I now have a first version of the 18GB stock market chart. It is a one-dimensional chart without ledges, which means that shares can always fall in value. I will have rules in place to stop mindless trashing of stock prices, but companies that are unpopular or not paying dividends will always fall in value.
The values on the chart are all multiples of 10, to allow my plan of dividing all values by 10 in the final version. Some values at the low end are repeated, so that companies gain value more slowly. In the middle of the chart, values increase by as much as 30 per step, falling back to 10 at the top of the chart (so that there should be incentive to sell expensive shares and make more money on cheaper ones). The top of the chart may be too high, given that companies will have to earn their current value in order for the price to increase. Playtesting will tell.
I'm thinking of using the same chart to record company income. This would require a more fine-grained track for those parts where value increases by more than 10 per step. One approach might be to subdivide those boxes on the chart, for the purposes of tracking income. Another approach would be to make the whole chart just have steps of 10, relying on the dividend rules to increase share prices more rapidly when companies earn 100 more than their current value. I'll probably go with the graphical option rather than changing the behaviour.
This is a small but significant step forward.
Sunday, 6 June 2010
Saturday, 5 June 2010
Short selling
1817 has brought a new feature to the 18xx repertoire: short selling. (Actually, 1817 has several other new features too, but this is the most radical). The idea is that a player can sell a share in a company that he doesn't own. This puts the sold share in the open market and gives the player the corresponding cash from the bank. It also gives him a "short share", which he will have to redeem some time later.
A short share is an opposite of a share - a sort of anti-matter share or a negative share. If the company pays dividends, a player who owns a short share must pay that dividend to the company, instead of receiving it. If he is unfortunate to own the short share at the end of the game, it has negative value equal to the company's current value. At any point, the holder may buy back the short share, provided there is a matching ordinary share in the open market. At that point, the player pays the current cost of an ordinary share to the bank and both shares are removed from the game.
Short selling pays when a company is losing value. When you sell short, you receive the current value of the company. If the company loses value, you then buy back the ordinary share at a lower value, thus making a profit. If the company pays and dividend or increases in value, you make a loss. If there isn't a share in the open market to close the short share, you end up in more trouble.
In 1817, the effect of short selling a company is quite marked. It will drop one space on the stock market for each unsold ordinary share in the open market at the end of the stock round. So the company often takes loans in order to buy up the newly generated shares. Taking loans also depresses the price once per loan, but this tactic allows the company to pay dividends, receive some of the income itself, pay off the loans and regain some of the share price. This is a more complicated financial model than Britain Under Steam.
It might be possible to adopt a simpler version of this mechanism in Britain Under Steam (as an optional rule). A player could short sell a company in the same way, but the effect on the company would be much less. Its price wouldn't drop one space per unsold share, nor would the company be able to buy the shares. Other players might buy the new shares - even the Director could, if there is no limit on ownership when buying from the open market. So the timing of short selling would have to be well-judged.
An even simpler system would be to sell short imaginary shares, just receiving the short share in return. This would run the risk of having to pay dividends or of losing out if the share price increased, but would always be possible to sell.
It could be fun to try, anyway.
A short share is an opposite of a share - a sort of anti-matter share or a negative share. If the company pays dividends, a player who owns a short share must pay that dividend to the company, instead of receiving it. If he is unfortunate to own the short share at the end of the game, it has negative value equal to the company's current value. At any point, the holder may buy back the short share, provided there is a matching ordinary share in the open market. At that point, the player pays the current cost of an ordinary share to the bank and both shares are removed from the game.
Short selling pays when a company is losing value. When you sell short, you receive the current value of the company. If the company loses value, you then buy back the ordinary share at a lower value, thus making a profit. If the company pays and dividend or increases in value, you make a loss. If there isn't a share in the open market to close the short share, you end up in more trouble.
In 1817, the effect of short selling a company is quite marked. It will drop one space on the stock market for each unsold ordinary share in the open market at the end of the stock round. So the company often takes loans in order to buy up the newly generated shares. Taking loans also depresses the price once per loan, but this tactic allows the company to pay dividends, receive some of the income itself, pay off the loans and regain some of the share price. This is a more complicated financial model than Britain Under Steam.
It might be possible to adopt a simpler version of this mechanism in Britain Under Steam (as an optional rule). A player could short sell a company in the same way, but the effect on the company would be much less. Its price wouldn't drop one space per unsold share, nor would the company be able to buy the shares. Other players might buy the new shares - even the Director could, if there is no limit on ownership when buying from the open market. So the timing of short selling would have to be well-judged.
An even simpler system would be to sell short imaginary shares, just receiving the short share in return. This would run the risk of having to pay dividends or of losing out if the share price increased, but would always be possible to sell.
It could be fun to try, anyway.
Wednesday, 2 June 2010
When companies fail
I've started to work on the stock market for Britain Under Steam. One question I hadn't thought of before is what special zones, if any, to add for low stock prices.
The classic example from 1829, 1830 and many descendants is the yellow zone. Shares of companies valued in this zone do not count against certificate limits. This encourages players to buy these cheap shares. It can also encourage a player to keep one company withholding income, so that it stays in this zone while transferring its wealth to the player's other companies.
1830 added a brown zone and an orange zone. When a company is valued in the orange zone, a player may own more than the usual 60% of the company. When valued in the brown zone, a player may buy any number of shares in that company in one turn. This allows for quick "refloatation" of a company. (I had to look these up, which suggests to me that 1830 has too many zones to remember easily).
Many 18xx games have a value below which companies go bankrupt and are removed from the game. 1860 is unusual in that bankrupt companies continue to exist and can be restarted, at slightly lower par prices than before. This allows companies to be recycled into the game.
1817 has a zone in which companies can be acquired by other companies.
In Britain Under Steam, I'm looking to have share prices £10 apart. This is different from many other 18xx games, which have smaller steps at the bottom of the market. It means that the bottom of the stock market could be reached quite quickly. (I could conceivably add extra rows at the same price to compensate). So I think I do want some penalty for reaching the bottom. However, I don't want companies to disappear from the game - the whole point of the game is to have companies moving up and down in price throughout.
My initial thought is to have companies automatically go into receivership at some point. I.e. players will lose their shares for no recompense. The receiver will run the company, eventually bringing it into shape for repurchase.
It will be interesting to see whether an 1860-like restart will be needed and/or useful. In 1860, the restart gives the company new capital (although it is not run in receivership in the interim). This may work better than the receivership option, but might it also encourage people to run companies into the ground?
I'm not sure whether to also have a yellow zone. I don't want to over-egg the benefits of continually withholding income in one company, but encouraging players to buy into cheap shares might be worthwhile. I definitely don't want a brown zone, as I want to encourage cross-investment.
There are lots of options to try. I think I'll start with a small yellow zone and automatic receivership at the bottom of the chart.
The classic example from 1829, 1830 and many descendants is the yellow zone. Shares of companies valued in this zone do not count against certificate limits. This encourages players to buy these cheap shares. It can also encourage a player to keep one company withholding income, so that it stays in this zone while transferring its wealth to the player's other companies.
1830 added a brown zone and an orange zone. When a company is valued in the orange zone, a player may own more than the usual 60% of the company. When valued in the brown zone, a player may buy any number of shares in that company in one turn. This allows for quick "refloatation" of a company. (I had to look these up, which suggests to me that 1830 has too many zones to remember easily).
Many 18xx games have a value below which companies go bankrupt and are removed from the game. 1860 is unusual in that bankrupt companies continue to exist and can be restarted, at slightly lower par prices than before. This allows companies to be recycled into the game.
1817 has a zone in which companies can be acquired by other companies.
In Britain Under Steam, I'm looking to have share prices £10 apart. This is different from many other 18xx games, which have smaller steps at the bottom of the market. It means that the bottom of the stock market could be reached quite quickly. (I could conceivably add extra rows at the same price to compensate). So I think I do want some penalty for reaching the bottom. However, I don't want companies to disappear from the game - the whole point of the game is to have companies moving up and down in price throughout.
My initial thought is to have companies automatically go into receivership at some point. I.e. players will lose their shares for no recompense. The receiver will run the company, eventually bringing it into shape for repurchase.
It will be interesting to see whether an 1860-like restart will be needed and/or useful. In 1860, the restart gives the company new capital (although it is not run in receivership in the interim). This may work better than the receivership option, but might it also encourage people to run companies into the ground?
I'm not sure whether to also have a yellow zone. I don't want to over-egg the benefits of continually withholding income in one company, but encouraging players to buy into cheap shares might be worthwhile. I definitely don't want a brown zone, as I want to encourage cross-investment.
There are lots of options to try. I think I'll start with a small yellow zone and automatic receivership at the bottom of the chart.
Thursday, 27 May 2010
Starting the game
After a long hiatus away from Britain Under Steam, I spent some time at the weekend working on the financial side of the game. This is in many ways more important than the track building aspects. I've also found it harder to get a handle on, which partly explains why I've been slow to start on it. Eventually I decided that I'd done as much preparatory work as I could, and now just had to dive in, try some figures, and see how well they worked.
I focused on the start of the game: what prices companies can be floated at, how much cash players should start with, and how much private railways should cost. The result wasn't too bad. I only had to tweak a few figures here and there to get something that should be a reasonably playable game. I was able to lay at least one issue to bed, and to formulate some of the remaining questions I need to answer.
One issue I looked at was the "rungs" on the stock market around the start price. Many 18xx games have less than £10 between spaces - e.g. £67 & £72, or £60, £65 & £70. I want to divide all prices by 10, so I wanted to check that spaces valued £60, £70, £80 ... worked fine. And they did.
I will revisit the issue of how many shares are required to start a company. So far, I've been assuming two (i.e. 40% of a five-share company). A result of this, if the minimum start price is £60, is that someone could start two companies with just £240. This would not encourage players to invest in each other's companies from the start, which is my goal, so I may change this to a more traditional 60% of a company. This would make the minimum cost to float a company be £180, so I could add an additional £170 to the starting cash which players could only spend on each other's companies.
An alternative idea, which I had right at the start of this project, would be to charge a £50 fee for starting a company. So although the shares might only cost £120, the total cost might be £170. I'll experiment with this. There is an attraction to keeping the two shares to float rule, which is that there are more shares available for other players to invest in; they just need an incentive to actually do so.
Some other questions popped up, which I will leave for future posts.
I focused on the start of the game: what prices companies can be floated at, how much cash players should start with, and how much private railways should cost. The result wasn't too bad. I only had to tweak a few figures here and there to get something that should be a reasonably playable game. I was able to lay at least one issue to bed, and to formulate some of the remaining questions I need to answer.
One issue I looked at was the "rungs" on the stock market around the start price. Many 18xx games have less than £10 between spaces - e.g. £67 & £72, or £60, £65 & £70. I want to divide all prices by 10, so I wanted to check that spaces valued £60, £70, £80 ... worked fine. And they did.
I will revisit the issue of how many shares are required to start a company. So far, I've been assuming two (i.e. 40% of a five-share company). A result of this, if the minimum start price is £60, is that someone could start two companies with just £240. This would not encourage players to invest in each other's companies from the start, which is my goal, so I may change this to a more traditional 60% of a company. This would make the minimum cost to float a company be £180, so I could add an additional £170 to the starting cash which players could only spend on each other's companies.
An alternative idea, which I had right at the start of this project, would be to charge a £50 fee for starting a company. So although the shares might only cost £120, the total cost might be £170. I'll experiment with this. There is an attraction to keeping the two shares to float rule, which is that there are more shares available for other players to invest in; they just need an incentive to actually do so.
Some other questions popped up, which I will leave for future posts.
Game components
I print most of my components on card, and laminate share certificates and such like. Recently I've been looking for some markers.
The best ones are from SpielMaterial in Germany. They're nice round wooden disks in a variety of colours. On the web site, look under "Pawns and Other Figures" and then "Discs". I also bought some 15x10mm cylinders as possible markers for merged companies.
Northumbria Games provide a plastic alternative. They're pretty good too. The web site calls them "15x5mm counters". I also bought some "14x10mm cylinders", but these are 14mm long and 10mm diameter, rather than the other way around.
For a much cheaper option, you could try PlugItDowel. These are decorative finishes for furniture makers and the like; they're intended to cover screw holes and the like. The flat head plugs aren't perfectly cylindrical; one end is slightly smaller than the other, but they are a servicable option.
On a different note, Leisure Games are selling a box of coloured train markers for Euro Games such as Steam and Ticket To Ride. If I move Britain Under Steam beyond the tile mechanism of 18xx, these could be very useful.
The best ones are from SpielMaterial in Germany. They're nice round wooden disks in a variety of colours. On the web site, look under "Pawns and Other Figures" and then "Discs". I also bought some 15x10mm cylinders as possible markers for merged companies.
Northumbria Games provide a plastic alternative. They're pretty good too. The web site calls them "15x5mm counters". I also bought some "14x10mm cylinders", but these are 14mm long and 10mm diameter, rather than the other way around.
For a much cheaper option, you could try PlugItDowel. These are decorative finishes for furniture makers and the like; they're intended to cover screw holes and the like. The flat head plugs aren't perfectly cylindrical; one end is slightly smaller than the other, but they are a servicable option.
On a different note, Leisure Games are selling a box of coloured train markers for Euro Games such as Steam and Ticket To Ride. If I move Britain Under Steam beyond the tile mechanism of 18xx, these could be very useful.
Monday, 17 May 2010
Varying the Number of Companies
It's almost a year since I first posted here regarding the number of companies to include in the game, and over 6 months since I decided to remove some of the regional companies. Since then I have had a working set of 11 companies.
More recently, I decided to vary the number of companies for different numbers of players. In part, this is because 11 companies would be potentially unwieldy for three players. Also, having many more companies than players increases the opportunities for wanton asset stripping. My current draft has 2n+1 companies, where n is the number of players. I reason that each player should have the chance to start two companies (which is a rule of thumb I use when playing various combinations of 1825).
Thomas Lehmann's 1846 takes a similar approach. Tom's game uses n+2 companies, of which 4 are included in every game and the remainder are drawn randomly. This last element is appealing; it gives some variation between different games.
I'm currently wondering whether my 2n+1 approach is better than Tom's n+2. Many 18xx games use a fixed number of companies for different numbers of players, which suggests that a narrower range may suffice. Perhaps I could use n+5, giving 8-11 companies instead of 7-13. On the other hand, the BoardGameGeek review of 1846 suggests that it's rare for players to start a second company. That's not the sort of game I'm after.
Also, an n+5 formula would mean that for 5 players, the game would have exactly 2n companies. I'm worried that this might be a mistake, by being too symmetrical.
Whichever approach I take, I will need to vary the number of trains available as well (as indeed Tom did in 1846).
More recently, I decided to vary the number of companies for different numbers of players. In part, this is because 11 companies would be potentially unwieldy for three players. Also, having many more companies than players increases the opportunities for wanton asset stripping. My current draft has 2n+1 companies, where n is the number of players. I reason that each player should have the chance to start two companies (which is a rule of thumb I use when playing various combinations of 1825).
Thomas Lehmann's 1846 takes a similar approach. Tom's game uses n+2 companies, of which 4 are included in every game and the remainder are drawn randomly. This last element is appealing; it gives some variation between different games.
I'm currently wondering whether my 2n+1 approach is better than Tom's n+2. Many 18xx games use a fixed number of companies for different numbers of players, which suggests that a narrower range may suffice. Perhaps I could use n+5, giving 8-11 companies instead of 7-13. On the other hand, the BoardGameGeek review of 1846 suggests that it's rare for players to start a second company. That's not the sort of game I'm after.
Also, an n+5 formula would mean that for 5 players, the game would have exactly 2n companies. I'm worried that this might be a mistake, by being too symmetrical.
Whichever approach I take, I will need to vary the number of trains available as well (as indeed Tom did in 1846).
Sunday, 7 March 2010
Controlling the main lines
The main issue on my mind at the moment is which companies should be able to run on the main lines through the north of England to Scotland - the East Coast Main Line (ECML) and West Coast Main Line (WCML). I originally had a couple of key cities that controlled each route - York and Newcastle on the ECML and Carlisle and Preston on the WCML. Each city could upgrade to a tile with two station markers. This meant that companies would have to co-operate to run the London to Scotland routes. On the West, the LNWR, LYR and Caledonian would be likely allies, while on the East the alliance might comprise the NBR, NER and GNR.
A couple of changes I have in mind would threaten this balance. On one hand, the population of Carlisle, Preston and even York was only high enough to qualify them as towns compared to other cities on the map. On the other hand, I would like to keep 1-station cities to have just one marker space: partly to reduce the number of markers needed in the game and partly to make cities such as Stoke and Leicester less central.
If I change Carlisle, Preston and York to towns, then access to the main lines would be much easier; almost any company could run along one or the other. This would mean that I wouldn't need rules for alliances. But the result seems too liberal, with no competition for access to these important routes.
If I reduce the number of markers these cities can hold. then whichever company controls them will be in a central position for any alliance. This could give too much control to the LYR and GNR, with no competition for alternatives.
An alternative would be to make some of them grey hexes, with a fixed low income and a sufficient number of marker spaces, or to have two types of 1-station cities. I'm less keen on the latter approach because I already have three different types of city, in addition to towns and plain hexes.
There is a related issue that I may need to adjust the map to ensure that Preston and York really do control the main lines, with no easy bypasses. This is similar to the recent changes I made to ensure that Carlisle and Newcastle control the passes further north.
A couple of changes I have in mind would threaten this balance. On one hand, the population of Carlisle, Preston and even York was only high enough to qualify them as towns compared to other cities on the map. On the other hand, I would like to keep 1-station cities to have just one marker space: partly to reduce the number of markers needed in the game and partly to make cities such as Stoke and Leicester less central.
If I change Carlisle, Preston and York to towns, then access to the main lines would be much easier; almost any company could run along one or the other. This would mean that I wouldn't need rules for alliances. But the result seems too liberal, with no competition for access to these important routes.
If I reduce the number of markers these cities can hold. then whichever company controls them will be in a central position for any alliance. This could give too much control to the LYR and GNR, with no competition for alternatives.
An alternative would be to make some of them grey hexes, with a fixed low income and a sufficient number of marker spaces, or to have two types of 1-station cities. I'm less keen on the latter approach because I already have three different types of city, in addition to towns and plain hexes.
There is a related issue that I may need to adjust the map to ensure that Preston and York really do control the main lines, with no easy bypasses. This is similar to the recent changes I made to ensure that Carlisle and Newcastle control the passes further north.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
