Re: [eia] impasse

[Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thus spake "Kyle H":
>     First, I hope you are not counting me on the side of wanting to start a
> new game.  I was opposed to restarting last time (when Nate joined the
> game), and if we just keep restarting as soon as someone quits the game (for
> whatever reason), we'll never get beyond 1807.
>     Second, a placing a cap on bidding is not going to work.  Suppose your
> cap is 25.  Then you have 5 people who bid 25 for France, let's say.  Then
> you have a competitive die roll.  So the lucky person who gets it now has an
> easier time of winning the game.  Same goes for Russia.  This is completely
> wrong-headed.
>     The bidding system is there for a reason, to force people who bid high
> to make tough decisions and to force people to "pay" what a country is worth
> "on the open market".  If you don't think you can win bidding 40 for France,
> but somebody else does, then that person should get France.  In our current
> game, Jim thought he could win with France by bidding 47 (or something like
> that) and now he is seeing that he was overly optimistic.  In our first
> game, I had bid 42, and I learned that was a mistake as well.  But just
> because Jim and I couldn't win bidding as high as we did doesn't mean
> somebody else out there couldn't do better than we did.  If someone else
> thinks that Jim and I played France all wrong, then they should bid higher
> than we are prepared to.
>     You shouldn't have to *force* people to make reasonable bids.  Either
> they will make reasonable bids, or they will lose.  It's that simple.

I concur with Kyle's analysis of bidding; saying that we bid too high is not
the same as saying that the bidding system is broken.

_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia