Re: [eia] impasse

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxx>]

    Sure, if Sterling (or anyone else) would prefer to take over Austria in
its current condition rather than playing their current country, they should
definitely feel free to make their wishes known.

kdh

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Helle" <jhelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "public list for an Empires in Arms game" <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 1:36 PM
Subject: RE: [eia] impasse


> 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

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