Seth Brown posted a nice essay about
trading strategies in
Settlers of Catan on
About.com. His strategies are very much in line with my own, and his article makes a nice summary of considerations for resource trades.
 |
Resource cards in Settlers of Catan.
(c) Mayfair Games. Used by
permission. All rights reserved |
His post got me thinking about some different styles of trading I've seen when playing among friends or in tournaments. For my part, perhaps the most basic approach to a trade is to ask for what you need and offer what you don't. It seems almost trivial, really - I need wood, I've got an extra wheat, so I offer one wheat for one wood. In a friendly game, that's about as much thought as it takes. I've even seen people approach
Settlers as a co-op game, although they don't explicitly think of it that way. They don't mind being helpful, and they enjoy building until at some point someone says, "oh, look, I've got ten points, I guess I win. That was fun!"
A friend of mine has a son, on the other hand, who has a killer instinct for the barter economy of
Catan. His sense for which resources are going to be in demand is uncanny, and he invariably knows when to press a hard bargain on a trade that anyone else would have accepted on the first offer. Because he is such an effective trader, he typically wins, and the people around the table look at him and ask, "how do you
do that?"
I played in one tournament at PrezCon against a fellow who was a shrewd trader. I specifically remember one interchange where another player said, "I need brick." Shrewd Trader said, "what can you offer me?" Brick Guy said, "Do you want a sheep or a wheat?" Shrewd Trader immediately answered, "Both." Neither of the other two of us had brick to trade, and Brick Guy had essentially admitted (if not in so many words) that he needed neither the sheep nor the wheat and therefore could spare both. So Shrewd Trader held out and got the best deal. Needless to say, Shrewd Trader advanced to the quarterfinal.
But playing hardball can backfire. In another tournament, one guy at my table said that in his gaming group, nobody would trade straight up, one card for one card. The active player, the one whose turn it was and therefore who would be able to build, had to offer at least two-for-one just to get people to consider a trade. He said trading was not at all common in his group, and he was astounded at how freely the other three of us at the table would trade among ourselves. He ended up in last place at that game.
So perhaps the lesson here is that a barter economy is still an economy. A market equalizes when supply balances demand, so if one player is a hold-out and demands, say, three wheat for a brick, anybody else who has a brick can make a better deal than that, and the "price" of brick goes down.
Different people have different ideas about when a boycott is appropriate. One practice I've seen is a hard-and-fast policy never to trade with anyone who has eight or nine points. I try to be more flexible than that, but not by much. I'll trade with someone who has eight points if I'm confident that I'm not enabling a big move (based on the number of cards my opponent has and whether a two-point turn is within striking distance) and if it gives me a sure point - and even then, I'll give it very careful consideration. Others never trade with the leader, regardless of how early in the game it is. A few even refuse to trade with anyone who has more points than they do, which can really shut the market down if everybody takes that position.
Sometimes it's very tricky to balance the need for a trade with the potential edge it gives an opponent. In yet another tournament game, I had six points, behind a very good player who had the lead with seven. He made me a respectable trade offer, and after some hesitation, I accepted, over the objections of the other two people at the table. As I handed him the card, I said, "I have a feeling I'm making a deal with the seven-point devil." He gave a little half-smile, and sure enough, he stayed just out of reach of the rest of us until he won the game.
 |
The infamous Monopoly card.
(c) Mayfair Games. Used by
permission. All rights reserved. |
Making an offer generally requires that you have to reveal something about what you have, but that can be risky when someone could have a "Monopoly" card. Some people like to be cagey about the way they pose deals, like, "if you had brick to trade, what would you want for it?" I've described before the "Monopoly give-back," in which you freely trade a lot of one resource away for everything you need, then play the "monopoly" card to get it all back. As non-confrontational as Euro games are intended to be, there are opportunities to take an opponent down at the knees.
So trading style sometimes comes down to a function of strategy, but it is also an artifact of the personality of the players. Since boardgames are at heart a social activity, and since trading is inherently interactive, it makes sense that trading styles will vary according to the individuals playing the game. That quality of sensitivity to the individual playing style is, I think, part of the appeal of
Settlers of Catan.
