More streamlining?

In my most recent post, I reported on changes to address the third-company problem.  Players that managed to buy a third company had been winning a disproportionate number of games.  I'm very pleased to say that the changes seem to have fixed this problem.  So now I'm back to trying to streamline the game as much as I can. 

One of the fixes for the third-company problem was to change the number of shares required to be bought before a company starts, from 40% at the start of the game to 60% in later phases.  This is a new example of a rule that changes depending on the phase of the game, adding to several such rules that already exist. These rules can complicate play and run the risk that players will forget them.  So in a recent game, I tried removing as many of these rules as I could manage:

- Companies required 60% to float from the start
- Companies could be started as five-share or ten-share companies at any time, instead of changing halfway through the game.
- Five-share companies could convert to ten-share in any phase.
- Five-share companies in receivership would always convert, regardless of phase.
- As a side-effect of the above, companies could buy trains from each other in any phase, instead of from the green phase onwards.

These changes noticeably simplified the phase change chart and gave players fewer things to remember.

The two changes regarding conversion worked fine.  In general, players avoided converting early anyway, because they would have lost income and their companies were still quite low on the stock market.  I'll probably keep this change.  As well as simplifying the rules, it opens an extra option for play, which may be useful in some circumstances.

Allowing companies to start as ten-share was not a problem at the start of the game, as no-one could afford to take this option, but the two companies started with ten shares during the blue phase went on to be the frontrunners.  This seems unbalanced.   While I might be able to make it work, it seems a step backwards from a working game and so I will drop this idea.

The 60% rule worked, in that it produced a playable game.  It may also remove a minor issue of balance in the second stock round, in which weaker companies would tend to have their shares sold, thus dropping their share price and making them even worse companies.  With the 60% rule, players couldn't afford to cross-invest in the first stock round, which made this issue go away.  This change also makes it easier for me, as designer, to judge the number of each train type required, because players won't be able to start two companies in the first stock round. 

However, that exact effect - of making it impossible to start two companies in the first stock round - removes options from the players and variation from the game.  It's been a feature of the design from the start and I'm loathe to drop it.  So I'm not yet convinced by this change.

The final change, regarding buying trains, was not an issue, again because players couldn't start two companies early enough in the game for it to matter.  I can probably drop this restriction anyway, thanks in part to some recent tweaks to train prices and the train mix.  I'll investigate this further to be sure but I think this change can stand.

In summary, three changes out of five seem likely to remain.  The 60% rule could remain too, but I think the benefits in terms of simplification are outweighed by the loss of player choices.