I spent last night looking into the problem with bonus routes that I mentioned in my previous post. I wrote spreadsheet to calculate the likely incomes from various routes in various phases of the game. A particular aspect of 18GB is that the dividend distribution rules create ledges when a company's income reaches a new multiple of five or ten, which complicates the assessment of the effect of bonuses. If a bonus of +3 takes an income from 17 to 20, it affects the income in a way that an increase from 15 to 18 does not. This gives me more scope for fine tuning but makes the design process harder.
My main concern from the last game was that the London to Hull bonus was too high. Combined with the intrinsic income, it made Hull worth 8 for a train from London, which is more than other cities in the area such as Leeds or Newcastle. This was distorting the routes too much, so I have reduced the bonus from +4 to +3 and also reduced the income distribution for Hull itself from 2/3/4 to 2/3/3, so that in the final phase it is only value 6 to a train from London. This might make it a worthwhile endpoint but also allows other options.
The main aim of the bonus routes is to encourage companies to build routes to places that otherwise might not be worthwhile. One key example is London-Aberdeen, which can score over 50 with a single train with the bonus in place. Two other important cases are London-Plymouth and London-Holyhead, both of which were important routes historically and which would be pointless in the game without the bonuses.
For consistency, I know have almost all off-board areas have the same income distribution as equivalent on-map cities - 2/3/3, 3/4/5, or 3/5/6. This helps to make certain bonus routes useful in the early game but less so in the later game. The Plymouth and Holyhead bonuses are still high; it will be interesting to see whether they are too high or whether they work.
There are now just two exceptions to the general consistency of incomes for off-board areas. London itself, at 3/5/7, is marginally more than the other conurbations in the final phase (despite being much bigger historically). The West Highlands of Scotland, at 1/2/2 are less than any other off-map area, being little better than a town.
This all looks good on paper. The next game should show how well theory transfers into practice!
Sunday, 8 April 2012
Tuesday, 13 March 2012
A four-player game: coda
WIth regard to the main game report, at least all I am discussing at this point is just the train mix at this point. I have no major changes to the rules arising from Sunday's game, which is a pleasant state to be in.
I may tweak the tile mix and the value of bonus routes. The bonus routes tended to dominate this game more than they have done in the past. This is probably because the bonuses are now easier to claim, using multiple trains instead of requiring a single train to make the connection. One example of this was that London to Hull was a more profitable route than, say, London to Leeds or London to Manchester, which seems wrong. I will check whether this was just a trick of how the track was built in this game but I suspect I will reduce the value of that bonus. I may also reduce the value of the London to Milford Haven bonus.
The fact that these are small tweaks suggests that the overall design is currently fairly stable. If I can achieve a good train mix, the game might be ready for some wider playtesting. I suspect that playing it with a different group of players will reveal a different set of problems!
I may tweak the tile mix and the value of bonus routes. The bonus routes tended to dominate this game more than they have done in the past. This is probably because the bonuses are now easier to claim, using multiple trains instead of requiring a single train to make the connection. One example of this was that London to Hull was a more profitable route than, say, London to Leeds or London to Manchester, which seems wrong. I will check whether this was just a trick of how the track was built in this game but I suspect I will reduce the value of that bonus. I may also reduce the value of the London to Milford Haven bonus.
The fact that these are small tweaks suggests that the overall design is currently fairly stable. If I can achieve a good train mix, the game might be ready for some wider playtesting. I suspect that playing it with a different group of players will reveal a different set of problems!
A four-player game
We played my first test game with four players at the weekend. It had a very slow start, hardly any stock selling, and a winner from the off. I think these three observations were related.
The winning player paid £12 for the L&M private, assigned it to the LYR and was soon running for £15 (£3 a share) with double jumps in stock price. This is a strong combination and he leveraged his early gaines throughout the game.
If my records are correct, the 2+1 trains lasted until OR7! I only question my records because they seem to show six 3+1 trains and we were supposed to be playing with five. Even five is one more than I had previously specified for four players. After our last game, my playtesters criticised the shortage of trains in the mid-game so I adjusted the mix slightly. On the evidence of this game, I shall be adjusting it back.
The long time before the arrival of the 4+1 trains (which are what killed the 2+1's) had a several effects. The leading player could consolidate his position without losing trains. No companies could convert to ten-share companies. Hence the number of station markers available was limited, so it was difficult to block the routes of the leading player.
The later stages of the game saw some more variety and I at least managed to close the gap somewhat. As my GWR finished with a 6X and a 5+2, I could have done better if I'd had more faith and bought more shares in my own company.
From a design point of view, the question is why was the game so slow to develop. Was it purely down to the train mix or did it follow from the choices of the players? With one person clearly leading, the rest of us should have been trying to stop him, but we chose to buy paying shares rather than push the trains, and we didn't set about blocking the LYR route (which would have been harder than it sounds, given the nature of track-building in 18GB).
We are a fairly cautious group but I think my recent change to the train mix needs to be reversed. Until the 4+1 trains don't come out, the strategic options are limited. If the mid-game truly needs more trains, then it would probably be better to add an extra 4+1.
The winning player paid £12 for the L&M private, assigned it to the LYR and was soon running for £15 (£3 a share) with double jumps in stock price. This is a strong combination and he leveraged his early gaines throughout the game.
If my records are correct, the 2+1 trains lasted until OR7! I only question my records because they seem to show six 3+1 trains and we were supposed to be playing with five. Even five is one more than I had previously specified for four players. After our last game, my playtesters criticised the shortage of trains in the mid-game so I adjusted the mix slightly. On the evidence of this game, I shall be adjusting it back.
The long time before the arrival of the 4+1 trains (which are what killed the 2+1's) had a several effects. The leading player could consolidate his position without losing trains. No companies could convert to ten-share companies. Hence the number of station markers available was limited, so it was difficult to block the routes of the leading player.
The later stages of the game saw some more variety and I at least managed to close the gap somewhat. As my GWR finished with a 6X and a 5+2, I could have done better if I'd had more faith and bought more shares in my own company.
From a design point of view, the question is why was the game so slow to develop. Was it purely down to the train mix or did it follow from the choices of the players? With one person clearly leading, the rest of us should have been trying to stop him, but we chose to buy paying shares rather than push the trains, and we didn't set about blocking the LYR route (which would have been harder than it sounds, given the nature of track-building in 18GB).
We are a fairly cautious group but I think my recent change to the train mix needs to be reversed. Until the 4+1 trains don't come out, the strategic options are limited. If the mid-game truly needs more trains, then it would probably be better to add an extra 4+1.
Wednesday, 29 February 2012
Photo of a three-player game
Here's a photo of the map at the end of the January test game. This was a three-player game so the companies to the south and west of the map (on the left in the photo) weren't in play.
Monday, 30 January 2012
More test games
We played two more three-player games in the last month. Taking the hint from the December game, the rules now prevent trains from counting income multiple times from the same city. This works well. We also tried a couple of different versions of the Insolvency rules and have reached what seems to be a good working set.
The main surprise in the last game was that only three companies became ten-share companies. One player struggled to get his companies to the required £10 share value, hindered in part by the others selling some of this shares to depress the price. My colleagues suggested that more trains in the mid-game might help boost income, although they would also take more cash out of the companies in the first place. I may have to play about with some more spreadsheets.
It also occurs to me that perhaps the £10 price ledge isn't really needed. Companies could convert at lower values and just receive less capital as a result. I original added the ledge to restrict trashing, but I think the other rules in place should be sufficient.
I have made a few changes to the map and tiles. Single-station cities now increase in value at the start of the green phase, which makes those companies that start in such cities more competitive. It also makes the West Coast Main Line reach a potential 50 income. The East Coast Main Line can still score more, which thanks to a tweak in the Stock Exchange means that companies can double-jump one step higher.
My players are getting used to wooden cubes as share tokens. This is just as well, because I haven't had time to design, print and cut certificates.
One thing that didn't work was a trial with a simultaneous auction for the Private Railways. What worked in 18NEB didn't work for our second game in 18GB. All the players refused to buy the cheapest Private Railway until it dropped in price. This in turn perturbed the starting cash so that we were able to start five companies in the first turn, which promptly messed up the flow of trains into the game. So I've returned the system to auctioning one Private Railway at a time. Possibly an 1830-style auction might work as well.
The design is definitely progressing. It still needs more testing and tweaking. It's all fun.
The main surprise in the last game was that only three companies became ten-share companies. One player struggled to get his companies to the required £10 share value, hindered in part by the others selling some of this shares to depress the price. My colleagues suggested that more trains in the mid-game might help boost income, although they would also take more cash out of the companies in the first place. I may have to play about with some more spreadsheets.
It also occurs to me that perhaps the £10 price ledge isn't really needed. Companies could convert at lower values and just receive less capital as a result. I original added the ledge to restrict trashing, but I think the other rules in place should be sufficient.
I have made a few changes to the map and tiles. Single-station cities now increase in value at the start of the green phase, which makes those companies that start in such cities more competitive. It also makes the West Coast Main Line reach a potential 50 income. The East Coast Main Line can still score more, which thanks to a tweak in the Stock Exchange means that companies can double-jump one step higher.
My players are getting used to wooden cubes as share tokens. This is just as well, because I haven't had time to design, print and cut certificates.
One thing that didn't work was a trial with a simultaneous auction for the Private Railways. What worked in 18NEB didn't work for our second game in 18GB. All the players refused to buy the cheapest Private Railway until it dropped in price. This in turn perturbed the starting cash so that we were able to start five companies in the first turn, which promptly messed up the flow of trains into the game. So I've returned the system to auctioning one Private Railway at a time. Possibly an 1830-style auction might work as well.
The design is definitely progressing. It still needs more testing and tweaking. It's all fun.
Sunday, 11 December 2011
A three-player game
Today we tried the 3-player game for the first time. It generally worked quite well. My testers enjoyed it and said they'd be happy to play it again.
Some recent changes worked well. The "Lawson-style" plain track tiles simplified the route building, and my changes to make the city tiles more uniform also worked. I'm even considering replacing the two-station city tiles with more conventional 18xx tiles, to simplify that aspect of the game still further, although that would change the style of the game somewhat.
As always, the test revealed some things that need tweaking. I was taken by surprise when one player started running a train that visited Glasgow three times on the same route. In an earlier version of the rules, a given city could only count once towards each train. That was a rule that I removed for the sake of simplicity, but I may have to reinstate it. (Alternatively, I could turn Glasgow into a 2-station city, which would bely its historical population; or perhaps players just need to put markers in Glasgow to stop this behaviour).
I had tweaked the Insolvency rules before this game and we agreed that they are now too generous. I either need to return to the 1860 rule whereby companies become insolvent at the end of their turn, or reduce the earnings that companies receive from leasing a train. (1860 actually does both of these, but that would probably be too harsh for my game).
We had to adjust the number of trains in the mix, but I pretty much expected that for the first game. (There is a different train mix depending on the number of players). And there are some minor tweaks to consider elsewhere as well.
Finally, the players said they would prefer traditional certificates rather than wooden cubes to represent shares. So 18GB is definitely becoming more and more of an 18xx game and less of a eurogame. I don't mind that; I now know how I would create a eurogame, learning from the experience of 18GB, and in the meantime I'm happy to create a new member of the 18xx family.
Some recent changes worked well. The "Lawson-style" plain track tiles simplified the route building, and my changes to make the city tiles more uniform also worked. I'm even considering replacing the two-station city tiles with more conventional 18xx tiles, to simplify that aspect of the game still further, although that would change the style of the game somewhat.
As always, the test revealed some things that need tweaking. I was taken by surprise when one player started running a train that visited Glasgow three times on the same route. In an earlier version of the rules, a given city could only count once towards each train. That was a rule that I removed for the sake of simplicity, but I may have to reinstate it. (Alternatively, I could turn Glasgow into a 2-station city, which would bely its historical population; or perhaps players just need to put markers in Glasgow to stop this behaviour).
I had tweaked the Insolvency rules before this game and we agreed that they are now too generous. I either need to return to the 1860 rule whereby companies become insolvent at the end of their turn, or reduce the earnings that companies receive from leasing a train. (1860 actually does both of these, but that would probably be too harsh for my game).
We had to adjust the number of trains in the mix, but I pretty much expected that for the first game. (There is a different train mix depending on the number of players). And there are some minor tweaks to consider elsewhere as well.
Finally, the players said they would prefer traditional certificates rather than wooden cubes to represent shares. So 18GB is definitely becoming more and more of an 18xx game and less of a eurogame. I don't mind that; I now know how I would create a eurogame, learning from the experience of 18GB, and in the meantime I'm happy to create a new member of the 18xx family.
Friday, 18 November 2011
Now that was close!
Yesterday I tried another 4-player game, with me playing all positions. The final scores were: 505, 504, 503 and 501. That was close - what does it imply? I can see the following options:
- I've developed a finely-balanced game
- I unconsciously played all the positions similarly, with similar results
- It was a fluke result
- The game is designed so that the actions of the players make no appreciable difference
Obviously I'm hoping that one of the first three apply, rather than the fourth.
One of the "players" did have a good lead, both financially and operationally. Her NBR commanded the East Coast London-Aberdeen route, which is the highest scoring route in the game. She score was dragged back when another player sold 5 shares in her other main company (the Caledonian). Also, she could possibly have optimised her shares better in the end game. So perhaps I shouldn't be too worried by the final score.
I am more concerned about the stock market rules. Halfway through the game, I dropped the rule that make the director's token of each company sell for half value. With that in place, I could see no incentive for people to dump companies. I'll have to re-examine the effect of this at the beginning of the game: if necessary I'll only allow companies to buy trains from each other from Phase Three (as in 1830).
I also need some rule to limit stock trashing. It would have been perfectly possible to trash all the stock prices mindlessly. Possibly I just need a two-dimensional stock market after all, although these do have some drawbacks. An alternative would be to forbid players from selling shares in companies that they bought earlier in the round, although directors would have to be careful to protect their own holdings first. Maybe I just need ledges as in Steam Over Holland, or to make only sales by the Director affect the Share Price.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
