My first test game, back in November, revealed that my choice of express trains did not work. I had taken the 4+4E trains from 1825, which can run any number of stations, take income from any four of those, and double it. On the 18GB map, these were more useful on relatively short routes rather than the long routes I had in mind (such as London to Aberdeen). It turned out that the ordinary 6 trains were running longer routes than the expresses.
I've got a better idea for express trains and they incorporate a mechanism I've only seen in one other 18xx game. (Typically for me, the idea comes from Mike Hutton). My 6E trains will count up to 6 stations and then add the distance between the start and end points. So running from London to Edinburgh will score more than connecting 6 cities in the North of England, because the bonus for the distance will increase the income significantly. I hope.
I'd also like to replace the ordinary 6 train, again so that the longer routes are run by the expresses. I think I can introduce a 4E to fill this slot. This has the additional effect of further encouraging five-share companies to convert to ten-share companies earlier, because only ten-share companies can own express trains.
This leaves only one problem, which is that there might not be enough trains left for five-share companies. The 4 trains will disappear when the first 6e is bought, leaving just the 5-trains. So I plan to add some 3T and 4T trains (tank engines) as well. These will replace the 3+1 and 4+1 trains. In practice they will be pretty similar to the trains they replace, except that there will be fewer of them and they will be able to run through an unlimited number of towns instead of just one.
I'll be interested to see how these work. I'm quite hopeful, although a little nervous about the 3T and 4T trains.
Wednesday 16 February 2011
Saturday 5 February 2011
Sensitive initial conditions
One consequence of my simplified dividends system is that the relative worth of companies is very sensitive to small changes in income, particularly at the start of the game. If one company has an income of 100 while another is bringing in 90, the former will pay out 20/share and the latter only 10/share (assuming 5-share companies). So a small change in income can have a dramatic effect if it crosses a boundary from one level of dividends to another.
Major changes of income are fine. If a company buys a second (or third) train, then it is only right that its dividends should increase. Indeed, if one company's dividends were to increase as a result of buying a second train, while another's second train didn't quite make enough to pay higher dividends, then this would be just as much a problem.
So I've been carefully checking the potential incomes of each company at the start of the game, using various different values for different sizes of city. To make them balance, I've had to reduce the initial value of the larger cities. I'm happy to try the game with these reduced values. It could be argued that the previous incomes were too high, leading to player incomes growing too quickly.
I did notice that if I also reduced the initial value of 2-station cities, then the presence of towns on a route made an important difference, as they gave an extra income using the "+1" of a "2+1" train. The consequence is that while the sums worked for companies in most parts of the board, those in the crowded North of England lost out because there is no space to put towns between the cities. Pursuing this line of exploration further, I considered making towns worth zero, so that they are just obstacles preventing the creation of certain routes early in the game. This worked, but I don't like the "feel" of making them worse than plain hexes. I also considered adding "2H" trains, which would run for only 2 hexes but would give an additional income equivalent to a town. I think this would work and I may return to this idea in the future.
For now, I have some values that seem to work. The next step is to do more modelling of how player incomes grow at the start of the game, taking account of the cost of shares.
Major changes of income are fine. If a company buys a second (or third) train, then it is only right that its dividends should increase. Indeed, if one company's dividends were to increase as a result of buying a second train, while another's second train didn't quite make enough to pay higher dividends, then this would be just as much a problem.
So I've been carefully checking the potential incomes of each company at the start of the game, using various different values for different sizes of city. To make them balance, I've had to reduce the initial value of the larger cities. I'm happy to try the game with these reduced values. It could be argued that the previous incomes were too high, leading to player incomes growing too quickly.
I did notice that if I also reduced the initial value of 2-station cities, then the presence of towns on a route made an important difference, as they gave an extra income using the "+1" of a "2+1" train. The consequence is that while the sums worked for companies in most parts of the board, those in the crowded North of England lost out because there is no space to put towns between the cities. Pursuing this line of exploration further, I considered making towns worth zero, so that they are just obstacles preventing the creation of certain routes early in the game. This worked, but I don't like the "feel" of making them worse than plain hexes. I also considered adding "2H" trains, which would run for only 2 hexes but would give an additional income equivalent to a town. I think this would work and I may return to this idea in the future.
For now, I have some values that seem to work. The next step is to do more modelling of how player incomes grow at the start of the game, taking account of the cost of shares.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
