Talk:Catan: Seafarers

	Games portal 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.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Five white cities in photo?[edit]

I'm not sure, but if I'm seeing things right then in the picture the white player has five cities? I thought the maximum was four, even in Seafarers. If this is indeed wrong, then shouldn't the picture be replaced by another one? --P e lotas^talk 13:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who took this photo and added it to the article, so I'll answer your question... There is no single board configuration for Seafarers Of Catan. Instead, the rules include several scenarios that can be played, each with their own board configuration and rule variations. One of the scenarios (scenario 11) is called "Greater Catan". This particular scenario requires the use of two copies of Settlers of Catan, allowing a player to have up to eight cities on the board at a time. (A win in this scenario requires 18 victory points!) The game in progress depicted in this photo happens to be of this scenario. This scenario is just as real and official as any of the other scenarios that can be played, so I don't think there's anything inappropriate about this photo. --Pomakis 00:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Ok, I know all the rules, but just did not remember the scenario where you need two versions of the game. --P e lotas^talk 15:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Catan: Seafarers" Vs. "Seafarers of Catan"[edit]

I'm kind of curious to know why one user is continually reverting attempts to update the name to "Catan: Seafarers" when there are SEVERAL users that would prefer the current name. The reason given is wiki's policy to use the "most common" even if there is a newer name. I would like to see what evidence there is that "Seafarers of Catan" is more commonly used than "Catan: Seafarers" because simply saying it is more popular or personally preferring the outdated naming convention isn't enough, I feel. If anything the shorthand term "Seafarers" is what people commonly use and that is much more in-line with the subtitle usage in "Catan: Seafarers". A simple Google search will show that the term "Catan: Seafarers" is used 19,100 more times in internet search results. Further arguments against "Seafarers of Catan" is that the last official usage of it was in an edition that is dated 1998, editions with this naming are out-of-print, and the naming convention is used in the expansions that have come out since the new naming convention, such as Tranders & Barbarians and Explorers & Pirates, and last I feel that keeping the naming on Wikipedia following the same pattern just makes sense and is more professional than just one random article in a series that sticks out because it doesn't follow the naming convention that the other three expansions follow. I have created a poll on BoardGameGeek to find out what people consider more common. Kiwisoup (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I'm kind of curious why the "one user's" (my) suggestion to use WP:RM wasn't followed, since it's obvious that this isn't non-controversial. I would like to see what evidence there is that "Catan: Seafarers" is more commonly used than"Seafarers of Catan" because simply saying it is isn't enough, I feel. (And your poll on BGG isn't a reliable source.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When did this game come out?[edit]

Seems like a pretty basic question this article is missing. When was this expansion originally published? 2602:306:3A40:4B0:C464:88CA:9473:B6D6 (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catan: Seafarers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051215202908/http://universityofcatan.com/soc-games/soce.html to http://www.universityofcatan.com/soc-games/soce.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

I'm trying to find a reference where the following claim came from: "The concepts introduced in Seafarers were part of designer Klaus Teuber's original design for Settlers." since there is no link provided. I found this link with the claim that "Settlers variants produced in this time include the Seafarers version (which allows the initial setup to include oceans and islands, which is actually closer to Teuber's original conception;)". Would this be a good reference for it? Ashune (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]