This marks a milestone; at last I've played a full game through. This has been a long time coming; work commitments have meant that I've not had much time to work on the game this year.
The first play through is rather like an integration test in an IT project. Lots of different components have been developed in isolation, and it is only when you put them together that you discover where they don't match up. I was expecting the game to raise as many questions as it answered, and so it was.
Several things did work. The income system meant that players and companies could record their cash on a simple track. The map and tiles worked, and I think they just need minor tweaking as further plays reveal any lingering problems. Players had plenty of opportunity and incentive to cross-invest. The stock market was reasonably dynamic. Converting companies from 5 shares to 10 shares seemed basically right, although I need to look at the details on that.
18xx designers often say that the train roster is the hardest part of the game to get right. I certainly need to change mine about a bit. I think this is par for the course.
The biggest concern I have now is to get the company funding right. In the middle of the game, players seemed to have too much money for the shares available, while companies didn't have enough money to move the train buying along. The income from the shares was all quite similar, so it wasn't obvious which player would benefit most by making companies withhold income. This will need more experimentation. I might even try partial capitalisation, despite having argued against this in the past.
In the meantime, I have lots of small changes to make, to the rules, to the map, to the tiles, and to the stock market, and possibly to other components as well.
Thursday 18 November 2010
Wednesday 8 September 2010
The Yellow Zone
I hadn't planned to have a yellow zone in the 18GB stock market. I wanted to keep things simple, and several recent games don't have one - including 1861, 1812, 18Neb, 18EU and Steam Over Holland.
I have changed my mind. One stimulus for this was a discussion of strategies for 1830 on BoardGameGeek, especially this comment. Another arises from my design aim of dividing all share values by 10 compared to traditional 18xx games. I wanted to have some spaces with value 3.5 towards the low end of the table, as well as whole numbers. The yellow zone fits nicely with this: by allowing players to buy multiple shares of companies in the yellow zone, they can choose to buy two shares for 7 (instead of two single purchases each rounding up to 4).
I also noticed that the games without the yellow zone all use incremental capitalisation and are fairly cash rich. 18GB currently uses full capitalisation (well, half capitalisation). which puts in more in line with the games that do have a yellow zone.
As with all my other design decisions, we shall have to see how this works in practice. I won't mind if the yellow zone doesn't get used much. I will worry if the tactic of having one company always in the yellow zone becomes a dominant play over other approaches, but I don't expect that to happen because players will be losing income.
I have changed my mind. One stimulus for this was a discussion of strategies for 1830 on BoardGameGeek, especially this comment. Another arises from my design aim of dividing all share values by 10 compared to traditional 18xx games. I wanted to have some spaces with value 3.5 towards the low end of the table, as well as whole numbers. The yellow zone fits nicely with this: by allowing players to buy multiple shares of companies in the yellow zone, they can choose to buy two shares for 7 (instead of two single purchases each rounding up to 4).
I also noticed that the games without the yellow zone all use incremental capitalisation and are fairly cash rich. 18GB currently uses full capitalisation (well, half capitalisation). which puts in more in line with the games that do have a yellow zone.
As with all my other design decisions, we shall have to see how this works in practice. I won't mind if the yellow zone doesn't get used much. I will worry if the tactic of having one company always in the yellow zone becomes a dominant play over other approaches, but I don't expect that to happen because players will be losing income.
Thursday 24 June 2010
Share tokens
In an attempt to reduce the amount of printing, laminating and cutting that I have to do, I've decided to buy coloured wooden cubes to represent shares. An octogan will represent the director's "certificate" while eight cubes will represent the ordinary shares. This is a more expensive solution but should save me time. The pieces match the discs that I have already bought to be station markers.
I reckon it will also give the game more of a "euro" feel, which fits with my overall aims. Although the rules are too complex really to be a true eurogame.
My source has 11 colours available. This has limited the maximum number of companies in the game, forcing me to abandon the option of 2n+1 companies (where n is the number of players). Instead of a formula, I'm currently using 7 companies for 3 players and n+5 for 4 to 6 players. I think this will work OK. As always, playtesting will give more guidance. When these tokens arrive, I will be another step closer towards a playable game.
I reckon it will also give the game more of a "euro" feel, which fits with my overall aims. Although the rules are too complex really to be a true eurogame.
My source has 11 colours available. This has limited the maximum number of companies in the game, forcing me to abandon the option of 2n+1 companies (where n is the number of players). Instead of a formula, I'm currently using 7 companies for 3 players and n+5 for 4 to 6 players. I think this will work OK. As always, playtesting will give more guidance. When these tokens arrive, I will be another step closer towards a playable game.
Saturday 12 June 2010
Certificate limits
I did a quick bit of analysis yesterday and found that most 18xx games set the per-player certificate limit so that approximately 85% of all shares in the game could be held by players, if each player was at their maximum. The percentage is usually a bit lower than this for 2-player games and a bit higher for 5 or 6 player games. This seems a reasonable rule of thumb.
However, it is based on the assumption that all companies have ten shares. In games where companies start with five shares and only some might convert to ten shares, its not immediately clear how to set the certificate limit. 18Ardennes addresses this by increasing the limit as more companies convert to 10 shares. This works, but adds one more number to keep track of during play.
I'm wondering whether it would be simpler just to treat each ten-share certificate as half the "weight" of a five-share certificate. It might be simpler still to change the limit to the number of shares, rather than the number of certificates, with 10% shares counting as 1 and 20% shares as 2.
In my game, I want to always have shares available for purchase, either from new companies on from the open market. So I don't want to set the limit so high that all or most shares can be bought. This means that even in 6-player games I'll keep the limit to around 85% rather than letting it rise over 90%.
This is enough analysis to be going on with. We can always tweak the limits during playtesting if need be.
However, it is based on the assumption that all companies have ten shares. In games where companies start with five shares and only some might convert to ten shares, its not immediately clear how to set the certificate limit. 18Ardennes addresses this by increasing the limit as more companies convert to 10 shares. This works, but adds one more number to keep track of during play.
I'm wondering whether it would be simpler just to treat each ten-share certificate as half the "weight" of a five-share certificate. It might be simpler still to change the limit to the number of shares, rather than the number of certificates, with 10% shares counting as 1 and 20% shares as 2.
In my game, I want to always have shares available for purchase, either from new companies on from the open market. So I don't want to set the limit so high that all or most shares can be bought. This means that even in 6-player games I'll keep the limit to around 85% rather than letting it rise over 90%.
This is enough analysis to be going on with. We can always tweak the limits during playtesting if need be.
Tuesday 8 June 2010
How to Encourage Balanced Portfolios?
A basic aim of Britain Under Steam is to encourage players to invest in each others' companies without restricting which companies are available to start. This will combine what I see as the best of two different strands of 18xx games. 1825 and its descendants force cross-investment by making the companies available in a set order, so that players have to buy shares in those that are currently available. 1830 and its descendants let players start any company, with the result that they tend to focus on buying shares in the one(s) they have started themselves. The question is, how do I design the start of the game to encourage cross-investment?
One promising approach is to be fairly conventional, by requiring 60% of a company's shares to be sold before it floats, limiting each player's holdings to 60% of a given company, and giving players enough starting cash to buy shares equal to 100% of a cheap company. This means that a player can start her own company and have enough cash left over to buy shares in other players' companies.
I was wondering whether I could encourage more cross-investment if I companies floated when 40% of their shares were floated. This would leave more player cash available to invest in other companies. This idea does immediately run into a flaw: if a player has enough cash to buy 80% of a company, she could start two companies instead of investing in other players' companies. I have worked out rules to balance the options of starting one company or two (including the potential for asset stripping), but these don't address the basic aim I am considering here.
In 1830-style games, of course, directors are forbidden from selling the directors certificate, and companies without a train must buy one. This combination ensures there is a risk involved in starting a second company. Britain under Steam doesn't have these restrictions, which removes much of the risk. This is intentional, as it also removes the risk of cross-investment, but perversely it also discourages cross-investment if players have the option of floating a second or third company instead.
I could add an administrative fee for starting a company, which would perhaps encourage players to buy existing shares instead. However, this might have the unintended consequence of making it too unprofitable to start a company at all, which would hardly be the desired behaviour!
A variant on that idea would be charge no administrative fee for a player's first company, introduce a fee for their second, and a higher fee still for their third. The cost could be based on the number of directorships that the player currently holds, or the number of companies they have floated since the start of the game.
Another take on this variant would be to deal the companies in order at the start of the game, then make the one at the head of the queue free to start and ones further along cost a small fee. This second version would restrict players more than I would like.
A different approach would be to limit players to holding a single directorship in the first phase of the game. As soon as phase three begins, this restriction would be lifted.
It's worth noting that in the advanced game, I'm thinking of adding auctions for the right to start a new company. A player can nominate a company and a par price; whoever then bids the most wins the right to buy the directors' certificate at that par price. I'd have to work out how this would sit with any additional fee for starting a company.
At one point I thought about charging a administrative fee every new company, but giving the owners of some private railways a fee waiver. I haven't revisited this idea until now; perhaps it is worth some reconsideration?
One promising approach is to be fairly conventional, by requiring 60% of a company's shares to be sold before it floats, limiting each player's holdings to 60% of a given company, and giving players enough starting cash to buy shares equal to 100% of a cheap company. This means that a player can start her own company and have enough cash left over to buy shares in other players' companies.
I was wondering whether I could encourage more cross-investment if I companies floated when 40% of their shares were floated. This would leave more player cash available to invest in other companies. This idea does immediately run into a flaw: if a player has enough cash to buy 80% of a company, she could start two companies instead of investing in other players' companies. I have worked out rules to balance the options of starting one company or two (including the potential for asset stripping), but these don't address the basic aim I am considering here.
In 1830-style games, of course, directors are forbidden from selling the directors certificate, and companies without a train must buy one. This combination ensures there is a risk involved in starting a second company. Britain under Steam doesn't have these restrictions, which removes much of the risk. This is intentional, as it also removes the risk of cross-investment, but perversely it also discourages cross-investment if players have the option of floating a second or third company instead.
I could add an administrative fee for starting a company, which would perhaps encourage players to buy existing shares instead. However, this might have the unintended consequence of making it too unprofitable to start a company at all, which would hardly be the desired behaviour!
A variant on that idea would be charge no administrative fee for a player's first company, introduce a fee for their second, and a higher fee still for their third. The cost could be based on the number of directorships that the player currently holds, or the number of companies they have floated since the start of the game.
Another take on this variant would be to deal the companies in order at the start of the game, then make the one at the head of the queue free to start and ones further along cost a small fee. This second version would restrict players more than I would like.
A different approach would be to limit players to holding a single directorship in the first phase of the game. As soon as phase three begins, this restriction would be lifted.
It's worth noting that in the advanced game, I'm thinking of adding auctions for the right to start a new company. A player can nominate a company and a par price; whoever then bids the most wins the right to buy the directors' certificate at that par price. I'd have to work out how this would sit with any additional fee for starting a company.
At one point I thought about charging a administrative fee every new company, but giving the owners of some private railways a fee waiver. I haven't revisited this idea until now; perhaps it is worth some reconsideration?
Sunday 6 June 2010
The Stock Market
I now have a first version of the 18GB stock market chart. It is a one-dimensional chart without ledges, which means that shares can always fall in value. I will have rules in place to stop mindless trashing of stock prices, but companies that are unpopular or not paying dividends will always fall in value.
The values on the chart are all multiples of 10, to allow my plan of dividing all values by 10 in the final version. Some values at the low end are repeated, so that companies gain value more slowly. In the middle of the chart, values increase by as much as 30 per step, falling back to 10 at the top of the chart (so that there should be incentive to sell expensive shares and make more money on cheaper ones). The top of the chart may be too high, given that companies will have to earn their current value in order for the price to increase. Playtesting will tell.
I'm thinking of using the same chart to record company income. This would require a more fine-grained track for those parts where value increases by more than 10 per step. One approach might be to subdivide those boxes on the chart, for the purposes of tracking income. Another approach would be to make the whole chart just have steps of 10, relying on the dividend rules to increase share prices more rapidly when companies earn 100 more than their current value. I'll probably go with the graphical option rather than changing the behaviour.
This is a small but significant step forward.
The values on the chart are all multiples of 10, to allow my plan of dividing all values by 10 in the final version. Some values at the low end are repeated, so that companies gain value more slowly. In the middle of the chart, values increase by as much as 30 per step, falling back to 10 at the top of the chart (so that there should be incentive to sell expensive shares and make more money on cheaper ones). The top of the chart may be too high, given that companies will have to earn their current value in order for the price to increase. Playtesting will tell.
I'm thinking of using the same chart to record company income. This would require a more fine-grained track for those parts where value increases by more than 10 per step. One approach might be to subdivide those boxes on the chart, for the purposes of tracking income. Another approach would be to make the whole chart just have steps of 10, relying on the dividend rules to increase share prices more rapidly when companies earn 100 more than their current value. I'll probably go with the graphical option rather than changing the behaviour.
This is a small but significant step forward.
Saturday 5 June 2010
Short selling
1817 has brought a new feature to the 18xx repertoire: short selling. (Actually, 1817 has several other new features too, but this is the most radical). The idea is that a player can sell a share in a company that he doesn't own. This puts the sold share in the open market and gives the player the corresponding cash from the bank. It also gives him a "short share", which he will have to redeem some time later.
A short share is an opposite of a share - a sort of anti-matter share or a negative share. If the company pays dividends, a player who owns a short share must pay that dividend to the company, instead of receiving it. If he is unfortunate to own the short share at the end of the game, it has negative value equal to the company's current value. At any point, the holder may buy back the short share, provided there is a matching ordinary share in the open market. At that point, the player pays the current cost of an ordinary share to the bank and both shares are removed from the game.
Short selling pays when a company is losing value. When you sell short, you receive the current value of the company. If the company loses value, you then buy back the ordinary share at a lower value, thus making a profit. If the company pays and dividend or increases in value, you make a loss. If there isn't a share in the open market to close the short share, you end up in more trouble.
In 1817, the effect of short selling a company is quite marked. It will drop one space on the stock market for each unsold ordinary share in the open market at the end of the stock round. So the company often takes loans in order to buy up the newly generated shares. Taking loans also depresses the price once per loan, but this tactic allows the company to pay dividends, receive some of the income itself, pay off the loans and regain some of the share price. This is a more complicated financial model than Britain Under Steam.
It might be possible to adopt a simpler version of this mechanism in Britain Under Steam (as an optional rule). A player could short sell a company in the same way, but the effect on the company would be much less. Its price wouldn't drop one space per unsold share, nor would the company be able to buy the shares. Other players might buy the new shares - even the Director could, if there is no limit on ownership when buying from the open market. So the timing of short selling would have to be well-judged.
An even simpler system would be to sell short imaginary shares, just receiving the short share in return. This would run the risk of having to pay dividends or of losing out if the share price increased, but would always be possible to sell.
It could be fun to try, anyway.
A short share is an opposite of a share - a sort of anti-matter share or a negative share. If the company pays dividends, a player who owns a short share must pay that dividend to the company, instead of receiving it. If he is unfortunate to own the short share at the end of the game, it has negative value equal to the company's current value. At any point, the holder may buy back the short share, provided there is a matching ordinary share in the open market. At that point, the player pays the current cost of an ordinary share to the bank and both shares are removed from the game.
Short selling pays when a company is losing value. When you sell short, you receive the current value of the company. If the company loses value, you then buy back the ordinary share at a lower value, thus making a profit. If the company pays and dividend or increases in value, you make a loss. If there isn't a share in the open market to close the short share, you end up in more trouble.
In 1817, the effect of short selling a company is quite marked. It will drop one space on the stock market for each unsold ordinary share in the open market at the end of the stock round. So the company often takes loans in order to buy up the newly generated shares. Taking loans also depresses the price once per loan, but this tactic allows the company to pay dividends, receive some of the income itself, pay off the loans and regain some of the share price. This is a more complicated financial model than Britain Under Steam.
It might be possible to adopt a simpler version of this mechanism in Britain Under Steam (as an optional rule). A player could short sell a company in the same way, but the effect on the company would be much less. Its price wouldn't drop one space per unsold share, nor would the company be able to buy the shares. Other players might buy the new shares - even the Director could, if there is no limit on ownership when buying from the open market. So the timing of short selling would have to be well-judged.
An even simpler system would be to sell short imaginary shares, just receiving the short share in return. This would run the risk of having to pay dividends or of losing out if the share price increased, but would always be possible to sell.
It could be fun to try, anyway.
Wednesday 2 June 2010
When companies fail
I've started to work on the stock market for Britain Under Steam. One question I hadn't thought of before is what special zones, if any, to add for low stock prices.
The classic example from 1829, 1830 and many descendants is the yellow zone. Shares of companies valued in this zone do not count against certificate limits. This encourages players to buy these cheap shares. It can also encourage a player to keep one company withholding income, so that it stays in this zone while transferring its wealth to the player's other companies.
1830 added a brown zone and an orange zone. When a company is valued in the orange zone, a player may own more than the usual 60% of the company. When valued in the brown zone, a player may buy any number of shares in that company in one turn. This allows for quick "refloatation" of a company. (I had to look these up, which suggests to me that 1830 has too many zones to remember easily).
Many 18xx games have a value below which companies go bankrupt and are removed from the game. 1860 is unusual in that bankrupt companies continue to exist and can be restarted, at slightly lower par prices than before. This allows companies to be recycled into the game.
1817 has a zone in which companies can be acquired by other companies.
In Britain Under Steam, I'm looking to have share prices £10 apart. This is different from many other 18xx games, which have smaller steps at the bottom of the market. It means that the bottom of the stock market could be reached quite quickly. (I could conceivably add extra rows at the same price to compensate). So I think I do want some penalty for reaching the bottom. However, I don't want companies to disappear from the game - the whole point of the game is to have companies moving up and down in price throughout.
My initial thought is to have companies automatically go into receivership at some point. I.e. players will lose their shares for no recompense. The receiver will run the company, eventually bringing it into shape for repurchase.
It will be interesting to see whether an 1860-like restart will be needed and/or useful. In 1860, the restart gives the company new capital (although it is not run in receivership in the interim). This may work better than the receivership option, but might it also encourage people to run companies into the ground?
I'm not sure whether to also have a yellow zone. I don't want to over-egg the benefits of continually withholding income in one company, but encouraging players to buy into cheap shares might be worthwhile. I definitely don't want a brown zone, as I want to encourage cross-investment.
There are lots of options to try. I think I'll start with a small yellow zone and automatic receivership at the bottom of the chart.
The classic example from 1829, 1830 and many descendants is the yellow zone. Shares of companies valued in this zone do not count against certificate limits. This encourages players to buy these cheap shares. It can also encourage a player to keep one company withholding income, so that it stays in this zone while transferring its wealth to the player's other companies.
1830 added a brown zone and an orange zone. When a company is valued in the orange zone, a player may own more than the usual 60% of the company. When valued in the brown zone, a player may buy any number of shares in that company in one turn. This allows for quick "refloatation" of a company. (I had to look these up, which suggests to me that 1830 has too many zones to remember easily).
Many 18xx games have a value below which companies go bankrupt and are removed from the game. 1860 is unusual in that bankrupt companies continue to exist and can be restarted, at slightly lower par prices than before. This allows companies to be recycled into the game.
1817 has a zone in which companies can be acquired by other companies.
In Britain Under Steam, I'm looking to have share prices £10 apart. This is different from many other 18xx games, which have smaller steps at the bottom of the market. It means that the bottom of the stock market could be reached quite quickly. (I could conceivably add extra rows at the same price to compensate). So I think I do want some penalty for reaching the bottom. However, I don't want companies to disappear from the game - the whole point of the game is to have companies moving up and down in price throughout.
My initial thought is to have companies automatically go into receivership at some point. I.e. players will lose their shares for no recompense. The receiver will run the company, eventually bringing it into shape for repurchase.
It will be interesting to see whether an 1860-like restart will be needed and/or useful. In 1860, the restart gives the company new capital (although it is not run in receivership in the interim). This may work better than the receivership option, but might it also encourage people to run companies into the ground?
I'm not sure whether to also have a yellow zone. I don't want to over-egg the benefits of continually withholding income in one company, but encouraging players to buy into cheap shares might be worthwhile. I definitely don't want a brown zone, as I want to encourage cross-investment.
There are lots of options to try. I think I'll start with a small yellow zone and automatic receivership at the bottom of the chart.
Thursday 27 May 2010
Starting the game
After a long hiatus away from Britain Under Steam, I spent some time at the weekend working on the financial side of the game. This is in many ways more important than the track building aspects. I've also found it harder to get a handle on, which partly explains why I've been slow to start on it. Eventually I decided that I'd done as much preparatory work as I could, and now just had to dive in, try some figures, and see how well they worked.
I focused on the start of the game: what prices companies can be floated at, how much cash players should start with, and how much private railways should cost. The result wasn't too bad. I only had to tweak a few figures here and there to get something that should be a reasonably playable game. I was able to lay at least one issue to bed, and to formulate some of the remaining questions I need to answer.
One issue I looked at was the "rungs" on the stock market around the start price. Many 18xx games have less than £10 between spaces - e.g. £67 & £72, or £60, £65 & £70. I want to divide all prices by 10, so I wanted to check that spaces valued £60, £70, £80 ... worked fine. And they did.
I will revisit the issue of how many shares are required to start a company. So far, I've been assuming two (i.e. 40% of a five-share company). A result of this, if the minimum start price is £60, is that someone could start two companies with just £240. This would not encourage players to invest in each other's companies from the start, which is my goal, so I may change this to a more traditional 60% of a company. This would make the minimum cost to float a company be £180, so I could add an additional £170 to the starting cash which players could only spend on each other's companies.
An alternative idea, which I had right at the start of this project, would be to charge a £50 fee for starting a company. So although the shares might only cost £120, the total cost might be £170. I'll experiment with this. There is an attraction to keeping the two shares to float rule, which is that there are more shares available for other players to invest in; they just need an incentive to actually do so.
Some other questions popped up, which I will leave for future posts.
I focused on the start of the game: what prices companies can be floated at, how much cash players should start with, and how much private railways should cost. The result wasn't too bad. I only had to tweak a few figures here and there to get something that should be a reasonably playable game. I was able to lay at least one issue to bed, and to formulate some of the remaining questions I need to answer.
One issue I looked at was the "rungs" on the stock market around the start price. Many 18xx games have less than £10 between spaces - e.g. £67 & £72, or £60, £65 & £70. I want to divide all prices by 10, so I wanted to check that spaces valued £60, £70, £80 ... worked fine. And they did.
I will revisit the issue of how many shares are required to start a company. So far, I've been assuming two (i.e. 40% of a five-share company). A result of this, if the minimum start price is £60, is that someone could start two companies with just £240. This would not encourage players to invest in each other's companies from the start, which is my goal, so I may change this to a more traditional 60% of a company. This would make the minimum cost to float a company be £180, so I could add an additional £170 to the starting cash which players could only spend on each other's companies.
An alternative idea, which I had right at the start of this project, would be to charge a £50 fee for starting a company. So although the shares might only cost £120, the total cost might be £170. I'll experiment with this. There is an attraction to keeping the two shares to float rule, which is that there are more shares available for other players to invest in; they just need an incentive to actually do so.
Some other questions popped up, which I will leave for future posts.
Game components
I print most of my components on card, and laminate share certificates and such like. Recently I've been looking for some markers.
The best ones are from SpielMaterial in Germany. They're nice round wooden disks in a variety of colours. On the web site, look under "Pawns and Other Figures" and then "Discs". I also bought some 15x10mm cylinders as possible markers for merged companies.
Northumbria Games provide a plastic alternative. They're pretty good too. The web site calls them "15x5mm counters". I also bought some "14x10mm cylinders", but these are 14mm long and 10mm diameter, rather than the other way around.
For a much cheaper option, you could try PlugItDowel. These are decorative finishes for furniture makers and the like; they're intended to cover screw holes and the like. The flat head plugs aren't perfectly cylindrical; one end is slightly smaller than the other, but they are a servicable option.
On a different note, Leisure Games are selling a box of coloured train markers for Euro Games such as Steam and Ticket To Ride. If I move Britain Under Steam beyond the tile mechanism of 18xx, these could be very useful.
The best ones are from SpielMaterial in Germany. They're nice round wooden disks in a variety of colours. On the web site, look under "Pawns and Other Figures" and then "Discs". I also bought some 15x10mm cylinders as possible markers for merged companies.
Northumbria Games provide a plastic alternative. They're pretty good too. The web site calls them "15x5mm counters". I also bought some "14x10mm cylinders", but these are 14mm long and 10mm diameter, rather than the other way around.
For a much cheaper option, you could try PlugItDowel. These are decorative finishes for furniture makers and the like; they're intended to cover screw holes and the like. The flat head plugs aren't perfectly cylindrical; one end is slightly smaller than the other, but they are a servicable option.
On a different note, Leisure Games are selling a box of coloured train markers for Euro Games such as Steam and Ticket To Ride. If I move Britain Under Steam beyond the tile mechanism of 18xx, these could be very useful.
Monday 17 May 2010
Varying the Number of Companies
It's almost a year since I first posted here regarding the number of companies to include in the game, and over 6 months since I decided to remove some of the regional companies. Since then I have had a working set of 11 companies.
More recently, I decided to vary the number of companies for different numbers of players. In part, this is because 11 companies would be potentially unwieldy for three players. Also, having many more companies than players increases the opportunities for wanton asset stripping. My current draft has 2n+1 companies, where n is the number of players. I reason that each player should have the chance to start two companies (which is a rule of thumb I use when playing various combinations of 1825).
Thomas Lehmann's 1846 takes a similar approach. Tom's game uses n+2 companies, of which 4 are included in every game and the remainder are drawn randomly. This last element is appealing; it gives some variation between different games.
I'm currently wondering whether my 2n+1 approach is better than Tom's n+2. Many 18xx games use a fixed number of companies for different numbers of players, which suggests that a narrower range may suffice. Perhaps I could use n+5, giving 8-11 companies instead of 7-13. On the other hand, the BoardGameGeek review of 1846 suggests that it's rare for players to start a second company. That's not the sort of game I'm after.
Also, an n+5 formula would mean that for 5 players, the game would have exactly 2n companies. I'm worried that this might be a mistake, by being too symmetrical.
Whichever approach I take, I will need to vary the number of trains available as well (as indeed Tom did in 1846).
More recently, I decided to vary the number of companies for different numbers of players. In part, this is because 11 companies would be potentially unwieldy for three players. Also, having many more companies than players increases the opportunities for wanton asset stripping. My current draft has 2n+1 companies, where n is the number of players. I reason that each player should have the chance to start two companies (which is a rule of thumb I use when playing various combinations of 1825).
Thomas Lehmann's 1846 takes a similar approach. Tom's game uses n+2 companies, of which 4 are included in every game and the remainder are drawn randomly. This last element is appealing; it gives some variation between different games.
I'm currently wondering whether my 2n+1 approach is better than Tom's n+2. Many 18xx games use a fixed number of companies for different numbers of players, which suggests that a narrower range may suffice. Perhaps I could use n+5, giving 8-11 companies instead of 7-13. On the other hand, the BoardGameGeek review of 1846 suggests that it's rare for players to start a second company. That's not the sort of game I'm after.
Also, an n+5 formula would mean that for 5 players, the game would have exactly 2n companies. I'm worried that this might be a mistake, by being too symmetrical.
Whichever approach I take, I will need to vary the number of trains available as well (as indeed Tom did in 1846).
Sunday 7 March 2010
Controlling the main lines
The main issue on my mind at the moment is which companies should be able to run on the main lines through the north of England to Scotland - the East Coast Main Line (ECML) and West Coast Main Line (WCML). I originally had a couple of key cities that controlled each route - York and Newcastle on the ECML and Carlisle and Preston on the WCML. Each city could upgrade to a tile with two station markers. This meant that companies would have to co-operate to run the London to Scotland routes. On the West, the LNWR, LYR and Caledonian would be likely allies, while on the East the alliance might comprise the NBR, NER and GNR.
A couple of changes I have in mind would threaten this balance. On one hand, the population of Carlisle, Preston and even York was only high enough to qualify them as towns compared to other cities on the map. On the other hand, I would like to keep 1-station cities to have just one marker space: partly to reduce the number of markers needed in the game and partly to make cities such as Stoke and Leicester less central.
If I change Carlisle, Preston and York to towns, then access to the main lines would be much easier; almost any company could run along one or the other. This would mean that I wouldn't need rules for alliances. But the result seems too liberal, with no competition for access to these important routes.
If I reduce the number of markers these cities can hold. then whichever company controls them will be in a central position for any alliance. This could give too much control to the LYR and GNR, with no competition for alternatives.
An alternative would be to make some of them grey hexes, with a fixed low income and a sufficient number of marker spaces, or to have two types of 1-station cities. I'm less keen on the latter approach because I already have three different types of city, in addition to towns and plain hexes.
There is a related issue that I may need to adjust the map to ensure that Preston and York really do control the main lines, with no easy bypasses. This is similar to the recent changes I made to ensure that Carlisle and Newcastle control the passes further north.
A couple of changes I have in mind would threaten this balance. On one hand, the population of Carlisle, Preston and even York was only high enough to qualify them as towns compared to other cities on the map. On the other hand, I would like to keep 1-station cities to have just one marker space: partly to reduce the number of markers needed in the game and partly to make cities such as Stoke and Leicester less central.
If I change Carlisle, Preston and York to towns, then access to the main lines would be much easier; almost any company could run along one or the other. This would mean that I wouldn't need rules for alliances. But the result seems too liberal, with no competition for access to these important routes.
If I reduce the number of markers these cities can hold. then whichever company controls them will be in a central position for any alliance. This could give too much control to the LYR and GNR, with no competition for alternatives.
An alternative would be to make some of them grey hexes, with a fixed low income and a sufficient number of marker spaces, or to have two types of 1-station cities. I'm less keen on the latter approach because I already have three different types of city, in addition to towns and plain hexes.
There is a related issue that I may need to adjust the map to ensure that Preston and York really do control the main lines, with no easy bypasses. This is similar to the recent changes I made to ensure that Carlisle and Newcastle control the passes further north.
Monday 22 February 2010
On Asset Stripping (Again)
As I've stated before, I want Britain Under Steam to have companies that change in value throughout the game, so that players are continually faced with investment decisions. This means that the game must have many companies in operation. In turn, this could provide many opportunities for asset stripping.
Asset stripping is an important factor in many 18xx games. One company can buy a train from another at a grossly inflated price, or a measly undervalued one, thus transferring wealth between them.
This is a potential problem in my game. A player could start a new company, strip it of its assets, and sell it back to the bank. This could leave several companies that are such poor value that there is no point in buying them, which would defeat the object of the design. Many 18xx games restrict the sale of shares so that it is harder to get rid of asset-stripped companies, but I want players to be able to swap shares freely. I just want to ensure that companies that are of little worth at one point may become more valuable later on.
I will need to see what happens in playtests. It may be that the asset-stripped companies take loans to buy new trains and thus end up becoming more valuable. Nonetheless, here are some thoughts on ways to limit excessive asset stripping.
Asset stripping is an important factor in many 18xx games. One company can buy a train from another at a grossly inflated price, or a measly undervalued one, thus transferring wealth between them.
This is a potential problem in my game. A player could start a new company, strip it of its assets, and sell it back to the bank. This could leave several companies that are such poor value that there is no point in buying them, which would defeat the object of the design. Many 18xx games restrict the sale of shares so that it is harder to get rid of asset-stripped companies, but I want players to be able to swap shares freely. I just want to ensure that companies that are of little worth at one point may become more valuable later on.
I will need to see what happens in playtests. It may be that the asset-stripped companies take loans to buy new trains and thus end up becoming more valuable. Nonetheless, here are some thoughts on ways to limit excessive asset stripping.
- Require each newly-floated company to buy its first train from the bank. So it can't just give all it cash to an existing company. (It could, of course, sell the new train cheaply)
- Forbid a company from buying the last train of another company, unless the purchasing company has no trains. (This rule is used in 1860. It should combine well with the previous point).
- If a company sells a train for less than half price, drop its share price. Conversely, drop its share price if it buys a train for more than full price. (This gives more volatility to the stock market, as well as limiting asset stripping per se).
- Additionally, an insolvent company may not sell a train for less than half price or buy a train for more than full price.
- When a player sells the director's certificate of company, give him only the value of a single share instead of the two represented by the certificate.
- Additionally, if a company is insolvent, its shares sell for half value (so directors are discouraged from maladministration).
- If the above are too feeble, do not allow companies to sell trains until phase three (or some other phase as fits the design).
Sunday 21 February 2010
When Trains Rust
My aim for Britain Under Steam is to have companies rising and falling in value, so that players are selling some shares and buying others throughout the game, trying to spot which shares will return most value. The key 18xx mechanism to trigger changes in value is the obsolescence of trains as newer ones replace them. So the question that arises is, what should happen when a company loses all its trains and doesn't have enough funds to buy a new one? I'll borrow a term from 1860 and call such companies "insolvent".
In 1830 and its derivatives, the director of an insolvent company must provide funds from his own hand. If he can't, he is bankrupted. That's not the kind of game I'm looking to design. In any case, one feature of the British railway boom was the innovation of limited liability companies, in which the directors did not have to personally bankroll their corporations.
Some other 18xx games allow insolvent companies to take loans to fund the purchase of new trains. They may then have to pay interest on these loans, be required to repay loans before making further purchases, and/or suffer a reduced share price. This is more in line with my goal, provided that the penalty for loans does noticeably affect the value of the company. 1861, for example, is probably too lenient for my aims; in that game a company's share price is unaffected by loans taken.
The original 18xx game, 1829, and descendants such as 1825 and 1860, allow insolvent companies without directors to borrow a notional train from the bank. A company can collect income from running this borrowed train until it has enough to buy a train of its own. As it is not paying dividends, its share price drops each turn that it remains insolvent. This "train borrowing" mechanism seems a little clunky but it does work.
Perhaps an alternative is to combine the most appropriate aspects of the two approaches, as follows. An insolvent company must take loans to buy a train. A company with loans may not pay dividends, but must withhold income. Hence an insolvent company will drop in share value until it has paid for its trains, just as if we were using the "borrowing" approach.
Into this mix there is also the option for a 5-share company to convert to a 10-share company, gaining the capital to buy a train in the process. I hope that this will be a worthwhile option, so that I don't have to bring in a rule that forces an insolvent company to convert. So directors will have the choice of converting, taking loans, or selling the company altogether.
In 1830 and its derivatives, the director of an insolvent company must provide funds from his own hand. If he can't, he is bankrupted. That's not the kind of game I'm looking to design. In any case, one feature of the British railway boom was the innovation of limited liability companies, in which the directors did not have to personally bankroll their corporations.
Some other 18xx games allow insolvent companies to take loans to fund the purchase of new trains. They may then have to pay interest on these loans, be required to repay loans before making further purchases, and/or suffer a reduced share price. This is more in line with my goal, provided that the penalty for loans does noticeably affect the value of the company. 1861, for example, is probably too lenient for my aims; in that game a company's share price is unaffected by loans taken.
The original 18xx game, 1829, and descendants such as 1825 and 1860, allow insolvent companies without directors to borrow a notional train from the bank. A company can collect income from running this borrowed train until it has enough to buy a train of its own. As it is not paying dividends, its share price drops each turn that it remains insolvent. This "train borrowing" mechanism seems a little clunky but it does work.
Perhaps an alternative is to combine the most appropriate aspects of the two approaches, as follows. An insolvent company must take loans to buy a train. A company with loans may not pay dividends, but must withhold income. Hence an insolvent company will drop in share value until it has paid for its trains, just as if we were using the "borrowing" approach.
Into this mix there is also the option for a 5-share company to convert to a 10-share company, gaining the capital to buy a train in the process. I hope that this will be a worthwhile option, so that I don't have to bring in a rule that forces an insolvent company to convert. So directors will have the choice of converting, taking loans, or selling the company altogether.
Tuesday 16 February 2010
Terrain changes
I'm making several changes to the map. There are several reasons for this, such as improving the way hills and estuaries are represented, adapting to the new N+M trains, and reviewing the historical population of the towns and cities. I'm a little concerned in case some of this is "churn", rather than progress, but some of the changes are definitely improvements.
To start with, I've fixed the problem I noted in a previous post. Companies now have to pay to build through difficult terrain (and can still only do so from phase 5 onwards). I've changed the map in Northern England so that the only north-south route along the Pennines requires two such payments. To make this work, I've also moved Carlisle one hex south-east, so that only one hex lies between Carlisle and Newcastle.
The introduction of a cost for building through difficult terrain (brown hexsides) has a knock-on effect in Scotland. I had brown hexsides for both the Forth and Tay estuaries, which meant that companies would have to pay twice to build the route from Edinburgh to Dundee This is a route I actually want to encourage. In one attempt to fix this, I've collapsed Fife to a single hexside, moving Perth and Dundee one hex south. This seems to work, although it removes some track building options in the area. I was pleased when a change on another part of the board suggested another solution, so I'll explain that next.
The area around the Bristol Channel has always caused some hassle on this map. I was reasonably happy with the current solution, which has a sea hex between Bristol and Cardiff. It meant the Severn Tunnel got built to the north-west of Bristol, and Newport was rather to the north of its actual location, but I could live with that. Then, when I added a tight curve on the Bristol side of the sea hex, I noticed another option. That hex has always included a shallow curve on the Cardiff side; the addition of the new curve produced a pattern that could be upgraded to a brown tile, to add a straight track between Bristol and Cardiff. So instead of a sea hex, I've made this a green hex, upgradable from phase 5 onwards (at a cost), and the Severn Tunnel can now run in the right place.
This suggested an alternative fix for the Forth and Tay estuaries. Instead of collapsing them to a single hexside, I think I can change the intervening hex to a green hex. As with the Severn Tunnel, this can be upgraded from phase 5 onwards at a cost. With only a single tight curve on the green hex, this upgrade has more options than the Severn equivalent.
I'm pretty satisfied with these changes. Each of them improve the relevant area of the map and fix particular problems.
To start with, I've fixed the problem I noted in a previous post. Companies now have to pay to build through difficult terrain (and can still only do so from phase 5 onwards). I've changed the map in Northern England so that the only north-south route along the Pennines requires two such payments. To make this work, I've also moved Carlisle one hex south-east, so that only one hex lies between Carlisle and Newcastle.
The introduction of a cost for building through difficult terrain (brown hexsides) has a knock-on effect in Scotland. I had brown hexsides for both the Forth and Tay estuaries, which meant that companies would have to pay twice to build the route from Edinburgh to Dundee This is a route I actually want to encourage. In one attempt to fix this, I've collapsed Fife to a single hexside, moving Perth and Dundee one hex south. This seems to work, although it removes some track building options in the area. I was pleased when a change on another part of the board suggested another solution, so I'll explain that next.
The area around the Bristol Channel has always caused some hassle on this map. I was reasonably happy with the current solution, which has a sea hex between Bristol and Cardiff. It meant the Severn Tunnel got built to the north-west of Bristol, and Newport was rather to the north of its actual location, but I could live with that. Then, when I added a tight curve on the Bristol side of the sea hex, I noticed another option. That hex has always included a shallow curve on the Cardiff side; the addition of the new curve produced a pattern that could be upgraded to a brown tile, to add a straight track between Bristol and Cardiff. So instead of a sea hex, I've made this a green hex, upgradable from phase 5 onwards (at a cost), and the Severn Tunnel can now run in the right place.
This suggested an alternative fix for the Forth and Tay estuaries. Instead of collapsing them to a single hexside, I think I can change the intervening hex to a green hex. As with the Severn Tunnel, this can be upgraded from phase 5 onwards at a cost. With only a single tight curve on the green hex, this upgrade has more options than the Severn equivalent.
I'm pretty satisfied with these changes. Each of them improve the relevant area of the map and fix particular problems.
Tuesday 9 February 2010
On Trains and Towns
For a while, I struggled to find a good way of dealing with the towns that 18xx games represent as small stations, those in which companies cannot place markers. At the start of the game, I wanted 2 trains to run through them (either skipping them as in 1861 or scoring their income as in 18EU). Soon after, I wanted them to block 2 and 3 trains from connecting stations that I deem to be "too far" apart for small trains - such as London to Manchester. Later on, I wanted 5 or 6 trains to be able to run through them. This was, of course, contradictory.
I came up with two solutions, which led to a short discussion on the 18xx list. The first was to limit the number of hexes that trains could run in addition to the number of towns & cities they can call at. So 2 trains would be limited to 5 hexes, 3 trains to 7 hexes, 5 trains to 11 hexes, and so on. You could call these 2/5H, 3/7H, ... trains. (I don't want to just use hex trains because other parts of the map have plenty of cities in close proximity and hex trains would make fortunes).
The second solution was to use + trains, e.g. 2+1 trains that can call at 2 cities and 1 town, 3+1 trains that can call at 3 cities and 1 town (or 2 cities and 2 towns), and so on.
The clear preference from the 18xx list was for the + trains, which agreed with my own intuition. Another suggestion was to use "N of M" trains, which can call at M stations but only count income from N of them (allowing them to skip low value stations). I think the + trains fit my game better, because I don't want trains to skip low value large stations.
Like many solutions, this one looks obvious in retrospect. It took several weeks of pondering and I only stumbled upon the answer when setting up a game of 1812, which uses them.
I came up with two solutions, which led to a short discussion on the 18xx list. The first was to limit the number of hexes that trains could run in addition to the number of towns & cities they can call at. So 2 trains would be limited to 5 hexes, 3 trains to 7 hexes, 5 trains to 11 hexes, and so on. You could call these 2/5H, 3/7H, ... trains. (I don't want to just use hex trains because other parts of the map have plenty of cities in close proximity and hex trains would make fortunes).
The second solution was to use + trains, e.g. 2+1 trains that can call at 2 cities and 1 town, 3+1 trains that can call at 3 cities and 1 town (or 2 cities and 2 towns), and so on.
The clear preference from the 18xx list was for the + trains, which agreed with my own intuition. Another suggestion was to use "N of M" trains, which can call at M stations but only count income from N of them (allowing them to skip low value stations). I think the + trains fit my game better, because I don't want trains to skip low value large stations.
Like many solutions, this one looks obvious in retrospect. It took several weeks of pondering and I only stumbled upon the answer when setting up a game of 1812, which uses them.
Monday 1 February 2010
The Blind Spot
There's always the risk, when designing a game, that you miss something obvious. I've just noticed such an example. I essayed a simple rule for difficult terrain: certain hexsides may not have track laid across them until a certain point of the game. The idea is that by that time, Victorian engineering had advanced and could build routes such as the Severn Tunnel, the Forth Bridge or the Settle-Carlisle line. It's a nice, simple rule.
What I hadn't noticed was that it allowed a company to build track straight along the Pennines and into the Scottish Lowlands, by-passing both Newcastle and Carlisle. This would be rather unhistorical and would affect game balance too.
So I have to do better. One obvious fix would be to make companies pay every time they build across such a hexside. Then someone could build the Pennine Way, if they had enough money and enough incentive. And this would be entirely consistent with other 18xx games.
Another fix would be to add some impassable hexsides, so that the route would not even be possible.
I need to experiment to work out which is best.
What I hadn't noticed was that it allowed a company to build track straight along the Pennines and into the Scottish Lowlands, by-passing both Newcastle and Carlisle. This would be rather unhistorical and would affect game balance too.
So I have to do better. One obvious fix would be to make companies pay every time they build across such a hexside. Then someone could build the Pennine Way, if they had enough money and enough incentive. And this would be entirely consistent with other 18xx games.
Another fix would be to add some impassable hexsides, so that the route would not even be possible.
I need to experiment to work out which is best.
Saturday 23 January 2010
The Big Four?
Perhaps the most significant change in the history of British railways was the grouping of 1921-3, in which the existing railways were forced to amalgamate into the Big Four (LNER, LMS, GWR and Southern Railways). I had been planning to end Britain Under Steam before this point, but now that I'm adding rules for mergers, I can revisit that choice.
I'm thinking of requiring that in the final phase of the game, each player may only own a single company. The idea is that they would merge their other companies into that company (or let them wither completely). I would add a special merger round in which every company would get the chance to merge, followed by a stock round in which each player must end with only one directorship.
To this, I could add grey tiles with only a single station circle. So if a company can promote a city to a grey tile, it would gain exclusive control of that city. I'm undecided as to whether it could forcibly remove other company's markers or whether this upgrade would only be permitted if a company has the only marker in the city. This would need playtesting, of course.
I'm also unsure whether the final mergers should be initiated by the parent company or by the merging company. In my current rules for mergers, I've required both directors to agree to the merger. (Usually the two directorships will be help by the same player). But in the final merger, you could have each company choose which other company to merge into, so that all companies are included in the merger. The main point of interest is what would happen to the share price. You could see a player deliberately running down one of their lesser companies and merging it into another player's company, to drag back their opponent's share price. It's an intriguing idea.
I'm thinking of requiring that in the final phase of the game, each player may only own a single company. The idea is that they would merge their other companies into that company (or let them wither completely). I would add a special merger round in which every company would get the chance to merge, followed by a stock round in which each player must end with only one directorship.
To this, I could add grey tiles with only a single station circle. So if a company can promote a city to a grey tile, it would gain exclusive control of that city. I'm undecided as to whether it could forcibly remove other company's markers or whether this upgrade would only be permitted if a company has the only marker in the city. This would need playtesting, of course.
I'm also unsure whether the final mergers should be initiated by the parent company or by the merging company. In my current rules for mergers, I've required both directors to agree to the merger. (Usually the two directorships will be help by the same player). But in the final merger, you could have each company choose which other company to merge into, so that all companies are included in the merger. The main point of interest is what would happen to the share price. You could see a player deliberately running down one of their lesser companies and merging it into another player's company, to drag back their opponent's share price. It's an intriguing idea.
Wednesday 13 January 2010
Historical population
Ian D. Wilson kindly pointed me at the Vision of Britain web site. Buried therein is information about the population of British cities and administrative areas from 1801 to the present day. This is very useful as an indication of the relative wealth of different cities. It's less helpful for towns, as these entries tend to include the population of the surrounding areas.
Another relevant site is the Wikipedia page on Towns and Cities in England by Historical Population.
From this data, I've produced a list of possible changes to my game map. These will have to be balanced against their effect on the game, of course.
In some cases, I'm having to choose between showing a town which has an important rail junction and a larger town that has more wealth but less direct impact on the rail network. For example, Rugby is a small town. Nearby Northampton is more economically significant, but the important junction is at the smaller of the two.
Another relevant site is the Wikipedia page on Towns and Cities in England by Historical Population.
From this data, I've produced a list of possible changes to my game map. These will have to be balanced against their effect on the game, of course.
In some cases, I'm having to choose between showing a town which has an important rail junction and a larger town that has more wealth but less direct impact on the rail network. For example, Rugby is a small town. Nearby Northampton is more economically significant, but the important junction is at the smaller of the two.
Tuesday 5 January 2010
To merge, or not to merge?
I'm wondering whether to include the ability to merge companies in the later phases of the game. Historically, the major companies did not merge until they were grouped into the Big Four in 1923. But some of them did work together, for example to run trains along the length of the East Coast and West Coast Main Lines. So a game merger would not represent a literal reformation of the companies, but would reflect growing co-operation between the companies.
My reason for contemplating this change to the design is that I'm still worried about managing the number of companies. If they each have to own a permanent train, that will be a lot of time spent calculating income. It could undo the benefits that I hope to gain from a simpler income mechanism.
It might also have a desirable side-effect in reducing the number of company markers that might be in play. This in turn would let me simplify the tile upgrade paths in some cases. This is not a major consideration, just a "might be nice" outcome.
If I adopted this approach, I would allow companies to merge once the brown tiles are available. Two five-share companies would merge to form a ten-share company. A ten-share company could merge with another company by swapping shares on a two-for-one basis, as in 1841.
An alternative might be for me to combine some companies at the outset. For example, I could decree that the GNR and NER would be represented by a single company in the game. Possibly the LYR and the MSLR could be similarly combined for game purposes. Or the LYR could be combined with the Caledonian, the NER with the NBR, and the MSLR with the Midland.
These are just musings at present. More testing is needed!
My reason for contemplating this change to the design is that I'm still worried about managing the number of companies. If they each have to own a permanent train, that will be a lot of time spent calculating income. It could undo the benefits that I hope to gain from a simpler income mechanism.
It might also have a desirable side-effect in reducing the number of company markers that might be in play. This in turn would let me simplify the tile upgrade paths in some cases. This is not a major consideration, just a "might be nice" outcome.
If I adopted this approach, I would allow companies to merge once the brown tiles are available. Two five-share companies would merge to form a ten-share company. A ten-share company could merge with another company by swapping shares on a two-for-one basis, as in 1841.
An alternative might be for me to combine some companies at the outset. For example, I could decree that the GNR and NER would be represented by a single company in the game. Possibly the LYR and the MSLR could be similarly combined for game purposes. Or the LYR could be combined with the Caledonian, the NER with the NBR, and the MSLR with the Midland.
These are just musings at present. More testing is needed!
Monday 4 January 2010
Long Distance
The geography of rail routes in Britain focuses largely on the main lines that run from one end of the country to another. The basic 18xx game system does not favour long routes over more convoluted ones that connect the same number of cities in a smaller area. So I'm looking for ways of encouraging companies to build these routes.
One approach is the use of bonuses for runs that connect certain cities or off-board areas. Examples include the red-to-red runs in 18EU, the North-South routes in 1812, or the Moscow-Ekaterenin route in 1861. I intend to have some of these, including at least routes from London to Plymouth, Holyhead and Aberdeen.
Another approach is to choose the tile mix to encourage certain styles of route. For example, in 1830, the only yellow tile that can be laid on a city is a straight. My current plans are to have no tight curve yellow tiles on cities or towns, thus encouraging the development of through routes. (Interestingly, this is in contrast to 1829 and 1825). I'm also not including green tiles #28 and #29 (with tight and shallow curves), so that upgrades of plain tight curves will also favour through routes.
I did consider banning tight curves altogether, including when tracing routes through more complex tiles, but this doesn't work in practice.
As an aside, I have found that the track building works well if the only yellow tile I allow on towns is one with a shallow curve. I.e. I exclude straight tiles as well as tight curves. This allows me to use towns to block direct routes between certain cities in the early game, which is very useful for balancing the companies.
I also considered providing a bonus for running the shortest route between two locations, or banning train routes that took a longer path than the most direct one. This could get rather complicated, so I will hold it in reserve. What I might do is to give a reward at the start of each stock round to the company with the shortest route on the red-to-red equivalents. This would reward track building without complicating the calculation of income during the stock round.
One approach is the use of bonuses for runs that connect certain cities or off-board areas. Examples include the red-to-red runs in 18EU, the North-South routes in 1812, or the Moscow-Ekaterenin route in 1861. I intend to have some of these, including at least routes from London to Plymouth, Holyhead and Aberdeen.
Another approach is to choose the tile mix to encourage certain styles of route. For example, in 1830, the only yellow tile that can be laid on a city is a straight. My current plans are to have no tight curve yellow tiles on cities or towns, thus encouraging the development of through routes. (Interestingly, this is in contrast to 1829 and 1825). I'm also not including green tiles #28 and #29 (with tight and shallow curves), so that upgrades of plain tight curves will also favour through routes.
I did consider banning tight curves altogether, including when tracing routes through more complex tiles, but this doesn't work in practice.
As an aside, I have found that the track building works well if the only yellow tile I allow on towns is one with a shallow curve. I.e. I exclude straight tiles as well as tight curves. This allows me to use towns to block direct routes between certain cities in the early game, which is very useful for balancing the companies.
I also considered providing a bonus for running the shortest route between two locations, or banning train routes that took a longer path than the most direct one. This could get rather complicated, so I will hold it in reserve. What I might do is to give a reward at the start of each stock round to the company with the shortest route on the red-to-red equivalents. This would reward track building without complicating the calculation of income during the stock round.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
