Game Report 7
Jon
Rules 0.4.9
Forgot to remove 55/65/75 from stock market - but had dead zone.
Used new map for Houston and Springfield cities. No town in K12.
Time: 6.5 hours (We played fairly slowly)
Players: Jon Draper, Peter Eldridge, Lyndon Gurr, Stephen Webb, Lionel
Robbins
Initial auction bids: P5 10, everybody else 0
P5 MW(55) + 2 NP(90)
P1 CRIP(50) + 2 KP(90)
P2 Frisco(50) + ATSF(90)
P3 CBQ(50) + 2 TP(90)
P4 Cott(50) + 2 SP(100)
OR1 Each company bought a single 2 train - so 12 were used in OR1, 3
went into the pool.
Track, with the latest LG rules. Not sure if we had interpreted these
correctly. We understood that
the LG area restrictions had gone.
SP built a bypass around LA: H3 - H5 - I6. (Sets up a 3 train c2c.)
KP built SW: G20 - H19 - I18 (railhead W). (Aim was to go the long way
to each LG money.)
This forced ATSF to build SW: H20 - I19 - J18 (railhead W). (Needed 3
yellow to move share price.)
TP build NW: K18 - J17 - I15. (Aim was to go to CMD.)
NP - nothing unusual.
The end result was that KP and ATSF were forced to lay green track in
the yellow phase and that the 3
E LG companies routes were merged.
OR2 KP and TP reach their destination. One 3-train bought by TP then
sold to granger.
SR2 P5, P2, P4 bought UP (all they could afford) (These were the top 3
players at the end - in spite
of the UP rather than because of it). P1 bought CNW(50). P3 bought and
sold TP (to fund it) then
bought MP (50).
OR3 Two 2-trains bought from pool. Three 3-trains bought. ATF and SP
reach destination.
OR4 Last three 3-trains bought. UP had 200 but the 3-trains had gone.
NP reaches destination.
SR3 Investment in paying shares.
(Talk about starting the GN or DRG and buying a 4-train to rust the
only trains of the top company.)
OR5 All the 4-trains sold. UP forced to buy a 5-train.
OR6 Last 2 5-trains are bought. Next company has 600 cash and 5 shares
worth 160 in treasury. So it
issues 5 shares; run its 3-train; bought the first 6-train then an 8S.
Carnage followed. Sold the 6-
train to a granger.
SR4 DRG and GN started at 80 (160 investment for a double share that
paid twice: 390 DRG, 470 GN.)
Cheap shares bought.
OR 7/8 Route development
SR5 Cheap shares swapped for quality (expensive) shares. UP presidency
bought.
OR 9/10 bank came close to breaking. Granger with trains bought a
second in OR 10.
SR6 A little share swapping
OR 11/12 Bank breaks. Top price company was NP (330) followed by SP
and ATSF (300).
Result of the game.
1st P5 - NP share value and routes. Extra share from GN
presidency.
-50ish P2 - Frisco running to the end
-400ish P4 - Extra share from DRG presidency.
-600ish P3 - over invested in Grangers caught mildly by train rush
-1500ish P1 - bought 2 4-trains that never ran, had dead Granger.
Questions:
a) In Yellow phase cana LG do 2 upgrades to green if each is the only
way to advance the route? Or is
it max 1. Or only the first?
b) Does laying yellow LA (or other city) earn a LG 30?
c) When UP sells shares to emergency fund a train does its share price
drop?
d) Can you confirm that in the M&A, you can swap 2 shares worth 200
each for a granger worth 160 and
240 cash.
e) In phase-6 is it still 20% to float for a fully funded company?
f) Do dead grangers count against the share limit?
Comments:
1) We had 3 each of the green plain track tiles. They all ran out. We
could have used 5 or 6 each of
the 82/83.
2) Ran out of 63 tiles - has an extra been added?
3) The merging of all the LG routes was unsatisfactory. Do you need to
bring back some area
restrictions.
4) With 5-platers 300 cash gives a limited choice (1 granger and 2
shares). (Ignoring the 3 granger
option or the 0 granger option). 310 would allow a choice between 2
shares at 90/100 or 3 at 70.
5) Initial player income was slow. This was reflected into poor
initial company funding. This lead to
rich companies later and a mid game train rush.
Jon
David G.D. Hecht
At the moment there is no limit. I'm inclined to leave it that way: my
theory is that it is mostly undesirable to do, since every green tile is $30
(or more) less for the earnings.
> b) Does laying yellow LA (or other city) earn a LG 30?
I assume you mean San Diego, as LA is already yellow. But the answer is yes:
all yellow tiles earn the LG $30 or more.
> c) When UP sells shares to emergency fund a train does its share price
> drop?
Yes. Strictu sensu it is not an emergency fund raising since it takes place
during the UP conversion step (now the conversion and stock issuing step).
> d) Can you confirm that in the M&A, you can swap 2 shares worth 200 each
> for a granger worth 160 and
>
> 240 cash.
Yep.
> e) In phase-6 is it still 20% to float for a fully funded company?
Yep. But of course some other clown could steal the company from you for
30%.
> f) Do dead grangers count against the share limit?
>
At the moment, yes. I might change that if it proves to be too punitive: but
as I've now allowed more opportunities to suck up the trainless in
additional M&A rounds, I'm less inclined to than I was under the previous
ruleset.
> Comments:
>
> 1) We had 3 each of the green plain track tiles. They all ran out. We
> could have used 5 or 6 each of
>
> the 82/83.
>
You should have 7 of each--I have a small plus-up set for you here that has
3 each of #82/#83, 2 #6 and one #57. You should also add another #63 (to
substitute for the deleted brown "T" tile).
> 2) Ran out of 63 tiles - has an extra been added?
>
Yes (see above).
>
> 3) The merging of all the LG routes was unsatisfactory. Do you need to
> bring back some area
>
> restrictions.
>
Quite possibly. What if I said that (prior to destinating) KP may build in
rows G/H only, ATSF in rows H/I/J only, TP/SP in rows J/K/L only (plus H4/I5
for SP, obviously)? Oh, and NP in rows B thru E?
> 4) With 5-platers 300 cash gives a limited choice (1 granger and 2
> shares). (Ignoring the 3 granger
>
> option or the 0 granger option). 310 would allow a choice between 2
> shares at 90/100 or 3 at 70.
>
I'll certainly consider it. My sense is that it will be unbalancing if some
people start with an extra share, so that will simply lead to everyone going
Granger + 3 x $70. At least at the moment you have some choices to make,
including holding a few dollars back to enable you to buy in SR-2.
Bear in mind that if I do this, I will also have to do something about
6-player where at the moment it is basically one granger plus two shares at
$70.
> 5) Inital player income was slow. This was reflected into poor initial
> company funding. This lead to
> rich companies later and a mid game train rush.
>
Not altogether surprising.
Chris Shaffer
> a) In Yellow phase cana LG do 2 upgrades to green if each is the only
> way to advance the route? Or is
> it max 1. Or only the first?
At the moment there is no limit. I'm inclined to leave it that way: my
theory is that it is mostly undesirable to do, since every green tile is $30
(or more) less for the earnings.
--
Chris
Keep the flying car. I want the future where "resurrection" is a medical specialty.
Chris Shaffer
> 3) The merging of all the LG routes was unsatisfactory. Do you need to
> bring back some area restrictions.
Quite possibly. What if I said that (prior to destinating) KP may build in
rows G/H only, ATSF in rows H/I/J only, TP/SP in rows J/K/L only (plus H4/I5
for SP, obviously)? Oh, and NP in rows B thru E?
Would it encourage people to open the DRG, to use it to build the linking track?
David G.D. Hecht
----- Original Message -----From: Chris ShafferSent: Saturday, August 25, 2007 8:28 AMSubject: [dtg-proto] Re: Game Report 7> a) In Yellow phase cana LG do 2 upgrades to green if each is the only
> way to advance the route? Or is
> it max 1. Or only the first?
At the moment there is no limit. I'm inclined to leave it that way: my
theory is that it is mostly undesirable to do, since every green tile is $30
(or more) less for the earnings.
Does this apply prior to the first 3 train being purchased? i.e. if the company lays the first green tile because they are blocked from extending toward their destination, may they lay a second green tile if they continue to be blocked from extending?
(DH) Well, that's the context ("In Yellow phase...") in which the question is being asked, so...yes.
David G.D. Hecht
----- Original Message -----From: Chris ShafferSent: Saturday, August 25, 2007 8:37 AMSubject: [dtg-proto] Re: Game Report 7
> 3) The merging of all the LG routes was unsatisfactory. Do you need to
> bring back some area restrictions.
Quite possibly. What if I said that (prior to destinating) KP may build in
rows G/H only, ATSF in rows H/I/J only, TP/SP in rows J/K/L only (plus H4/I5
for SP, obviously)? Oh, and NP in rows B thru E?That would be interesting, but doesn't it strengthen the already-powerful TP/Southern combination and make it even more likely that they'll build track together and destinate that much earlier than ATSF and NP?
(DH) Possibly.
Would it encourage people to open the DRG, to use it to build the linking track?
(DH) Possibly. That would be OK too.
Jon Draper
> <snipped report>
>> Questions:
>>
>> a) In Yellow phase cana LG do 2 upgrades to green if each is the only
>> way to advance the route? Or is
>> it max 1. Or only the first?
>>
>
>
> At the moment there is no limit. I'm inclined to leave it that way: my
> theory is that it is mostly undesirable to do, since every green tile is $30
> (or more) less for the earnings.
>
track at the blank side of Denver. Then it claimed it was "forced" to
upgrade Denver to progress. Increasing Denver from 20 to 60 was worth
more than a LG bonus.
But I see no reason to ban this.
>
>> b) Does laying yellow LA (or other city) earn a LG 30?
>>
>
> I assume you mean San Diego, as LA is already yellow. But the answer is yes:
> all yellow tiles earn the LG $30 or more.
>
>
Yes, San Diego.
<sinp c/d/e>
>> f) Do dead grangers count against the share limit?
>>
>>
>
> At the moment, yes. I might change that if it proves to be too punitive: but
> as I've now allowed more opportunities to suck up the trainless in
> additional M&A rounds, I'm less inclined to than I was under the previous
> ruleset.
>
>
This seems like kicking a man when he is down. I think that the loss of
all value is sufficient penalty.
>> Comments:
>>
>> 1) We had 3 each of the green plain track tiles. They all ran out. We
>> could have used 5 or 6 each of
>>
>> the 82/83.
>>
>>
>
> You should have 7 of each--I have a small plus-up set for you here that has
> 3 each of #82/#83, 2 #6 and one #57. You should also add another #63 (to
> substitute for the deleted brown "T" tile).
>
>
>
>
OK.
<snipped 3>
>
>> 4) With 5-platers 300 cash gives a limited choice (1 granger and 2
>> shares). (Ignoring the 3 granger
>>
>> option or the 0 granger option). 310 would allow a choice between 2
>> shares at 90/100 or 3 at 70.
>>
>>
>
> I'll certainly consider it. My sense is that it will be unbalancing if some
> people start with an extra share, so that will simply lead to everyone going
> Granger + 3 x $70. At least at the moment you have some choices to make,
> including holding a few dollars back to enable you to buy in SR-2.
>
> Bear in mind that if I do this, I will also have to do something about
> 6-player where at the moment it is basically one granger plus two shares at
> $70.
>
My thought is that companies started at 70 will be weaker (ending up
with 1 train) than companies started at 90/100 (ending up with 2 trains).
Jon