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.