Just about to print it out

[Richard Clyne]

Are there any change planed in the imminent future, or am I safe to
print it all out?
Richard

[Ian D Wilson]

Yes, there are several changes in the pipeline, including to the map and privates. I hope to get the new version out by the end of June....   Ian --- On Tue, 2/6/09, Richard Clyne <ric...@clyne.org> wrote:

[Dave Berry]

Is it possible to summarise the map changes so I can change my copy by hand, or are the changes too complicated?

Dave.

[Ian D Wilson]

New map - proposed changes: Implement the 'overlay' Reduce cost of B17 to £40 (to encourage SAM to build route to Manchester) Remove reserve token on Darlington (worthless) Change Stockton(E8) to plain hex with dot town & river(cost £20) Extend W&P into F13 Add L&S in D15 and E16   Privates - proposed changes: All 20/30/10 to 15/20/5; all 30/45/15 to 30/40/10 Remove Hetton (useless) Increase bonus on N&C to £20 for Carlisle Extra hex for W&P S&D loses token but gains a hex to build and +£10 on Darlington Change HD to 30/40/10 Add Leeds & Selby: 30/40/10, +£10 York, 2 hexes to build (These last two changes should make York & Hull more attractive start places.)   You did ask! --- On Wed, 3/6/09, Dave Berry <da...@berrybental.me.uk> wrote:

[Dave Berry]

Which hex does the S&D get to build - Darlington itself?

We're planning a two-player game tomorrow night.  If I have time (which is questionable) I'll try and incorporate these changes.

Dave.

[Ian D Wilson]

S&D already gets Darlington, extra hex is Stockton(E8) as already printed on the map.

[Dave4B]

That gives you 3 "£20" privates and 6 "£40" privates (assuming HD is
still always in), so in a 4 player game all of the former will be
used.
I assume that SEW's trade-in is now £40.

[Ian D Wilson]

Yes, the SEW's trade-in will change to £40 (i.e. face value).   I'm also planning on changing the rules so you randomise all the privates, i.e. just pick 2*n out of the 11 available; also they will be auctioned in any order (like the minors), but all available privates must be sold before auctioning the minors as usual. Thanks to whoever suggested these - I can't remember who it was!   Ian --- On Fri, 5/6/09, Dave4B <dave....@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:

From: Dave4B <dave....@ukonline.co.uk> Subject: Re: Just about to print it out

[Dave Berry]

I was going to suggest instead that the S&D be changed to a £30 company.  This would put it on a par with the Middleton, Wylam and SAM, each of which give +10 to a central city.  If you keep the existing randomisation rules, this would make it reasonably likely that the +10 for Darlington would be in the game, thus encouraging people to build there instead of concentrating on the Stockton by-pass.

Removing the Hetton seems sensible, as does removing the special token for the S&D.  The latter added more complication to the rules than it was worth.

I don't understand the reasoning behind the change to the Hull Docks company.  In our two games, players have started there because (a) the HD company must be in the game and (b) the +20 seems worthwhile.  I can see the point of scaling it back in line with the other changes, say to 40/60/15 or even 35/50/15.

We don't understand the point of the extra tile lays for the S&T.  This company has been in both our games and in neither case were these free lays any use.  They don't lead anywhere.  They might be useful to by-pass Newcastle, but (a) we haven't wanted to do that and (b) why would a company with +10 for Newcastle port want to by-pass the city? 

If you're looking for another 30-value private to balance the number of 40-value ones, how about adding a construction company that can be traded in for a discount of up to £40 on a payment for difficult terrain in any one hex?  I realise that £40 would be greater than face value, but sometimes the power will be used on £20 hexes.  Also, it's a power that might be used early in the game, thus depriving the owning company of future income.

We tried the new privates in our last game and they worked OK.  The only point I noticed that we were much more careful planning our initial purchases and set of ORs, because we were conscious of the need to start SDR2 with £110 in hand.  Possibly we were just more aware of this because it was our second game, but I'm wondering whether the reduced income and lower face value makes the calculations less forgiving.  Not that I can see anything to do about this; it's inherent in the nature of these opening turns.

Regarding the map changes, the main feature of the overlay was that it discouraged the straight build from Leeds through Sheffield to Derby, encouraging the loop through Darlington instead.  This seems a good thing.  It also moves the mine nearer to Hull, which also seems sensible.  We still haven't played with the W&P and the new L&S didn't come up either.

Dave.

[Ian D Wilson]

Stockton & Darlington: the problem is that Darlington just isn't that good. If S&D was just +10 Darlington, it wouldn't be worth much. With the extra builds as well is becomes useful, either to build there or build the bypass.   There are several reasons for reducing the price of the HD. Primarily, at a lower price it is now possible to start the HS at 100 and both buy in the HD at max and build to York/Lincoln. At the higher price, players were often paying less than face value. Also, if the only solution to the poison 2/1G is to force players to buy exactly 2 privates at the beginning, we cannot have such an expensive one (45 + 60 > 95).   It has to be admitted that the S&T lays are mostly useless. I think I saw them part of a Darlington bypass once. In theory they could be part of a Newcastle bypass, if a southern company owned the S&T.   I'm planning on going for a full randomisation of the privates at the beginning, to add more variety to the start, so the lack of cheap privates is less of a problem. Nevertheless, I am thinking of adding an extra one a some point.

--- On Sun, 7/6/09, Dave Berry <da...@berrybental.me.uk> wrote:

[Dave4B]

If you randomise all the privates and the Tanfield Railway does not
come out, what happens if all players pass?

[Ian D Wilson]

You play something else! Or shuffle the privates again until you get a set where somebody will put in a minimum bid on something, I suppose.

--- On Mon, 8/6/09, Dave4B <dave....@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:

From: Dave4B <dave....@ukonline.co.uk> Subject: Re: Just about to print it out To: "1812 playtest discussion" <1812-playtes...@googlegroups.com>

[Scott Petersen]

We played the game with Ian's posted changes to the board and
privates. Overall, the game didn't feel too much different, but the
changes seem to be good improvements, despite the fact that we didn't
really use them well. We still had the guy that likes to buy up the
privates not start a minor in the SR1. With the changes, not starting
a minor hurt him as the privates weren't paying as much and he
couldn't buy them in.

Also, we ran into something we haven't seen before. I ended up buying
a 4 for one of my minors, but a 5 train squeezed it out as minors may
not own trains in phase 5. We put it in the pool to be bought.
Correct?

[Ian D Wilson]

Correct. (See section 9.10 first paragraph.)   Ian --- On Fri, 12/6/09, Scott Petersen <sc...@redracecar.com> wrote:

From: Scott Petersen <sc...@redracecar.com> Subject: Re: Just about to print it out

[Ian D]

The new version of 1812 has now been uploaded to the files section.

Changes include improvements to the map, an easier to use stock chart,
various changes to the privates, and a few other small changes. See
readme for more details.

Ian