"Roberto Ullfig" <r...@suba.com> wrote in message <news:7az7a.50$Y4.9601@news.uchicago.edu>... > Approximately how much money should be removed from the bank in order to > reduce playing time by about 33%? Thanks.
Reducing the bank is not going to achieve the reduction in time you are looking for. Taking out a third of the bank ($4000) will probably only reduce the playing time from (say) 7 hours to 6, at best.
The main time-problem 1870 has is the interminable end-game. One way I can see of alleviating this is to introduce draconian time-keeping measures once the 8s come out - literally giving each company a maximum of a minute to complete its move. This way you have a chance of completing a set of ORs in half an hour. The only other suggestion I would have is to restrict track-laying to those companies with the largest train currently owned, or to stop track-laying altogether after a certain limit is passed (either a time limit or the purchase of a particular train), and then playing out the bank. All of these suggestions could probably be very unpopular.
I know 1870 is the 18xx of choice for many people, mainly because of the additional degree of control players have over events. This level of control also contributes to the length of the game, so IMO if you want a shorter 1870 you are looking at reducing the options available to players; in particular: * no half-dividends allowed * no refloating of company shares at different share prices * placing token on destination is mandatory ... and other things like this. What you would end up with, however, is a game very different from the original 1870 designed by Bill Dixon. You would probably be better off playing a shorter 18xx. The main problem there is that you're rather restricted in your choice at the moment.
huttm wrote: > The main time-problem 1870 has is the interminable end-game. One way I > can see of alleviating this is to introduce draconian time-keeping > measures once the 8s come out
Would you agree that it is possible to shorten the game by converting 8, 10, 12 trains to E4, E5, E6 trains? E-trains count their visited stations twice, may skip stations along their route, and may visit only big cities. E-trains work well in some 18xx and there they do shorten the endgame considerably. In particular, there is no need to consider connecting villages.
In article <7az7a.50$Y4.9...@news.uchicago.edu>, Roberto Ullfig <r...@suba.com> writes
>Approximately how much money should be removed from the bank in order to >reduce playing time by about 33%? Thanks.
All of it. Or, to put it another way, get the 18xx moderator program and use it to do all the bookkeeping. 33% is the approximate fraction of the game time you spend doing 6x17 in your head and moving bits of paper about.
There are a few minor caveats, though. You need a computer in the room. You need a monitor with a suitable size and viewing angle at or near the table. And most importantly, you need to impress on all the players that they must *keep an eye on the screen*, since that's where all the info is, not in the bits of paper on the table. In particular, the person driving the moderator will often forget to pick up share certificates. Don't even get the money out of the box. My 1830 money is now kept with the Cheapass games. -- David Allsopp Houston, this is Tranquillity Base. Remove SPAM to email me The Eagle has landed.
Robert Jasiek <jas...@snafu.de> wrote in message <news:3E5F85B5.59A9B82E@snafu.de>... > huttm wrote: > > The main time-problem 1870 has is the interminable end-game. One way I > > can see of alleviating this is to introduce draconian time-keeping > > measures once the 8s come out
> Would you agree that it is possible to shorten the game by converting > 8, 10, 12 trains to E4, E5, E6 trains? E-trains count their visited > stations twice, may skip stations along their route, and may visit > only big cities. E-trains work well in some 18xx and there they do > shorten the endgame considerably. In particular, there is no need to > consider connecting villages.
This could really skew the game, turning it into something it clear isn't. Of the mainstream 18xx games, 1870 is the only one where small stations are worth upgrading, and this is seen as a major advantage of the game over others in the series.
You would also have to work out what the impact of being able to miss out stations would be on the destination connection rules would be. In particular, does a 4E train establish a connection run if the home/destination towns are in effect 11 stations away? With an 8-train this wouldn't be the case, but with a 4E you could argue that it would. An additional query would be how to assess the revenue from a desination token city - do you get 4 x the city value? I would say you'd need to specify that it would be 3x.
The revenues players could generate with 5E and 6E trains would undoubtedly be higher than they could possibly dream of getting with 10 and 12 trains. This would mean that each company would concentrate on improving 4-6 cities at the expense of all others, and token placement would not be as critical for the end-game as it would be otherwise. You are then also presented the query as to whether the E trains should be more expensive than the 8/10/12s. There's certainly a case to be said for that too.
In short, it could work, but it would change players' treatment of minor stations (i.e. these could fail to be upgraded to the same extent), and you may still end up with some of the problem the end-game normally generates, where players take ages trying to eke out as much revenue as they possibly can by building more and more convoluted routes.
I would be more inclined to put a cut-off in track development - since the 10s/12s are unlikely to appear in a drastically shortened (4-5 hour) game, replacing them is unlikely to have that much impact.
> > Approximately how much money should be removed from the bank in order to > > reduce playing time by about 33%? Thanks.
> Reducing the bank is not going to achieve the reduction in time you > are looking for. Taking out a third of the bank ($4000) will probably > only reduce the playing time from (say) 7 hours to 6, at best.
Are you sure that's all? I'm wanting a 4 hour game of 1870 to teach newbies with - it seems like a typical game goes about 6 1/2 hours. How about reducing the bank by 33% and removing the 10 and 12 trains? Give the 8 trains an infinite supply? It doesn't matter to me if the game plays differently.
> The main time-problem 1870 has is the interminable end-game. One way I > can see of alleviating this is to introduce draconian time-keeping > measures once the 8s come out - literally giving each company a > maximum of a minute to complete its move. This way you have a chance > of completing a set of ORs in half an hour. The only other suggestion > I would have is to restrict track-laying to those companies with the > largest train currently owned, or to stop track-laying altogether > after a certain limit is passed (either a time limit or the purchase > of a particular train), and then playing out the bank. All of these > suggestions could probably be very unpopular.
> I know 1870 is the 18xx of choice for many people, mainly because of > the additional degree of control players have over events. This level > of control also contributes to the length of the game, so IMO if you > want a shorter 1870 you are looking at reducing the options available > to players; in particular: > * no half-dividends allowed > * no refloating of company shares at different share prices > * placing token on destination is mandatory > ... and other things like this. What you would end up with, however, > is a game very different from the original 1870 designed by Bill > Dixon. You would probably be better off playing a shorter 18xx. The > main problem there is that you're rather restricted in your choice at > the moment.
> > Reducing the bank is not going to achieve the reduction in time you > > are looking for. Taking out a third of the bank ($4000) will probably > > only reduce the playing time from (say) 7 hours to 6, at best.
> Are you sure that's all?
Yes - you'll reduce the game by at most one set of operating rounds, which would take between 3/4 hour to an hour.
> I'm wanting a 4 hour game of 1870 to teach newbies > with - it seems like a typical game goes about 6 1/2 hours.
Or longer, dependent on how avidly your players would want to maximise their final runs at all costs. I remember seeing comments of 8-10 hours for some groups. If you're playing with newbies then it is likely to take that length of time unless you take serious preventative measures.
> How about reducing the bank by 33% and removing the 10 and 12 trains? > Give the 8 trains an infinite supply? It doesn't matter to me if the game > plays differently.
If you're playing with newbies then the above might be OK, but I would actually recommend halving the bank in that case. I would also remove some of the additional rules to smooth along the ride - particularly the buying back of shares into a company, half dividends, and price protection.
In short, if you want a 4-hour game then 1870 isn't it. You're better off with 1825, 1830, or some of the smaller 18xx gamekits (1851, 18GA/AL etc). If 1870 is the only 18xx you've got, you primarily need to make the game simpler if you're going to make it shorter. If I were in your position, and only had a copy of 1870 to hand, I would do as I described (remove the above rules, but keep 2/3 of the bank), but remove an 8 (play with 2), keep the 10 trains, and freeze track development at the start of the stock round after the first 10 train is bought. You may need to remove one 2 train, and a 4 train as well if you want the game to go really fast, but I can't say whether this would break the game or not.
The result of the above should be that the end-game is avoided, and you can run out the bank using paper and pen quite quickly. You'll find the game ends in a bit of a flurry.
<Wow...has it really been five years since I posted this? Re-cap time.>
1870 FAST GAME --------------
Phase Tiles laid -------- ---------- 2 trains 2 yellow 3 trains 3 yellow 4 trains (above), or a green and yellow 8 trains (above), or a brown and yellow 12 trains up to three tiles, no more than one brown.
(The above game I have tried twice. It is quite balanced, and allows different starting options. Will shave off a set of ORs, and it is occasionally possible to empty the bank before 12s come out, so there are tricky strategies to nurse along - or kill - the 5 trains.)
NOTE: Tiles are laid sequentially, so if a multicolor tile lay is permitted, then a player could lay one and then immediately upgrade it.
1870 SMOKIN' FAST GAME ----------------------
Phase Tiles laid -------- ---------- 2 trains 2 yellow 3 trains 3 yellow, or a green and yellow 4 trains (above), or two greens 5 trains (above), or yellow and a brown 6 trains (above), or green and a brown 8 trains (above), or two yellows and a brown 10 trains three tiles, no more than one brown. 12 trains three tiles, no more than two browns. broke bank any three available tiles.
Never played it - but it ought to be a blast. Tile planning will be important, as some players "with nothing better to do" will suck up need tiles and dump them any old place.
-- Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
huttm wrote: > This could really skew the game, turning it into something it clear > isn't.
No doubt. However, the same is true for every method (like using less money) that shortens the game considerably. The only exception might be usage of a computer moderator for time and money management.
[upgrading villages]
> and this is seen as a major advantage of > the game over others in the series.
Advantage? If you like. I don't care.
> You would also have to work out what the impact of being able to miss > out stations would be on the destination connection rules would be.
[other rules details]
OC, rules details must be observed. Anyway, if someone wants a drastic reduction in time, then he should be able to live with tiny extra rules changes necessay to accompany the major rules change.
> The revenues players could generate with 5E and 6E trains would > undoubtedly be higher than they could possibly dream of getting with > 10 and 12 trains. This would mean that each company would concentrate > on improving 4-6 cities at the expense of all others, and token > placement would not be as critical for the end-game as it would be > otherwise.
OC. This makes the game shorter, as desired.
> You are then also presented the query as to whether the E > trains should be more expensive than the 8/10/12s.
Why. If not, then it makes the game shorter.
> you may still end up with some of the problem the > end-game normally generates, where players take ages trying to eke out > as much revenue as they possibly can by building more and more > convoluted routes.
No. With E-trains it is close to impossible to spend much time on increasing the revenue. Try 1826 if you have doubts.
> I would be more inclined to put a cut-off in track development - since > the 10s/12s are unlikely to appear in a drastically shortened (4-5 > hour) game,
Why? Whether they appear depends on group thinking and the total money in the game. Since money shall be left constant when we speak of shortening the game by E-trains, there is sufficient money for 10 and 12 trains and it solely depends on group thinking.
|
