One of the aspects of play I really like about 18xx games is that players do not directly control companies. They invest in companies and can, to an extent, switch their investments into companies that pay better dividends.
At least, that's how it was in 1829. 1830 introduced a style of play that made investment much riskier. In particular, it banned the sale of the president's share certificate. This meant that the president of a company could asset strip it and dump the shell onto any player who owned more than a single share. The hapless recipient would be unable to sell the shell and would have to buy a train from his own pocket, often leading to bankruptcy. This was, as the box announced, a game for robber barons.
Another trend is for companies to receive their capital as shares are purchased, rather than in a lump when the company first starts. This can lead to players focussing on their own companies rather than investing elsewhere, as they need the investment in order to better their companies. Again, usually players are forbidden from selling the president's certificate.
More recently, games such as 1861 begin with each player owning several minor companies outright. There is no cross-investment until much later in the game, after the minor companies have merged to form public companies.
I like 1830, 1861 et al., but I want to see more games that focus on the player as an investor rather than as an entrepreneur. So for Britain Under Steam, I intend to encourage this style of play if I can. I will certainly allow players to sell the president's certificate, as in 1825. The idea is that they won't be trapped if they invest in a company run by another player.
One consequence is that, if there is no penalty for leaving a company trainless, players will be more tempted to asset strip. This may or may not be desirable, depending on the rest of the game. However, I'm considering halving the value when selling shares in a trainless company; an idea suggested by Mike Hutton (and used, I believe, in 1860). I will need to experiment to see if this works.
A bigger question is how to handle the initial sale of companies, but that topic deserves a post of its own.
Monday, 27 July 2009
Wednesday, 15 July 2009
Varying the setup
Most existing 18xx games start with a fixed setup – a given number of companies, each starting in a fixed location. Although they do have a variety of opening moves available, depending on what the other players do, they can become susceptible to analysis and even being “solved”.
There are some minor exceptions. In Steam Over Holland, for example, each game starts with only some of the available private companies. (1825 is worth a mention because all the extension kits add a variety of options).
I’m wondering if I can add more variety to the setup, to prevent formulaic play. Some ideas I’ve had:
There are some minor exceptions. In Steam Over Holland, for example, each game starts with only some of the available private companies. (1825 is worth a mention because all the extension kits add a variety of options).
I’m wondering if I can add more variety to the setup, to prevent formulaic play. Some ideas I’ve had:
- Randomly deal special powers to each company at the start (rather than assign them to private companies and let players choose which company they end up with)
- Add special powers for players, such as the ability (once per game) to seize the priority, or start a new company at a discount, or to sell shares without affecting the stock price.
- Have more possible start hexes than companies, so that companies have a choice of where to start
- Randomly assign start hexes to companies in each game
- Make companies available in tiers, so that some are available at the start of the game, some later on, and so forth. Randomly deal companies to each tier.
Sunday, 12 July 2009
How many companies?
If there are any experienced 18xx designers reading my blog, I expect this post to cause some amusement at my expense, or at least to raise a wry smile. In all my thoughts on the design so far, I seem to have overlooked possibly the most basic question of all. I have ideas about how companies should be run, on players-as-investors vs. players-as-entrepeneurs, on selling the directors share and on maximum share limits. I have notions of different companies requiring different types of trains and being useful in different ways. I have some thoughts about how to vary when different companies become available and what special powers they might have. But I haven't directly addressed the issue of how many companies there should be.
Obviously, I had specific companies in mind while I was concentrating on the first draft of the map, but it was only when I printed it off and started playing with tiles that I realised the need to address how companies grow together, rather than looking at each one individually. I now suspect that this is the most fundamental design decision, affecting the length of the game more than other aspects such as the size of the map. What can I say, but "oops"?
Looking at the other 18xx games I own, 1830 is perhaps the most successful 18xx game ever and works absolutely fine with eight companies. It can still be a long-ish game. 1856 has eleven companies and is definitely longer. Steam Over Holland is quicker, with seven. 1825 can be played with several different combinations: with six companies the game is fairly short but as modules are combined, the number of companies can rise to fourteen (plus minor companies), the number of players also increases and the game can take at least a day.
For a game based on the whole of the UK, there are at least twelve obvious companies to include. They don't all have to come into play in any one game, but even if some are overlooked, this number of companies could lead to a longer game than I had in mind.
I'll need to think about this. One option would be to copy 1861 and have minor companies that merge to form larger ones, but that wasn't the style of game I had in mind. Another option would be to make the game modular, in the style of 1825, but that would bring this game directly into conflict with 1825 and I'm not convinced the world needs two modular 18xx games covering the UK. I want something different. When my thoughts crystallise, I'll note them on this blog.
Obviously, I had specific companies in mind while I was concentrating on the first draft of the map, but it was only when I printed it off and started playing with tiles that I realised the need to address how companies grow together, rather than looking at each one individually. I now suspect that this is the most fundamental design decision, affecting the length of the game more than other aspects such as the size of the map. What can I say, but "oops"?
Looking at the other 18xx games I own, 1830 is perhaps the most successful 18xx game ever and works absolutely fine with eight companies. It can still be a long-ish game. 1856 has eleven companies and is definitely longer. Steam Over Holland is quicker, with seven. 1825 can be played with several different combinations: with six companies the game is fairly short but as modules are combined, the number of companies can rise to fourteen (plus minor companies), the number of players also increases and the game can take at least a day.
For a game based on the whole of the UK, there are at least twelve obvious companies to include. They don't all have to come into play in any one game, but even if some are overlooked, this number of companies could lead to a longer game than I had in mind.
I'll need to think about this. One option would be to copy 1861 and have minor companies that merge to form larger ones, but that wasn't the style of game I had in mind. Another option would be to make the game modular, in the style of 1825, but that would bring this game directly into conflict with 1825 and I'm not convinced the world needs two modular 18xx games covering the UK. I want something different. When my thoughts crystallise, I'll note them on this blog.
Saturday, 11 July 2009
London revisited - or not
In Britain Under Steam, many companies will try to build routes to London. This could become a source of contention. A company with an existing route may upgrade one of the hexes adjacent to London purely to prevent a rival from gaining a route through. In many games I enjoy such blocking play, but in this particular case I want to allow many routes through.
So I'm considering giving each company a special token, which they trade in whenever they lay or upgrade a tile adjacent to London. This would make it harder to block a rival (although not necessarily impossible). An obvious extension would be to let one private company have a token too, so that the owning public company gets a second London build.
Some companies won't run to London at all, so I could introduce other hexes where this limit applies. The hex between Edinburgh and Glasgow might be worth considering.
An alternative approach would simply be to impose a financial cost for building in these hexes. Then any company may build extra routes or lay blocking tiles but only if they deem it worth the expenditure. Currently I prefer the token option, but I'll see what happens in play.
So I'm considering giving each company a special token, which they trade in whenever they lay or upgrade a tile adjacent to London. This would make it harder to block a rival (although not necessarily impossible). An obvious extension would be to let one private company have a token too, so that the owning public company gets a second London build.
Some companies won't run to London at all, so I could introduce other hexes where this limit applies. The hex between Edinburgh and Glasgow might be worth considering.
An alternative approach would simply be to impose a financial cost for building in these hexes. Then any company may build extra routes or lay blocking tiles but only if they deem it worth the expenditure. Currently I prefer the token option, but I'll see what happens in play.
Friday, 10 July 2009
What a difference a map makes
It's been a while coming, but I now have a printed map to experiment with. I had spent quite some time playing with different sizes and alignments of hex grids, and more time yet learning how to use new drawing software. That work wasn't wasted but it's a qualitative difference having a physical map that I can put tiles on and see how the game might work (or not!) in practice.
My first thought on assembling the map was to wonder whether I should excise East Anglia and possible the westernmost row of hexes in Wales and South-west England. This was nothing to do with routes and railways, but simply a response to the physical shape of the map on the table. I'll think about this - I may add some game tracks to fill up the gaps instead.
A first attempt at tile laying went OK. I have some new tiles for OO and OOO cities, which need tweaking, but so far I'm happy with the basic ideas. Ditto with much of the basic map layout. I now need to think laterally - what track could players lay instead of the historical routes, does this make geographical sense and are there any lays that are obviously unbalanced?
One point I hadn't noticed was that the GWR/LSWR might run out of places to lay track. The current map has relatively few cities in Southern England (though potentially plenty of towns). So once the obvious long routes are laid they are left with little space to develop. It might be worth reinstating the South-west peninsula (which is currently represented by a red off-board connection at Exeter). The track laying beyond Exeter is fairly uninteresting but it would give these companies somewhere else to expand. (Alternatively I could maybe make more use of the smaller towns).
I foresee plenty of work trying the different options.
My first thought on assembling the map was to wonder whether I should excise East Anglia and possible the westernmost row of hexes in Wales and South-west England. This was nothing to do with routes and railways, but simply a response to the physical shape of the map on the table. I'll think about this - I may add some game tracks to fill up the gaps instead.
A first attempt at tile laying went OK. I have some new tiles for OO and OOO cities, which need tweaking, but so far I'm happy with the basic ideas. Ditto with much of the basic map layout. I now need to think laterally - what track could players lay instead of the historical routes, does this make geographical sense and are there any lays that are obviously unbalanced?
One point I hadn't noticed was that the GWR/LSWR might run out of places to lay track. The current map has relatively few cities in Southern England (though potentially plenty of towns). So once the obvious long routes are laid they are left with little space to develop. It might be worth reinstating the South-west peninsula (which is currently represented by a red off-board connection at Exeter). The track laying beyond Exeter is fairly uninteresting but it would give these companies somewhere else to expand. (Alternatively I could maybe make more use of the smaller towns).
I foresee plenty of work trying the different options.
Wednesday, 1 July 2009
Types of city, types of train
For a while now, I've had several ideas for types of train in the end game. What I hadn't realised before was the crucial effect of design decisions about trains in the early game. I need to decide whether a simple '2' train can stop at dot towns (as in most 18xx games), can skip dot towns (as in 1861) or even take income from all dot towns on its route. And this affects the map: which towns appear as dot towns and which need to be large towns so that companies can start in them?
In the UK, companies quickly ran long routes. E.g. the LNWR started by running London to Manchester via Birmingham, while the GWR ran London to Bristol via Reading. To replicate this and give some feel for authenticity, a company with '2' trains has to start somewhere in the middle of these routes. In 1829 and 1825, Francis Tresham handled this by drawing hexes such as Wolverton, Swindon and Doncaster with fixed track and permanently low income. The starting companies run can '2' trains from these to connect up the longer route. When the '2' trains are replaced, a larger train can run the whole route on its own.
I want to avoid fixing the track in such hexes, so that players have more options for play. But neither do I want towns such as these to compete with the larger cities as sources of income. So I'm thinking of introducing a class of city that can accept markers and be promoted to increase route options but which has permanently low income. (Actually. I might give them a choice of either adding more routes or growing in income, but that will depend on what works in practice).
The UK is also densely populated. Almost every hex should contain at least a dot town. This ubiquity makes me wonder whether it's worth having the dot towns in the game at all. I certainly don't want the annoyance of a "double-heading" rule to get past the dot towns in the early game. I could just allow trains to skip dot towns, but this makes them almost pointless (apart from controlling how the track may develop).
I have the notion of allowing T trains to run as suburban trains in the late game, alongside E trains running on the same track. (This idea is inspired by an 1825 variant by Lou Jerkich). The suburban trains would only count income from dot towns, while the express trains would have to skip them. But perhaps it would be simpler to remove the dot towns completely and just give the suburban trains an income per hex on their route?
In the UK, companies quickly ran long routes. E.g. the LNWR started by running London to Manchester via Birmingham, while the GWR ran London to Bristol via Reading. To replicate this and give some feel for authenticity, a company with '2' trains has to start somewhere in the middle of these routes. In 1829 and 1825, Francis Tresham handled this by drawing hexes such as Wolverton, Swindon and Doncaster with fixed track and permanently low income. The starting companies run can '2' trains from these to connect up the longer route. When the '2' trains are replaced, a larger train can run the whole route on its own.
I want to avoid fixing the track in such hexes, so that players have more options for play. But neither do I want towns such as these to compete with the larger cities as sources of income. So I'm thinking of introducing a class of city that can accept markers and be promoted to increase route options but which has permanently low income. (Actually. I might give them a choice of either adding more routes or growing in income, but that will depend on what works in practice).
The UK is also densely populated. Almost every hex should contain at least a dot town. This ubiquity makes me wonder whether it's worth having the dot towns in the game at all. I certainly don't want the annoyance of a "double-heading" rule to get past the dot towns in the early game. I could just allow trains to skip dot towns, but this makes them almost pointless (apart from controlling how the track may develop).
I have the notion of allowing T trains to run as suburban trains in the late game, alongside E trains running on the same track. (This idea is inspired by an 1825 variant by Lou Jerkich). The suburban trains would only count income from dot towns, while the express trains would have to skip them. But perhaps it would be simpler to remove the dot towns completely and just give the suburban trains an income per hex on their route?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
