Re: 18xx railroad games
Peter Clinch
> Anyone still here that plays the 18xx railroad series?
Occasionally... (I really like it, but don't usually have the time these
days, been literally years since I last managed to get one on the table)
> Maybe even 1870?
1825's the only one I've got left from my original set of 1829, 1825 and
1830, sorry!
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Stephen Graham
> Anyone still here that plays the 18xx railroad series?
Not as often as I'd like.
> Maybe even 1870?
That's probably the one I've played more games of lately.
mcv
>
> Anyone still here that plays the 18xx railroad series?
Yes, although I tend to hang out on the 18xx mailinglist for that.
> Maybe even 1870?
I prefer more modern, tightly designed variants like 18EU and 18FL (they
ran out of numbers a long time ago). Most new 18xx games are only
available by mailorder, but there are some really good games among them.
mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
Andreas Wohlfeld
> Andreas Wohlfeld <a...@supersonic.ruhr.de> wrote:
>>
>> Anyone still here that plays the 18xx railroad series?
>
> Yes, although I tend to hang out on the 18xx mailinglist for that.
>
Thanks.
--
I am root. If you see me laughing, you better have a backup.
Andreas Wohlfeld
>> Maybe even 1870?
>
> That's probably the one I've played more games of lately.
That's the one I played last Saturday with five players.
I got the Katy share for $165 and (as I was second to buy after the
guy who opened the MP) I also bought the presidential share for it at
share price of $82.
I had hoped that I could get four shares in total and that nobody else
would be able or had interest to buy more that four (the one without
any privates could have).
For some strange reason the other players only bought MP and Frisco
until the second stock round and I was left with the four shares of
Katy circulating for the first OR.
MP was sold out in the first SR and did very well after that. The
initial president of the MP won the game.
I was thinking of what I did wrong (except not advertising the Katy
enough to the relatively inexperienced players).
I think starting Katy was my only option other than buying MP and later
some more Katy as non-president.
Stephen Graham
> Stephen Graham wrote:
>
>>> Maybe even 1870?
>> That's probably the one I've played more games of lately.
>
> That's the one I played last Saturday with five players.
>
> I got the Katy share for $165 and (as I was second to buy after the
> guy who opened the MP) I also bought the presidential share for it at
> share price of $82.
I take it that there was no actual competitive bidding on minor
companies in the start packet? It's my experience that both the bridge
company ($105-120) and the Katy minor ($225-300) need to be
substantially bid up. Some players are reluctant to do so in a
five-player game but it's necessary to not hand the game to a couple of
players.
> I had hoped that I could get four shares in total and that nobody else
> would be able or had interest to buy more that four (the one without
> any privates could have).
>
> For some strange reason the other players only bought MP and Frisco
> until the second stock round and I was left with the four shares of
> Katy circulating for the first OR.
Well, once the player without a minor company elected to not start a
major, the game would be odd no matter what.
> MP was sold out in the first SR and did very well after that. The
> initial president of the MP won the game.
>
> I was thinking of what I did wrong (except not advertising the Katy
> enough to the relatively inexperienced players).
The key is pointing out that the dividends and stock appreciation will
be higher on the Katy than the Frisco from the start, with a reasonable
chance of pulling even with the MP within a couple of rounds. You should
also point out that those who aren't the MP president want to accelerate
train purchases so as to reduce the MP dividen advantage by killing two
trains. Otherwise, unless you have a firm commitment from others to buy
shares, you shouldn't try to start the Katy.
Really, the only reason to buy Frisco early on is if you think you can
get your hands on the presidency and the company cash. And then dump it
on the unsuspecting after looting it. Or you bought the minor. It can be
a decent company in the long run but requires careful management to
achieve this.
> I think starting Katy was my only option other than buying MP and later
> some more Katy as non-president.
Sitting on your money for the first stock round is a reasonable option
in your position. There won't be any dividend payout and, other than the
MP, companies are unlikely to sell out. Follow an investor strategy for
the first several turns, then start one of the second tier companies.
Your goal should be to use the Katy minor to extract $320 from a major
and parlay it into a second major.
Andreas Wohlfeld
> Andreas Wohlfeld wrote:
>> Stephen Graham wrote:
>>
>> That's the one I played last Saturday with five players.
> I take it that there was no actual competitive bidding on minor
> companies in the start packet? It's my experience that both the bridge
> company ($105-120) and the Katy minor ($225-300) need to be
> substantially bid up. Some players are reluctant to do so in a
> five-player game but it's necessary to not hand the game to a couple of
> players.
>
We played 1870 again on Saturday and we mae sure that nobody gets
anything too cheap (except the Frisco in this case).
>> I had hoped that I could get four shares in total and that nobody else
>> would be able or had interest to buy more that four (the one without
>> any privates could have).
>>
>> For some strange reason the other players only bought MP and Frisco
>> until the second stock round and I was left with the four shares of
>> Katy circulating for the first OR.
>
> Well, once the player without a minor company elected to not start a
> major, the game would be odd no matter what.
This time, I was the second richest player (only paid $20 for the
first private) after the player without any privates.
>
>> MP was sold out in the first SR and did very well after that. The
>> initial president of the MP won the game.
>>
>> I was thinking of what I did wrong (except not advertising the Katy
>> enough to the relatively inexperienced players).
>
> The key is pointing out that the dividends and stock appreciation will
> be higher on the Katy than the Frisco from the start, with a reasonable
[...]
>
> Really, the only reason to buy Frisco early on is if you think you can
> get your hands on the presidency and the company cash. And then dump it
> on the unsuspecting after looting it. Or you bought the minor. It can be
> a decent company in the long run but requires careful management to
> achieve this.
>
This time the play with all $420 opened the Katy, the player having
the 10% Katy share just bought another one. So far so good.
But the same muppet who didn't buy my Katy last time was the Frisco
president. And although we talked about the Frisco being less valuable
than others last round, he again bought another Frisco share!
Although I already feared the worst, I opened the Santa Fe, as I had
no bridge or port token private.
The player with the cattle, bridge and port token privates bought Katy
as well as the ones already owning Katy shares.
As the Firsco president wanted to buy his fourth share, we told him
that doing that isnt heling him. I even told him that this probably
means, that he will lose the game with me being only second but last.
He still bought the fourth Frisco which of course doomed my Santa Fe.
Even though I opened it as 68, nobody had bought it. I was missing 8
dollars to buy the 6th share and my only income was $5 per OR.
Later, the Frisco president went bankrupt (with the Santa Fe) and I
lost with the least money among the surviving players. Which was
shame, as I was fine with a 6 train for each of my two companies.
Oh, well.
Stephen Graham
> We played 1870 again on Saturday and we mae sure that nobody gets
> anything too cheap (except the Frisco in this case).
Bidding up the Frisco isn't as necessary. There's a monetary advantage
to gaining the Frisco for a low price and setting a high par, but it's
offset by the lower dividends in the first several turns.
> Even though I opened it as 68, nobody had bought it. I was missing 8
> dollars to buy the 6th share and my only income was $5 per OR.
Obviously someone might have bought a Santa Fe share to support you, as
it's likely to be to their advantage. Most likely the person with the
multiple minors. Though how much money did they have in hand? Could they
afford more than one share?
From your description, you were able to start the Santa Fe after the
third share round. That's not necessarily horrible for you, since you
can hopefully use the Katy's builds to your advantage. You've just lost
a turn of dividends compared to other players. Good play thereafter can
make up for this.
When did the next company start?
If your caught in this situation after the initial share round, you can
use the moderately unpleasant option of selling a share in the company
in one round and then using the proceeds plus operating income to buy
the sixth share in the next share round.
> Later, the Frisco president went bankrupt (with the Santa Fe) and I
> lost with the least money among the surviving players. Which was
> shame, as I was fine with a 6 train for each of my two companies.
So has your group figured out that two shares can be fatal based on
this? Spreading your investment among several companies is better most
of the time.
One other point is that it's not in the interests of a non-president to
sell out a company in the first round. It helps the president more than
anyone else.
John David Galt
>> Stephen Graham wrote:
>>> That's probably the one I've played more games of lately.
> Andreas Wohlfeld wrote:
>> That's the one I played last Saturday with five players.
>>
>> I got the Katy share for $165 and (as I was second to buy after the
>> guy who opened the MP) I also bought the presidential share for it at
>> share price of $82.
Stephen Graham wrote:
> I take it that there was no actual competitive bidding on minor
> companies in the start packet? It's my experience that both the bridge
> company ($105-120) and the Katy minor ($225-300) need to be
> substantially bid up. Some players are reluctant to do so in a
> five-player game but it's necessary to not hand the game to a couple of
> players.
Bridge: agree. Katy: why? Go ahead and start the Katy. I'll start the
Santa Fe and beat you easily (because I can piggyback on your whole route
and haven't wasted $200 on a $100 share).
>> I had hoped that I could get four shares in total and that nobody else
>> would be able or had interest to buy more that four (the one without
>> any privates could have).
>>
>> For some strange reason the other players only bought MP and Frisco
>> until the second stock round and I was left with the four shares of
>> Katy circulating for the first OR.
> Well, once the player without a minor company elected to not start a
> major, the game would be odd no matter what.
It's a common tactic in 1830 for one player to do nothing but invest in
other players' shares until at least the 4 trains, sometimes the 5, come
out. But I would expect it to backfire in 1870 because the presidents
of those companies will easily price-protect when you sell. (And of
course it randomly unbalances the game against players whose shares are
not invested in.)
>> MP was sold out in the first SR and did very well after that. The
>> initial president of the MP won the game.
That's normal. In our games, whoever gets the bridge private then
issues the ultimatum "either I get the MP, or the bridge never opens."
This always works unless we're playing with a newbie who calls his bluff
and discovers that the threat is both real and devastating.
>> I was thinking of what I did wrong (except not advertising the Katy
>> enough to the relatively inexperienced players).
> The key is pointing out that the dividends and stock appreciation will
> be higher on the Katy than the Frisco from the start, with a reasonable
> chance of pulling even with the MP within a couple of rounds.
The Frisco should never be bid up, since players who know what they're
doing will always buy the shares. If you ever get to run the company
with only 20%, you must be playing with a group of newbies.
> You should
> also point out that those who aren't the MP president want to accelerate
> train purchases so as to reduce the MP dividen advantage by killing two
> trains.
Agree. I also see this argument used in the late game to cause someone
to finally buy a 12 train.
> Otherwise, unless you have a firm commitment from others to buy
> shares, you shouldn't try to start the Katy.
I fail to see how this is related to the rest of the paragraph.
The main reason not to start the Katy is that the Santa Fe gives you all
the same benefits without having to buy the expensive share. (Of course
if someone else bought the private, go ahead and start the Katy since
you can now float it with five shares, like the Penn in 1830.)
> Really, the only reason to buy Frisco early on is if you think you can
> get your hands on the presidency and the company cash. And then dump it
> on the unsuspecting after looting it. Or you bought the minor. It can be
> a decent company in the long run but requires careful management to
> achieve this.
I usually see the Frisco owner build to St. Louis and piggyback on the MP
route to Chicago as soon as green phase begins. Often Frisco does not
even look west or south until somebody buys a 4 and kills his gravy runs.
>> I think starting Katy was my only option other than buying MP and later
>> some more Katy as non-president.
I'd prefer the latter.
> Sitting on your money for the first stock round is a reasonable option
> in your position. There won't be any dividend payout and, other than the
> MP, companies are unlikely to sell out. Follow an investor strategy for
> the first several turns, then start one of the second tier companies.
> Your goal should be to use the Katy minor to extract $320 from a major
> and parlay it into a second major.
What do you consider second tier companies? In my view a good starting
company mid-game is any company 4-6 hexes away from existing track, thus
able to both connect to the world and develop its own private area.
David Donald Hooton
> Stephen Graham wrote:
>> Andreas Wohlfeld wrote:
>>> initial president of the MP won the game.
> That's normal. In our games, whoever gets the bridge private then
> issues the ultimatum "either I get the MP, or the bridge never opens."
> This always works unless we're playing with a newbie who calls his bluff
> and discovers that the threat is both real and devastating.
In the games I've been in, the bridge-owner goes for the SSW rather
than the MP. It's much easier for the SSW to reach its destination.
- DDH
John David Galt
>>>> MP was sold out in the first SR and did very well after that. The
>>>> initial president of the MP won the game.
> John David Galt wrote:
>> That's normal. In our games, whoever gets the bridge private then
>> issues the ultimatum "either I get the MP, or the bridge never opens."
>> This always works unless we're playing with a newbie who calls his bluff
>> and discovers that the threat is both real and devastating.
David Donald Hooton wrote:
> In the games I've been in, the bridge-owner goes for the SSW rather
> than the MP. It's much easier for the SSW to reach its destination.
Not sure what SSW stands for (Cotton Belt?)
Destinations are a long-term goal. Usually you want to wait until you
can run two trains, one of them at least a 5-train, on your connection
run.
The MP builds TWO tracks to Chicago and runs two 2s and a 3 (or any
four trains) until the 4 trains pop, just like the B&O in 1830.
If the Frisco helps you build it, it can all be in place by OR3.
Stephen Graham
> Stephen Graham wrote:
>> I take it that there was no actual competitive bidding on minor
>> companies in the start packet? It's my experience that both the bridge
>> company ($105-120) and the Katy minor ($225-300) need to be
>> substantially bid up. Some players are reluctant to do so in a
>> five-player game but it's necessary to not hand the game to a couple of
>> players.
>
> Bridge: agree. Katy: why? Go ahead and start the Katy. I'll start the
> Santa Fe and beat you easily (because I can piggyback on your whole route
> and haven't wasted $200 on a $100 share).
How do you regard the C&A in 1830? It's the same minor.
The Katy minor is $320 back into your hand under the right circumstances
as well as a Katy share and $20/turn. It's not a predecessor to starting
the Katy major.
>> Well, once the player without a minor company elected to not start a
>> major, the game would be odd no matter what.
>
> It's a common tactic in 1830 for one player to do nothing but invest in
> other players' shares until at least the 4 trains, sometimes the 5, come
> out. But I would expect it to backfire in 1870 because the presidents
> of those companies will easily price-protect when you sell. (And of
> course it randomly unbalances the game against players whose shares are
> not invested in.)
The strategy works in 1870; you just need to be careful doing it.
The oddity is the player without minors has the cash advantage and can
gain a presidency much more easily. A presidency is almost always more
valuable.
> The Frisco should never be bid up, since players who know what they're
> doing will always buy the shares. If you ever get to run the company
> with only 20%, you must be playing with a group of newbies.
There's a balance - the Frisco is the least valuable share in terms of
return on investment at the start of the game. You want to force the
initial owner to sink money into it rather than simply handing the owner
the $1,000.
>> Otherwise, unless you have a firm commitment from others to buy
>> shares, you shouldn't try to start the Katy.
>
> I fail to see how this is related to the rest of the paragraph.
I think you missed the initial premise that he wouldn't have enough
money to start the company on his own. In that case, he's locking his
money up for minimal return.
> I usually see the Frisco owner build to St. Louis and piggyback on the MP
> route to Chicago as soon as green phase begins. Often Frisco does not
> even look west or south until somebody buys a 4 and kills his gravy runs.
Getting to St Louis is expensive, away from your long-term interests,
and likely to collide with the MKT/MP. Remember, there's no reason that
the MP wants to let you in.
>> Sitting on your money for the first stock round is a reasonable option
>> in your position. There won't be any dividend payout and, other than the
>> MP, companies are unlikely to sell out. Follow an investor strategy for
>> the first several turns, then start one of the second tier companies.
>> Your goal should be to use the Katy minor to extract $320 from a major
>> and parlay it into a second major.
>
> What do you consider second tier companies? In my view a good starting
> company mid-game is any company 4-6 hexes away from existing track, thus
> able to both connect to the world and develop its own private area.
Literally anything that didn't get started in the first round of
companies. A skilled player should be able to win from any starting
company. That said, the T&P, Fort Worth, GMO and IC are less common
starters.
John David Galt
>>> I take it that there was no actual competitive bidding on minor
>>> companies in the start packet? It's my experience that both the bridge
>>> company ($105-120) and the Katy minor ($225-300) need to be
>>> substantially bid up. Some players are reluctant to do so in a
>>> five-player game but it's necessary to not hand the game to a couple of
>>> players.
> John David Galt wrote:
>> Bridge: agree. Katy: why? Go ahead and start the Katy. I'll start the
>> Santa Fe and beat you easily (because I can piggyback on your whole route
>> and haven't wasted $200 on a $100 share).
Stephen Graham wrote:
> How do you regard the C&A in 1830? It's the same minor.
I tend not to buy expensive privates in any game. However, C&A has a
major advantage the Katy private doesn't share: it controls the southern
entrance to NY, thus allowing you to choose which of (B&O, Penn, C&O)
gets in and how well it connects. Thus I don't see it as a major
mistake to buy the C&A, even though I seldom want to do it.
> The Katy minor is $320 back into your hand under the right circumstances
> as well as a Katy share and $20/turn. It's not a predecessor to starting
> the Katy major.
Unlike 1830, any money you "loot" from your major company this way will
just have to be paid back in when the train rush comes. Seeing it as
"free money" is short sighted to say the least.
>>> Well, once the player without a minor company elected to not start a
>>> major, the game would be odd no matter what.
>> It's a common tactic in 1830 for one player to do nothing but invest in
>> other players' shares until at least the 4 trains, sometimes the 5, come
>> out. But I would expect it to backfire in 1870 because the presidents
>> of those companies will easily price-protect when you sell. (And of
>> course it randomly unbalances the game against players whose shares are
>> not invested in.)
> The strategy works in 1870; you just need to be careful doing it.
>
> The oddity is the player without minors has the cash advantage and can
> gain a presidency much more easily. A presidency is almost always more
> valuable.
Compared to what?
The main thing a presidency gives you that ordinary shares don't is
control of that company. Which only tends to matter when you have
more than one and can shift trains among them. And in most games the
companies that start later are hosed geographically. Thus in 1830, for
instance, an investor who owns 4 Penn and 4 B&O and ditches them in SR4
to start the NYC or Erie from scratch, is probably worse off than if
he'd just kept what he had.
>> I usually see the Frisco owner build to St. Louis and piggyback on the MP
>> route to Chicago as soon as green phase begins. Often Frisco does not
>> even look west or south until somebody buys a 4 and kills his gravy runs.
> Getting to St Louis is expensive, away from your long-term interests,
> and likely to collide with the MKT/MP. Remember, there's no reason that
> the MP wants to let you in.
The MP usually wants to let one other company in during green phase,
to get his routes built and upgraded faster; and the Frisco is the
logical choice, because by that time the Katy and Santa Fe are building
pell-mell, together, for their destinations in Texas.
>>> Sitting on your money for the first stock round is a reasonable option
>>> in your position. There won't be any dividend payout and, other than the
>>> MP, companies are unlikely to sell out. Follow an investor strategy for
>>> the first several turns, then start one of the second tier companies.
>>> Your goal should be to use the Katy minor to extract $320 from a major
>>> and parlay it into a second major.
>> What do you consider second tier companies? In my view a good starting
>> company mid-game is any company 4-6 hexes away from existing track, thus
>> able to both connect to the world and develop its own private area.
> Literally anything that didn't get started in the first round of
> companies. A skilled player should be able to win from any starting
> company. That said, the T&P, Fort Worth, GMO and IC are less common
> starters.
Agreed. And the Burlington.
Stephen Graham
>>> Stephen Graham wrote:
>> The Katy minor is $320 back into your hand under the right circumstances
>> as well as a Katy share and $20/turn. It's not a predecessor to starting
>> the Katy major.
>
> Unlike 1830, any money you "loot" from your major company this way will
> just have to be paid back in when the train rush comes. Seeing it as
> "free money" is short sighted to say the least.
More money now is much more money later. Also, I suspect that I see 10
and 12 trains come out much less frequently than you do.
>> The oddity is the player without minors has the cash advantage and can
>> gain a presidency much more easily. A presidency is almost always more
>> valuable.
>
> Compared to what?
>
> The main thing a presidency gives you that ordinary shares don't is
> control of that company.
No, what it gives you is 20% in one certificate, and thus more stock
value and more dividends. Certificate limits are important.
>> Getting to St Louis is expensive, away from your long-term interests,
>> and likely to collide with the MKT/MP. Remember, there's no reason that
>> the MP wants to let you in.
>
> The MP usually wants to let one other company in during green phase,
> to get his routes built and upgraded faster; and the Frisco is the
> logical choice, because by that time the Katy and Santa Fe are building
> pell-mell, together, for their destinations in Texas.
No. The MP wants to maximize income advantage. And that is often best
accomplished by slowing down the trains. Letting the Frisco in doesn't
serve the MP owner's interests.