WIth regard to the main game report, at least all I am discussing at this point is just the train mix at this point. I have no major changes to the rules arising from Sunday's game, which is a pleasant state to be in.
I may tweak the tile mix and the value of bonus routes. The bonus routes tended to dominate this game more than they have done in the past. This is probably because the bonuses are now easier to claim, using multiple trains instead of requiring a single train to make the connection. One example of this was that London to Hull was a more profitable route than, say, London to Leeds or London to Manchester, which seems wrong. I will check whether this was just a trick of how the track was built in this game but I suspect I will reduce the value of that bonus. I may also reduce the value of the London to Milford Haven bonus.
The fact that these are small tweaks suggests that the overall design is currently fairly stable. If I can achieve a good train mix, the game might be ready for some wider playtesting. I suspect that playing it with a different group of players will reveal a different set of problems!
Tuesday 13 March 2012
A four-player game
We played my first test game with four players at the weekend. It had a very slow start, hardly any stock selling, and a winner from the off. I think these three observations were related.
The winning player paid £12 for the L&M private, assigned it to the LYR and was soon running for £15 (£3 a share) with double jumps in stock price. This is a strong combination and he leveraged his early gaines throughout the game.
If my records are correct, the 2+1 trains lasted until OR7! I only question my records because they seem to show six 3+1 trains and we were supposed to be playing with five. Even five is one more than I had previously specified for four players. After our last game, my playtesters criticised the shortage of trains in the mid-game so I adjusted the mix slightly. On the evidence of this game, I shall be adjusting it back.
The long time before the arrival of the 4+1 trains (which are what killed the 2+1's) had a several effects. The leading player could consolidate his position without losing trains. No companies could convert to ten-share companies. Hence the number of station markers available was limited, so it was difficult to block the routes of the leading player.
The later stages of the game saw some more variety and I at least managed to close the gap somewhat. As my GWR finished with a 6X and a 5+2, I could have done better if I'd had more faith and bought more shares in my own company.
From a design point of view, the question is why was the game so slow to develop. Was it purely down to the train mix or did it follow from the choices of the players? With one person clearly leading, the rest of us should have been trying to stop him, but we chose to buy paying shares rather than push the trains, and we didn't set about blocking the LYR route (which would have been harder than it sounds, given the nature of track-building in 18GB).
We are a fairly cautious group but I think my recent change to the train mix needs to be reversed. Until the 4+1 trains don't come out, the strategic options are limited. If the mid-game truly needs more trains, then it would probably be better to add an extra 4+1.
The winning player paid £12 for the L&M private, assigned it to the LYR and was soon running for £15 (£3 a share) with double jumps in stock price. This is a strong combination and he leveraged his early gaines throughout the game.
If my records are correct, the 2+1 trains lasted until OR7! I only question my records because they seem to show six 3+1 trains and we were supposed to be playing with five. Even five is one more than I had previously specified for four players. After our last game, my playtesters criticised the shortage of trains in the mid-game so I adjusted the mix slightly. On the evidence of this game, I shall be adjusting it back.
The long time before the arrival of the 4+1 trains (which are what killed the 2+1's) had a several effects. The leading player could consolidate his position without losing trains. No companies could convert to ten-share companies. Hence the number of station markers available was limited, so it was difficult to block the routes of the leading player.
The later stages of the game saw some more variety and I at least managed to close the gap somewhat. As my GWR finished with a 6X and a 5+2, I could have done better if I'd had more faith and bought more shares in my own company.
From a design point of view, the question is why was the game so slow to develop. Was it purely down to the train mix or did it follow from the choices of the players? With one person clearly leading, the rest of us should have been trying to stop him, but we chose to buy paying shares rather than push the trains, and we didn't set about blocking the LYR route (which would have been harder than it sounds, given the nature of track-building in 18GB).
We are a fairly cautious group but I think my recent change to the train mix needs to be reversed. Until the 4+1 trains don't come out, the strategic options are limited. If the mid-game truly needs more trains, then it would probably be better to add an extra 4+1.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
