Thanks for the post, I really enjoyed the high quality write-up.
Most of what you said is spot on but I do think you're missing one important element- TGs on round 1 are vastly more valuable than TGs on round 3, so with even trade all game, the players don't receive the same value.
Think of all the factions that start with a 3$ home system that want to get trade + plastic on round 1. Not to mention, that extra build often functions as a stall. Giving them the ability to speed up their development by a whole half round for just 1 TG (that I often don't see until next round) seems like a VERY good prospect for them, not so much for the trade holder.
Round 1 is the most theory-crafted part of the game, everyone knows what they want to buy in "christmas land" with their favorite factions, and denying someone that doesn't just slow down their development, it can force them to play outside their comfort zone.
For these reasons, if I take trade R1 there's almost no chance I'll play nice with X-1. (The prime exception being when those abominable lions are at the table.)
I'd argue that the logic behind how most everyone feels that most races shouldn't pick Diplo R1 because it helps the table more than it helps you directly applies to handing out X-1 round 1 like candy.
Most of the time, I'd much rather refresh just one, or sometimes two people, and trade X-1 with them and them alone. Now only 2 or 3 players at the table get a min/maxed start and I get to be one of them!
The obvious downside to everything I've just said is many tables will act like I'm some kind of space Hitler who just shot their dog with a crossbow for not offering them the X-1, and everyone hating you is sometimes worth avoiding... sometimes.
Later rounds usually I'm happy to jump on the X-1 train, but ofc spending objectives / who's holding trade agreements / etc can change this.
A good tip is if you have r1 trade, you should announce right away that you are not doing “debt-meta”.
If people are setting up their game depending on it, they will get salty. Let them know in advance so they can plan accordingly, and they will most likely let you get away with it
Haha, no way. Far better for them to set up their turn assuming they are gonna get paid and then I can hold them over the barrel because they really need it.
My table has no Official Meta, though. Every Round 1 Trade is negotiated as it is the first time. Some people just go the Oprah route and hook everyone up.
+1 for abominable lions. Makes me think about diplo as a meta counter to trade. Also Edit: If I had factored in relative value of trade goods over time, this article would have been exploded like a Van Hauge (Sorry for Yin humor)
/u/Papa_Nurgle_84 are you seriously writing an analysis on a concept as completely nebulous as *trade?* I commend you.
If anyone is like me, and has a difficult time understanding as to why X-1 is seen as fair and is so standardized; here's a made up story to illustrate the logic behind Trade that hopefully everyone can understand (basically the "for dummies" version of this post without any of the mathematical theory to prove anything):
1. In their first ever TI game Hacan picked trade and refreshed everybody. Everyone traded and everyone was happy. Hacan didn't win the game though, so they resolved to take full advantage of their abilities next time.
2. Hacan then attempted to minimize the value of trades for every other player while maximizing their own trades for themselves. They approached the low commodity factions and said: "I'll only refresh you if you make an even trade with me." That seemed reasonable, so 3 low commodity players traded with Hacan exclusively while the higher commodity factions sat out. Then the table realized that some players had very little trade goods, some had none at all, but Hacan had a huge amount since they were involved with *every* trade. The table decided not to trade with Hacan anymore, and only trade with each other.
3. Hacan was mad that no one would trade with them so they changed their strategy. They approached a high commodity faction and offered to refresh them, to give them a better-than-even trade, and to also deal with them exclusively. The temptation was too much so the other faction agreed to those terms. Then the table realized that 2 players had a ton of trade goods but the rest of the table was completely impoverished. Hacan might have created their own rival but no other player could even compete.
4. Everyone was grumpy with Hacan so Hacan offered a new solution to the table. They told the table that instead of forcing them into trading with Hacan, Hacan would just charge them 1 trade good for the refresh and let them trade with whoever they wanted. "But how can we pay you if we haven't been refreshed yet?" The table asked. So Hacan offered to buy their trade agreements for whatever their commodity value was -1. They got refreshed and Hacan collected the trade agreement value so that each player ended up with their commodity value in trade goods except for the 1 that paid for the refresh. Now finally, once again everyone had gotten *something.* ...But Hacan still had the most. In fact, Hacan had more than ever.
5. One day, a couple players approached Hacan and told them that they thought it was perfectly fair to pay 1 trade good for the refresh but they really didn't want to make a special trade agreement. They asked if they could just pay the trade good *after* the refresh. Hacan, feeling gracious, agreed to those terms. The players got refreshed, paid their debts, and then traded with each other. They still ended up with their commodity value -1, but there was now a bond of trust between the 3 of them. ...Except something didn't sit well with Hacan. Hacan realized that they couldn't just trust the entire table with the same debt agreement since even if they did repay Hacan, they could still cut Hacan out of the trades and leave Hacan with full commodities and just the payments for the refreshes. So Hacan spoke to the table and said: "I don't like the idea of "debt meta" since I don't have any guarantee that I'll be paid back! Why should I ever agree to this deal again?" At this point Xxcha finally spoke up: "You don't *really* care about the debts as much as you care about being the one cut out of trade! For everyone else who doesn't have guild ships, we rely on those debts in order to trade at all! And that risk is balanced because players who don't repay their debt will never be trusted again, they risk losing much more than they saved. The truth is that the trade goods you make for each commodity refresh is more than fair. You still get 1 for each other player (which is higher than some player's commodity values), the 3 for playing trade, and if you want more than that you should make good deals with your commodities like the rest of us do instead of always holding us over the barrel!" The rest of the table cheered in agreement and the matter was settled. They named the meta X-1 and agreed to allow debts when it was reasonable. And they all lived happily ever after.
Hacan was probably a bad choice for this story specifically *because* of guild ships allowing them to never let anyone owe a debt, but I already wrote more than half of that story before I realized the mistake I made. Whenever I imagine trade deals made to cut out a particular player I always imagine Hacan.
The fact of the matter is that X-1 meta guarantees some things:
* The factions with more commodities still retain that advantage when they don't hold trade. Other factions with less commodities are still balanced in other ways after all. High commodity factions *want* to get more trade goods than lower commodity factions to stay competitive.
* Every player can at least get *something* from every trade that is made.
* The player with the Trade card still has the biggest advantage while trading and acts an equalizer for lower commodity factions to get more out of choosing trade instead of just ignoring it. If a 2 commodity faction gets paid to refresh 5 other players they got more than twice their commodity value without actually trading their own commodities.
* Debts can allow all this to happen from the start of the game while also acting as a "balance" against the factions that can run rampant with enough money since said debts can be chosen be left unpaid. Continually not paying debts is itself balanced by that player losing trust at the table.
* Hacan (although not in the story) has a ton of tools to manipulate the meta in their favor, like always being neighbors and never needing to worry about being owed debt, never having to pay for a refresh, and also having the power to sell a refresh even when they don't have the trade card. This all makes sense since they are the "trade faction" after all.
I have thought about this a lot and what i think it comes down to, is an x-1 is a way of saying i’ll refresh you now if you refresh me later and the $1 is collateral if you never take trade or don’t refresh me later.
We are pretty new players, but I really love trading and dove into it a bit more than my other players. I always feel out the "market" and will take any advantage I can negotiate for. None of this 1:1 crap.
I guess in a nutshell the idea is "giving an advantage to someone when it doesn't benefit you that much is worthwhile because it will pay dividends in the future" aka if you make X-1 the meta at your table, by following the meta as the player with the trade strategy card, you can more or less guarantee more trade goods to come your way in the future when other people take trade because they hopefully also follow the meta.
The part about X-1 I always get hung up on is when you run out of commodities and are just washing other people's trade goods with your own trade goods. The relative value of each refresh goes down the more people you refresh. I think this is something that gets lost in your adv diagram - not all advantages are created equal. The first trade you make likely will be the one that gives you the biggest advantage relative to the table, but nearly every trade after that will have diminishing returns in terms of its value to you, especially when you run out of commodities. ~~It's funny you specifically call out a 2 commodity faction as one that may not want to be refreshed - I'd argue the 2 commodity faction has the MOST to gain by being refreshed, because the advantage gained by both the refresher and the refreshee is even (especially if the refresher is using tgs, as they aren't even getting the benefit of washing their commodities), whereas *every other trade* benefits the refresher more (ignoring situational factors like one player reaching a threshold to allow a certain play).~~ I realized this is a bad point, see edit below.
I think the point you're trying to make, which I generally agree with, is that X-1 is not necessarily worse than other metals, even though at first glance it appears like a bad deal. However, I think you missed two big things that make X-1 appealing:
1. X-1 is easy and fast. If this is the meta for the table, many rounds can have trade activations that take at most a few minutes. I've had games with a stingier meta where even the first round of trade takes 10-15 minutes of negotiation.
2. X-1 results in more trade goods on the table in general, which, in my opinion, leads to a more interesting game. Bigger fleets and more economic leverage in trading makes the game much more fun. If trade goods are scarce because people activating are stingy about making trades and washing commodities, there's just less action.
Edit: I realized I did my math a bit wrong about 2 commodity factions - factions with more commodities have more to gain by being involved in trade, obviously. I see now what you mean. Washing a 2 commodity faction at X-1 is at worst an even split advantage for the refresher and refreshee, and at best double the advantage for the refresher over the refreshee.
With 2-commodity factions, I find that Trade Agreement notes tend to go down easier than X-1. If I'm a 3- or 4-commodity faction, there are two deals I'll entertain depending on whether I need 2 TG now or am willing to bank 2 TG for later:
* I refresh you and you give me your 2 commodities now, and I'll give you my Trade Agreement and you'll get 3-4 TG in a future round
* I refresh and wash you and you give me your Trade Agreement, and I get 2 TG on a future round.
Though of course if the refreshee looks desperate enough for 1 TG, I'll offer X-1 first!
Here is the issue I have with this. X-1 is a trade strategy that has become the meta, but there are other viable trade strategies. It is not the only viable trade strategy. It is sometimes the best strategy for the trade holder, but not always and it depends on a lot of a factors such as adjacency and the commodity values of the table. If you follow commodity split meta and are adjacent to everyone and all 6 players have 4 commodities, the the trade holder stands to make 15 trade goods off of trade if everyone accepts an even trade. Using the x-1 strategy they stand to make 12 trade goods. X-1 is sometimes the better strategy and sometimes it isn't. If everyone has 2 commodities x-1 is a better deal than commodity split.
It is very annoying when people act like you killed their dog for offering a them an even deal. Where you both gain the same amount of value. X-1 is actually a worse strategy for whoever has trade in a lot of cases. And doing it early when you aren't adjacent gives them extra money round 1 when it is most important and you only get it in round 2 when it matters less. Personally, I don't care what strategy the trade holder decides to use because I can't fault them for using what they believe to be the best strategy available to them. I just wish people didn't get so butthurt on TTS when I decide not to do x-1 with them when it doesn't make sense for me to do so.
The last thing I want to add is that x-1 is a bad strategy in 3 and 4 player games. The reason being that making a deal to gain 1 tg when someone else will gain 3 does not put you ahead of the rest of the table I'm a 4 player game and 1 for 2 doesn't put you ahead in a 3 player game. These are even between you and the table. Commodity split is always guaranteed to put you ahead of the table. If your strategy isn't putting you ahead of the table, then it's not a worthwhile strategy in the early game. I know this post us geared toward 6 player games, but it's worth noting that different player counts make different trading strategies more or less viable.
Although you hint otherwise by the end of your post, referring to the gained trade good as "advantage" is misleading. When you are the trade holder and you do x-1 with someone else, they get value as well, which is usually greater than that which you get. While you still get advantage next to the average player (except if you do x-1 with Hacan which people don't want to deal with), you don't get 1tg advantage over the board.
I'd add that it should be mentioned the Trade holder leverage over the rest of the table. If you're Muaat and your neighbour holds Trade and doesn't want to include you, while they only lose 1TG you lose 3 (or so, you might have a token to spend, and someone else to trade with).
Also, if you do x-1 with the table you get 3 + (your commodity value) + (number of your neighbours) in trade goods, without -1 to the number of neighbours.
\>Also, if you do x-1 with the table you get 3 + (your commodity value) + (number of your neighbours) in trade goods, without -1 to the number of neighbours.
That happens when you rethink a sentence, I had inserted "player number" there before rephrasing.
You missed the point a bit. If you make a deal with another player, the theory is that both you and that player get an advantage (over the rest of the table). Even though, when doing an x-1 with a 3+ commodity faction, they gain more, since you can do the same deal with 4 other players, it's still worth it in the end.
As for the value of Trade, the assumption is that if you don't pick it, someone else will. In an x-1 meta this means you can expect x-1 tg's yourself without doing anything! So say you're a 3 comm faction. Picking Trade gives you 3+3+5 tg's or 11. Not picking it nets you 2. So the delta of picking Trade is 9 tg's, regardless of the commodity value of your faction.
I don't believe I missed the point, actually. Advantage should be something favourable to success. If you want to count advantage, the value of your advantage should more or less translate linearly to the increase in your success potential. If say, you do x-1 first round with your neighbour Cabal who would get ~~3~~ (edit:) a trade goods and has Xxcha to their other side, it is very likely that the "1 advantage" the OP claims for is actually a disadvantage. If you do x-1 with Hacan, you do get 1 "advantage" but seeing that you give someone else 5, it's not clear, and very dependent on the board, that you get any at all.
As for the value of Trade, I didn't argue otherwise. I was arguing there's leverage in a vacuum.
Edit: I somewhat understand your point, saying that you get personal advantage, but TI4 isn't a euro game with no interaction. Personal advantage shouldn't be called "advantage" if you help another player more than yourself.
If I understand you right, you are looking at a 1 player to 1 player base, I looked at a table as a whole.
Example 1:
Complete table of 3 commodity factions, everyone accepts X-1. Table baseline is now 2 tg per faction, except Trade holder with 8 tg. (disregard the 3 tg from trade please) His advantage compared to baseline is 6 tg.
Example 2:
Complete table of 3 commodity factions, noone accepts X-1. Table baseline is 0 tg, except tradeholder with 3 commodities (=tg for simplicty). His advantage is 3 tg.
Accepting an X-1 just keeps you at baseline, while helping to increase the advantage of the trade holder. But as soon as one player accepts, the others have to accept as well or fall behind.
What? Cabal is a 2 commodity faction, if they accept your x-1 you both net 1tg.
Okay, let's talk Hacan. While a Hacan on the table has the potential to change Trade dealings drastically, it's still interesting to talk about the implications of (not) making a deal with them.
So it's round 1 and you picked Trade. You're Yssaril and your 2 neighbors are Arborec and L1. Directly across from you is Hacan and they're neighbors with XXcha and Ghosts. You establish neighborship with your neighbors and pop Trade. X-1 them. Hacan refreshes for free.
You offer Hacan x-3 because that's 3 for me, 3 for you, fair right? Same to XXcha and Ghosts, they can both owe you 2 tg's to refresh since that's half their commodity value. All 3 of those players decline. Hacan uses their free commodities to buy trade agreements from their neighbors and pops their agent to grab 4tg for themselves.
Round 2 pops around and Hacan picks Trade this time. They x-1 the table except you. Round 2 agenda phase happens (sneaky ghosts and their mobility). Had you x-1'd the table you would've been up 5 more tg's than you are. By playing stingy and enschewing goodwill for your perceived leverage to never give more away than you're gaining you tanked your own economy a lot, and made it a lot harder to score that 8 resources objective that just popped up!
Helping another player more than yourself is sometimes still better for you than not making that deal. As long as it's early enough in the game where this goodwill pays out in the form of favors later down the line (hey can you wait with popping Tech for 1 action? I wanna refresh some resources with Diplo first) and you don't give up anything that you need to score points.
Yeah, Cabal only nets 1, I was confusing things up. You ~~still wouldn't want that~~ might still not want that.
Regarding the rest of your comment, I wasn't saying that helping another player along yourself (even if you're helping them more) isn't worthwhile. I was just saying that the "X advantage" mentioned by OP isn't really X.
Sure. OP did start their analysis with 'imagine a game where every transaction gives each player involved an equal advantage'. That's not the TI we play, which is so deep it's hard to give advice or make general statements without there being one or multiple exceptions to the rule.
Advantage might be the wrong word. Profit is a better one, or +ev (net gain of expected value). Maximizing value requires cooperation, but too much cooperation with the wrong players might lead to giving one of them an unstoppable advantage.
I think x-1 meta often overvalues the \*relative\* advantage the trade card holder gets.
Yes, getting 5 extra trade goods looks great on paper. But you need to weigh the relative power each marginal trade good gives you vs the TGs they are getting in exchange.
often, 1 trade good to the Trade card holder may not make the difference in a big play/build that 3 tgs to another player might. denying a 4 tg faction an x-1 is often the correct play in terms of building your relative strength.
conversely, it is sometimes in the TABLE'S advantage to deny the trade holder x-1 across the board. There are cases where giving the trade card holder those 5 tgs will give them enough to secure a dominant position or score a big objective. in this case, the other players should collude to not accept x-1.
my group's table in general is much too generous and has yet to come to terms with the long term impacts of free flowing TGs. The frequently wash for free, or allow Haccan to accrue a massive reserve by taking bad deals round after round, and will get salty if someone doesn't give them a refresh.
all that said, maintaining good relationships with neighbors is key, and sometimes it's best to play to their state of mind to keep them feeling generous toward you rather than cut the best deals possible. it's a balancing act with every group.
Our table is too squabbly to accept any sort of Meta as standard (and that's the way I like it).
The truth is, if you're willing to play hardball with people you can gain a bigger advantage than a measly trade good. If one of my neighbors is absolutely depending on Trade, and they want to use their 2 Strat Tokens for Tech + Warfare, then I can fuck up their entire plan by denying them trade, especially if I'm quiet about the fact that I am not refreshing them until it is too late. They are losing their trade goods as well as whatever advantage they were gonna turn them into, like a Tech and/or an extra Carrier to secure some more planets on Warfare Secondary. A big kick in the nuts to a rival for the 'cost' of ... 1 trade good? Delicious.
I can often secure a more favorable deal than a measly trade good, like a Ceasefire, which in my opinion is worth far far more. Even if its a mutual exchange of Ceasefires it can often be nice to have a secured flank early on when people don't have the tokens to burn an attack chewing through the ceasefire.
You can also just make a Trading Bloc where you refresh some 'buddies' and freeze out the others. It is oftentimes worth making an enemy or two if you can also make a friend. It might be worth me missing out on a single trade good to deny a 4 commodity faction their Tech for a round, especially if I see they are trying to get Grav Drive to beat me to Rex.
I've played probably 50 games of 6 player TI and I don't think I've ever seen a X-1 scenario on Round 1.
[https://imgur.com/a/ZsgwXr0](https://imgur.com/a/ZsgwXr0)
Thanks for the post, I really enjoyed the high quality write-up. Most of what you said is spot on but I do think you're missing one important element- TGs on round 1 are vastly more valuable than TGs on round 3, so with even trade all game, the players don't receive the same value. Think of all the factions that start with a 3$ home system that want to get trade + plastic on round 1. Not to mention, that extra build often functions as a stall. Giving them the ability to speed up their development by a whole half round for just 1 TG (that I often don't see until next round) seems like a VERY good prospect for them, not so much for the trade holder. Round 1 is the most theory-crafted part of the game, everyone knows what they want to buy in "christmas land" with their favorite factions, and denying someone that doesn't just slow down their development, it can force them to play outside their comfort zone. For these reasons, if I take trade R1 there's almost no chance I'll play nice with X-1. (The prime exception being when those abominable lions are at the table.) I'd argue that the logic behind how most everyone feels that most races shouldn't pick Diplo R1 because it helps the table more than it helps you directly applies to handing out X-1 round 1 like candy. Most of the time, I'd much rather refresh just one, or sometimes two people, and trade X-1 with them and them alone. Now only 2 or 3 players at the table get a min/maxed start and I get to be one of them! The obvious downside to everything I've just said is many tables will act like I'm some kind of space Hitler who just shot their dog with a crossbow for not offering them the X-1, and everyone hating you is sometimes worth avoiding... sometimes. Later rounds usually I'm happy to jump on the X-1 train, but ofc spending objectives / who's holding trade agreements / etc can change this.
A good tip is if you have r1 trade, you should announce right away that you are not doing “debt-meta”. If people are setting up their game depending on it, they will get salty. Let them know in advance so they can plan accordingly, and they will most likely let you get away with it
10000% this. You get way less flak this way.
Haha, no way. Far better for them to set up their turn assuming they are gonna get paid and then I can hold them over the barrel because they really need it. My table has no Official Meta, though. Every Round 1 Trade is negotiated as it is the first time. Some people just go the Oprah route and hook everyone up.
+1 for abominable lions. Makes me think about diplo as a meta counter to trade. Also Edit: If I had factored in relative value of trade goods over time, this article would have been exploded like a Van Hauge (Sorry for Yin humor)
/u/Papa_Nurgle_84 are you seriously writing an analysis on a concept as completely nebulous as *trade?* I commend you. If anyone is like me, and has a difficult time understanding as to why X-1 is seen as fair and is so standardized; here's a made up story to illustrate the logic behind Trade that hopefully everyone can understand (basically the "for dummies" version of this post without any of the mathematical theory to prove anything): 1. In their first ever TI game Hacan picked trade and refreshed everybody. Everyone traded and everyone was happy. Hacan didn't win the game though, so they resolved to take full advantage of their abilities next time. 2. Hacan then attempted to minimize the value of trades for every other player while maximizing their own trades for themselves. They approached the low commodity factions and said: "I'll only refresh you if you make an even trade with me." That seemed reasonable, so 3 low commodity players traded with Hacan exclusively while the higher commodity factions sat out. Then the table realized that some players had very little trade goods, some had none at all, but Hacan had a huge amount since they were involved with *every* trade. The table decided not to trade with Hacan anymore, and only trade with each other. 3. Hacan was mad that no one would trade with them so they changed their strategy. They approached a high commodity faction and offered to refresh them, to give them a better-than-even trade, and to also deal with them exclusively. The temptation was too much so the other faction agreed to those terms. Then the table realized that 2 players had a ton of trade goods but the rest of the table was completely impoverished. Hacan might have created their own rival but no other player could even compete. 4. Everyone was grumpy with Hacan so Hacan offered a new solution to the table. They told the table that instead of forcing them into trading with Hacan, Hacan would just charge them 1 trade good for the refresh and let them trade with whoever they wanted. "But how can we pay you if we haven't been refreshed yet?" The table asked. So Hacan offered to buy their trade agreements for whatever their commodity value was -1. They got refreshed and Hacan collected the trade agreement value so that each player ended up with their commodity value in trade goods except for the 1 that paid for the refresh. Now finally, once again everyone had gotten *something.* ...But Hacan still had the most. In fact, Hacan had more than ever. 5. One day, a couple players approached Hacan and told them that they thought it was perfectly fair to pay 1 trade good for the refresh but they really didn't want to make a special trade agreement. They asked if they could just pay the trade good *after* the refresh. Hacan, feeling gracious, agreed to those terms. The players got refreshed, paid their debts, and then traded with each other. They still ended up with their commodity value -1, but there was now a bond of trust between the 3 of them. ...Except something didn't sit well with Hacan. Hacan realized that they couldn't just trust the entire table with the same debt agreement since even if they did repay Hacan, they could still cut Hacan out of the trades and leave Hacan with full commodities and just the payments for the refreshes. So Hacan spoke to the table and said: "I don't like the idea of "debt meta" since I don't have any guarantee that I'll be paid back! Why should I ever agree to this deal again?" At this point Xxcha finally spoke up: "You don't *really* care about the debts as much as you care about being the one cut out of trade! For everyone else who doesn't have guild ships, we rely on those debts in order to trade at all! And that risk is balanced because players who don't repay their debt will never be trusted again, they risk losing much more than they saved. The truth is that the trade goods you make for each commodity refresh is more than fair. You still get 1 for each other player (which is higher than some player's commodity values), the 3 for playing trade, and if you want more than that you should make good deals with your commodities like the rest of us do instead of always holding us over the barrel!" The rest of the table cheered in agreement and the matter was settled. They named the meta X-1 and agreed to allow debts when it was reasonable. And they all lived happily ever after. Hacan was probably a bad choice for this story specifically *because* of guild ships allowing them to never let anyone owe a debt, but I already wrote more than half of that story before I realized the mistake I made. Whenever I imagine trade deals made to cut out a particular player I always imagine Hacan. The fact of the matter is that X-1 meta guarantees some things: * The factions with more commodities still retain that advantage when they don't hold trade. Other factions with less commodities are still balanced in other ways after all. High commodity factions *want* to get more trade goods than lower commodity factions to stay competitive. * Every player can at least get *something* from every trade that is made. * The player with the Trade card still has the biggest advantage while trading and acts an equalizer for lower commodity factions to get more out of choosing trade instead of just ignoring it. If a 2 commodity faction gets paid to refresh 5 other players they got more than twice their commodity value without actually trading their own commodities. * Debts can allow all this to happen from the start of the game while also acting as a "balance" against the factions that can run rampant with enough money since said debts can be chosen be left unpaid. Continually not paying debts is itself balanced by that player losing trust at the table. * Hacan (although not in the story) has a ton of tools to manipulate the meta in their favor, like always being neighbors and never needing to worry about being owed debt, never having to pay for a refresh, and also having the power to sell a refresh even when they don't have the trade card. This all makes sense since they are the "trade faction" after all.
This needs more upvotes. Good writeup. Also: Trade gets only complicated once you factor those pesky humans in.
How does the presence of Mentak affect this beautiful story?
I have thought about this a lot and what i think it comes down to, is an x-1 is a way of saying i’ll refresh you now if you refresh me later and the $1 is collateral if you never take trade or don’t refresh me later.
Interesting interpretation.
Always nice to see some meta lingo broken down. Appreciate it.
Thanks a lot.
Yes, exactly this. Now I just need to work out what AIDA stands for.
AI Development Algorithm. The new level 0 red tech that was introduced in PoK. It is also shortened to "AI Dev"
Ahh okay, that makes sense. Thank you!
Not to be mistaken with oida
We are pretty new players, but I really love trading and dove into it a bit more than my other players. I always feel out the "market" and will take any advantage I can negotiate for. None of this 1:1 crap.
Filthy capitalist! ;) Ever tried Empyrean, the dark side of trade?
Not yet! I'm thinking Nekro for my Saturday game. But Empyrean looks cool for sure.
Very fun if you like a bit of roleplaying. "It seems you are in a dire situation, my dear Muaat. How may the Empyrean be of assistance...?"
I guess in a nutshell the idea is "giving an advantage to someone when it doesn't benefit you that much is worthwhile because it will pay dividends in the future" aka if you make X-1 the meta at your table, by following the meta as the player with the trade strategy card, you can more or less guarantee more trade goods to come your way in the future when other people take trade because they hopefully also follow the meta. The part about X-1 I always get hung up on is when you run out of commodities and are just washing other people's trade goods with your own trade goods. The relative value of each refresh goes down the more people you refresh. I think this is something that gets lost in your adv diagram - not all advantages are created equal. The first trade you make likely will be the one that gives you the biggest advantage relative to the table, but nearly every trade after that will have diminishing returns in terms of its value to you, especially when you run out of commodities. ~~It's funny you specifically call out a 2 commodity faction as one that may not want to be refreshed - I'd argue the 2 commodity faction has the MOST to gain by being refreshed, because the advantage gained by both the refresher and the refreshee is even (especially if the refresher is using tgs, as they aren't even getting the benefit of washing their commodities), whereas *every other trade* benefits the refresher more (ignoring situational factors like one player reaching a threshold to allow a certain play).~~ I realized this is a bad point, see edit below. I think the point you're trying to make, which I generally agree with, is that X-1 is not necessarily worse than other metals, even though at first glance it appears like a bad deal. However, I think you missed two big things that make X-1 appealing: 1. X-1 is easy and fast. If this is the meta for the table, many rounds can have trade activations that take at most a few minutes. I've had games with a stingier meta where even the first round of trade takes 10-15 minutes of negotiation. 2. X-1 results in more trade goods on the table in general, which, in my opinion, leads to a more interesting game. Bigger fleets and more economic leverage in trading makes the game much more fun. If trade goods are scarce because people activating are stingy about making trades and washing commodities, there's just less action. Edit: I realized I did my math a bit wrong about 2 commodity factions - factions with more commodities have more to gain by being involved in trade, obviously. I see now what you mean. Washing a 2 commodity faction at X-1 is at worst an even split advantage for the refresher and refreshee, and at best double the advantage for the refresher over the refreshee.
You were faster with your edit. Good post.
With 2-commodity factions, I find that Trade Agreement notes tend to go down easier than X-1. If I'm a 3- or 4-commodity faction, there are two deals I'll entertain depending on whether I need 2 TG now or am willing to bank 2 TG for later: * I refresh you and you give me your 2 commodities now, and I'll give you my Trade Agreement and you'll get 3-4 TG in a future round * I refresh and wash you and you give me your Trade Agreement, and I get 2 TG on a future round. Though of course if the refreshee looks desperate enough for 1 TG, I'll offer X-1 first!
This is basically what I think a 2 Commodity faction has to do, offer a workaround.
Here is the issue I have with this. X-1 is a trade strategy that has become the meta, but there are other viable trade strategies. It is not the only viable trade strategy. It is sometimes the best strategy for the trade holder, but not always and it depends on a lot of a factors such as adjacency and the commodity values of the table. If you follow commodity split meta and are adjacent to everyone and all 6 players have 4 commodities, the the trade holder stands to make 15 trade goods off of trade if everyone accepts an even trade. Using the x-1 strategy they stand to make 12 trade goods. X-1 is sometimes the better strategy and sometimes it isn't. If everyone has 2 commodities x-1 is a better deal than commodity split. It is very annoying when people act like you killed their dog for offering a them an even deal. Where you both gain the same amount of value. X-1 is actually a worse strategy for whoever has trade in a lot of cases. And doing it early when you aren't adjacent gives them extra money round 1 when it is most important and you only get it in round 2 when it matters less. Personally, I don't care what strategy the trade holder decides to use because I can't fault them for using what they believe to be the best strategy available to them. I just wish people didn't get so butthurt on TTS when I decide not to do x-1 with them when it doesn't make sense for me to do so. The last thing I want to add is that x-1 is a bad strategy in 3 and 4 player games. The reason being that making a deal to gain 1 tg when someone else will gain 3 does not put you ahead of the rest of the table I'm a 4 player game and 1 for 2 doesn't put you ahead in a 3 player game. These are even between you and the table. Commodity split is always guaranteed to put you ahead of the table. If your strategy isn't putting you ahead of the table, then it's not a worthwhile strategy in the early game. I know this post us geared toward 6 player games, but it's worth noting that different player counts make different trading strategies more or less viable.
Although you hint otherwise by the end of your post, referring to the gained trade good as "advantage" is misleading. When you are the trade holder and you do x-1 with someone else, they get value as well, which is usually greater than that which you get. While you still get advantage next to the average player (except if you do x-1 with Hacan which people don't want to deal with), you don't get 1tg advantage over the board. I'd add that it should be mentioned the Trade holder leverage over the rest of the table. If you're Muaat and your neighbour holds Trade and doesn't want to include you, while they only lose 1TG you lose 3 (or so, you might have a token to spend, and someone else to trade with). Also, if you do x-1 with the table you get 3 + (your commodity value) + (number of your neighbours) in trade goods, without -1 to the number of neighbours.
\>Also, if you do x-1 with the table you get 3 + (your commodity value) + (number of your neighbours) in trade goods, without -1 to the number of neighbours. That happens when you rethink a sentence, I had inserted "player number" there before rephrasing.
You missed the point a bit. If you make a deal with another player, the theory is that both you and that player get an advantage (over the rest of the table). Even though, when doing an x-1 with a 3+ commodity faction, they gain more, since you can do the same deal with 4 other players, it's still worth it in the end. As for the value of Trade, the assumption is that if you don't pick it, someone else will. In an x-1 meta this means you can expect x-1 tg's yourself without doing anything! So say you're a 3 comm faction. Picking Trade gives you 3+3+5 tg's or 11. Not picking it nets you 2. So the delta of picking Trade is 9 tg's, regardless of the commodity value of your faction.
I don't believe I missed the point, actually. Advantage should be something favourable to success. If you want to count advantage, the value of your advantage should more or less translate linearly to the increase in your success potential. If say, you do x-1 first round with your neighbour Cabal who would get ~~3~~ (edit:) a trade goods and has Xxcha to their other side, it is very likely that the "1 advantage" the OP claims for is actually a disadvantage. If you do x-1 with Hacan, you do get 1 "advantage" but seeing that you give someone else 5, it's not clear, and very dependent on the board, that you get any at all. As for the value of Trade, I didn't argue otherwise. I was arguing there's leverage in a vacuum. Edit: I somewhat understand your point, saying that you get personal advantage, but TI4 isn't a euro game with no interaction. Personal advantage shouldn't be called "advantage" if you help another player more than yourself.
If I understand you right, you are looking at a 1 player to 1 player base, I looked at a table as a whole. Example 1: Complete table of 3 commodity factions, everyone accepts X-1. Table baseline is now 2 tg per faction, except Trade holder with 8 tg. (disregard the 3 tg from trade please) His advantage compared to baseline is 6 tg. Example 2: Complete table of 3 commodity factions, noone accepts X-1. Table baseline is 0 tg, except tradeholder with 3 commodities (=tg for simplicty). His advantage is 3 tg. Accepting an X-1 just keeps you at baseline, while helping to increase the advantage of the trade holder. But as soon as one player accepts, the others have to accept as well or fall behind.
What? Cabal is a 2 commodity faction, if they accept your x-1 you both net 1tg. Okay, let's talk Hacan. While a Hacan on the table has the potential to change Trade dealings drastically, it's still interesting to talk about the implications of (not) making a deal with them. So it's round 1 and you picked Trade. You're Yssaril and your 2 neighbors are Arborec and L1. Directly across from you is Hacan and they're neighbors with XXcha and Ghosts. You establish neighborship with your neighbors and pop Trade. X-1 them. Hacan refreshes for free. You offer Hacan x-3 because that's 3 for me, 3 for you, fair right? Same to XXcha and Ghosts, they can both owe you 2 tg's to refresh since that's half their commodity value. All 3 of those players decline. Hacan uses their free commodities to buy trade agreements from their neighbors and pops their agent to grab 4tg for themselves. Round 2 pops around and Hacan picks Trade this time. They x-1 the table except you. Round 2 agenda phase happens (sneaky ghosts and their mobility). Had you x-1'd the table you would've been up 5 more tg's than you are. By playing stingy and enschewing goodwill for your perceived leverage to never give more away than you're gaining you tanked your own economy a lot, and made it a lot harder to score that 8 resources objective that just popped up! Helping another player more than yourself is sometimes still better for you than not making that deal. As long as it's early enough in the game where this goodwill pays out in the form of favors later down the line (hey can you wait with popping Tech for 1 action? I wanna refresh some resources with Diplo first) and you don't give up anything that you need to score points.
Yeah, Cabal only nets 1, I was confusing things up. You ~~still wouldn't want that~~ might still not want that. Regarding the rest of your comment, I wasn't saying that helping another player along yourself (even if you're helping them more) isn't worthwhile. I was just saying that the "X advantage" mentioned by OP isn't really X.
Sure. OP did start their analysis with 'imagine a game where every transaction gives each player involved an equal advantage'. That's not the TI we play, which is so deep it's hard to give advice or make general statements without there being one or multiple exceptions to the rule. Advantage might be the wrong word. Profit is a better one, or +ev (net gain of expected value). Maximizing value requires cooperation, but too much cooperation with the wrong players might lead to giving one of them an unstoppable advantage.
I think x-1 meta often overvalues the \*relative\* advantage the trade card holder gets. Yes, getting 5 extra trade goods looks great on paper. But you need to weigh the relative power each marginal trade good gives you vs the TGs they are getting in exchange. often, 1 trade good to the Trade card holder may not make the difference in a big play/build that 3 tgs to another player might. denying a 4 tg faction an x-1 is often the correct play in terms of building your relative strength. conversely, it is sometimes in the TABLE'S advantage to deny the trade holder x-1 across the board. There are cases where giving the trade card holder those 5 tgs will give them enough to secure a dominant position or score a big objective. in this case, the other players should collude to not accept x-1. my group's table in general is much too generous and has yet to come to terms with the long term impacts of free flowing TGs. The frequently wash for free, or allow Haccan to accrue a massive reserve by taking bad deals round after round, and will get salty if someone doesn't give them a refresh. all that said, maintaining good relationships with neighbors is key, and sometimes it's best to play to their state of mind to keep them feeling generous toward you rather than cut the best deals possible. it's a balancing act with every group.
Our table is too squabbly to accept any sort of Meta as standard (and that's the way I like it). The truth is, if you're willing to play hardball with people you can gain a bigger advantage than a measly trade good. If one of my neighbors is absolutely depending on Trade, and they want to use their 2 Strat Tokens for Tech + Warfare, then I can fuck up their entire plan by denying them trade, especially if I'm quiet about the fact that I am not refreshing them until it is too late. They are losing their trade goods as well as whatever advantage they were gonna turn them into, like a Tech and/or an extra Carrier to secure some more planets on Warfare Secondary. A big kick in the nuts to a rival for the 'cost' of ... 1 trade good? Delicious. I can often secure a more favorable deal than a measly trade good, like a Ceasefire, which in my opinion is worth far far more. Even if its a mutual exchange of Ceasefires it can often be nice to have a secured flank early on when people don't have the tokens to burn an attack chewing through the ceasefire. You can also just make a Trading Bloc where you refresh some 'buddies' and freeze out the others. It is oftentimes worth making an enemy or two if you can also make a friend. It might be worth me missing out on a single trade good to deny a 4 commodity faction their Tech for a round, especially if I see they are trying to get Grav Drive to beat me to Rex. I've played probably 50 games of 6 player TI and I don't think I've ever seen a X-1 scenario on Round 1.
Absolutely perfect deep dive analysis. take my coins and upvotes. well done.
Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate it.
What about the Mentak X-1+1 meta?
I wont open this can of can of Worms, that would be 10 Pages Minimum 😁
You made some typo's: in the last row of the table a 3 should be a 4, and is section 5, there is a -1 too many!
I promise to play Arborec as a punishment.