Some readers have encountered problems posting comments to this blog. At first this was because I hadn't changed one of the default settings - by default, the system only lets you comment if you have an online ID of some kind, but I've fixed this now.
To leave a comment, first click on the "comments" link at the bottom of the article. Under the "Post a comment" text entry box, you'll see a drop down list labelled "Comment as". Click on the down arrow and you'll see a set of options. If you have an online account from Google, LiveJournal or one of the other entries, you can use that. Otherwise select "Name/URL". Enter your name in the pop-up box. You can leave the URL box blank, or type in a URL for your home page if you have one. but I'm told the system doesn't accept e-mail addresses in this field.
Then just type your comment in the text entry box and click on Post Comment. You'll be prompted to enter a captcha as an anti-spam measure, but apart from that you'll have posted the comment in your own name.
Saturday, 23 May 2009
More on map size
I've got a rather nice fit of the hex grid with a slightly larger map. With judicious use of off-board areas (for Exeter, the Welsh coast, Norwich, Stranraer and the North of Scotland), I have a map that is 15 hexes long. For the southernmost third, it is 8 hexes wide; then the width drops to 6 hexes for a short section, while the northernmost half of the map is just 4 hexes wide. This gives a total playable area of 86 hexes, which might be just about acceptable.
The result is similar in overall shape and size to 1856, or to 1825 Units 1 & 2 combined. So it would be playable, but possibly slightly bigger than I had in mind.
The result is similar in overall shape and size to 1856, or to 1825 Units 1 & 2 combined. So it would be playable, but possibly slightly bigger than I had in mind.
Wednesday, 20 May 2009
"It's a by-pass. You've got to build by-passes."
Stuart Dagger raises an interesting point - given that the West Coast main line runs between Liverpool and Manchester, calling at neither, how do I plan to represent that historical route in Britain Under Steam? If the map was more detailed, I could include an extra hex between the two cities, but that would require the map to be even larger than 1829/1825.
Actually, I find this strangely liberating. There are a couple of similar areas where I have been trying to tweak the map to allow the historical routes. As examples, I want the LSWR London-Exeter route to pass north of Southampton, and the Hull-Leeds route to pass between York and Doncaster. I might possibly want to represent the Rugby-Stafford route north of Birmingham too. If I can find a suitable mechanism, perhaps I can use it in all such cases.
One approach might be to use new tiles that allow one route to by-pass a city while others go through or into it. Such tiles might give an interesting twist to the game, especially for players familiar with other 18xx titles. There would remain the question of why a train would choose to by-pass a lucrative destination, rather than include the city in its route. One answer might be to by-pass another company's tokens. Another might be to gain some other bonus, such as for the shortest distance or for the longest route - both ideas I am playing with anyway. Or perhaps the tile just won't have a suitable upgrade.
Another approach would be even simpler. I could just assume that the Manchester hex represents the larger conurbation, much as the Birmingham hex includes the cities around Birmingham itself. On this scale, there would be no need to represent the by-pass explicitly. The WCML does stop at Wigan and Warrington for connections to Liverpool and Manchester, and these towns are within the scope of these hexes. This might well be the simplest approach.
A third approach would be to make one of these hexes a brown hex, with track on the board at the start. I'd prefer one of the other approaches, on the grounds they should give more options during play.
The important question, of course, is which gives the better game?
Actually, I find this strangely liberating. There are a couple of similar areas where I have been trying to tweak the map to allow the historical routes. As examples, I want the LSWR London-Exeter route to pass north of Southampton, and the Hull-Leeds route to pass between York and Doncaster. I might possibly want to represent the Rugby-Stafford route north of Birmingham too. If I can find a suitable mechanism, perhaps I can use it in all such cases.
One approach might be to use new tiles that allow one route to by-pass a city while others go through or into it. Such tiles might give an interesting twist to the game, especially for players familiar with other 18xx titles. There would remain the question of why a train would choose to by-pass a lucrative destination, rather than include the city in its route. One answer might be to by-pass another company's tokens. Another might be to gain some other bonus, such as for the shortest distance or for the longest route - both ideas I am playing with anyway. Or perhaps the tile just won't have a suitable upgrade.
Another approach would be even simpler. I could just assume that the Manchester hex represents the larger conurbation, much as the Birmingham hex includes the cities around Birmingham itself. On this scale, there would be no need to represent the by-pass explicitly. The WCML does stop at Wigan and Warrington for connections to Liverpool and Manchester, and these towns are within the scope of these hexes. This might well be the simplest approach.
A third approach would be to make one of these hexes a brown hex, with track on the board at the start. I'd prefer one of the other approaches, on the grounds they should give more options during play.
The important question, of course, is which gives the better game?
Monday, 18 May 2009
How do I get the Hexes to fit Reality?
I'm staring at several maps which overlay hex grids on an outline of Great Britain. I'm trying to work out which orientation, size and positioning of the grid best suits the game. It should be possible to build at least the main historical routes, while giving plenty of alternative choices for players to build or block routes. Certain cities will be key - London is a particular pain because no routes run through it.
There seem to be lots of choices, none of which is quite right. When I get the hexes to fit around Central Scotland, for example, it throws off either the Midlands or the South of England. The latter is particularly difficult because there are so many east-west routes in such a small space and I want to keep plenty of choice in order to make the game interesting.
Of course, I could just map the hexes smaller, but that would make the game much bigger and (presumably) longer. Currently the most likely map has a grid of 13 by 6 or 7, although the northern half of the board is only 4 or 5 hexes wide, so the total number of playable hexes is approximately 75. This is the same number as 1830, so I'm assuming it's in the right ball park for a reasonable game.
I'll fiddle with the parameters and stare at the maps some more, but at some point I'll have to accept that what I've got is the best I can achieve and go with that.
There seem to be lots of choices, none of which is quite right. When I get the hexes to fit around Central Scotland, for example, it throws off either the Midlands or the South of England. The latter is particularly difficult because there are so many east-west routes in such a small space and I want to keep plenty of choice in order to make the game interesting.
Of course, I could just map the hexes smaller, but that would make the game much bigger and (presumably) longer. Currently the most likely map has a grid of 13 by 6 or 7, although the northern half of the board is only 4 or 5 hexes wide, so the total number of playable hexes is approximately 75. This is the same number as 1830, so I'm assuming it's in the right ball park for a reasonable game.
I'll fiddle with the parameters and stare at the maps some more, but at some point I'll have to accept that what I've got is the best I can achieve and go with that.
Sunday, 17 May 2009
Paying by the hundred
In the previous post, I suggested that companies should pay dividends for each £100 of their income. How can we make this work in practice?
The idea raises a couple of obvious questions. First, at the beginning of a game, will a company be generating £100? If not, it won’t be able to pay a dividend, players won’t get any income, and the game won’t progress. Even if we allow a dividend of £0 to increase a company’s share price, leaving players with no cash income would cripple the game (or at least seriously change it).
Second, if a company’s income is not an exact multiple of £100, what happens to the remainder after the dividend is paid? Does the company get to keep it? This might remove the pressure on deciding when to pay dividends and when to keep income for the company itself, which is a key strategic decision that I don’t want to dilute. Alternatively, is the remainder just lost (as “administrative charges”)?
Third, will this rule have any effect on how the share price changes? In some games, the dividend paid must be more than the current share value in order for the share value to increase. Should this be based on the company’s income or on the dividend that it pays out?
Last, will this rule discourage companies from trying to extend their routes, until they can make significant changes? And would this be a bad thing? In many 18xx games, companies gradually optimise their routes, perhaps increasing the value of a station or bypassing a low-income station. If a change only adds £10 to the income, will it be worth doing? Arguably, the game might flow faster if players aren’t constantly looking for small increases in income.
My current answers for the above is that share prices will only rise if the company’s income (not dividend) is equal to or higher than the current share value. If the income is £100 more than the share value, the increase will be double. This will give some incentive for companies to keep increasing their income, while at some point small track changes may become irrelevant. This is to the good; I want the game to focus on strategic decisions rather than small-scale optimisation. Any remainder after paying dividends will be lost. (Possibly I might allow the company to keep £50 if the remainder is £50 or greater, but this is a matter for playtesting).
The key question is how to ensure that companies can earn enough to pay a dividend at the start of the game. This is a matter of map design and ensuring that companies can run enough routes. It may be necessary to increase the base value of stations – we shall see.
The idea raises a couple of obvious questions. First, at the beginning of a game, will a company be generating £100? If not, it won’t be able to pay a dividend, players won’t get any income, and the game won’t progress. Even if we allow a dividend of £0 to increase a company’s share price, leaving players with no cash income would cripple the game (or at least seriously change it).
Second, if a company’s income is not an exact multiple of £100, what happens to the remainder after the dividend is paid? Does the company get to keep it? This might remove the pressure on deciding when to pay dividends and when to keep income for the company itself, which is a key strategic decision that I don’t want to dilute. Alternatively, is the remainder just lost (as “administrative charges”)?
Third, will this rule have any effect on how the share price changes? In some games, the dividend paid must be more than the current share value in order for the share value to increase. Should this be based on the company’s income or on the dividend that it pays out?
Last, will this rule discourage companies from trying to extend their routes, until they can make significant changes? And would this be a bad thing? In many 18xx games, companies gradually optimise their routes, perhaps increasing the value of a station or bypassing a low-income station. If a change only adds £10 to the income, will it be worth doing? Arguably, the game might flow faster if players aren’t constantly looking for small increases in income.
My current answers for the above is that share prices will only rise if the company’s income (not dividend) is equal to or higher than the current share value. If the income is £100 more than the share value, the increase will be double. This will give some incentive for companies to keep increasing their income, while at some point small track changes may become irrelevant. This is to the good; I want the game to focus on strategic decisions rather than small-scale optimisation. Any remainder after paying dividends will be lost. (Possibly I might allow the company to keep £50 if the remainder is £50 or greater, but this is a matter for playtesting).
The key question is how to ensure that companies can earn enough to pay a dividend at the start of the game. This is a matter of map design and ensuring that companies can run enough routes. It may be necessary to increase the base value of stations – we shall see.
Simplifying the core system
A lot of gamers are put off 18xx games because they seem too complicated and too time-consuming. We who love the system have various ways of keeping the game flowing. Some people use poker chips instead of paper money, which raises the question, why are we still making games with paper money? I'm not alone in sometimes using a spreadsheet, but you can see why many people would think that any board game that requires a computer is too complicated for them. Also, it means I need to carry a laptop around as well as the game itself.
So I'm looking at ways to simplify the game mechanisms while keeping the core ideas and level of strategy. Here’s one idea that may work.
The core mechanism of 18xx is that companies get income (in multiples of £10) from running trains. They then distribute 1/10 of this income to each share, so that a player holding 3 shares gets 3/10 of the company’s income. This mechanism was introduced in the very first 18xx game and has remained basically unchanged since. It was a brilliant design and has served all of us well. It's also the main thing that slows down the game, as the cash gets handed out to each player during every company’s turn.
My idea comes in two parts. The first is to make the dividend payments be multiples of £10. This will simplify the amounts that get paid out, keeping them to a smaller range. This enables the second part, which is to record player income by moving counters on a track, instead of handing out cash from the bank. This will be much quicker than handing out paper money (or poker chips) and making change each time.
For example, the track might have 50 spaces numbered from £0 to £490. If a player’s income reaches £500, a chit could be placed underneath his or her marker to show the extra income. The track could be placed wherever it fits best on the board; some eurogames have tracks around the edge of the board.
In this design, payments can only be kept to multiples of £10 if companies pay dividends for each £100 of their income, instead of each £10. So that is the core change of this approach. For example, if the LNWR has an income of £230, it will pay £20 to each shareholder (instead of £23). If I had 6 shares, I would move my treasury marker 12 squares along the track.
It's worth mentioning some secondary effects as well. We're not just swapping cash notes for markers on a track. We're also removing all the £1/£4/£5 denominations from the game, with reduces production cost and the space required to play. We are also simplifying the arithmetic.
The big question is how this change will affect the rest of the design and the play of the game. That is the topic of the next blog post.
So I'm looking at ways to simplify the game mechanisms while keeping the core ideas and level of strategy. Here’s one idea that may work.
The core mechanism of 18xx is that companies get income (in multiples of £10) from running trains. They then distribute 1/10 of this income to each share, so that a player holding 3 shares gets 3/10 of the company’s income. This mechanism was introduced in the very first 18xx game and has remained basically unchanged since. It was a brilliant design and has served all of us well. It's also the main thing that slows down the game, as the cash gets handed out to each player during every company’s turn.
My idea comes in two parts. The first is to make the dividend payments be multiples of £10. This will simplify the amounts that get paid out, keeping them to a smaller range. This enables the second part, which is to record player income by moving counters on a track, instead of handing out cash from the bank. This will be much quicker than handing out paper money (or poker chips) and making change each time.
For example, the track might have 50 spaces numbered from £0 to £490. If a player’s income reaches £500, a chit could be placed underneath his or her marker to show the extra income. The track could be placed wherever it fits best on the board; some eurogames have tracks around the edge of the board.
In this design, payments can only be kept to multiples of £10 if companies pay dividends for each £100 of their income, instead of each £10. So that is the core change of this approach. For example, if the LNWR has an income of £230, it will pay £20 to each shareholder (instead of £23). If I had 6 shares, I would move my treasury marker 12 squares along the track.
It's worth mentioning some secondary effects as well. We're not just swapping cash notes for markers on a track. We're also removing all the £1/£4/£5 denominations from the game, with reduces production cost and the space required to play. We are also simplifying the arithmetic.
The big question is how this change will affect the rest of the design and the play of the game. That is the topic of the next blog post.
Monday, 11 May 2009
Acknowledgements
Many people within the 18xx community have unknowingly influenced this project so far.
I copied the notion of keeping a blog about the game from Todd Derscheid, who is recording the development of 18IA (set in Iowa) at http://18ia.blogspot.com/.
The idea of a game aimed at beginners, with a friendlier name then 18xx, came from Bart van Dijk's Steam Over Holland. Dick's game is reasonably short and friendlier than some, but I want to simplify the core systems more.
The people on the 18xx mailing list have a vast experience of playing and designing 18xx games, which is fantastically useful. I've taken ideas and inspiration from several people there; I'm sure they'll disapprove of what I've done with them ;-). I can't name them all but they certainly include Mick Hutton, Lou Jerkich, David Hecht, Steve Thomas, Robert Jasiek, John David Galt, John A Tamplin, JC Lawrence, Bruce Beard, Ian D Wilson, and many more.
Finally and firstly, to Francis Tresham, without whom, nothing.
I copied the notion of keeping a blog about the game from Todd Derscheid, who is recording the development of 18IA (set in Iowa) at http://18ia.blogspot.com/.
The idea of a game aimed at beginners, with a friendlier name then 18xx, came from Bart van Dijk's Steam Over Holland. Dick's game is reasonably short and friendlier than some, but I want to simplify the core systems more.
The people on the 18xx mailing list have a vast experience of playing and designing 18xx games, which is fantastically useful. I've taken ideas and inspiration from several people there; I'm sure they'll disapprove of what I've done with them ;-). I can't name them all but they certainly include Mick Hutton, Lou Jerkich, David Hecht, Steve Thomas, Robert Jasiek, John David Galt, John A Tamplin, JC Lawrence, Bruce Beard, Ian D Wilson, and many more.
Finally and firstly, to Francis Tresham, without whom, nothing.
Sunday, 10 May 2009
Current Status
I'm still early in the design of this game. I have a lot of ideas, which I will flesh out and record on this blog. (In part, I'm blogging here partly to record these ideas for my own reference, as well as to welcome comments from anyone who cares to read my musings). I have created an outline map, overlaying a hex grid on the UK coastline, adding the major cities and tracing the major rail routes to ensure that the historical outcome would at least be possible. This in turn has suggested some new track tiles to add to the game, and some ideas for handling routes into London.
What I plan to do next is to draw a full size map and experiment with the options it give for route building and competition. In parallel with that activity, I will sketch out the flow of the financial side of the game. With luck, these two lines of development will fit together and produce a game that's decent enough to start a long process of playtesting and tweaking. It will be interesting to see what happens.
What I plan to do next is to draw a full size map and experiment with the options it give for route building and competition. In parallel with that activity, I will sketch out the flow of the financial side of the game. With luck, these two lines of development will fit together and produce a game that's decent enough to start a long process of playtesting and tweaking. It will be interesting to see what happens.
Quick and tournament versions
There is a tension between the twin goals of appealing to eurogamers and of keeping the essence of the 18xx system. As an example, many 18xx games begin with an auction of private companies, each of which bestow special features on the owner. A novice doesn’t know how much these features are worth, and players tend to value them differently anyway.
I plan to offer two versions of the rules. The simple version will handle the above problem by dealing out the private companies to the players, rather than having an auction. This is not a new idea; Steam Over Holland and 1889 are just two existing games that do this. But I may make a similar distinction in other parts of the game, if it becomes appropriate. So if I face a design choice between a fast-playing option and a more complex alternative that offers more depth or balance, then I will adopt the first option for the quick game and the second for the tournament version.
At least, this is my intention. We’ll see how often the need arises.
I plan to offer two versions of the rules. The simple version will handle the above problem by dealing out the private companies to the players, rather than having an auction. This is not a new idea; Steam Over Holland and 1889 are just two existing games that do this. But I may make a similar distinction in other parts of the game, if it becomes appropriate. So if I face a design choice between a fast-playing option and a more complex alternative that offers more depth or balance, then I will adopt the first option for the quick game and the second for the tournament version.
At least, this is my intention. We’ll see how often the need arises.
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Britain Under Steam
I’m creating this blog to record my thoughts and ideas for a new game in the 18xx family. My aim is to produce a game in the mould of 1829, 1830 et al that will be popular with euro-gamers, simplifying some of the core systems while keeping the range of strategies and decisions.
For general background on 18xx games, see http://www.diogenes.sacramento.ca.us/18xx_net/
Britain Under Steam will cover most of Britain on a single map and should be playable in 2-3 hours. Why Britain? Just because it’s where I live and the geography I know best. This is not a new setting for 18xx – quite the opposite, as the very first 18xx (1829) was set in the UK. One of my favourite games is 1825, which is sort of an update of 1829, but it only offers the choice of a 3-4 hour game in one part of the UK or longer and larger games covering larger areas.
Britain Under Steam will allow a variety of opening strategies, rather than having companies start in a fixed order. This is unlike 1829 and 1825, but like many other 18xx games that have a wider choice of starting companies. However, I hope to retain the flexibility that encourages players to invest in a range of companies, in contrast to some other 18xx designs.
Most 18xx games take longer than 2-3 hours (except for very experienced and fast players). I have some ideas which I hope will speed up the game system. This blog will examine some of these suggestions.
For general background on 18xx games, see http://www.diogenes.sacramento.ca.us/18xx_net/
Britain Under Steam will cover most of Britain on a single map and should be playable in 2-3 hours. Why Britain? Just because it’s where I live and the geography I know best. This is not a new setting for 18xx – quite the opposite, as the very first 18xx (1829) was set in the UK. One of my favourite games is 1825, which is sort of an update of 1829, but it only offers the choice of a 3-4 hour game in one part of the UK or longer and larger games covering larger areas.
Britain Under Steam will allow a variety of opening strategies, rather than having companies start in a fixed order. This is unlike 1829 and 1825, but like many other 18xx games that have a wider choice of starting companies. However, I hope to retain the flexibility that encourages players to invest in a range of companies, in contrast to some other 18xx designs.
Most 18xx games take longer than 2-3 hours (except for very experienced and fast players). I have some ideas which I hope will speed up the game system. This blog will examine some of these suggestions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
