From: fred_s@earwax.pei.com (Fred Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: EIA: Re: Supply limits
Date: 4 Nov 92 22:25:26 GMT
Organization: Protocol Engines Incorporated

In article <Bx6qvx.109@sunlab1.bath.ac.uk> ccspad@sunlab1.bath.ac.uk (Paul Dale) writes:
>In the referenced article, fred_s@earwax.pei.com (Fred Scott) writes:
>>It does force you to "plan ahead" - unnecessarily.  If you want England more
>>than France, you have to plan ahead carefully to "duck under" someone else's
>>French bid so you'll have a chance at England.  Then, if someone else wanted
>>England even more than you, you're now stuck without the chance to make a
>>legitimate bid for France, perhaps your second choice.  In this circumstance,
>>your low bid for France turns out to be silly...  Why...why...WHY!?!?!?
>>
>
>But the whole point is that you may well not get the country that you want. 
>You have to make a decision on your priorities. As your example shows, if
>Britain really is the country you want to play then you have to sacrifice
>a decent bid on France. If Britain and France are close in your estimation
>then you can still make a reasonanle bid on France and maybe get it. There
>is no perfect solution;

Sure there is!  The system we had in the first edition.

>if I don't get Britain then it's o.k. because I'll get France is not real.
>There could be six others thinking the same.

So?  What's your point?  Something went completely over my head, here.

My point is that "if I don't get Britain then it's o.k. because I'll get
France" is certainly a better state of affairs than "if I don't get Britain
I have to settle for some other country without getting a chance at France
do *ONLY* to an arbitrary order specified by the rules."  What is the point
of the order given, anyway?  (If you've managed to make sense out of it, let
me in on the logic, will you?)
>
>>>and is rather fun (IMHO).
>>
>>It's suspenseful, I suppose.  I thought the old bidding system was pretty
>>fun, too, though.
>>
>>>However, it does make it harder to get a certain country.
>
>I can only conclude this is exactly what the game designers had in mind :-)
>Looks like they managed it pretty well.

Yea, so?  You think that's supposed to be good?

>>...and getting the country you *want* (and are willing to pay extra VPs for)
>>is whole point of the affair, is it not?  That was the beauty of the old
>>system.  What, in god's name, is the *possible* attraction of the new one?
>
>I don't speak for any divine beings :-) but I think the point of the new
>system is to avoid silly bidding to avoid weak countries. If you really
>want to dodge Prussia you may well end up with a Turkey. There seems to
>be a lot more thought required and playing of the odds. i.e. it's not
>so much a matter of making sure you get the country you want but perhaps
>not getting the country you don't want :-)

How so?  You're still losing me.

Also, I should point out that if your object is to frustrate players from
getting the country they want and subject them to taking countries they don't
want, why not just dice off for countries?  I repeat, the point of the whole
thing was *supposed* to be to connect the players who wanted certain countries
with exactly the countries they wanted - or as high a choice as possible -
but at a price: what they'll accept in additional victory points required to
win with that country.  As near as I can figure it, your arguments for the
modification to that system is they prevent this objective from being realized;
i.e., you like it because it's *harder* for players to get a country they want.
I suppose you might prefer this as a matter of taste, but you'll have to excuse
me if I find such argumentation to be confusing.

>In a situation where seven people want to be France a smart guy is working
>out who he'd rather play as a second choice and producing a suitable
>bidding strategy.

Yes, but that assumes that you know ahead of time what everyone's objectives
are and where the "bargain" is going to be.  From lots of experience, I can
tell you such a result is *far* more likely to be derived from capricious luck
than shrewd bidding.  You should also remember that in most groups, there's
usually newcomers who will be at a disadvantage at this.  And, of course,
they'll screw up anyone else's thinking - once again yielding results which are
closer to random than to rewarding the shrewd bidders.  In essence, I claim
the first edition rules are more prone to rewarding shrewd bidding than the
second.

Fred