"Everyone else thinks I'm an idiot! What can be wrong with them?"

I think you should consider a simpler hypothesis here.

The value of the resources is such: Ore > Wheat > Brick > Wood
Wool.  If you guys can't accept it then you are short changing
yourselves as players.  You could easily increase your winning ration
twofold by accepting this and keeping it in mind during setups.

Proof by blatant assertion detected.

Nope, the girders gain value because they are used to build the bridge
which gives you other advantages, just like the materials needed to build
to and access a port gain value because of the value of a port.

If you understood, you would get why the resources NEEDED TO GAIN AN
ADVANTAGE gain value independent from any value imparted BY THAT ADVANTAGE.

The issue you keep neglecting is that there is value beyond the possible 2
VPs, and that that value is known to be positive.

 Yes, a strategy based getting 4 of 5 VPs in the development card deck is
 stupid.

Not 4/5, it's 6/7:  Remember that the deck also contains the Largest Army
points.

While a port you do not produce for has _LESS_ value than one for which
you do produce for, that value is still positive.

Ah, the classic Galileo gambit:

Now, to attack your comparison to Copernicus as a defense:  Like you, he
too made a critical error based on a false assumption.

On Jun 28, 3:28 am, "Rick Pikul" <rwpi... at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:23:10 -0700, devil_in_the_pale_moon_light wrote:
But that's not what everybody else is talking about, and it's really
To give a real world example:  Being able to cross rivers without having
to wait for a ferry helps trade pretty much across the board, this
improvement in trade is what gives bridges, (and thus what you need to
build bridges), value, not that a bridge can specifically help you ship
steel girders.

Apples and Oranges.

You claim that, yet you keep making arguments that show that you do not
understand.

False.

In which case you need to work based on an average value for things
who's value varies, not an extreme value that they never have.  We know
that Roads and Ports both have positive values:  The former due
primarily to their being needed to build new settlements, (and to be
frank, you are going to need to build at least one, assuming that you
are going to get all but one of the points in the development deck is
downright stupid, and if you're roadbuilding you may as well boost your
resources along the way), but also due to the VPs that can be directly
accrued by roadbuilding.  The latter because being able to trade 2:1 is
an advantage _even if you do not produce that resource at all_.

Roads are a means to an end. Yes, you will have to build at least 4 to
even have a shot at winning. Klaus was kind enough to assign them a
value, and I will continue to stick with his reckoning.

Yes, a strategy based getting 4 of 5 VPs in the development card deck is
stupid.

But it's something that you CAN do that will for sure win you the game.
You can trade without a port. If a port was the only place you could
trade it would have a lot more weight. And a 2:1 port where you don't
produce the resources is worthless until you can produce that resource.
I wouldn't say that's very much of an advantage.

When everyone else tells you that you have made a particular error, it
is far more likely that you have erred then that you are the lone
visionary.

Well people thought the same thing of Copernicus, but who was eventually
proved correct?

You are confusing price with utility.  Increasing utility increases value.

*EVERY PORT* regardless of type is valuable.  It doesn't matter which
kind of port you have, you're better off with *ANY* port than without
it.

Whatever this value is, every resource in the game *except* ore
directly helps you get that value (since you need roads and
settlements to build to a port),

thus, if you *COMPLETELY* ignore the
value of ports, you have over-estimated the value of ore by some
amount, however small it may be.

That over-estimation may or may not change your rankings, but until
you at least attempt to quantify it, you'll never know.

Quantifying it as zero is just lazy.

Girders are worth more than the steel that makes them up.
Manufactured goods are worth more than their components, otherwise
there wouldn't be any profit in manufacturing them. And girders are
manufactured goods.

And that pretty much summarises this thread.

Nope, the girders gain value because they are used to build the bridge
which gives you other advantages, just like the materials needed to build
to and access a port gain value because of the value of a port.

Yeah, it is apples and oranges my friend because what increases the
value of the steel used to make the girder? That's right supply and
demand. Way to prove me right again. The fact that the steal is
going to be used to make a girder gives it no additional value.
However, a strike a the steel mill does.

If you understood, you would get why the resources NEEDED TO GAIN AN
ADVANTAGE gain value independent from any value imparted BY THAT ADVANTAGE.


Noticed how you said GAIN. It means that it's variable and thus
wasn't used. Once again proving me right.

The issue you keep neglecting is that there is value beyond the
possible 2 VPs, and that that value is known to be positive.

I've acknowledge it. I've even said it's not enough to change anything.

 Yes, a strategy based getting 4 of 5 VPs in the development card
 deck is stupid.

Not 4/5, it's 6/7:  Remember that the deck also contains the Largest
Army points.

I've already pointed that out a long time ago. Try to keep up, chief.

While a port you do not produce for has _LESS_ value than one for which
you do produce for, that value is still positive.

The value is neither positive or negative. It's simply 0.

Ah, the classic Galileo gambit:

If the shoe fits.

Now, to attack your comparison to Copernicus as a defense:  Like you,
he too made a critical error based on a false assumption.

It's more like I'm right like he was, and I'm unlike him in that i've
made no critical errors.

You are still better off with the port than without it.  Even if you
don't produce the good yourself, you could end up with it (through
trade, robber theft, Year of Plenty, whatever).

Besides, whether you produce it or not should not be taken into
consideration.  That's a "variable".  On average, across all possible
game set-ups, it is better for the spot you build on to be a port than
not be a port.

Are you saying that, given the option, you would *turn down* an offer
to freely convert a spot into a port?  Really?

You don't have access to a port until you build a settlement there.

Initial placement is not at issue.  The issue is what you can buy with
resources.  You can buy a port with resources.  Ports have values,
therefore the resources needed to buy a port have value.

The average value of a port is not a variable.

It is also not zero.

And it certainly isn't negative!

No one is claiming the order is different, just that your analysis is flawed
and you can't use it to conclude that on average the value of resources
is what you have claimed.

Do you need to spend resources in order to buy the 4:1 trade ability?

If not, then it is irrelevant to a discussion about the value of
resources (since the value of a resource is based on what you can buy
with it).

No, I'm talking about the value of a *PORT*.  Sure, a port is
necessarily located at some corner, but so is a settlement.  But a
settlement has inherent value regardless of which corner it is on, and
so does a port.

Then, since you would *NEVER* turn it down, it must have some positive
value to you.  Otherwise, you would either always turn it down
(because it has a negative value) or randomly turn it down (because it
has a zero value).

Assigning it a value of zero is therefore wrong.

Initial placement is not at issue.  The issue is what you can buy with
resources.  You can buy a port with resources.  Ports have values,
therefore the resources needed to buy a port have value.

How do you know if you don't assign ports an actual, reasonable value
and work out the effect on the value of the resources?  You just gave
ports a zero value (which is obviously wrong) and left it at that.  
This will artificially inflate the value of ore.

As people have repeatedly said, it's very likely that your ranking is
mostly correct,

Saying you know for sure without doing the work is either dishonest or
lazy (or both).

Nonsense.  As has been pointed out, it is trivial to come up scenarios
in which a 2:1 port would be useful even if you yourself don't produce
the resource.  For example, suppose you have a 2:1 ore port, but do
not produce ore.  You're desperately trying to build a road and
settlement (because you know you'll get beaten to the spot if you
don't build now), but you are missing two bricks.  Joe has two bricks
that he'll give you for a sheep, but you only have one, and you need
it for your settlement.  Kim has two ore, and she really really wants
your extra wheat (you have two).  You trade your extra wheat for her
two ore, use your port to turn the two ore into a sheep, and then
trade that sheep to Joe for his two bricks.  (Meanwhile, pissing off
Lou, who was planning on building to the same spot!)

It's not a very likely scenario, but the probability of it occurring
is *NOT* zero, as much as you seem to want it to be.

Regardless, even if the value of some ports in some situations were in
fact truly provably zero without doubt, it is not true that *ALL*
ports must therefore have zero value.

You are confusing price with utility.  Increasing utility increases value.


When girders are worth more than the steel that makes them up maybe
you'll be right.

Ports have nothing to do with the value of an individual resource.
Unless, you have a 2:1 on resource that you are cranking out they
don't mean a damn thing. This is utilization of strategy. It doesn't
not prove one resource is better than another.

When girders are worth more than the steel that makes them up maybe
you'll be right.

Girders are worth more than the steel that makes them up.
Manufactured goods are worth more than their components, otherwise
there wouldn't be any profit in manufacturing them. And girders are
manufactured goods.

That's true. Manufactured goods are worth more than the sum of their
parts. But a girder used to make a Golden Gate has no more value than
a girder used to make an equally sized bridge anyone where else
excluding the "numismatic" value of course.

When girders are worth more than the steel that makes them up maybe
you'll be right.

*EVERY PORT* regardless of type is valuable.  It doesn't matter which
kind of port you have, you're better off with *ANY* port than without
it.


I agree except for a 2:1 where you currently don't produce the
resource that grants you the better exchange rate.

Whatever this value is, every resource in the game *except* ore
directly helps you get that value (since you need roads and
settlements to build to a port),

False. Ore can help you get to a port via Road Building Development
Card.

thus, if you *COMPLETELY* ignore the
value of ports, you have over-estimated the value of ore by some
amount, however small it may be.

Completely ignoring them was the right thing to do. You can place on
a port.

More over you could never get to one in a game. Too many
variables to put them in the ranking.