Thoughts on expansions...

[Achilles]

I'm of two minds about expansions for board games (Carcassonne comes to mind). In one vein they add a layer of new interest to games I've already played... But so often repeated play will show they can cause holes in the overall 'system' of some board games.

Towers for example in Carcassonne almost completely ruins the mechanic of 'creeping' into other peoples assets as they're being built. Definitely puts a monkey into this strategy. I can't decide if this is a good thing or not.

Very often my gaming group and I will just decide to take a 'purists' approach to expansions and ignore them. What do you think?

[nightfoxll]

I personally like the expansions. I cannot imagine playing settlers of catan without the cities and knights expansion. It just adds so much more to the game now. The replay value is to me what makes an expansion valued or not.

[Achilles]

Ive not played with cities and knights... What does that add?

[nightfoxll]

The cities And knights expansion adds so many more strategic options. First it offers an added layer of economy through commodities which can then create another level of bartering, negotiating, diplomacy, or threat to get the commodities you want. These commodities are also good to exchange for opportunities to gain access to a series of three general catagories of intriguing and sometimes devious ploys to gain an advantage. These catagories are politics, trade, and science. Additionally there often begins an arms race of sorts as several players attempt to build the strongest knights the fastest to gain additional victory points. The game is probably the most enjoyable with 4-6 players to build around and negotiate with. In the end the big difference is the expansion adds many more strategies that just were not possible previously and thus adds so many different ways to play, strategize and win.