After quite a lot of revisions and a couple of solo games, last weekend we played a first proper game with conventional finances and the revised map and city tiles. As the tiles will need to be revised anyway, I also experimented with replacing the Lawson-style plain track tiles with the 1830/1825-style curvilinear tiles. And for good measure, I also experimented with having the 4+1 trains discarded when the first 5X train was purchased, instead of the 6X. Overall, the test game went well.
The new map and tiles seem to work well. The reduced income from cities keeps the overall level of money in the game in line with the old system. The changes do seem to mean that companies convert at slightly lower share values but the game seems to cope with this.
There is still some snagging needed on the initial values. The special ability of the Liverpool and Manchester private railway isn’t worth the loss of income from closing the private, so I will need to adjust something here. I also want to consider whether I’ve got the best starting value for the OOO cities. As these affect the components, I will need to resolve these issues before I make the next version of the game available for wider playtesting.
The curvilinear track worked, in combination with some map changes around Peterborough and Grimsby. I had used this style of track way back when I first started the design of 18GB but at one point the testers found the combination of this track and the other unique tiles in 18GB too complicated. Since then, I have simplified some aspects of the other track (e.g. removing double-town tiles) and people have got more used to it, so they coped OK this time. The advantage of the change is that it gives better definition to the different routes (and thus slightly more variety between games) and makes accidental connections between different routes slightly less likely.
The change in train obsolescence wasn’t so good. Although I enjoyed seeing four Insolvent companies, rather like games of 1860, the lost opportunity to withhold income and buy more express trains didn’t really work. 18GB is just a different game from 1860, despite significant overlap in some aspects of the rules.
In summary, I still have some work to do before the next release, but it is looking good. My local group adjusted to the conventional finances without too much complaining, so hopefully the changes will remove a significant barrier from others adopting the game.
Sunday, 8 December 2013
Tuesday, 30 April 2013
What if ... Rethinking Carlisle
Currently, if a Company manages to run a 6X train on the route of the East Coast Main Line (ECML), with all cities fully developed, that route will generate £500. The equivalent train running on the West Coast Main Line (WCML) would generate £480. In 18GB as it stands, this is a significant difference. The ECML route will yield £50/share for a ten-share company while the WCML will only yield £40/share, thanks to the rounding rule.
This is deliberate, because it is harder to get markers in the places necessary to run the ECML route. The WCML route is comparatively open, with Preston being the main bottleneck.
If I were to remove the rounding rule, the WCML train would yield £48/share, which is not a significant difference from the ECML train. This would remove some of the incentive to complete the ECML. Therefore I'm wondering about options to make the WCML a little tougher to complete.
My main idea is to change Carlisle from being a relatively open city, with three station spaces, to an ordinary single-station city. This would offer more options for blocking routes through Carlisle. Even when the hex is upgraded to a brown tile, it would still have only two two station spaces. So the West Coast route might become as challenging (or nearly so) as the East Coast route, making for a tighter tile-laying game overall.
A consequence of this change is that the tempo of tile lays would change, i.e. it would take an extra tile action to build through Carlisle. So I'm thinking I would introduce a new Private Railway, the Newcastle and Carlisle (NC), that would offer an extra tile action in Carlisle. This Private could possible replace the Stockton & Darlington and its atypical influence of controlling the start of the NER.
I could even give the NC the ability to lay a free station marker in Carlisle. This would certainly intensify the competition for the WCML route.
In some ways, this seems quite appealing. I like the competition for routes in 18GB and this change would add to that. However, I think the current map is probably a better game overall, with its choice between a relatively open route and a higher-paying but more challenging route.
This is deliberate, because it is harder to get markers in the places necessary to run the ECML route. The WCML route is comparatively open, with Preston being the main bottleneck.
If I were to remove the rounding rule, the WCML train would yield £48/share, which is not a significant difference from the ECML train. This would remove some of the incentive to complete the ECML. Therefore I'm wondering about options to make the WCML a little tougher to complete.
My main idea is to change Carlisle from being a relatively open city, with three station spaces, to an ordinary single-station city. This would offer more options for blocking routes through Carlisle. Even when the hex is upgraded to a brown tile, it would still have only two two station spaces. So the West Coast route might become as challenging (or nearly so) as the East Coast route, making for a tighter tile-laying game overall.
A consequence of this change is that the tempo of tile lays would change, i.e. it would take an extra tile action to build through Carlisle. So I'm thinking I would introduce a new Private Railway, the Newcastle and Carlisle (NC), that would offer an extra tile action in Carlisle. This Private could possible replace the Stockton & Darlington and its atypical influence of controlling the start of the NER.
I could even give the NC the ability to lay a free station marker in Carlisle. This would certainly intensify the competition for the WCML route.
In some ways, this seems quite appealing. I like the competition for routes in 18GB and this change would add to that. However, I think the current map is probably a better game overall, with its choice between a relatively open route and a higher-paying but more challenging route.
What if ... Private Railways?
One place where removing the rounding rule for financing would definitely have an impact in 18GB is on the design of some of the Private Railways. In particular, the Liverpool and Manchester (LM) is designed so that its +£20 bonus can tip the LYR from earning £20/share to £30/share, by increasing the nominal income from two trains from £130 to £150. If that £130 were not rounded down, the increase would be less, from £26/share to £30/share.
As the LM provides an income of £30, it becomes less clear that assigning the LM to the LYR is such a worthwhile move. This then affects the play of the game noticeably, changing it from its current design.
From a design point of view, Private Railways have to pay enough income to be worth buying. Given that level of income, the value to be gained by assigning the Private Railway to a Company needs to be correspondingly significant. It isn't clear to me that those Private Railways that give bonus income are going to be as worth assigning if I remove the 18GB rounding mechanism. The consequense of this is that I might need to rethink which Private Railways are worth how much, or what special abilities they might have.
As for other aspects considered in these "What if ... " posts, these changes would require significant playtesting to get right.
As the LM provides an income of £30, it becomes less clear that assigning the LM to the LYR is such a worthwhile move. This then affects the play of the game noticeably, changing it from its current design.
From a design point of view, Private Railways have to pay enough income to be worth buying. Given that level of income, the value to be gained by assigning the Private Railway to a Company needs to be correspondingly significant. It isn't clear to me that those Private Railways that give bonus income are going to be as worth assigning if I remove the 18GB rounding mechanism. The consequense of this is that I might need to rethink which Private Railways are worth how much, or what special abilities they might have.
As for other aspects considered in these "What if ... " posts, these changes would require significant playtesting to get right.
What if ... lower income?
In the previous post, I pondered whether adopting the standard 18xx finance mechanism would have a major impact on the game. In this post, I consider what consequences might arise if I then reduced the income generated by trains to compensate, so that less income was generated in the first place. Basically, I would be attempting to bring the average income back down to that generated by my non-standard mechanism. For example, I might reduce the values of some cities.
One consequence of this change would be that companies would be less likely to achieve double jumps on the Stock Exchange in the early game. Without this change, companies can often float at £70 and gain an income of £140. With trains generating less income, companies would probably have to run three trains to get the double jump. Not all companies are positioned to run three trains so this change would alter the balance between starting companies.
I would also need to revisit the likely incomes for different companies in the opening game. Currently the game is designed to make the companies roughly equal in starting income, while having different options for the longer game. There are some exceptions to this general rule, either companies with less initial income and likely long-term prospects, or vice versa, but roughly speaking I consider the companies to be balanced. Removing the rounding rule, and additionally changing the value of cities, could noticeably affect this.
In the later part of the game, this change would reduce the income of companies with permanent trains, again affecting the number of jumps in stock price. This might actually make for a tighter game, with a closer balance between those companies that maintain a high stock price and those companies that withhold and then race to catch up.
Another consequence is that companies might take longer to reach the top of the Stock Exchange. This would make the game would last another OR or two, whereas at the moment I think it is quite well balanced. So I might need to remove a space or two from the top of the Stock Exchange.
All this would require some careful analysis to adjust the balance and a lot of playtesting to check whether the changes worked in practice. I'm not sure I have the stomach for this right now!
One consequence of this change would be that companies would be less likely to achieve double jumps on the Stock Exchange in the early game. Without this change, companies can often float at £70 and gain an income of £140. With trains generating less income, companies would probably have to run three trains to get the double jump. Not all companies are positioned to run three trains so this change would alter the balance between starting companies.
I would also need to revisit the likely incomes for different companies in the opening game. Currently the game is designed to make the companies roughly equal in starting income, while having different options for the longer game. There are some exceptions to this general rule, either companies with less initial income and likely long-term prospects, or vice versa, but roughly speaking I consider the companies to be balanced. Removing the rounding rule, and additionally changing the value of cities, could noticeably affect this.
In the later part of the game, this change would reduce the income of companies with permanent trains, again affecting the number of jumps in stock price. This might actually make for a tighter game, with a closer balance between those companies that maintain a high stock price and those companies that withhold and then race to catch up.
Another consequence is that companies might take longer to reach the top of the Stock Exchange. This would make the game would last another OR or two, whereas at the moment I think it is quite well balanced. So I might need to remove a space or two from the top of the Stock Exchange.
All this would require some careful analysis to adjust the balance and a lot of playtesting to check whether the changes worked in practice. I'm not sure I have the stomach for this right now!
What if ... higher income?
A couple of my playtesters are sceptical of the divide by 10 approach to 18xx finances in 18GB. I'm trying to encouraging them to try using the treasury tracks instead of chips, as the main aim and alleged benefit of the 18GB system is to make chips redundant. Even so, the scepticism has piqued my interest into what would need to change if I did revert 18GB to the standard 18xx system. I will examine that idea in this and subsequent posts.
Note: in the rest of this blog article, I will write amounts in the classic 18xx level, i.e. without dividing by 10, to make all comparisons clear.
My initial thought is that if I were to adopt the standard 18xx mechanism, then there would be more money entering the game. 18GB is designed so that a single train in the yellow phase generates £50 income, paying £10 to each share in a five-share company. The nominal value of the run may be higher but the actual amount is always rounded down to £50. This is similar to the income from 2-trains in classic 18xx games such as 1830 or 1825; probably a little bit greater.
In 18GB, that nominal income of a 2+1 or 3 train is likely to be £70 or £80, paying £14 or £16 per share. So if this were not rounded down, there would be 40% or 60% more money entering the game, which in theory would give players the wherewithal to buy more shares sooner. But when I try this with some actual figures, I'm not sure the effect will be significant.
If you start the game with a typical holding of three shares and £30 of private income, your income in the second OR could be £84 instead of £60. Add on the private income from the first OR and your total income would be £114 instead of £90. So arguably this would make little difference unless shares are available at £100.
In the next pair of ORs, the difference could become more significant, as company incomes increase and some private income disappears. If you now own four shares across a couple of companies that have a nominal income of £130 instead of £100, then your income for the two ORs would be £104 instead of £80. Again, that isn't a massive increase.
I would like to revisit one of my spreadsheet games to see how this effect might play out in later operating rounds. It looks like it might have less impact than I originally thought, but my gut feeling is that it must make a difference at some point.
Another immediate consequence of the change is that the differences between the companies would be more significant. Currently, the rounding down of income tends to remove minor distinctions between the incomes of different companies in the opening rounds. I wonder whether the introduction of small differences would have more impact and hence lead to more stereotyped opening play, with players always favouring certain companies.
Note: in the rest of this blog article, I will write amounts in the classic 18xx level, i.e. without dividing by 10, to make all comparisons clear.
My initial thought is that if I were to adopt the standard 18xx mechanism, then there would be more money entering the game. 18GB is designed so that a single train in the yellow phase generates £50 income, paying £10 to each share in a five-share company. The nominal value of the run may be higher but the actual amount is always rounded down to £50. This is similar to the income from 2-trains in classic 18xx games such as 1830 or 1825; probably a little bit greater.
In 18GB, that nominal income of a 2+1 or 3 train is likely to be £70 or £80, paying £14 or £16 per share. So if this were not rounded down, there would be 40% or 60% more money entering the game, which in theory would give players the wherewithal to buy more shares sooner. But when I try this with some actual figures, I'm not sure the effect will be significant.
If you start the game with a typical holding of three shares and £30 of private income, your income in the second OR could be £84 instead of £60. Add on the private income from the first OR and your total income would be £114 instead of £90. So arguably this would make little difference unless shares are available at £100.
In the next pair of ORs, the difference could become more significant, as company incomes increase and some private income disappears. If you now own four shares across a couple of companies that have a nominal income of £130 instead of £100, then your income for the two ORs would be £104 instead of £80. Again, that isn't a massive increase.
I would like to revisit one of my spreadsheet games to see how this effect might play out in later operating rounds. It looks like it might have less impact than I originally thought, but my gut feeling is that it must make a difference at some point.
Another immediate consequence of the change is that the differences between the companies would be more significant. Currently, the rounding down of income tends to remove minor distinctions between the incomes of different companies in the opening rounds. I wonder whether the introduction of small differences would have more impact and hence lead to more stereotyped opening play, with players always favouring certain companies.
Monday, 17 December 2012
Playtest version available
I have uploaded a playtest version of 18GB to the web. If you would like to take a look, please mail me or leave a comment below.
Currently I only have an A4 sized version. I hope to upload a letter version sometime but this will involve redrawing the map so it won't be available soon.
Currently I only have an A4 sized version. I hope to upload a letter version sometime but this will involve redrawing the map so it won't be available soon.
Wednesday, 28 November 2012
Bouncing to a win
I was happy enough with my tuning of the game to organise another playtest last weekend. I was very pleased with the outcome: the players enjoyed it, one saying he preferred it to some published games that we've played before. My reorganisation of the train mix and game end conditions seem to have cracked the problem of the end game, and the removal of the double-town tiles has simplified route building while keeping the challenge posed by the more important hexes.
We did encounter one interested feature towards the end of the game. As in several 18xx games, if a company's share price is in one of the lowest areas on the stock market, shares in that company don't count against a player's certificate limit. In the penultimate stock round of Sunday's game, the GWSR was valued this low and my two opponents had spare cash to buy up all the shares. So far, so good (for me as a designer, if not me as a player).
By the next stock round, the share price had risen out of this zone and hence the players had to sell some shares. They chose to sell the GSWR, which knocked its share price back down so much that they no longer counted against certificate limits. As my opponents had sold shares in the GSWR, I was the only player able to buy them and I quickly bought all ten of them. This was enough to win me the game.
This seemed a little unsatisfactory, because all the manouevring, stock trading and blocking until then counted for little in the final outcome. In retrospect, we worked out that my opponents could have prevented the share price from falling so far back if they had sold some other shares instead, which would have kept me from the win. Still, it seems a large swing at the end of the game from a single decision. I'm musing about maybe changing the rules so that shares in the low-value zone only count half for the certificate limit, rather than not counting at all. This would still give an incentive to buy them, while retaining a trade-off against other stock.
(I think the reason that this doesn't occur in other 18xx games arises from other differences in the design. In 1825, for example, shares don't fall in price when they're sold; while in 1830 the stock market is two-dimensional and structured in such a way that if shares move out of the zone, subsequent sales are less likely to drop them back into it).
We did encounter one interested feature towards the end of the game. As in several 18xx games, if a company's share price is in one of the lowest areas on the stock market, shares in that company don't count against a player's certificate limit. In the penultimate stock round of Sunday's game, the GWSR was valued this low and my two opponents had spare cash to buy up all the shares. So far, so good (for me as a designer, if not me as a player).
By the next stock round, the share price had risen out of this zone and hence the players had to sell some shares. They chose to sell the GSWR, which knocked its share price back down so much that they no longer counted against certificate limits. As my opponents had sold shares in the GSWR, I was the only player able to buy them and I quickly bought all ten of them. This was enough to win me the game.
This seemed a little unsatisfactory, because all the manouevring, stock trading and blocking until then counted for little in the final outcome. In retrospect, we worked out that my opponents could have prevented the share price from falling so far back if they had sold some other shares instead, which would have kept me from the win. Still, it seems a large swing at the end of the game from a single decision. I'm musing about maybe changing the rules so that shares in the low-value zone only count half for the certificate limit, rather than not counting at all. This would still give an incentive to buy them, while retaining a trade-off against other stock.
(I think the reason that this doesn't occur in other 18xx games arises from other differences in the design. In 1825, for example, shares don't fall in price when they're sold; while in 1830 the stock market is two-dimensional and structured in such a way that if shares move out of the zone, subsequent sales are less likely to drop them back into it).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
