Another "where would you place?"

[Cos-]

Since the one I posted about a month ago was pretty popular, I'll do it again: Where would you place your settlement(s)? (and roads)

In this case, you're the 3rd player in a three player game, so each of the other players has already placed one, and now you get to place both of yours in a row. I've already played, so your comments can't affect what I chose, but since it was a difficult choice I am curious what other people would do. And for what reasons - the explanations of people's reasoning are what this post is really for.

In this case, there's an obvious best choice if you're going just for number probability spread: You can place at a 4-6-9 and a 5-8-10. That's about as ideal as it can get! But... if you do that, you're only on wheat and sheep hexes, no other resources, and totally dependent on maritime trades right from the start. Most of the good wood & brick spots have been taken, but there's still a 3-4-10 with a 4 & 10 of wood ... but it's kind of isolated and cut off from the rest of the island. Although it does have a path towards a brick port, with an 8-rock, so it may still be a good choice. And then there's that cluster of low-probability wood and brick hexes on the right...

[Stroom]

3-4-10 towards the wood port (getting 8 ore too, likely neither player wants to go there) and 3-6-9 towards top-left 3:1 port. With initial expansions you will have double ore and double wheat for victory. Wood port helps too as you won't need it at the end.

[silentProtest]

cool, that one is much harder. Id try 5 8 ore road to 3-8-harbor wood, and 4 9 6 road to 6 3 harbor/9 3 11. But I think yellow has the best chances here and purple is f-ed^^

[GuidoG93]

8-5 Rocks, then 6-4-9 sheep and wheat, direction 3:1 port. Strategy: dev cards until death.

[Stroom]

If someone would go only for dev cards, I would not trade any wood or bricks to them. Expanding would likely be impossible with skilled opponents.

[silentProtest]

If someone would go only for dev cards, I would not trade any wood or bricks to them. Expanding would likely be impossible with skilled opponents.

you only need 2 roads and 2 settlements to win that .... seems doable with dev cards

[Stroom]

If someone would go only for dev cards, I would not trade any wood or bricks to them. Expanding would likely be impossible with skilled opponents.

you only need 2 roads and 2 settlements to win that .... seems doable with dev cards

You'd need to buy the good ones. While other 2 players can buy them too at a similar rate. But they can also expand faster than you so they might get to the good expansion locations before you.

[silentProtest]

If someone would go only for dev cards, I would not trade any wood or bricks to them. Expanding would likely be impossible with skilled opponents.

you only need 2 roads and 2 settlements to win that .... seems doable with dev cards

You'd need to buy the good ones. While other 2 players can buy them too at a similar rate. But they can also expand faster than you so they might get to the good expansion locations before you.

If you get the good ones you do not even need roads or settlements. The other 2 things, related to this game are just plain wrong.

[Stroom]

you only need 2 roads and 2 settlements to win that .... seems doable with dev cards

You'd need to buy the good ones. While other 2 players can buy them too at a similar rate. But they can also expand faster than you so they might get to the good expansion locations before you.

If you get the good ones you do not even need roads or settlements. The other 2 things, related to this game are just plain wrong.

You need to be lucky to get the good cards. Might only get knights or VPs. Getting a road building early is about 8% chance. Which might also go to an opponent instead.

The 2 other players combined might buy the same amount of dev cards as you, not individually. Depends on their 2nd locations of course. But they also have access to wood and brick so they will get their settlements down faster.

Sure, going all out on those locations sounds strong but the other players will have to understand that you must not be allowed to get any more settlements.

Either way, playing with 4 players would be much more strategic. 3p is too simplistic.

[silentProtest]

You'd need to buy the good ones. While other 2 players can buy them too at a similar rate. But they can also expand faster than you so they might get to the good expansion locations before you.

If you get the good ones you do not even need roads or settlements. The other 2 things, related to this game are just plain wrong.

You need to be lucky to get the good cards. Might only get knights or VPs. Getting a road building early is about 8% chance. Which might also go to an opponent instead.

The 2 other players combined might buy the same amount of dev cards as you, not individually. Depends on their 2nd locations of course. But they also have access to wood and brick so they will get their settlements down faster.

Sure, going all out on those locations sounds strong but the other players will have to understand that you must not be allowed to get any more settlements.

Either way, playing with 4 players would be much more strategic. 3p is too simplistic.

Im sorry, I thought saying the 2 other claims are plain wrong, since they were baseless was enough. Let me elaborate more.

"While other 2 players can buy them too at a similar rate"
at the very best the one player, who has the lead(yellow), comes even close to challenge you on dev cards and getting more production to get more dev cards. [little basics insert, so we are on the same page: you are playing, as yellow, with 1 8 ore and prob. a 9, an 8 if you are lucky, 8+9 if you are willing to give up brick/clay against 5+8 ore and 4+9 wheat. which are the things you need to to get cities to doable your dev card production.] the tactic for yellow being to go for spreading out to more ore places (the 5), so you could keep up with city production and making your own - also blocking vital points for dev cards and cities (which is the fun point, he cant block every spot with 1 robber) - also getting player 3(purple to cooperate to block you. .... I do think yellow would be ahead with the start but if you get the position I suggested AND get to your first city first, yellow has MAJOR problems.
so the first part, that both could keep up is wrong (purple without either wheat or ore - really ?? xD). So, is the second part, at the start at least. - It is a highly volatile position, and I think it is slightly more likely for yellow to get the upper hand.

" But they can also expand faster than you so they might get to the good expansion locations before you."
If you mean "expand=spread on the map", fair enough. But you should be faster with production expansion then they are. But main point here is that the best and crucial locations would be taken at this point anyway - therefore building cities at those, doubling your production, is more efficient and will get you most of the stuff you need. (getting the port and an extra 8 are just an economic bonus; you mostly just need one to get another city purerly for points. - getting 2 is even easier for a win, but depends on getting monopoly/2 free resources-card or trading, which might be blocked by both players.... but purple is also dependent on those trades, so its a question how long he could keep that block up^^)

"Getting a road building early is about 8% chance." - at first try ? am I building only one? , also thats the weakest one, besides knights/if Im not going for 5 roads to blitz finish.

"The 2 other players combined might buy the same amount of dev cards as you, not individually. Depends on their 2nd locations of course. But they also have access to wood and brick so they will get their settlements down faster." - so, if we buy out the whole stack it is 50-50 Id get one road/monopoly/2-resources, at least expected value, so at the very least Im likely to get some of those which is enough to get unstuck. - I try to get more in depth. the only problem with that only wheat ore 1 sheep tactic is getting stuck/build in and not getting a specific resource you need, which could even get worse if you get targeted on you sheep in a dev card race. The rest is just fine. Clay and wood are negligible if you have fine spots and the game is going for 10 points.
(also it is not said it is the best position to be in, just the best/most likely to win yourself, from the available)
[should be dissecting this futher; but not worth the time; and the basis I would be using, I already written above this.]


I know there is a whole debate about 3p vs 4p games, wouldnt get into it much. My only claim is that, if the people, you are playing, are on an extremely high level and are willing to counter play and cooperate vs leader, 3p is just fine and fun and complex to play; with the added bonus that all board combination are to playable for all players, and not getting a (mostly) dead player or very very stiff/slow game, on some board combinations.

Also on you saying that sentence. If it is that easy, one should be thinking the answer to best start positions would be trivial....
Futhermore you claimed to be a good player, somewhere, and are going with that assumption into arguing, which I find weird, considering A. you have 1 game on bga, and there are no elo on other sites, afaik, (so I cant check, if you would even be able to reach 400 (lets take that as the naive nominal value for "seriously good player")) and B. you are missing key knowledge about the meta.....
Little disclaimer I also miss some meta knowledge it seems. But I dont think its that key. (I just read that people, that are good, think about number diversity - I played for same numbers in ore wheat combination and wood clay combination for instance, and just ingored the rest... might be a way to improve^^).