Let’s look at the design features that were new in 1835:
- Six minor companies, each represented by a single certificate, that pay half their income to the owning player and half to the treasury. When the first 5 train is bought, these merge to form the Prussian state railway and each certificate is exchanged for a share of the new major company.
- A “start packet” containing private companies, the minor companies, and the directorships of two major companies.
- A special tile for Hamburg that give reduced income if a route crosses the River Elbe.
- Each major company has one certificate that represents two shares (20% of the company), in addition to the director’s 20% certificate.
- Stock sales reduce the share price by one box per sale, instead of the one box per share found in 1830.
The Hamburg tile and the 20% certificates are more niche but can be found in several other titles. For example, 1849 Sicily and 1847 Pfalz both have 20% certificates, and 18Rhl has Hamburg-like tiles for the three Rhine crossings.
The rule that the share price is reduced by one per sale is found in many other titles.
Although the features listed above have influenced many other games, they don’t include the one that, to my mind, really defines the 1835 family. This is because this feature arose not from 1835 itself but from a reaction to a perceived flaw in the way that 1835 distributes the private companies and minor companies at the start of the game. The 1835 “start packet” required players to take turns selecting items from those on offer, which were available in a particular order. Many people felt that this procedure disadvantaged the fourth player in a four-player game, and a number of fixes were proposed. One of these suggested fixes was simply to auction the items, one at a time.
Another designer, Lonny Orgler, created a game called 1837, which built on these ideas. It includes minor companies that merge into major companies, and the equivalent of private companies, all sold item-by-item in an initial auction. Lonny’s later 1824 design also uses these ideas.
Lonny’s games then influenced two other designers. David Hecht’s 18EU and Ian D Wilson’s 1861 both begin by auctioning minor companies which later merge to form majors. Unlike the previous titles, in 18EU and 1861 the mergers are not predefined; any connected minor companies may merge. These games also use incremental capitalisation instead of full capitalisation. Ian D Wilson has used the same approach in his games 1812, 1858 and 1867, while David Hecht’s 18Ardennes is basically a refinement and enhancement of his earlier 18EU design.
I argue that these titles – 1835, 1847, 1837, 1824, 18EU, 1861, 18Ardennes, 1812, 1867, and possibly others, are sufficiently oriented around the initial auction and subsequent merger of minor companies that it makes sense to refer to them as forming an 1835 family. At first glance, it looks like Scott Peterson’s new title, 18NewEngland, will also fit into this family.
As with any “18xx family”, there is plenty of variation between all these titles. Playing 1837 is a very different experience from 1824, even though they are set in the same place, designed by the same person, and use similar mechanics. The David Hecht and Ian D Wilson games are effectively a sub-family in which companies are funded incrementally and mergers are not predefined, and even within this sub-family they are very different games.
My aim in coining the phrase “the 1835 family” is to show a history of ideas that influence certain 18xx titles, and perhaps to show newcomers to the 18xx hobby one angle of 18xx design that might otherwise miss. The games within the family contain plenty of variation that is worth exploring.
