Can exchange-aware planning beat ETA?

80 planned · 80 attempted · 80 valid completions · 0 incomplete · 0 unplayed. Four players, ten points, balanced seat rotation. Earlier smoke and failed runs are kept in a separate audit trail.

One change: count what surplus can buy

ETA estimates how long direct production takes to fund a build. Liquidity also counts whole bank and owned-port exchange bundles, after reserving the target's cards. The other strategic rules stay shared.

For example, twelve surplus lumber can become three ore at 4:1, if the bank can supply them. Waiting for ore production is not the only route to a city. Official trade rules.

This study tests the conversion part of that idea. It does not test port acquisition, reputation, deception, or expectimax.

A different spending pattern did not produce more wins

Liquidity averaged 6.34 exchanges per game; ETA averaged 5.86. It also discarded 10.16 cards versus 8.71. These descriptive differences suggest a diagnosis to investigate, not a demonstrated cause of the result.

Final scores tell a similarly mixed story

Liquidity finished ahead of ETA in 35 games, behind in 39, and tied in 6, using exact final points. The grid groups those scores into readable bands.

Watch the preselected example

The first scheduled game ended on turn 68. Fast opponent B won; Liquidity finished with 7 points and ETA with 8. The replay was selected by schedule, not because it supports the conclusion.

Next test: record the target and alternatives at each decision, then compare mean-income planning with a discard-aware estimate. The present data cannot tell us which particular target changes helped or hurt.

Statistics and reproduction · Failure ledger · Reusable report structure and missing components