that's right, if you want to give an EoG regarding your investment strategies/observations feel free to do so.

France:
Ah France, how i loath thee. your position is good, but nothing interesting can be done to mess with the markets, which was my intention going into the game. Early contact with germany and england was good, but they both made their moves early, and there was very little to be done about it. In hindsight, not moving to brest would have put me in better stead at the end of year one with two fleets, but hindsight is always 20/20. I still had some friendship with italy though, and so i became their puppet, helping italy overcome my treacherous 'friends', england and germany. what was interesting for me was at this point my currancy, which was very low, was suddenly seized is mass amounts, instantly gaining about 2.00 francs, a move that payed off, but had italy not been so altruistic, may well have failed to do so. italy generously persuaded the others to let me be in the draw, which a more cut-throat player may not have done, which was nice of him. Thanks for a fun game, I'd be up for something similar in the future

As an investor I found the dynamics of the game incredibly interesting.

Initially it seemed to be dull and predictable: buy whatever was cheapest and if others did so you were laughing to the bank. Then things started changing and that wasn't the case. I bought big early on into Turkish piastres (or pastries) incorrectly reading a Jug was on the cards between Russia and Turkey. If that happened a IA alliance would be negated and Turkey would be hanging around for a long time. So that was mistake 1 for me.

I learnt from this and then made sure I only bought enough of a currency so that I could cash out before it fell. That kind of worked ok until Germany started to crumble with Russia stabbing. So another failed investment as I got caught once again with a currency I couldn't offload.

But I knew I could get around this. I'd been watching the price of Francs falling and when it was at 0.28 (or so from memory) I made the decision to buy in. But I thought it'd drop lower. I did the math and thought the following turn it'd be down to about 0.08. My plan was to then buy apprx 100,000 francs. I'd never be able to offload them, but the massive bump would mean even if France survived for just 2 turns I'd make a tidy profit. But others obviously had the same thoughts but considered around 0.28 was a bargain. Add to the mix the new alliance France managed to receive with Italy's help and that was mistake number 3.

By that point I was going to come in the second pack of players. Scraping in at 4th was actually a very good outcome for me considering the errors I made along the way.

But all in all, a great game. As discussed previously it'll be interesting to see what impact will occur re: how press is handled.

Congrats to the winners in the real game and the bourse!

Briefly, I like a centrist alliance when I am a central power, so proposed that to both Germany and Italy, who were both positive. So far so good. Then Italy suggested the Lepanto, and I thought it would be madness, but then realised the potential for a market roller coaster, + I had never pulled one off. So we did it.

Knowing that Turkey was essentially toast early on made it easy to start trying to get Russia in the cross hairs as the Turk fell, and I duly made a move against Russia. Everything seemed to be going well, until Germany stabbed me. Really? I mean, really? I was very sad.

Not so sad that I could not patch things up with Russia - all this while the Turk was still in his death throes. The rest is pretty much history.

I did propose towards the end that we guillotine France, but Italy liked his vassal too much, and although I was not bound by that commitment, I did not do anything about it as I could not actually reach France. Claiming Paris would be symbolic enough.

I also suggested to both Russia and Italy that we turn on each other to see how the markets would react, but I eventually withdrew the suggestion. My motivation was partly based on the fact that the Rouble was priced higher than the Lira or the precious Crown, despite the fact that the original and winning alliance was ours - ho hum. But I think that may have been pushing the trust envelope a tad.

Oh yes. I did not have a list of people it is okay to stab. But now I do, and there is one name on it.

There are 3 names on mine :D

Very interesting EoGs so far, thanks guys! I'd love to hear from Guaroz though, he did win after all - Guaroz... you out there? :)

Yep, sorry. Just started typing.... maybe tomorrow you'll have some thoughts of mine.
No time today...sorry...goodnight!

Russia EoG- When I drew Russia, I nearly cried. I hate playing as Russia, It is my second least favorite(England being my least)... right off the bat I knew I wanted to juggernaut with Turkey. but he wanted Rumania. whether he was joking or not, I wasn't taking that chance, so I went for the early attack on him. Ironically he had the same idea, and we bounced. so no harm no foul. I offered him a truce, since no damage had been done... he DEMANDED support into Rumania, so I told him it was war than. sure enough, my knew minor alliance with Italy-Austria paid off, and Turkey fell quickly. but then I knew I would be torn. I was allied with I-A, and E-G... who to stab? but then, Austria made that decision for me by stabbing me. to war with I-A than!!! but wait... I can't do it alone. First thought, go to my German ally and ask for his help. and what do ya know, he did it! he attacked Austria! immediately after this, Italy and Austria both come to me asking me to switch sides against G-E... after a good long look, I realized... Germany-England couldn't stop me if they tried. they left themselves too open. so I switched sides(Sorry Germany/England, it was just too good to pass up)... as the years went on, the enemies began to fall and ideas began to swarm in my mind. at one point, I even saw an opportunity to stab Austria for an easy 2 or 3 centers + one from Italy and a possible Solo shot, but decided against it for fear that Italy had enough power to stop me still. so the only thing left was for me to see if France survives or not. I was torn on the issue. on one hand, he was a very loyal and helpful asset. on the other... he had 2 centers and could have been destroyed in a year. but, ultimately wasn't my decision so I was fine with the 4 way draw.

Thank you Kaner for moderating this game. I am sure it took a lot of work to keep up on all the orders.

Early game:
My goal was to be the only one to sell everything to raise cash, then encourage a few allies to buy heavily into one currency to drive up the value. Early game strategy was to have a cash and net worth advantage. I was going to worry about VP's later. I think this phase paid off well for me.

Mid game:
Continue to focus on net worth. I bought heavily into Franc's, mostly for the likely return in the short run. Even if some became worthless, the dramatic increase in value made it a worthwhile investment. I was hoping only Gman and I would buy them. Unfortunately, Guaroz bought some also. If he hadn't, I think this game might have been different. I probably also waited too long to begin focusing on VP's.

End Game:
I was disappointed in the early ending of the game also. I was counting on either a stab to prolong it, or the elimination of France. The delayed advantage of buying an excessive amount of Francs was just about to begin. Guaroz was out, and I would be able to continue to sell. I was also actively recruiting a few others to help me raise the value of the franc. If the game had lasted longer, I would have potentially bought enough VP's to overtake Guaroz.

Final comments:
I was frustrated with the difficulty of making any significant advances against opponents. Once you got behind, it seemed impossible to recover. The only thing that might make a dramatic change is an unexpected ending. But, I thought this would be an awkward way to win. It seems like it gives the players the ability to manipulate the winner of the bourse.

My suggestion for an improvement would be to permit additional trading opportunities. I kept feeling like the clock was ticking away and didn't have much time to make up the deficit. More trading opportunities would relieved this feeling the clock ticking away. I could see an advantage of having a 2 day game deadline, with 1 day bourse deadline, and/or having trading continue during retreat and build phases. Or, the bourse deadline could be a strict 24 hour deadline, same time every day, regardless of the timing of the game.

Another improvement might be a greater variety of currencies to purchase. Something like World War IV or Chaos. With 7 currencies, and only 5 in the endgame, it was very likely everyone would buy similar currencies, making it difficult to make advances against the other. But with 35, and many of the WWIV games ending with 10+, there would be an ample supply of alternate currencies to buy with a greater variety of strategies. I guess the next game will be Known World 901, which might be a good one also.

A final improvement, is the problem of the game ending prematurely. I think this game would have continued on if the players had a cutthroat "the only win is a solo" philosophy. Maybe we could allow the bourse players to have a say in a vote draw. For example, the game player could not vote draw without the permission of the bourse players who own 51% of their countries currency. Or, a vote draw must be backed by bourse player holding the most currency for that country. I don't fault the players for drawing, but it might have been more interesting, in the bourse, to have a stab or a solo attempt in the game. If the bourse players had a say in a draw, it may have forced the issue. But, I don't know how this could be handled if bourse & game players cannot talk.

Thanks for your insights Devonian, It was a real pleasure to host this game. Like you I was a little dissapointed that the game finished when it did - and for much of it I was expecting a breakdown in the alliance structure that never came about (from what it seems reading the EoGs came about mostly due to frantic diplomacy from both Austria and Italy).

Most of the work revolved around moving statistics from the spreadsheet over into the forum and PMs. I think Known world will be a good springboard into new territory. With more national currencies available to trade, this could make a very interesting game.

We have been invited to Bourse the Whittle-Down competition known world battle that is due to start at the beginning of August, and I hope many investors will be keen to compete alongside this game.

I'm also kind-of interested as to the following variables:
1. to play Bourse anon or non-anon.
2. if you are playing in the game in question can you play bourse under an anon pseudonym.
3 Do we play to a regular 24 hour cycle or do we play to the length of the game period. And following from this - should there be a stipend that says that players in the actual game should wait the prerequisite time frame (ie. save vs ready orders).
4. would there be a conflict of interest having your GM playing in the game you are 'boursing'... even if the game is anon (brings us back to point 2: can you compete in both bourse and the game in question?

For #2 to work, either everyone should be in both, or no one. The game can significantly affect the bourse. It would be an unfair disadvantage to the bourse players who are not also game players.

#4: I think the GM could be in the bourse, as long as everyone was aware of it.

I disagree entirely. The gm cannot be in the game because he knows what everyone else is buying and selling

Wait nervermind. I thought you ment the investment. Playing in the game being boursed is fine for the gm

So what exactly are the new rules/etc for the next game. I need to know them(clearly) to decide if I will play as an investor, a player, or neither...

What to buy or sell when you have 7 good players and no clue of what will happen?

That's what I was wondering during the pregame. The first thing I realized is that buying where the other buy brings money, buying where the other sell brings defeat.
So I started my diplomacy. The first idea was just to get rumors about what was going on. But then I thought: why cant I lead the market? The idea I got was that, knowing nothing, statistically is very rare that France and Turkey are eliminated before 1904. So buying Francs & Piastres can't be that risky.
I started spread the rumor and it worked so good that I thought that I wasn't the only one having that idea. But a strange thing happened: D33 bought 3000 Piastres. Why buying so much? Did he do right? wrong? I started thinking. Probably I've been too shy in this first turn.

Second turn was great. I had correspondence with ALL the traders and I had a vision clear enough to make a good turn. Infact my 2 main allies, drano and tobi, and I were the only 3 traders who sold only the 4 dropping currencies and bought only the 3 rising ones. Good team job! Also, I felt my shyness gone because I started thinking in terms of "thousands" pieces when to buy.
Really gone? How about Devo's buying 8,500 Lire? Italy was placed good, absolutely NO elimination in sight, unlike Turkey. I needed more Lire. But a few simple calculations said that you can't buy Lire unless you're sure you got more than Devo at the end of the turn. Ok. My shyness now is really gone. There's a Key-Lepanto on the Board. Spring02 & Crowns are waiting for me.

Taken the Leadership, in 1902-3 I went on with my diplomacy talking with anyone who was willing to and it was simple keeping it.
But at the end of 1903, four things made me change my Diplomacy:
- my main ally drano019 disappeared
- talking with everyone begun to cost too much time. In a map-game, when you ask for or offer a support, the other person knows what you're talking about. In a bourse-game it's not so. Probably because this was the very-first bourse game, there's not a "common vocabulary" yet. I was tired of complexities of explanations. Also there were no way to keep track of what I already said to each investor and my mind was exploding. Too time invested.
- market became rather predictable, with traders buying just the best price/map currency. Probably because there were no strong traders-alliances around. Or no fantasy. But I felt like I could go on guessing the right currency to buy even without having the other players' feedback.
- I realized that, in spite of his 5th place, Devo was the only trader dangerous for my leadership so all I needed was people not buying Lire

So, since spring 1904 I quitted Private Messages to traders and I started my Global chatting. First goal: convince everyone that "buying Lire" = "Devo winner".
Although the thing was true, asking for it on the Global was VERY IDIOT BY ME.
To most traders infact, it sounded like if in a Classic the mid-game leader says in Global "Hey guys, if things go on this way I'll be the winner. So please don't attack me, attack Devo" hahahaha :)))
What result would you expect? That everyone gang up against the mid-game leader, obviousely!

I wasn't able to explain that if you can't buy Lire because of Devo, if you can't buy Crowns because of Guaroz, if you can't buy... anything, then there's nothing wrong in selling all and make some cash dollars to be used when you know what to buy. Four players performed the "sell all" more than once during the game: the Top 4.

So I went on lone from 1904 to 1908.
A small parenthesis in which I diplomed with toby1 around 1906. But our positions were too far (more in terms of stock's quality than in terms of RNW) to find a strategy good for both, so we quitted soon, with some short aftermath on Global.
Lira's jump in Spring 1904 has been harsh for me, but since nothing unpredictable happened, both on the Board and in the Market, in the following 4 years I was able to roam around highest 3-4 positions.
Actually, beyond the RNW, I was aware all the time long that the battle was between me and Devonian. Nobody else. There are things RNW doesn't say, expecially (as gman314 correctly pointed out) when someones got relevant stocks of cash Dollars.

Spring 1908. Germany & England are almost dead. Whether the 4-way alliance holds or collapses, it's time to make some cash Dollars. Either way I'll be able to handle the situation. "Sell all can be sold!" it's the leitmotif both in spring and in fall.

Spring 1909. The 4-way looks to be holding. If they wanted France dead they could have already killed it. If someone wanted to try the solo, he'd have had better chances in the past. It's highly probable the game will soon be over. For the first time, I need to give a look to VPs. Buy/sell so that resulting stock is in round hundreds. Yes, for the first time, I'm buying VPs, not currencies.
I'm aware it's a gamble. But it's time to bet, and I bet the game will be over within the year. If I'm wrong, Devo could outrank me and my only hope would be that there will be a new LONG game section. Long enough to recover after buying VPs.
Fall 1909. Again buying VPs. 2,220.... I got some odd dollars spare. Even Francs! 100 Frs = 2 Vps. Total 2,222. Let's count Devo's.... WOW the best he can do is 2,212 VPs!!! so his only hope is the game won't be drawn after England is eliminated! But... who cares... I got my finger crossed... please draw please draw please... please!! Gone! kaner announces fall results yes it was 2,222. Devo, wisely, bought cash dollars, not VPs that are useless for him now.... OMG... I got my finger crossed... please draw please draw please... please!!.... fasces349 congrats with me, on the thread... is it true?
I think I had my fingers crossed all day long, until butterhead's final vote. :)

- - - - -

Very funny game.
I loved so much the first 3 years, with all those PMs.
As someone said, I believe that boursing a bigger game is good. With only 7 currencies the game becomes soon predictable. But any big we choose, at some point there will be many country defeated, so I think that a period of "predictability" is inevitable.
The very last turns will always be a bet on 'WHEN' the game will actually end.

To make Bourse better, I reccomend that players DON'T KNOW they've been boursed. Observing something changes it (Heisenberg?). They admitted they tried the Key-Lepanto just to see the Market's reaction. What if they delayed the draw for the same reason? The best would be having something like a rat race. Rats don't know money, don't make jokes for fun and they don't have friends to help. They only run for the cheese they see in front of them. They're not aware that someone's betting on them, they just run fast towards the cheese.
A solution could be opening a fake game (not to be played, all would save the holds). Also the GM would take a spot. As the right game startes (preferably Anon) the GM announces in Private chats which is the boursed game. We'd talk into a room reserved for traders and nobody except the traders and GM would know which game is boursed.
The traders could speak (keeping track of what they said) to each other in Private chats, without that anyone outside could know which is the boursed game. The only flaw is that there couldn't be a Global, because it can be read outside the game and someone could guess which is the boursed game.
In this fake game joined by traders, we could also toggle any preference we like (Anon/non-Anon or Press/no-Press etc...). I believe it would relieve everyone's Homepage Notes, expecially the GM's. Right kaner? how many PMs did you have to handle everyday? Personal + Mod + GM ?
Also... CDed traders could be taken over! ...rather than having someone joining when it's too late. I think that someone could have done well using drano's stocks. Let's open a fake game next time.
It's just a rough idea. Any suggestion is welcome.
Thoughts?

- - - - -

I thank ALL players and ALL traders. They made possible kaner's idea got real.

A special thank to:
- Devonian. You're the best. Any game. Any Map. Any Tourney. Any Variant. Always a top-opponent. My congrats. This game wouldn't have been so exciting without you.
- tobi1. The best trader to talk with. His speeches always accurate. Always knowing what he's talking about. Smart ideas. Valid objections. Anything. Everything. I'll remember our conversations for a long time.

Last but not last, a very special thank to kaner406. A splendid idea, a great GM.

@Guaroz- "what if they delayed the draw for the same reason" Canaduh actually put forward the idea to us of "fake stabs" and "fake fighting" to screw with the market, but decided against it.
as for the thing about the players not knowing they are boursed- I disagree. I think they should know. it makes it more interesting and even more fun. I must say, us getting to see the market fluctuate based on OUR moves, and OUR decisions, made the game more enjoyable than it would have been if it was just a normal classic game.

Yes, it may be more fun for players but it's unfair for investors.

Everyday hundreds of players have enough fun playing dozens of games.
Bourse is a game where players called "investors" bet on one of these dozens games.
So what would be the use in letting players know they're boursed?
Give players unnecessary "more fun" while the Bourse Game may be screwed?
So what's the whole point of a Bourse?
Shouldn't it be investors betting on players?
Or it's players kidding & pissing off investors just for the fun of it?

...the idea to us of "fake stabs" and "fake fighting" to screw with the market, but decided against it.
What if next game players will decide pro it? Do you believe it'd be funny for investors?

Bourse a chaos game?

That's a risk that you take as an investor. and I know if I was an investor, especially one of the what, 7 or 8 who lost, I would find it funny as hell to see some random market fluctuation and a chance to catch back up. Being an investor is part judging what you see/hear, and part guessing game. no matter if you tell the people they are being boursed or not, you will see some things that will shift the market at any time. random 1 center stabs, fake stabs to make other players believe you are stabbing an ally, stab an ally while they stab their other ally, etc. etc.
"So what's the whole point of a Bourse?
Shouldn't it be investors betting on players?
Or it's players kidding & pissing off investors just for the fun of it?"
last I checked, you guys bet on us and besides the fact that it became a bit predictable, you enjoyed it... and there was a couple times that Italy-Austria made it seem like they were about to fight, and didn't. and the market showed that. did that piss you off? if so, you have a short fuse and should probably take it a bit easier ;) but anyways, back to being serious for a second... I don't see why players knowing they are boursed gives them "unnecessary fun" or how it "ruins the bourse" at all... maybe I am naive, but I think its silly to go through all this trouble to hide it from the players, instead of just letting us know we are boursed and letting us watch how it goes.

it's "unnecessary *more* fun"
why do you misquote?
Playing a diplomacy game is already funny enough. There's no need to add MORE fun to players taking it out from investors.

I agree with both perspectives. Bourse players want honest play. Game players get added enjoyment from seeing the markets reaction to their moves. The problem I see is that there is no check and balance. Bourse players have to live with the results, and the game players can mess with them for fun. So, guaroz 's solution would work as long as the game players never figure it out.

But what if a check and balance could be added? For example, this site has the ability to change game players. What if there were elections every winter? The bourse players could elect new leaders if they didn't like the current leadership.

I disagree Devonian... that would give the bourse players WAY too much power, and take ALL the fun out of the regular game. how much fun would it be knowing you had to play exactly how everyone else wanted or else you would be replaced in the winter. I know I wouldn't enjoy that at all.
@Guaroz- you don't take it out from investors though. you can add fun for the players while still keeping all the fun as an investor too. yes some people may do deliberate things to screw with the market, but what fun is it for the investors if say, Devo is in the lead by a wide margin because the game has gotten so predictable that he knows nobody can catch him? now if the players decide, hey, lets screw around a bit and see what happens, then everyone has a chance to catch up and the game becomes more interesting again in my humble opinion...

Plus the other bourse players can try to attack the leading player's currency by having the governments form an alliance against one enemy...

Not that the govts have any incentive... But at least the investors can try.

>>>>but what fun is it for the investors if say, Devo is in the lead by a wide margin because the game has gotten so predictable that he knows nobody can catch him?
***well, this is a thing that can happen when one player made a lot of very good decision and/or the others made disasterful decisions. Do you want to steal victory to Devo just because, in your opinion, this would be funnier? If I won such a game I wouldn't be proud at all and I'd say to Devo: "Sorry mate. You deserved victory. I won only because some idiot was looking at our Market and not at his game."

>>>> now if the players decide, hey, lets screw around a bit and see what happens, then everyone has a chance to catch up and the game becomes more interesting again in my humble opinion...
***Ok, if the buy-in for the game is 250 .
So players wouldn't "screw around" only for the fun of ruining investors's work, but they would also play with their own points.
Any chicken can be bold when it's for free or he's paying with someone else's Card.
Do you have the balls to behave that way in an high-stake game?
If you do, I accept.

How about a gunboat game, where the players know they are being boursed but cannot communicate. OR what about a global press only game?

Good. Both solutions could work.

Should we start recruiting?