Good point Zxylon...I hadn't noticed!

Yes, kestas or figle needs to look at this. This is definitely a small error in the math, because the buy-in has been adjusted.

Kestas please address this error ASAP. I dont want people winning an unfair amount porportionate to what they put in. They should be asked to put in the rest or they if they win we should get some chips back automatically

This is the problem Chispminis noticed a few days ago:
> Well spotted Chispminis, the bet should be
> (n/u)*(p + b) = b
> p+b = (u/n)*b
> p = (u/n-1)b
> b=p/(u/n-1)
> (b = bet, p=pre-bet pot, u=total units in play, n=number of units
> the CD player has)
> It looks like the bet has the potential to be very large as the
> number of CD units approaches the total number of units in play,
> so let me know if I made a mistake
b=p/(u/n-1)
p=1500,u=18,n=3 -> b=300
p=1800,u=21,n=3 -> b=300
So it looks like the corrected formula would have got it right, I'll try and implement that and correct the pot size tonight

(I'm going to assume Willigogs and the other player are okay with paying the full 300, if not post here and I'll remove you from the game)

Well, Russia has 4 units to start, so that would slightly distort the amount of a buy - in would it not?

They have already moved which actually brings me to another point I believe was already discussed. The 2 players were in civ disorder until less than 2 hours before the turn ended in spring 1901. I had placed my moves anticipating no response from either player. I was surprised when I find both spots were filled and they had advanced on my position. I don't like the system of taking over a civil disorder. I need to be alerted somehow OR the person taking over cannot place moves until spring of the following year.

Personally, I think this is good, since otherwise people who aren't next to the CD nations have a better chance if you have to take note of CD units. However, I think that when a unit is taken over a message should be sent in their chat field telling you they have been taken over

Hm, bihary, good point. Can we get clarification towards how Russia is dealt with? From my understanding, currently, the Russian player buys-in the same amount of points as every other country, but if the game were to end there and then, then Russia would make a profit? As well, if the Russian player went into CD, and someone wished to join the game, would they not be paying more than the original Russian player invested, since they would be paying for four units?

As for the handling of CD's being taken over. I think a notification is the best and only way to handle it. A long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, when CD's were taken over, they could not make moves for one phase (I believe). You have no idea how annoying this is for anyone taking over a CD country. It would GREATLY discourage taking over CD countries.

I don't think we need to worry about Russia's scoring. The game is inherently unbalanced in several ways anyway. Russia starts with more armies but also has a lot more territory to cover.

kestajsk, I do not agree with chrispminis' inovation.
The formula you describe comes from the understanding that the buy-in should pay for the proportion of the new pot. But by taking the CD, the new player increased the pot. Not only for himself, but for everyone. So should the newcomer cover the whole coast of this increase? i do not think so. He deserves the proper proportion of this increase. Which would lead to the original formula.
On the issue of taking CDs in 1901: Use the original formula! Sure, the newcomers pay less, but *if they did not join, the pot would be smaller*. By joining, they make the pot bigger. The original formula takes care of it, no problem. In any case, the newcomers are doing a service here (as always, with a later join) so what is the problem?

I see the problem. In the beginning everyone should pay the same bet. But what is the beginning? The beginning ends when the 24 hours tick. After that, it is a choice of taking a CD country or not.

bihary; the problem is that if a player takes over a civil disorder using the current formula the units they have are worth more than the money they put in.

If someone puts an extra 20% of the pot in, for 20% of the units, using the current formula the pot size is now 120%.
Now if the game ends without the player gaining or losing any units he gets 20% of the new 120% pot, which is 24% of the original pot.
So the player who takes over civil disorder is getting, in this case, an extra 4% worth of value on their bet without doing anything.

The new formula simply adjusts for this, so that if you want to take 20% of the units you have to pay the amount the units are worth.

I understand your point, but consider this: In your example, consider another player, say with 30% of the units at the moment of join. He also does nothing, just stays at 30% till the end. How much does he end up with? 36%. He earned an extra 6% doing nothing! Not even taking up a CD!
The player who joined brought some new money to the table. He contributes value by joining. Should he get zero of that value, distributing to the old players? Comeon! He is the one who made the decision to join, he should not be penalized for that, relative to the other players.
The algorithm that distributes the extra money in a fair way _is_ the original intuitive algorithm. No correction is necessary.
Do I make sense?

Let us see the result with the refined algorithm:
Newcomer pays 25%. Pot becomes 125%. If he stays at 20% of units, he ends up with 25%, makes no profit. The old player, with 30% of units, if stays at 30%, actually makes 37.5%. He made 7.5% just by another guy joining his game.
Take an extreme: Two players stay in the game with 17 centers (50%) each. One goes CD. It is picked up. With the new algorithm, the buy-in is 100%. The newcomer never ever can make a profit, as he will end up close to 50% even by winning. The old player will have his win basically doubled. Who would take a CD then?

Let's say there are 7 players, and each player has 3 units. 1 player is in civil disorder, and there is 700 in the pot.

Once a player has taken over the civil disorder he will have 1/7th of the units in the game. Therefore he should put an amount into the pot so that his units are worth 1/7th of the pot.

In the old system the player would put in 100 points. The pot is now 800. The player's units are worth (1/7)*800 ~= 115 points. The players units are worth more than the amount he paid for them.

In the new system the bet is increased. b=p/(u/n-1), b=700/(7/1-1),b~=118
The new pot size is 818. The player has 1/7th of the units in the pot, (1/7)*818~=118. The players units are now worth the same amount that he paid for them.

I don't get what problem you have with this :-/

>Take an extreme: Two players stay in the game with 17 centers
> (50%) each. One goes CD. It is picked up. With the new algorithm,
> the buy-in is 100%.
Say the pot size is 700 again, there are 17 units per player, 34 units total, one player in civil disorder.
Old system: Player bets 350, pot is now 1050, player has 1/2 the units in a game worth 1050, player's units are now worth 525.
New system: b=700/(34/17-1)=700. Player bets 700, pot is now 1400, player has 1/2 the units in a game worth 1400, player's units are still worth 700.

If the player now gets one extra unit and manages to win they will profit by (1/34)*1400, which is the amount the one unit he gained is worth.
In the old system if the player wins he now gets over 525, despite having bet only 350 into the pot. Even if the first player wins the player who took over the civil disorder still profits, without doing anything at all.

but please look at the other side as well. How about the player already in the game?
with the new system, his units are worth double, without doing anything.

His units are worth double because the player that was playing with him left, not because someone else joined the game.

His units were worth 350, but then the other player left and forfeited his 350 points worth of units, effectively giving them to the other player.
Once the CD player has left the remaining player effectively has units worth 700 points, and it's only fair that newcomers have to put forward the full 700 point bet.

Or, in the earlier example, each player put 100 points into the pot, and has an equal number of units, and then a player leaves.
Now there is 700 in the pot with only 6 players, each player effectively gets a slice of the CD player's bet, so each player's units are now worth ~117 instead of 100. It's only fair that a newcomer to the game also has to pay 117 to get units worth 117.

The newcomer doesn't increase the value of the other players units by joining the game. If a player leaves the other players get the exact same increase in value per unit whether or not another player joins.
Then, when another player joins that player puts money into the pot, but the player is also bringing units into play that were no longer in play, so the effect of increasing the pot size cancels out.

If a pot is 700 in size, there are 7 players with 3 units each for a total of 21 units, the value per unit is (1/21)*700 = 33
Then a player leaves. The pot is still 700 in size, there are 6 players with 3 units each for a total of 18 units, the value per unit is (1/18)*700 = 39
All the players' units have increased in value just as if the civil disorder player had suddenly been destroyed; that player forfeit his points and resigned.
Now another player takes over the civil disorder player, with the new scheme. The going rate for units, from above, is 39 per unit. The player wants to take over a civil disorder player with 3 units. The required bet to take over the civil disorder is 3 * 39 = 117

Now there is a pot with 817 points in it, and once again there are 21 units on the board and 7 players. The value per unit is (1/21)*817 = 39

So the value per unit only changed when the civil disorder player quit, the value didn't change when the new player entered.

In the old way, however, players suddenly lose value per unit when a civil disorder is taken over; because the bet required to take over a civil disorder is too small so the player who is taking over pays less for the units than the units are worth.

It would be a good idea to add a check for taking over in spring 1901 though...

My head just exploded. But bihary, I believe that kestas is right. The important thing is that the other players get extra, not off the player taking over, but off the player leaving. The player taking over spends his points purely for his units, he does not add to any of the other player's scores.

OK, I stop arguing. You can look at it in many different ways. practically, our debate has little consequence, as CDs occur at low unit counts.
But I say this: Extra $ value to the pot is only generated by someone actually _taking_ that damned CD spot. If you want to motivate people to do so, you cannot say "The newcomer doesn't increase the value of the other players units by joining the game. If a player leaves the other players get the exact same increase in value per unit whether or not another player joins.
Then, when another player joins that player puts money into the pot, but the player is also bringing units into play that were no longer in play, so the effect of increasing the pot size cancels out."
Do you want to motivate people taking CD spots? If not, I have nothing ele to say. If you do, you just threw away a nice knob.

Kestas you still havent modified the pot amount for High Rollers. Regardless of the script, I think fairness needs to be addressed especially if people keep joining as civ disorder countries after the game began but before the end of the spring phase