Take the 2-minute tour ×
Board & Card Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people who like playing board games, designing board games or modifying the rules of existing board games. It's 100% free, no registration required.

We're early in a game of Advanced Civilization and I find myself stymied while pondering a trade.

I've been offered the most optimal trade possible. However, as only 2 cards in a trade are guaranteed, I feel I'm almost certain to receive a calamity along with the two cards I need.

As Illyria, receiving Superstition and Slave Revolt would really hamper me right now. I have only one city on a 2 area, the rest are on 1's. Having to reduce 3 cities (which is what either works out to) would prevent me from building them back, not to mention not increasing my city count next turn.

What should I consider when making this decision? When is the short term gain worth the risk of long term consequences?

My current hand is hides/timber/grain, 2xiron, 3xoil. I'd receive iron/oil/XXX(possible calamity) for my grain/timber/hides.

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 7 down vote accepted

You have to assume that the third card will be a calamity: the rules are designed to prevent you being certain, but it's always wise to expect the worst, and very likely in your position.

You need to consider

Which calamity will it be? Depending on how many cities your trading partner has, there are several he may have picked up and wish to trade; if you are careful to specify three cards, you won't get more than one, which you may be able to survive. And will the situation be any better next turn? If this is 'the most optimal trade possible', you really have either to accept it or resign yourself to a game without trading, which isn't likely to end well.

There may be other reasons to reject this specific trade: card-counting indicates that the two calamities you are worried about definitely came out this turn, or other people have decided not to trade with this person already. But both are fallible; assuming you can actually use the trade cards for a Civilization card, I would suggest you accept.

share|improve this answer
    
I agree. Assume it is the calamity and decide whether you're still better off doing the trade. In many cases, the answer is yes. But if the answer is no, you're better off not trading, especially if you can wait until next turn to trade in your cards without bumping on the progress track. –  bwarner Mar 21 '13 at 13:57

The requirement is to correctly state the number of cards, and at least two cards by name.

The best bet is to have the player state the total in the trade quickly; it forces him to think fast. Then compare the value.

28.3 Each trade must involve at least three trade cards on each side. A player with fewer than three trade cards may not trade. When negotiating a trade, each player must honestly inform the other of the number of trade cards he wishes to trade and at least two of the trade cards involved in the trade. This information must be correct - the remaining card or cards need not be specified and may consist of any commodity or tradable calamity card(s), regardless of what was said to the other player. A player may not show his trade cards to another player during negotiations, nor may a player inform other players of the details of a trade after it is completed.

Note that the non-advanced version of trade was actually harder - the requirement for the correct total value and two correct cards made for slipping in the extras harder...

What you look for is that he can quickly find the total of the cards, and that it matches, and that he's not handing you more than agreed upon...

share|improve this answer
    
Minor correction - I believe you only had to name one correct card in the original Civilization board game. –  Pat Ludwig Dec 10 '13 at 13:49

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.