Take the 2-minute tour ×
Board & Card Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people who like playing board games, designing board games or modifying the rules of existing board games. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I recently received a copy of Carcassonne for the holidays, and have enjoyed it so far. My print, however, doesn't include the mini-expansion River I, and it seems like a neat little mechanic insofar as what I've found. However, it's out of print, so I can't obtain it without quite a bit of markup and expense. The River II, though, is readily available through Amazon, but I don't know if it's playable without the original River, and even if it is, if it's worth buying without the original to supplement it. So, this question boils down into two parts:

  1. Does The River II require The River I?
  2. If not, does not having The River I make The River II less enjoyable to a significant extent?
share|improve this question
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 7 down vote accepted

The River II does not require the River I in any way. I don't believe there is any official way to play with both of them together. IMHO The River I is a poor expansion by itself, in my play experience it whoever goes first plays a farmer and whole shoreline is one big connected farm giving that player a strong advantage. The River II fixes this issues by having roads and a city that cross the river, as well as one lake abutting a city, giving strong potential for multiple farms. All-in-all, River II is a good replacement for River I.

I've adopted some house rules that someone on here (maybe @Aramis?) suggested in a comment for using both River I and II: make river of random length by starting with a spring and not separating out the lakes and other spring tiles. The river is not allowed to have 2 springs without lakes, but keeps going until someone draws a lake to end it. This would produce very short rivers with just one expansion, but would work equally well with 2 copies of River II as with I and II.

share|improve this answer
    
I've played with one spring, two lakess, and all the river pieces from I and II mixed together, but certainly agree II is fine by itself, and much better than I. –  Andrew Vandever Dec 27 '11 at 5:51
    
In paragraph 1 you say that the River I is a poor expansion, can you expand upon that to say why? –  Pat Ludwig Dec 27 '11 at 13:22
    
Great edit! Got my +1 –  Pat Ludwig Dec 28 '11 at 7:32
add comment

I really like what TheCodingMonkeys (Carcassonne IOS app devs) said in a recent interview: " Historically it’s probably better to think about it as the improved river than as a separate expansion altogether." I'm pretty sure the River II is the right one for your situation.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.