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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That was an interesting synopsis of the game. The following comments from my point of view reflect more how I “played the game” compared to how the “game played me” so to speak.
ReplyDeleteI felt that the number of trains does need adjusting. Although I liked the mix we had, as it excluded a dreaded train rush, it did appear to slow the game down. However, I thought this was a consequence of restrained public company purchasing as much as slow train buying. As you say it was a slow start. I thought there were only 5 3+1 trains, but if your records say 6 then I would suggest that this was definitely correct. Did the 2+1s really last to OR7? Wow! I did like the idea of 4+2 trains in the mix and felt the one (only one?) available was very helpful for the player whose company ran it.
The Midland didn’t convert to a 10-share company. I know I was going to do this, but changed my mind. I now believe I was wrong not to for the reasons listed below:
1. I bought the LSWR to asset strip it by buying the soon to be obsolete Midland trains, but didn’t do so.
2. I should have converted the Midland into a 10-share company as this would have raised more revenue for cash and let the Midland have two trains when allied to asset stripping the LSWR.
3. As a 5-share company the Midland didn’t have enough tokens to block the L&YR spectacular route building
From a personal point of view I didn’t handle the limited share certificate limit well despite having a reasonable mix of good paying shares for a change. For the life of me I just couldn’t see how having extra shares to buy in the Midland was going to help with respect to the number of certificates in other profitable companies.
I now realise that a slight decline in share value was a good price to pay for raising capital. It would have made more sense to not convert if I was the only shareholder, but I not convinced even that is correct. By converting dividend payouts are lower to start with they soon pick up and share value recovers well, assuming nothing untoward happens trackside. In addition I belatedly got that this was an opportunity to dilute opponents’ shareholding in my company. So I felt that the number of certificates was too strict, but that reflects my play. A looser restriction would make it easier for all players to buy more certificates so I would be back to square one.
The only thing I didn’t like was the “first company bonus run”. It didn’t really encourage routes to be built that wouldn’t have been built under the normal bonus system. I felt it didn’t solve the additional money into the company conundrum, especially as only one company was the major, although not the only, beneficiary.
In fact the Midland lived with the agonising fear that the GWR would block its route late in the game and had relaxed when the GWR company treasury had been reduced to zero only for the GWR get a late £5 bonus with which it could have tokened out a pivotal station for the Midland. Instead it chose to place its token elsewhere. Relief all round Derby!
Jim
Thanks Jim, it's very helpful to have a second viewpoint. I was interested to read your fears about the GWR tokening out the Midland; I was concerned that the LSWR (and in Scotland the NBR/NER) could block the GWR. To run a good 6X route, I reckon you often need to token at least three of the cities on the route.
ReplyDeleteIf a company has the routes to run good trains, it's usually worth converting to a 10-share company. The extra income should give the company some double-jumps in share price to make up for the loss in dividends.
I didn't keep a record of which companies got the "first bonus" tokens. I know the GWR got Plymouth and the LYR got Liverpool-Hull. Did the Midland get London-Hull? I think the SWR got the Milford Haven bonus, as it got the first 5+2 train, but possibly a quirk of timing gave this to the GWR as well. The slow start meant the GWR had enough time to build north as well as west, which led to the bizarre situation where it also got the Aberdeen token. I really can't see that happening very often.
"hardly any stock selling"
ReplyDeleteThat phrase really jumps out at me. That seems like a serious problem - how do you have an 18XX game where the stock market is that unimportant? There's got to be a way to stab other players, really hard, and that's normally by selling their stocks.
Hi James,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. It's certainly my intention for the game to have a fair amount of stock trading, not just to stab other players but also to reflect the changing worth of the companies. It won't be quite like 1830, but I don't want the stock market to be as placid as 1861 and 18EU.
At the start of the game, when companies have only five shares and some remain to be floated, there probably won't be a large amount of stock trading. Once the companies convert to ten shares, I'd expect to see substantially more, which is why the unexpectedly slow start to this game had such a dampening effect.
There remain other ways to stab players, of course. Pushing the trains will work, and the competition for station markers in key cities is quite intense.
I think it jumped out at me because it was a feature of some of the 18XX's we've played recently and have no plans to play again. 1861 in particular is a shelf queen - no one thought it had any replay value, and we didn't bother to finish the one game we started. (I'm happy to have it sit on a shelf, since my years of college Russian have to be worth something :-]).
ReplyDeletePushing the trains and tokening are valuable, sure, but it's hard to see an 18xx game without those.
To put it another way, if someone was describing an 18xx, and they had to call out pushing and tokening as ways to attack other players, my level of desire to play that 18xx would drop like a rock. Haven't played 18EU, but if you can describe its market as "placid," I probably don't have much of a reason to play it.
I'd be worried that there's just not enough blood on the floor if you can get though without selling stock, no matter what the pace of the game. Maybe there's just too much money floating around?