The map and tiles for 18GB were, I thought, pretty much settled. The interesting problems lay in the cash flow and train mix. But recently I played a game of 1830 – not something I do often – and I was struck by the tight tile set and the impact that a few key hexes had on the routes available. So I thought a bit and decided to add three double-town hexes to the 18GB map.
The beauty of these hexes lies precisely in that there are only three of them and the supply of tiles is strictly limited. This means that players may be in competition for the particular tile they desire. So by adding these hexes, I have added an extra element of player interaction and competition.
By comparison, the single-town hexes, plain hexes and most city hexes are more numerous. Therefore they have more tiles available and the element of competition is not so great. The exception is the four major cities – Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Glasgow, which have similarly tight tile sets.
I’ve taken this opportunity to change the single-town tiles as well. Previously, the green tiles had four prongs (K, X, or peace-sign). Now they only have three (doglegs and Y), thus making tighter track development. This wouldn’t have worked before because the three hexes that are now double towns really need crossing track. It will be interesting to see whether how this change affects the game – it may make it too hard to build intersecting track, which would potentially reduce player interaction rather than enhancing it.
Wednesday, 17 August 2011
Saturday, 13 August 2011
Converting to Ten-Share Companies
A fair amount of my recent testing has looked at the process of converting companies from five shares to ten shares. Converting gives the company more capital, more station markers and a higher train limit, but halves the income from each share. So the director has to make a trade off between owning a more effective company or keeping a higher percentage of a company’s shares. The questions are, how this should affect the share price, and how much money should it give the company.
At first, I halved the company’s share price when it converted, reflecting the fact that each share now represented 10% of the company’s value instead of the 20% it did previously. This didn’t work in practice. It made the shares too cheap to buy and their value quickly increased thanks to the multiple jumps from a high dividend. Players ended the game with too much cash that they couldn’t spend. Also, the company didn’t get much extra cash from the halved share price, which made converting less worthwhile.
So I looked at what happened if the company’s share price is unchanged by conversion. With this approach, the number and cost of shares available works out much better. However, this also gives more money to the company, to the extent that it seems too easy to buy the expensive trains and even have a little left over for tokens. I could increase the cost of trains to compensate, but this would effectively eliminate the option of withholding income instead of converting.
One option would be to make the money coming into the company be set by its original, initial, share price instead of the share price at the time of conversion. This is what 1880 does. However, this would remove a trade-off. As things stand, a director has the choice on the one hand of converting early, to gain markers and key routes, and on the other hand of converting late, to get more money into the treasury. I like to have more decisions in the game and having a fixed amount of money arising from conversion would shift the decision towards converting early.
Currently I am experimenting with dropping the share price by two spaces when a company converts. This reduces the amount of money it receives and inflicts some cost on the director’s share value. In the first run through, this seemed to work OK. I'll do a few more tests and see how it goes.
At first, I halved the company’s share price when it converted, reflecting the fact that each share now represented 10% of the company’s value instead of the 20% it did previously. This didn’t work in practice. It made the shares too cheap to buy and their value quickly increased thanks to the multiple jumps from a high dividend. Players ended the game with too much cash that they couldn’t spend. Also, the company didn’t get much extra cash from the halved share price, which made converting less worthwhile.
So I looked at what happened if the company’s share price is unchanged by conversion. With this approach, the number and cost of shares available works out much better. However, this also gives more money to the company, to the extent that it seems too easy to buy the expensive trains and even have a little left over for tokens. I could increase the cost of trains to compensate, but this would effectively eliminate the option of withholding income instead of converting.
One option would be to make the money coming into the company be set by its original, initial, share price instead of the share price at the time of conversion. This is what 1880 does. However, this would remove a trade-off. As things stand, a director has the choice on the one hand of converting early, to gain markers and key routes, and on the other hand of converting late, to get more money into the treasury. I like to have more decisions in the game and having a fixed amount of money arising from conversion would shift the decision towards converting early.
Currently I am experimenting with dropping the share price by two spaces when a company converts. This reduces the amount of money it receives and inflicts some cost on the director’s share value. In the first run through, this seemed to work OK. I'll do a few more tests and see how it goes.
Wednesday, 10 August 2011
Trains and Asset Stripping
When I last discussed asset stripping on this blog, I listed several possible rules that might contribute to a balanced game. Since then, I have tried various combinations of these rules in solo games and spreadsheet simulations. It's now time for a review.
I've decided that the key problem is when a company in receivership collects enough money to buy a new large train near the end of the game. The company probably won't cost much, so the player with the priority can buy this company, strip the new train from it, and dump the company for little or no cost. This gives a huge advantage to that player. You could say that players have to assess the situation and juggle the priority accordingly, but I suspect that the effect is too large.
To counter this, I have adopted the rule that works well in 1860. A company may not buy another company's last train, unless it has no trains itself. So if a company in receivership buys a train, another company can't asset strip it. A player can buy a company that has accumulated money in its treasury and buy a train from one of his existing companies, in order to get an injection of cash, so there is still some judgement required about how long to leave a company in receivership, but you also need trains to sell.
When I first tried this rule, I found that it limited train shuffling in the early and middle game more than I wanted. Since then, I have reduced the cost of individual trains (to nearer the norm of other 18xx games) and made a few other changes that seem to have resolved this problem.
Other rules that work well are that shares of a company with no trains are sold for half price (another rule from 1860) and that the director's certificate is also sold for the value of one share rather than two. (It is not permitted to "make change" for selling the director's certificate).
One rule that didn't work was to require new companies to buy their first train from the bank. This restricted players' options too much.
In the blog post referenced above, I suggested dropping a company's share price if it bought a company for more than full price, or if it sold it for less than half price. In practice I kept forgetting to do this and it made the calculation of train value too fiddly. Then I tried restricting the sale price to between half and double price. The half price restriction was too restrictive but I might keep the upper limit. I have also experimented with simply dropping a company's share price every time it sells a train, which is easier to remember, but I'm not convinced this is worthwhile.
I think I've reached a workable set of rules in this regard. Much more playtesting will be required.
I've decided that the key problem is when a company in receivership collects enough money to buy a new large train near the end of the game. The company probably won't cost much, so the player with the priority can buy this company, strip the new train from it, and dump the company for little or no cost. This gives a huge advantage to that player. You could say that players have to assess the situation and juggle the priority accordingly, but I suspect that the effect is too large.
To counter this, I have adopted the rule that works well in 1860. A company may not buy another company's last train, unless it has no trains itself. So if a company in receivership buys a train, another company can't asset strip it. A player can buy a company that has accumulated money in its treasury and buy a train from one of his existing companies, in order to get an injection of cash, so there is still some judgement required about how long to leave a company in receivership, but you also need trains to sell.
When I first tried this rule, I found that it limited train shuffling in the early and middle game more than I wanted. Since then, I have reduced the cost of individual trains (to nearer the norm of other 18xx games) and made a few other changes that seem to have resolved this problem.
Other rules that work well are that shares of a company with no trains are sold for half price (another rule from 1860) and that the director's certificate is also sold for the value of one share rather than two. (It is not permitted to "make change" for selling the director's certificate).
One rule that didn't work was to require new companies to buy their first train from the bank. This restricted players' options too much.
In the blog post referenced above, I suggested dropping a company's share price if it bought a company for more than full price, or if it sold it for less than half price. In practice I kept forgetting to do this and it made the calculation of train value too fiddly. Then I tried restricting the sale price to between half and double price. The half price restriction was too restrictive but I might keep the upper limit. I have also experimented with simply dropping a company's share price every time it sells a train, which is easier to remember, but I'm not convinced this is worthwhile.
I think I've reached a workable set of rules in this regard. Much more playtesting will be required.
Thursday, 21 July 2011
Manorcon XXIX
I played four 18xx games at Manorcon this year. 1848 (Australia) , 1865 (Sardinia) and 1817 were all new to me, while 18Ardennes I had played in a prototype version two years ago and not since. I had read the rules to 1817, as I was interested in the short-selling mechanism, and those of 1865, as it has a new mechanic for abstracting train operations.
Of these, the game I enjoyed most was 1848. This is a straightforward 18xx: you buy shares and run trains. It took us three hours on the Friday evening (playing more rapidly than my usual group).
The other three titles all had some form of mergers (18Ardennes), acquisitions (1865) or both (1817). I find these mechanisms harder to play. I can handle the simple minor companies and mergers in 18EU. When minors have share prices as well, as in 1861 and 18Ardennes, I don't have a handle on the best way to play. Acquisitions are entirely new to me and I'm not at all sure how to play them. I need more practice: fortunately I have another PBM game of 1861 due to start.
These games were more involved and took longer than 1848. 1817 took much longer - I think we played for 10 hours. I'm glad that I've seen these new mechanisms in actual play and I'll have a think about whether I want to adopt them, but the key lesson I take from this the weekend is to remember that simplicity is a virtue.
Of these, the game I enjoyed most was 1848. This is a straightforward 18xx: you buy shares and run trains. It took us three hours on the Friday evening (playing more rapidly than my usual group).
The other three titles all had some form of mergers (18Ardennes), acquisitions (1865) or both (1817). I find these mechanisms harder to play. I can handle the simple minor companies and mergers in 18EU. When minors have share prices as well, as in 1861 and 18Ardennes, I don't have a handle on the best way to play. Acquisitions are entirely new to me and I'm not at all sure how to play them. I need more practice: fortunately I have another PBM game of 1861 due to start.
These games were more involved and took longer than 1848. 1817 took much longer - I think we played for 10 hours. I'm glad that I've seen these new mechanisms in actual play and I'll have a think about whether I want to adopt them, but the key lesson I take from this the weekend is to remember that simplicity is a virtue.
Saturday, 28 May 2011
Spreadsheets everywhere
Recently, I've run a couple of test games using only a spreadsheet, without the map and tiles. This has meant that I've had to guess the income of each company based on its trains and the stage of the game. Although I may have made some mistakes along the way as a result, the spreadsheet approach has several advantages.
For one thing, I have a record of each game. I can look back over the game and see how many trains were bought in each OR, or how many shares were available in each SR. Then I can experiment with a rule change, starting from a particular point in the game.
This approach allows me to concentrate on the financial flow of the game. I'm looking at when money becomes available for players to start companies and for companies to buy trains. It's an important way of thinking about the game. I'd even guess that experienced 18xx designers use this view of the game from the outset, whereas I've come to it after much work on other parts of the game.
From a practical point of view, the spreadsheet is much more convenient. Instead of needing a table to set up the map, I can carry the spreadsheet on a memory stick and play a couple of moves when I have a spare moment.
I don't claim any originality for the idea. Like many good ideas, I picked it up from the 18xx mailing list. It took a while to get the spreadsheet working the way I want it, but the effort has definitely been worthwhile.
For one thing, I have a record of each game. I can look back over the game and see how many trains were bought in each OR, or how many shares were available in each SR. Then I can experiment with a rule change, starting from a particular point in the game.
This approach allows me to concentrate on the financial flow of the game. I'm looking at when money becomes available for players to start companies and for companies to buy trains. It's an important way of thinking about the game. I'd even guess that experienced 18xx designers use this view of the game from the outset, whereas I've come to it after much work on other parts of the game.
From a practical point of view, the spreadsheet is much more convenient. Instead of needing a table to set up the map, I can carry the spreadsheet on a memory stick and play a couple of moves when I have a spare moment.
I don't claim any originality for the idea. Like many good ideas, I picked it up from the 18xx mailing list. It took a while to get the spreadsheet working the way I want it, but the effort has definitely been worthwhile.
Sunday, 27 March 2011
18GB vs. Britain Under Steam
Way back when I started this project, I stated that my aim was to produce a game in the mould of 1829, 1830 et al that will be popular with euro-gamers. What I currently have is more of a traditional 18xx game. I did get rid of paper money (or poker chips) by simplifying the system for distributed income, which is a step along the right path, and the game isn't too complicated by 18xx standards, but I doubt that it will appeal to Eurogamers.
I should say at this point that I'm happy with this situation. I think the game has the potential to be a good 18xx game, if I can find more time to refine it through playtesting. The point of this post is to speculate on how I could create a new game, based on the same ideas, that really did appeal to Eurogamers.
The first thing to do would be to have companies lay their track directly on the board, rather than using tiles. Coloured train markers would be good, similar to those in Ticket To Ride. I could either let companies lay them from hex to hex, or have predefined routes on the map on which the markers could be placed. This would get rid of the tiles and all the rules about tile placement. (I note that Poseidon has already embodied a similar approach, using round markers on a hex grid).
This change would produce a rail network more akin to those of crayon rail games. These are popular and easy to understand. They also take up less space, as you don't need table space for all the different tiles of an 18xx game, and the board itself can be smaller too. The network would behave differently from 18xx games, in which companies often share track, and I might need rules to govern junctions and other details, but it should still work.
On the financial side, I'd be inclined to remove the transition from 5-share to 10-share companies. Several possibilities arise, including only having 5-share companies or only having 10-share companies. Another intriguing idea would be to have 6-share companies, funded incrementally (i.e. with share purchases paid to the company), and dividing all income by the number of shares in play. So if one player has 2 shares of company and another has 1, the first will get 2/3 of the dividend and the second 1/3. If someone else buys a fourth share, the amount paid out will drop to 1/2 and 1/4.
In other parts of the game, I'd be tempted to simplify the rules for receivership. Companies without a train or a director would receive a fixed amount into their treasury each turn (increasing by phase), rather than having to lease a train. This is an optional rule for insolvency in 1860 and is simple to use. I'd probably also simplify the rules for private railways.
All in all, this is something to think about. From now on, I will use the name 18GB for my 18xx game, and reserve Britain Under Steam for this putative new game. Unfortunately, I barely have enough time to work on one game, let alone two!
I should say at this point that I'm happy with this situation. I think the game has the potential to be a good 18xx game, if I can find more time to refine it through playtesting. The point of this post is to speculate on how I could create a new game, based on the same ideas, that really did appeal to Eurogamers.
The first thing to do would be to have companies lay their track directly on the board, rather than using tiles. Coloured train markers would be good, similar to those in Ticket To Ride. I could either let companies lay them from hex to hex, or have predefined routes on the map on which the markers could be placed. This would get rid of the tiles and all the rules about tile placement. (I note that Poseidon has already embodied a similar approach, using round markers on a hex grid).
This change would produce a rail network more akin to those of crayon rail games. These are popular and easy to understand. They also take up less space, as you don't need table space for all the different tiles of an 18xx game, and the board itself can be smaller too. The network would behave differently from 18xx games, in which companies often share track, and I might need rules to govern junctions and other details, but it should still work.
On the financial side, I'd be inclined to remove the transition from 5-share to 10-share companies. Several possibilities arise, including only having 5-share companies or only having 10-share companies. Another intriguing idea would be to have 6-share companies, funded incrementally (i.e. with share purchases paid to the company), and dividing all income by the number of shares in play. So if one player has 2 shares of company and another has 1, the first will get 2/3 of the dividend and the second 1/3. If someone else buys a fourth share, the amount paid out will drop to 1/2 and 1/4.
In other parts of the game, I'd be tempted to simplify the rules for receivership. Companies without a train or a director would receive a fixed amount into their treasury each turn (increasing by phase), rather than having to lease a train. This is an optional rule for insolvency in 1860 and is simple to use. I'd probably also simplify the rules for private railways.
All in all, this is something to think about. From now on, I will use the name 18GB for my 18xx game, and reserve Britain Under Steam for this putative new game. Unfortunately, I barely have enough time to work on one game, let alone two!
Wednesday, 16 February 2011
Changing Trains
My first test game, back in November, revealed that my choice of express trains did not work. I had taken the 4+4E trains from 1825, which can run any number of stations, take income from any four of those, and double it. On the 18GB map, these were more useful on relatively short routes rather than the long routes I had in mind (such as London to Aberdeen). It turned out that the ordinary 6 trains were running longer routes than the expresses.
I've got a better idea for express trains and they incorporate a mechanism I've only seen in one other 18xx game. (Typically for me, the idea comes from Mike Hutton). My 6E trains will count up to 6 stations and then add the distance between the start and end points. So running from London to Edinburgh will score more than connecting 6 cities in the North of England, because the bonus for the distance will increase the income significantly. I hope.
I'd also like to replace the ordinary 6 train, again so that the longer routes are run by the expresses. I think I can introduce a 4E to fill this slot. This has the additional effect of further encouraging five-share companies to convert to ten-share companies earlier, because only ten-share companies can own express trains.
This leaves only one problem, which is that there might not be enough trains left for five-share companies. The 4 trains will disappear when the first 6e is bought, leaving just the 5-trains. So I plan to add some 3T and 4T trains (tank engines) as well. These will replace the 3+1 and 4+1 trains. In practice they will be pretty similar to the trains they replace, except that there will be fewer of them and they will be able to run through an unlimited number of towns instead of just one.
I'll be interested to see how these work. I'm quite hopeful, although a little nervous about the 3T and 4T trains.
I've got a better idea for express trains and they incorporate a mechanism I've only seen in one other 18xx game. (Typically for me, the idea comes from Mike Hutton). My 6E trains will count up to 6 stations and then add the distance between the start and end points. So running from London to Edinburgh will score more than connecting 6 cities in the North of England, because the bonus for the distance will increase the income significantly. I hope.
I'd also like to replace the ordinary 6 train, again so that the longer routes are run by the expresses. I think I can introduce a 4E to fill this slot. This has the additional effect of further encouraging five-share companies to convert to ten-share companies earlier, because only ten-share companies can own express trains.
This leaves only one problem, which is that there might not be enough trains left for five-share companies. The 4 trains will disappear when the first 6e is bought, leaving just the 5-trains. So I plan to add some 3T and 4T trains (tank engines) as well. These will replace the 3+1 and 4+1 trains. In practice they will be pretty similar to the trains they replace, except that there will be fewer of them and they will be able to run through an unlimited number of towns instead of just one.
I'll be interested to see how these work. I'm quite hopeful, although a little nervous about the 3T and 4T trains.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
