Gmail Calendar Documents Reader Web more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
New 1870 Variants
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
  4 messages - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Mike Schneider  
View profile  
 More options Aug 13 1999, 3:00 am
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: h...@screaminjesus.com (Mike Schneider)
Date: 1999/08/13
Subject: New 1870 Variants
Mike Schneider    1870 Variants     8/99

   1870 is my favorite 18XX railgame as it features an ideal balance of
extra tile lays with a more complex (but not obsessive) stock market,
sprawling map and a flexible assortment of companies. But after playing a
LOT of games, the same old Katy/Frisco dance and MoPac Chicago schemes
become dull, and the first hour is often a bore for old hands.

   But with a few minor changes the game can be made fresh again!

0. Old Chicago!

   Chicago starts small but grows quickly: Initial: $10, 3-trains: $20,
4-trains: $40. (I recommend this variant in combination with any of the
others listed below, particularly "MoPac Heads West!" and "Confederate
Victory".)

1. MoPac Heads West!

   The Frisco private is replaced by a MoPac private; MoPac floats with
the sale of the private. The Katy 10% private is replaced by a Frisco 10%
private. MoPac's first tile lay must be a "tight" yellow city oriented
W/SW; it is *guaranteed* that one of those tiles be available for its use
in the first operating round.

2. Confederate Victory!

   The valuations for the Southeast off-board area are raised to
$30/$50/$60. The Frisco private is replaced by a Gulf Mobile private, the
sale of which floats the company. The KATY 10% private is replaced by a
Texas Pacific 10% private.

3. The Republic of Texas!

   The cities of Dallas and Fort Worth are represented by a single city
hex (the eastern one, western hex becomes plains), with both MoPac and
Cotton destinating there. It, not KC, upgrades to the three-token $60 gray
tile. Replace the Frisco private with a Texas Pacific private; the sale of
which floats the company. The Katy 10% private is replaced by a Burlington
10% private.

4. Santa Fe doesn't suck! Honest!

   Replace the Frisco private with an ATSF private, the sale of which
floats the company. The Katy 10% private is replaced by a Frisco 10%
private. The valuations for the Southwest off-board area are raised to
$30/$50/$60.

5. Galveston!

   (In the year 1900, Galveston was destroyed by a hurricane which killed
over 6,000 people. Let's pretend it didn't happen.) The destination of the
KATY is Galveston (historically accurate), not Southwest. Galveston
upgrades to a $50 P-tile (meaning there will be one fewer P-tiles than
cities capable of using them -- plan wisely!).

6. Pike's Peak or Bust!

   The valuations for Denver are raised to $40/$50/$60. Two token sites
are available in Denver; railroads with a station may use Denver in the
middle of a run. One token site is reserved for the Burlington
(representing the Colorado & Southern), which will start in Denver, with
Forth Worth as its destination.

7. New Orleans!

   Place the Port token $20/$10 side up in New Orleans. The first
corporation which builds track into New Orleans and places a token there
earns an additional $20 per run out of the city. Other corporations earn
+$10. The Port goes away with the first 6-train. (The Shipping private
remains, but doesn't control a token.)

9. Cheap Steel!

   Less of a variant than a rule-tweak: There is an unlimited supply of
basic yellow tiles #7, #8 and #9 tiles. (Simply by instituting this rule,
it may ensure that actual tiles don't run out, as some players won't
deliberately lay a few remaining straights or curves in odd places just to
screw over those who need them.)

8. Tight Credit!

   Companies acquire capital incrementally through the sale of shares from
the IPO. They do not start "fully capitalized".

Rationals for each variant:

0. Prevents the seen-it-a-million-times MoPac loot & dump ploy.

1. Forces MoPac into its historical role of a westward expanding company.
More to the point, it forces MoPac to start after "Old Chicago" is
instituted.

2. Spices up the least valuable corner of the board.

3. In 1870 out-of-box, Denver/Forth Worth is a clusterf**k and the Texas
Pacific is a crappy railroad (which went bankrupt in reality). The variant
also gives SoPac and Burlington excuses to open early.

4. Unless it can get a token in Kansas City, the ATSF is as useful as the
tits on a boar. (Gee, you have 4 station tokens. Where ya gonna put 'em?)
With the change, the ATSF still blows for having a destination just north
of the Ross ice-shelf, but at least it'll start right away and likely
token Frisco's home.)

5. Unless Southern Pacific or Texas Pacific's owner holds the Gulf
Shipping company, Galveston is almost never built to, and it can't even be
upgraded to a brown. Boring.

6. Unless the ATSF goes there for some reason or Burlington gets an early
jump, Denver languishes because it's just too far from the action. The
Burlington is the result of the merger of the Ft. Worth & Denver City
Railway [starting in Ft. Worth] and the Colorado & Southern [starting in
Denver], with that later acquired by the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy. The
home station shift merely portrays one pre-merger railway over the other
one.

7. In only one game of 1870 I've ever played did anybody build to New
Orleans before SoPac or TP tried to destinate. Might as well be in the
Yucatan.

8. While I have nothing wrong with the squandering of common resources as
an abstract game mechanic, I feel that it detracts from the "ambiance" of
railroad games placed within a realistic historical setting.

9. Similarly, 100% capitalization isn't realistic. This variant will have
one of two effects: It will either bring about a bankruptcy, or extend the
game by a set of ORs as players save up for those last-to-open companies
looking at very expensive trains. The other variants merely alter "local
flavor"; this one changes a fundamental mechanism and will result in
vastly different play.

Mike Schneider, VRWC Sentinel Outpost.  "Autoguns, on-line!"  +--+--+--+
Reply to mike1@@@winternet.com sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

   We are, and long have been, at a point where the entire concept of
"thinking" as a human activity practical for the purpose of addressing the
issues we're sorting through, must be re-built from the ground up, like some
ancient edifice lost. Unless and until that happens, there is virtually no
hope of avoiding *war* with the socialists, because that is the only
alternative to reason.  --  Billy Beck


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Eric Taylor  
View profile  
 More options Aug 13 1999, 3:00 am
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: Eric Taylor <eric_tay...@canada.com>
Date: 1999/08/13
Subject: Re: New 1870 Variants

When my partner & I got bored of playing 1870 straight-up, we modified
the start-up by removing Frisco as a private and dealing blindly two
companies to each player (when we play 2-player).  The individual must
open up those two companies before opening any other, and under no
circumstances can a player open up a company that the other was dealt.

It works very well, so long as neither player gets dealt ridiculous
combinations (e.g. GMO/Illinois, KATY-SantaFe are pretty much the best).

IMHO, 1870 is by far the best two-player game of the bunch (1830, 1856,
1870, 1835), although 1830 isn't too bad.

Cheers,

ScS


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Mike Schneider  
View profile  
 More options Aug 13 1999, 3:00 am
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: h...@screaminjesus.com (Mike Schneider)
Date: 1999/08/13
Subject: Re: New 1870 Variants
In article <37B47B38.80E0D...@canada.com>, Eric Taylor

<eric_tay...@canada.com> wrote:
> When my partner & I got bored of playing 1870 straight-up, we modified
> the start-up by removing Frisco as a private and dealing blindly two
> companies to each player (when we play 2-player).  The individual must
> open up those two companies before opening any other, and under no
> circumstances can a player open up a company that the other was dealt.

> It works very well, so long as neither player gets dealt ridiculous
> combinations (e.g. GMO/Illinois, KATY-SantaFe are pretty much the best).

   Hmm...  I dunno...  It removes that element of variability that I like
so much about 1870 and kinda shoehorns you into a game of 1835, where
you're stuck in a static role determined at the beginning of the game.

> IMHO, 1870 is by far the best two-player game of the bunch (1830, 1856,
> 1870, 1835), although 1830 isn't too bad.

   Neved done 2-player, but I'd agree. Works very well with 3.

Mike Schneider, VRWC Sentinel Outpost.  "Autoguns, on-line!"  +--+--+--+
Reply to mike1@@@winternet.com sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

   We are, and long have been, at a point where the entire concept of
"thinking" as a human activity practical for the purpose of addressing the
issues we're sorting through, must be re-built from the ground up, like some
ancient edifice lost. Unless and until that happens, there is virtually no
hope of avoiding *war* with the socialists, because that is the only
alternative to reason.  --  Billy Beck


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Michael Brünker  
View profile  
 More options Aug 21 1999, 3:00 am
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: Michael Brünker <Michael.Bruen...@home.ivm.de>
Date: 1999/08/21
Subject: Re: New 1870 Variants

Eric Taylor wrote:
> IMHO, 1870 is by far the best two-player game of the bunch (1830, 1856,
> 1870, 1835), although 1830 isn't too bad.

Never tried 1898 (based on 1841). It is the best 18xx for two players (not
only my opinion).

Michael


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
End of messages
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google