The Tao of Gaming

I noticed Tom's comment a few days ago (in the Universal Symbiont thread)...

My second reaction was to look at the top start worlds and note that they were all worlds that give players early card advantage. The led me to hypothesize that the play on Genie taken as a whole was what I would call "intermediate" level, based on comparisons with the playtest groups' experiences with start worlds. (This is not to say that some Genie players aren't extremely strong or that this won't change over time.)

Now, to give Rob credit, he did go back and take a harder look at the Alpha Centauri data and found that it fared less well in winning % among the stronger players. To me, that was expected. Card advantage is something that is fairly easy for beginning and intermediate players to exploit (as opposed to leeching or explore powers, etc.).

(The emphasis on the last sentence is mine; earlier emphasis is Tom's).

This got me thinking: How do I deal with Early card disadvantage? Well, you stop calling Develop and Settle, for one thing (barring timing constraints, like the need to ensure your military is high enough so that you can leech a settle). Assuming you have card flow a turn or two later, then you will naturally consume/produce to trade, which will tend to balance tempo.

As I've played more, I've become more willing to drop a build tempo to look for a good combination (as compared to just 'increasing card flow'). With the increased variability in two expansions, you can't expect a reasonable card to just appear if you build mediocre cards.

I'll have to think some more about this ... I think I can do it, but I can't explain it well. Or perhaps I'm still an intermediate. Who knows?

Despite what I said earlier, Keldon's AI crushes me quite frequently.

Non-bridge players should check out Wei-Hwa's article "Why Bridge Bidding Looks Crazy."

There's a computer AI for Race.

Well, a number of responses to Problem #5.

• Frunk & Phil pitched the Genetics Lab and Investment Credits and (after the obligatory waffle) Developed (the mercenaries).

• Lou & Joe chucked Galactic Resort and Rebel Miners, and Explore +1'd.

• Hermit tossed Galactic Resort and Investment Credits and Explored +5'd (looking for military or a great destination).

• Kester relinquished Rebel Warrior Race and Genetics Lab and settled.

• David discarded investment credits and genetics lab, and settles, presumably for the galactic resort. [To me, this seems odd. If you are going to do this you may as well keep the investment credits and chuck the rebel miners. That way, if there's no develop T1, or a develop without explore, you get to drop the credits].

• Jeff & Buddha discarded credits and the resort and explore'd +1.

Brian at the table — This was one of the hardest choices I've seen in ages. I probably spent minutes on this. But I eventually (after writing the hand down) reached the same decision as Frunk/Phil. So, how'd that work out? — Ancient Race traded (of course), and the other two players settled. So you can drop Space Mercenaries and Rebel Warrior Race (leaving you an empty hand, but a good trade next turn) or escape the Doomed world for the Galactic Resort, and have RWR, Rebel Miners + 1 Card & 1 VP.

I went for the Rebel Warrior Race, which is a questionable call. If there had been an explore, this option would be great .. you could settle the RWR and keep Galactic Resort or Rebel Miners ... but there was no explore (as expected).

How would exploring work out? — Tough to say, but there are a number of really good cards you could stumble on. Fleeing to Galactic Resort and consuming it would leave you with your other 3 cards + three more, so even if you hit nothing good now, there are still plenty of decent options (Drop Ships, Several of the sixes, lots of worlds). Exploring also gives the other players (particularly Ancient Race) a shot at a better world.

I'm not sure I like pitching the Galactic Resort and exploring ... now you may miss out on the opening settle (which would be unlucky, but not the strangest thing ever). More likely you'll have the choice of paying for a mediocre world and breaking up your hand anyway, or using the doomed world's power on something worse the resort. I think that exploring should cater to a bad draw.

The other issue with exploring is that your hand really wants to see those mercs on the board, and you didn't get lucky.

In short — I don't like any of the answers. (Perhaps Frunk/Phil would have gone 1b — Mercenaries + flee to the resort].

Grades: I'm giving the Brian/Frunk/Phil option a solid B. I exploring +1 gets an A-. Settling is a B-. Not keeping the Galactic Resort drops you a letter grade, in my book.

The Alien Nightmare Solitaire variant is worth checking out. Tough.

I see in a different thread that Tom/Wei-Hwai could beat this type of setup ~40% of the time. Shows me I have some learning to do...

You are the Doomed World, vs Ancient Race, Earths Lost Colony, and Epsilon Eridini (not a bad place to live).

Your opening hand:

• Galactic Resort (3 Cost Novelty Windfall, Consume for VP+card)
• Genetics Lab (+1 Trade Genes, produce on Gene Windfall)
• Investment Credits (-1 to developments)
• Space MERCENARIES (+1 Mil, Discard up to 2 cards for +1 mil each)
• REBEL Miners (2 Def Rare production)
• REBEL Warrior Race (3 Def Gene Windfall, +1 Military)

Lest I be beset by Malevolent Lifeforms, let me just state that the Race expansion is a most welcome guest. We're back to 3-6 games per session (just without tiles). Lots of new cards are getting discussed on BGG, the homeworlds, Alien Toy Shop, I see chatter about Improved Logistics ... but nobody mentions the Terraforming Guild.

Terraforming Guild -- 6 Dev. Phase III -- Get a rebate after settling/conquering a world. Phase V -- Produce on a Windfall world. 2 VPs per Windfall World, 2 VPs per Terraforming card (including this one).

From my (admittedly limited) expansion experience, T.G. is a harbinger of a huge score. A fair chunk of homeworlds really want a nice, sellable Windfall early, at which point, dropping the Guild becomes quite attractive. It provides very nice income, between the rebates and the additional leeching on a production strategy, it will usually pay for itself and then some. Like Mining Robots or Genetics Lab, developing this when someone else produces and getting a surprise windfall production is a Big Deal. Until now, Trade League was probably the frontrunner for "Development that, dropped at the right time, changes the game." But the Trade League usually scores poorly. The Guild can hit double digits without much effort. Worth paying attention to.

[And in the category of "Things I'd never thought I'd see" -- New Sparta chucking New Galactic Order to play Imperium Lords and Galactic Imperium].

Since you asked ...

The emotional reason? They bore me. Also, I fear change.

The intellectual reasons used to justify the emotional one --

1. They add big, non-granular randomness to the game. (Don't you just love being New Sparta and then seeing the Biggest Military tile not in used? It's like rain on your wedding day). [It hasn't happened yet, but I'm just waiting for player A to win because B and C tied each got 3 VPs instead of B winning because he got 5 VPs.]
2. They reek of chrome. I don't play Cosmic with Lucre, or moons, or reverse hexes, either.
3. I happened to like the prior level of interaction, which focused on role selection. I didn't think we needed a whole lot of cards like "Mining Conglomerate," but now we've six of them in every game.
4. They slow the game down.

As race expansion spoilers pop up, young lifeforms' thoughts turn towards malevolence, sweet malevolence. I'm tempted to buy the 2nd printing just to have a lighter set. And a spare. Oh yes, a spare.

Anyway, since Luke H just left a comment in an alternate thread, only to have it's comment period expire, I figured I'd answer it here.

Luke wrote:

Have you considered games with mechanics that are functionally equivalent to worker-placement, but don't have actual worker tokens? The two that always come to mind are In the Shadow of the Emperor and Im Auftrag des Königs. The former has a money system on top of the actions, but just think of that as different number of workers and different costs of actions in number of workers. Actions taken are not available for others, with 1 exception. Seems equivalent to me. The latter uses a very straightforward drafting of 3 actions. The only difference would be physically taking the card vs. putting a marker on the card. Are there any other games like this, with drafting actions?

I only played ITSoE once (3 years ago). I haven't played Auftrag. I guess that doesn't count as "answering", so I'll throw open the question to the floor. Along with any malevolent thoughts you may wish to share.

Since I haven't done any race in a while...

Terraforming Robots 3 Cost Development (2 VP).
Settle — Draw a card after you settle/conquer a planet.
Consume — Consume a rare good for 1 VP + 1 Card.

Alexfrog, in his card-by-card guide, says:

Terraforming Robots (3) */* Until the expansion is out, this is overcosted. You’re basically paying one extra card for the fact that it says ‘Terraforming’. That makes it harder to make use of. However, it can be good, in military or production strategies that want a brown consume power. Or with New Economy, to score. I’m sure its better in the expansion when there are terraforming cards.

I'm not sure exactly how Alex gets overcosted ... If you develop this, then you spend 3 cards (including this one) to get this out. If you hit this early enough, then you'll probably get your money back from settle rebates. Still, with the "time value of money" earning back your income may not be particularly good. Getting double your cards back is better.

First of all, let's look at the mining worlds. There are 13 brown planets (6 production, 7 Windfall). Of those, exactly one has a consume power — New Earth. Apparently mining planets export, require a destination. Terraforming Robots will be a big interest to Alpha Centauri or anyone going the brown route. The real downside for Terraforming Robots, from Alpha Centauri's point of view, is that it isn't the Mining Conglomerate. The conglomerate earns income faster and triggers many more six developments (Mining League, Trade League; both score for New Economy and Galactic Federation). The conglomerate works less well in a diversified economy, whereas Terraforming Robots are fine with a single mining world. It won't score VP for Mining League, but it does consume efficiently.

The Conglomerate is a "brown pioneer" card. Assuming you have the most mining worlds, you'll get two extra cards per produce, an extra card per trade, and be able to consume with your spare worlds. The Robots are metallic leeches. If someone else consumes, you get a card + VP. You get an extra card whenever you settle, which lets you leech a military sprinter. Neither leeching role is amazing, but opponents tend to stop calling roles where you can leech for huge draws (unless they have a monstrous setup). How much would you have to be getting to call produce if it triggered someone else's mining conglomerate?

As Alex notes, A military strategy will happily play this card. Conquer a world, draw two cards. You'll probably luck into a military world every 3rd turn you do that (or get enough to pay for a six cost development).

Terraforming Robots will improve in the first expansion. I honestly don't remember what the Terraforming Guild does. You can't just slap down the Robots, but they work in a reasonable number of situations. If you've got any mining planets at all and are short of consumption powers, they're dandy, you'll consume an extra good and earn several cards back, not to mention rebate cards. A reasonable middle game card.

Update: I do, however, remember that the expansion contains another development that combines well with this ... Improved Logistics. Since the card hasn't been spoiled (that I've seen), let's just say that it combines well. (I.L. is a game changing card, to be sure).

This thread on BGG mentions what the Terraforming Guild does ... 2VP for each Terraforming card or windfall, and an extra rebate after each settle, and produce on a windfall world.

There's someone running a team RftG game over at BGG via Geeklist.

May as well knock this out, too. To recap:

You are New Sparta in a 3 player game (against Alpha Centauri and Epsilon Eridani, if you care). The deck hits you over the head with:

• Alien Tech. Institute (Alien 6-dev)
• Lost Alien Warship (Defense 5 Windfall, +2 Military)
• Deserted Alien Colony (5 Cost Alien Windfall)
• Replicant Robots (-2 Cost for worlds)
• Blaster Gem Mines (3 Cost Rare Windfall, +1 Military)
• Spice World (Novelty Production, +2 to trade a novelty).

The panel selected:

• ZZdroman -- RR & BGM, Exp+5
• Alexfrog, Huber, Lou -- RR & BGM, Exp+1
• Frunk -- DAC & SW, Exp+1
• Linnaeus, Rubbo -- ATI & DAC, Exp+1
• Tom Lehmann, Jeff -- RR & SW, Exp+1
• Phil -- RR & SW, Exp+1

OK, apart from ZZdroman, everyone explored + 1. I see one strong argument for exploring +5. New Military Tactics. If you get that, it's off to the races. Keeping DAC for a 2nd turn play is interesting, and one I overlooked.

Brian at the table. As usual, I took a different road. I pitched the Blaster Gem Mines and Deserted Alien Colony, saving SPICE WORLD as my expected first play. At the table, the deck hits new sparta over the head with the explore, given you Avian Uplift Race and Alien Rosetta Stone world. There was a T1 Settle, so I dropped the Avian World, sold it next turn ... on my last turn I played the 6 cost alien production world for free (thanks to Robots, ATI, and Rosetta Stone)... a brutal game for the opponents.

But, was I right? In retrospect, keeping the DAC would have given me a better backup plan (but pretty much anyone will be off to the races with that explore. I can see pitching RR, but keeping them gives options, especially when you've got a very good non-military play (Spice World). If there's a Develop and Settle (which is unlikely, but not impossible), you could drop SW on T1 (at the cost of your hand). More realistically, you can develop on T2, which lets you get SW for free and keep one other card to develop (two if there's another explore).

To recap:

You are Old Earth in a four player game (no Epsilon Eridani). You get:

• Mining Robots (MR)
• Terraforming Robots (TR)
• Expedition Force (EF)
• New Military Tactics (NMT)
• Free Trade Association (FTA)
• Pan Galactic League (PGL)

And the options:

• Frunk -- MR & FTA, Develop and build EF (Explore+1 if group doesn't often explore).
• Kester -- FTA & PGL, Explore +5
• Tucker -- MR & TR, Develop EF.
• Matt -- TR & PGL, Explore+1.
• Alexfrog, Lou & Phil -- MR & TR, Explore+5
• Joe & Luthrin -- MR & FTA, Explore+1
• Anthony & Jeff -- MR & TR, Explore +1
• Wei-Hwa -- FTA & PGL, Develop

Brian at the table -- You know, it's been several weeks. Fortunately I remember. MR & PGL, Explore +1.

Almost everyone pitches mining robots. I can see the point behind pitching both sixes, the mining robots could become good really quickly (you get radioactive world or destroyed world and can turn it into a production world). In fact, given the speed issue, I think that Terraforming Robots may be better as the first card to pitch.

As for the sixes, which one to keep is a matter of taste, and 'none' could be right.

The 'consensus' pick (MR & FTA) splits between +1, +5 or Develop. In fact, there is no real consensus. The +1s try to get a worlds and stay greedy (as I like in 4 player games). The +5s bank on practically locking up a good world.

The develops delay the explore for one turn, and make sure that if someone else explores and a settle hits, they can drop NMT if they got a conquerable world. This argument can't be dismissed lightly.

In summary, I don't think there is a consensus play.

Results at the table -- The Explore + 1 resulted in crap, just FYI.

Brian after reflection -- Actually, I'm leaning towards the early develop, to drop EF or NMT. (I haven't decided). I'm also leaning towards pitching the FTA & PGL. They are both long-term speculative plays you can't afford. You need something good to happen, but both of those require something great. Even if I keep them, they should have money. (To be fair, TR is almost certainly money as well and MR will be unless you get a cheap rare windfall).

No scores given, since I can't decide.

A while ago someone asked if it mattered that a game was four player vs 3 player. I didn't really have an answer then. One thing that I realized (later) is that I take 'swingier' actions with more players.

[This idea is based I read many years ago in the Bridge World, but I can't find it online)].

Assume that your opponents will score in a normal distribution. Now say you could wave your hands and magically score the same each time. A bit above average (say, 1 standard deviation). In a (generic) two player game, you'd win fairly often. But as more players are added, you'd do poorly. Let's make this concrete. You always score 13 points, and your opponents roll 3d6. With one opponent, you like your odds. With 2 or 3, you are doing ok. Anyone who thinks they'll win against six opponents has never rolled up a D&D character.

Single-session Matchpoint bridge tournaments take this to an extreme (which is why the article was published). With dozens (or hundreds) of pairs, skill gets you so far, but swinging for the fences is useful too. (Longer games and other forms of scoring change that).

So consider a "New Sparta needs a military world" opening. Do you explore +5 or +1/+1? With more players, I feel more strongly that Explore +1/+1 is correct ... Even if the +5 gives me a good card 100% of the time, I'd rather take my chances getting a good card and some spare cash. With three opponents, the safe 35 points isn't as tempting as shooting for 45 (but often getting 20).

As Race is often 2-4 players, this isn't a huge effect ... yet.

With more players you can also swing for the fences by calling speculative trades (produces), and other tactics.

What else? With more players I'm slightly more worried about releasing good cards for opponents (since 4 players tend to go through the deck two full times, while less players usually peter out at 1.5 or so), but that's a minor concern compared to other issues.

I haven't really thought of other issues relating to # of players...

I realize I never answered #3... perhaps later.

You are New Sparta in a 3 player game (against Alpha Centauri and Epsilon Eridani, if you care). The deck hits you over the head with:

• Alien Tech. Institute (Alien 6-dev)
• Lost Alien Warship (Defense 5 Windfall, +2 Military)
• Deserted Alien Colony (5 Cost Alien Windfall)
• Replicant Robots (-2 Cost for worlds)
• Blaster Gem Mines (3 Cost Rare Windfall, +1 Military)
• Spice World (Novelty Production, +2 to trade a novelty).

Update: Fixed the card errors above.

Two robots, two soldiers, and two goods specialists walk into a bar...

You are Old Earth in a four player game (no Epsilon Eridani). You get:

• Mining Robots
• Terraforming Robots
• Expedition Force
• New Military Tactics
• Free Trade Association
• Pan Galactic League

Here's the original post, you have Sparta and Mining League (ML), Free Trade Association (FTA), and 4 worlds to choose from (Rebel Miners, Radioactive World, New Vinland, Spice World).

Peoples discards and actions.

• Alex & Jeff G agree — Spice World and Radioactive World; Explore +1.
• MattS & Lou agree — Spice World and Radioactive World; Explore +5.
• Chris — Spice World & Radioactive World; Settle.
• MattC — FTA and Spice World; Explore +1.
• Kester & Frunk agree — FTA and Spice World; Settle.
• Wei-Hwa — FTA & Spice World; Settle 45%, Exp +1 30%, Exp +5 25%.
• Phil & Joe agree-- ML and Radioactive World; Explore +1.

If I can count, then five people pitch Spice World and Radioactive World, although disagree on how to proceed. Four people pitch FTA and Spice World (and disagree). Two people pitch the mining league and go novelty. Explore +1 gets the nod from 5.3 panelists, Settle gets 3.45, and Explore +5 2.25.

Brian at the Table — I went with Alex and Jeff. My hand can go for either six, so I keep them and the best world for each; call the greedy explore and await further developments. I may get a reasonable military world, investment credits /expedition force (and the cash to buy it) or hit the jackpot — a small novelty/rare military world that makes my decision.

Brian with hindsight — The problem with keeping both is that you (by necessity) pitch your only windfall. It's tempting to settle early because AC will probably consume ... and that hurts Old Earth and ELC (who would consume any windfall). But to do that, I really need a windfall and a nonwindfall, which means I'm leaning towards Wei-Hwa's play. That gives up on the T1 develop ... but how many developments could I realistically want to play? Investment Credits, New Military Tactics, Expedition Force ... any more? [Actually, there is one intriguing other answer ... Diversified Economy. Now you use your sixes to help pay for that ASAP ... you can produce/consume with just Rebel Miners, then add New Vinland and you are off to the races].

In addition, you've already pitched a nice card whichever way you go. If you are going novelty, you really really want spice world. (For rares, the first windfall is nice, and the ML will convert it later on). Yes, there are other worlds in deck, but not that many.

The intriguing play of Exploring +5 (while keeping both sixes) is tempting, but I think Lou's comment about keeping Consumer Markets or NGO ... how in the Wide Wide World of Sports are you going to pay for the Markets and Free Trade association with that slow a start? And if you grab the NGO, that means you are ditching both other sixes. I'm tempted by the Explore +5, but only for Runaway Robots, New Survivalists, etc (with the reasonable fallback of a <= 2 Military Gene/Alien World). Exploring +5 for Diversified Economy is tempting ... but if I were going to do that I'd be tempted to keep Radioactive World instead of FTA association (for engine development).

Clearly either of these plays could work out. Depends on the other roles selected and peeking at the top cards of the deck ...

So, how'd that work out, you ask? I got bupkis. I believe Bupkis is defined (by Webster) as Contact Specialist, Research Labs and some obscenely expensive world. To make matters worse, there was a develop and no settle. (AC traded, no produce).

I'd describe the following turns, but I figured I was pretty fair behind after turn two, so I tried a T3 consume (with no settle on T1 or T2). That did not end in glory, either. I did eventually drop the mining league, but without an engine built it didn't matter.

That doesn't prove anything, but my bad luck should be shared by all those who picked as I did, so I'm calling the correct answer — Pitch the Free Trade Association and Spice World and settle.

Ten points.

Nine Points for any other combination of cards and a point deduction for not settling. So everyone gets at least an 8.

You are New Sparta in a four player game (everyone but Epsilon Eridani, if you care). Your opening hand is:

• New Vinland (2 Cost Novelty Production, Consume a good for 2 cards).
• Radioactive World (2 Cost Rare Windfall).
• Spice World (2 Cost Novelty Production, Trade a novelty for $2 extra)
• Rebel Miners (2 Military Rare Production)
• Free Trade Association (The 6-dev for novelties)
• Mining League (The 6-dev for rares).

What do you discard and what do you play on your first turn?

Seeing as how the point has come up.

The first settle is tempered by the fear that someone may call trade, drop a windfall, and be off to the races. It's a real tension. (This reminds me of the poisoned craftsman in Puerto Rico). I'm not sure if there's a hard and fast rule.

If you don't have a consume power (and a windfall of your own), then it's less of a problem. You may give up a trade, but you'll get one later on. (Of course, the tempo means that you won't be out of cards). Sparta can settle, but may be better off just exploring to get a few more military cards. The issue there is that Sparta really doesn't want to let those pesky developers get a head start.

Alpha Centauri and Earth's Lost Colony have less incentive to settle, since they can trade/produce without helping anyone else. (ELC is, admittedly, less likely to do this).

Epsilon Eridini (and, amusingly, Earth's Lost Colony) don't necessarily mind getting a poor windfall consume. Eridini gets a card (and a VP), but saves a tempo. ELC gets a VP but can then produce and trade for a bonus VP.

Looking at this from a Game Theoretic point of view, I suspect that you just have to toss a bit of effective randomness in. You don't have to actually be random ... you can use information only you know ... like the cards in your hand.

But if we took a situation where we knew all the cards (say, set hands, but changing them around so that there were windfalls aplenty) then I think the optimal play would be Settle X%, Trade Y% Other Z%. Early on the Trade play will be surprising, and work fairly often. Then people will become suspicious and the Settle % will fall. This will, in turn, make the Trade % plummet. Which allows the Settle % to rise.

So ... no real answers.

Thoughts:

• I'm more likely to settle if I can pick a windfall (if no trade hits) or a nice production world (if it does). And if I've got the matching "produce on a windfall" card, I'll almost certainly do it.
• If my developments are poor, then part of me wants to explore (to get a good one), but that still leaves reasonable odds of coming up empty and seeing only developments.
• Earth's Lost Colony can always produce, for a mini-trade (less upside, but less downside).

[I see Alex has already addressed this point, but I'd already written this...]

Since the issue came up, I figured I'd take a specific look at Diversified Economy.

Diversified Economy -- $4, 2VP Consume -- Consume 3 different goods for 3 VP Produce -- Get one card for each type of good produced.

I called Diversified Economy one of the "Mini-sixes", in that it can provide a healthy stack of VPs and cards. Not all of the 6-Developments are created equal, though. Trade League typically generates a lot of cards and few points, while New Economy is the opposite. Diversified Economy is definitely 'card heavy.' You can drop this as your 3rd or 4th card and then earn 1-2 card every production phase. At that point, you'll still need a way to consume them, but early on you typically trade and then consume any spare goods. In the early game you are focused on your card economy. Compare Diversified Economy to Interstellar Bank. The bank gives you one card every development phase (for 2 cards). if you are getting two cards per production phase for a cost of four, that's about the same.

The difference is that you can (with a good engine) call Develop every turn, while Production is every other turn.

To balance that, Diversified economy has a huge mid- to endgame consumption power. Three goods for 3 VPs. Now, the goods must be different, but that usually means "You must have a genes or alien good." (Novelties and Rares aren't difficult to find). This power isn't much to write home about ... if you already have consumption powers. If you don't, it provides a huge punch. You also avoid buying other consumption powers, which means cheaper worlds. Production worlds without consumption powers are roughly 1 card cheaper, so you can expect 1-2 cards in savings (since you may have to bite the bullet).

Finally, D.E. lets you switch from building to produce/consume (and consunme x2) earlier, which may result in an extra consumption phase. Even if you don't use the consume power, the extra VP from that phase are directly attributable to this card. So, let's assume you get one extra cycle for 2 VPs, (since you traded and used other powers). So D.E. earns you 4 VPs (2 directly, 2 from one extra phase). You get 3 production bonuses (2, 3, 3) and get one world cheaper since you have 'spare' consumption powers. So for 4 cards (+D.E.) you earn ~9 cards in discounts/income and 4 VPs.

If you get an a bonus x2 consume, that number shoots way up.

If you become a production 'pioneer', then the fact that one of your worlds will be a windfall won't matter. For leeching, it will. Diversified Economy isn't a particularly good leech (although most of the 6-Devs aren't, either).

D.E. doesn't combine well with many of the Six-devs, but not all of them combine well enough. It still works with with Free Trade Association or Mining League, although they'll wind up fighting over goods. It's happy with Merchant Guild, and useful with Pan Galactic League or Alien Tech Institute (you'll be able to use the consume power, and neither of those helps in that regard). Most of the other Six-Devs are fairly neutral. (D.E. is +2 VP with New Economy, but you'll probably not get as many VP from your worlds).

Sparta, in particular, often gets a smattering of good and not enough consume powers, which means that even a late D.E. may pay off 3 cards and 5 points (although sometimes you just get the cards).

Overall, even a reasonably late play of Diversified economy will usually net you 3 cards and 3 additional VP, making this a pretty cheap VP boost. And this can hit early, providing a strategy-in-a-can that drives your whole tableau.