23-07-2004 05:10									#1
	Auction for 2 Shares in Settler from The Asylum. Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

The Asylum is building a Settler (so is Feudality but there won't be any tiles generated from it to auction) and has stated it will be founding a city NW, NW, NW, W of The Asylum.

You CAN go into debt bidding on one of the two shares from this Settler. Tile choice is assigned by highest bid. I am trying to get the bid prices from the city shares in The Asylum.

You are NOT bidding on tiles, you are bidding on a share and precedence on picking a tile.

Last edited by GhengisFarb on 23-07-2004 at 05:36

	23-07-2004 06:15									#2
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

F1 and F2 are Feudalitys' settler.

	23-07-2004 06:19									#3
	Increase the size of your Attachments

In general I have to say allowing going into debt (unlimited) on bidding is a bad idea. There should at least be an interest charge at work. I'd rather see loans and such handled by players using 'real' money (something our nation has produced, as opposed to an unlimited stack of cash that comes from nowhere).

	23-07-2004 06:32									#4
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

You said city shares could be appointed. How are bid prices supposed to be determined in that case? Where does the money go after?

Does the money just go back in the city funds pool or does it evaporate? I don't like the 'evaporate' option, as it's money from nothing... back to nothing again. It can't be money from nothing that then stays in the economy... otherwise someone bids $12 billion and everyone in the city gets a share of it back... buying up all spare tiles with the money, and gifting some of the tiles and remaining dollars back to the original bidder (all coordinated of course).

So it needs to be money from somewhere, which goes somewhere. Landholders in the city which created the Settler get the money from the city auction. Landholders from the empire which created the Settler (all of us) get the money from the Federal auciton. No "fake" money in the bidding... only what has already been produced.

	23-07-2004 06:45									#5
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

The reason players were allowed to bid into debt (on one thing and one thing only, once in debt they can't bid on anything until they get out of debt) was to prevent a few players with a lot of money shutting out all other players from getting any land.

As for where the money goes, I think a percentage should go to the central government and a percentage to the city that built the setller.

Say 50/50.

The city can auction off its settler shares to whoever it wishes or simply assign them if it wants. If it auctions them off (to everyone or to city citizens only) then 50% of the money from the winning bids would go to the central government and the city could do whatever it wanted with its half.

And the central government would have to give half of the proceeds it gets from the winning bids to the city that build the settler.

	23-07-2004 07:03									#6
	Support Apolyton

quote: The reason players were allowed to bid into debt (on one thing and one thing only, once in debt they can't bid on anything until they get out of debt) was to prevent a few players with a lot of money shutting out all other players from getting any land.

It's not going to work that way though.

It would have no effect if everyone just plays smart. People would not bid higher than they 'should' and those with more money and assets are able to safely bid higher.

Or it will have an unintended effect. Some players will take themselves out of the game entirely to outbid players who would have gotten the bid otherwise.

Either way those with lower net worth will not do as well. Either they still lose the bidding because they can't viably go as high (no chance to pay it back), or they destroy their chances completely.

It also opens up "vengence" bidding. Someone who really has not chance to affect the rest of the game can bid insane amounts to make sure that someone else (who they don't like) doesn't get what they want and could get otherwise in "rational" bidding. Or worse yet, that same someone can just up every bid, to the point where it becomes painful but maybe still worth bidding for the other side, in every auction, until their bluff is called and they win one.

	23-07-2004 07:03									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

The city's shares of the settler are to be assigned as follows:

1 share to Jonny
1 share to Aeson
2 shares to TORARADICAL
2 shares to Makahlua

	23-07-2004 07:09									#8
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: As for where the money goes, I think a percentage should go to the central government and a percentage to the city that built the setller.

In combination with unlimited debt this can end up ruining the game.

As an example... there are 3 other people in The Asylum. If I just want to get at everyone else (I don't, but between tarriffs and cutthroat play, and/or a player relegated to inconsequential status, someone could easily end up that way), then I could have bid $60 billion (for ease of calculations). $30 billion of it goes to those of us in The Asylum, $30 Billion to split between everyone. That means the 4 in The Asylum end up getting $12.5 Billion + $1 billion... $13.5 billion. Everyone else gets $1 billion.

See the problem?

	23-07-2004 07:29									#9
	Increase the size of your Attachments

We played with debt bidding in the $MiniGame and it was never a problem. If someone is dumb enough to bid $60 Billion for one tile, that's there decision. They will effectively be completely out of the game from then on with no chance to ever recover. But that was their decision.

In fact I propose this.

All settler shares be auctioned off in one thread (this one) The Asylum and Feudality should post if they are auctioning off or assigned their tiles (or a combination) and what limits they want for those auctions (only citizens of The Asylum can bid on Asylum's Settler) etc.

This thread would then be open for 72 hours from the start time of the first post in this thread. Thus all bids from various sources would be organized and available for all to see. It also sets a fair ground for central government/city citizens to bid in.

	23-07-2004 07:38									#10
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: They will effectively be completely out of the game from then on with no chance to ever recover. But that was their decision.

That was the point... someone to the point of being out of it anyways (either due to frustration or economics) could take their revenge out on all but a friend or two, who would then almost surely win the game. (at least until the next person does the same thing in reverse... at which point it becomes a game solely about who can get who to bid the most where... which isn't a "feudal" game at all).

You also didn't address my points about whether or not this would have any benefit for 'poor' players or not.

I see this as a potential game-breaker, and one with nothing to offer the game to offset that risk.

	23-07-2004 07:51									#11
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Aeson That was the point... someone to the point of being out of it anyways (either due to frustration or economics) could take their revenge out on all but a friend or two, who would then almost surely win the game. (at least until the next person does the same thing in reverse... at which point it becomes a game solely about who can get who to bid the most where... which isn't a "feudal" game at all). You also didn't address my points about whether or not this would have any benefit for 'poor' players or not. I see this as a potential game-breaker, and one with nothing to offer the game to offset that risk.

I see in no way how this could be a potential game breaker, in fact I see NOT having this a potential game breaker.

The Asylum builds a Settler, moves it next to X, gains 3 tiles of X and then outbids all original X citizens and takes all Settler shares from X, the Asylum and the new city for itself. With Citizens of X having no ability to try to outbid them for tiles. That's pretty much a gamebreaker.

A person can only go into debt on ONE THING. So they can only bid billions on one single tile. They would most likely lose interest and quit at which point it goes back to the central government anyway.

	23-07-2004 09:14									#12
	Remove this text

quote: I see in no way how this could be a potential game breaker, in fact I see NOT having this a potential game breaker. The Asylum builds a Settler, moves it next to X, gains 3 tiles of X and then outbids all original X citizens and takes all Settler shares from X, the Asylum and the new city for itself. With Citizens of X having no ability to try to outbid them for tiles. That's pretty much a gamebreaker.

I would trade you positions still. (If I wanted to be in the best position)

Everyone else gets Settlers too. We all operate under the same rules (when/if they are defined/explained). Besides, that was tactical advantage we have worked (and chose tiles) towards given your explaination of the rules.

quote: A person can only go into debt on ONE THING. So they can only bid billions on one single tile. They would most likely lose interest and quit at which point it goes back to the central government anyway.

All they have to do is stay in the game a few days until the damage is done. Like I said, it opens up the opportunity for someone who otherwise would have no ability to affect the game to destroy the game for everyone else (or a selected group/person thereof).

--------

The other issue is that one of Feudality's tiles should be up for auction Federally too:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...290#post3157290

quote: quote: so it's a 3:1 split, utilizing option 6 (which is a clear winner). What if there are only two biddable tiles? Are both city, or is 1 federal? 1 City and 1 Feudal. The central governement won't get as many tiles due to overlap also.

	23-07-2004 11:38									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

GF,

I've thought about it some more, and have held my tongue long enough.

Since you laugh at my (and other's) arguments... and imply that it is I and the Asylum who are in danger of ending the game when it is clearly you who are in the most advantageous position to win... I will use the loophole you've just defended to ruin your bid for winning this game. I bid a $googleplex on my city settler share. It's a few too many zeros to do the math, but let's just say Jonny, TORARADICAL, and Makahlua have the inside track to win (I'm sure they are classy enough to not accept). I'll take the Jungle 1 of the city site with it... thank you very much!

Actually, no. I won't do that. I'll leave the ruining of your game to you.

I haven't liked how you've handled this game at all. I hoped you would be trying to help players understand the rules instead of beating them about the head and face with them (as you make them up) and mocking their arguments/questions. Ideally you should not be playing, at least until the rules are finalized and made public, to avoid conflicts of interest.

You make most of the rules, and then either fail to explain, poorly explain, wrongly explain, or post those those rules in inconspicuous places.

You took the best tile, and did so for free. Given your advantage of understanding of the rules, I'd think taking a lesser tile would have been more appropriate. You made lip service to how unfair choosing tiles without bidding would be, but then took full advantage of it. Given the dissent on the issue (everyone who mentioned it once the game was underway was against it unless I missed something) we probably should have at least had another vote on it given all the new players who weren't represented in whenever you took your vote to do it the other way.

When I offered to do coding to automate the game, and asked for a spreadsheet from the $minigame to help me understand the process, you said you would post it shortly thereafter. Then it never materialized.

When I put some of the website and database together and asked for you to upload it, and basically press a button to create the database, you said you'd do it in the morning (a couple weeks ago now), and nothing happened.

I don't recall what happened in chat (I was eating dinner during that stage), but did you support trading for BW instead of WC and more cash?

You posted the rules on alcohol markets, buildings, ect. but hidden away in a thread where finding it is problematic, and probably would have been missed by at least a few people who weren't following the current discussion. I try to follow everything, and only stumbled into when looking for quotes on Settlers.. though I remember most of it from when I was trying to work out how to code it all. It should have been it's own thread, or at least at the start of a thread.

You have gone from a tile with no shields to enough to build your Brewery and Tavern, while receiving the labor you need, through trades that I can only hope had some very heavy promises with them. It looks more like you hoodwinked a few people who didn't understand the rules yet, or at least how they would apply. (and how could they be expected to?)

quote: conmcb25 is loaning GhengisFarb the use of his Vassal and 3 Shields.

Was this sanctioned by conmcb25 or have you just added his tile/vassal/holdings to your estate? I can see why conmcb25 choose you to manage his estate, given that you understand the rules, but I'd think at least trying to maintain some seperation to avoid conflicts of interest would be in order. (If it was sanctioned by conmcb25... I'll direct my displeasure at him for this instead. We are starting a game and this basically just doubled GF's "holdings" in comparison to everyone else. He'll pay it back, but a little advantage at the start is worth a lot more later on in 'iterative' games.)

You, as the "timekeeper" of the trading session then bid $1 on two different labor right before closing and built your Brewery and Tavern. That's going to be... ~$2400 for you next trading session? And then you have the gall to laugh and say The Asylum's Settler could ruin the game? Even if you are splitting all that cash between the 6 or so players who were giving you Vassals and shields, it's still more powerful than any Settler.

Oh, lest we forget, you argued against the city placement (7777) The Asylum first planned on which would have given 3 of your constituents in X shared tiles with the new city. You don't care so much that either way the same 3 new shared tiles will be claimed, you just don't want 3 more overlap tiles on top of that to give more people a chance to compete with you. Aidun, Ennet, and Esoteric should be pleased at how well you've represented their interests.

Then you claim 'our' (Asylumers... though this isn't a team game) 3 tile representation in a city of 11 would somehow allow 'us' to rule X with an iron fist keeping all the Settlers for 'ourselves'.

I can only imagine that by allowing debt bidding on Settler shares you hope another few people take themselves out of the game by completely drying up their income so they can't bid on labor and try and force their way into your alcohol markets.

	23-07-2004 15:20									#14
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Aeson, I understand the rules, the few questions I have had were all answered shortly after I asked them.

In my opinion, if you have had issues with the way the game has been operating you should have spoken up and said something. I haven't seen anyone try to take any positon in this game by force and most of those who have taken those postions appear to have done so reluctantly and typically when no one else appeared to be willing to do so.

From my point of view, Ghengis doesn't appear to be winning the game, in fact the players who have the Gem tiles appear to be doing well along with those in Asylum. Most of the suggestions I've seen have been to try to equalize out uneven gameplay and give everyone a chance to be involved.

I also don't understand your desire to kick Ghengis out of the game. He has obvious been putting in a lot of thought and effort in to trying to make this work and I don't see why you are so committed or resentful of him being involved.

I believe I will stop now before I say too much, but I feel your personal attacks are unfounded.

	23-07-2004 18:01									#15
	Support Apolyton

Please see Turn Session 5 thread...

	23-07-2004 21:50									#16
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Thrumble In my opinion, if you have had issues with the way the game has been operating you should have spoken up and said something.

I am speaking up and saying something. Much of what I pointed out has only gone down yesterday and so how could I have pre-emptively argued against what he has now done?

I have been speaking up issue by issue as they arise. At some point things need to be addressed as a whole though.

quote: From my point of view, Ghengis doesn't appear to be winning the game, in fact the players who have the Gem tiles appear to be doing well along with those in Asylum.

Like I said, he stands to make up to $2400 next trading session (probably more like $1200... but that's still ~5x what any of the rest of us will have made). I don't know if he has promised any of that to those who put him in this position or not, so can't say exactly what his take will be. He has been in the strongest position since day one when we picked tiles, yet tries to leverage the player's reliance on his knowlege of the game to convince others that it is not so.

That you don't see that is part of my point. He is not making the rules of the game clear enough before taking advantage of them.

quote: I also don't understand your desire to kick Ghengis out of the game. He has obvious been putting in a lot of thought and effort in to trying to make this work and I don't see why you are so committed or resentful of him being involved.

I see him misusing his influence on the game at this point and feel it is a conflict of interest. He's not the only one who's put in a lot of thought and effort to try to make this work.

Once the rules are clearly defined, I have no argument with him playing.

quote: I believe I will stop now before I say too much, but I feel your personal attacks are unfounded.

I have pointed out instances where I think GF is taking advantage of his situation as rule maker. If you disagree on those points, fine, show how I am wrong.

What I have posted is no more a personal attack than what you have posted (ie. it isn't at all). I have refrained from making any insults or condescending remarks (or using smilies to such effect) about GF's arguments here. I have addressed his actions and arguments without trying to twist or misrepresent them.

	23-07-2004 22:39									#17
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

ONE: I am not a rule maker, these rules are the rules we used in the $MiniGame and have been posted on Apolyton for over a year.

TWO: I only ran the trading session because no one was doing it. Since Aeson has made the rule that no one in a administrative role can own tiles or be involved in the game I will withdraw from any admin role in the trading sessions.

I only want to play the Feudal Game, and really never wanted to have anything to do with the admin stuff.

quote: Originally posted by Aeson I haven't liked how you've handled this game at all. I hoped you would be trying to help players understand the rules instead of beating them about the head and face with them (as you make them up) and mocking their arguments/questions. Ideally you should not be playing, at least until the rules are finalized and made public, to avoid conflicts of interest.

Why should I not be playing? I'm not different than any of the other members. Just because I got elected Town Elder I am supposed to turn in my tile? Why do Town Elders have to give up their tiles?

quote: Originally posted by Aeson You make most of the rules, and then either fail to explain, poorly explain, wrongly explain, or post those those rules in inconspicuous places.

I TRIED to get the rules topped, no with mod powers will top them. Sorry, I'm just a player like everyone else and have no special authority or powers.

quote: Originally posted by Aeson You took the best tile, and did so for free. Given your advantage of understanding of the rules, I'd think taking a lesser tile would have been more appropriate. You made lip service to how unfair choosing tiles without bidding would be, but then took full advantage of it.

My advantage of understanding the rules? Because I read well I should bow out of the game? You appear to have read the rules well enough, should you bow out of the game?

quote: Originally posted by Aeson Given the dissent on the issue (everyone who mentioned it once the game was underway was against it unless I missed something) we probably should have at least had another vote on it given all the new players who weren't represented in whenever you took your vote to do it the other way.

I wasn't in charge of the vote, I didn't make the polls, and I believe each side I voted on lost in those polls. Don't blame me for something I tried to prevent. I only remember four or five people dissenting out of 30 and none of those were the group that voted for the method that won.

quote: Originally posted by Aeson When I offered to do coding to automate the game, and asked for a spreadsheet from the $minigame to help me understand the process, you said you would post it shortly thereafter. Then it never materialized.

I said I would look for a spreadsheet, and told you I couldn't find it. That's why we've all been using Uber's.

quote: Originally posted by Aeson When I put some of the website and database together and asked for you to upload it, and basically press a button to create the database, you said you'd do it in the morning (a couple weeks ago now), and nothing happened.

I told you I couldn't figure out how to upload it and gave you an account to upload it yourself and you still haven't done so.

I also explained what happened that morning and why I didn't have access to the internet that day due to "house issues". But you conveniently left that out of your commentary.

quote: Originally posted by Aeson You posted the rules on alcohol markets, buildings, ect. but hidden away in a thread where finding it is problematic, and probably would have been missed by at least a few people who weren't following the current discussion. I try to follow everything, and only stumbled into when looking for quotes on Settlers.. though I remember most of it from when I was trying to work out how to code it all. It should have been it's own thread, or at least at the start of a thread.

SO instead of one rule discussion thread we should have 20 all dropping off the from page and getting buried and forcing members to dig through 3-4 pages of topics looking for info? I don't see how that is more helpful than putting it all into a consolidated post.

quote: Originally posted by Aeson You have gone from a tile with no shields to enough to build your Brewery and Tavern, while receiving the labor you need, through trades that I can only hope had some very heavy promises with them. It looks more like you hoodwinked a few people who didn't understand the rules yet, or at least how they would apply. (and how could they be expected to?)

Let's see, I traded and saved for the whole game, selling only enough to make trades and deals to get the resources needed to build the Brewery. So because you horded as much money as you could for the first few turns I shouldn't build anything?

quote: Originally posted by Aeson Was this sanctioned by conmcb25 or have you just added his tile/vassal/holdings to your estate? I can see why conmcb25 choose you to manage his estate, given that you understand the rules, but I'd think at least trying to maintain some seperation to avoid conflicts of interest would be in order. (If it was sanctioned by conmcb25... I'll direct my displeasure at him for this instead. We are starting a game and this basically just doubled GF's "holdings" in comparison to everyone else. He'll pay it back, but a little advantage at the start is worth a lot more later on in 'iterative' games.)

I've been emailing con for weeks trying to make a deal to trade for shields and failing that to borrow his shields in return for managing his estate for him.

quote: Originally posted by Aeson You, as the "timekeeper" of the trading session then bid $1 on two different labor right before closing and built your Brewery and Tavern. That's going to be... ~$2400 for you next trading session?

The time is set in stone, once the first post is made, I have no advantage over anyone else in timing trades. Anyone can follow their watch to see when the 24/48/72 hours is up. The reason I waited until the end was to give the other players first shot at bidding on labor and building things. Several people had discussed with me their plans to build retail outlets. When the clock was almost over I bid on Labor that no one had posted any interest in. I'm sorry if letting everyone else have first rights to bids is playing unfair.

quote: Originally posted by Aeson Oh, lest we forget, you argued against the city placement (7777) The Asylum first planned on which would have given 3 of your constituents in X shared tiles with the new city. You don't care so much that either way the same 3 new shared tiles will be claimed, you just don't want 3 more overlap tiles on top of that to give more people a chance to compete with you. Aidun, Ennet, and Esoteric should be pleased at how well you've represented their interests.

Let's see I agrued against a citysite that was closer to X and would have limited X to fewer tiles in competion with the new city, and suggested a site that would bring 14 tiles into the cultural area over one that would bring 8. How is moving the new city farther away from X and giving it more breathing space while almost doubling the number of tiles the Settler brings into the cultural area bad for X?

Then you claim 'our' (Asylumers... though this isn't a team game) 3 tile representation in a city of 11 would somehow allow 'us' to rule X with an iron fist keeping all the Settlers for 'ourselves'.

quote: I can only imagine that by allowing debt bidding on Settler shares you hope another few people take themselves out of the game by completely drying up their income so they can't bid on labor and try and force their way into your alcohol markets.

So far your the only one who's contemplated overbidding for tiles and diving into irrational debt levels. My brewery doesn't need labor, I have a vassal, thats one of the reasons I built the Tavern at the last minute so I wouldn't compete with others for Labor next turn.

/Arnelos impression

	23-07-2004 22:49									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I would like to bid $0.01.

when does this end?

	24-07-2004 02:12									#19
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by GhengisFarb ONE: I am not a rule maker, these rules are the rules we used in the $MiniGame and have been posted on Apolyton for over a year.

You have made several judgement calls so far, and interpretation and presentation of those rules is pretty much left up to you. On the whole I agree with them, but in some cases it seems there is a conflict of interest.

On this Settler issue, you seemed to be making up the rules as we go along, and even were contradicting things that you had previously said.

quote: TWO: I only ran the trading session because no one was doing it. Since Aeson has made the rule that no one in a administrative role can own tiles or be involved in the game I will withdraw from any admin role in the trading sessions.

Exactly my point. I make my opinion known and you start spouting off about make-believe nonsense. I mention a possible exploit that could ruin the game, and you go off and start harpin gon how The Asylum is locking up the game otherwise.

I certainly made no such rule, nor could I. The Asylum landholders are not in danger of taking over the game. Either you do not understand the rules you are making up, or you are intentionally trying to leverage your standing as the defacto "guy who understands the rules" to get people frantically opposing someone other than you, who are the true frontrunner at this point.

quote: Why should I not be playing? I'm not different than any of the other members. Just because I got elected Town Elder I am supposed to turn in my tile? Why do Town Elders have to give up their tiles?

Since you are basically the judge when it comes to defining the rules (outside a few points we've had polls on), and the person everyone has looked to when the rules need explaining, I stated that ideally you should not be playing until the rules had been defined and made public. My comments have nothing to do with you being Town Elder.

Please try to respond to what I am actually saying.

quote: I TRIED to get the rules topped, no with mod powers will top them. Sorry, I'm just a player like everyone else and have no special authority or powers.

There still is no thread that contains the complete rules.

I agree that we need a topped (closed) thread containing all the rules.

quote: My advantage of understanding the rules? Because I read well I should bow out of the game? You appear to have read the rules well enough, should you bow out of the game?

I did take one of the tiles I deemed worst. No one even mentioned G2 in their list of desirable tiles... I'm playing to get a feel for the rules, and even though I have studied the rules quite a bit while trying to code them, they haven't been clearly defined on many points. That clarification is left to you.

quote: I wasn't in charge of the vote, I didn't make the polls, and I believe each side I voted on lost in those polls. Don't blame me for something I tried to prevent. I only remember four or five people dissenting out of 30 and none of those were the group that voted for the method that won.

You were in charge of explaining the vote options, which you did, and then seemingly (even if it was just that you poorly explained the rules) went back on them after we voted.

I am not the only one who was mislead or confused about the Settler rules even after the voting had concluded.

quote: I said I would look for a spreadsheet, and told you I couldn't find it. That's why we've all been using Uber's.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...651#post3003651

No mention of the spreadsheet in your 6 later posts in the thread.

quote: I told you I couldn't figure out how to upload it and gave you an account to upload it yourself and you still haven't done so.

I explained to you how to create the database. Uploading the web pages doesn't do anything until the database has been created. Everything runs off it.

I've been on vacation since the 8th, no access to ftp, Civ III, and not that much computer time. Otherwise I would have been bugging you more on these points.

quote: I also explained what happened that morning and why I didn't have access to the internet that day due to "house issues". But you conveniently left that out of your commentary.

Obviously you've had time between then and now with access to the internet.

quote: SO instead of one rule discussion thread we should have 20 all dropping off the from page and getting buried and forcing members to dig through 3-4 pages of topics looking for info? I don't see how that is more helpful than putting it all into a consolidated post.

It is not all in a consolidated post. That's the problem!

I would expect a new thread at important junctures to make players aware of new rules which will apply to them in the near future. Then give a small example of how it works. Rather than just posting it halfway through a thread that likely most people aren't going to keep up on reading after the initial discussions died out.

"Bronze Working opens up Alcohol Markets" would have been a good thread title for the individual discussion.

CityY has 5 pop, so $500 to spend on alcohol. At size 7, CityY will have $1400 to spend on alcohol because demand increases at that pop level.

PlayerY has 5 shields, and needs to aquire 5 labor (one in the city he is building in) to complete a Brewery.

Once the Brewery is completed, PlayerY can use 1 labor to turn 2 food into 1 Beer. That Beer has to be sold the same trade session it is created and cannot be stored (until Electricity).

By being the only seller of alcohol in CityY, PlayerY gets $500 for that Beer.

quote: Let's see, I traded and saved for the whole game, selling only enough to make trades and deals to get the resources needed to build the Brewery. So because you horded as much money as you could for the first few turns I shouldn't build anything?

Um... I sold 1 of my 2 shields as part of a deal. I'm not really hording anything, it's just part of the deal to take 1 share of the settler instead of 2. Otherwise I was going to keep my shields to build things ASAP (which for me is obviously going to be very slow )

I'm not saying it isn't a good play (Brewery+Tavern), I'm saying that you are simply taking advantage of rules that have not been properly explained, while the rest of the players need to wait and see what happens, and aren't getting the info they need soon enough to properly plan ahead. Like you said, you have been building towards this from day one... the rules have not been posted/explained from day one so that others could do the same.

I'm wondering if anyone you were trading with knew how much money would be opened up in the alcohol market (conceivably there could have been 7 pop in X and 3 in Feudality for next trading session, or $1700 demand... + $700 from a Tavern in X)? Or even that there was an alcohol market?

quote: I've been emailing con for weeks trying to make a deal to trade for shields and failing that to borrow his shields in return for managing his estate for him.

Well then, like I said, my dispute on that point is with con. 3 Shields and use of a Labor at this point could (have) gained you several hundred $. The Granary being ditched in X would of course make that a smaller number.

quote: The time is set in stone, once the first post is made, I have no advantage over anyone else in timing trades. Anyone can follow their watch to see when the 24/48/72 hours is up. The reason I waited until the end was to give the other players first shot at bidding on labor and building things. Several people had discussed with me their plans to build retail outlets. When the clock was almost over I bid on Labor that no one had posted any interest in. I'm sorry if letting everyone else have first rights to bids is playing unfair.

You knew you would be bidding on Labor. I knew you would (once the vassal trading began), but didn't have any money anyways, and can't bid on Labor in other markets either.

In practice, not everyone can be there in the final 30 minutes of a trading session. Waiting until the last minute to jump on any free Labor may be tactically sound, but is setting a bad example and taking advantage of the fact that you determine the ending time (because you have to be sure to be around to close things up).

If there were a set ending time not determined by you, I would agree. Or if everyone could always be there at the end.

Another issue is the reduction from 72 hours to 48. I suggested this (as one option of two), but didn't expect it to be enacted before anyone else was able to chime in and a proper decision made/announced. It looks like at least a few people were left out of the trading session because of it.

quote: Let's see I agrued against a citysite that was closer to X and would have limited X to fewer tiles in competion with the new city, and suggested a site that would bring 14 tiles into the cultural area over one that would bring 8. How is moving the new city farther away from X and giving it more breathing space while almost doubling the number of tiles the Settler brings into the cultural area bad for X?

The same tiles will still be competed with. I started preliminary discussions with you about possible tile use consessions (ie. X gets use of the river BG whenever it needs it). You just ignored those suggestions, and so the discussion was never taken further (to the cities to decide on). The only "consession" you got out of the discussion between us is that Esoteric, Aidun, and Ennet will not have shared tiles. I'm not particularly against this, but my initial proposal was to offset the 4 from Asylum getting into X (4 of 12 representation) with 3 from X getting into the new city (3 of 9 representation).

Everything else that affects X is basically the same between both sites.

quote: So far your the only one who's contemplated overbidding for tiles and diving into irrational debt levels.

I've tried to show the possibility exists because of the "fake" money involved in over-bidding. It wouldn't be the first time in a demogame type situation that someone was willing to do something irrational and likely take themselves completely out of the game (if they were even in it), just to get back at someone...

I did not truely contemplate doing so. I'm not so silly as to make up my mind about something, and then later in the post change my mind and not edit out the first decision. It was an example included for effect, and to lead into my other points.

quote: My brewery doesn't need labor, I have a vassal, thats one of the reasons I built the Tavern at the last minute so I wouldn't compete with others for Labor next turn.

And the +50% sale price (which could have meant up to $700 for you in trading session 3) has nothing to do with it. You will want 1 Labor (just using con's Vassal?) to make the second Beer to sell in Feudality, right?

	24-07-2004 03:42									#20
	Support Apolyton

If all the whining, bickering, and arguing is finished here, I'd like to bid $100 for a share of the settler.

	27-07-2004 20:39									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

What's going on? Are we bidding? If so I bid $50.