This is the question and it comes from Catan. The first question under discussion was the relative merits of trading goods with severe restrictions at a 2 to 1 ratio, versus with fewer restrictions at a 3 to 1 ratio.
The second question, was about the relative merits of trading goods freely at a 4 to 1 ratio versus "severe restrictions" at the 2 to 1 ratio. What makes this question different from the previous one is that you can trade goods "straight up" at the 4 to 1 ratio, whereas you need to build a harbor settlement to trade at either the 3 to 1 or 2 to 1 ratios. Building a harbor settlement is a non-trivial task, and it is this requirement (lack thereof actually), that distinguishes the otherwise unfavorable 4 to 1 ratio from the two others.
So is this a sufficient distinction to make the second question NOT a duplicate of the first? Because the first question didn't address the lack of a port requirement for the 4 to 1 ratio.
In chart form, the questions might look like this:
| Ratio | Favorability of Terms? | How Many Goods Traded? | Needs port? |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 to 1 | Most favorable | Just one good traded | Needs port |
| 3 to 1 | Less favorable | All goods are traded | Needs port |
| 4 to 1 | Least favorable | All goods are traded | No port needed |
Question 1 asked for a comparison of 2 to 1 and 3 to 1 (rows 1 and 2). Question 2 asked for a comparison of 2 to 1 and 4 to 1 (rows 1 and 3).
