Two-player 1812
Dave Berry
beginning but by phase 4 it seemed markedly unbalanced. We didn't
manage to finish (partly because I cocked up), so possibly the
imbalance might have corrected itself, but that didn't seem
likely. Below I first describe the situation we found, then compare
the two-player and four-player games.
This is quite a long message, for which I apologise.
---
Here is the situation in phase 4. I had one public company and one
minor, with a slight lead in total wealth. My opponent had two
public companies and was earning slightly more income each turn. We
each had one 4 train and 2 3/2G trains between our companies.
On trains: As my opponent was earning more each turn, he was happy to
wait for me to buy the 5 train (especially as his companies had less
cash than mine). The rules don't allow a minor company to buy (and
keep) a 5 train, so I had to get its cash into the public
company. If my public company took over the minor, I would be at my
train limit. So I had to resort to old-fashioned train
shuffling. My opponent had plenty of free slots; if he had wanted to
buy the 5 train, he could easily have done so.
After buying the 5, I would have been left with two permanent trains
and no free slots. My opponent could buy a 5 and still have two free
slots for more trains.
On shares: I had 6 shares in my public company and could gain
another by taking over the minor. My opponent had a total of 7
shares in his own companies and could carry on buying up to his
certificate limit. If I bought shares in his companies, I would be
helping him to fill the empty train slots and so would increase the
gap between us even more.
On the map: Most cities have two marker spaces. Therefore a player
with one company is unable to block those cities, while someone with
two companies can block whichever they like (exception: York). So I
would have had to pay for markers to guarantee my routes, while my
opponent wouldn't have had to pay at all (since an empty marker space
would allow both his companies to run through the city. So while he
would be buying new trains for his free trains slots, I would be
spending my cash on markers.
Conclusion: We concluded that the player with two public companies
has a substantial advantage. We suggest that there should be 4
public companies available in the 2-player game, so that the same
options are open to both players.
---
I know that in the four-player game, the n+1th public company is not
seen as bringing such an advantage. So we need to analyse what is
different in the two-player game.
On trains: The game has n+2 3/2G trains. If all n players have one
public company in phase 4, this leaves n-2 free train slots. If n=4,
there are two free slots, and presumably those players have a strong
incentive to buy the 5 train. If n=2, there are no free slots, so a
player with a second public company has a clear advantage (bearing in
mind that minors may not own trains in phase 5 and can't even buy a
train in phase 4 if they already own one).
On shares: In a four-player game, each player has a choice about
which opposing companies to buy shares in. I'm not experienced at
this, but presumably you can spread your investments about, or choose
to invest in a player who seems to be less of a threat. In a
two-player game, the only companies available other than your own are
those of your only opponent.
On the map: In a four-player game, there are at least four competing
companies who can compete for the two marker spaces in most cities
(even though the number of markers is limited). In a two-player
game, a player with a second public company has a clear advantage.
----
So our conclusion was that there should be four public companies
available in a 2-player game (presumably each with 4 markers). An
alternative would be to just have two companies in total, but that
would lead to a rather dull end-game.
Another option, in addition, would be to have just three 3/2G trains
(i.e. 1.5 * n instead of n + 2). This would immediately bring the
same asymmetry to the game as in the four-player version. One player
would have two 3/2G trains and the other would be continually pushing
the purchase of new trains. However, you'd have to get the balance
exactly right; otherwise either the player with two 3/2G trains will
run away with the game, or the third 3/2G will become a poison train
that no-one wants to buy.
Dave.
Ian D Wilson
Congratulations on the first ever 2-player 1812! Sorry it didn't work out so well.
I think you are right: there should be only n*1.5 3/2G trains i.e. only 3 in the 2-player game. (Quite what we do in the 3-player is open to debate...)
On the other hand, I don't want to increase the number of public co's. This would just mean that both players bought their own shares all game. Although having 2 companies obviously gives you a big advantage token-wise (and track laying), if you spend all your companies' money on tokens they'll tend to fall behind on trains. Anyway, having one good company may be better than having 2 poor ones. The extra share may be an advantage in the end-game, of course. If having two is such an advantage, you may even have to maneuvre to get the second company.
If worst comes to worse, it may end up that the 2-player game is primarily a teaching tool.
Ian
|
Dave Berry
I encourage people to give the 2-player game a shot (using three 3/2G trains). We enjoyed our game; there are lots of decisions to make. The main reason we stopped was that we ran out of time, and I suspect the game will move faster with the fewer 3/2G trains.
Dave.
brendanm
players turning up etc) my group have finally got 1812 on the table.
As luck would have it, it was also a 2 players game. It was with the
first posted version.
We also found the 2 player game to be one of the asymmetrical gotchas,
perhaps worse so than in Dave's case.
The first one was with the privates. The auction proceeded normally
through to the Hull private, then the first gotcha appeared. Player 1
(John) had a #30 and a #45 private + #120, player 2 (me) the Tanfield
+ #185. Now we see that John has an effect maximum bid of #110 (as
this would allow opening a minor in SR2) and I have an effective
maximum of #85 (so as to open in SR1). My experience from 1861
suggested that 3-1 on privates was not too huge, so I bailed at about
#80. However, Hull turns out to be pretty powerful and the SR2
position had John with the leading stock price minor + 3 privates and
me with 2 lower value minors. This seems okay, as I am now earning
more, however the stock price position is important as well as the
fact that John has priority and it is hard to see how to get it off
him.
In SR3 I have a merged company that I invest to %50 of and John starts
a new minor again at a superior share point.
In SR 4 I start a new minor and John converts to a high price company
and buy one share to %40. He still has priority by buying only one
certificate for the last 3 rounds (0 in first round). My minor grabs a
3 train and his major a 4 train. Now I have 3/3 major and 3 minor and
he has a 4/3 major, but I have an extremely poisoned 3 train!
SR5 John starts 2nd major at a share price ahead of both existing
companies! I have something short of #400 and nothing to spend it on!
The rules prevent starting a new minor and any investment in John's
companies will only increase the chances of his getting the last 4 and
the first 5. I passed, hoping he would fail to make the cash, but he
did, with the help of 5 loans to the new company. Game effectively
well over, luckily actually over also in 1 more turn.
Obviously I did make a number of first play errors (oops! having a
third 3 train is death rather than guaranteed win), but it is hard to
see how to escape this eventual outcome for the player with only one
private when with Hull comes up. By buying the 3rd private you
guarantee getting the 2nd major! No way at all to get priority other
than making no investment for a round. Possibly do this in SR2? Still
sounds like curtains.
Obviously should not have bought 3rd 3, but rather train shuffled to
get first 4 into major. But this is a stutter and John still gets 2nd
major and more shares.
I might have been able to better manipulate my share values to avoid
quite such a disaster, Maybe buy a high value minor in SR3 rather than
merge, then merge all three for SR4.
Should have dumped my major in SR5 and bought up big on John's
companies.
All these would only narrow gap, but not bring a win.
Obviously I needed to bid 3rd private up to the point where the winner
of the auction has less to spend on Hull than the loser. I doubt too
many people would realise this up front as the real sting doesn't
happen until SR5.
The new version reduces the value of Hull, which is helpful, but again
the sting is in SR5.
Variations that would interest me would be to:
- allow minors to start and run for the entire game, this means
opening 2nd major is not so devastating
- give priority to player with the most money in hand (gives some
valid options to manipulate priority at least)
- not count shares over 6 in one company toward certificate limit,
thus single company player has access to 13th share
- keep 3s until 3+3s or even make them permanent and upgradable,
extreme 2 player train rush goes away (not sure if the new version's
reduced number of 3 trains makes this better or worse)
Anyways, it was still good to have a 2 player 18xx to play!
Ian D Wilson
Thanks for the detailed feedback, Brendan.
I think your playtest proves that the changes to the privates & number of 3-trains are essential. I also suspect that you merged too soon (rather than start a third minor), which may have been a factor in your downfall!
There are ways to influence the priority, if that is so important. You can bid up the first auction, forcing your opponent to pay most of his money, and then take one at a minimum amount. The next SR you should have more money and can win the first auction. Another method is to merge just before a SR, so you have no money in the SR, and your opponent has to do something with his money...
It may be that getting the third company is a good idea, in which case you have to play towards that goal. For example, getting a third minor at 100 in SR3, so you can convert it at the end of OR6? I'm not convinced that getting the third company is that big a deal, although the extra share is certainly a bonus.
I'm not too keen on most of your rule suggestions. They will tend to seriously distort the game, except for the most money = priority (from 1844) which is worth considering.
|
Dr. Mahony Brendan Patrick
Ian D Wilson
--- On Tue, 7/7/09, Dr. Mahony Brendan Patrick <maho...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
"But we couldn't find the rule about investing in a newly merged company, though I thought it should be there from 1861."
|
It is - see section 10.4 |
|
|
Or a conversion, if you start one at a high enough price.
|