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.

Quoting <davidnich at (no spam) 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.

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.

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.

I have had success with two cities and development cards; but it's a
marginal strategy.

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.

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!),

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.

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.

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.

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

This was more or less an attempt to make a bench mark.

Yes. Unfortunately, it's flawed.

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.

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.

But unfortunately that makes the analysis wrong, because the availability
of road-building material affects access to ports.
It does not.

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.

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*.

Yes. Unfortunately, it's flawed.
I do not believe it to be 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.

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.

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.