From: fred_s@earwax.pei.com (Fred Scott)
Subject: Re: EIA: Re: Supply limits
Organization: Nerds On Parade
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 06:25:13 GMT

In article <11037@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> brendan@cs.uq.oz.au writes:
(about the second edition grand campaign bid system)
>Oops the order is Br Fr Ru Au Pr Sp Tu, agreeing with you on the first
>two at least.

Ah, so it is.  A little better for those who agree with me but - on the other
hand - what about those who feel France merits more VPs than Britain and/or
want Britain as a second choice?

>This order is clearly the order in which they believe these powers will
>accumulate VPs, Britain at the fastest rate, Turkey slowest.

They believe, but are they right?  I would argue that even if they are, in
general, correct (which I don't necessarily), the character of certain groups
playing the game will often alter the order.  (E.g., how many "Franophobes" vs
how many "Anglophobes" are playing.)

>I can't see how these rules stifle competition,...

Here's my problem - you and two other guys all want - and are willing to bid
more for - France 1st choice and Britain 2nd choice.  So do you underbid
England hoping to get France?  Or risk getting England when you would of bid
enough for France.  If you select the first option, competition for England
has been stifled and if get a situation like:

1st Guy: Bids 30 for GB (would actually have been willing to bid 45 but really
wanted France so he underbid GB) and 50 for France
2nd Guy: Bids 35 for GB and 55 for France
3rd Guy: Bids 40 for GB and 45 for France.

I just think its stupid that Guy 1 shouldn't be able to get GB and even
stupider that GB comes away underbid at 40 when it could have gone to someone
for 45.  I'm sorry, you just won't get me to agree that this is a good
situation.  The first edition bidding system automatically adjusted for player
groups who don't happen to agree with the game publishers about bids.

>...except for Pr Sp and Tu, and let's face it, if people spend more to get
>those countries than others do to get Br and Fr you might as well not bother
>playing the game.

Actually, it depends - if your player group is in the habit of playing the
whole game with a R/P/A colition trashing France every 18 months then a larger
bid for Prussia than France would be clearly in order.  In general, you're
right but I *still* don't see the harm in allowing bid order to float or the
point in pre-ordaining that Turkey shall be resolved last.  (And thus, never
needs a bid of more than your smallest remaining integer to use.)

>On the other hand competition for Br and Fr is increased since all bids
>are active when these powers are decided.

It isn't increased over the bids for them in then first edition - only over
the other countries in the second edition system.

>In summary a free-for-all encourages a uniform distribution of of bids,
>whilst the ordered resolution complements the relative strengths of the
>powers.

Saying that it encourages a "uniform distribution of bids" is not correct.
That implies people will ignore the relative strengths of the countries when
bidding 1st edition rules which is simply not true.  What it does is to
permit the system to be much more flexible than ordered resolution.  I've
found this to be extremely important in adjusting to the varying proclivities
of the different player groups you get.  More important, it also avoids the
"duck under" dilema suffered by Guy 1 in my example above.

Fred

(P.S. Thanks for debate, though - I wanted someone to suggest AH's possible
point of view in changing these rules and you've done that.)
Organization: Doctoral student, Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA