RE: [eia] impasse

["James Helle" <jhelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think this is a good solution for now.  However, I will propose the
following variation:  Since Danny left Spain in somewhat of a bad position
and Austria is a more "important" major power than Spain maybe Sterling
could take over Austria and Spain become a UMP.
Of course, this assumes that 1) we don't find a new player and 2) that
Sterling is interested in running Austria.

again, just a random idea.

-----Original Message-----
From: eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
Kyle H
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 9:57 AM
To: public list for an Empires in Arms game
Subject: Re: [eia] impasse


    Well, until we find a replacement for Austria, I propose that we allow
Joel to continue running Austria until Austria makes peace or until
December, whichever comes first.  If we still don't have a player for
Austria at that time, we could let Austria become a UMP, and then we can see
how players like playing with a UMP.

kdh

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Helle" <jhelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:08 PM
Subject: RE: [eia] impasse


> I'm not dead set on bidding caps, I was just throwing mud on the wall.  :)
>
> And I agree with Kyle wholeheartedly that we will never finish a game if
we
> continue to start over.  That was my reason for stating that we need to
> decide on a mechanism to prevent it, whether that mechanism is UMPs or
> something else.  I am content to continue our current game, but if the
> majority opinion is to start over then I'm not entirely opposed either.
>
> One of my primary concerns is that a player leaves the game after making
> decisions that make winning either impossible or nearly so and then
handing
> that major power over to a new player.  (I'm not talking about Nate or
> Austria, just generalizing).  That was the reasoning behind the group
> starting over when I first started playing Prussia, and again when Everett
> left.  I think it's inevitable, given the amount of real time we put into
> this game, that if a player can't win (or feels so) that they may leave
the
> game and leave the new player that gets their country in an undesirable
> position.  This is primarily what I think we need to address in order to
> have a chance at a full game.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:eia-bounces@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> Joel Uckelman
> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 8:31 AM
> To: public list for an Empires in Arms game
> Subject: Re: [eia] impasse
>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia

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

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