-
Quick Poll, based on a thread in the variant section (brothels or some other nonsense).
To avoid a bias, I will not discuss the situation further at this point 
-
Ben Bateson
United Kingdom
Ross-on-Wye
Owner of original 'crappy art' GtR and pleased about it.
-
Obviously, the later in the game, the less likely this is to be a good trade. I think it's also important to take into account what my opponent is going to do with the wood.
-
-
ousgg wrote: I think it's also important to take into account what my opponent is going to do with the wood. Agree. I'd probably do the trade if it means I can build a city and my opponent won't win.
-
Derry Salewski
United States
Augusta
Maine
. . . give a ship.
-
Not really possible to answer without information.
Not sure what you mean by a 'bias.'
Without context, the only thing you'll get IS bias based on people prefering the art on the wood or stone cards or something.
-
Andy Leber
Canada
Orillia
ON
-
scifiantihero wrote:
Without context, the only thing you'll get IS bias based on people prefering the art on the wood or stone cards or something.
Yep. Or like me, just say "usually not" because if all other things are equal, why would I want 4 wood and no ore?
-
-
Holmes108 wrote: scifiantihero wrote:
Without context, the only thing you'll get IS bias based on people prefering the art on the wood or stone cards or something.
Yep. Or like me, just say "usually not" because if all other things are equal, why would I want 4 wood and no ore?
Other way around, you would have 3 ore, 2 wheat, and no wood, just enough for a city .
The context was a claim by another poster that he would never trade 2 wood for one ore, no matter what (with some extremely minor exceptions) and that he had never done so in 12 years of play.
-
Andy Leber
Canada
Orillia
ON
-
Knave wrote: Holmes108 wrote: scifiantihero wrote:
Without context, the only thing you'll get IS bias based on people prefering the art on the wood or stone cards or something.
Yep. Or like me, just say "usually not" because if all other things are equal, why would I want 4 wood and no ore? Other way around, you would have 3 ore, 2 wheat, and no wood, just enough for a city . The context was a claim by another poster that he would never trade 2 wood for one ore, no matter what (with some extremely minor exceptions) and that he had never done so in 12 years of play.
Yeah, you're right, I screwed that up. Still, if resources are "even", and I have a good spread in my hand, I see no reason to trade with no other info.
Regarding the claim though, if I'm short on ore, and need cities, I wouldn't think twice about trading 2 of anything that I had. It does seem like a weird statement to make.
-
Jörg Baumgartner
Germany
Kiel
-
It depends...
Depends on my income situation. The easier I can get ore, the less likely I'm going to trade for it. The harder it becomes for me to get ore, the more likely I am going to take disadvantageous offers from fellow players.
Does the person I trade with have victory points that may threaten my position in the game? If yes, probably no trade, unless I suspect that person will finish the game on their turn and I get to place an extra VP to improve my ranking while not having a chance to surpass that person.
If the city I would build was on a wood hex with a decent number chip, I would likely go for the trade. In a cities and knights game with little or no paper income, I certainly wood. Err, would.
-
Matthew Cordeiro
United States
Cumberland
Rhode Island
-
I would make that trade almost every time. Having the guaranteed point from a city, plus its production, is better than having the cards sitting in my hand. Without doing the trade, I'll have to wait at least another turn, maybe more. At that point, I'd have 6 cards in hand. That means I'm likely to lose the cards I need due to robber attacks. Plus, that spot would continue to produce as a settlemnt instead of a city. Giving up 2 cards for one in this situation is not a big deal. If you were on a 3:1 or 2:1 harbor and had the necessary cards to make it happen, you'd do it.
The only exception would be if the 2 wood would give my opponent the point or points they needed to win the game, like if the woods gave him what he needed for a settlement or two or even the longest road. If I saw that happeneing, I wouldn't make the trade to give away the game.
-
-
cordeiro wrote: I would make that trade almost every time. Having the guaranteed point from a city, plus its production, is better than having the cards sitting in my hand. Without doing the trade, I'll have to wait at least another turn, maybe more. At that point, I'd have 6 cards in hand. That means I'm likely to lose the cards I need due to robber attacks. Plus, that spot would continue to produce as a settlemnt instead of a city. Giving up 2 cards for one in this situation is not a big deal. If you were on a 3:1 or 2:1 harbor and had the necessary cards to make it happen, you'd do it.
The only exception would be if the 2 wood would give my opponent the point or points they needed to win the game, like if the woods gave him what he needed for a settlement or two or even the longest road. If I saw that happeneing, I wouldn't make the trade to give away the game.
Exactly this. If my opponent is sitting on 8 or 9 points, I wouldn't ever trade with them, regardless of the offer. But if we're both at say 6-7 points, for me it's automatic.
-
vanatteveldt vanatteveldt
-
I think an important question is whose turn it is.
On my own turn I wouldn't have to think about it, barring some situations where I could so something else that is also useful, eg trade the ore for brick and buy two vital roads (to get the longest trade route or to secure access to a location / cut off a rival); or trade the 2 wood for 2 sheep and buy two chance cards that I think I might need. But in 99% of cases, a city on the board is better than lots of cards in the hand.
If the trade is offered in my opponents turn, I could decide to gamble and wait for getting the ore (or a better trade) before my next turn; or I could play safe and reduce cards in hand by one and have a 'certain point' (barring robbers and ore monopolies - it would be nice if people did not notice the ore build up because 3 ore and 2 grain can be a very juicy target in some circumstances).
-
|
|
