There is one part of the game, I think is under-developed. That is the division of trading cards and what to do with them. At that point we don't use the system to its full extend.

I'm talking about these 9 sets, as you can see they contain both E and W symbol:
Bone, Wax, Ceramics, Grain, Glass, Lead, Herbs, Obsidian and Amber.
Let's call these 'Split-Commodities', just to label them.











The problems:

When you play with up to 9 players, there is no problem. You play on one side (on either west or east areas.)

When you play with 10-11 players you actually take one or two civilization from the other side and regard them as the same side you play on. You play with 3 sets of commodity cards per stack. No problems so far.

When you play with 15-18 player the game is fun. You divide the game in east and west where each block uses its own set of tradcards-stack.
You might get trade cards that don't make a full set on your own side, so for these cards you HAVE TO trade with players from the other side.


PROBLEM 1:
But there is this mid-range. A range I tend to refrain from. I'm talking about when you play with 12-14 players.
You divide the game into east and west, where each side uses its own set of tradecards-stacks. But in this range there are NO split-commodity sets. So in fact you NEVER HAVE TO trade with the other side. It's even a downside to do so, because you get totally new cards you don't already hold a single one of. This downside counts as well for your trading partner. In fact you are playing two seperate games of civilization next to eachtother. Each game with its own commodities and calamities.



PROBLEM 2:
When you regard each single set of commodity cards.
Some sets are worth less than others of the same stack number. Not because of the total amount available but just because they are divided over west and east. These sets are unwanted in the first place.

For example, When you hold an Oil and a Grain. Both face value 4, both full sets are worth 256. But Grain is a split-commodity. You will rather go for the set of Oils. Why? because the players you are trading with, will want the other cards you hold. Because you are a west player, you draw west cards. Players who drew Oil, are also west players, so they will more likely go for a set of west-commodities.

This system will contain, that the least trading between east-players and west-players as possible is being made.



BONUS CARD:
I've played a full 18-player game once where the Bonus-card option was included.
This means that if you turn in a set of commodities from the other part (west or east) then your starting location, you may count the set value as if you held one additional card.

This was a lot more fun, because now players actually started trading between east and west. Most of the time, though, players were NOT interested a thing in cards from the other side. They were only trying to complete their own set of commodities.

It actually seemed very strange to me, when I read the rules, that this bonus-card rule, wasn't included as official rule at all. I see no reason why.

All players I've spoken with, complained about the downside, that in fact we were playing two seperated games rather than one big game. And regarded this bonus-card addition as a base for heating up E/W trading.


MY PROPOSAL:
Let's change the trade rules this way:






This will result in the following:

- Players might first try and complete a set of their own set and during the end of the trading sessions, they will hold excess cards or calamities, and will try to trade them away with the other side. Previously there was no need for trading two Iron (W) for two Stone (E) for they are worth the same, you might only risk a calamity. Now, both trading gain the benefit, for the west player can gain 18 points for two Stone instead of 8 for two Iron and the other way round.

- Some players might take the risk and try to get a full set of 6-s or 7s from the other side immediately. This makes them require one less card to complete a set.

- The amount of calamities in the game will not change. It is likely that an evenly amount of W-calamities are traded to the east and E-calamities are traded to the west.

- The total wealth in the game will not grow, but for some players it might become easier to get it. (a full set stays a full set)

- There will be more trading.

- As long as you stick to a time limit for trading, it will not take more time.

(A GameMaster for dividing and reshuffling the cards afterwards is required anyway in my opinion if you play divided blocks.)




I would really like to see this a an official rule rather than an optional rule, for in the first place it brings much more interference in the game. And that's what boardgaming is all about. Especially when you feel the need to play a game with 18 players rather than a game of chess.

So let's put it into playtest

This was a rule and was removed for a couple of reason (please speak up if you were in this debate in the past...)

I believe the main probably was that for a couple of groups there was a player on the east and a player on the west that worked out an agreement to always exchange sets with each other before the trading round ended and had a no-calamity agreement. Not just a couple sets - but all the sets. Later the two players increased to four players. This lead to a case where you HAD to do east-west trades to keep up and to make these trades happen you had to have a gentleman's agreement about calamities. So basically trading got really boring and those who couldn't get in on the east-west action felt miffed and shut out of the cartel.

At the time I think the general consensus was that with experienced players the bonus was too much. I would like to see a bonus awarded somehow for east-west trades - but it would need to be something that would be hard to abuse.

Some people also complained about the amount of calamities and knowing what set belonged to which side. Others thought it made trading rounds too complex - they liked the pure trade sessions.

I can imagine this, though never though of this option.

The main problem I see, is that players sort of 'cheat'. In general is isn't illegal to make a non-calamity agreement with a certain person, but it doesn't make it more fun.

So people are trading a full set of W6 for a full set of E6, or say, a full set minus one of W6 for a full set minus one of E6 and both benefit.

In fact what we can tell about this, is that there are upsides to do this, but no downside as there is a non-calamity agreement between these two players. You cannot forbid this. so you have to create a downside

What if we changed the following:
Old:


Option 1:


Option 2:



It limits the bonus option to a max of one set per turn. Like the avalon hill's 'Mining' you have to choose which set to turn in.

Also, people cannot trade a set for set anymore, just to change the region, for this is not interesting anymore.

This will result in the following.


Option1:
People may trade three cards of W6 for three cards of E6, and count four cards of 6, but they don't get that bonus card if they don't turn in that extra card.

Option2:
People may trade three cards of W6 for three cards of E6, and count four cards of 6, but they don't get that bonus card if they don't turn in that extra 6.

Mainly the split sets benefit from this option.



I think I prefer option 2.

I don't know how you would enforce the "no set for set" thing without having a moderator. Velusion's memory is right on what has happened with the bonus card. Limiting it to one bonus per turn-in would slow the problem down. The question of if it is enough of a slow down is another matter. It would probably encourage more large-set turn-ins of opposite side.

Can you explain what you mean more specific?


I'm not looking for speeding up thing in the first place. I see speeding up as a side-issue.

If you regard, that turning in sets in general has to be checked by a gamemaster or by the group, this way that stays the same.

In other words. in a normals game, without a gamemaster, how do other people check your turn-ins and how do you check other people's turn-ins.

If you do this by simply believing eachother, without checking, that's fine.

My option is from 12 players up only. I believe, no game can be played well without a gamemaster. that GM may be playing as well, but most of the time, some-one pushed himself forward or just yells hardest



This person tells whose turn it is, deals tradecards, or whatever. And checks the turn-ins.

I think he meant by "slowing down" not the speed of the game,
but the dynamic of the "problem". As you are allowed to turn in
only one set of the other side, you do it just once per round. But
still the problem is there. People will trade like always, but the last
trade each round would be "1 almost complete set from my side"
for an "almost complete set from your side with the same level".
But only to a specific "friend".

This is a Win-Win-Situation without any risk. In a normal game there
is no situation like that. Why should I trade a set for another set of
the same level, if it would be from the same trade card block?



I think there are only 3 options:

1. lowering the bonus given for turning in a set from the other trade card block
- but as long as there is even a small bonus, it would be possible to use/ abuse that

2. lowering the frequency of the option of doing it
- Flo proposed "Once per round"

3. giving a drawback for turning in a set from the other trade card block
- I thought about something risky. Maybe you draw immediately a card
from the own trade card block from the same level. That's a bonus, but
a risky one, as there could be a calamity. Unfortunately it is not gonna
work, as there is no calamity resolution soon and we definitely don't
want to change the complete phase order. ( I also don't like "interuption
calamity"). There should be also something related to the number of
cards turned in, and my proposal is not...


People will always have the option of playing together if they want to.
If you don't like that you have to group together to do something
against this. Maybe we could enforce the rule for trading to prevent this,
but somehow I don't see how to do that.

No ideas can ever prevent this "trading between friends", they can only
slow down and balance this. There is still the risk of becoming betrayed
in a later round. If I have a profit of just 1%, I won't do it. If the profit is
100% I do it for sure. Even if after the 3rd round I get a calamity.
We should find a "bonus" for turning in foreign cards, which is kind of
balanced from that point of view. Still a bonus, but not worth to do it
all the time.

Have you read my last proposal of turning in a substitute of the same face value?

This is a downside for you really have to keep or trade in that extra card.

Trading full W-sets fro full E-sets isn't giving benefit anymore in my option.

It's about full sets minus one. Still it supports aiming for the split sets, as it require one less card to complete it.


Example:
If I have 5 W6's, I could look and find someone who has 5 E6's, but that's hard. Even if my friend (of my non-calamity agreement) surely will give me what he tells, it might be possible he does not have 5 w6's

Also I have to get a full set and keep one card of this full set, AND have to be sure my friend trades 5W6's for 5 E6's AND he has to have a full set as well. Only to get the same result, because I have to turn in a face value 6 for subsitute.

If can manage to get 3 ivory (W) and 1 gold (W), but no 4th ivory, I will see if I can trade this 3 ivory for 3 silk (E). To turn in the full set of Silk, I will still have to turn in this 1 gold for substitute.
So what difference does it make, to either trading 1 gold for 1 ivory or 3 ivory for 3 silk, when in the end I turn in 4 cards and get 144 points.



In my opinion this equal face value substitute covers the whole set for set trading with friends, for there is no real benefit in masses.



BUT:

If a player has 2 or 3 of the lower numbers (1-2-3) and he can manage to get an extra card of the same face value, but that's a diferent commodity, He can see if he can trade his 2 or 3 cards to the other side.

It does not unbalance things, but it sure is a slight gain for this player.


Also, after a few rounds, West cards are in hands of East players, and East cards are in hands of West players. West cards might get being trade between East players. It does bring enough interference in the trading part.





In general:
Players who make agreements that unbalance the game, to both get the favour of it, will surely go for the higher cards.
It can be seen as hard to get that extra subsititute as it is to complete a set normally.

Most players are trying to complete the midrange sets, so there is no real certainty (as agreement trader) the cards you need are in hands of your friend.

Players that try to complete the lower sets (even the above players trying to do so after completing a higher set) will surely benefit from this option, but it will not unbalance the game.



I'd really like to play a game this way.

This could work - however it adds a level of complexity to trading and set valuation some people might not like. Maybe make it an official optional rule (after testing it of course?).

Ofcourse a playtest is needed before anything changes.


But a 12 player up game is complexer in the first place. trading split commodities from 15 up is complexer in the first place.

I would like it to be an official optional rule to be place in the rulebook.

Let's first playtest it. Do you know anyone who is playing in the near future except me?

We do play at January 3rd. But I don't know if there will be 5 or 15 players.
Nevertheless we will playtest almost everything what is proposed until then.

First I once played a game with the rule that the set value of cards from the other region is equal to its set value in general, with the face value of the cards added. This bonus is fewer compared with the bonus what adds one card to the set value: The set value I played with was approximately the set value of the set consisting of half a card more.

But I have a complete different idea to solve the problem that the game nearly is divided into two different parts. What about letting each region have only one commodity card in each stack, and the number of shared commodities in each stack is equal to 2 (with 12-14 players) or 3 (with 15+ players)? It forces players to interact more with the other side, but we still keep some bonus for sets from the own region.