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.
Sunday, 12 July 2009
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?
Sunday, 14 June 2009
Historical rail maps
I mentioned on the 18xx list that I would like to find some historical railway maps of the UK, and the good people there promptly recommended some. Here's a summary for future reference.
What would be even more useful would be a historical atlas approach, showing which lines were built first and how the network grew.
David Hecht: There's a book of (very detailed) maps from Ian Allan called "Pre-grouping Maps and Gazetteer", though it is currently out of print. However, there are 23 copies listed from UK booksellers on Abebooks, starting at GBP 4.00 plus shipping.. Recommended! :-) [I've just ordered a copy of this.]
Stuart Dagger: Some years ago the West Country firm of David & Charles reprinted some editions of Bradshaw's and they have maps in the back. I have a copy of the reprint of one of the 1922 ones, which must have been one of the last before the companies we all know from 1829 and 1825 were pushed into the larger groupings of the LMS etc.
It might also be worth checking out the Ordnance Survey publications, as they also do reprints of 19th century maps.
After sending the first reply I remembered another source. Try www.OldHouseBooks.co.uk. They have a London Railways map for 1897 and a Bradshaw's 1907 map for Great Britain and Ireland.
Nick Wedd: The maps at http://www.maproom.org/00/35/index.php show UK railways as they were in 1914, though not in detail, and not which companies owned them. It is a geological atlas, but the author was keen on railways: "Our lines of railway have largely aided the progress of Geology not only by opening up a ready means of communication with all parts of the country, but by furnishing many instructive sections of the strata."
The map at http://www.systemed.plus.com/New_Adlestrop_Railway_Atlas.pdf is also interesting. [This one I knew of. It's useful, but incomplete].
Roger Barnes: The Museum of London bookshop is good for old maps of London or Motor
Books in Covent Garden for railway books.
What would be even more useful would be a historical atlas approach, showing which lines were built first and how the network grew.
David Hecht: There's a book of (very detailed) maps from Ian Allan called "Pre-grouping Maps and Gazetteer", though it is currently out of print. However, there are 23 copies listed from UK booksellers on Abebooks, starting at GBP 4.00 plus shipping.. Recommended! :-) [I've just ordered a copy of this.]
Stuart Dagger: Some years ago the West Country firm of David & Charles reprinted some editions of Bradshaw's and they have maps in the back. I have a copy of the reprint of one of the 1922 ones, which must have been one of the last before the companies we all know from 1829 and 1825 were pushed into the larger groupings of the LMS etc.
It might also be worth checking out the Ordnance Survey publications, as they also do reprints of 19th century maps.
After sending the first reply I remembered another source. Try www.OldHouseBooks.co.uk. They have a London Railways map for 1897 and a Bradshaw's 1907 map for Great Britain and Ireland.
Nick Wedd: The maps at http://www.maproom.org/00/35/index.php show UK railways as they were in 1914, though not in detail, and not which companies owned them. It is a geological atlas, but the author was keen on railways: "Our lines of railway have largely aided the progress of Geology not only by opening up a ready means of communication with all parts of the country, but by furnishing many instructive sections of the strata."
The map at http://www.systemed.plus.com/New_Adlestrop_Railway_Atlas.pdf is also interesting. [This one I knew of. It's useful, but incomplete].
Roger Barnes: The Museum of London bookshop is good for old maps of London or Motor
Books in Covent Garden for railway books.
Wednesday, 10 June 2009
London
London dominates the English railway network. The main lines lead to London, which is the centre of finance and government. They do not run through it; when a train reaches the capital, its journey is complete. So London is both the dominant city and a block to routes across it.
There are at least 9 main line stations in London, including Liverpool Street, St Pancras, Kings Cross, Euston, Paddington, Victoria, Waterloo, Charing Cross and Marylebone. Most of these were run by separate companies. It is not practical to represent all nine stations in a single hex, so for game purposes some of these routes will branch in the adjacent hexes.
If the London tile had six station spaces, as in 1829 or 1825, this could cause an anomaly. If a company were to place a marker in London, it could use this to trace a route out vai another company's track, as if (say) Euston and Marylebone were not distinct termini. So a company connecting to London could gain access to a whole new rail network, possibly in a different area of the country.
Therefore I intend to make London a terminus only. Companies will not put markers in London, only connect to it. The simplest way to display this will be to use the same markings as for off-board areas.
Note that companies will be able to share a route into London, as happened historically. This will be controlled by the usual play of station markers in the cities that connect to the capital.
There are at least 9 main line stations in London, including Liverpool Street, St Pancras, Kings Cross, Euston, Paddington, Victoria, Waterloo, Charing Cross and Marylebone. Most of these were run by separate companies. It is not practical to represent all nine stations in a single hex, so for game purposes some of these routes will branch in the adjacent hexes.
If the London tile had six station spaces, as in 1829 or 1825, this could cause an anomaly. If a company were to place a marker in London, it could use this to trace a route out vai another company's track, as if (say) Euston and Marylebone were not distinct termini. So a company connecting to London could gain access to a whole new rail network, possibly in a different area of the country.
Therefore I intend to make London a terminus only. Companies will not put markers in London, only connect to it. The simplest way to display this will be to use the same markings as for off-board areas.
Note that companies will be able to share a route into London, as happened historically. This will be controlled by the usual play of station markers in the cities that connect to the capital.
Tuesday, 9 June 2009
Update
I've had a couple of weeks hiatus, including a week away and another that was completely taken up with other commitments. I did manage to scribble some notes (while on a train, appropriately enough) that I will write up soon.
In the meantime, I'm continuing to play with maps and hex grids. I downloaded the UK rail map and imported it into Corel Draw so that it overlays the map I was working on. After printing the map and hex grid (just on A4 paper), I'm drwing on 18xx tiles in pencil to see what works.
There are several hexes in the Midlands and North that have connections to all their neighbours. For these, I'm toying with tiles such as the BGM tiles from 1829/1825, so that the routes through the tiles may be more restricted than a simple 6-way station. The intention is to give more strategy to the tile laying in these areas (and to represent the different historical routes more explicitly).
Further south, the routes into London tend to follow patterns that correspond to green plain track tiles. However, there are many small towns here that ought to be represented on the map. This needs more thought and experimentation.
In the meantime, I'm continuing to play with maps and hex grids. I downloaded the UK rail map and imported it into Corel Draw so that it overlays the map I was working on. After printing the map and hex grid (just on A4 paper), I'm drwing on 18xx tiles in pencil to see what works.
There are several hexes in the Midlands and North that have connections to all their neighbours. For these, I'm toying with tiles such as the BGM tiles from 1829/1825, so that the routes through the tiles may be more restricted than a simple 6-way station. The intention is to give more strategy to the tile laying in these areas (and to represent the different historical routes more explicitly).
Further south, the routes into London tend to follow patterns that correspond to green plain track tiles. However, there are many small towns here that ought to be represented on the map. This needs more thought and experimentation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
