Settlers of Catan economic theory
devil_in_the_p...@yahoo.com
By Jake Williams
Before we can discuss this further there are some things that have to
be assumed. Any resource mentioned is assumed to be on an ideal
number. Obviously, bad numbers on a certain hex will depreciate its
value, but for the purposes of good analysis we have to use optimal
conditions. This also discounts any particular strategy that is
dependent on board set up (i.e. building to a port when you have red
numbers to a resource that the port trades favorably for). The main
two factors that go into this commentary are supply (the number of hex
tiles available) and demand (the amount of a resource needed to build
a structure).
This is my ranking of the resources in order of best to worse:
1. Ore
2. Wheat
3. Brick
4. Wood
5. Wool
Ore
A lot of people initially disagree with me when I tell them that Ore
is the most important resource in the game. The majority of these
players tend to be new or have never looked closer at the board. Ore
only has 3 hexes. Automatically this takes away the amount of
possible places to produce Ore. In layman’s terms the supply is low.
People that disagree with this quickly counter with “Well, Brick only
has 3 hexes as well, and you need it more in the start of the game.”
This is flawed. First of all, if you buy into this logic you are
missing the other part of the logic that makes Ore more valuable than
Brick, demand. Every structure that requires Brick only requires 1
resource card. The amount of structures that require either resource
is the same (2) so that’s a wash. But look at the Ore required to
build its structures. A City requires 3 Ore cards, and a Development
Card requires 1. Cities require 3 times as much Ore as a Settlement
requires Brick. This is a huge demand.
Let’s look at the strategic value of Ore over Brick, and the argument
that Brick is better at the start of the game. A City increases you
production on your resource tiles. Card advantage (having more cards
in your hand than anyone else) is the key to winning. Also, City is
worth more points than a Settlement, and you don’t have to build a
road to build a City (it is worth noting that by saying this I must
concede that the effect cost of a Settlement now becomes 3 Wood, 3
Brick, 1 Wheat, and 1 Wool).
A beginning game value of Brick over Ore is skewed and will cause you
to lose games if you aren’t careful. At the end of the day you cannot
possibly win a game with only the structures Brick can produce. You
will cap out at 7 points (5 Settlements and Longest Road). However,
you can win with only structures that can be built with Ore (2 Cities,
Largest Army, and VPs via Development Cards).
Wheat
It was tough decision ranking Wheat over Brick. Brick certainly has
the supply factor over Wheat. One of the things that made me rank it
above the other is usefulness. 3 out of the 4 structures require at
least 1 Wheat, and of these 3 structures all over them are capable of
producing VPs that aren’t transient. This segways to the demand
section. Cities, which are the game ending structures, require twice
the amount of Wheat that Brick needs to build a Settlement. It could
be argued that the effect cost of a City versus a Settlement slightly
favors Brick because while 3 of each resource card is needed for
either, there are only 3 Brick hexes. I’m not sure if the usefulness
of Wheat quite out weighs that fact, but again this was a hard
ranking. But at the end of the day, you can win the game with the
structures that Wheat can build whereas you’ll always cap out at 7 VPs
with ones that require Brick.
Brick
I think we’ve examined Brick enough by now to know its importance and
why it ranks third. Brick places higher over Wood simply because
there are less hex tiles producing Brick over Wood. Both resources
are needed for all the structures they can build. All other things
being equal, Brick wins over Wood!
Wood
Wood ranks near the bottom, but don’t let that take away from its
role in the game. It’s need in half of the structures, and you’ll go
no where fast if you don’t have it.
Wool
Wool took a back seat to Wood simply because of effective costs. All
structures Wool can build effectively cost 1 Wool. Settlements
effectively cost you 3 Wood, but a Road is only 1 Wood. Supply is
both equal for the two resources. Note that you can win the game
solely on structures Wool can build (This is highly improbable though,
but you could get both Road Building cards and get Longest Road with 5
links. So your score would look like: 2 Settlements, Longest Road,
Largest Army, and 4 VPs in Development Cards). I had to remove that
scenario from my ranking because of its improbability.
devil_in_the_p...@yahoo.com
davi...@gmail.com
fixed values. It is overly simplistic to say that ore is more valuable
than any other resource. The resources values are determined based
upon: what cards you hold, what cards others hold, how much production
of the resource can be expected, how concentrated that production will
be, what options you have for building. I have repeatedly made the
correct decision to trade 4 ore to the bank for a sheep.
The trading in the game is only possible because players put different
values upon the resources (Note: I assume that you will only make a
trade if it will either improve your position or hurt your opponents).
So no trades would ever happen unless both players believe that they
both are benefiting.
The enjoyment I find in the game comes from analysing what trades are
possible for me to make and improve my position. This means I need to
identify how others value resources differently from me.
devil_in_the_p...@yahoo.com
make it clear that all resources are necessary to win. This is meant
be a guide, not set in stone rules. But you'll find these rankings to
be pretty accurate as you play the game. It's critical to keep this
rankings in mind when setting up.
kevin_whitmore
qualitative ranking for the five resources? It might be interestingto
do so. If you enumerate the values of the resources; and then
enumerate the values of the various resource numbers; you could
multiply the factors to come up with a board-situational valuation for
any given site. Say you impose a 10 point scale:
Ore: 10 pts
Wheat: 8 pts
Brick: 7 pts
Wood: 6 pts
Wool: 4 pts
Then for the site values:
6 or 8: 8 pts
5 or 9: 7 pts
4 or 10: 6 pts
3 or 11: 4 pts
2 or 12: 2 pts
These values are just a WAG. But to complete my thought, lets say you
have a potential site where you have a Ore/8, Brick/10, Wood/3
situation. By enumerating the above values you can tabulate the
relative merit of this site: (Ore: 10 X 8 = 80 pts. Brick: 7 X 6 =
42 pts. Wood: 4 X 4 = 16 pts. 80 + 42 + 16 = 138 points)
Armed with this equation, you could mathematically evaluate where you
ought to build a settlement at the start of the game. Of course,
there are other considerations: Do you want to have direct production
of all resources, or are you willing to be a very active trader? How
do you evaluate harbors? My simple pass at an equation doesn't
address them.
Expanding is critical in Settlers. Yet sometimes it makes sense to
upgrade a settlement into a city. A mathematic model for the economic
value of improving an existing site over dveloping a new site would be
interesting. But my experience tells me there is too much risk in
failing to expand. Being blocked in is a huge risk in Settlers.
Finally, your ranking of the resources should shift if you play
Seafarers of Catan.
Again, nice article. Thanks for posting it.
-- Kevin Whitmore
David Damerell
>The joy of playing Settlers of Catan is that the resources do NOT have
>fixed values. It is overly simplistic to say that ore is more valuable
>than any other resource.
I think you've completely missed the point. Of course the value of a
resource can be situational - you know that, I know that, the author of
the original article knows that. That doesn't mean that some resources
don't have, on average, higher utility.
That said, I disagree with the analysis. Mud and wood lets you go on an
early landgrab - that gets you to the ports, and that's what's wrong with
the analysis that regards port availability as independent of resources
chosen.
Also, it's easier to get to rock, sheep, and grain with mud and wood than
vice versa. Rock and grain can upgrade settlements to cities about as
easily as mud and wood can build extra settlements; but the latter player
then gets a mix of resources, and doesn't have to trade so much. That's
worth more than twice as much rock and grain.
I have had success with two cities and development cards; but it's a
marginal strategy. I do it if I get squeezed in the initial placements,
and especially if everyone else has the same resources - obviously rock
and grain then command a high price.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Oil is for sissies
Today is Second Chedday, June - a weekend.
mcv
> Quoting <davi...@gmail.com>:
>>The joy of playing Settlers of Catan is that the resources do NOT have
>>fixed values. It is overly simplistic to say that ore is more valuable
>>than any other resource.
>
> I think you've completely missed the point. Of course the value of a
> resource can be situational - you know that, I know that, the author of
> the original article knows that. That doesn't mean that some resources
> don't have, on average, higher utility.
>
> That said, I disagree with the analysis. Mud and wood lets you go on an
> early landgrab - that gets you to the ports, and that's what's wrong with
> the analysis that regards port availability as independent of resources
> chosen.
I think the biggest factor is the number of players. In a 3 player game,
roads and villages are most important, in a 4 player game, it's cities.
So in a 4-player game, ore is more important than brick, while in a
3-player game, brick is more important.
The major problem with ore demand, is that you need 3 of them to build
a new city. You spend more time collecting resources before you can
finally use them than with brick, which means more risk that smeone
steals it, and more risk that you lose something on a 7. Brick can be
used almost right away, most of the time.
Ofcourse this changes completely once you've got a city and a village
on the same ore field, but that takes time and luck.
Ofcourse later in the game, ore becomes more important, but if you
didn't have enough brick at the start of the game, you haven't carved
out as much territory as your opponents. And it's hard to win the
game with only two cities.
Something else that influences the value of brick and ore is the
availlability: the one that's more rare is usually the most valuable
(but not always: I've seen a game with a '4' as the best brick field
where 3 players put a village there, and the 4th took control of the
ore and kept the robber on the brick field permanently). And because
you always need wood and brick together, if you can get a brick and
a wood with the same number, that usually beats any other consideration.
A similar ore-grain combo is also good, but not quite as good as with
wood-brick.
> Also, it's easier to get to rock, sheep, and grain with mud and wood than
> vice versa. Rock and grain can upgrade settlements to cities about as
> easily as mud and wood can build extra settlements; but the latter player
> then gets a mix of resources, and doesn't have to trade so much. That's
> worth more than twice as much rock and grain.
Well, your starting settlements matter a lot. If you're lucky enough to
start with a healthy production in all 5 resources (you lucky bastard!),
then you don't need brick so much to get the missing resources, and
improving your starting points is more important. Ore rises in value.
Ofcourse if you miss something vital, then brick is more important.
If you get the choice of starting without brick and starting without
ore, start without ore. Unless the board is such that it's impossible
to reach ore later, but not as hard to reach brick later.
> I have had success with two cities and development cards; but it's a
> marginal strategy. I do it if I get squeezed in the initial placements,
> and especially if everyone else has the same resources - obviously rock
> and grain then command a high price.
The big advantage of a city+development cards atrategy is that you
get the most knights and get to control the robber. If the other players
depend a lot on a specific rare resource, you can nuke that resource.
But if all resources are equally availlable, this strategy won't work
quite so well.
mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
devil_in_the_p...@yahoo.com
> early landgrab - that gets you to the ports, and that's what's wrong with
> the analysis that regards port availability as independent of resources
> chosen.
>
Port availability was disregarded, and it was done so on purpose.
That's why I really love the idea of the guy that suggested a
mathmatical equation that can take some of these variables and control
them a bit more.
Like I originally said. This analysis assumes all things are equal:
port availability, point in game, numbers, number of players, etc.
> Also, it's easier to get to rock, sheep, and grain with mud and wood than
> vice versa.
I totally disagree. As the game progresses Ore and Wheat only
increase in value. It's been my experience that you don't see much
1:1 trading for Ore or Wheat near the end game.
> I have had success with two cities and development cards; but it's a
> marginal strategy.
I wouldn't say it's marginal by a long shot. The point was *it's
possible* to win with this strategy.
And like I said lots of times before, all resources are needed to
win. This was more or less an attempt to make a bench mark. I wrote
it to give players a guide to eye ball these resouces to help them
generate a begining, middle, and end game strategy, to make better
trades, and to have better initial set ups.
David Damerell
>The major problem with ore demand, is that you need 3 of them to build
>a new city. You spend more time collecting resources before you can
>finally use them than with brick, which means more risk that smeone
>steals it, and more risk that you lose something on a 7.
Missed that. Point.
>Well, your starting settlements matter a lot. If you're lucky enough to
>start with a healthy production in all 5 resources (you lucky bastard!),
... then someone has unscrewed your opponents' heads and stolen them.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Second Stilday, June - a weekend.
David Damerell
>>That said, I disagree with the analysis. Mud and wood lets you go on an
>>early landgrab - that gets you to the ports, and that's what's wrong with
>>the analysis that regards port availability as independent of resources
>>chosen.
>Port availability was disregarded, and it was done so on purpose.
But unfortunately that makes the analysis wrong, because the availability
of road-building material affects access to ports.
>>Also, it's easier to get to rock, sheep, and grain with mud and wood than
>>vice versa.
>I totally disagree. As the game progresses Ore and Wheat only
>increase in value.
You misunderstand me. What I'm saying is that if I start with mud and wood
I can build roads and settlements to capture production of rock, sheep,
and grain more readily than I can do the opposite.
>>I have had success with two cities and development cards; but it's a
>>marginal strategy.
>I wouldn't say it's marginal by a long shot. The point was *it's
>possible* to win with this strategy.
It's _possible_ to win with most strategies.
>And like I said lots of times before, all resources are needed to
>win.
I invite you to show me where I or anyone has disputed that.
>This was more or less an attempt to make a bench mark.
Yes. Unfortunately, it's flawed.
devil_in_the_p...@yahoo.com
> of road-building material affects access to ports.
It does not. You have to have a control. Even if we count ports into
the equation, Ore is still the most important resource in the game.
Let's say you have a lot of Brick and Wood and the respective 2:1
ports. Let's say you can produce no Ore on your hexes. Your cities
now effectively cost 8 resources (6 Wood/Brick and 2 Wheat).
>
> >>Also, it's easier to get to rock, sheep, and grain with mud and wood than
> >>vice versa.
> >I totally disagree. As the game progresses Ore and Wheat only
> >increase in value.
>
> You misunderstand me. What I'm saying is that if I start with mud and wood
> I can build roads and settlements to capture production of rock, sheep,
> and grain more readily than I can do the opposite
Sure, but this requires game interaction. The ranking was done with
zero game interaction. Control! Every comparison has to have a
control.
> >>I have had success with two cities and development cards; but it's a
> >>marginal strategy.
> >I wouldn't say it's marginal by a long shot. The point was *it's
> >possible* to win with this strategy.
>
> It's _possible_ to win with most strategies
Absolutely, but like i said before a strategy that only uses
structures that require Brick and Wood *can not win*. You'll cap out
at 7 points.
> >This was more or less an attempt to make a bench mark.
>
> Yes. Unfortunately, it's flawed.
I do not believe it to be flawed. The flaws you speak of are coming
about because you are trying to through particular strategies in the
game. The Unfortunate part is the rankings of the resources can't get
much better because outside of the factors I've already said you can't
rank them any more objectively. Beyond that it's all just opinions or
factors influenced by variables.
Don Woods
> I do not believe it to be flawed. The flaws you speak of are coming
> about because you are trying to through particular strategies in the
> game. The Unfortunate part is the rankings of the resources can't get
> much better because outside of the factors I've already said you can't
> rank them any more objectively. Beyond that it's all just opinions or
> factors influenced by variables.
Okay, you're absolutely right. If you accept as given that you
should ignore all the factors that might make wood and brick more
important, than ore is more important than wood or brick.
-- Don.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Don Woods (don...@iCynic.com) Note: If you reply by mail, I'll get to
-- http://www.iCynic.com/~don it sooner if you remove the "hyphen n s"
devil_in_the_p...@yahoo.com
> should ignore all the factors that might make wood and brick more
> important, than ore is more important than wood or brick.
Let's list the factors that could possibly be in a control:
Amount of a resource needed to build a structure
Supply of a resource (how many tiles there are)
Demand of a resource (how many structures require a particular
resource)
Points a structure a resource can build is worth
You can't control number placement, clumping of tiles, port layout,
other people's placements, embargo tactics, etc. Thus they had to be
left out. That's why I liked Kevin_Whitmore's idea of a mathmatical
formula to calculate in these variables. Then you can look at ever
new game and rank the resources accordingly.
David Damerell
>You can't control number placement, clumping of tiles, port layout,
>other people's placements, embargo tactics, etc. Thus they had to be
>left out.
This is where you went wrong. To disregard a factor which is independent
of which resource you are considering is fair enough. But to disregard a
factor which is _not_ independent of which resource you are considering -
like port availability - gives you the wrong answer. If you can't
precisely quantify that factor, you don't know how wrong your answer is;
but you _do_ know that it is wrong.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is Potmos, Presuary.
David Damerell
>>But unfortunately that makes the analysis wrong, because the availability
>>of road-building material affects access to ports.
>It does not.
The availability of road-building material does not affect access to
ports? What complete drivel.
>>You misunderstand me. What I'm saying is that if I start with mud and wood
>>I can build roads and settlements to capture production of rock, sheep,
>>and grain more readily than I can do the opposite
>Sure, but this requires game interaction. The ranking was done with
>zero game interaction.
How can you possibly rank the resources without considering what you can
do with them?
>>It's _possible_ to win with most strategies
>Absolutely, but like i said before a strategy that only uses
>structures that require Brick and Wood *can not win*.
Thank you, Captain Obvious! Was anyone suggesting that was not the case?
>>Yes. Unfortunately, it's flawed.
>I do not believe it to be flawed.
Something that neglects port availability in ranking resources when those
resources affect port availability is flawed.
>game. The Unfortunate part is the rankings of the resources can't get
>much better because outside of the factors I've already said you can't
>rank them any more objectively.
An "objective" ranking that neglects real factors is pointless.
devil_in_the_p...@yahoo.com
> of which resource you are considering is fair enough. But to disregard a
> factor which is _not_ independent of which resource you are considering -
> like port availability - gives you the wrong answer. If you can't
> precisely quantify that factor, you don't know how wrong your answer is;
> but you _do_ know that it is wrong.
Ok. Let's factor in ports. Each resource has one 2:1 port. It's a
wash. Now lets look at the standings again.... they're the same.
What you are trying to debate is which corner is best. Ports have no
influence on how valuable a resource is, just how valuable a corner
is. Thus I feel my analysis is right on.
devil_in_the_p...@yahoo.com
> >>I can build roads and settlements to capture production of rock, sheep,
> >>and grain more readily than I can do the opposite
> >Sure, but this requires game interaction. The ranking was done with
> >zero game interaction.
>
> How can you possibly rank the resources without considering what you can
> do with them?
I have considered what you can do with them. I went over what all you
can and can't build with them. Again, you're putting a particular
strategy in the ranking. The moment you did that you made it
subjective.
> >>It's _possible_ to win with most strategies
> >Absolutely, but like i said before a strategy that only uses
> >structures that require Brick and Wood *can not win*.
>
> Thank you, Captain Obvious! Was anyone suggesting that was not the case?
>
> >>Yes. Unfortunately, it's flawed.
> >I do not believe it to be flawed.
>
> Something that neglects port availability in ranking resources when those
> resources affect port availability is flawed..
read my previous reply. They've been factored in and change nothing.
>
> >game. The Unfortunate part is the rankings of the resources can't get
> >much better because outside of the factors I've already said you can't
> >rank them any more objectively.
>
> An "objective" ranking that neglects real factors is pointless.
What real factors have I neglected? The ports are a wash. Ore is the
best resource in the game if only by 1%. If I can't convience you of
this based on it's supply and demand then I don't know what else to
tell you. I think you keep wanting to rank the resouces by their
corners on a game board and you just can't do that and have it be
consistant. Because a board with the Wool hexes with the numbers 5,6,
and 9 and only 2 segments away from the 2:1 port makes Wool the best
resource in the game by your logic. Even this is incorrect because
it's not Wool that is inherently better it's the corner. Until you
stop thinking corners and start thinking resources then I can't show
you why Ore is more valuable than Brick or Wood.
kevin_whitmore
> What real factors have I neglected? The ports are a wash. Ore is the
> best resource in the game if only by 1%. If I can't convience you of
> this based on it's supply and demand then I don't know what else to
> tell you. I think you keep wanting to rank the resouces by their
> corners on a game board and you just can't do that and have it be
> consistant. Because a board with the Wool hexes with the numbers 5,6,
> and 9 and only 2 segments away from the 2:1 port makes Wool the best
> resource in the game by your logic. Even this is incorrect because
> it's not Wool that is inherently better it's the corner. Until you
> stop thinking corners and start thinking resources then I can't show
> you why Ore is more valuable than Brick or Wood.
I'm not the one arguing with you, but I'll chime in a bit. Generally
I like your approach, and I previously offered my view about
converting it into an equation. In my pass at that equation, I
basically went with your rankings, which don't seem to be out of whack
to me. But I do think the harbors affect the valuation. Rather than
valuing each resource alone, I want to value the resource along with
the statistical frequency I could expect to receive that resource.
Obviously an "8" Wool is better than a "12" Ore. So while I'm willing
to believe your rankings, where Ore is better than Wool, I need to
filter that by how often I can resonably expect to receive the
resource. Likewise, I need to consider whether I will get 1, 2 or 3
resources from my position. (Being between 3 resource-giving hexes,
or fewer.) IMO, if I can get high frequency wool sites, and also get
the wool port, this elevates the value of wool over wood (the next
resource of your ranking caste).
Best Regards,
Kevin Whitmore
Darin McGrew
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> This is where you went wrong. To disregard a factor which is independent
>> of which resource you are considering is fair enough. But to disregard a
>> factor which is _not_ independent of which resource you are considering -
>> like port availability - gives you the wrong answer. If you can't
>> precisely quantify that factor, you don't know how wrong your answer is;
>> but you _do_ know that it is wrong.
<devil_in_the_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ok. Let's factor in ports. Each resource has one 2:1 port. It's a
> wash. Now lets look at the standings again.... they're the same.
That's a strawman. No one is arguing about how many ports of each type are
available.
The point others are making is that roads and settlements have additional
value, because they give you access to resources beyond those you receive
from your initial placements. Ports are just a common example.
Your analysis ignores the difference in value between roads, settlements,
cities, and development cards. To you, they're all just things you buy with
resources. Others disagree.
If your analysis underestimates the value of roads/settlements, then it
will underestimate the value of the resources used to buy
roads/settlements.
So, why do you think roads/settlements are worth the same as cities/cards?
--
Darin McGrew, mcg...@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da...@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/
"It said 'Insert disk #3', but only two will fit..."
devil_in_the_p...@yahoo.com
> I like your approach, and I previously offered my view about
> converting it into an equation. In my pass at that equation, I
> basically went with your rankings, which don't seem to be out of whack
> to me. But I do think the harbors affect the valuation. Rather than
> valuing each resource alone, I want to value the resource along with
> the statistical frequency I could expect to receive that resource.
> Obviously an "8" Wool is better than a "12" Ore. So while I'm willing
> to believe your rankings, where Ore is better than Wool, I need to
> filter that by how often I can resonably expect to receive the
> resource. Likewise, I need to consider whether I will get 1, 2 or 3
> resources from my position. (Being between 3 resource-giving hexes,
> or fewer.) IMO, if I can get high frequency wool sites, and also get
> the wool port, this elevates the value of wool over wood (the next
> resource of your ranking caste).
I really like you idea, and I'm working on that formula.
devil_in_the_p...@yahoo.com
> available.
It's not a strawman.
> The point others are making is that roads and settlements have additional
> value, because they give you access to resources beyond those you receive
> from your initial placements. Ports are just a common example.
They have case by case additional value. Nothing that you can rank
devoid of game interaction. But when you start throwing game play and
strategies Ore can become way more valuable. Those arguements tend to
be the real strawmen.
> Your analysis ignores the difference in value between roads, settlements,
> cities, and development cards. To you, they're all just things you buy with
> resources. Others disagree.
That is incorrect. I've always said the value of a Road, Settlement,
City, and Development card is 0, 1, 2, and ? from the beginning. And
they are all just things you can buy with a resource. But when doing
an logical ranking you can't say, well in this one game I played this
road that i built that cut off 2 players make Brick and Wood way more
valuable than any other resource in the game.
>
> If your analysis underestimates the value of roads/settlements, then it
> will underestimate the value of the resources used to buy
> roads/settlements.
>
> So, why do you think roads/settlements are worth the same as cities/cards?
>
They aren't. A City is worth more than all of them individually.
When you start saying a Settlement on a 5,6, and 9 or a Settlement on
a 2:1 port is more valuable than a City then you're really saying that
corner with a Settlement is better than this corner with a City. In
those cases, it tends to not matter what resource they are on. But
let's make all situations equal (a control). Let's say you have that
power spot of a 5,6, and 9 and all three hexes are the same resource,
and that it has a port 2 segments away from a 2:1 of the matching
resouce. You'll see that if that resource was Ore it would be better
than any other resource you put into that same situation. If you
don't believe me then try it next time you play. You'll see that I'm
right. If you're still not convinced make that corner Brick or
whatever else.
I'm telling you guys that you're trying to change the analysis to
corners. Which outside of a mathmatical equation you can't say which
corner is better from the armchair.
Darin McGrew
>> Your analysis ignores the difference in value between roads, settlements,
>> cities, and development cards. To you, they're all just things you buy with
>> resources. Others disagree.
<devil_in_the_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That is incorrect. I've always said the value of a Road, Settlement,
> City, and Development card is 0, 1, 2, and ? from the beginning.
If you're going to consider a city to be worth twice a settlement, then you
must be counting both the initial settlement and the city upgrade. In that
case, the cost of a city is 1 brick, 1 wood, 1 wool, 3 wheat, and 3 ore,
and not 2 wheat and 3 ore.
And roads are not worth 0. Without roads, you can't build new settlements,
and you can't get access to new build locations. If you discount roads that
way, then you have to add the wood and brick for the necessary roads to the
effective cost of settlements (and cities).
Your analysis assumes certain relative values for roads, settlements,
cities, and cards. Is it any surprise that those who disagree with your
assumed values also disagree with the results of your analysis?
devil_in_the_p...@yahoo.com
> must be counting both the initial settlement and the city upgrade. In that
> case, the cost of a city is 1 brick, 1 wood, 1 wool, 3 wheat, and 3 ore,
> and not 2 wheat and 3 ore.
>
Incorrect. Upgrading to a City from an initial Settlement effectively
costs 2 Wheat and 3 Ore.
> And roads are not worth 0.
Actually they are. It's not until you have at least 5 consecutive
ones they are worth any VPs
> Without roads, you can't build new settlements,
> and you can't get access to new build locations. If you discount roads that
> way, then you have to add the wood and brick for the necessary roads to the
> effective cost of settlements (and cities).
I did add them in. Effective costs were in the initial break down.
Though, you're right, I didn't say the effective cost of a City is 3
Brick, 3 Wood, 3 Wheat, 3 Ore, and 1 Wool.
> Your analysis assumes certain relative values for roads, settlements,
> cities, and cards. Is it any surprise that those who disagree with your
> assumed values also disagree with the results of your analysis?
The values given to them were objective. What's the only way I can
objectively rate them? It has to be by their value in VPs. Sure, a
road that cuts someone off is more valuable strategically than a road
built in the middle of nowhere. How do you assign value to that
optimal road? How does that help you with your armchair, for lack of
a better word, analysis? I stated from the beginning that you have to
assume certain things. Without assuming identical conditions it would
be impossible to do any sort of ranking of the resources.
Just out of curiousty would this ranking be more agreeable:
1. Ore, Brick
2. Wheat, Wood, Wool
Darin McGrew
>> If you're going to consider a city to be worth twice a settlement, then you
>> must be counting both the initial settlement and the city upgrade. In that
>> case, the cost of a city is 1 brick, 1 wood, 1 wool, 3 wheat, and 3 ore,
>> and not 2 wheat and 3 ore.
<devil_in_the_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Incorrect. Upgrading to a City from an initial Settlement effectively
> costs 2 Wheat and 3 Ore.
It would be less confusing if you made up you're mind whether you're
talking about cities or city upgrades.
>> And roads are not worth 0.
> Actually they are. It's not until you have at least 5 consecutive
> ones they are worth any VPs
Roads have value beyond the Longest Road VPs. Unless you like trying to win
with 2 cities, Largest Army, and 4 VPs from cards.
>> Without roads, you can't build new settlements,
>> and you can't get access to new build locations. If you discount roads that
>> way, then you have to add the wood and brick for the necessary roads to the
>> effective cost of settlements (and cities).
> I did add them in. Effective costs were in the initial break down.
> Though, you're right, I didn't say the effective cost of a City is 3
> Brick, 3 Wood, 3 Wheat, 3 Ore, and 1 Wool.
Huh?
| Cities require 3 times as much Ore as a Settlement
| requires Brick. This is a huge demand.
It sounds like you were assuming that settlements require only 1 brick.
> Just out of curiousty would this ranking be more agreeable:
>
> 1. Ore, Brick
> 2. Wheat, Wood, Wool
Actually, I think your ranking (ore > wheat > brick > wood > wool) is
pretty close. I might rank wheat above ore just because it is necessary for
buying settlements as well as for buying city upgrades, but that's a minor
point.
But I don't think you are addressing the criticisms of your analysis very
well.
And in an actual game, I find that the actual board position is much more
important than any idealized ranking of the resources.
devil_in_the_p...@yahoo.com
> talking about cities or city upgrades.
>
What City upgrades? I'm only talking about the basic game not Cities
and Knights.
> >> And roads are not worth 0.
> > Actually they are. It's not until you have at least 5 consecutive
> > ones they are worth any VPs
>
> Roads have value beyond the Longest Road VPs. Unless you like trying to win
> with 2 cities, Largest Army, and 4 VPs from cards.
>
How do you measure that value?
> >> Without roads, you can't build new settlements,
> >> and you can't get access to new build locations. If you discount roads that
> >> way, then you have to add the wood and brick for the necessary roads to the
> >> effective cost of settlements (and cities).
> > I did add them in. Effective costs were in the initial break down.
> > Though, you're right, I didn't say the effective cost of a City is 3
> > Brick, 3 Wood, 3 Wheat, 3 Ore, and 1 Wool.
>
> Huh?
>
> | Cities require 3 times as much Ore as a Settlement
> | requires Brick. This is a huge demand.
In that statement I was talking about the regular cost and not the
effective cost. I'll admit that I should have added that in, but I
didn't think of it when I was writing it.
>
> It sounds like you were assuming that settlements require only 1 brick.
The cost 1 Brick. You effectly need 3 Brick. I don't know how you
measure effective costs, but they should be weighed into rankings.
Which is why I put Wood over Wool.
> > Just out of curiousty would this ranking be more agreeable:
>
> > 1. Ore, Brick
> > 2. Wheat, Wood, Wool
>
> Actually, I think your ranking (ore > wheat > brick > wood > wool) is
> pretty close. I might rank wheat above ore just because it is necessary for
> buying settlements as well as for buying city upgrades, but that's a minor
> point.
I did consider that a lot. The fact that there are only 3 hexes that
can produce Ore pushed it above Wheat.
>
> But I don't think you are addressing the criticisms of your analysis very
> well.
I don't know how much better they can be addressed. The critics are
screaming PORTS, PORTS, PORTS and I've addressed them the best I
could. What other objective way can a port play into rankings of
resources and not rankings of corners?
>
> And in an actual game, I find that the actual board position is much more
> important than any idealized ranking of the resources.
Absolutely. The ultimate goal of this was never to say, Ore is the be
all end all. I just want more players to eye the beginning setup a
little better. I felt a ranking of the resources would give players
an idea of what they need to focus on when they place their initial
set ups. There is a lot more to that than just a resource ranking
which is why I'm working on more strategy guides. It's also why the
equation that Whitmore porposed is such a great idea.
Nathan Sanders
<12bb192b-2fbf-4fcb...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
devil_in_the_p...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > It would be less confusing if you made up you're mind whether you're
> > talking about cities or city upgrades.
>
> What City upgrades? I'm only talking about the basic game not Cities
> and Knights.
The upgrade from a settlement to a city.
To build a brand new city, which increases your current production by
2 and your current score by 2, you must spend (at least) 1 brick, 1
wood, 1 sheep, 3 wheat, and 3 ore.
To upgrade a settlement to a city, which increases your current
production by 1 and your current score by 1, you must spend 2 wheat
and 3 ore.
As far as I can tell, you have been mixing these two up, citing the
benefits of building a brand new city (+2 production, +2 VP), but only
assigning it a cost equal to the settlement-city upgrade.
Nathan
--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/
devil_in_the_p...@yahoo.com
> 2 and your current score by 2, you must spend (at least) 1 brick, 1
> wood, 1 sheep, 3 wheat, and 3 ore.
> To upgrade a settlement to a city, which increases your current
> production by 1 and your current score by 1, you must spend 2 wheat
> and 3 ore.
A city only raises your point total by 1 (-1 + 2 = 1).
The effective cost of a City is tricky. But for a control I'll have
to conceede that a city effectively costs 3 Wood, 3 Brick, 3 Wheat, 3
Ore and 1 Wool (2 Roads + 1 Settlement + 1 City). Costs go down from
there depending on if you are upgrading your initial settlements.
Sorry, I should have cleared that up in the initial language.
Darin McGrew
>> Roads have value beyond the Longest Road VPs. Unless you like trying to win
>> with 2 cities, Largest Army, and 4 VPs from cards.
<devil_in_the_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> How do you measure that value?
The only thing that comes to mind is to focus on what someone needs to buy
to win. That is, what resources do you need to spend to reach 10 VPs? Since
there are multiple ways to reach 10 VPs, you need to use some sort of
weighted average. For example:
2 cities, 4 VP cards, Largest Army
- minimum: 11 wheat, 13 ore, 7 wool
3 cities, 4 VP cards
- minimum: 2 wood, 2 brick, 11 wheat, 13 ore, 5 wool
3 cities, 2 VP cards, Largest Army
- minimum: 2 wood, 2 brick, 12 wheat, 14 ore, 6 wool
and so on.
You could improve on this by figuring out how many soldiers you normally
need to hold onto the Largest Army VPs (rather than assuming the minimum of
three), how many dev cards you normally need to buy to get the necessary VP
cards and Armies (rather than assuming you buy only the dev cards you
need), how much the extra dev cards are worth (for example, Roadbuilding is
worth 2 wood and 2 brick, plus the intangible value of not needing to
protect 4 resources from the robber), and so on.
But rather than figure out all the winning permutations, the resources
typically needed to achive those winning permutations, the relative
frequency of those winning permutations (so you can compute a weighted
average), etc., it might be easier to just collect data on the winners of a
large number of games: How many of each resource did the winning player
spend during the game?
Not that I'm volunteering to do this. I'd rather play another game of
Settlers (or C&K, or something else).
>> And in an actual game, I find that the actual board position is much more
>> important than any idealized ranking of the resources.
> Absolutely. The ultimate goal of this was never to say, Ore is the be
> all end all. I just want more players to eye the beginning setup a
> little better. I felt a ranking of the resources would give players
> an idea of what they need to focus on when they place their initial
> set ups. There is a lot more to that than just a resource ranking
> which is why I'm working on more strategy guides. It's also why the
> equation that Whitmore porposed is such a great idea.
FWIW, we usually spend time analyzing the board as a group before the first
player places his first settlement. We look at the relative production of
each resource, which locations produce useful combinations of resources,
which ports are close to locations that produce their resource, etc. We got
into the habit because it helps my wife (who is blind) come up to speed on
the current board configuration more quickly, but in truth, it helps
everyone.
--
Darin McGrew, mcg...@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da...@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/
"Warning: Dates in the calendar are closer than they appear."
Rick Pikul
> But rather than figure out all the winning permutations, the resources
> typically needed to achive those winning permutations, the relative
> frequency of those winning permutations (so you can compute a weighted
> average), etc., it might be easier to just collect data on the winners of a
> large number of games: How many of each resource did the winning player
> spend during the game?
>
> Not that I'm volunteering to do this. I'd rather play another game of
> Settlers (or C&K, or something else).
Well, all it would take is for someone to be willing to collect the data
and it would be trivial for those that play to help.
No, I am not volunteering.
As for the general discussion, I think that the key problem might be the
attempt to come up with an absolute value theory in the first place. It
might be worth looking at things like the marginal theory of value for
inspiration.
--
Phoenix
David Damerell
>>of which resource you are considering is fair enough. But to disregard a
>>factor which is _not_ independent of which resource you are considering -
>>like port availability - gives you the wrong answer.
>wash.
Let me use short words to aid your understanding. Is it easier to _get_ to
a port with mud and wood, which let you build roads and settlements, or
with resources that let you build cities?
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is Oneiros, Presuary.
David Damerell
>>>Sure, but this requires game interaction. The ranking was done with
>>>zero game interaction.
>>How can you possibly rank the resources without considering what you can
>>do with them?
>I have considered what you can do with them. I went over what all you
>can and can't build with them.
No, you didn't; you completely failed to consider that building roads and
settlements offers easier access to ports and a mix of resources.
>Again, you're putting a particular strategy in the ranking.
Your ranking includes a particular strategy, the assumption that one will
use city resources to build cities and buy development cards. An obvious
strategy, but then "I will use mud and wood to build roads and settlements
to increase my mix of resources" is an obvious strategy too.
>>Something that neglects port availability in ranking resources when those
>>resources affect port availability is flawed..
>read my previous reply.
I have not only read it but explained your mistake.
>>An "objective" ranking that neglects real factors is pointless.
>What real factors have I neglected? The ports are a wash.
Not true.
The primary thing you have neglected is that road-building resources allow
greater access to ports and to a good mix of resources.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is Oneiros, Presuary.
David Damerell
>>Roads have value beyond the Longest Road VPs. Unless you like trying to win
>>with 2 cities, Largest Army, and 4 VPs from cards.
>How do you measure that value?
Not to repeat myself, but just because you can't quantify it doesn't mean
it doesn't exist. Its value is more situational than that of city-building
resources, but that's just too bad for this kind of analysis.
David Damerell
>>The point others are making is that roads and settlements have additional
>>value, because they give you access to resources beyond those you receive
>>from your initial placements. Ports are just a common example.
>They have case by case additional value. Nothing that you can rank
>devoid of game interaction.
Not to repeat myself, but merely because you can't quantify the value of
being able to reach ports does not mean you can ignore it. You know it
_has_ value.
>That is incorrect. I've always said the value of a Road, Settlement,
>City, and Development card is 0, 1, 2, and ? from the beginning.
Which is wrong, because they also have value inasmuch as they make it
easier to gather more resources.
>they are all just things you can buy with a resource. But when doing
>an logical ranking you can't say, well in this one game I played this
>road that i built that cut off 2 players make Brick and Wood way more
>valuable than any other resource in the game.
But you _can_ say that brick and wood have value because they can cut off
other players by road building. Merely because you can't quantify it
doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
>I'm telling you guys that you're trying to change the analysis to
>corners. Which outside of a mathmatical equation you can't say which
>corner is better from the armchair.
Part of what you're ignoring is that mud and wood offer you a greater
selection of corners.
devil_in_the_p...@yahoo.com
> selection of corners.
Part of what you're ignoring is: the point. I don't know how many
times I have to tell you that you're basing you arguement of "mud and
wood" on factors that can't be in an objective ranking. I never said
people should buy a certain resource over another (because that
implies a strategy). The factors have always be based on what you
COULD do with them not what you would or should do with them.
Yes, you can't quantify the value of the things you suggest and
because they can't be quantivied they were left out of the ranking.
When you can quantify their value I'll re-do my analysis.
Instead of criticizing my ranking why don't you come up with one that
you think is better?
Don Woods
> Part of what you're ignoring is: the point. I don't know how many
> times I have to tell you that you're basing you arguement of "mud and
> wood" on factors that can't be in an objective ranking. I never said
> people should buy a certain resource over another (because that
> implies a strategy). The factors have always be based on what you
> COULD do with them not what you would or should do with them.
>
> Yes, you can't quantify the value of the things you suggest and
> because they can't be quantivied they were left out of the ranking.
> When you can quantify their value I'll re-do my analysis.
>
> Instead of criticizing my ranking why don't you come up with one that
> you think is better?
And you continue to ignore the point that has been made many times,
including very clearly by the poster to whom you were directly
responding. To wit: Just because a value can't be quantified
doesn't mean that you can ignore it completely unless you're willing
to accept that doing so skews your result.
Suppose that the potential value of ALL the uses of wood and brick
depended on details of the board position? Does that mean you could
assume wood and brick are worthless because they have no value that
can be quantified? Well, sure, you could assume that, but it would
mean any conclusions are likely to be wrong.
I don't think any of us are actually saying that your rankings are
necessarily wrong, but I think many of us believe these unquantifiable
values are significant enough that your conclusions require scrutiny.
If you want a non-gaming example, I'll bet folks could save a lot of
money if they never ate at restaurants. I'm sure I could do some
studies to get a good idea of how much money they'd save on average.
What's that? There are reasons why people want to eat at restaurants?
Quality of life? Entertainment? Special events? Bah, those are
unquantifiable, so I'm leaving those out of my analysis. I therefore
conclude that everybody should avoid restaurants.
devil_in_the_p...@yahoo.com
you try to talk about particular resources. So I took whitmore's
suggestion and came up with a formula for determining the value of a
corner. Keep in mind I'm not a mathematician, and I tried keeping
this as simple as possible.
Point Values for resources (X) and numbers (Y):
Ore = 5 6, 8 = 5
Wheat = 4 5, 9 = 4
Brick = 3 4, 10 = 3
Wood = 2 3, 11 = 2
Wool = 1 2, 12 = 1
Water = 0
Desert = 0
Port Bonus (can only be factored in for a corner on the port or only 2
segments away)
2:1 for a resource you can produce = double value of resource hex
3:1 = 10
2:1 for a resource you can't produce = 5
So to find out the value of a corner add the value of all three
resources (X1 + X2 + X3) and add the values of the numbers around it
(Y1 + Y2 + Y3) and then add them together (X + Y). If there is a port
bonus add it to the final total. Let's do an example. You're eyeing
two different spots. Here is what the corners look like (number in
parentheses denotes the number on the tile):
Corner A: Wood (10), Sheep (5), and Ore (3) with no port
(2 + 1 + 5) + (3 + 4 + 2) = 17
Corner B: Clay (9), Wheat (6), and Water (N/A) with a 2:1 Wheat
(3 + (4 * 2) + 0) + (4 + 5) = 20
Thus corner B is likely to be the better corner.
Darin McGrew
> Point Values for resources (X) and numbers (Y):
>
> Ore = 5 6, 8 = 5
> Wheat = 4 5, 9 = 4
> Brick = 3 4, 10 = 3
> Wood = 2 3, 11 = 2
> Wool = 1 2, 12 = 1
> So to find out the value of a corner add the value of all three
> resources (X1 + X2 + X3) and add the values of the numbers around it
> (Y1 + Y2 + Y3) and then add them together (X + Y).
So are you claiming that 2/12 ore is worth the same as 6/8 wool? Or that
6/8 ore is worth only twice what 2/12 wheat is worth?
I think it makes more sense to multiply the point value of the number by
some kind of fudge factor based on the supposed value of the resource. For
example (using your rankings of the resources, but making wild guesses at
the fudge factors for each resource):
Ore = 1.2
Wheat = 1.1
Brick = 1.0
Wood = 0.9
Wool = 0.8
Using the above (inaccurate) factors, your first example becomes:
> Corner A: Wood (10), Sheep (5), and Ore (3) with no port
(3 * 0.9) + (4 * 0.8) + (2 * 1.2) = 8.3
Ignoring the value of the port, your second example becomes:
> Corner B: Clay (9), Wheat (6), and Water (N/A) with a 2:1 Wheat
(4 * 1.0) + (5 * 1.1) + 0 = 9.5
Anyway, when we evaluate the production of corners before (and during) our
games, we first look at how many "dots" of production the corner has (which
matches the point you've assigned for the numbers, which matches the number
of spots on the number disks in our copy). What it produces is secondary to
whether it produces frequently.
--
Darin McGrew, mcg...@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
"There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently
that which should not be done at all." - Peter F. Drucker
devil_in_the_p...@yahoo.com
and like I said I'm not a mathematician. Originally, I was thinking
of a sliding scale were Brick was the base. I'll re work it based on
your suggestions.
I agree that a 2/12 Rock is not equal to a 6/6 Wool.
kevin_whitmore
> I think it makes more sense to multiply the point value of the number by
> some kind of fudge factor based on the supposed value of the resource. For
> example (using your rankings of the resources, but making wild guesses at
> the fudge factors for each resource):
>
> Ore = 1.2
> Wheat = 1.1
> Brick = 1.0
> Wood = 0.9
> Wool = 0.8
>
> Using the above (inaccurate) factors, your first example becomes:
>
> > Corner A: Wood (10), Sheep (5), and Ore (3) with no port
>
> (3 * 0.9) + (4 * 0.8) + (2 * 1.2) = 8.3
>
Darin - very interesting. I like your approach quite a lot.
Rick Pikul
> Ore = 5
> Wool = 1
Something is wrong with your analysis if you're getting this ratio, the
Maritime Trade rule limits you to a 4:1 ratio between any pair of
resources.
--
Phoenix
devil_in_the_p...@yahoo.com
You may have misunderstood. I just assigned them a point value. It
doesn't have anything to do with trading ratios. In order to keep
this as simple as possible I just assigned it points based on my
initials rankings which were:
1. Ore
2. Wheat
3. Brick
4. Wood
5. Wool
They were assigned points based on their inverse rankings.
Ore = 5 points
Wheat = 4 points
Brick = 3 points
Wood = 2 points
Wool = 1 point
David Damerell
>>Part of what you're ignoring is that mud and wood offer you a greater
>>selection of corners.
>because they can't be quantivied they were left out of the ranking.
Which is why the ranking is wrong. We don't know _by how much_ the
unquantifiable factors make it wrong, but we _do_ know that they make it
wrong.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Epithumia, Presuary - a weekend.
devil_in_the_p...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> Which is why the ranking is wrong. We don't know _by how much_ the
> unquantifiable factors make it wrong, but we _do_ know that they make it
> wrong.
> --
> Today is Epithumia, Presuary - a weekend.
How come you can't deal with the fact that "Mud" and Wood aren't as
important as Ore? I played a game yesterday where I had no production
of "Mud" and still won the game. Granted individual games don't prove
points, but more often than not you can win more games with not
producing "Mud" or Wood than you could not producing Ore.
For the last time you can't objectively quantify how valuable a Road
is outside of it's VP. Of course you'll counter with "Then it's
_wrong_" but in fact it's not. Because I can come up with an equally
ridiculous strawman of "How do you quantify that Monopoly that stole
10 resources giving you the game win?".
The VP values speak enough for themselves. "Mud" and Wood can't win
you the game but Ore can (assuming you have all the Wheat and Wool you
need for both). Thus Ore > "Mud" or Wood. The only leg your "Mud"/
Wood arguement has left to stand on is the degree to which they take a
back seat to Ore by.
Darin McGrew
> > Which is why the ranking is wrong. We don't know _by how much_ the
> > unquantifiable factors make it wrong, but we _do_ know that they make it
> > wrong.
<devil_in_the_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> How come you can't deal with the fact that "Mud" and Wood aren't as
> important as Ore?
Why can't you deal with the argument that your analysis is flawed?
> For the last time you can't objectively quantify how valuable a Road
> is outside of it's VP.
One way is to count the cost of the necessary roads towards the cost of the
settlements and cities that do give you VPs. Another is to collect stats on
the winning players for a number of games, and count the cost of the things
those players bought to win their games. There are probably other ways too.
> Of course you'll counter with "Then it's _wrong_" but in fact it's not.
Do you think your analysis can accurately reflect the value of wood and
brick when you ignore (at least part of) the value of roads?
> Because I can come up with an equally ridiculous strawman of "How do you
> quantify that Monopoly that stole 10 resources giving you the game win?".
Sounds like your investment (1 wool, 1 wheat, 1 ore) yielded more than a 3x
return (10 of whatever you monopolized). But to accurately assess the value
of a Monopoly, you'd need statistics on how many resources players usually
get, and possibly how long they have to wait before they can use the
Monopoly effectively.
--
Darin McGrew, mcg...@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da...@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/
"If you aren't part of the solution, then you are part of the precipitate."
devil_in_the_p...@yahoo.com
Maybe when you guys show me how it's flawed, I could do that.
> One way is to count the cost of the necessary roads towards the cost of the
> settlements and cities that do give you VPs. Another is to collect stats on
> the winning players for a number of games, and count the cost of the things
> those players bought to win their games. There are probably other ways too.
>
I did do the former, and would be willing to do the latter if we could
come up with some sort of criteria for getting all of the necessary
data.
> Do you think your analysis can accurately reflect the value of wood and
> brick when you ignore (at least part of) the value of roads?
It was not ignored. A road is worth 0 VPs until you get 5 in a row.
Then it's worth a conditional 2 VPs. The only other thing it offers
is to build something else onto it, which is one of two things:
another Road or a Settler. Only one of which is worth an
unconditional VP and brings in more production.
David Damerell
>>Why can't you deal with the argument that your analysis is flawed?
>Maybe when you guys show me how it's flawed, I could do that.
It hangs on the assumption that if a value is unquantifiable it doesn't
exist. This is drivel.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Olethros, Presuary - a weekend.
David Damerell
>On Jun 23, 10:40=A0am, David Damerell <damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>>Which is why the ranking is wrong. We don't know _by how much_ the
>>unquantifiable factors make it wrong, but we _do_ know that they make it
>>wrong.
>important as Ore?
What I am unwilling to deal with is the unproved assertion that that is
the case.
>I played a game yesterday where I had no production
>of "Mud" and still won the game. Granted individual games don't prove
>points,
Quite. So why bring it up? Doubtless games of Settlers have been won with
no production of any one of the five resources.
>but more often than not you can win more games with not
>producing "Mud" or Wood than you could not producing Ore.
I eagerly await your records of many games played by different games that
prove that.
>For the last time you can't objectively quantify how valuable a Road
>is outside of it's VP.
Which is too bad for an attempt to put a flat numerical value on all the
resources, but doesn't mean that the road does not have value.
>_wrong_" but in fact it's not. Because I can come up with an equally
>ridiculous strawman of "How do you quantify that Monopoly that stole
>10 resources giving you the game win?".
That's a perfect example of why your argument is wrong! You can't place a
value on the Monopoly card - it's highly situational - but it still has
value. You can't quantify how much the Monopoly card damages strategies
that build up a large quantity of one resource, but it still damages them.
>The VP values speak enough for themselves. "Mud" and Wood can't win
>you the game but Ore can (assuming you have all the Wheat and Wool you
>need for both).
That would certainly be true if it was impossible to trade.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?