I have only played about 6 or 7 games of EiA (and never to the end since all games were the Grand campain) but I have never been in a game with bids... Are bids really the best solution? I'm prepared to be convinced, but here are the alternatives I've been used.
Alternative 1:
Simple, all players agree on who plays what country.
Alternative 2:
Each player prepares a priority list on what countries to play.
For example: If I want to play france or if not france england or if neither of those russia and so on, my list looks like: France, England, Russia, Turkey, Prussia, Austria, Spain
In this example I do not really want to play spain...
Now, all these lists are made public (much like DoW all showed at the same time) and just for fun the odds for becoming each nation for each player is calculated.
Last we start to draw the player names in random order. Whoever is drawn first becomes his/her 1st choice. 2nd to be drawn becomes his/her first choice if still available, otherwise the 2nd choice and so on.
Quite fun and no VP penalties for bidding...
Alternatives to bidding
Moderator: MOD_EIA
Alternatives to bidding
24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? I think not.
RE: Alternatives to bidding
There is a simple way of avoiding bidding...you put one counter corp of each country in a bag and then throw a dice, the highest roll starts to pick then towards the left or the right hand of the roll winner.
That is what we did in the game we are playing right now for more than a year (now we are in 1809) but I think you should be able to switch countries if two players agree. We did, so some players didnt like his game country.
Well, I think bidding is perfect IF all the players play to win. But of course, as I read, some players just dont want to win and they just want to have fun....big deal.
I mean, "I want to be FR and kick everybodies ass, I dont care about the VP"
But yes, it is a big deal and the bidding is not the way to avoid this, maybe random by the main computer and then the posibility to change the countries with other players...
Dont know, I guess MG will have decided how, plez tell us!!
That is what we did in the game we are playing right now for more than a year (now we are in 1809) but I think you should be able to switch countries if two players agree. We did, so some players didnt like his game country.
Well, I think bidding is perfect IF all the players play to win. But of course, as I read, some players just dont want to win and they just want to have fun....big deal.
I mean, "I want to be FR and kick everybodies ass, I dont care about the VP"
But yes, it is a big deal and the bidding is not the way to avoid this, maybe random by the main computer and then the posibility to change the countries with other players...
Dont know, I guess MG will have decided how, plez tell us!!
Santiago y cierra España!!!
RE: Alternatives to bidding
Bidding is perfect. It allows the smaller countries a better chance at winning.
example:
France is fun to play hence everyone wants to play it, therefore, the bids go up (kinda like supply and demand). So the guy who gets France gets it at a high bid (making the VP total to win that much harder to obtain), while the person who plays Turkey (last in the selection process) either gets it for an additional 1 or 2 VP to win, thereby giving hardly no extra VP to win.
This system is designed this way for a reason. It fits great into the game.
How else dispute two or more people who really want to play France? What if everyone really wants to play France?
example:
France is fun to play hence everyone wants to play it, therefore, the bids go up (kinda like supply and demand). So the guy who gets France gets it at a high bid (making the VP total to win that much harder to obtain), while the person who plays Turkey (last in the selection process) either gets it for an additional 1 or 2 VP to win, thereby giving hardly no extra VP to win.
This system is designed this way for a reason. It fits great into the game.
How else dispute two or more people who really want to play France? What if everyone really wants to play France?
RE: Alternatives to bidding
Did you read my post above at all?
We have used "alternative 2" as described above several times and it works fine. Especially since in the group I've been playing with almost all players have their own favourites.
But if all want to play france, fine the random part will decide who gets it. But I doubt everyone have the same 2nd choice and so on...
I have not used bidding, but I fear you get a situation described by ardilla above:
In order to get for example france a player bids so much that it is not possible to win the game. I have always had a fear bidding creates an inbalance in the game. The only way to avoid this is to have 7 hard core serious gamers (not possible in practice I guess) or use a bidding limit which in practice ends with a random choice since "all" will bid max for funny france...
Is this just me or do you guys that have used bidding recognize this?
We have used "alternative 2" as described above several times and it works fine. Especially since in the group I've been playing with almost all players have their own favourites.
But if all want to play france, fine the random part will decide who gets it. But I doubt everyone have the same 2nd choice and so on...
I have not used bidding, but I fear you get a situation described by ardilla above:
In order to get for example france a player bids so much that it is not possible to win the game. I have always had a fear bidding creates an inbalance in the game. The only way to avoid this is to have 7 hard core serious gamers (not possible in practice I guess) or use a bidding limit which in practice ends with a random choice since "all" will bid max for funny france...
Is this just me or do you guys that have used bidding recognize this?
24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? I think not.
-
Wellington12347
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 4:59 pm
RE: Alternatives to bidding
The point of bidding is not just to require someone to give up VPs to play the country they want. The "guys that have used bidding" are not only following the rules and playing to win but also recognize that the bidding system forces players to balance their desire to play a certain country with how hard or easy they think it is to win with that country.
By way of example, if I like to play France but recognize that, all things considered, it will be difficult to win with that country, I will not bid as much. In contrast, if I view it as easy to win with France (let us presume that my opponents are of a kind that do not ally but devolve into acrimony) I will be willing to bid more to play France. A player will also be willing to pay more for the countries he is adept at playing. I will also bid more for a country I may not want to play but I recognize as easy to win with or that I need to ensure does not fall into another player's hand with a low VP bid. The "game theory" could become quite complex.
Under a random system of selecting countries, an advantage accrues to the players that receive the countries, for a certain game, that are easy to win with. The default VP totals are based on each player having moderate skills in all areas (and include the bid system).
Let us presume that there are a group of several players who have spent hours playing the scenarios and are quite adept at combat. However they have never played any campaigns and their diplomatic skills are quite abysmal. If they play the Grand Campaign Game and randomly select countries, France will win. France's superior military might can only be countered by strong alliances which will not be as cohesive in this hypothetical game because the players have less experience with diplomacy.
However, with a bid system, the players can recognize this and "bid" France "up" (either because they want to play the easy to win country and/or because they want to make it harder to win for whomever gets France). Thus the natural advantage France would receive in this hypothetical game is offset by the relatively larger amount of VPs that must be bid to play this country.
Another simple example would be a game where only 3-4 people play using Uncontrolled-Major-Power Rules for the non-player countries. France will have a natural advantage here which can be offset by a the French player having to make a high bid for France.
Put simply, bidding not only requires you to work harder in the game to play the country you want to play, but also has the potential to handicap each game by offsetting the advantage a certain country receives from factors extrinsic to the game rules; e.g., number of players, player experience level, player experience levels relative to each other, player styles, player knowledge of other players experiences and styles, etc.
The beautiful thing about this game is that is requires every player to truly think strategically from the very beginning and throughout the game. This is why the game is used as a teaching tool at the U.S. Air Force Academy. Every aspect of the game is a necessary component of the strategic interplay.
By way of example, if I like to play France but recognize that, all things considered, it will be difficult to win with that country, I will not bid as much. In contrast, if I view it as easy to win with France (let us presume that my opponents are of a kind that do not ally but devolve into acrimony) I will be willing to bid more to play France. A player will also be willing to pay more for the countries he is adept at playing. I will also bid more for a country I may not want to play but I recognize as easy to win with or that I need to ensure does not fall into another player's hand with a low VP bid. The "game theory" could become quite complex.
Under a random system of selecting countries, an advantage accrues to the players that receive the countries, for a certain game, that are easy to win with. The default VP totals are based on each player having moderate skills in all areas (and include the bid system).
Let us presume that there are a group of several players who have spent hours playing the scenarios and are quite adept at combat. However they have never played any campaigns and their diplomatic skills are quite abysmal. If they play the Grand Campaign Game and randomly select countries, France will win. France's superior military might can only be countered by strong alliances which will not be as cohesive in this hypothetical game because the players have less experience with diplomacy.
However, with a bid system, the players can recognize this and "bid" France "up" (either because they want to play the easy to win country and/or because they want to make it harder to win for whomever gets France). Thus the natural advantage France would receive in this hypothetical game is offset by the relatively larger amount of VPs that must be bid to play this country.
Another simple example would be a game where only 3-4 people play using Uncontrolled-Major-Power Rules for the non-player countries. France will have a natural advantage here which can be offset by a the French player having to make a high bid for France.
Put simply, bidding not only requires you to work harder in the game to play the country you want to play, but also has the potential to handicap each game by offsetting the advantage a certain country receives from factors extrinsic to the game rules; e.g., number of players, player experience level, player experience levels relative to each other, player styles, player knowledge of other players experiences and styles, etc.
The beautiful thing about this game is that is requires every player to truly think strategically from the very beginning and throughout the game. This is why the game is used as a teaching tool at the U.S. Air Force Academy. Every aspect of the game is a necessary component of the strategic interplay.
-
carnifex
- Posts: 1294
- Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2002 8:47 pm
- Location: Latitude 40° 48' 43N Longtitude 74° 7' 29W
RE: Alternatives to bidding
yeah that's all great and all, but the entire bidding argument pre-supposes that all parties have equal interests in developing their bidding strategies
unfortunately any given EiA game is prone to being abandoned well before the 10 years (or 11?) are up, and everyone who played at least once knows that
so i bid 100 for France and win. i don't care if France actually wins on points in the end, because no EiA game i ever played lasted past 1812 anyway. meanwhile i have fun the next dozen weekends crushing the evil austrians and what have you. next time i might bid 200.
sometimes the bidding process is not the best way to go.
unfortunately any given EiA game is prone to being abandoned well before the 10 years (or 11?) are up, and everyone who played at least once knows that
so i bid 100 for France and win. i don't care if France actually wins on points in the end, because no EiA game i ever played lasted past 1812 anyway. meanwhile i have fun the next dozen weekends crushing the evil austrians and what have you. next time i might bid 200.
sometimes the bidding process is not the best way to go.
-
Wellington12347
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 4:59 pm
RE: Alternatives to bidding
You bid 100 for France. You crush the Austrians. You end the game early. You had fun. However, because you bid so much for France, Austria, despite being "beaten" will win over France because they have reached a higher percentage of their required VP total when the game terminates prematurely. Again the rules account for the game ending early.
I would argue, or rather agree, that your strategy or modifications of the rules will always be superior when your criteria for "victory" is rather personal, extrinsic to the rules, and not shared by the other players. It's the same reason we keep score in a baseball game in spite of the fact that one of the players may be playing to "throw the ball the most" rather than score the most runs.
As a tangential point, why does Austria always get "crushed?" If the German and Russian powers don't ally as a counter-weight to France and at least make it a fight, then of course France always wins.
I would argue, or rather agree, that your strategy or modifications of the rules will always be superior when your criteria for "victory" is rather personal, extrinsic to the rules, and not shared by the other players. It's the same reason we keep score in a baseball game in spite of the fact that one of the players may be playing to "throw the ball the most" rather than score the most runs.
As a tangential point, why does Austria always get "crushed?" If the German and Russian powers don't ally as a counter-weight to France and at least make it a fight, then of course France always wins.
RE: Alternatives to bidding
Castanos totally agree with Wellington...[:D]
Bidding is an esential part of the game as it was designed in the rules of the original game (point 14.2 of the rules).
So the game doesnt say anything about mutual agreement or random choice, so this other methods will alter the game itself.
BUT, I will add a maximum modifier for bidding (p.e. 10% round up of that nation needed VP to win) and MAYBE, a total amount of bidding points for all countries, and of course as it is written in the rules, a player may not bid the same amount in 2 different countries.
This will avoid "players" (I personally wont consider this players...[:'(]) to bid 1.000 points for a country, and after all if 2 or more players are willing to play the same country the dice gives the winner and he will have to work his a** off to win the game, since they supposly they will bid the maximum for that country, and gives more chance to other countries to win the game.
This are my 2 cents, hope it helps MG to take the better decition.
Bidding is an esential part of the game as it was designed in the rules of the original game (point 14.2 of the rules).
So the game doesnt say anything about mutual agreement or random choice, so this other methods will alter the game itself.
BUT, I will add a maximum modifier for bidding (p.e. 10% round up of that nation needed VP to win) and MAYBE, a total amount of bidding points for all countries, and of course as it is written in the rules, a player may not bid the same amount in 2 different countries.
This will avoid "players" (I personally wont consider this players...[:'(]) to bid 1.000 points for a country, and after all if 2 or more players are willing to play the same country the dice gives the winner and he will have to work his a** off to win the game, since they supposly they will bid the maximum for that country, and gives more chance to other countries to win the game.
This are my 2 cents, hope it helps MG to take the better decition.
Santiago y cierra España!!!
RE: Alternatives to bidding
I thank you wellington for your reply. Some good points. I'm almost convinced bidding is the way to go.
24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? I think not.
-
Wellington12347
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 4:59 pm
RE: Alternatives to bidding
You are welcome.
RE: Alternatives to bidding
Are bids really the best solution? I'm prepared to be convinced, but here are the alternatives I've been used.
Yes, bids are teh best solution, that's why they are still being used year after year, (and not just for EIA).
The alternatives you have are not a real solution. The game is not balanced on its own, and hence most people will clash to want to be a certain country. The method of rolling a dice to see who gets who does not solve the balance issue, as you are just randomly assigning who gets the advantage in the game, and who gets crappy prussia, etc. Try explaining to the Prussia player who wanted to be France that he lost fair and square because everyone rolled for who got to be what!
Another example, 8 player monopoly game. Eveyone wants to go first, how do we make it fair? PB claims roll dice, who ever gets highest go first, then rest follow in a clockwise turn. Well, this may SEEM like a fair system to a 7 year old playing, but it does not take a genius to figure out the person who is in 8'th place will most likely never win and probably be bankrupt before the 5'th loop around the board.
Nelson stood on deck and observed as the last of the Spanish fleets sank below the waves…
RE: Alternatives to bidding
ORIGINAL: Wellington12347
You bid 100 for France. You crush the Austrians. You end the game early. You had fun. However, because you bid so much for France, Austria, despite being "beaten" will win over France because they have reached a higher percentage of their required VP total when the game terminates prematurely. Again the rules account for the game ending early.
I would argue, or rather agree, that your strategy or modifications of the rules will always be superior when your criteria for "victory" is rather personal, extrinsic to the rules, and not shared by the other players. It's the same reason we keep score in a baseball game in spite of the fact that one of the players may be playing to "throw the ball the most" rather than score the most runs.
As a tangential point, why does Austria always get "crushed?" If the German and Russian powers don't ally as a counter-weight to France and at least make it a fight, then of course France always wins.
Carnifex:
First, I must say that I agree with Wellington on all his points. [8D]
Second, if you bid 100 points for France, I will not start the game because I would know from start that you have no intention on finishing the complete campaign.
The VP totals required for a win are different for every country. Also, you can calculate the average amount of VPs per phase you require to meet the total + the bid. If you bid 100 points for france that would be almost 10 points per phase and that is virtually impossible to meet...
RE: Alternatives to bidding
Second, if you bid 100 points for France, I will not start the game because I would know from start that you have no intention on finishing the complete campaign.
God I love these guys when playing in Axis&Allies tournaments... Let him bid a crazy value for Axis.. then i'll just sit there defending Karelia while I KNOW he is just the type who will stupidly keep hitting it each round in an attack. By round 4 or so I will march into germany and then spank Japan all the way back to his little island...
The best is when you see this in a partner game, where the poor german player has to now sit out and watch helplessly as his Japan partner gets crushed all over the place. You wont ever see those two play on the same side again!
Nelson stood on deck and observed as the last of the Spanish fleets sank below the waves…
RE: Alternatives to bidding
I'm interested in hearing what people's thoughts are with respect to bids for England. England is another country I have frequently seen what I considered "ridiculous" bids for the country, because the person is safe in the knowledge that they don't have to win by reaching their victory point total.
Now, I understand the concept behind allowing England to win if no other countries achieve their victory (if Europe is too busy squabbling amongst themselves, none will be strong enough to challenge England outside of Europe where the British Empire lies). However, apart from myself, in every game I have been in that has gone for any appreciable time, it has been obvious that the person playing England had no intention to try and "win" the game themselves.
Leigh
Now, I understand the concept behind allowing England to win if no other countries achieve their victory (if Europe is too busy squabbling amongst themselves, none will be strong enough to challenge England outside of Europe where the British Empire lies). However, apart from myself, in every game I have been in that has gone for any appreciable time, it has been obvious that the person playing England had no intention to try and "win" the game themselves.
Leigh
RE: Alternatives to bidding
ORIGINAL: pfnognoff
Second, if you bid 100 points for France, I will not start the game because I would know from start that you have no intention on finishing the complete campaign.
Ok, First off, I always think there should be a limit to the amount you can bid.
Second off, I always think there should be a "winner", no matter when you stop playing the game.
If we stop in 1812, we calculate who is closest (in percentage) to his total winning VP amount, and then that persons wins the game, so there is always a winner. I mean what's the difference if you win in 1812 or 1815? If France has 67% of his total VP and Turkey has 68%, then Turkey wins (supposing those are the two highest percentages).
Besides, you shouldn't play with those kinds of morons. Guys who do that are just jackasses in real life anyways.
RE: Alternatives to bidding
If the other 6 players see that England is trying to win by not allowing anyone else to win, then they should do something about it.
I never bid more for England then for France, but I like playing both very much. I also always bid with the notion that the game WILL end and I DO want to win. [:D]
I never bid more for England then for France, but I like playing both very much. I also always bid with the notion that the game WILL end and I DO want to win. [:D]
RE: Alternatives to bidding
To avoid a passive British player, couldn't you play without rule 8.1.2 (the one where england decreases the VP for another MP instead of gaining VP itself)?
Wouldn't britain that way be forced to be more active to win even if we still use rule 8.1.3.2 (last sentance saying that britain wins if no other MP wins)?
Or just plain and simple "first to exceed VP minimum or closest percentage if none reaches VP goal"?
The last one seams more "fun" but does it impact game balance if britain cannot win on passive mainland MPs?
Wouldn't britain that way be forced to be more active to win even if we still use rule 8.1.3.2 (last sentance saying that britain wins if no other MP wins)?
Or just plain and simple "first to exceed VP minimum or closest percentage if none reaches VP goal"?
The last one seams more "fun" but does it impact game balance if britain cannot win on passive mainland MPs?
24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? I think not.
RE: Alternatives to bidding
Yeah, I agree, you could certainly get rid of those rules and have it not effect that game dramatically, GB will just have to be more active.
The only reason that rule is in place is because of historical accuracies.
The only reason that rule is in place is because of historical accuracies.
RE: Alternatives to bidding
I agree too, the best way should be by percentage, the country with more relative points at the end of 1815 is the winner.
Another thing it should be improve is the trading rule...what is going on?!??! Only GB had trading ships with other nations??! There were no trading between France and Spain p.e.
EiH had done it very well adding the trading value for US, but it should be upgraded for all countries within the game, maybe with a modifier if GB is agaist or whatever.
Of course, I agree that the majority of the trading was due because of GB, but I am sure other countries also had trading among them or even with minor countries.
But this is nothing to do with MG, well if they considerer it for patch 1.8 could be cool [:'(]
I guess one of the reasons for leaving only the brit trading and that the US was as simple as "double of you higher domestic value" was to do not make the game more complex, but now that a computer is taking care of numbers and cost it will be very easy to do it.
Another thing it should be improve is the trading rule...what is going on?!??! Only GB had trading ships with other nations??! There were no trading between France and Spain p.e.
EiH had done it very well adding the trading value for US, but it should be upgraded for all countries within the game, maybe with a modifier if GB is agaist or whatever.
Of course, I agree that the majority of the trading was due because of GB, but I am sure other countries also had trading among them or even with minor countries.
But this is nothing to do with MG, well if they considerer it for patch 1.8 could be cool [:'(]
I guess one of the reasons for leaving only the brit trading and that the US was as simple as "double of you higher domestic value" was to do not make the game more complex, but now that a computer is taking care of numbers and cost it will be very easy to do it.
Santiago y cierra España!!!
RE: Alternatives to bidding
Another thing it should be improve is the trading rule...what is going on?!??! Only GB had trading ships with other nations??! There were no trading between France and Spain p.e.
EiH had done it very well adding the trading value for US, but it should be upgraded for all countries within the game, maybe with a modifier if GB is agaist or whatever.
Of course, I agree that the majority of the trading was due because of GB, but I am sure other countries also had trading among them or even with minor countries.
But this is nothing to do with MG, well if they considerer it for patch 1.8 could be cool
I guess one of the reasons for leaving only the brit trading and that the US was as simple as "double of you higher domestic value" was to do not make the game more complex, but now that a computer is taking care of numbers and cost it will be very easy to do it.
I think that trade among countries other than England is built into the abstract trade value of each port. What the game does with its rule is acknowledge that England had undisputed control of the seas and could therefore turn off sea trade at any time.