18West v0.5.1 has been published to the web
Barzai
consideration.
Notable changes (from README):
MAP: Added payouts by LGC in each applicable hex on the map (no
substantive changes).
CERTS: Replaced 8S-trains with 4D-trains.
CHARTERS: Some additional info added (no substantive changes).
TOKENS: Added a Bypass token for the UP (no substantive changes).
RULES: In addition to incorporating numerous corrections and
clarifications made by the playtesters, the following major changes
have been incorporated:
3.1 (addition) Added instructions pertinent to the rewrite of 6.2.
3.3.2 (clarification) The rules for buying stock in the ISR have been
rewritten, and the rules specifically applicable to the UP have been
moved to a separate section (3.3.3).
4.1 and 4.2.1 (change) Grangers valued in the grey zone now no longer
encumber a cert limit slot.
5.1.5 (clarification) Added a reminder that Companies eligible for the
special pre-OR train purchase do so at the end of the SR.
6.2 (change) The rules governing LGC track laying, improving, and for
which track placements the LGCs are paid have been substantially
rewritten for clarity and simplicity, and to realign the incentive
structure in a more realistic manner.
6.3 (addition) The UP now starts with a Bypass token among its assets.
8.1 and 8.4.3 (addition) Added references to the printed LG values on
the map.
8.4.5 (change) The existing Streamliners, which ran for eight cities
undoubled, have been modified to run for four cities, doubled. As this
is a substantial improvement, the price of a Streamliner has been
increased from $800 to $1100.
UNADDRESSED ISSUES:
1. It has been suggested that the use of the nomenclature (5-share
Company) is confusing, as these companies have ten-percent shares
throughout, unlike in other games where 5-share companies typically
have twenty-percent shares. This would simply be a nomenclature
revision: no substantive changes would arise. I would replace the term
"5-share Company" with "Land Grant Company in Construction
Status" (following the nomenclature from 18FB). Opinions are
solicited.
2. I have considered for some time now the idea of replacing the
existing bankruptcy rules with the personal debt rules from 1844 and
other games. The gist of these rules is that players go into debt to
the bank (personally) in lieu of selling stock. The debt--plus a
fiifty percent interest--is due at the beginning of the next stock
round, and the player cannot buy any stock until he raises the debt
(effectively his cash position is negative until he does so). any debt
carried over incurs an additinal fifty percent interest (cumulative).
If a player has debt at the end of the game, the debt--plus another
fifty percent interest--is charged against his net worth. As there is
little possibility of bankruptcy now, I don't feel very strongly
either way, but your opinions are solicited.
NOTE: THIS VERSION IS CONSIDERED A RELEASE CANDIDATE. Your comments on
these changes as well as those previously incorporated are urgently
required, as--if all goes well--the configuration of the physical
systems will be frozen in mid-September, followed bya rules freeze at
the end of September.
Chris Shaffer
when they are in 5-share status, and then call them "Public Companies"
after they destinate or abandon the land grant? i.e. don't use the
term "Land Grant" to refer to a company that has ended its grant. Do
they still need to be referred to as "Land Grant" after they become
regular companies?
--
Chris
Keep the flying car. I want the future where "resurrection" is a
medical specialty.
David G.D. Hecht
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Shaffer" <chris....@gmail.com>
To: <dtg-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 10:38 AM
Subject: [dtg-proto] Re: 18West v0.5.1 has been published to the web
>
> I wonder if it would make sense to call them "Land Grant Companies"
> when they are in 5-share status, and then call them "Public Companies"
> after they destinate or abandon the land grant? i.e. don't use the
> term "Land Grant" to refer to a company that has ended its grant. Do
> they still need to be referred to as "Land Grant" after they become
> regular companies?
>
That's not a bad thought. So now we'd have Grangers, Land Grant Companies,
and Public Companies. Land Grant Companies would become Public Companies
after conversion, or would start as such after Phase 5 begins.
Works for me...what do others think?
mpcoyne
After playing at MidSumCon I came home and built a kit, and finally
played a test last night. So I log on today, and look at all the
changes! :)
Now I'll need to get everyone back to try again!
A couple coments:
1. I would NOT change the name to just say "Public Companies" after
the LGC convert to ten shares. There are still two significant
differences betwee the LGC and the "10-share" companies - doubling
tokens for the LGCs, and Bypass tokens for the "10-shares". It remains
important to distinguish between the two. Instead I would suggest that
the current "10-share" companies may be unfortunately named, because
that label is too generic, referring to a condition that every company
will share. "Bypass companies" doesn't sound very artistic, but I
think the UP, DRG and GN need a name that sets them apart.
2. I don't know that I think the bankruptcy rules are necessary. The
worst position in last night's game, who tried owning three graingers
and only bought an LGC very late, was hopelessly behind but still
never in any danger of bankruptcy, or even selling stock. Are people
experiencing bankruptcies elsewhere? Unless you are getting reports of
reasonably skilled groups with bankruptcies happening frequently, I'm
not sure that added complexity is warranted.
3. Thank you for clarifying rule 5.15. I probably just missed it last
night, but I couldn't find a specific reference for how to determine
which "10-share" company would buy first at the end of a stock round.
We decided to go with highest market value, and irt turns out we were
right, but we were afraid it might be the order they opened.
4. The bypass token significantly improves the UP - interesting to see
how that will change things in the center of the board. Our game saw
the UP basically ignored until very late in the game, when it managed
to by a six train and became appealing. I like the notion of the UP
starting the game being "punished", but it was too weak as it was.
5. I agree the 4D is much more attractive - an 8 just wasn't very
attractive, and while I have seen that careful building can make it
powerful, most of the time it just doesn't seem worth the extra money
to add a few $30 cities, especially when it can mean giving up almost
that much in town income. Only two were bought last night, the first
was more a matter of killing the 4s than any advantage from the 8
train, and the second position just was rolling in cash and could
afford it. With the new price though, I wonder if the 4s might not
tend to last too long (Yes, that IS what we are supposed to tell you
by playtesting). That also means gray tiles may come out later. Two
possibilities come to mind. First, maybe gray tiles should move back
to the 6 trains. Or, maybe the 8 trains should have a discount
mechanism like 1830, where they are $1100, but $800 with a trade in,
and the first player to buy one can use a 4 train to buy it. Because a
4D seems (to me at least) significantly more tempting, that could
cause the 5 trains to recycle more frequently, which may be a good or
a bad thing, but at least offers hard choices to the players - would
the extra huge payout be worth giving someone else a chance at another
5 train?
6. Could I request a tile manifest? Especially since the tile sheets I
printed out contain at least two tiles that I KNOW don't go in the
game, the tight curves. I also wonder if the "T" tiles are correct - I
only see one place to play these, San Diego, but I seem to have more
than I need. Finally, I wonder if there are enough yellow city tiles
in my mix. Either a separate sheet or a page in the rules would be
nice. I don't need an upgrade chart, etc. - just a list of the tiles
and quantities of each tile we should have. A related note, there is
not supposed to be any limit on yellow straights and gentle curves (8
and 9 tiles), is there?
mpcoyne
A couple coments:
John A. Tamplin
> After playing at MidSumCon I came home and built a kit, and finally
> played a test last night. So I log on today, and look at all the
> changes! :)
> Now I'll need to get everyone back to try again!
>
> 2. I don't know that I think the bankruptcy rules are necessary. The
> worst position in last night's game, who tried owning three graingers
> and only bought an LGC very late, was hopelessly behind but still
> never in any danger of bankruptcy, or even selling stock. Are people
> experiencing bankruptcies elsewhere? Unless you are getting reports of
> reasonably skilled groups with bankruptcies happening frequently, I'm
> not sure that added complexity is warranted.
>
because if you leave them out then someone will find a way and complain
that the rules don't cover it. Better to have the rules to cover
implausible but possible scenarios.
> 6. Could I request a tile manifest? Especially since the tile sheets I
> printed out contain at least two tiles that I KNOW don't go in the
> game, the tight curves. I also wonder if the "T" tiles are correct - I
> only see one place to play these, San Diego, but I seem to have more
> than I need. Finally, I wonder if there are enough yellow city tiles
> in my mix. Either a separate sheet or a page in the rules would be
> nice. I don't need an upgrade chart, etc. - just a list of the tiles
> and quantities of each tile we should have. A related note, there is
> not supposed to be any limit on yellow straights and gentle curves (8
> and 9 tiles), is there?
>
it today.
--
John A. Tamplin j...@deepthoughtgames.com
Deep Thought Games, LLC 4116 Manson Ave
770/436-5387 HOME Smyrna, GA 30082-3723
mpcoyne
About the bankruptcy rules - I guess I was unclear. Of COURSE there
needs to be a rule about bankruptcy. What I meant was that I didn't
think that it is necessary to use the personal debt rules, as I think
bankruptcies are unlikely and the personal debt rules would add
unnecessary complexity.
On Sep 1, 2:39 pm, "John A. Tamplin" <j...@deepthoughtgames.com>
wrote:
David G.D. Hecht
----- Original Message -----
From: "mpcoyne" <mpc...@aol.com>
To: "dtg-proto" <dtg-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 2:21 PM
Subject: [dtg-proto] Re: 18West v0.5.1 has been published to the web
>
> Hi David,
>
> After playing at MidSumCon I came home and built a kit, and finally
> played a test last night. So I log on today, and look at all the
> changes! :)
> Now I'll need to get everyone back to try again!
>
> A couple coments:
>
> 1. I would NOT change the name to just say "Public Companies" after
> the LGC convert to ten shares. There are still two significant
> differences betwee the LGC and the "10-share" companies - doubling
> tokens for the LGCs, and Bypass tokens for the "10-shares". It remains
> important to distinguish between the two. Instead I would suggest that
> the current "10-share" companies may be unfortunately named, because
> that label is too generic, referring to a condition that every company
> will share. "Bypass companies" doesn't sound very artistic, but I
> think the UP, DRG and GN need a name that sets them apart.
>
Good point. I shall ponder this.
> 2. I don't know that I think the bankruptcy rules are necessary. The
> worst position in last night's game, who tried owning three graingers
> and only bought an LGC very late, was hopelessly behind but still
> never in any danger of bankruptcy, or even selling stock. Are people
> experiencing bankruptcies elsewhere? Unless you are getting reports of
> reasonably skilled groups with bankruptcies happening frequently, I'm
> not sure that added complexity is warranted.
>
Well, we have bankruptcy rules now. I agree that they will rarely be
invoked--most of my designs make it pretty much impossible unless you
try--so the issue is whether to replace them with something that eliminates
bankruptcy altogether.
I *loathe* trade-ins with a passion. To me, they are both a "rich get
richer" phenomenon, and a "luck of the draw" phenomenon: if two or three
guys accumulate $800, the first guy out gets the one-time good deal. And as
for the rich-get-richer...what, killing every one else's trains and making
them come up with at least $300 out of pocket isn't good enough?!?
I *might* consider a permanent train trade-in--throw down a 5 or a 6 and
get--say--half its value in credit. But I doubt many players would go for
that deal.
> 6. Could I request a tile manifest? Especially since the tile sheets I
> printed out contain at least two tiles that I KNOW don't go in the
> game, the tight curves. I also wonder if the "T" tiles are correct - I
> only see one place to play these, San Diego, but I seem to have more
> than I need. Finally, I wonder if there are enough yellow city tiles
> in my mix. Either a separate sheet or a page in the rules would be
> nice. I don't need an upgrade chart, etc. - just a list of the tiles
> and quantities of each tile we should have. A related note, there is
> not supposed to be any limit on yellow straights and gentle curves (8
> and 9 tiles), is there?
>
OK, it's fairly simple in yellow: there's no tight curves of any kind, be
they plain, town, or city. I've also eliminated the yellow T-City tiles:
Dago now takes a #6 (I may yet pre-print Dago, it's the only destination
that isn't pre-printed: it would have track to all three hexsides and a
single city circle valued at $10). So it's (at the moment) 34 x #9, 21 x #8
(but effectively both are unlimited); 6 x #4 and 6 x #58; 3 x #6 and 2 x
#57.
Green, in plain there's 7 x #82 and 7 x #83, and 3 x #80 and 3 x #81; towns,
it's 4 x #141 and 4 x #142, and 3 x #143 and 3 x #144; and the cities, 10 x
#15, 5 x #14, 2 x "M-K", and one each "T", CHI, STL, and SFO.
Brown is easy 'cos it's only cities: 7 x #63, and one each "T", CHI, STL,
SFO, and LAX. Likewise grey, there's 2 x #455, and one each of CHI, STL,
SFO, and LAX.
David G.D. Hecht
----- Original Message -----
From: "John A. Tamplin" <j...@deepthoughtgames.com>
To: <dtg-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 2:39 PM
Subject: [dtg-proto] Re: 18West v0.5.1 has been published to the web
> Sigh, I forgot to upload the updated tiles -- I will definitely get to
> it today.
>
When you do so, can you eliminate the two #7 "extras" and replace them with
#8 or #9? They have apparently caused some confusion! :-)
David G.D. Hecht
----- Original Message -----
From: "mpcoyne" <mpc...@aol.com>
To: "dtg-proto" <dtg-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 2:58 PM
Subject: [dtg-proto] Re: 18West v0.5.1 has been published to the web
>
sevensterre
On Sep 1, 1:21 pm, mpcoyne <mpco...@aol.com> wrote:
> Hi David,
> After playing at MidSumCon I came home and built a kit, and finally
> played a test last night. So I log on today, and look at all the
> changes! :)
> Now I'll need to get everyone back to try again!
> , but I
> think the UP, DRG and GN need a name that sets them apart.
>
How does "Commen Carrier" sound as a name for the Ten Share companies.
> 5. I agree the 4D is much more attractive - an 8 just wasn't very
> attractive, and while I have seen that careful building can make it
> powerful, most of the time it just doesn't seem worth the extra money
> to add a few $30 cities, especially when it can mean giving up almost
> that much in town income.
I think that the Bank total needs to be higher with the 4D's. 1829
had gray tiles and a bank total of 20,000. I do like what the 4D's do
to the end game. With two 8S's it was hard to trace everything near
the end.
> 6. Could I request a tile manifest? Especially since the tile sheets I
> printed out contain at least two tiles that I KNOW don't go in the
> game, the tight curves. I also wonder if the "T" tiles are correct - I
> only see one place to play these, San Diego, but I seem to have more
> than I need. Finally, I wonder if there are enough yellow city tiles
> in my mix. Either a separate sheet or a page in the rules would be
> nice. I don't need an upgrade chart, etc. - just a list of the tiles
> and quantities of each tile we should have. A related note, there is
> not supposed to be any limit on yellow straights and gentle curves (8
> and 9 tiles), is there?
I'd like to see a Tile manifest too. I just realized that we were
using the sharp curve when we shouldn't. For your final production
version it won't matter though because you will put the kits together
and the buyer's only need to know is if a piece is missing so he can
recreate it.
Kevin Lorenz
sevensterre
I meant Common Carrier
David G.D. Hecht
----- Original Message -----
From: "sevensterre" <klo...@new.rr.com>
To: "dtg-proto" <dtg-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 11:07 PM
Subject: [dtg-proto] Re: 18West v0.5.1 has been published to the web
>
> I think that the Bank total needs to be higher with the 4D's. 1829
> had gray tiles and a bank total of 20,000. I do like what the 4D's do
> to the end game. With two 8S's it was hard to trace everything near
> the end.
>
I get your point, Kevin, but I doubt it would make a great deal of
difference. Right now, you have in (say) a four-player game, a total of 64
certs in play at game's end. That's likely to represent 72 shares since
there are eight president's certificates (it's slightly more if there's a
stray granger or two, but that doesn't signify, really).
Typically, a company with a single train will run somewhere around
$60/share/OR, and one with two trains will run for something over $100. So,
say you have four companies running one train and four running two in the
endgame. That's an average of $80/share/OR, or $80 x 72 x 2 = $11k and
change. That's plenty enough to break the bank in one set of ORs even if you
just barely failed to break it the previous set, since at least some players
will be going to bed with cash (beingon limit before they run out)...and of
course this doesn't consider Treasury shares and the like.
I don't think that the new trains will make that much difference. Yes, they
run better (over $100 if you do them right): but they're also more
expensive, so they're less affordable. In particular, no one can start a
10-share company and buy one outright before the op round. I expect that
they will become the alternative to two trains, rather than the second train
on a company that has one: players will buy up the train from their trail
company with their lead company, and then make up the difference to buy a 4D
with the trail company. A 4D that runs three ORs will earn you something
like $350-400/share, in addition to the extra $40/share or so the second
train provides on the lead dog (so another $150-200/share). Against this you
will lose a turn of income ($60/share or about $350-400), two spots on the
Stock Market (say $50/share or $300), and whatever you need to put in from
hand. So you are up $500-600/share, less $100 or so/share, less whatever you
put in from hand: looks pretty good, actually.
Michael Monical
My recommendations are:
Granger Company
Land Grant Company
Public Company
Completed Grant Company
A note on the bankruptcy. Although it is extremely rare to occur
naturally, it is not to difficult to engineer and can be the result of
poor decisions. Sadly there are players who, when they get into a
position where they do not think they have a chance at winning will
choose a strategy to get them out of the game. The current rules
while successfully getting them out of the game, can result in some
unbalancing opportunity for priority holders which given the rarity of
it happening may not be unacceptable. Having had it happen in one of
the games I was in, (strictly as a deliberate playtest test- the
decisions leading to the bankruptcy were not that exceptional) I have
seen the disrupting nature of the fallout.
Loans may have an issue of allowing players to game a bankruptcy.
I think I am in favor of the assets reverting to govt control and
effectively stay in place but out the game. I am not sure there are
no undesired impacts of that.
David G.D. Hecht
In working through the rules, I find that there are very few places (in fact
I can't think of any) where the distinction between the two types of
10-share company matter. In those areas where having a doubling token vice a
bypass token matters, it's easy enough to make the distinction in the text
itself. In that sense it's no different than having two companies with
different numbers of station tokens: you wouldn't make the distinction
between a "two-token company" and a "three token company" in a normal game.
So the next rules edition will have "Public Company" in all the places where
"10-share Company" used to appear. If there are any ambiguities or
confusions introduced, I will be happy to address them then.
On the bankruptcy thing, I agree that there may be anomalies introduced, but
that would be true regardless. For example, if I revert the grangers to
their starting state, what happens to any trains they might own? Do they go
in the Pool or the Bank, or are they just tossed? If they become available
again (this would mostly be 5-trains, obviously), doesn't that provide a
potential windfall as well? OTOH if the assets of the bankrupt are simply
frozen in place, what happens to the shares of his companies that other
players own? Are they frozen too?
I think this is an area where you can't avoid creating windfalls or boat
anchors no matter how you handle it: that's why I was thinking of changing
the rules away from bankruptcy altogether. But in the end this seems like
the least onerous approach to what will be--after all is said and done--an
exceptionally rare occurrence.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Monical" <mike.m...@comcast.net>
To: "dtg-proto" <dtg-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 1:18 PM
Subject: [dtg-proto] Re: 18West v0.5.1 has been published to the web
>
>
>
Dave4B
<snip>
> NOTE: THIS VERSION IS CONSIDERED A RELEASE CANDIDATE. Your comments on
> these changes as well as those previously incorporated are urgently
> required, as--if all goes well--the configuration of the physical
> systems will be frozen in mid-September, followed bya rules freeze at
> the end of September.
</vacation> Which means that any games played at CastleCon will be too
late to affect the final product.
Oh well,we'll probably still try the latest version anyway.
I did have an idea for improving the initial bidding for places, but
perhaps I'll use it myself :-)
David G.D. Hecht
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave4B" <dave....@ukonline.co.uk>
To: "dtg-proto" <dtg-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 9:06 AM
Subject: [dtg-proto] Re: 18West v0.5.1 has been published to the web
>
Well, if you find any glaring deficiencies, they can be corrected. When is
CastleCon anyhow? I always thought it was in September?
The main issue is that if John is to be able to produce some games for
Essen, he needs leadtime to do so: hence the component freeze being
imminent, vice the rules freeze being later.
Dave4B
<snip>
> Well, if you find any glaring deficiencies, they can be corrected. When is
> CastleCon anyhow? I always thought it was in September?
This year it's September 21 - October 5, so most of it IS in
September; it's just the feedback may not be (unless Mr Thomas reports
back following his early release).