The demiurge 04:58, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
No objections from me. It's not a good image. --Millsdavid 05:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
The players in Flex's image appear to be holding the game cards in the wrong direction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.81.82.41 (talk • contribs).

What, you mean the sheep card? First, there is no rule about the orientation of the cards in one's hand, and second, the color of the card (in this case green) seems to be the most important thing for distinguising them. So how is it "wrong"? --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The Catan series" list woefully incomplete

There are at least a few things missing from this such as the book containing a lot of scenarios or the version that was rethemed to producing whiskey in scotland. I'm not sure if it is appropriate, but there is also a tenth aniversary deluxe edition that should be available in fall 2005. I know mayfair also sells replacement resource cards as well.

[edit] Online versions requiring the board game?

S3D doesn't seem to think that the board game is required.

I am not a lawyer, but I have looked into the copyright laws related to games in the United States and here is what I have discovered: The idea for a game is not in any way copyrighted. In fact, neither is the actual name of the game. What is copyrighted is the particular way it is represented, i.e. artwork, rule text, etc. So from a straight reading of the copyright law of the United States, Sea3D is completely legal, because it does not use any original artwork from the board game, nor contain any text from any of the rules distributed with the game by Mayfair or Kosmos. Furthermore, I have removed all references to "Catan" from anything having to do with the game so as to stay as completely distant from anything that might be a registered trademark as possible. The game I have written is distributed completely freely, and is in fact, open source. I have never made money from it, and have given thousands of hours of my own free time to making it and maintaining it, as well as spent hundreds of dollars of my own resources in its development and in running the site. In summary, I have done everything I know how to to ensure that what I am doing is legal, and will willingly and quickly conform to anything I have done that is pointed out as noncompliant.

So, should we change the header? Break out a separate section? Or what?--SarekOfVulcan 19:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Similar game(s) -- on-topic?

Should "similar game(s)" be enumerated in a game's Wiki entry? For example, I find similarities between Avalon Hill's Air Baron and Settlers of Catan, but I don't think that it warrants mention here. --JHunterJ 12:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that it is OK to list a few similar games. It think there is an especially strong case for inclusion if explaining the similarities helps the reader gain a better understanding of the game, or if the similar game is linked to its own wiki article. The it serves as a type of "see also." TMS63112 16:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that it depends on how similar the game is. "Settling Zion" has six resources generated and settlements may be built at a distance of two. I think that it is close enough to list. Val42 16:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
If it's that close, it should be close enough to be a licensed variant. Perhaps changing the header to "Unlicensed variants", so indicate that not just similarity qualifies. -- JHunterJ 10:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
It used to have that title, but someone else removed it. Val42 04:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I gave it that title back. It was under "Licensed adaptations" when I first saw it, which is why I removed it from there. If there was an "Unlicensed" section before that, maybe someone else finds those off-topic too. But this works for me now. JHunterJ 10:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] New Page: Catan Internationalisation?

I just played Settlers of Catan for first time in English. I kept stumbling over the words used in the English version, as I wanted to use the literal translations of the German ("Clay" instead of "Brick", "Knight" instead of "Soldier", etc.). Would it make sense to have a spin-off page with a table of the names of the various titles and pieces, as well as English translations thereof? samwaltz 18:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funagain.com

Would an external link to Settlers of Catan at Funagain.com be considered linkspam? --Pixelface 02:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a commercial site, so yes, I think so. -- JHunterJ 10:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sales figures?

How many copies of this game have been sold? Is it the most successful German-style board game? —ptk✰fgs 20:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?: Licensed adaptation

I'm not very knowledgeable about the various (possibly many) adaptations of Settlers, but the reference to Rockman.EXE in the Licensed adaptations section seems to be inappropriate, having nothing to do with the series. Can someone confirm? .digamma 22:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the Catan series or the Rocman series? In any event, it's a licensed adaptation. See http://www.catan.jp and http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/20899 -- JHunterJ 23:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The BoardGameGeek link you referenced is very clear in terms of the purposes of this article, much better than an arbitrary link to MegaMan.EXE..digamma 03:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Java Settlers of Catan

Some mention should be made of the java version of settlers of catan.

http://wiki.drfaulken.com/index.php?title=Java_Settlers_of_Catan_Guide

Mathiastck 03:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wool vs. Sheep

Everyone who plays the game knows that the resource is always called "sheep" and not "wool". Furthermore, the concept of "sheep" is central to the culture and character of the game. I think that we should use the word "sheep" on the page, and not the word "wool". Cazort 05:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the original German editions used sheep to represent wool. In any case, there are editions where sheep do not represent wool, such as Simply Catan. Wool is technically the correct term. kelvSYC 20:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

we in germany always say "wool" :-)

Lame jokes like "I'll give you my WOOD for your SHEEP" are an essential part of the American Settlers experience! As is calling a player who capitalizes on an otherwise useless abundance of sheep by securing a sheep port a 'sheep shagger.' I'll give you my wood for your sheep, you sheep shagger!

"I got wood for sheep" is how that phrase goes. Jeffrywith1e 10:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correct terminology for resources

From my game rule book (Game ISBN is 1-56905-091-0):

  • Hills = Brick
  • Pasture = Wool
  • Mountains = Ore
  • Fields = Grain
  • Forest = Lumber
  • Desert = Nothing

The article refers to Grain as Wheat. For the sake of correctness shouldn't it be referred to as Grain?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.236.175.178 (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Done. Val42 04:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Some rules refer to Grain as Wheat, Hills as Clay, and/or Fields as Farmland. The english translations between different production runs of the game and between the expansions have created a fuzzy area as to the "official" term at times. Also, Desert tiles produce Jewels in some variations of gameplay. Angel the Techrat 15:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Hills/Clay = Brick
  • Pasture = Wool (and Cloth in Cities & Knights)
  • Mountains = Ore (and Coin in Cities & Knights)
  • Fields/Farmland = Grain/Wheat
  • Forest = Lumber (and Paper in Cities & Knights)
  • Desert = Jewels (in some variations)
  • Sea = Fish (in the Settlers of Catan: The Fishers variation fishing sites only)
  • Gold Field = Gold or variable
  • Volcano = variable
  • Jungle = Discoveries (use of Discoveries differs between variations)
  • Wizard's Castle = Development Cards
  • Swamp = Nothing
  • Oasis = Nothing
  • Three new Terrain hexes are also present in the new Traiders & Barbarians expansion that hasn't been translated yet. A castle that differs from the Wizard's Castle, a hex that produces Glass, and a hex that produces Marble.

Let's see... Brick, wool, ore, grain, and lumber are the official canonical terms (both in Settlers and the Catan Card Game, although informally sheep and wheat are used (I do note that the first five are canonical perhaps because different letters represent each resource). The commodities (Cities and Knights of Catan) are paper, cloth, and coin. As for the scenarios (Atlantis, Das Buch, and Traders and Barbarians are all collections of scenarios, so are not true expansions), there are resource-like stuff, but that's too many to list. And don't even get started on Catan Adventures, Catan Histories, or the rest of the Catan line... kelvSYC 20:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Different artwork

The following line appears in the text of the article, and a "citation needed" tag was recently added:

Like many games released by Mayfair, the English-language version of the game has different artwork to the German original.

Do we really need a citation for this? I mean, if anyone looks at the set of tiles for each version, it is obvious that they have different artwork. Or is stating the obvious considered "personal research"? The other option is that we show the artwork side-by-side and let the reader decide. Val42 02:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a citation is needed, as while this may be true for Settlers (in comparison to both the original and revised German editions), it is not true for more recent Mayfair offerings (virtually every other Catan game, and Phalanx and Da Vinci games). kelvSYC 13:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed the sentence so that it no longer needs the citation. I also moved it to a better location. Val42 21:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xbox 360 of Catan given own article

The amount of information coming for the 360 version of Catan was becoming unweildly, so it made sense to give it its own article: Catan. JAF1970 20:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

PS. Especially since it has achievements, upcoming rules, unique AIs which will be given names, etc. JAF1970 21:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strategy section

There should be a strat section. Other game entries have them. JAF1970 19:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Strategy sections violate WP:NOR and WP:V unless you can source them (ie. we can only reference existing published strategy guides from reputable sources). And WP:BTG is somewhat against strategy sections by that principle. kelvSYC 07:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/e/t/Talk%7ESettlers_of_Catan_5597.html"