Third time lucky: 2-player 1812
Dave Berry
players. This time it worked well for us.
Summary
--------------
SR1:
P1 bought N&C@30, S&R@25, SAM@140
P2 bought SEW@30, S&D@30, ND@135
SR2:
P1 bought LN@120
P2 bought HS@120
OR2b:
ND&HS merge into NER@90
SR3:
P1 bought NB@145
OR3a:
NER bought the first 4 train.
SAM@LN merge into MR@100
NB not connected.
OR3b:
MR bought the first 5 train
NB merged into MR
].[At this point I didn't record at least one intervening SR because
nothing of note happened[
SR5?:
P1 started GCR in York@80
P2 started GNR in York@80
SR6?
At this point we bought into each other's companies
OR7a?
Game end
P1 = 4236, P2 = 3749.
Notes
--------
We used the new method of determining SR order. P1 started in most
rounds through having more cash left at the end of the previous
SR. We think this is a better rule than the previous one.
We played with four public companies instead of the three in the
rules. See below for comments about this.
The share holdings at the end were symmetrical: 6/4 MR, 4/6 NER & 3/3
GNR:GCR (The GNR & GCR had the same value). So the share prices of
the major companies were key. The NER started lower and never caught
up. In fact it withheld income once, but even if it had not done so
it would not have caught up. So a key point of the game was that P1
paid less for his private companies.
On the track front, the NB built to Darlington and by-passed York to
reach the south. The Darlington by-pass was not built until well
into phase 5 and York was only built when the 3rd and 4th public
companies were floated. The Settle-Carlisle route was built in OR3b
and provided the MR with a very profitable 3 route.
Apart from the usual #19, #23, #24 & #25, the only plain green tile
laid was a #30 to the north of Newcastle. That wasn't the best
option to connect to both Carlisle and Berwick but a lot depends on
how Newcastle upgrades. The only plain brown tile laid was a
#46. We didn't run out of #4 tiles (although we would have added
extra ones if needed). We didn't need the extra #58 tiles (above the
four provided with 1861).
P1 bought the extra 3 train and ran it successfully. P2 bought the
first 4. At this point P1 declined the option to buy the second 4,
as his 3 was just about holding its own thanks to the Settle-Carlisle
route and the +20 for Carlisle from the N&C. So P2 bought the second
4, reasoning that this would extend his lead in trains. P1 responded
by buying the first 5.
We spent quite a long time working out the options for where to start
the 3rd and 4th companies. If we'd planned ahead, we might have
upgraded more station tiles to give more options. There were some
interesting possibilities regarding Darlington and the effect of
opposing garrisons. Sunderland seemed worthless. Barnsley seemed
awkward (but in practice probably would have worked). The starting
price was largely determined by the need to get the right amount of
capital into the companies (although P2 missed the option of buying a
train from his other company).
Comments
----------------
This was an enjoyable game.
For us, the extra public company improved the game markedly because
it introduced more choice. Although we did observe that one reason
P1 did better was probably that he invested earlier in the NER than
P2 did in the MR, which corresponds to Ian's expectations. So
starting a second company isn't necessarily the best
tactic. However, we prefer to have the choice and the freedom to
experiment with these tactics, rather than the game imposing a
restriction. We intend to play with four companies in the future.
We perceived a sensitivity of the final share value on the initial
auction. If true, this seems to devalue the intervening game play to
an extent. We wondered whether it would help to introduce occasional
double-jumping, moving a company's marker two spaces on the stock
price chart if its income/share is, say, four times its current share price?
The N-S runs are obviously valuable; we wondered if they are a bit
too valuable, particularly in the early game? We were by-passing
major cities (York, Newcastle) in order to get the N-S runs. The
bonus could instead vary with phase, e.g. 40/50/60/60 (note that the
final 60 can be doubled by a 3+3E). On the other hand, this might
spoil some of the fun to be had from inventive route building. Has
this already been tried?
The 3 train wasn't poison in this game, but this was partly because
it was running a N-S route with an additional +30 from two
privates. Less optimal private companies would have weakened it,
possibly giving a stronger advantage to whoever bought the first
4. (And this argues against reducing the N-S bonus in early
phases). IMO, this remains an issue to keep an eye on.
In our next game, I plan to remove all the #17, #18, #21 & #22 tiles
and one each of the #26, #27, #28, #29, #30 & #31 tiles (14 in all)
and see whether that affects the game in any way. I view that as
quite conservative; I might also remove the other #26 and #27 tiles as well.
Dave.
Ian D
day (thanks David!).
We also played with 4 big companies and the 1844-style priority rule.
Having the extra major certainly helps to balance the game, but the
1844 priority rule seemed less important. I had the priority at the
key moment when we were launching our second companies, and got the
cheapest spot (Sunderland), but David won anyway.
Note that with the 4th company, the tokens will only be 4 each. I'm
undecided about what the 2-player share limit should be now.
I also like the idea of a sliding scale N-S bonus. We played this in
one game - the early route to Carlisle(south) didn't happen, which is
more historical (it should be in the brown phase?). I'm also thinking
of increasing Berwick by 10 in grey to make Newcastle more interesting
in the end-game.
I also played a couple of 4-player games. In one, Danny wangled to buy
both the late green trains (a clever tactic in 1861) - and came dead
last. It definitely seems that the second tranche of green trains are
barely worth buying; one only gets two runs, compared to typically
four runs out of the yellow, early green and brown trains. For some
reason, although the 4's are perfectly good buys in 1861, the grey
trains arrive too soon in 1812 for the late greens to pay. There is a
real risk of 'poison train syndrome'. Comparing 4-player games (and
ignoring G-trains):
1812 1861 %
Yellow 400 1000 40
Green 1200 2975 40
Brown 1600 5100* ~30
This indicates that 4-player 1812 needs another brown train (i.e.
Nx1.25), or to increase the cost by 25%. The latter seems wrong, the
step from 3 to 4 is already large. But how to add half a train to the
2-player?
Any ideas anyone?
Ian D
john boocock
| hi ian and all is 1812 supposed to be an 'introductory' type of 18xx for newbies to 18xx? but also supposed to be for good 18xx players to play quickly? if you went with an 1846 phased out type of train rather than the instant death of the 61 version, it would help newbies, and avoid 'poisoning'. if you had 'instant death' as an alternative, to be decided before playing, this would appeal to the more experienced type of player, who likes the 'hah! shot you down' type of financial finagling that danny does so well usually in 1861, when he produces a 4 train out of the hat to the bemusement of others who did not think he could do it just yet...... just a thought..... john b --- On Mon, 12/10/09, Ian D <ianwil...@btinternet.com> wrote: |
Ian D
For a 18XX game to be a good introductory one, it needs to be
a) simple and quick to explain the rules
b) not too long - playable in 3 hours
c) playable with 2 players
d) reasonably benign - no dumping/bankruptcy
1812 meets (b)-(d) but not (a). It might make a good second title to
try with a newbie.
It is primarily aimed at experienced players who want something to
play in a shorter timescale.
On the second issue:
Although the 1846-style obsolescence rule is tempting, I think that
the 1835/37-style "semi-permanent train" might work better in 1812. So
my proposal is to indroduce the 3+1/2G+1 train (cost £220/200); these
rust on the first 3+3E/2+2G train, and have a trade-in value of
(£55/50). They can count one extra small station to the run. At the
end of the set of operating rounds during which the first 3/2G is
bought, replace all remaining 3/2G trains with 3+1/2G+1 trains. Also,
to ensure the bank doesn't bust too soon, increase the bank size to Nx
£2000.
I shall upload a new train file shortly.
I have done a run-through with 2, 3 & 4 players and it seems to work
OK.
Beware! The train limit still falls to zero in Minors with the first
5/4G i.e. a Minor with a 3+1 would have to discard it.
Ian D
On Oct 12, 9:13 pm, john boocock <johnl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> hi ian and all
>
> is 1812 supposed to be an 'introductory' type of 18xx for newbies to 18xx?
>
> but also supposed to be for good 18xx players to play quickly?
>
> if you went with an 1846 phased out type of train rather than the instant death of the 61 version, it would help newbies, and avoid 'poisoning'.
>
> if you had 'instant death' as an alternative, to be decided before playing, this would appeal to the more experienced type of player, who likes the 'hah! shot you down' type of financial finagling that danny does so well usually in 1861, when he produces a 4 train out of the hat to the bemusement of others who did not think he could do it just yet......
>
> just a thought.....
>
> john b
>
> From: Ian D <ianwilson...@btinternet.com>
> Subject: Re: Third time lucky: 2-player 1812
> To: "1812 playtest discussion" <1812-playtes...@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Monday, 12 October, 2009, 8:21 PM
>
>
john boocock
Dave Berry
I haven't played a game where you have to replace
certain trains at some point and I'm a bit
worried that we might forget to do this among
everything else we have to keep track of. Do
many other games have this mechanism? Would it
work to have instead, say, n-1 '3' trains and
n/2+1 of the new trains? Or would that just make
the last 3 train into a poison train again?
Dave.
Ian D
Presently we have:
Yellow 45, green 53, brown 17, grey 1, total = 116
Tile sheets are 7x5 = 35 per sheet (less one for each colour change);
this why 1861 has yellow 70, green 66, brown 35 and grey 3 (5 sheets,
one gap). So, to get down to 3 sheets we need to get down to about 102
tiles (3x35 less 3 gaps) i.e. lose 14 tiles. But we might need more
yellows (#3, #4, #7). Brown and grey are pretty much pared to a
minimum. In green, I suspect we could lose one each of #16 through #31
inclusive - saving 16. I've seen most of these used once.
Ian D
On Sep 14, 9:24 pm, Dave Berry <d...@berrybental.me.uk> wrote:
>
<snip>
Dave Berry
The production considerations are important, of course, but my reason
for attempting a game without some of these tiles was to reduce the
time taken to find the right tile among those available. Some
players are slower than others, but if there is a larger stack, there
is more time needed to find the right tile. Or more table space to
spread them all out, which is annoying if you only use two or three of them.
If, after all your playtests, there are any tiles that you haven't
seen used at all, perhaps it would be worth axing them at this point.
Or not - it's your design and your call.
Dave.
Ian D
tiles have been used! But I do remember a #70 being used at least
once, and I think most of the green plain track also. Whether we
really need tiles like #21, #22, #30, & #31 is debatable, of course,
but I'd prefer to have at least one of these - saves aggravation later
on. So I'm left with deciding how many of each tile to put in; the
only way I have of testing this is to reduce the numbers until people
start complaining.
Do we really need two of #14, #15, & #619? There are only Barnsley,
York, Darlington, & Sunderland (and the latter doesn't need to go
green until later).
Ian
Ian D
unpublished 1848LT.
I did consider Nx3's and N/2x3+1's, but this will not work if somebody
fails to start a minor in SR2. In a sense, I'm just extending the rule
about checking for 2's at the end of the first set of ORs.
I agree that it is making the rules more complex & further from the
standard set - I'm open to suggestions for alternatives.
Ian D