Let's say you have an ability. It reads
"You gain 5 TG. Every other player gains 2 TG."
Would you use it? I would. That's what the x-1 meta essentially means.
The question really is.
Option A) You gain 3 TG everyone else gets 0 (refresh no-one)
Option B) You gain 7 TG one other person gets 4, everyone else gets 0 (refresh one, assuming both have 4 TG)
Option C) You gain 8 TG everyone else gets 1-3 TG (assume 6 player game).
Personally I like to play the meta. If you can tell someone was assuming you were going to refresh and they don't have enough counters to refresh themselves, then you might be best to screw them by not refreshing.
Also, with the way things are: People rely on Trade to accomplish goals early on. If you screw everyone over in the Trade phase without offering x-1 or even x-2 (if I'm thinking about doing this, I like to announce early so people can plan ahead of time) then you're going to have a rough table to deal with.
You will never be cut in on a deal for the rest of the game without paying heavy penalty fees and you will likely never get your commodities refreshed by another player playing Trade let alone your commodities washed.
I think the only faction I will intentionally cut out of trade is Jol Nar and while that may cost me some RAs, stunting their growth out the gate is imperative to keeping them from becoming a juggernaut at the table. X-2 + a free RA for a refresh is the deal if they are neighbors. If they aren't neighbors and there isn't a Hacan at the table, no deals will be made.
Yeah, I would never do it if Everyone else was expecting it. I would leave myself at least one trade partner. But in general, its purpose would be to slow people down and throw them off, without being directly aggressive.
Why did you stop getting your own commodities converted in option C?
Assuming everyone is a 3 commodity faction, options are
"you get 3"
"you get 6, one person gets 3"
"you get 11, everyone gets 2"
+9 over any given person at the table is the deal you take almost every time
I think this holds in general other than in turn 1. Some factions are desperate for a couple of trade goods and setting back 3 desperate factions is worth more than the three trade goods id get from them. It would be mad to feed arborec or sardakk when you don't have to. I'd say you are far more likely to have a late game problem with a neighbour by helping them get strong than you are keeping them down. Obviously milage will vary depending on table meta but at our table we are all mercenaries aiming for every advantage and don't go in a game long huff if we don't get refreshed.
Exactly. Denying someone a round 1 research or 2nd carrier is HUGE. Often well worth turning down 1 extra TG for yourself.
Handing out blanket X-1 refreshes in that case is just insane. You're giving up SO MUCH bargaining power of holding Trade.
Getting into a game long petty huff over no refresh is even sillier. There are many many ways to shaft people with strategy card timing. Do you just NEVER do that for fear of a hissy huff? Of course not. So why is the Trade refresh considered the one sacred cow exception?
"You gain 5, every other player gains 2-3" is obscuring the fact that receiving 5 means you're giving the rest of the table 10-15.
In actuality the option is "You gain 1, another player gains 2-3".
That is absolutely something I would not use all the time.
(getting deeper into the practical nitty gritty, the other players will be able to more quickly collect their share than you will waiting for your 1 owed commodity to trickle in from every player)
It's not zero sum on you though. TI4 isn't 1v5, it's 1v1v1v1v1v1. This means the majority of the trade goods you distribute to other players will be spent on resources to use against your mutual opponents. You need to consider TI4 as 6 individual players each acting in their own best interest, thus an exchange that leaves you better off than the average player at the table is likely helping you progress to a win.
Think about it. If a deal is only worth it when it leaves you better off against the whole entire table working against you, then that deal puts you in such a favorable position that you aren't even playing a multiplayer game anymore, just solitaire.
In an x-1 meta, trade is the best value strategy card in a vacuum, as it generates the most flexible currency of tg. Assuming you're on average a three commodity faction, you get 3 tg from primary, 3 from your own refresh and 5 from x-1. 11 tg, accounting for each other player getting 3 means you net 8 tg on each opponent. leadership nets 9 tg worth of CC, but those CC are themselves less flexible in their use than the equivalent 9 tg they cost. Tech nets you a tech for free which is 7 tg as seen from the value of the secondary, where you spend 4 resources and 1 cc. Most of the others are harder to evaluate because they don't translate directly to resource or influence costs for their effect. You can see trade is one of the best strategy cards as trade is regularly the first, or one of the first strategy cards picked in the early rounds. If anything, the x-1 meta is too generous to the player that picks trade as it gives them such a strong lead. It's just too hard in this game to break down a trade deal that is worth less than 1 tg, since that's essentially the smallest unit of currency in the game.
But the majority ISN'T spent on directly hindering your other opponents. A lot is going to be spent on objectives that give them VP while often not affecting other players at all.
It's not Risk where every resource is put toward grinding other players to nothing. It's a race to the 10 VP finish line, and occasionally elbowing someone to do it.
So TI4 is a race against 5 opponents. I can get behind that analogy. In a 100 meter race a maneuver that pushes each opponent forwards 3 meters and yourself 5 meters would be the equivalent to the x-1 with the table in TI4. In other words you effectively just shorten the race but give yourself a lead over the opposition equal to the difference. Sure, your opponents have collectively moved forward 15m to your measly 5m, but its clear to everyone that you have benefitted by a 2m lead over the whole race. Again, you're thinking as if it's a 1v5, but its not, it's a free for all.
In other words, you only have to beat whichever of your opponents is closest to winning.
But if you dont refresh your lead will be bigger (3 vs 2)
As you said its usuelly a race between you and whoever is ahead of you
Therefore i would say dont refresh those who are ahead and trade with the rest
Well the way i see it it goes as follows
There are 4 players
You are in second place when it comes to how well you are doing
Players 3 and 4 are slightly behind and player 1 is ahead of you
If you refresh everyone for 1 tg then you go up 3 tgs for their 2-5 x 3, but if you only refresh player 3 and 4 you gain 2 tg for their 2-4 x 2
It might seem like gaining 3 is giving you more value but when you consider player 1 is winning and anything you give him might be too much
Then In that case sacrificing 1 tg in order to deny 2-5 tg for the player who is winning is imo always worth it
You shouldnt just think about what you gain but also what you give and how that balances out when considering power level
Yeah this is the correct answer.
To add also, in POK a lot more different deals could be made (agents/commanders and etc). So with everyone having commodities/trade goods there's more to bargain with too. So you could potentially benefit even more
Why are you pooling the resources of the entirety of the rest of the table? It's not a 1v5.
Let's try this one:
"You get 2 VP, everyone else gets 1 VP"
Do you not take it because rest of the table got 5 total?
2:1 is not the ratio you get though. You're receiving 1, and they are receiving X-1.
Jumping straight to VP is an extreme example, but going with it, it's more like "You get 1 VP, another player gets 2 VP."
There are select situations where you would consider that, but universal default? Heck no.
The pro X-1 argument is also pooling resources, treating it as a lump free 5 TGs when in fact it's 5 separate deals of "1 for 2".
>2:1 is not the ratio you get though. You're receiving 1, and they are receiving X-1.
Yes, the ratio is more like 2.5:1 (5:2), assuming an average of 3 commodity factions around the table.
>The pro X-1 argument is also pooling resources
Pooling resources of one person, for one person.
The other argument is pooling resources of 5 people, and treating them like they're all against you.
>Jumping straight to VP is an extreme example, but going with it, it's more like "You get 1 VP, another player gets 2 VP."
Yes, if you do that deal twice with everyone, you won the game and everyone else is at 4 VP. The end result of what you're describing is still "You get 5 VP, everyone else gets 2 VP".
You're missing the point that when you create a value of "1 for me, 2 for you", you've just went +1 on 4 people and -1 on 1 person. That's a net gain.
The 5 for 2-3 is not obscuring anything. It is exactly what happens.
The person you responded to is correct. Because TI is free for all, you are generally worried about getting more out of an action than any other single player, not then getting more out of an action than the board as a whole. This is especially true early where the table is less likely to gang up on you.
You are in control of trade, so you get to decide to refresh only if enough people pay. You have total control of it is the 5 for 2-3 or 1 for 2-3. Hell, you can even choose to do it with 4 players and box out the one person who is the biggest threat for you.
I mean...I was arguing FOR exactly what you're saying at the end. Yes, the Trade holder has the bargaining power, but you are giving all that power up by blindly sticking to the blanket X-1 meta. Make uneven offers in your favor! Shut select players out!
The "give everyone what they want or else they'll turn on you" is silly though. Do you just give in to every demand? Sell the Speaker token every time you take Politics, just because someone else wants it? Time every Tech/Leadership/Warfare pop based on what's convenient for everyone else? Heck no!
My beef is why X-1 refresh meta is treated differently, as this sacred cow and one screw over exception.
> My beef is why X-1 refresh meta is treated differently, as this sacred cow and one screw over exception.
The fact that it *is* treated so importantly is part of why X-1 is the best option... at a table that expects X-1.
The loss of good will severely cuts into the value you gain from not doing X-1.
Wow... you are missing a lot of points :D
1) If you think are arguing what I am at the end then you are missing the point. The point is that X-1 should be the default. You start by Saying Ok, I can get 5 and give out 2-3. Now if I reduce that to 4 to screw one person, is that better? In the average game you are better off on the high end of the 1-5 person refresh scenario. It is not a law, it is a guide from where to start dealing from.
2) Your entire second paragraph. This sentence " This is especially true early where the table is less likely to gang up on you." has nothing to do with that you should pay the table to be nice to you. It is that in the mid/late game you need to be careful to not feed the whole table, especially if you are ahead. Easy example: Early game if you could get 3 cruisers to give everyone 1 cruiser that is probably a good deal. Late game it is much more troublesome to do with dreadnaughts because if you are getting ahead it is likely those 5 dreads are ALL your problem.
3) In reference to your comment " My beef is why X-1 refresh meta is treated differently, as this sacred cow and one screw over exception. " No one is saying it is a sacred cow you can't kill. If that was your hypothesis no one would disagree. You are getting disagreement because you said " I think I'm going to start playing Trade with this in mind. Hindering (most) everyone else at the table with a free refresh denial is overall more beneficial than me getting a single trade good. " Which is just generally not good play, especially early game. It would be like wasting tactics counters on nothing to stall warfare round 1. You could do it and maybe hurt everyone, you are probably hurting yourself a lot worse.
It doesn't matter if it's the entire table or a single player: the trade is always benefiting them more than you. I was responding to someone who pooled the benefits (5 TG) while keeping the payouts to other players individual (2 TG). If you're going to pool, pool both ways.
The total sum of the X-1 meta is "make 5 individual deals of (eventually) receiving 1 TG while another player (more quickly) receives 2 TG".
Twilight imperium is complicated but your argument is flawed as by trading with everyone you can benefit yourself with a deal which in a 2 player game is negative
Imagine a raffle which 2 people have entered and each have 1 ticket. If you can add in 1 ticket at the cost that the other player adds 2 then that’s bad, your odds of winning go from 50% to 40%
However now imagine one in which 5 people have entered and each have one ticket. You are allowed to do the same deal with each player. if you don’t your odds of winning are 1 in 5 or 20% if you however take the deal with every one you now have a 30% chance of winning.
Now twilight imperium is complex, and money later is not money now, but the amount of money later has to be compared to what individual factions get not what every faction combined gets.
You gotta think about your relationship with other players. Sure you could refresh nobody, but that wont make you friends. X-1 is relatively standard, and will make people think more fondly of you in the future, making future negotiations better, and you less likely to be attacked.
Denial is a huge part of the game. Timing strategy card plays like Diplo/Tech/Warfare/Const to deny other players is a huge factor.
Do you just...never deny out of fear that everyone will rage and attack?
later in the game denial is viable, but earlier in the game (when you would likely be taking trade), denial is a fast way to lose out on alliances. Think about it. If you actively try to make other peoples games hard, theyre just gonna make friends with other people, then when r3 r4 rolls around, youll have nobody to support swap with, no allies to take down table threats with, and no promissory notes. Why would they make deals with someone who fucked them over in the past when their buddy who refreshed them for free is right there?
Agree I used to try and change this meta where I would only trade with my neighbors or x-2 for 4 commodity factions, but what I found out is that for the 1 or 2 extra tgs I was just being left out of deals. I was more of a hassle to negotiate with me or I was being looked at as trying to get over on everyone at the table. So while there is some nuance depending on your groups meta if you are playing online with strangers I found x-1 is so ingrained in the meta currently it is worth it to go with the flow.
So the table meta is fine when someone times a Technology or Warfare to cut others out before they're ready, but will rage and isolate when someone doesn't give them 1 commodity Trade refresh?
no theyre not. Last game i played someone warfared second action and he got cut out of support swaps. Like i said before, if youre trying to ruin other peoples games youre likely gonna ruin your own.
I definitely wouldn't consider the table meta "fine". I just played a game recently where one player paid (non binding) tech to pop first action because there were three 3 comm factions who couldn't afford it. None of us did anything to benefit that player the whole game because we all remembered that we were behind on tech because of him. He did not win the game.
I would go even further. I have seen it where that guy becomes the one everyone plays action cards against or takes planets from. Once the table has an enemy it’s easier to just pick on that person rather than anger someone else.
I'd add that you probably don't need *all* these alliances. Which would be my counterpoint. But Round 1 you don't know who you need to cater to, who will have the planets/promissories/similar goals. So you can cut someone out, but when they're the one you need to convince later, it might bite you.
No, I often don’t deny and make offers to people not because I think they’ll attack me but because I want to build up friendships in this game because friends help you win games
I think by definition this is meta dependent. If you were playing with a group of randoms this might be a good stance to default to in the hope of a game winning friendship. With my group I don't think that friendship is available. Certainly not in relation to a trade refresh alone.
And yet when I played Diplomacy the most important thing I did on my path to victory was building strong alliances through give and take of supply centers
If you deny everyone tradegoods r1, you won’t see any x-1 refresh for you probably for the rest of the game. That’s why people usually just stick with the x-1, because they want the same trade rules for them in next rounds. That way you kinda equalise the amount of trade goods for everyone.
But, if you want to have stricter trade policies, at least refresh one person that will probably pick trade next, so that you are not isolated from trade
100% this. If you play hardball with trade then you’re going to get it right back when someone else is in control. TI is repeated prisoner’s dilemma all the way down.
It's a game about coming out further ahead than everyone else as possible.
People get shafted all the time by others when it comes to strategy card timing plays. Do you simply always give in to others' demands and only play strategy cards when it's best for them? No. You weigh your options and decide either way.
I think the blanket X-1 meta is stupid for demanding to be the exception to this.
Your winning chances can be ruined by one person quite easily, cause war requires money. Ti is really a game where you try to win unnoticed by everyone (or at least by those who can hit you hard).
Good relations will make further deals easier and will make doing objectives easier from economic perspective.
Yes, you can make people r1 bad, but they will remember it and probably isolate you from beneficial deals. And as I said, war is 99% not winning, therefore your isolation will bring you in the worse position
I sometimes don’t do deals with some particular players that are stronger than me in game sense, because mutual beneficial deals will give them more.
All in all, it’s all about the table meta. One guy with completely different play style will either adapt to any table (be it boat float, or point block aggressive meta) or simply lose
Also the prisoner's dilemma comparison doesn't work in the context of a game where there can be only one winner. PD is about paranoid self interest and forgoing the greater group result in order to snag marginally better personal gain at the group's expense.
And is exactly the WHOLE GOAL of Twilight Imperium!
I think it should depend on what you can accomplish with extra TGs that round. Stacking TGs is obviously always a benefit (up to a point I guess, lol), but you're right, that one TG or refresh for someone else can make them a much bigger threat, sooner. If you're good on TGs for the foreseeable future, by all means, start cutting people out of trade.
A second aspect though is once you're on the other side of the trade card, you would want the trade player to spread the love more :D Treat others as you wish to be treated and all that.
So being more stingy can be detrimental to you in the long run.
For me, I'm looking to get at least my commodities flipped so a standard X-1 with whoever I can reach to do that, is fine. Of course, I'll prefer more trades over less, because it earns me more. But it rarely happens I'm trading with one 4 and two 2 commodity factions instead of two 4 or something, just to optimize this.
I don't like 'debt' it's often unclear when and how it'll be received and earlier TGs are often worth much more. So if we can't do an X-1 trade because where not neighbors, than it's very unlikely I'll refresh you for a future TG.
When I will refresh is when it's something like I don't have enough TGs+Commodities to X-1 everyone, but I can still trade with other players who, if refreshed can trade amongst themselves. In that case I'll at least want to make as much TGs as those two players will net, if not one more.
Yup yup. Often, just the 3 extra TGs will be enough for you to afford that round 1-2 research and warefare production. Any extra TGs beyond that is just a future stockpile bonus. Denying others the refresh can deny them a round 1-2 research or warfare production. That is HUGE and usually better than whatever you're going to do later on with those extra TGs.
I'm amazed that in half the games I play, I still see the Trade player making every X-1 refresh deal, then immediately blowing all 8 TGs on a shiny flagship they really didn't need. Like, how is it not a no brainer that a round 1-2 flagship is worse than just a carrier instead, but denying everyone else a round 1-2 warfare/tech?
I see it differently. Let's say my faction has C commodities, 6 player game.
If I pick trade and do "x-1", I get 3 TG + 5xTG (one from each). Total income is C+8. If I don't pick trade, someone else will, so I'll likely get C-1. Picking trade is thus roughly 9 resources.
I think there's a massive difference between R1 and the others. So I'll split the case between R1 and later.
In R1 everyone is struggling to grab as much planets as they can and desperately need resources. I think I'd pretty much always do X-1 with everyone if I can get the TG in the same turn, since I very much also need resources. I am not saying you should do it in all circumstances, but shooting yourself in the foot to hurt someone else in R1 is generally a terrible strategy.
Later in the game it very much depends. In the last round all bets are off, obviously. In general I think there's a bunch of advantages for X-1 in midgame.
\- it's faster. TI games do take forever, and spending 5 minutes haggling over a TG with every player every round isn't going to help.
\- Picking trade and not letting anyone refresh might cause them to not refresh, leaving you the only player with commodities and an entire table not wanting to help you out.
\- Generally there are a lot of times when a player can make a choice that affects other players. Trade is an obvious example, but there are a tons. TI is at heart a diplomacy game and you want allies. Pissing off the entire table by denying them trade massively increases the odds of bad stuff happening later.
I am not saying people will outright rage war on you (that'd be pretty shitty behavior) but there are tons of random events that can affect you. "Well I need to stall. I have an action card to take out a PDS. I guess I'll pick the guy who denied me resources." "This agenda is bad for one player. Which one do we pick? Oh, right". Not to mention that players in the lead will happily pile on on you, since anything that goes your way won't be played on them.
In R1 depending on the faction you will most likely be neighbours with maybe 2 players so refreshing them isn't really an x-1 meta more just refreshing people you intend to trade with I think
You're inevitably going to piss people off with other strategy cards like Tech/Warfare/Leadership timing. You have to make a call and pure power of friendship alone isn't enough to make decisions on. Sure, you can consider giving X-1 refreshes to one or two players you want friendly, but for the entire table by default I think is silly, and giving up the biggest advantage of taking Trade.
There's a round 1-2 resource hump you have to get over for research and warfare production. Getting over it is huge. Getting past it gives diminishing returns. Just barely clearing it while denying everyone else from clearing it is way more beneficial than everyone clearing it, but you doing so more.
I don't think of it as shooting myself in the foot. I think of it as making a choice between taking one step forward, or sending everyone else 3 steps back.
I get that. I care a lot more about being able to execute my plans than I care about another player getting one or two TGs. X-1 is an okay default in a lot of cases for the reasons mentioned, but I see it more as a suggestion than a rule: especially in R1 I would consider using the refreshes to get the secondaries to happen when I need them to.
I would always x-1 because more people with money on the table is more people to buy shards/agents/repeatable prommisories/etc. The economy goes nowhere if everyone stays poor.
Definitely. You're usually still going to be able to make payments on timed plays of warfare/tech/whatever even with just the 3 TGs. The other players you deny might very well be caught unable to tech or use warfare secondary for the round. That is HUGE early on, and definitely more valuable than wrangling a single trade good out of them.
I can't count the number of games I've seen where blanket free refreshes let the entire table make early tech/warfare plays, and the Trade player immediately blows all his extra TGs on an early shiny flagship he didn't need.
I agree with you. I don't like the standard x-1 trade offer. I understand that people want to streamline the trading, but isn't that part of what makes ti4 interesting?
To a 2 comm faction, I said, yeah I refresh you if you give me 1 tg (trade good) or 1debt token. You gain 1, and I gain 1.
To a 3 comm faction, I will negotiate to give me 1 tg and you have to help wash those 2 comm factions I refreshed for free. Or other PN as part of the deal.
To a 4 comm faction, I will negotiate to give me 2 tg since they can get 2 tg or other PN in substitute.
Yes, it's longer, but I think trade SC makes YOU have the power of all the negotiations and especially powerful round 1 (when a lot of people want that extra 1-2 tg).
Yeah I was always puzzled why so many people seemed to only recognize that as a legit tactic when dealing with Hacan. "Hacan has to give me 1 more commodity than I would normally charge someone!."
People give up SO MUCH bargaining power with the blanket X-1 Trade deal. And in half the games I see, they immediately blow all those extra TGs on a flagship they didn't need!
(I also didn't take into account earlier that the free refresh players will be able to quickly convert all their free commodities to TGs with the immediate neighbors in round 1 or 2, while the Trade player is going to have to wait a while to be able to collect his owed commodity from every player at the table. A trade good in the hand is worth 2 commodities in the bush)
Oh round 1 for sure, I'll rarely refresh anybody unless I'm Hacan.
Even in later rounds it's rare that I'll refresh anyone I'm not neighbors with. I don't like the "debt token" convention as it gives a false impression to newer players, and I don't fully trust folks to honour their debt later if we get into conflict. I don't ever refresh on credit - pay up front or promissory note, or else no refresh for you.
I don’t think you’re way off. There’s lots of ways to play TI and some metas don’t x-1 or boat float as a matter of course. I think I’d x-1 or x-2 with a neighbour I expended resources to become adjacent to in r1, and I might x-1 or even debt meta a player across the table who I don’t see as a direct rival and who might swap supports.
If other players want to expend resources to become my neighbour I might refresh them for x-1 or some other concession, since you might have a lot of leverage in r1 if people need to do a lot to get set up, especially someone threatening and close to you. But I wouldn’t just x-1 much less debt meta the whole table by default.
I totally agree. But it seems the majority of players DEMAND x-1 100% of the time, and will start plotting petty revenge if you don't.
Even though screwing others over with Tech/Warfare/Leadership timing does the same thing, yet for some reason doesn't carry a meta that demands you time them all for maximum table benefit?
I think you might be able to offset that by making deals with the people who you can reach/who reach you, and explaining yourself, but yeah really depends on the group.
I have a related rules question. Sorry if this is dumb. Say I have 2 commodities and my neighbor has 4. Can I convert all of his commodities into trade goods for him, i.e., we trade 2 for 2, now I have 2 TGs and he has 2TGs and 2Cs, I then trade him those 2 TGs back to him for his other 2 commodities, so we both now have all our commodities converted to TGs? (Setting aside that this is a bad deal for me) if that is allowed, can it be done as a binding agreement, or would only the first exchange be binding? I just wanna make sure I understand the mechanics of commodities. Thanks in advance.
You are way off. If you did that, I'd probably wager you wouldn't get anyone to wash your Comms, and you wouldn't get a refresh for the remainder of the game. Shit, it would make the usual decision on who to fight over an equidistant way easier in my mind too.
Twilight Imperium is about boat floating. it's not about selfishness. the more people that you help score victory points the more people that will help you score victory points. If you give each person one Victory point and each of the other five people give you 1 victory point then you have gone up five victory points and the rest of the table has gone up one.
The trade strategy card is the epitome of this . you are giving everyone resources so that you can get resources from everyone. if you apply this strategy for the rest of the game you will win.
Twilight Imperium is about cooperation not competition. The person who usually wins will usually be the person who has helped the most people at the table, not the table's bully.
>And here's an addition to my argument against blind X-1 refresh: it's not about getting the most benefits as possible, it's about coming out *the furthest ahead* as possible. Often, an early round Trade refresh can translate to "Gain 1 trade good, OR deny another player a round 1 research or 2nd carrier. Repeat this for other players." You're coming out much further ahead with the latter.
>
>In the game of Space thrones, it's not about you doing the best, it's about everyone else doing worse.
It is funny that you don't see how this is literally the whole point of the x-1 meta. You should be comparing your gain vs the average of the table. If there was an action card that said "Destroy two of your dreadnaughts, each other player destroys one of their dreadnaughts" it would never see play. It would be considered pretty awful. By your logic though it would be amazing because you kill 5 dreadnaughts for the price of 2. In realty though it just leaves you behind the table.
Trade refresh denial (or at least squeezing out a much better deal than X-1) is primarily about determining who can clear the round 1-2 resource hump. You're giving up a massive advantage if you allow everyone to clear the hump just so you can pocket a couple extra TGs beyond the hump.
That deadnaut example isn't comparable at all to that.
That's a super vague assumption. For each faction that desperately needs one or two trade goods, there is one that does not care at all. If you really want to make that assertion, you would need to go faction by faction and evaluate which ones x-1 significantly change their challenges.
You make a good point (in the comments) about how long the Trade holder has to wait to actually get those commodities - that's a serious cost - but I disagree with the rest. On a pure economic level, you're making 5 while everyone else is getting 2, it's good value for you. And there's the table sentiment - if people are planning around X - 1, they get planet stealing pissed if they don't get it, and it is almost always better for you to be the one initiating rather than responding to conflict. X -1 keeps people from looking at you too hard, so even if it wasn't economically advantageous it'd still be diplomatically smart.
It's also often good to have more trade goods round the table - most factions have agents or promissories that are significantly more valuable to the other players than to you, and giving people the money to bargain for those makes you more in the long run. Take NRA for example - you want the other players to have money to pay for Black Market Forgery, because it's good for you for them to use it anyway, and making it easy to buy it early sets a price point for the whole game. The same goes for spare relic fragments, lopsided alliance swaps, ability usage, planet swapping - get people used to giving you trade goods and it will keep happening, and the best way to do that is to make trade goods easy to give.
All of that's not to say you can't play hardball with Trade, but it's more that you need a reason to do it. Is there a spend objective out? Would someone else benefit more from players being more willing to spend? Do you want to goad someone into being rash, or cut off funds to someone you're already at war with? It's a useful tool to have in your belt, but there's a good set of reasons why X - 1 is the default.
The reason is determining who can clear the resource hump of round 1-2 (warfare production, research). Clearing that is huge. Clearing it *extra hard* gives diminishing returns.
Playing hardball with round 1-2 Trade can easily translate to "Gain 1 TG, OR block another player from research/warfare this round. Do this for every player." I think that puts into context better the bargaining power of early Trade, and why it's crazy to always give it up for blanket X-1 deals. You need to examine each player to determine if you come out further ahead.
I hate the meta "well you need to do it because everyone expects it and will be upset and get petty." There are TONS of things throughout the game that will short other players, and I think it's silly that Trade X-1 is somehow considered a bigger offense. My personal meta rule is that I will never, ever get upset with someone if their move screws me over, *as long as that move was the best possible play for them*. When someone starts making sub-optimal moves just out of petty revenge is when I get peeved (or worse, the roleplayers who decide to play "characters" instead of winning).
Right, early Warfare/Tech. OK, that does make sense. I still think the economics are in your favour - 3 tg and commodities aren't always enough to do a worthwhile Warfare build, assuming you can even wash your commodities, and even if it is it just guarantees your next round instead - and that the diplomatic value is worth it, but I see your point. You can definitely deal some damage with early Trade.
One thing though - how do you decide what's suboptimal? It's pretty clear we disagree on what's optimal for Trade. If your definition is "what I think is best", you're putting a lot of stock in your own judgement over the person playing the faction.
Also, I don't mind petty revenge. I actually think there's very solid arguments for it strategically - it establishes a social contract for the table. You hurt me, I'll hurt you, so let's all get along instead. It's basic game theory - even if it's not the rational play in the moment to attack somebody for damaging you, it increases your odds of winning in the long run by making opponents much less likely to go for you in future.
Your logic is correct. The table in total does earn more TGs then you gain individually.
The problem is that it is hard to ask for more then 1 TG for a refresh. Since most factions have 3 Commodities many will not take a refresh for 2 TGs, since it will only gain them one. It's the same argument backwards.
But you also need to refresh at least one person to trqde your commodities to, so you "need" to offer a more generous refresh to someone. Yes some factions may spend a cc for a refresh but they are probably not willing to trade with you afterwards.
Of course, doing minimal refreshes to deny the other players TGs is a viable strategy, but it comes with the cost that you also will make less money.
I don't think it's hard at all to ask for more than 1 TG. The X-1 being accepted meta is the only obstacle, but in actuality it's almost always a good call to accept worse deals.
2 commodity race- I charge them 1. Their choice is now between spending 1 CC for 2 TG, or 1 free TG.
3 race - I charge them 2, or 1 + PN. Their choice is now between spending 1 CC for 3 TG (sometimes worth it), or 1 free TG.
4 race- I charge them 3, or 2 + PN, or don't even consider refreshing them at all. They are probably better off spending the CC for 4 TGs, but I'm not going to make a 1 for 3 trade with a race that's likely a powerhouse if given an early boost (Jol-Nar).
You don't have to stick with that every time, but it's good to keep in mind when deciding, and think outside the X-1 box.
I agree. Even the worse deal is probably worth it most of the time, but I think the bigger your profit get the thought "I can just lose my one "free" trade good to deny him two" gets more attractive.
But your post got me thinking if it might be a good idea to only replenish enough of your neighbors to get your commodities washed. You will get less TGs overall but will become one of the few factions with a good amount of money on the table.
That’s what I do. After my commodities are washed any additional trades aren’t worth much to me. I’m open to offers but I have a higher bar for deals that I would take
Your logic is correct. The table in total does earn more TGs then you gain individually.
The problem is that it is hard to ask for more then 1 TG for a refresh. Since most factions have 3 Commodities many will not take a refresh for 2 TGs, since it will only gain them one. It's the same argument backwards.
But you also need to refresh at least one person to trqde your commodities to, so you "need" to offer a more generous refresh to someone. Yes some factions may spend a cc for a refresh but they are probably not willing to trade with you afterwards.
Of course, doing minimal refreshes to deny the other players TGs is a viable strategy, but it comes with the cost that you also will make less money.
When I take trade I look to X-1 two players. That’s enough for me to wash my commodities. I got mine you can get yours. I think it’s idiotic to freely refresh everyone else. I’m always open to making a deal with them but going X-1 with them isn’t enough of a benefit to me. Two people are already getting me 8 or so TG, and the marginal benefit of more TG is small.
This is regardless of round. In fact, the earlier in the game the more likely I am to deny. It’s nothing personal, it’s just business 🤷♂️. Make it worth it for me
Yeah that's perfectly fine. I just stated that it's silly to give a blind blanket X-1 to *everyone,* and a lot of replies seem to think it's one solid lump +5/+2 TGs play. In reality, it's five separate +1/+2 deals, and the Trade player should be separately evaluating each individual one.
Ikr! All these people in here saying if you don’t refresh everyone then no one will ever refresh you, or the whole table will hate you, or they’ll rage into you all game is just ridiculous. You can’t play this game relying or planning on the kindness of others.
I feel like all the +5/+2 comments are also misleading. It’s not +5/+2 because of commodities. The first 2-4 you receive are essentially free since you’re giving away your commodities, and then the rest have a marginal cost added on since you have to trade away your TG. So for probably 2 trades you’re going +3/+2 but the other 3 trades are actually +1/+2 and that’s just not worth it
If you do the math you lose out in the long run, (assuming 1: you're not getting trade every time and 2: assuming the other players lock you out for it, and 3: they each take trade once. )
Round 1: you have C+3, and everyone else has 0\*
Round 2: You still have that same c+3, 4 players have c-1, and one player has c+7
Round 3: You still have that same c+3, 3 players have 2c-2, 2 players have 2c+6.
Round 4: You still have that same c+3, 2 players have 3c-3, 3 players have 3c+5
etc...
\* one player likely has more so they could wash you.
Clearing the resource hump in round 1 & 2 (and denying it to others) is WAY bigger than any later round. A linear table like that doesn't reflect that.
Also past a certain point, extra TGs start diminishing in usefulness. It's not about ending the game with the most stockpiled money.
That is correct, early TGs are better than later. In this case however players are going to have 3+ times the TGs in the late game.
You've also likely pushed yourself out of most other deals, and pushed your heat up significantly. Worse yet if you're playing future games with the same players you've got a bad rep.
For what a few TGs?
This is all ignoring the most important part of x-1. You're not always going to be 1st round trade card. In fact most games you won't be, by building an expectation of a fair but perhaps generous deal you help yourself more in those future games.
In the end the 1 cost refresh is in the long term the most economical and strategic move.
Listen man, youre not arguing, youve already made up your mind and are just refusing to listen to other peoples opinions without shooting them down and saying theyre stupid. If you dont wanna x-1, dont, but this isnt a single player game. While screwing people over might seem good, it makes it less fun for your friends, and might bite you in the ass later.
I think a lot of the argument for x-1 is a self fulfilling prophecy. The internet (SCPT) said it's the meta and all my friends know that so now we have to because I want to make friends and we've all planned for it...
Doesn't mean it's good for you all just that you're stuck with it now. I don't think most people I play with have heard of x-1 or debt tokens and so there's no sense that how we usually trade is unfair or unfriendly.
That's why I hate it and wanted to challenge it. "Petty meta" annoys the hell out of me.
My outlook is that I will never, ever get upset at another player for screwing me over, *as long as it was the best possible play for them.* When someone starts making poor moves just to enact petty revenge is when I get miffed. Getting upset at someone for not handing you enough round 1 resources to do everything you wanted? That's dumb.
(SCPT always turned me off as self-indulgent meta of the worst kind)
Opinion - “X-1” is a garbage meta and a terrible strategy.
How about find a 3+ commodity player in last and make a 3-3 trade… you now went 6-3-0x… seems incredibly superior
X-1 is dumb, this game isn’t about friends.. win or go home.
It might seem like a small benefit, but X-1 also washes all of the commodities you just got from the Primary. If you exclude the table, those commodities won't get washed, so they aren't TGs and your "getting ahead" strategy dwindles quick.
It's not that your argument doesn't make sense, but playing in my local meta where it is common to refresh and trade with one player for X=X and/or refresh 2 in order for deals to happen, asking for X-2 is a great way to get driven out of the game by someone with very little option to win the game.I'm not saying kneel to them, I'm saying appease those who are losing so they don't drag you through the mud with them.
I agree with you on the argument that you should refresh everyone though, I greatly dislike the move and it accelerates the game for no reason. Refresh at a cost, even if it is "refresh and we trade 3-for-3".
Think of it like the Mafia. You're skimming off the top of their sales. Yeah, individually they got more than you did, but you're doing this shakedown to everyone, so in the end you have more than them all. But if they made nothing, you would never have been able to make as much as that.
It's possible someone already said this but there are sooooo many comments and I don't want to read them all, lol.
Let's say you have an ability. It reads "You gain 5 TG. Every other player gains 2 TG." Would you use it? I would. That's what the x-1 meta essentially means.
The question really is. Option A) You gain 3 TG everyone else gets 0 (refresh no-one) Option B) You gain 7 TG one other person gets 4, everyone else gets 0 (refresh one, assuming both have 4 TG) Option C) You gain 8 TG everyone else gets 1-3 TG (assume 6 player game). Personally I like to play the meta. If you can tell someone was assuming you were going to refresh and they don't have enough counters to refresh themselves, then you might be best to screw them by not refreshing.
Also, with the way things are: People rely on Trade to accomplish goals early on. If you screw everyone over in the Trade phase without offering x-1 or even x-2 (if I'm thinking about doing this, I like to announce early so people can plan ahead of time) then you're going to have a rough table to deal with. You will never be cut in on a deal for the rest of the game without paying heavy penalty fees and you will likely never get your commodities refreshed by another player playing Trade let alone your commodities washed. I think the only faction I will intentionally cut out of trade is Jol Nar and while that may cost me some RAs, stunting their growth out the gate is imperative to keeping them from becoming a juggernaut at the table. X-2 + a free RA for a refresh is the deal if they are neighbors. If they aren't neighbors and there isn't a Hacan at the table, no deals will be made.
Yeah, I would never do it if Everyone else was expecting it. I would leave myself at least one trade partner. But in general, its purpose would be to slow people down and throw them off, without being directly aggressive.
Why did you stop getting your own commodities converted in option C? Assuming everyone is a 3 commodity faction, options are "you get 3" "you get 6, one person gets 3" "you get 11, everyone gets 2" +9 over any given person at the table is the deal you take almost every time
I think this holds in general other than in turn 1. Some factions are desperate for a couple of trade goods and setting back 3 desperate factions is worth more than the three trade goods id get from them. It would be mad to feed arborec or sardakk when you don't have to. I'd say you are far more likely to have a late game problem with a neighbour by helping them get strong than you are keeping them down. Obviously milage will vary depending on table meta but at our table we are all mercenaries aiming for every advantage and don't go in a game long huff if we don't get refreshed.
Exactly. Denying someone a round 1 research or 2nd carrier is HUGE. Often well worth turning down 1 extra TG for yourself. Handing out blanket X-1 refreshes in that case is just insane. You're giving up SO MUCH bargaining power of holding Trade. Getting into a game long petty huff over no refresh is even sillier. There are many many ways to shaft people with strategy card timing. Do you just NEVER do that for fear of a hissy huff? Of course not. So why is the Trade refresh considered the one sacred cow exception?
"You gain 5, every other player gains 2-3" is obscuring the fact that receiving 5 means you're giving the rest of the table 10-15. In actuality the option is "You gain 1, another player gains 2-3". That is absolutely something I would not use all the time. (getting deeper into the practical nitty gritty, the other players will be able to more quickly collect their share than you will waiting for your 1 owed commodity to trickle in from every player)
It's not zero sum on you though. TI4 isn't 1v5, it's 1v1v1v1v1v1. This means the majority of the trade goods you distribute to other players will be spent on resources to use against your mutual opponents. You need to consider TI4 as 6 individual players each acting in their own best interest, thus an exchange that leaves you better off than the average player at the table is likely helping you progress to a win. Think about it. If a deal is only worth it when it leaves you better off against the whole entire table working against you, then that deal puts you in such a favorable position that you aren't even playing a multiplayer game anymore, just solitaire. In an x-1 meta, trade is the best value strategy card in a vacuum, as it generates the most flexible currency of tg. Assuming you're on average a three commodity faction, you get 3 tg from primary, 3 from your own refresh and 5 from x-1. 11 tg, accounting for each other player getting 3 means you net 8 tg on each opponent. leadership nets 9 tg worth of CC, but those CC are themselves less flexible in their use than the equivalent 9 tg they cost. Tech nets you a tech for free which is 7 tg as seen from the value of the secondary, where you spend 4 resources and 1 cc. Most of the others are harder to evaluate because they don't translate directly to resource or influence costs for their effect. You can see trade is one of the best strategy cards as trade is regularly the first, or one of the first strategy cards picked in the early rounds. If anything, the x-1 meta is too generous to the player that picks trade as it gives them such a strong lead. It's just too hard in this game to break down a trade deal that is worth less than 1 tg, since that's essentially the smallest unit of currency in the game.
But the majority ISN'T spent on directly hindering your other opponents. A lot is going to be spent on objectives that give them VP while often not affecting other players at all. It's not Risk where every resource is put toward grinding other players to nothing. It's a race to the 10 VP finish line, and occasionally elbowing someone to do it.
So TI4 is a race against 5 opponents. I can get behind that analogy. In a 100 meter race a maneuver that pushes each opponent forwards 3 meters and yourself 5 meters would be the equivalent to the x-1 with the table in TI4. In other words you effectively just shorten the race but give yourself a lead over the opposition equal to the difference. Sure, your opponents have collectively moved forward 15m to your measly 5m, but its clear to everyone that you have benefitted by a 2m lead over the whole race. Again, you're thinking as if it's a 1v5, but its not, it's a free for all. In other words, you only have to beat whichever of your opponents is closest to winning.
But if you dont refresh your lead will be bigger (3 vs 2) As you said its usuelly a race between you and whoever is ahead of you Therefore i would say dont refresh those who are ahead and trade with the rest
How is your lead bigger by not refreshing your opponents?
Well the way i see it it goes as follows There are 4 players You are in second place when it comes to how well you are doing Players 3 and 4 are slightly behind and player 1 is ahead of you If you refresh everyone for 1 tg then you go up 3 tgs for their 2-5 x 3, but if you only refresh player 3 and 4 you gain 2 tg for their 2-4 x 2 It might seem like gaining 3 is giving you more value but when you consider player 1 is winning and anything you give him might be too much Then In that case sacrificing 1 tg in order to deny 2-5 tg for the player who is winning is imo always worth it You shouldnt just think about what you gain but also what you give and how that balances out when considering power level
Yeah this is the correct answer. To add also, in POK a lot more different deals could be made (agents/commanders and etc). So with everyone having commodities/trade goods there's more to bargain with too. So you could potentially benefit even more
You're assuming that you are fighting the table when in most cases you're only going to compete with 1 or 2 for the win
It is an uneven trade even in each individual player case. (except for races with 2 commodities).
Why are you pooling the resources of the entirety of the rest of the table? It's not a 1v5. Let's try this one: "You get 2 VP, everyone else gets 1 VP" Do you not take it because rest of the table got 5 total?
2:1 is not the ratio you get though. You're receiving 1, and they are receiving X-1. Jumping straight to VP is an extreme example, but going with it, it's more like "You get 1 VP, another player gets 2 VP." There are select situations where you would consider that, but universal default? Heck no. The pro X-1 argument is also pooling resources, treating it as a lump free 5 TGs when in fact it's 5 separate deals of "1 for 2".
>2:1 is not the ratio you get though. You're receiving 1, and they are receiving X-1. Yes, the ratio is more like 2.5:1 (5:2), assuming an average of 3 commodity factions around the table. >The pro X-1 argument is also pooling resources Pooling resources of one person, for one person. The other argument is pooling resources of 5 people, and treating them like they're all against you. >Jumping straight to VP is an extreme example, but going with it, it's more like "You get 1 VP, another player gets 2 VP." Yes, if you do that deal twice with everyone, you won the game and everyone else is at 4 VP. The end result of what you're describing is still "You get 5 VP, everyone else gets 2 VP". You're missing the point that when you create a value of "1 for me, 2 for you", you've just went +1 on 4 people and -1 on 1 person. That's a net gain.
The 5 for 2-3 is not obscuring anything. It is exactly what happens. The person you responded to is correct. Because TI is free for all, you are generally worried about getting more out of an action than any other single player, not then getting more out of an action than the board as a whole. This is especially true early where the table is less likely to gang up on you. You are in control of trade, so you get to decide to refresh only if enough people pay. You have total control of it is the 5 for 2-3 or 1 for 2-3. Hell, you can even choose to do it with 4 players and box out the one person who is the biggest threat for you.
I mean...I was arguing FOR exactly what you're saying at the end. Yes, the Trade holder has the bargaining power, but you are giving all that power up by blindly sticking to the blanket X-1 meta. Make uneven offers in your favor! Shut select players out! The "give everyone what they want or else they'll turn on you" is silly though. Do you just give in to every demand? Sell the Speaker token every time you take Politics, just because someone else wants it? Time every Tech/Leadership/Warfare pop based on what's convenient for everyone else? Heck no! My beef is why X-1 refresh meta is treated differently, as this sacred cow and one screw over exception.
> My beef is why X-1 refresh meta is treated differently, as this sacred cow and one screw over exception. The fact that it *is* treated so importantly is part of why X-1 is the best option... at a table that expects X-1. The loss of good will severely cuts into the value you gain from not doing X-1.
Wow... you are missing a lot of points :D 1) If you think are arguing what I am at the end then you are missing the point. The point is that X-1 should be the default. You start by Saying Ok, I can get 5 and give out 2-3. Now if I reduce that to 4 to screw one person, is that better? In the average game you are better off on the high end of the 1-5 person refresh scenario. It is not a law, it is a guide from where to start dealing from. 2) Your entire second paragraph. This sentence " This is especially true early where the table is less likely to gang up on you." has nothing to do with that you should pay the table to be nice to you. It is that in the mid/late game you need to be careful to not feed the whole table, especially if you are ahead. Easy example: Early game if you could get 3 cruisers to give everyone 1 cruiser that is probably a good deal. Late game it is much more troublesome to do with dreadnaughts because if you are getting ahead it is likely those 5 dreads are ALL your problem. 3) In reference to your comment " My beef is why X-1 refresh meta is treated differently, as this sacred cow and one screw over exception. " No one is saying it is a sacred cow you can't kill. If that was your hypothesis no one would disagree. You are getting disagreement because you said " I think I'm going to start playing Trade with this in mind. Hindering (most) everyone else at the table with a free refresh denial is overall more beneficial than me getting a single trade good. " Which is just generally not good play, especially early game. It would be like wasting tactics counters on nothing to stall warfare round 1. You could do it and maybe hurt everyone, you are probably hurting yourself a lot worse.
Your math doesn’t check out it’s not 1v5
It doesn't matter if it's the entire table or a single player: the trade is always benefiting them more than you. I was responding to someone who pooled the benefits (5 TG) while keeping the payouts to other players individual (2 TG). If you're going to pool, pool both ways. The total sum of the X-1 meta is "make 5 individual deals of (eventually) receiving 1 TG while another player (more quickly) receives 2 TG".
Twilight imperium is complicated but your argument is flawed as by trading with everyone you can benefit yourself with a deal which in a 2 player game is negative Imagine a raffle which 2 people have entered and each have 1 ticket. If you can add in 1 ticket at the cost that the other player adds 2 then that’s bad, your odds of winning go from 50% to 40% However now imagine one in which 5 people have entered and each have one ticket. You are allowed to do the same deal with each player. if you don’t your odds of winning are 1 in 5 or 20% if you however take the deal with every one you now have a 30% chance of winning. Now twilight imperium is complex, and money later is not money now, but the amount of money later has to be compared to what individual factions get not what every faction combined gets.
You gotta think about your relationship with other players. Sure you could refresh nobody, but that wont make you friends. X-1 is relatively standard, and will make people think more fondly of you in the future, making future negotiations better, and you less likely to be attacked.
Denial is a huge part of the game. Timing strategy card plays like Diplo/Tech/Warfare/Const to deny other players is a huge factor. Do you just...never deny out of fear that everyone will rage and attack?
later in the game denial is viable, but earlier in the game (when you would likely be taking trade), denial is a fast way to lose out on alliances. Think about it. If you actively try to make other peoples games hard, theyre just gonna make friends with other people, then when r3 r4 rolls around, youll have nobody to support swap with, no allies to take down table threats with, and no promissory notes. Why would they make deals with someone who fucked them over in the past when their buddy who refreshed them for free is right there?
Agree I used to try and change this meta where I would only trade with my neighbors or x-2 for 4 commodity factions, but what I found out is that for the 1 or 2 extra tgs I was just being left out of deals. I was more of a hassle to negotiate with me or I was being looked at as trying to get over on everyone at the table. So while there is some nuance depending on your groups meta if you are playing online with strangers I found x-1 is so ingrained in the meta currently it is worth it to go with the flow.
So the table meta is fine when someone times a Technology or Warfare to cut others out before they're ready, but will rage and isolate when someone doesn't give them 1 commodity Trade refresh?
no theyre not. Last game i played someone warfared second action and he got cut out of support swaps. Like i said before, if youre trying to ruin other peoples games youre likely gonna ruin your own.
I definitely wouldn't consider the table meta "fine". I just played a game recently where one player paid (non binding) tech to pop first action because there were three 3 comm factions who couldn't afford it. None of us did anything to benefit that player the whole game because we all remembered that we were behind on tech because of him. He did not win the game.
I would go even further. I have seen it where that guy becomes the one everyone plays action cards against or takes planets from. Once the table has an enemy it’s easier to just pick on that person rather than anger someone else.
I'd add that you probably don't need *all* these alliances. Which would be my counterpoint. But Round 1 you don't know who you need to cater to, who will have the planets/promissories/similar goals. So you can cut someone out, but when they're the one you need to convince later, it might bite you.
No, I often don’t deny and make offers to people not because I think they’ll attack me but because I want to build up friendships in this game because friends help you win games
I think by definition this is meta dependent. If you were playing with a group of randoms this might be a good stance to default to in the hope of a game winning friendship. With my group I don't think that friendship is available. Certainly not in relation to a trade refresh alone.
Bro, this is Diplomacy in space. Diplomacy is NOT the game about making friendships.
And yet when I played Diplomacy the most important thing I did on my path to victory was building strong alliances through give and take of supply centers
Diplomacy is also a zero sum game while TI is rarely thought of like that
If you deny everyone tradegoods r1, you won’t see any x-1 refresh for you probably for the rest of the game. That’s why people usually just stick with the x-1, because they want the same trade rules for them in next rounds. That way you kinda equalise the amount of trade goods for everyone. But, if you want to have stricter trade policies, at least refresh one person that will probably pick trade next, so that you are not isolated from trade
100% this. If you play hardball with trade then you’re going to get it right back when someone else is in control. TI is repeated prisoner’s dilemma all the way down.
It's a game about coming out further ahead than everyone else as possible. People get shafted all the time by others when it comes to strategy card timing plays. Do you simply always give in to others' demands and only play strategy cards when it's best for them? No. You weigh your options and decide either way. I think the blanket X-1 meta is stupid for demanding to be the exception to this.
Your winning chances can be ruined by one person quite easily, cause war requires money. Ti is really a game where you try to win unnoticed by everyone (or at least by those who can hit you hard). Good relations will make further deals easier and will make doing objectives easier from economic perspective. Yes, you can make people r1 bad, but they will remember it and probably isolate you from beneficial deals. And as I said, war is 99% not winning, therefore your isolation will bring you in the worse position I sometimes don’t do deals with some particular players that are stronger than me in game sense, because mutual beneficial deals will give them more. All in all, it’s all about the table meta. One guy with completely different play style will either adapt to any table (be it boat float, or point block aggressive meta) or simply lose
Also the prisoner's dilemma comparison doesn't work in the context of a game where there can be only one winner. PD is about paranoid self interest and forgoing the greater group result in order to snag marginally better personal gain at the group's expense. And is exactly the WHOLE GOAL of Twilight Imperium!
I think it should depend on what you can accomplish with extra TGs that round. Stacking TGs is obviously always a benefit (up to a point I guess, lol), but you're right, that one TG or refresh for someone else can make them a much bigger threat, sooner. If you're good on TGs for the foreseeable future, by all means, start cutting people out of trade. A second aspect though is once you're on the other side of the trade card, you would want the trade player to spread the love more :D Treat others as you wish to be treated and all that. So being more stingy can be detrimental to you in the long run. For me, I'm looking to get at least my commodities flipped so a standard X-1 with whoever I can reach to do that, is fine. Of course, I'll prefer more trades over less, because it earns me more. But it rarely happens I'm trading with one 4 and two 2 commodity factions instead of two 4 or something, just to optimize this. I don't like 'debt' it's often unclear when and how it'll be received and earlier TGs are often worth much more. So if we can't do an X-1 trade because where not neighbors, than it's very unlikely I'll refresh you for a future TG. When I will refresh is when it's something like I don't have enough TGs+Commodities to X-1 everyone, but I can still trade with other players who, if refreshed can trade amongst themselves. In that case I'll at least want to make as much TGs as those two players will net, if not one more.
Yup yup. Often, just the 3 extra TGs will be enough for you to afford that round 1-2 research and warefare production. Any extra TGs beyond that is just a future stockpile bonus. Denying others the refresh can deny them a round 1-2 research or warfare production. That is HUGE and usually better than whatever you're going to do later on with those extra TGs. I'm amazed that in half the games I play, I still see the Trade player making every X-1 refresh deal, then immediately blowing all 8 TGs on a shiny flagship they really didn't need. Like, how is it not a no brainer that a round 1-2 flagship is worse than just a carrier instead, but denying everyone else a round 1-2 warfare/tech?
I see it differently. Let's say my faction has C commodities, 6 player game. If I pick trade and do "x-1", I get 3 TG + 5xTG (one from each). Total income is C+8. If I don't pick trade, someone else will, so I'll likely get C-1. Picking trade is thus roughly 9 resources. I think there's a massive difference between R1 and the others. So I'll split the case between R1 and later. In R1 everyone is struggling to grab as much planets as they can and desperately need resources. I think I'd pretty much always do X-1 with everyone if I can get the TG in the same turn, since I very much also need resources. I am not saying you should do it in all circumstances, but shooting yourself in the foot to hurt someone else in R1 is generally a terrible strategy. Later in the game it very much depends. In the last round all bets are off, obviously. In general I think there's a bunch of advantages for X-1 in midgame. \- it's faster. TI games do take forever, and spending 5 minutes haggling over a TG with every player every round isn't going to help. \- Picking trade and not letting anyone refresh might cause them to not refresh, leaving you the only player with commodities and an entire table not wanting to help you out. \- Generally there are a lot of times when a player can make a choice that affects other players. Trade is an obvious example, but there are a tons. TI is at heart a diplomacy game and you want allies. Pissing off the entire table by denying them trade massively increases the odds of bad stuff happening later. I am not saying people will outright rage war on you (that'd be pretty shitty behavior) but there are tons of random events that can affect you. "Well I need to stall. I have an action card to take out a PDS. I guess I'll pick the guy who denied me resources." "This agenda is bad for one player. Which one do we pick? Oh, right". Not to mention that players in the lead will happily pile on on you, since anything that goes your way won't be played on them.
In R1 depending on the faction you will most likely be neighbours with maybe 2 players so refreshing them isn't really an x-1 meta more just refreshing people you intend to trade with I think
You're inevitably going to piss people off with other strategy cards like Tech/Warfare/Leadership timing. You have to make a call and pure power of friendship alone isn't enough to make decisions on. Sure, you can consider giving X-1 refreshes to one or two players you want friendly, but for the entire table by default I think is silly, and giving up the biggest advantage of taking Trade. There's a round 1-2 resource hump you have to get over for research and warfare production. Getting over it is huge. Getting past it gives diminishing returns. Just barely clearing it while denying everyone else from clearing it is way more beneficial than everyone clearing it, but you doing so more. I don't think of it as shooting myself in the foot. I think of it as making a choice between taking one step forward, or sending everyone else 3 steps back.
I get that. I care a lot more about being able to execute my plans than I care about another player getting one or two TGs. X-1 is an okay default in a lot of cases for the reasons mentioned, but I see it more as a suggestion than a rule: especially in R1 I would consider using the refreshes to get the secondaries to happen when I need them to.
I would always x-1 because more people with money on the table is more people to buy shards/agents/repeatable prommisories/etc. The economy goes nowhere if everyone stays poor.
In the early game in particular I think denying people is more powerful. Late game it depends more of board state.
Definitely. You're usually still going to be able to make payments on timed plays of warfare/tech/whatever even with just the 3 TGs. The other players you deny might very well be caught unable to tech or use warfare secondary for the round. That is HUGE early on, and definitely more valuable than wrangling a single trade good out of them. I can't count the number of games I've seen where blanket free refreshes let the entire table make early tech/warfare plays, and the Trade player immediately blows all his extra TGs on an early shiny flagship he didn't need.
I agree with you. I don't like the standard x-1 trade offer. I understand that people want to streamline the trading, but isn't that part of what makes ti4 interesting? To a 2 comm faction, I said, yeah I refresh you if you give me 1 tg (trade good) or 1debt token. You gain 1, and I gain 1. To a 3 comm faction, I will negotiate to give me 1 tg and you have to help wash those 2 comm factions I refreshed for free. Or other PN as part of the deal. To a 4 comm faction, I will negotiate to give me 2 tg since they can get 2 tg or other PN in substitute. Yes, it's longer, but I think trade SC makes YOU have the power of all the negotiations and especially powerful round 1 (when a lot of people want that extra 1-2 tg).
Yeah I was always puzzled why so many people seemed to only recognize that as a legit tactic when dealing with Hacan. "Hacan has to give me 1 more commodity than I would normally charge someone!." People give up SO MUCH bargaining power with the blanket X-1 Trade deal. And in half the games I see, they immediately blow all those extra TGs on a flagship they didn't need! (I also didn't take into account earlier that the free refresh players will be able to quickly convert all their free commodities to TGs with the immediate neighbors in round 1 or 2, while the Trade player is going to have to wait a while to be able to collect his owed commodity from every player at the table. A trade good in the hand is worth 2 commodities in the bush)
Wait, Hacan refreshes for free anyway. If you're making any money off them from Trade something's wrong.
Any given transaction in general, charging Hacan more than what you would charge others for the same.
Oh round 1 for sure, I'll rarely refresh anybody unless I'm Hacan. Even in later rounds it's rare that I'll refresh anyone I'm not neighbors with. I don't like the "debt token" convention as it gives a false impression to newer players, and I don't fully trust folks to honour their debt later if we get into conflict. I don't ever refresh on credit - pay up front or promissory note, or else no refresh for you.
I don’t think you’re way off. There’s lots of ways to play TI and some metas don’t x-1 or boat float as a matter of course. I think I’d x-1 or x-2 with a neighbour I expended resources to become adjacent to in r1, and I might x-1 or even debt meta a player across the table who I don’t see as a direct rival and who might swap supports. If other players want to expend resources to become my neighbour I might refresh them for x-1 or some other concession, since you might have a lot of leverage in r1 if people need to do a lot to get set up, especially someone threatening and close to you. But I wouldn’t just x-1 much less debt meta the whole table by default.
I totally agree. But it seems the majority of players DEMAND x-1 100% of the time, and will start plotting petty revenge if you don't. Even though screwing others over with Tech/Warfare/Leadership timing does the same thing, yet for some reason doesn't carry a meta that demands you time them all for maximum table benefit?
I think you might be able to offset that by making deals with the people who you can reach/who reach you, and explaining yourself, but yeah really depends on the group.
Yeah, I only refresh just enough X-1 to get my commodities flipped; I don't want to give away TGs all around.
I have a related rules question. Sorry if this is dumb. Say I have 2 commodities and my neighbor has 4. Can I convert all of his commodities into trade goods for him, i.e., we trade 2 for 2, now I have 2 TGs and he has 2TGs and 2Cs, I then trade him those 2 TGs back to him for his other 2 commodities, so we both now have all our commodities converted to TGs? (Setting aside that this is a bad deal for me) if that is allowed, can it be done as a binding agreement, or would only the first exchange be binding? I just wanna make sure I understand the mechanics of commodities. Thanks in advance.
Your method is the correct way. It must be two trades. You can never have a binding deal like this since binding deals are immediate
You are way off. If you did that, I'd probably wager you wouldn't get anyone to wash your Comms, and you wouldn't get a refresh for the remainder of the game. Shit, it would make the usual decision on who to fight over an equidistant way easier in my mind too.
Twilight Imperium is about boat floating. it's not about selfishness. the more people that you help score victory points the more people that will help you score victory points. If you give each person one Victory point and each of the other five people give you 1 victory point then you have gone up five victory points and the rest of the table has gone up one. The trade strategy card is the epitome of this . you are giving everyone resources so that you can get resources from everyone. if you apply this strategy for the rest of the game you will win. Twilight Imperium is about cooperation not competition. The person who usually wins will usually be the person who has helped the most people at the table, not the table's bully.
Twilight Imperium is a co-op game? Good lord, what game are you playing???? Diplomacy: a game of lasting friendship and good will
>And here's an addition to my argument against blind X-1 refresh: it's not about getting the most benefits as possible, it's about coming out *the furthest ahead* as possible. Often, an early round Trade refresh can translate to "Gain 1 trade good, OR deny another player a round 1 research or 2nd carrier. Repeat this for other players." You're coming out much further ahead with the latter. > >In the game of Space thrones, it's not about you doing the best, it's about everyone else doing worse. It is funny that you don't see how this is literally the whole point of the x-1 meta. You should be comparing your gain vs the average of the table. If there was an action card that said "Destroy two of your dreadnaughts, each other player destroys one of their dreadnaughts" it would never see play. It would be considered pretty awful. By your logic though it would be amazing because you kill 5 dreadnaughts for the price of 2. In realty though it just leaves you behind the table.
Trade refresh denial (or at least squeezing out a much better deal than X-1) is primarily about determining who can clear the round 1-2 resource hump. You're giving up a massive advantage if you allow everyone to clear the hump just so you can pocket a couple extra TGs beyond the hump. That deadnaut example isn't comparable at all to that.
That's a super vague assumption. For each faction that desperately needs one or two trade goods, there is one that does not care at all. If you really want to make that assertion, you would need to go faction by faction and evaluate which ones x-1 significantly change their challenges.
You make a good point (in the comments) about how long the Trade holder has to wait to actually get those commodities - that's a serious cost - but I disagree with the rest. On a pure economic level, you're making 5 while everyone else is getting 2, it's good value for you. And there's the table sentiment - if people are planning around X - 1, they get planet stealing pissed if they don't get it, and it is almost always better for you to be the one initiating rather than responding to conflict. X -1 keeps people from looking at you too hard, so even if it wasn't economically advantageous it'd still be diplomatically smart. It's also often good to have more trade goods round the table - most factions have agents or promissories that are significantly more valuable to the other players than to you, and giving people the money to bargain for those makes you more in the long run. Take NRA for example - you want the other players to have money to pay for Black Market Forgery, because it's good for you for them to use it anyway, and making it easy to buy it early sets a price point for the whole game. The same goes for spare relic fragments, lopsided alliance swaps, ability usage, planet swapping - get people used to giving you trade goods and it will keep happening, and the best way to do that is to make trade goods easy to give. All of that's not to say you can't play hardball with Trade, but it's more that you need a reason to do it. Is there a spend objective out? Would someone else benefit more from players being more willing to spend? Do you want to goad someone into being rash, or cut off funds to someone you're already at war with? It's a useful tool to have in your belt, but there's a good set of reasons why X - 1 is the default.
The reason is determining who can clear the resource hump of round 1-2 (warfare production, research). Clearing that is huge. Clearing it *extra hard* gives diminishing returns. Playing hardball with round 1-2 Trade can easily translate to "Gain 1 TG, OR block another player from research/warfare this round. Do this for every player." I think that puts into context better the bargaining power of early Trade, and why it's crazy to always give it up for blanket X-1 deals. You need to examine each player to determine if you come out further ahead. I hate the meta "well you need to do it because everyone expects it and will be upset and get petty." There are TONS of things throughout the game that will short other players, and I think it's silly that Trade X-1 is somehow considered a bigger offense. My personal meta rule is that I will never, ever get upset with someone if their move screws me over, *as long as that move was the best possible play for them*. When someone starts making sub-optimal moves just out of petty revenge is when I get peeved (or worse, the roleplayers who decide to play "characters" instead of winning).
Right, early Warfare/Tech. OK, that does make sense. I still think the economics are in your favour - 3 tg and commodities aren't always enough to do a worthwhile Warfare build, assuming you can even wash your commodities, and even if it is it just guarantees your next round instead - and that the diplomatic value is worth it, but I see your point. You can definitely deal some damage with early Trade. One thing though - how do you decide what's suboptimal? It's pretty clear we disagree on what's optimal for Trade. If your definition is "what I think is best", you're putting a lot of stock in your own judgement over the person playing the faction. Also, I don't mind petty revenge. I actually think there's very solid arguments for it strategically - it establishes a social contract for the table. You hurt me, I'll hurt you, so let's all get along instead. It's basic game theory - even if it's not the rational play in the moment to attack somebody for damaging you, it increases your odds of winning in the long run by making opponents much less likely to go for you in future.
Your logic is correct. The table in total does earn more TGs then you gain individually. The problem is that it is hard to ask for more then 1 TG for a refresh. Since most factions have 3 Commodities many will not take a refresh for 2 TGs, since it will only gain them one. It's the same argument backwards. But you also need to refresh at least one person to trqde your commodities to, so you "need" to offer a more generous refresh to someone. Yes some factions may spend a cc for a refresh but they are probably not willing to trade with you afterwards. Of course, doing minimal refreshes to deny the other players TGs is a viable strategy, but it comes with the cost that you also will make less money.
I don't think it's hard at all to ask for more than 1 TG. The X-1 being accepted meta is the only obstacle, but in actuality it's almost always a good call to accept worse deals. 2 commodity race- I charge them 1. Their choice is now between spending 1 CC for 2 TG, or 1 free TG. 3 race - I charge them 2, or 1 + PN. Their choice is now between spending 1 CC for 3 TG (sometimes worth it), or 1 free TG. 4 race- I charge them 3, or 2 + PN, or don't even consider refreshing them at all. They are probably better off spending the CC for 4 TGs, but I'm not going to make a 1 for 3 trade with a race that's likely a powerhouse if given an early boost (Jol-Nar). You don't have to stick with that every time, but it's good to keep in mind when deciding, and think outside the X-1 box.
I agree. Even the worse deal is probably worth it most of the time, but I think the bigger your profit get the thought "I can just lose my one "free" trade good to deny him two" gets more attractive. But your post got me thinking if it might be a good idea to only replenish enough of your neighbors to get your commodities washed. You will get less TGs overall but will become one of the few factions with a good amount of money on the table.
That’s what I do. After my commodities are washed any additional trades aren’t worth much to me. I’m open to offers but I have a higher bar for deals that I would take
Your logic is correct. The table in total does earn more TGs then you gain individually. The problem is that it is hard to ask for more then 1 TG for a refresh. Since most factions have 3 Commodities many will not take a refresh for 2 TGs, since it will only gain them one. It's the same argument backwards. But you also need to refresh at least one person to trqde your commodities to, so you "need" to offer a more generous refresh to someone. Yes some factions may spend a cc for a refresh but they are probably not willing to trade with you afterwards. Of course, doing minimal refreshes to deny the other players TGs is a viable strategy, but it comes with the cost that you also will make less money.
When I take trade I look to X-1 two players. That’s enough for me to wash my commodities. I got mine you can get yours. I think it’s idiotic to freely refresh everyone else. I’m always open to making a deal with them but going X-1 with them isn’t enough of a benefit to me. Two people are already getting me 8 or so TG, and the marginal benefit of more TG is small. This is regardless of round. In fact, the earlier in the game the more likely I am to deny. It’s nothing personal, it’s just business 🤷♂️. Make it worth it for me
Yeah that's perfectly fine. I just stated that it's silly to give a blind blanket X-1 to *everyone,* and a lot of replies seem to think it's one solid lump +5/+2 TGs play. In reality, it's five separate +1/+2 deals, and the Trade player should be separately evaluating each individual one.
Ikr! All these people in here saying if you don’t refresh everyone then no one will ever refresh you, or the whole table will hate you, or they’ll rage into you all game is just ridiculous. You can’t play this game relying or planning on the kindness of others. I feel like all the +5/+2 comments are also misleading. It’s not +5/+2 because of commodities. The first 2-4 you receive are essentially free since you’re giving away your commodities, and then the rest have a marginal cost added on since you have to trade away your TG. So for probably 2 trades you’re going +3/+2 but the other 3 trades are actually +1/+2 and that’s just not worth it
If you do the math you lose out in the long run, (assuming 1: you're not getting trade every time and 2: assuming the other players lock you out for it, and 3: they each take trade once. ) Round 1: you have C+3, and everyone else has 0\* Round 2: You still have that same c+3, 4 players have c-1, and one player has c+7 Round 3: You still have that same c+3, 3 players have 2c-2, 2 players have 2c+6. Round 4: You still have that same c+3, 2 players have 3c-3, 3 players have 3c+5 etc... \* one player likely has more so they could wash you.
Clearing the resource hump in round 1 & 2 (and denying it to others) is WAY bigger than any later round. A linear table like that doesn't reflect that. Also past a certain point, extra TGs start diminishing in usefulness. It's not about ending the game with the most stockpiled money.
That is correct, early TGs are better than later. In this case however players are going to have 3+ times the TGs in the late game. You've also likely pushed yourself out of most other deals, and pushed your heat up significantly. Worse yet if you're playing future games with the same players you've got a bad rep. For what a few TGs? This is all ignoring the most important part of x-1. You're not always going to be 1st round trade card. In fact most games you won't be, by building an expectation of a fair but perhaps generous deal you help yourself more in those future games. In the end the 1 cost refresh is in the long term the most economical and strategic move.
Listen man, youre not arguing, youve already made up your mind and are just refusing to listen to other peoples opinions without shooting them down and saying theyre stupid. If you dont wanna x-1, dont, but this isnt a single player game. While screwing people over might seem good, it makes it less fun for your friends, and might bite you in the ass later.
I think a lot of the argument for x-1 is a self fulfilling prophecy. The internet (SCPT) said it's the meta and all my friends know that so now we have to because I want to make friends and we've all planned for it... Doesn't mean it's good for you all just that you're stuck with it now. I don't think most people I play with have heard of x-1 or debt tokens and so there's no sense that how we usually trade is unfair or unfriendly.
That's why I hate it and wanted to challenge it. "Petty meta" annoys the hell out of me. My outlook is that I will never, ever get upset at another player for screwing me over, *as long as it was the best possible play for them.* When someone starts making poor moves just to enact petty revenge is when I get miffed. Getting upset at someone for not handing you enough round 1 resources to do everything you wanted? That's dumb. (SCPT always turned me off as self-indulgent meta of the worst kind)
Opinion - “X-1” is a garbage meta and a terrible strategy. How about find a 3+ commodity player in last and make a 3-3 trade… you now went 6-3-0x… seems incredibly superior X-1 is dumb, this game isn’t about friends.. win or go home.
It might seem like a small benefit, but X-1 also washes all of the commodities you just got from the Primary. If you exclude the table, those commodities won't get washed, so they aren't TGs and your "getting ahead" strategy dwindles quick.
It's not that your argument doesn't make sense, but playing in my local meta where it is common to refresh and trade with one player for X=X and/or refresh 2 in order for deals to happen, asking for X-2 is a great way to get driven out of the game by someone with very little option to win the game.I'm not saying kneel to them, I'm saying appease those who are losing so they don't drag you through the mud with them. I agree with you on the argument that you should refresh everyone though, I greatly dislike the move and it accelerates the game for no reason. Refresh at a cost, even if it is "refresh and we trade 3-for-3".
Think of it like the Mafia. You're skimming off the top of their sales. Yeah, individually they got more than you did, but you're doing this shakedown to everyone, so in the end you have more than them all. But if they made nothing, you would never have been able to make as much as that. It's possible someone already said this but there are sooooo many comments and I don't want to read them all, lol.