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.

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.

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.

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).

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

Just out of curiousty would this ranking be more agreeable:

1. Ore, Brick
2. Wheat, Wood, Wool

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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).

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.
Ok. Let's factor in ports. Each resource has one 2:1 port. It's a
wash.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?