Latest 18Ardennes Thoughts

[Barzai]

I have been somewhat delinquent in following through on Jon Draper's
earlier comments, but I will now resume the discussion, prompted by
Chris Shaffer's latest question.

So, here's my thinking:

1. Allow double-jumps throughout, but also reinstate drops for stock
sales by other than the President. This will make the stock game a
trifle less staid, and will no doubt please Bruce.

2. The right to start all public companies must be auctioned. This
process is in lieu of stock buying (but not selling). No restrictions
other than (1) you need to have a qualifying minor company, and (2)
you need to demonstrate you can raise the necessary to do it. Winning
the auction would compel you to start the company on the spot, and the
priority would then move to the left of the winner (not the original
auctioneer). This also,will make the stock rounds a trifle more
exciting.

3. I am also thinking about allowing a minor company to be used in
part exchange for the President's certificate of the new major. This
would make it fairly easy to open up a major in SE-2 (first SR after
the first pair of ORs), but would put you on the horns of the classic
dilemma: open a low-valued and undercapitalized company now, or wait
out another pair of ORs and start higher?

I'd appreciate comments from the usual suspects (as well as any
others), and if I don't hear back in the next few days, I'll assume
there are no real objections and that I should release a rules
revision incorporating these proposed changes.

[Chris Shaffer]

> 2. The right to start all public companies must be auctioned. This
> process is in lieu of stock buying (but not selling). No restrictions
> other than (1) you need to have a qualifying minor company, and (2)
> you need to demonstrate you can raise the necessary to do it. Winning
> the auction would compel you to start the company on the spot, and the
> priority would then move to the left of the winner (not the original
> auctioneer). This also,will make the stock rounds a trifle more
> exciting.

So I get skipped in the stock round with no recourse if someone
happens to put up a presidency in a region where I do not qualify?
Shades of 1870. I hate it.

--
Chris

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

[David G.D. Hecht]

I certainly understand and sympathize with your concern, but this can only
materially affect you if the other guy could outbid you anyhow. The prority
would shift only if someone other than the auctioneer wins, which, by
design, is not very likely to happen in the first generation of companies to
form.

In any event, you can always bid on any major that would be one you would be
interested in. I guess I'm not sure what your concern is?

[Chris Shaffer]

> In any event, you can always bid on any major that would be one you would be
> interested in. I guess I'm not sure what your concern is?

In the first round of companies formed, it's probably true that order
in the stock round doesn't matter much when major company presidents
are auctioned. In later rounds, it could very well prevent me from
buying the public company 10% share that would have been available.

Basically, I have a strong aversion to anything that shifts priority
without allowing the skipped player some control over the process. I
will admit that this may have more to do with my dislike for the way
this is implemented in 1870 than anything functional in 18Ardennes.

I'll ask a different question. What benefit is gained by changing the
order of priority based on who wins the auction? Is there something
that is added to the game by selecting the player to the left of the
action winner, rather than the player to the left of the auction
proposer?

[David G.D. Hecht]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Shaffer" <chris....@gmail.com>
To: <dtg-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: [dtg-proto] Latest 18Ardennes Thoughts

Yes--it's simpler. I thought about this (believe it or not), and have
concluded that the alternative is waaay more confusing.

Consider the following:

Scenario Alpha:

A, B, C, and D are playing. A puts up a major for auction, and C wins it. C
now opens the company as required, and when he's done, it's player D's turn.

Scenario Bravo:

Same as Scenario Alpha, only now the turn order doesn't change. Does A lose
his buying option as a result of trying *and failing* to open a company?
After B takes his turn, does C get a turn, or should we skip it, since he
got to open a company?

As you can see, Alpha is intuitively easier, simpler to write up, less
error-prone, and less subject to wrongful interpretation. And Bravo has just
as many iniquitous possibilities (if we allow C a second bite at the apple)
as Alpha.

[Chris Shaffer]

We'll have to agree to disagree I expect. I find either scenario very
easy to explain, so don't see any benefit there. It's one line of
text - either "the player to the left of the auctioneer goes next" or
"the player to the left of the auction winner goes next." Hard to see
how there could be confusion.

Scenario Alpha (left of auctioneer): In regard to allowing the
non-auctioneer auction winner an extra purchase, first they paid a
premium in the auction, second they are unlikely to have enough money
for it to matter after making the purchase. In regard to skipping
players who were unable to bid, I find it unfair that they are skipped
with no way to influence being skipped.

Scenario Bravo (left of auction winner): I point out that you used
Scenario Bravo in 18West and it works just fine. Nobody in my
experience has ever been confused and nobody has argued that it is
unfair. In regard to skipping the auctioneer, that person had a
chance to make a purchase, chose to auction a presidency they did not
purchase, so I think it is reasonably fair that they be skipped.
Either they weren't willing to pay enough for the presidency they put
up, or they put one up they didn't want to clear out the chaff.
Either way, it seems reasonable to skip them.

--
Chris

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "dtg-proto" group.
> To post to this group, send email to dtg-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> dtg-proto+...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/dtg-proto?hl=en.
>
>

[Chris Shaffer]

Whoops, hit send while editing, so that last probably won't make sense.  Please use the below instead.

--
Chris

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

We'll have to agree to disagree I expect.  I find either scenario very
easy to explain, so don't see any benefit there.  It's one line of
text - either "the player to the left of the auctioneer goes next" or
"the player to the left of the auction winner goes next."  Hard to see
how there could be confusion.

Scenario Alpha (left of auctioneer): In regard to allowing the
non-auctioneer auction winner an extra purchase, first they paid a
premium in the auction, second they are unlikely to have enough money

for it to matter after making the purchase.  In regard to skipping the auctioneer, that person had a

chance to make a purchase, chose to auction a presidency they did not
purchase, so I think it is reasonably fair that they be skipped.
Either they weren't willing to pay enough for the presidency they put
up, or they put one up they didn't want to clear out the chaff.
Either way, it seems reasonable to skip them.

Scenario Bravo (left of auction winner): I point out that you used
Scenario Bravo in 18West and it works just fine.  Nobody in my
experience has ever been confused and nobody has argued that it is
unfair.  In regard to skipping

players who were unable to bid, I find it unfair that they are skipped
with no way to influence being skipped.

[David G.D. Hecht]

I hear what you're saying, Chris, but IIRC I just clarified a point which seems fairly clear to me from the rules about whether forming a company consumes your selling step aas well as your buying step. If I go with reverting the turn order, then I'll have to make explicit what happens to the turn of the initial auctioneer, and that the actual winner gets a buying step when it comes back to him. Then I'll be inundated with complaints about how iniquitous those things are.

 

Your point about the losing auctioneer is a fair one, but it offends my sense that players sometimes engage in irrational behavior. You say that losing your turn is something you can't control: I say losing the auction to another player is also something you can't control. Which is worse? An entirely subjective matter, I expect.

 

As to your dismissal of the "second bite at the apple" as unlikely to be an issue, you didn't accept that argument from me when I made it to you, so why are you deploying it now? I don't think missing a turn in the SR ias a result of the auction process is that big of a deal: you don't think that giving the winner of the auction a second bite is that big of a deal. Opinions vary: that's why we ultimately rely on empiricism--actual play of the game under various rule variations.

 

Since I'm the designer, we'll try it my way first: if it doesn't work out, we'll try something else.

[Chris Shaffer]

As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree. I argue that skipping players who have no way to influence is worse than skipping players that are participating in the auction.  You clearly don't agree.  That's OK.

I still think that explaining the rule is not a problem.  You successfully did it in 18West without "[making] explicit what happens to the turn of the initial auctioneer, and that the actual winner gets a buying step when it comes back to him" and it has never been a problem.  Has the rule in 18West ever generated these proposed confusions or questions from players?  Have you been inundated with complaints about how iniquitous the 18West auction process is?

Not sure what you mean about me rejecting your second bite at the apple argument.  I agreed it is a small problem, but I argued that it is mitigated by the fact that the player getting the second bite has less cash available so is less able to take advantage.  I am arguing that this is a lesser evil than skipping players who have zero control or options, not that it is not an evil.

If you lose an auction to another player, you can control it.  You could have bid more.  How can that represent a loss of control?

I agree, you're the designer.  But I want to point out that the reason I am raising my objection is because *you asked* if anyone had objections.  If you didn't really want to hear the objections, why did you ask in the first place?  You said " if I don't hear back in the next few days, I'll assume there are no real objections" and I was just responding to that request, eh?

--
Chris

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

[David G.D. Hecht]

OK, last first: yes, I did ask for people to express objections. Implicit in that was that the objections should be based on something other than personal preference. My (unnecessarily snippy, apology offered) response was simply another way of saying that if that's what it comes down to, I prefer my own preferences to those of others (imagine that, eh <g> !).

 

Yes, you can bid more (or not). But sometimes people bid *more than they should* just to bone another player. I don't like this, and that's what I'm referring to when I say that it's out of your control: you can only play as if others are willing to play in their own best interests, and when they don't--well, then it's a crapshoot. As I never tire of pointing out to players who engage in lose/lose behavior in 18xx--or any other multiplayer game--they are only helping the players who are not involved in this race to the bottom.

 

As to who is arguing how, I would say the exact same thing as you have: sure, losing your turn could be a problem, but it's a small one, inasmuch as it's unlikely to happen very often, and even then, it won't necessarily cost you anything. I don't see my argument as being materially different from yours in that respect.

 

As to 18West: the auction rule is not (yet) a sanctioned variant (or, a fortiori, a final rules revision), and the few people who have clamored for something along those lines are experienced players who are intimately familiar with the underlying discussion and issues: they have the full legislative history. I don't know who is using those rules besides them, so I can't judge whether they are clear to the larger public or not.

 

Furthermore, there is a huge difference between an 8-company game and a 6-company game, especially when there's a distinct qualitative hierarchy among them. Getting a better company in 18West will generally mean you paid more for it: in 18Ardennes, getting any company is a matter of survival, so you may find yourself cornered into bidding a lot for a company that isn't materially better than any other--it just happens to be the only one available that fits your holdings.

 

Finally, the only reason this rule is even on the table is to correct a problem which (I would think) you would be concerned with--whether the turn order decides who gets what, or the players (through the bidding process) do. Personally, I'm reasonably content with the rules as they currently are: I'm just responding to the concerns expressed by others *based on actual experience*. How (and if) we do this is mostly a matter of detail and the usual process of Test-Analyze-And-Fix.

[Mark Geary]

On 22 Mar 2010, at 9:06 AM, Barzai wrote:

> 2. The right to start all public companies must be auctioned. This

How about this:

Player A auctions a Company.
Player C wins the auction (but takes no action other than paying the
auction premium)
Player A continues turn, possibly auctioning another company (he
hasn't made a buy action yet).
Player B takes a turn.
Player C either opens Company or relinquishes control of it and takes
another action for his turn.

Mark Geary

[David G.D. Hecht]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Geary" <ge...@acm.org>
To: <dtg-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: [dtg-proto] Latest 18Ardennes Thoughts

That could work. It sounds a bit complicated from a rules-writing
perspective, but it would certainly solve the "whose turn is it next/you
stole my turn" issues.

[Chris Shaffer]

No need to apologize, I've got a thick skin and I can dish it out too.  As long as we don't start a flame war, things should be OK.

I totally agree, this is to large extent a matter of personal preference, as designer you have final say and playtesting should show if it has significant negative impact.  I do think that you should listen to objections based on personal preference.  It can be hard for respondents to tease out whether their objection or suggestion is based on personal preference without discussion after all.

Finally, I totally agree that auctions in themselves are a great solution to the identified problem. My quibble is with the auction mechanism, not with the auction itself.

--
Chris

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

[Matthew L. Campbell]

-----Original Message-----
From: dtg-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:dtg-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David G.D. Hecht
Sent: 03/22/2010 10:51 AM
To: dtg-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [dtg-proto] Latest 18Ardennes Thoughts

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Geary" <ge...@acm.org>
To: <dtg-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: [dtg-proto] Latest 18Ardennes Thoughts

> On 22 Mar 2010, at 9:06 AM, Barzai wrote:
>
>> 2. The right to start all public companies must be auctioned. This
>
> How about this:
>
> Player A auctions a Company.
> Player C wins the auction (but takes no action other than paying the
> auction premium)
> Player A continues turn, possibly auctioning another company (he hasn't
> made a buy action yet).
> Player B takes a turn.
> Player C either opens Company or relinquishes control of it and takes
> another action for his turn.

I like it up until C can relinquish control. I believe it would be better to say that if you win the auction for a Major company president certificate you pay the premium but then MUST buy the president cert at your next stock turn. Whether you can float it or not is irrelevant unless you want to protect people from themselves.

>

That could work. It sounds a bit complicated from a rules-writing
perspective, but it would certainly solve the "whose turn is it next/you
stole my turn" issues.

--

[Chris Shaffer]

I'd prefer if Player C is required to actually open the company, rather than simply throw away money to relinquish control.  With that caveat, I think this could be a good solution.

--
Chris

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

[Chris Shaffer]

I like it up until C can relinquish control. I believe it would be better to say that if you win the auction for a Major company president certificate you pay the premium but then MUST buy the president cert at your next stock turn. Whether you can float it or not is irrelevant unless you want to protect people from themselves.

Nominally you can always float it, since the presidency is 40% and the exchange share is 20%.

I do agree that the auction winner should be required to form the company.

[David G.D. Hecht]

OK, here is my proposed writeup:

 

(New rule 5.1.3, bumps existing rules to the right)

 

"In lieu of buying stock, a player may propose forming a Public Company. To do this, he must declare which Public Company he wished to form and with which of his Minor Companies he wishes to form it. Using a process similar to the Initial Auction, the player must bid a non-negative multiple of f.5 (including f.0) on the Public Company he wishes to form.  Each other player in turn either bids a higher multiple of f.5 than any other player, or passes. A player who passes may not rejoin the auction for that Public Company. A player who has less than the amount he would require to stay in the auction must pass. Once all players but one pass in turn, the highest bidder pays the amount of his bid to the Bank and receives the Public Company charter.

A player who does not own a qualifying Minor Company must pass. A player who cannot raise the necessary amount (via current cash and stock sales) to pay both his bid and the amount required to open the Public Company must pass.

"The highest bidder must start the Public Company as described in [6.2.1] and [6.2.3] at his first legal opportunity. If the highest bidder is the player who initially proposed forming the Public Company, he now does so: if he does not have the necessary cash, he must perform an Emergency Money Raising.

"If the highest bidder is another player, the player who initially proposed forming the Public Company may buy a share or propose formation of another Public Company. This process continues until the player has either bought a share of stock or formed a Public Company: either action ends his turn, and the next player in Stock Round order now takes his turn.

"If the highest bidder is another player, he is compelled to open the Public Company in his next turn in the current Stock Round."

----- Original Message -----

From: Chris Shaffer

To: dtg-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 12:36 PM

Subject: Re: [dtg-proto] Latest 18Ardennes Thoughts

[Chris Shaffer]

One minor note - the clause about emergency money raising seems to only apply if the auctioneer wins the auction.  Should that also apply to any auction winner?

Also, the "this process continues" clause should include the option for the player to either buy a share, form a public company, or pass.  It may be that after failing to form a public company, a player decides to pass instead.

--
Chris

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

[David G.D. Hecht]

----- Original Message -----

From: Chris Shaffer

To: dtg-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 4:28 PM

Subject: Re: [dtg-proto] Latest 18Ardennes Thoughts

One minor note - the clause about emergency money raising seems to only apply if the auctioneer wins the auction.  Should that also apply to any auction winner?

(DH) Possibly. Any other player is not similarly constrained, since--unlike the initial guy--he has the liberty of selling stock before forming the company.

Also, the "this process continues" clause should include the option for the player to either buy a share, form a public company, or pass.  It may be that after failing to form a public company, a player decides to pass instead.

 

(DH) True. Will be corrected.

[Ian D Wilson]

1. Will you be extending the top of the stock chart? Otherwise many companies are going to 'hit the wall'. Will stock sales drop the price once per sale or once per share sold? Either way, I hate the idea - it just tends to penalise the player with the worst company i.e. the player who's losing. Or you get into a pointless tit-for-tat: "you sold my company down so I'm going to do the same with yours". BTW, Bruce is a big fan of 1861 (which doesn't let prices drop with non-director sales), so why should he be pleased by this change?   2. In general, I'm in favour of auctioning the majors. Given their relative scarcity, this seems a fair method to decide who gets them. I would prefer that the methodology would be close to that used to auction the minors, on the grounds that it makes the rules easier to remember!   3. Allowing players to start companies earlier/cheaper sounds an interesting idea, but my gut feeling is that it's a bit late in the process to change such a fundamental rule. At best it allows more flexibility and hence variation, at worst it just provides another way for players to hang themselves.   Ian D --- On Mon, 22/3/10, Barzai <Bar...@earthlink.net> wrote:

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "dtg-proto" group. To post to this group, send email to dtg-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to dtg-proto+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Jon Draper]

David G.D. Hecht wrote:
> OK, here is my proposed writeup:

(As an aside, we had a 4 player game on Friday - full writeup to follow.
The auctions for the 5th and 6th companies were non events.)

Generally I like this.

If the highest bidder is another player he has to open the Public
Company at his first legal opportunity and in his next turn. These may
not be the same time if another player has sold shares preventing the
highest bidder from a sale. Perhaps the winner should be required to
raise the cash at the end of the auction, then start the company at the
first opportunity.

In the game on Friday we had a special round after each OR when 5 shares
companies could convert to 10 share. An alternative (with a number of
side effects) is the the auctions for public companies could also be
held at this time.

Jon

[Mike Shaver]

With respect to your new proposed rule 5.1.3, the following unlikely scenario is possible

Player A auctions major 1 (player C wins)
Player A takes another action
Player B auctions major 2 (player C wins)
Player B takes another action
Player C ??

Is player C compelled to open two Majors on his turn?

Your rule in the middle mentions 'next legal opportunity' which could be combined with the buy one share rule to mean he could only open one on each of his next two turns. But then the last part of the rule says he is compelled to open the company he won on his next turn which could be interpreted to mean both would need to be opened in the same turn.

( I realise this is a rather unlikely corner case but thought I should mention it anyway)

Mike

Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network

---

From: "David G.D. Hecht" <bar...@earthlink.net>

Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:21:18 -0400

To: <dtg-...@googlegroups.com>

[Jon Draper]

Ian D Wilson wrote:
> 1. Will you be extending the top of the stock chart? Otherwise many
> companies are going to 'hit the wall'. Will stock sales drop the price
> once per sale or once per share sold? Either way, I hate the idea - it
> just tends to penalise the player with the worst company i.e. the
> player who's losing. Or you get into a pointless tit-for-tat: "you
> sold my company down so I'm going to do the same with yours".
> BTW, Bruce is a big fan of 1861 (which doesn't let prices drop with
> non-director sales), so why should he be pleased by this change?
>

In the game on Friday the final share prices were nicely spread at 400,
380 ,360 ,340 ,320 and 300. (We extended the stock chart.)

There was very little selling of stock, mainly because only 5 majors
were running (until the final SR).

With the 5 to 10 share conversion just before the SR, if selling drops
the price players can trash other companies shares for free by buying
during the conversion then selling in the SR.

Overall, I would prefer that only the directors and company sales drop
the price.

Jon

>
> 2. In general, I'm in favour of auctioning the majors. Given their
> relative scarcity, this seems a fair method to decide who gets them. I
> would prefer that the methodology would be close to that used to
> auction the minors, on the grounds that it makes the rules easier to
> remember!
>
> 3. Allowing players to start companies earlier/cheaper sounds an
> interesting idea, but my gut feeling is that it's a bit late in the
> process to change such a fundamental rule. At best it allows more
> flexibility and hence variation, at worst it just provides another way
> for players to hang themselves.
>
> Ian D
>

> <http://uk.mc870.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=dtg-...@googlegroups.com>.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> dtg-proto+...@googlegroups.com
> <http://uk.mc870.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=unsub...@googlegroups.com>.

> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/dtg-proto?hl=en.
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "dtg-proto" group.
> To post to this group, send email to dtg-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> dtg-proto+...@googlegroups.com.

[David G.D. Hecht]

----- Original Message -----

From: Ian D Wilson

To: dtg-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 4:56 PM

Subject: Re: [dtg-proto] Latest 18Ardennes Thoughts

1. Will you be extending the top of the stock chart? Otherwise many companies are going to 'hit the wall'. Will stock sales drop the price once per sale or once per share sold? Either way, I hate the idea - it just tends to penalise the player with the worst company i.e. the player who's losing. Or you get into a pointless tit-for-tat: "you sold my company down so I'm going to do the same with yours".

(DH) I don't actually believe that hitting the wall is likely to be that much of a problem: perhaps I'm wrong. In any event it remains to be seen: the point of bringing drops for sales back in is to compensate for double-jumps in the erstwhile blue zone: we'll see if that works. One thing I might also do--now that everyone seems to think we've been too nice to 10-share companies--is to take away double-jumps from 10-share companies.   (DH) As to per share or per sale, the rules as they currently exist are per sale: I see no reaon to change. As to your other point, I respectfully disagree--with a flat stock market, the impetus is exactly the opposite--you want to sell high-priced shares since the per-share gain is always the same anyhow, and the lower the current price, the likelier a double-jump. In fact this will make people arbitrage their portfolios almost entirely based on revenue per share. These rules are basically identrical to the ones in 18FL and I'm not really aware of a race to the bottom there.

BTW, Bruce is a big fan of 1861 (which doesn't let prices drop with non-director sales), so why should he be pleased by this change?

(DH) Bruce likes 1861 for many reasons, but that isn't one of them AFAIK (you can ask him directly if you like, I'm just speculating here nased on his other expressed preferences). But it is a fact than Bruce thinks my stock markets are too rigid, and that he dislikes my many attempts to mitigate the crabs-in-a-bucket tactics of some other games (1830, I'm looking at you!).

2. In general, I'm in favour of auctioning the majors. Given their relative scarcity, this seems a fair method to decide who gets them. I would prefer that the methodology would be close to that used to auction the minors, on the grounds that it makes the rules easier to remember!

(DH) I see your point, and it's certainly possible that we might do something like that. The problem is that starting a major is optional, and they don't ever have to open: so right there many of the underlying assumptions for the initial auction don't really fit.

3. Allowing players to start companies earlier/cheaper sounds an interesting idea, but my gut feeling is that it's a bit late in the process to change such a fundamental rule. At best it allows more flexibility and hence variation, at worst it just provides another way for players to hang themselves.

(DH) Meh, who cares if it's a big change, so long as it's an improvement? But, yeah, that's why that proposal is more tentative than the others.

 

[David G.D. Hecht]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Draper" <jdr...@f2s.com>
To: <dtg-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: [dtg-proto] Latest 18Ardennes Thoughts

> Generally I like this.
>
> If the highest bidder is another player he has to open the Public
> Company at his first legal opportunity and in his next turn. These may
> not be the same time if another player has sold shares preventing the
> highest bidder from a sale. Perhaps the winner should be required to
> raise the cash at the end of the auction, then start the company at the
> first opportunity.
>
> In the game on Friday we had a special round after each OR when 5 shares
> companies could convert to 10 share. An alternative (with a number of
> side effects) is the the auctions for public companies could also be
> held at this time.
>

Sensible thoughts all. I shall ponder the way to write this up! :-)

[David G.D. Hecht]

----- Original Message -----

From: Mike Shaver

To: dtg-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 4:53 PM

Subject: Re: [dtg-proto] Latest 18Ardennes Thoughts

With respect to your new proposed rule 5.1.3, the following unlikely scenario is possible

Player A auctions major 1 (player C wins)
Player A takes another action
Player B auctions major 2 (player C wins)
Player B takes another action
Player C ??

Is player C compelled to open two Majors on his turn?

Your rule in the middle mentions 'next legal opportunity' which could be combined with the buy one share rule to mean he could only open one on each of his next two turns. But then the last part of the rule says he is compelled to open the company he won on his next turn which could be interpreted to mean both would need to be opened in the same turn.

( I realise this is a rather unlikely corner case but thought I should mention it anyway)

(DH) No...excellent point, and exactly the kind of thing I need to hear. Jon Draper also addressed this, but much more indirectly: obviously timing is an issue, and we certainly want to avoid a situation where a player is both prohibited from doing something and required to do it at the same time! :-)

[David G.D. Hecht]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Draper" <jdr...@f2s.com>
To: <dtg-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: [dtg-proto] Latest 18Ardennes Thoughts

> Ian D Wilson wrote:
>> 1. Will you be extending the top of the stock chart? Otherwise many
>> companies are going to 'hit the wall'. Will stock sales drop the price
>> once per sale or once per share sold? Either way, I hate the idea - it
>> just tends to penalise the player with the worst company i.e. the player
>> who's losing. Or you get into a pointless tit-for-tat: "you sold my
>> company down so I'm going to do the same with yours".
>> BTW, Bruce is a big fan of 1861 (which doesn't let prices drop with
>> non-director sales), so why should he be pleased by this change?
>>
> In the game on Friday the final share prices were nicely spread at 400,
> 380 ,360 ,340 ,320 and 300. (We extended the stock chart.)
>
> There was very little selling of stock, mainly because only 5 majors were
> running (until the final SR).
>
> With the 5 to 10 share conversion just before the SR, if selling drops the
> price players can trash other companies shares for free by buying during
> the conversion then selling in the SR.
>
> Overall, I would prefer that only the directors and company sales drop the
> price.
>

OK, so how would you feel if I took away the 10-share companies'
double-jumps?

[Ian D]

Perhaps there should be some restriction along the lines of:
"A player may not enter the auction for a company if they have won the
bid on a company but haven't yet floated it"

OTOH, it sounds like a wonderful opportunity to go bankrupt when you
miscalculate!

Ian D

On Mar 22, 8:53 pm, "Mike Shaver" <mike.shaver...@gmail.com> wrote:
> With respect to your new proposed rule 5.1.3, the following unlikely scenario is possible
>
> Player A auctions major 1 (player C wins)
> Player A takes another action
> Player B auctions major 2 (player C wins)
> Player B takes another action
> Player C ??
>
> Is player C compelled to open two Majors on his turn?  
>
>

> Mike

[Scott Petersen]

David, did you reach a conclusion about how do deal with these issues--especially disallowing players from blocking out others from starting the big companies via auctions and opening restrictions?  I see that the most current rules rev is still from last November.

From what I remember of the discussion, it seemed like a lot of effort to shoehorn in a workable 5-player scenario and not really worth the extra rules complexity.  I would favor 3-4 player range.  I'm sure that's at least a bit off the true mark, but I tend to favor rule elegance as I can't stand it when something doesn't go my way because I didn't completely understand/remember the rule (at least in these types of games).

[David G.D. Hecht]

Funny you should ask...I am in the final stages of preparing a rules revision, hopefully to be sprung on an unsuspecting public shortly.

 

We have settled on a fairly simple auction process for the majors. The main effect of any auction seems to be a deterrent one--whereas before, people tried their best to bone the players to their left, now they try to avoid it, so as to discourage others from competing for "their" major.

 

I will send you a copy of the draft revised rules if you feel you can provide me comments by the end of the week (which at this point is, like, tomorrow). Obviously you will see them once they are posted, but if you want an advance look, I'd be happy to allow it.

[Dave4B]

I'm not sure if this has been raised before, but it just occurred to
me that in a four player game there are 16 items auctioned off at the
start of the game rather than 15 and yet the total start money is
unchanged (f2100). Is this correct?

On May 6, 7:27 pm, "David G.D. Hecht" <bar...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Funny you should ask...I am in the final stages of preparing a rules revision, hopefully to be sprung on an unsuspecting public shortly.
>
> We have settled on a fairly simple auction process for the majors. The main effect of any auction seems to be a deterrent one--whereas before, people tried their best to bone the players to their left, now they try to avoid it, so as to discourage others from competing for "their" major.
>
> I will send you a copy of the draft revised rules if you feel you can provide me comments by the end of the week (which at this point is, like, tomorrow). Obviously you will see them once they are posted, but if you want an advance look, I'd be happy to allow it.
>

[David G.D. Hecht]

It has been discussed previously and so far I have resisted the suggestion I
raise the amount of initial capital distributed.

<shrug> The Lux should be the last item to go, and I cannot see any reason
why anyone would pay even the smallest premium: indeed, I expect it would
normally go at a substantial discount.

[Jeff Heuer]

In Portland last year Matt Campbell bought the Lux, then sold it in
SR2 and that gave him just enough to open a major in SR2. He earned
so much more than we did that he ran away with the game. Definitely
something to watch when it is in play. Increasing the money would
make this worse. If we had been experts at the game we would have
looked at the companies he had and calculated the potential earnings,
plus his remaining cash, and bid him up high enough to prevent that.
But that would assume that: a) we knew enough about the game at that
point to do it; and b) that we cared enough to do all those
calculations. I don't play the games to that level. Which is
probably why I don't a lot. :-)

Jeff Heuer

> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/dtg-proto?hl=en.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "dtg-proto" group.
> To post to this group, send email to dtg-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to dtg-proto+...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/dtg-proto?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -