From: fred_s@earwax.pei.com (Fred Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: EIA: Re: Bidding
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:18:46 GMT
Organization: Protocol Engines Incorporated

In article <1992Nov5.181458.8756@cis.ohio-state.edu> farrell@pluto.cis.ohio-state.edu (christopher k farrell) writes:
>
>	I like the "new" bidding system (GB,Fr,...) for a number of reasons.
>
>	1)  Any way of resolving bids that is not ordered like this can result
>in anomolies.

How so?  Please elaborate.

>	2)  It forces rational bids; you can't just bid to play a certain
>country.  You have to think, well, I'll play England/France if I can get them
>for under 30, so I'll bid maybe 30 for GB and 25 for France, but other than 
>that I'd rather play Prussia, and have no desire for Russia, so I'll bid
>5 for Russia (if I get it for that it's a steal), 2 for Austria and 8 for
>Prussia (which, by that point, should easily win if I didn't get some other
>nation at a "bargain basement" price).  You have to figure how many VP's you
>think you can get easily, then factor in some "preference".

I don't understand why you can't do this under the old system.  In fact, it's
much easier because you don't have to worry about the order of bid resolution.

>	Sure, you have to try to "duck" a high bid for some country, but any
>other preference system is worse.  Say we resolve each player's highest bid
>first; then some players could easily get screwed where they bid significantly
>higher for a country that went in an earlier round;

How is anyone getting "screwed" here?  You simply have to consider each bid
you make, from highest to lowest, and ask yourself what you would bid for this
country if all your higher bids have been topped.  And you *don't* have to
worry about the order.  Simple - and the only one who could screw you is you.

>plus you could easily have second-tier nations (Austria or Spain, for
>example) going for outrageously low bids where everyone else had their
>highest bids for France, GB, and Russia (since if one of those three is not
>your highest bid, you won't get it).  This would really screw up play balance.

That's a *BIZARRE* argument, considering that pre-specifying the order of bid
resolution is even *WORSE* in this respect.  In the second edition, the only
reason to ever bid more than one for Turkey is that you want to use your 'one'
bid for some other country you hate playing.  In the first edition, you always
bid one for your last choice country which seems fair enough (and is the same,
in this respect, as the second edition) since you're being saddled with a
country you didn't want to play.  But noone necessarily knows which country
is going to go last and second-to-last, etc., so competive bidding for the
lower teir countries is more likely under the first edition bidding rules.

> The "unique" bids also prevent anomolies (like, say, 0 for all the
>countries, which would end up with you getting Turkey dirt cheap).

Yes, yes - but this is also a feature of the first edition rules as well.  Or
didn't you understand that?

>	Bidding is an extremely important part of the game, and with each 
>"high" bid you should have an idea where the VP's are coming from.  To remove
>the skill from bidding, or to make it more random, would have a very 
>deleterious effect on the game.  Sure, I would rather have a system whereby
>every player gets the country he wants, but this is a more serious game than
>that.  Every nation has it's attraction (yes, even Prussia), and they all
>can be fun to play.  Which one you get isn't *that* important, so I'd rather
>have a system that results in a fair distribution of nations with reasonable
>bids.

I agree with you 100%.  That's why I support the first edition bidding system.

Fred
Newsgroups: rec.games.board