The Hotness
Games|People|Company
Dominion: Dark Ages
Fantastiqa
Mage Knight: Board Game
Total War
Descent: Journeys in the Dark (Second Edition)
Eclipse
Mice and Mystics
Dungeon Fighter
Collapsible D: The Final Minutes of the Titanic
Lords of Waterdeep
Agricola: All Creatures Big and Small
Libertalia
Android: Netrunner
Virgin Queen
The Lord of the Rings: Nazgul
A Game of Thrones: The Board Game (Second Edition)
Dominion
Star Wars: X-Wing Miniatures Game
Infiltration
The Lord of the Rings: The Card Game
Among the Stars
Twilight Struggle
The Swarm
Agricola
1989: Dawn of Freedom
Goa
7 Wonders
Glory to Rome
Arkham Horror
Village
Ora et Labora
Battles of Westeros: House Baratheon Army Expansion
Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization
Thunder Road
Trajan
Zombicide
The Castles of Burgundy
7 Wonders: Cities
Ace of Spies
War of the Ring
Skyline
Space Alert
Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective
City of Horror
Race for the Galaxy
Dungeon Command: Sting of Lolth
Twilight Imperium (third edition)
Kingdom Builder
Le Havre
Battlestar Galactica
Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Thumb up
6 Posts

Advanced Civilization» Forums » Variants

Subject: Commodity Trade Variant rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Jim Scheiderich
United States
Liverpool
New York
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We have a game of Adv Civ coming up and I am sore tempted to give the Commodity Trade variant a go. This is where a City, in specific locations on the map, provides a virtual card on one specific commodity per turn.

There is a cluster of these locations in the Eastern Med - and from what I read it will likely engender more combat and targeting during Civil Wars. Since there will be new players, I don't want to unhinge the game but I simply have never played with more than 6 players before an the entire map. This has some appeal. The only two faults I can see is that players may ignore Iberia overly much and that Illyria does not have a good "captive" commodity location (at least not without a fight).

Has anyone tried this? If so, can you comment on whether it improved the game (or made it worse)?

Thanks
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
Kevin Youells
United States
Camp Hill
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
I paid 100 geek gold, and all I got was this lousy overtext
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have played it, and hate it. It does unbalance the game in my opinion. The player owning the Bronze city will have a drastic advantage over the player with the Ochre city for example. I'd vote to stick with the game as designed.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
Brent Pollock
Canada
Saskatoon
Saskatchewan
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have played, and enjoy it. But I'm the weirdo who proposed the cashable Calamities variant http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/509157/calamity-as-purch....
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
Charles Hildebrandt
United States
Fort Washington
Maryland
mbmbmbmbmb
We always play with it. I think it improves the game -- it, effectively, adds more money in to the trade system, and gives more incentives to trade, especially early in the game. It also gives another focus for conflict.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
Jim Scheiderich
United States
Liverpool
New York
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the input.

I have a follow on question: Does this variant work like Mining in that it cannot extend the total value of any Commodity beyond that as printed on its card OR do you get a "virtual" additional card e.g there are 5 Silver cards and assuming you hold the 5 AND New Carthage, would you be able to trade for 6 (value=216) or are you limited to a trade of 5 (value=150)?

This was not clear in rules - it gave an example whereby Salt was increased from 3 to 4 cards but since there are 9 in the deck it doesn't address "going over the limit".

I'm guessing that the same limit applies as in Mining but wanted to ask.

Thanks
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
Corbon Loughnan
Singapore

mbmbmb
LucasTrask wrote:
We always play with it. I think it improves the game -- it, effectively, adds more money in to the trade system, and gives more incentives to trade, especially early in the game. It also gives another focus for conflict.



I agree with Charles, though we usually do not play with it. I liked it when I did.

But I'm not confident about balance changes it makes. I agree the bronze city would be especially powerful if not in a contested area.


LHIM wrote:
Thanks for the input.

I have a follow on question: Does this variant work like Mining in that it cannot extend the total value of any Commodity beyond that as printed on its card OR do you get a "virtual" additional card e.g there are 5 Silver cards and assuming you hold the 5 AND New Carthage, would you be able to trade for 6 (value=216) or are you limited to a trade of 5 (value=150)?

This was not clear in rules - it gave an example whereby Salt was increased from 3 to 4 cards but since there are 9 in the deck it doesn't address "going over the limit".

I'm guessing that the same limit applies as in Mining but wanted to ask.

Thanks


That is how I believe we used it (like mining, not exceeding the normal max), but I'm not 100% certain.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.