Update on 1830 by email From: gfink@bonzai.eecs.ucdavis.edu (George Fink) Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1992 02:32:53 +0000 Thanks for the reponse, we now have at least 12 people interested in 1830 by email, including myself, enough for at least 2 games. Right now, we are considering starting two separate games of 1830. This posting has 2 purposes; the recruitment of more 1830 players, and the further discussion of 1830 simultaneous bidding/play rules. 1. If you are interested in a game, please mail me at gfink@cs.ucdavis.edu if you haven't already. Also, please give an indication of your availability for a 'quick' game with fast turn-around times. 2. Here is a summary of the current discussion ongoing on parallelizing 1830 rounds; The basic tradeoff is speed versus adherance to the face-to-face rules. Based on my experiences with pbem Titan, if there is a group of players with excellent access to email, and guaranteed response within a 1/2 day, it is feasible to get a lot of turns completed in a small amount of time. One advantage of this system is that, in 1830, a non-playing moderator is not needed, as there are no die rolls. But, at least 6 players with this sort of turnaround time is imperative. Out of the 12 of us, I think there should be at least 6 who can guarantee this, so I think at least one game should be of this variety. For players who cannot guarantee this time frame, or who would like to experiment with parallel rules, there are a couple of ways we can do things. There are rumors of an extant pbm (possible postal?) system for 1830, I would be interested in seeing that, if any of you have access to any, please send it along. In an effort to come up with a set of pbm rules of our own, Bill Larson came up with a start for a workable bidding scheme for the stock round. Operating rounds could possibly be run in sequence, there aren't as many potential actions there. Basically, the scheme is, everyone submits one turn of the stock round in parallel. Conflicting actions are resolved by either allowing rebids on succeeding rounds, or giving the stock to the highest bidder in the current round. Here is Bill's example: Example Player 1 bid $20 for "20 dollar road" Player 2 bid $70 for D and H Player 3 bid $40 for C and St L Player 4 bid $45 for C and St L Player 5 bid $200 for C and A Player 6 bid $210 for C and A Player 1,2,4 get railroads. 3 is out of luck. C and A still up for grabs. Tie private companies would remain up for grabs. An option would be for 5 and 6 to be allowed to increase their bid on the C and A as well as submit another bid on another line. ---- Actually, for the sale of private companies, I think that bidding could go in sequence, as in the game rules, because attention spans will tend to be higher in the beginning of the game. For buying and selling corporation stock, his system could be used: All players submit simultaneous orders for one turn, and all orders are resolved at the current stock price. If there is a conflict (multiple bids for the same president's share, limited stock availability, or 5 shares already in the bank pool), then the conflicting orders will not be executed, and the stock price will temporarily be shifted one notch in the market for the purposes of that type of transaction (up for buying, down for selling), and then players are allowed to rebid on the next turn. Alternatively, no change in the stock market price is made, but people can "overbid" or "underbid" on stocks (buying and selling respectively), and, for instance, the highest bid gets the stock, with a closed-bid auction between bidding players in the case of a tie. --George -- George Fink | gfink@cs.ucdavis.edu Department of Computer Science | University of California-Davis Up