18West Open Issues

[Barzai]

Based on the various discussions that have occurred, pursuant to games
played at MidSumCon, GenCon, and in the UK, I would like playtesters'
input on the fiollowing issues:

1. I am still considering making the two "D" (Dallas/Denver) grey
tiles worth $60 instead of $50. This would have the effect of slightly
improving the revenues of the DRG and TP, and somewhat more
substantially improving the revenues of the KP and the TP (since it
would add $4 to their x2 city on an E-W run).

2. The UP is still a bit of a weak sister and I wonder what can be
done to improve it. One possibility is to add a Bypass token to it,
which would cure its main defect, namely that it rarely if ever gets
thru Chicago and thereby the East Coast. It would also make its rules
essentially identical to the NP/DRG, or indeed to a LGC that opens
after Phase 5 (other than it's already running at the start).

3. Finally, there seems to be some evidence that players who open the
KP, ATSF, and TP in the first SR then find themselves perforce
interacting, simply because each company lays its tiles in a way
calculated to help itself most. To mitigate this, I wonder if I should
put some boundaries on the areas in which PGCs may lay or upgrade
track in the Frontier Zone (the yellow-tinted area between the Eastern
and Western Settled Zones).

These boundaries would look like this (from North to South):

NP - Rows B and C (plus maybe D).
KP - Rows G and H.
ATSF - Rows H and I (plus maybe J).
TP/SP - Rows J, K, and L.

These restrictions would only apply in the Frontier Zone. So SP could
still build down from SF to LA and San Diego, or (as apparently
happened in one game) build around LA and SD, and TP could still hook
up to NOL or NYC. NP, KP, and ATSF would all stillbe able to build
back toward CHI/STL.

Comments?

[David G.D. Hecht]

I know it's a bit gauche to comment your own posts, but it has been
suggested that a happy medium might be to avoid the restrictions on
building, but to only pay government subsidies in a more limited area.
Mechanically, this would also make it easier to remember, since one could
simply put the LGC herald and the value of the hex in the unimproved hex
(since green upgrades never count anyhow).

Comments?

[Chris Shaffer]

2. The UP is still a bit of a weak sister and I wonder what can be
done to improve it. One possibility is to add a Bypass token to it,
which would cure its main defect, namely that it rarely if ever gets
thru Chicago and thereby the East Coast. It would also make its rules
essentially identical to the NP/DRG, or indeed to a LGC that opens
after Phase 5 (other than it's already running at the start).

I suggest moving the UP Sacramento token to San Francisco and making it a doubling token.  This would improve the UP's beginning runs to $130, making it a more viable opening company, and a $130 run with a 3 train, preventing a stock market stall.  It would also give the UP president a strong incentive to merge with a Granger or build to New Orleans.  The UP is the first to make the east/west connection - why not give it the same reward the Land Grant companies get?  imho, this would make the UP a viable alternative to the TP/SP.

NP - Rows B and C (plus maybe D).
KP - Rows G and H.
ATSF - Rows H and I (plus maybe J).
TP/SP - Rows J, K, and L.

It's not clear to me how this would solve the problem.  The TP/SP would still build track together.  The KP destinates in Denver, so it's not really a factor as it becomes a ten-share company so quickly.  The NP is all alone in the north with or without the rule.  The only thing this seems to do is force the ATSF to build south of Denver by itself.  Is the ATSF that strong, or is there some other effect that I'm not seeing?

--
Chris

Keep the flying car. I want the future where "resurrection" is a medical specialty.

[Chris Shaffer]

Er, whoops, the 3 train run for the UP would be $110.

Chris

[Christopher Egan]

I prefer this option, otherwise you will lack in variety from game to game.

 

Christopher Egan

> 2. The UP is still a bit of a weak sister and I wonder what can be
> done to improve it. One possibility is to add a Bypass token to it,
> which would cure its main defect, namely that it rarely if ever gets
> thru Chicago and thereby the East Coast. It would also make its rules
> essentially identical to the NP/DRG, or indeed to a LGC that opens
> after Phase 5 (other than it's already running at the start).
>

> 3. Finally, there seems to be some evidence that players who open the
> KP, ATSF, and TP in the first SR then find themselves perforce
> interacting, simply because each company lays its tiles in a way
> calculated to help itself most. To mitigate this, I wonder if I should
> put some boundaries on the areas in which PGCs may lay or upgrade
> track in the Frontier Zone (the yellow-tinted area between the Eastern
> and Western Settled Zones).
>
> These boundaries would look like this (from North to South):
>

> NP - Rows B and C (plus maybe D).
> KP - Rows G and H.
> ATSF - Rows H and I (plus maybe J).
> TP/SP - Rows J, K, and L.
>

[sevensterre]

> On Aug 25, 10:55 am, "Chris Shaffer" <chris.shaf...@gmail.com> wrote:> Er, whoops, the 3 train run for the UP would be $110.
>
You were right the first time. Because the UP starts with Two Two
trains and not a three train. So with the change that you sugested it
would indeed have a 130 run to start with.

[David G.D. Hecht]

On the UP, that conflicts with the current narrative, which is that it's been punished for being a naughty railroad by having its doubling token revoked.

 

On a more practical level I don't really see that it solves anything early on, other than to help the straphangers. If I wanted to give it a better price/performance ratio and get the Presidency into play, I'd create a pseudo-private or concession that would be worth (say) $100 and that would come with the UP Presidency, or possibly five you the option to exchange it for the UP Presidency. As it stands a share of UP is about as good as anything else in the first pair od ORs: it pays a total of $20 and you can sell it at a $20 profit. Nothing wrong with that!

 

As to stagnation, I've yet to see a game where that happens. It takes the first two doubles for the UP to reach a stagnation point, assuming no one upgrades any of its cities: at that point, having earned $200, it can buy a 3-train, or--more likely--some other clown will have bought a 4-train and it will go back. By the time it runs its 4-train, it will have no problem running for more than $9/share (as it will have moved back twice in the interim).

 

On the track thingie, here's a scenario for you (I saw this in Chicago, and it apparently also happened in UK, so it's starting to look like a masterplay):

 

OR-1, KP builds G20-H19-I18-(I16) (bowlegs hex is where the railhead is pointing).

ATSF now builds H21-I20-J19-(J17).

TP now builds K18-J17-I16-(I14).

 

In OR-2, all three companies will be running the same track. In short order, so will the SP. Boooringgg!!!

 

But I am beginning to like the "we only pay some track hexes to some companies" approach.

----- Original Message -----

From: Chris Shaffer

To: dtg-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2007 11:55 AM

Subject: [dtg-proto] Re: 18West Open Issues

[sevensterre]

I was doing some reading on Wikipedia and found this. If the TP/SP
build track together its a very histoical result.

"The Texas and Pacific was unable to finance construction to San
Diego, California, and as a result the Southern Pacific was able to
build from California to Sierra Blanca, Texas. In doing so, Southern
Pacific used land designated for, and surveyed by Texas and Pacific,
in its rail line from Yuma, Arizona, to El Paso, Texas. This resulted
in lawsuits, which were settled with agreements to share tracks, and
to cooperate in the building of new tracks. Most of the features
advantageous to Texas and Pacific were later disallowed by
legislation."From Wikipedia.

[David G.D. Hecht]

Indeed. The SP and TP have had a shared LG throughtout the development
phase: it's only my intent to keep the ATSF and others out of it, and vice
versa.

----- Original Message -----
From: "sevensterre" <klo...@new.rr.com>
To: "dtg-proto" <dtg-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2007 9:07 PM
Subject: [dtg-proto] Re: 18West Open Issues

>

[Chris Shaffer]

Then why give both the TP and SP the bonus of a doubling token?  If they have a shared LG, why do they both get the extra benefit?

Chris

[Chris Shaffer]

Actually, if you read my post, you'd see the $110 is the run with a 3 train, not the run with two 2 trains.

Chris

On 8/25/07, sevensterre <klo...@new.rr.com> wrote:

On Aug 25, 10:55 am, "Chris Shaffer" <chris.shaf...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Er, whoops, the 3 train run for the UP would be $110.

You were right the first time.  Because the UP starts with Two Two
trains and not a three train.  So with the change that you sugested it

would indeed have a 139 run to start with.

[David G.D. Hecht]

I'm not sure I understand your question. The fact that they share the area in which they are building has nothing to do with their larger missions.

 

Suggest you look up their respective histories (Wikipedia is a decent place to start).

[Chris Shaffer]

Basically my impression in the games we played is that the TP and SP are overpowered relative to the other companies.  It seems like most of the changes you are making are increasing that imbalance, rather than decreasing it.

I'm not complaining about their histories or the fact that they built together, I'm saying that the fact that they build together, and then each get a doubling token, makes them much stronger than the other companies.  They get access to New Orleans without requiring a Granger, they build a coast-to-coast route together, they get a doubling token, and they can run for big bucks long before the other companies.  That may be historically accurate, but if (as happened at GenCon) it requires the SP or TP presidency to have a decent chance to win the game, then it's not that fun to be president of the other companies.

[David G.D. Hecht]

Well, I certainly take your points. I just don't agree with you that the SP/TP are that overpowering relative to other companies.

 

ATSF gets to its destination (LA) in one more tempo than SP/TP working together. This BTW gives ATSF more early income than either SP or TP, when it counts most, and gives them a beter chance at an early 4-train. The ATSF destination (LA) goes to $70 in grey (best on the map), which means that it scores $280 on a trans-con run, and making two trans-cons with LA in them both is not out of the question. ATSF has a pretty decent chance of getting to New York via Chicago, with STL-NYC as second prize: TP can hope for STL-NYC at best, SP even less likely to do so.

 

KP gets to its desto early and can run two trains from a place valued at $60 ages before anyone else can: I've personally carried out KP runs in the high $20s per share in OR-2. If NP plans properly, it has an uninterruptible trans-con run with what amounts to a free spare city on it (the Mesabi): my latest change adds another to it by giving it two x2 tokens.

 

If your group thinks that SP/TP are that great, I'd like to sit down with them sometime. Better yet, I'd like to sit a couple guys from the Kentish Mob (that is, people who actually know how to *play*, unlike me) at your table.

 

Jon, Peter--I know you guys are out there. Please feel free to jump in anytime! :-)

[Chris Shaffer]

Oh, I'm willing to believe my inept play had a lot to do with my reaction.  Unfortunately, I don't have a regular 18xx group - there aren't that many of us in eastern Iowa.  So I get to watch from afar, play a game or two, play some email games, and get in a bout of games at GenCon each year.

I guess I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with the changes you propose.

[David G.D. Hecht]

I think I've been reasonably clear: I dislike the "web-o'-track" that seems to be the destiny of the middle of the board under the present rules. Whereas it was too hard to build around blocking track before, now it has become too easy. I therefore seek methods whereby this plethora of green tile upgrades in OR-2 can be mitigated.

 

Making the "D" tiles worth $60 vice the current $50 would help the KP, which is a bit weak in the endgame, and the SP, which has a much less nice x2 place than either of its two nearest competitors, the TP and the ATSF (I have seen games where the SP never opened). If I do that, every LGC will have a city with an x2 token worth either $60 or $70 in the endgame, that is, $120/140 doubled, and $240/280 quadrupled.

 

Giving the UP a "B" token would make it a lot easier for it to fight its way through to NYC in the endgame. It could then have a transcon route of NYC-CHI-Cedar Rapids-Sacramento-SFO, which--even in the absence of an x2 token--would be worth $460, pretty respectable for a 5-train.

 

Other than the "web-o'-track" issue, these are small changes designed to rebalance perceived weaknesses in specific companies. I appreciate that you may not perceive these weaknesses to be the same as what I've observed personally and had reported back to me: that's why we are in a test phase. If I'm wrong, I can make more changes, or change things back to the way they were.

 

But wrangling about whether these changes will work at a purely theoretical level is kinda...pointless, don't you think? Or do you suppose I am merely tweaking things at random?

[Chris Shaffer]

But wrangling about whether these changes will work at a purely theoretical level is kinda...pointless, don't you think? Or do you suppose I am merely tweaking things at random?

No, I don't think you're tweaking things at random... but you did ask for comments, did you not?  Unless someone plays the game in the next day or two and tries out your suggestions directly on the map, with what other types of comments do you expect us to respond?  You asked for comments, I said I thought the changes were bad because they strengthen the TP/SP, you disagreed, we move on, eh?  It's your game design, take my comments or leave them as you please.

[David G.D. Hecht]

----- Original Message -----

From: Chris Shaffer

To: dtg-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2007 11:57 PM

Subject: [dtg-proto] Re: 18West Open Issues

But wrangling about whether these changes will work at a purely theoretical level is kinda...pointless, don't you think? Or do you suppose I am merely tweaking things at random?

No, I don't think you're tweaking things at random... but you did ask for comments, did you not?  Unless someone plays the game in the next day or two and tries out your suggestions directly on the map, with what other types of comments do you expect us to respond?  You asked for comments, I said I thought the changes were bad because they strengthen the TP/SP, you disagreed, we move on, eh?  It's your game design, take my comments or leave them as you please.

 

Hey...I'm not trying to pick a fight here, OK? :-)

 

Comments are good. I asked for 'em and I want 'em. If I seemed a trifle...terse...it's 'cos I'm (over)reacting to your comment (I am paraphrasing here), "I don't understand where you want to go with this." If there's anything I can do to make the process more transparent, I'd like to know what it is! :-)

 

The other aspect of this is--and where I'm coming from in my last comment which you quote above--comments that aren't supported by some argument or actual evidence aren't really advancing the dialogue, y'know? I'm proposing a change which adds $10 to the likely TP runs and as much as $40 to the likely SP runs: you comment, hey, this helps the SP and the TP. Gee--ya think?!? :-) You then add, ...which BTW don't need it: OK, maybe not. But then, you go on to say that (in effect) you can't win without one of those two companies, 'cos they're waaay better than any of the others. Now, we've crossed the invisible line between the reasonable and plausible (the companies which these changes help, don't really need it) into the realm of the extraordinary claim, which--based on my experience and observation thus far--is simply not substantiated.

 

Now I suppose I could have said, oh, phooey, Chris, that's nonsense and you know it. I chose instead to take a more oblique approach to suggesting you needed to recalibrate your thinking a bit. As you've now taken umbrage where none was offered, I don't know that I did the right thing. But I was just trying to pull you back from the cliff edge without being rude about it: since I've manifestly failed, I can only say that I am sorry, and I ask you to accept my humble apology for annoying you.

[Chris Shaffer]

Sorry if you thought I was annoyed - I'm not.  Apologies if I annoyed or offended you.

[Jon Draper]

David G.D. Hecht wrote:

I know it's a bit gauche to comment your own posts, but it has been 
suggested that a happy medium might be to avoid the restrictions on 
building, but to only pay government subsidies in a more limited area. 
Mechanically, this would also make it easier to remember, since one could 
simply put the LGC herald and the value of the hex in the unimproved hex 
(since green upgrades never count anyhow).

Comments?
  

I think that this may work. Funny track usually gets built in an effort to earn more LG income. A penalty should make players think twice trying this.

But I think that the ATSF and TP/SP areas should not overlap - so no J for the ATSF.

[Jon Draper]

Barzai wrote:
> Based on the various discussions that have occurred, pursuant to games
> played at MidSumCon, GenCon, and in the UK, I would like playtesters'
> input on the fiollowing issues:
>
> 1. I am still considering making the two "D" (Dallas/Denver) grey
> tiles worth $60 instead of $50. This would have the effect of slightly
> improving the revenues of the DRG and TP, and somewhat more
> substantially improving the revenues of the KP and the TP (since it
> would add $4 to their x2 city on an E-W run).
>
>

I don't think that this would make a big difference either way.

> 2. The UP is still a bit of a weak sister and I wonder what can be
> done to improve it. One possibility is to add a Bypass token to it,
> which would cure its main defect, namely that it rarely if ever gets
> thru Chicago and thereby the East Coast. It would also make its rules
> essentially identical to the NP/DRG, or indeed to a LGC that opens
> after Phase 5 (other than it's already running at the start).
>
>

The UP's main advantage (offset by no cash and no doubling token) was
its two 2-trains. This was reduced when it was not allowed to sell them
in OR1. If only the UP was allowed to sell trains in OR1 this would give
a number of extra options.

A bypass token would make it more attarctive to open later. (I would be
tempted to put it in Denver early).

[Jon Draper]

David G.D. Hecht wrote:

Well, I certainly take your points. I just don't agree with you that the SP/TP are that overpowering relative to other companies.

 

ATSF gets to its destination (LA) in one more tempo than SP/TP working together. This BTW gives ATSF more early income than either SP or TP, when it counts most, and gives them a beter chance at an early 4-train. The ATSF destination (LA) goes to $70 in grey (best on the map), which means that it scores $280 on a trans-con run, and making two trans-cons with LA in them both is not out of the question. ATSF has a pretty decent chance of getting to New York via Chicago, with STL-NYC as second prize: TP can hope for STL-NYC at best, SP even less likely to do so.

 

KP gets to its desto early and can run two trains from a place valued at $60 ages before anyone else can: I've personally carried out KP runs in the high $20s per share in OR-2. If NP plans properly, it has an uninterruptible trans-con run with what amounts to a free spare city on it (the Mesabi): my latest change adds another to it by giving it two x2 tokens.

 

If your group thinks that SP/TP are that great, I'd like to sit down with them sometime. Better yet, I'd like to sit a couple guys from the Kentish Mob (that is, people who actually know how to *play*, unlike me) at your table.

 

Jon, Peter--I know you guys are out there. Please feel free to jump in anytime! :-)

I think that all the LG companies have strengths and weaknesses. You can win with any (and lose with any).

Jon

[David G.D. Hecht]

No problemo, dude...just wanted to make sure we kept an even strain! ;-)

----- Original Message -----

From: Chris Shaffer

To: dtg-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 12:28 AM

Subject: [dtg-proto] Re: 18West Open Issues

[Barzai]

I've added a PDF file that has five small maps--similar to those in
earlier versions of the prototype--that show the areas in which the
LGCs will be paid. These may be cut out and taped to the existing LGC
charters for reference--they should fit in the exisiting space.

There will still be no restrictions on building outside the LG area,
but the Government (that is, the Bank) will now only pay for yellow
tiles laid in the LG area. This will be reflected in the next version
of the rules.

The LGC base and destination (except TP) are outlined in bold and
highlighted in yellow. Other pre-built cities are highlighted in
yellow. The CMD is shown in grey on the ATSF LGC mini-map. Eligible
hexes (including the TP destination) are highlighted in the company
livery (I have used grey for the NP).

I am hoping this revised incentive structure will achieve the desired
goals without being too constricting for those who wish to wander off
the reservation.

[Jon Draper]

The areas in the minimaps differ from what you mentioned earlier. I
think that you said that the restrictions only applied to the "middle zone".

Generally I think that this is ok, but there are 2 places you might want
to reconsider.

Should the ATSF zone include San Diego?

Should the SP zone allow the LA bypass?

Jon

[David G.D. Hecht]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Draper" <jdr...@f2s.com>
To: <dtg-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 5:25 PM
Subject: [dtg-proto] Re: 18West Open Issues

>

> The areas in the minimaps differ from what you mentioned earlier. I
> think that you said that the restrictions only applied to the "middle
> zone".
>

Indeed, but that was when I was considering a "hard wall" approach. Now that
it's simply a matter of get paid/don't get paid, the constraints are
different.

> Generally I think that this is ok, but there are 2 places you might want
> to reconsider.
>
> Should the ATSF zone include San Diego?
>
> Should the SP zone allow the LA bypass?
>

Both are permitted builds, it's just that you don't get paid for them :-)

[Jon Draper]

If the SP does not get paid for the LA bypass, it is extremely unlikely to happen. LG income is crucial on a company's first turn.

SD for the ATSF is less of an issue - I was just thinking og the older LG rules.

Jon

[David G.D. Hecht]

----- Original Message -----

From: Jon Draper

To: dtg-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 6:12 PM

Subject: [dtg-proto] Re: 18West Open Issues

David G.D. Hecht wrote:

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jon Draper" <jdr...@f2s.com>
To: <dtg-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 5:25 PM
Subject: [dtg-proto] Re: 18West Open Issues


  

Should the SP zone allow the LA bypass?

    

Both are permitted builds, it's just that you don't get paid for them :-) 


  

If the SP does not get paid for the LA bypass, it is extremely unlikely to happen. LG income is crucial on a company's first turn.

(DH) Well, in a certain sense that is the point, right? The government has certain aims in view, and the companies only get paid for fulfilling those aims. The LA bypass is a total screw-job on...let's see...ATSF and TP both. And even so, you get paid for laying H3, and by next turn, you are back to laying tile in row J, for which you do get paid. If the guy who's up to that isn't willing to give up $70 income on the SP's first turn to do it, phooey on him! :-)

[Jon Draper]

David G.D. Hecht wrote:

If the SP does not get paid for the LA bypass, it is extremely unlikely to happen. LG income is crucial on a company's first turn.

(DH) Well, in a certain sense that is the point, right? The government has certain aims in view, and the companies only get paid for fulfilling those aims. The LA bypass is a total screw-job on...let's see...ATSF and TP both. And even so, you get paid for laying H3, and by next turn, you are back to laying tile in row J, for which you do get paid. If the guy who's up to that isn't willing to give up $70 income on the SP's first turn to do it, phooey on him! :-)

$70 plus one step on the stock chart.

But I agree with your overall point.