$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 58.86

4,246 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
26.8% of Goal | 29 Days Left

Support:

Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
11 Posts

Acquire» Forums » Variants

Subject: what's the impact of changing the player order for resolving a merger? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Tomello Visello
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
A comment made elsewhere,

"Insetad of going clockwise, we start with the merge maker and then go with the player holding more stocks "

Nogardo wrote:
A little house rule:
Insetad of going clockwise, we start with the merge maker and then go with the player holding more stocks of, in that case, "Sackson", and so on.

with this response
PhotoJim wrote:
That gives up hidden information though. :)

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tomello Visello
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I think it is much more than that. It would most often serve to reinforce the wealth of the current majority holder.

What is my incentive to initiate such a merger ? If I am otherwise in second place, the existing rules provide me a potential opening to surpass the leader. Corporate takeover.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
TVis wrote:
What is my incentive to initiate such a merger ? If I am otherwise in second place, the existing rules provide me a potential opening to surpass the leader.


So does the house rule.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tomello Visello
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
TVis wrote:
What is my incentive to initiate such a merger ? If I am otherwise in second place, the existing rules provide me a potential opening to surpass the leader.


So does the house rule.

I'm mostly imagining the case where supply is low, and being moved from first-to-trade to second-to-trade will leave me at a disadvantage.

(that and simply providing the gambit to have the discussion separated).

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
TVis wrote:
I'm mostly imagining the case where supply is low, and being moved from first-to-trade to second-to-trade will leave me at a disadvantage.


I'm not sure what you are imagining, but in the stated variant the person who plays the merger tile is always the first to trade, as in the current rules. Maybe you read it wrong?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tomello Visello
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
... in the stated variant the person who plays the merger tile is always the first to trade, as in the current rules. Maybe you read it wrong?

Yes. I do see it now. I had jumped to it being completely based on ownership.

Still, I had interest in seeing the discussion - without entangling the other thread.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mauricio Riquelme
Chile
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Oh. We didn't play with the stock pile hidden. We asume in the real world every shareholder knows the % of another... in case their just 4 or 5 participants


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Glenn Massey
United States
Laytonsville
Maryland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I say "if it ain't broken, don't fix it". I think the mechanic in the rules works well. Giving the wealthier players more wealth doesn't improve the game--although it may be more "real world".
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
As you get more experience with the game, you'll take seating order into account in deciding which stocks to buy. So having the priority depend on seating order isn't so unreasonable as it might seem at first.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim MacKenzie
Canada
Regina
Saskatchewan
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Nogardo wrote:
Oh. We didn't play with the stock pile hidden. We asume in the real world every shareholder knows the % of another... in case their just 4 or 5 participants


In real-world privately-held corporations, there absolutely can be doubt about who has what percentage of shares. Gary Gygax famously lost control of TSR Hobbies, Inc. at a board meeting where he didn't realize there had been movement of shares.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ramon Mercado
United States
Stafford
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
As you get more experience with the game, you'll take seating order into account in deciding which stocks to buy. So having the priority depend on seating order isn't so unreasonable as it might seem at first.


I'll say that the most important constraint is to start with the player that play the merger. After this the particular order is not so important; as long as it always follows the same algorithm and all players are in agreement.

That being said, I'm not sure if adding that extra level of complexity adds any value to the game. Regardless of how much information is hidden (we play with hidden money but open stocks) the best players are the ones capable of tracking all that information. So this variant is adding that information into the merging procedure; making the merging decision making more complex. And I'm just not sure of the value this bring into the game.

I guess that since I'm not such a great player I don't want to make it more complicated. But if you are already bored with the game, then this variant may make it more exciting.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.