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.
Tuesday, 30 April 2013
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
