Lately there has been discord over some strategies I and some of my mates sometimes use and allegations of trolling and collusion have been brought up. Today I wanna try and do away with one of these allegations and it is regarding how we play auctions.
Initial Situation
So let's look at a situation where an auction is coming up. I (Player 1) have 2000$ in my pocket. Player 2 is the proud owner of 3000$. Player 3 and 4 each scrape the barrel and are already out of the race.
The obvious approach
So, as I am not leading in money, it is clear that I won't be getting this plot. The obvious thing to do now is to push the price up anyway as far as I can so Player 2 won't get the purchase for any cheaper than is necessary. Perfectly logical way to go, but it doesn't have to be the wise thing to do is what I proclaim. And for not always following this strategy I have been accused of colluding with Player 2 multiple times. I can honestly understand why someone would jump to that conclusion - I am sparing another player additional costs after all - so let's dive into the strategy and see if I can bring a new perspective.
The self-centered approach
Pushing the price up creates more cost for Player 2, which is in principle advantageous for me. But let's look at what I gain, or rather, what I might be missing out on this way.
So let's say a second auction comes up right away. As I have pushed the price of the last one up to 2000$, Player 2 had to buy the plot for 2004$, the starting bid for this new auction is probably at around 1950$. Not bad, since Player 2 is down to 996$ and Player 3 and 4 don't have any money to speak of, I can now buy this plot uncontested. But the obvious downside here is I won't have any money left and possibly won't be able to build anything new this round (which sucks extra, because I have just received two new plots!).
Why not go for an alternative approach: Leaving some headroom for yourself. Let's go back to the first auction. Instead of pushing the price as high up as I'm able to, I can just push it up to say 1600$. Sure, Player 2 now saves 400$ on his purchase, but guess what: In the following auction, so do I. And since I am the one with less money, those 400$ would hurt me more than they would hurt them. Now I too am able to buy a plot and can still buy mules in the development phase.
Of course there is mutual benefit in this, so you could technically call it "collusion", but by that definition, any time you choose not to sabotage another player even if it would cause you way more damage than them, is a collusion. Or not?
If you're still not convinced, let's take a look at a comparison of outcomes for this strategy and the traditional one.
What is better? Your loss or my benefit?
I have created a table for comparing the outcomes of the two strategies:
| Pushing the Price as high as possible | Leaving some Headroom for myself | |
| Player 1 (me) | Can buy a plot of land in 2nd auction for all my money. No money left for buying mules. | Can buy a plot of land in 2nd auction. Still have money left for buying mules. |
| Player 2 | Has to buy a plot of land for 2000$. Still has enough money left either way. | Was able to save 400$ on the auction. Still has enough money left either way. |
Look at the table and draw your own conclusions wether driving the price to the max is really always the clever move.
As for me, I don't see why I should pass on my own benefit in order to cause the player with the most money some more costs. In my eyes, hurting one player is not the superior option to lifting your own progress up.
I hope you will evaluate again if this is an unfair collusion plot or just a player trying to get the best outcome for himself.
Stop being so salty over alternative strategies and thanks you for listening to my TedTalk.
