http://www.dip2000.com/index3.php?id=static/diprules/bourse

I forget who ran a SRG that was similar to this idea, but I remember it using some of the mechanics of Bourse. You can also find info here:
http://www.vdiplomacy.com/wiki/index.php?title=Bourse

We also ran a Bourse game where players could buy and sell on the currencies of the countries involved:
http://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=9186&msgCountryID=0&rand=32912#chatboxanchor

_______

It's an excellent idea, and one that I hope will be run again soon!

That's what I'm suggesting, except with my modification so being defeated in the board game actually influences your chances on winning the currency part... Ruining your country on purpose could still be done, but it reduces/eliminates your income.

Sounds good to people?

And maybe the amount of SCs that are owned by the countries should influence the price of the currency as well. For example, take the change in SCs 10 times and that's the change in cents, not counting the other inflation/deflation based on how much it's bought/sold yet. That's calculated in too to give the new value.

Also, only players in the board game are in the Bourse game I'd say. And maybe it makes more sense to only start with your own currency.

In the end money isn't translated to credits, just it's value in dollars is calculated. Whoever has the biggest value in dollars wins.

Do people like those changes to make the board and bourse one game rather than 2?

Oh, and your first link is sort of broken it seems.

And it would be nice to know who ran the last one indeed :)

I think that having played in the last Bourse game that there was added value to the experience of having the board and bourse games running at the same time. Additionally form that experience there's already enough potential for market manipulation that there's no need to create new rules to encourage nation dumping. It was particularly fun played on the 901 Known World map with 15 currencies to cope with.

Hmm... so no artificial influence from the amount of SCs owned is what you say, correct?
I just thought it may better resemble real life. I mean, if a set amount of currency is suddenly used by a greater amount of people, that's effectively deflation, correct? I thought representing that could be fun. It also may give a bit more of a clue to what exactly is the value of something. When you buy into a currency of a country with lots of SCs, and he loses a lot of them, you'd expect to make a lot of losses, correct? Being able to sell for a quite high price seems unrealistic...
It's also just a factor. It'd not be like you're only betting for who gets the most SCs extra, would it?

Do you like the rule of an income based on the amount of SCs you have? Simply one of your currency per SC seems about right... It wouldn't make your currency much worse because of inflation from your income either, if we even calculate that inflation...

901 Known World works for me, but I'm open for other suggestions too.

I defer to Kaner's opinion on this. He seems to have to have a firm grasp on it.

Well then, Kaner, what do you say?

Is my idea worth a shot? Surely the income-part is, so dying on the board can actually be considered a bad thing?

The bourse games were good but from looking at the way some players dealt with things they didn't really "get" how to maximise their financial outcome. From memory the last game also fell apart when the adjuticator/game master and a player had a falling out which spoiled things for everyone.

So we could explain just to be sure? In all honesty I was just going to do some math and try some things if we start.

Also, it is much more intuitive if the value changes based on the amount of SCs as well as I am suggesting, so it's easier to understand, since you can basically bet on who gains the most SCs. And then there's more to be gained with the change of value because the currency is bought/sold.

It's just more intuitive.

There were two games of Bourse run.

----

Game 1: involved 7 volunteers who agreed to play a classic map, while the players of Bourse traded stocks based on that game - this led to two problems.
1- the players knew that the game was being 'Boursed' and this led to some erratic play to try to manipulate the market (a kind of meta-diplomatic game)
2- the players in the actual game wanted to be involved in the Bourse itself.

Game 2: was played on the Known World 901 map. The GM was Guaroz who was allowed limited GameMod powers for this particular game. It worked quite well and had some really fun back-room deals made. There were however several issues:
1- eliminated players tended to loose interest in the Bourse after they had been taken over.
2- (good or bad you decide) decisions by players to create bubble stocks in countries that they could have been eliminated but chose not to in order to manipulate the market.
3- ill-defined pre-agreed upon policy regarding extension and pauses.

----

From observation I wouldn't suggest changing the $value of the currency. This changes
anyway depending on how well a country is going. Countries that have larger SCs will have larger valued currencies because more Bourse players want that currency. Countries with few, or little SCs will be valued quite low.

The ratio of how much currency you own of a country and the amount of SCs already effects the Bourse. Victory Points are assigned to players depending on the amount of currency you own. At the end of the Diplomacy game each Bourse players VPs will be calculated by multiplying the number of supply centres held by each country by the number of blocks of 100 units of that country’s currency held (fractions will be carried). The winner of the Bourse is the player with the greatest VPs.

----

It would be really great if you were to take on the task of organising a game of Bourse. I would definitely recommend that you run a game (or participate in a game) of Bourse first before altering the rules.

If I were going to set up a game of Bourse I would gather players who want to play Bourse, then I would select a game in secret that had none of these players in it. The players playing countries would have no idea that their game was being Boursed.

here is the spreadsheet made up for the players of Bourse in Game2:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxIREuIvx26uOEIwcXZiT0dzcDg/edit?pli=1

My problem with that is that it's simply 2 games, one of which is influenced by the other, but nonetheless, 2 games. I think it makes more sense to have the players on the board be the players in the bourse. This encourages profitable deals to be made etc, and in the end it is all about the money, nothing else.

This actually changes the boardgame because people try to manipulate the market in their favour. The problem with just that is that people could decide to effectively suicide to manipulate the market in a very unexpected way to give them a big edge in the bourse.

While I don't mind that, there has to be some incentive to actually make your country prosper to win the bourse (which is the goal like I said, what happens to your country only influences your money, other than that your country doesn't matter in the end, by my rules), otherwise the boardgame tends to become ridiculous, as has been proven I'd say. That's why I'm suggesting an income based on the amount of SCs your country has. This gives you incentive to make your country strong and your currency valuable, since more valuable currency means your income increases too.

The SCs influencing the bourse is not needed I suppose, but I still think that would give more intuitivity, and more incentive to make your own country prosper, because then the income you get is worth even more (since you get, say, 10 denarii per phase (spring/fall) per SC, and that 10 denarii is worth more if you have more SCs as well), and, well, just more intuitive.

But I don't need the SCs directly influencing value if people don't like that, maybe I see that wrong because I haven't played yet anyway, but without income or some other incentive for your country, I don't want to play it because it are 2 games with a connection that works only one way. I think the bourse should influence the board game, in a way that doesn't inherently reward the occassional suicide in the bourse.

Income is the best way to do this I think. I simply refuse to play without some incentive for the board player to both be succesful and influence the bourse. That's the whole point for me.

I also think it's realistic; countries can trade all they want, but only in very extreme cases would they consider losing ground for a big reward in cash. My income-idea represents this quite well I'd say.

I enjoyed the dynamics of the bourse mixing in with the diplomacy board. There were two distinct agendas, but they were clearly interwoven and influential upon each other.

As we discovered in the last game the game can be run using Kaner's Excell spreadsheet with very minimal work necessary from a GM. All the GM needs to do is collect the buys/sells, and the data can be entered by anyone (the GM or another player), and posted in the game thread. I think simplifying the GM's role in this is best for everyone.

I just think there should be only one "distinct agenda".

I suppose that's just my opinion though.

There is. Winning. But there are two contests running concurrently.

I mean either winning in the bourse or winning on the board. You treat the board differently if it's all about the money in the end.

I suppose there's not enough interest for now anyway...

clearly advertising for what sort of game (ie. rules) you want to run would help in garnering interest for playing a game of Bourse.

From my experience with the last such game the 901 Known World map offered an excellent vehicle to explore this with 15 different currencies and it's own unique board dynamics. The two 'games' blended very well together. I would definitely be interested in trying that again.