Cities and Knights game for two

We hadn't played Cities and Knights for a while - or so it seemed - and we had a couple of ours to ourselves on Friday evening. In previous games, Richard has opted for ore hexes, giving him coin commodities, and had usually won. I don't really like the cards associated with coins - they tend to be the ones that sabotage the other player's knights, or do other unpleasant actions - so I've mostly avoided them. But thought I'd try his strategy this time, for a change, to see if it made any difference.


I was slightly surprised at where Richard placed his city - on the wheat harbour, adjoining two clay hexes. No commodities associated at all. But he thought he was likely to get a lot of wheat with his other placements, so it would certainly have made sense in a normal Settlers game.

As it turned out, I had a lot of wheat and he didn't get so much. Since I also had ore, I was quickly able to build another city, and gather quite a few commodities to improve my cities. I was then lucky enough to pick up the merchant card which I placed on wheat. By the time the barbarians attacked, I had two active knights and Richard had one, so - for once - I earned a victory point as defender of Catan:


Richard did fairly well with wood and very well with clay, so he was able to expand easily, and gained the longest street without any difficulty. He also built some settlements and cities, and started collecting commodiites too. I had reached Metropolis level with coins, for probably the first time ever by the second time the barbarians attacked:


Once again, I had the better knight strength, and thus gained the extra victory point. It doesn't usually happen because either I forget to buy knights, or Richard picks up one of the deserter cards, meaning I lose a knight and he gains one. But he didn't have many coins in this game, at least not in the early stages, and the blue event was rolled surprisingly few times.

Although I was doing well with commodities, and knights, Richard was expanding rapidly - which is usually my strategy. Before long he had all four of his cities built, while I had only three.


Then he took control of the merchant - just as I was beginning to think I'd keep it for the entire game - meaning that he gained an extra point, while I lost one. So he had 15 points (12 built, 2 for the longest street, 1 for the merchant) while I had 11 in buildings, plus 2 for the metropolis, and two extra victory points cards. Also 15. We play to 18 points...


Then he gained a metropolis, taking him to 17 points. I was stronger in knights before the next barbarian attack, and he did consider fortifying all his so as to gain an extra point, but decided it was more important to keep some cards and expand. Except that he realised, too late, that he'd used up fourteen of his streets, and thus had no more building spots for his final settlement.

Meanwhile I gained another victory point card, and then - by dint of extensive trading with the bank - managed to gain the third metropolis. So the final score was 18 to me, 17 to Richard.


He should have won, really, despite that initial city placement on two clay. I think he probably is the better player for this variation of Settlers. But he made that logistical error towards the end, giving me the vital extra point.

Since neither of us picked up ANY blue cards in the entire game, my strategy of building cities on ore hexes didn't make the slightest bit of difference! But at least none of my knights were deserters...