1812 Buy in privates early or late

[ianwil...@btinternet.com]

--- On Tue, 26/5/09, Scott Petersen <sc...@redracecar.com> wrote:
"Example, spend all your money on privates and one minor. Say you get
Wylam
and S&D. Get 15+10 income, sell them over for 75. On the second run,
maybe
you run for at least 50, so get 25. You end the double set of ORs at
125.
And this still leaves a little room for terrain to Manchester,
although then
maybe you're running for more anyways.

Contrast that with not forcing the company to take loans. You get the
private income x2 = 50, (company buys a 2-train without taking loans),
plus
one run for 25, plus buying over one of the privates for the 25 your
company
made =100, not enough to start a new minor and set it up to buy a 3-
train
with loans."

Here's my working of the problem, assuming you buy H and S&D at face
(30+45) and start ND @ 60.

a) Buy in both immediately, run a 1G for 60. You get 25+75+30 = 130
into SDR2. You start the LN @ 65, buy a 3 and run for 110 in the
second round. You get another 2*30+55 = 115. Net worth = 2*70 + 2*65 +
115 = 385.

b) Run a 1G for 60, buy in H at end of second round. You get
2*25+30+30=110 into SDR2. Start the LN @ 55 etc., buy in the S&D with
the ND in the 2nd round. You get another 2*15+2*30+55 = 145. Net worth
= 2*70 + 2*50 + 145 = 385: exactly the same!

So it's worth buying in immediately to get a better choice of company
in SDR2, and also if the private(s) boost your income, but it doesn't
necessarily make you richer.

Ian

[Scott Petersen]

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 2:49 PM, <ianwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:

So it's worth buying in immediately to get a better choice of company
in SDR2, and also if the private(s) boost your income, but it doesn't
necessarily make you richer.

Sure, I guess it all depends on the situation.  In general, as you showed, the two options are fairly close, but it is probably almost always at least a safe bet to buy over the privates in OR1.

In our games, all the privates except the first one are going for 10-15 over the max. buy-in price.  And even at those prices, we have one player that likes to buy as many of them as possible with his $195.  Thus (n-1) minors start in the first round and he makes 50/turn off privates.  That slows down the rest of us from buying in privates too.

One "problem" with this is that it can happen that one person will have to buy another 2T with their second minor.  This will put the player back significantly.  In our 4p game yesterday, the player that got the 2-2Ts ended up completely missing out on the 3Ts and having to buy the 4Ts, putting him at a severe disadvantage during phase 4, and I don't know what could be done about it.  Position yourself to not be the first to run, I suppose.

Another issue in this game was that the lack of certsin the game (36) handed the game to the two players that first bought up to the 10-cert limit.  Then at the end of the game, while all four companies were running for about 60, these maxed out players were making at least that much more (plus stock value).  For a 4p game, I think it would usually be a bad idea to be the one to start the fifth major company.  Maybe consider reducing the cert limit to 9 to avoid this issue?

[Dave4B]

If you reduce the certificate limit to 9, then the n+1st company will
never float and the first player to reach limit will tend to have
selected the best shares.
With a limit of 10, there will be space for 50% of the last company to
be bought which will raise £750 and allow it to buy a 3+3 train for a
couple of loans (after placing a token). This may pay as well as many
of the existing companies and help towards balancing the situation.

[Scott Petersen]

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Dave4B <dave....@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:

If you reduce the certificate limit to 9, then the n+1st company will
never float and the first player to reach limit will tend to have
selected the best shares.
With a limit of 10, there will be space for 50% of the last company to
be bought which will raise £750 and allow it to buy a 3+3 train for a
couple of loans (after placing a token). This may pay as well as many
of the existing companies and help towards balancing the situation.

I am specifically thinking of reducing the limit to 9 for 4p games.  I'm thinking that opening the fifth company by selling off good established company shares will only seal your fate as the last-place player.  At least it has for me.  Have others had better luck with the fifth company in a 4p game?

Basically, the flow for our 4p games has been to start minors, connect them, merge them, buy a couple shares with player cash, wait a couple ORs, buy up to 60% and finally buy whatever else is available and looks decent.  Any deviation from this is either minor enough to not have an effect on my argument or "bad idea."  Takeovers have tended to work better if a late-starting minor needs to convert.

[Ian D Wilson]

--- On Thu, 28/5/09, Scott Petersen <sc...@redracecar.com> wrote: In our games, all the privates except the first one are going for 10-15 over the max. buy-in price.  And even at those prices, we have one player that likes to buy as many of them as possible with his $195.  Thus (n-1) minors start in the first round and he makes 50/turn off privates.  That slows down the rest of us from buying in privates too.

(IW) Does the player who buys loads of privates tend to win (or come close)? If not, you might be able to persuade him that his strategy is flawed. One of the design aims is to make the privates "worth" around about face value, so you buy ~2 and float a minor. If not getting a private is disastrous and buying many is not, then I need to rethink the way the game starts or somesuch (In 1861 buying too many is bad & buying none is OK.)

One "problem" with this is that it can happen that one person will have to buy another 2T with their second minor.  This will put the player back significantly.  In our 4p game yesterday, the player that got the 2-2Ts ended up completely missing out on the 3Ts and having to buy the 4Ts, putting him at a severe disadvantage during phase 4, and I don't know what could be done about it.  Position yourself to not be the first to run, I suppose.

(IW) It would be nice if you could arrange that the guy with all the privates has to run his new company first, but I can't see how that can be forced.

Another issue in this game was that the lack of certsin the game (36) handed the game to the two players that first bought up to the 10-cert limit.  Then at the end of the game, while all four companies were running for about 60, these maxed out players were making at least that much more (plus stock value).  For a 4p game, I think it would usually be a bad idea to be the one to start the fifth major company.  Maybe consider reducing the cert limit to 9 to avoid this issue?

(IW) If the cert limit were reduced then there wouldn't be any slots for the (n+1)th company.  My experience is that the game is pretty much decided by the purchase of the first grey train - but it doesn't take long to finish after that. Getting the (n+1)th company is just a consolation prize for whoever's losing, I suspect. The game seems to revolve about getting to cert limit first and/or owning the company which buys the killer train(s). --- On Thu, 28/5/09, Scott Petersen <sc...@redracecar.com> wrote:

From: Scott Petersen <sc...@redracecar.com> Subject: Re: 1812 Buy in privates early or late To: 1812-playtes...@googlegroups.com Date: Thursday, 28 May, 2009, 4:58 PM

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 2:49 PM, <ianwil...@btinternet.com> wrote: So it's worth buying in immediately to get a better choice of company in SDR2, and also if the private(s) boost your income, but it doesn't necessarily make you richer. Sure, I guess it all depends on the situation.  In general, as you showed, the two options are fairly close, but it is probably almost always at least a safe bet to buy over the privates in OR1. In our games, all the privates except the first one are going for 10-15 over the max. buy-in price.  And even at those prices, we have one player that likes to buy as many of them as possible with his $195.  Thus (n-1) minors start in the first round and he makes 50/turn off privates.  That slows down the rest of us from buying in privates too. One "problem" with this is that it can happen that one person will have to buy another 2T with their second minor.  This will put the player back significantly.  In our 4p game yesterday, the player that got the 2-2Ts ended up completely missing out on the 3Ts and having to buy the 4Ts, putting him at a severe disadvantage during phase 4, and I don't know what could be done about it.  Position yourself to not be the first to run, I suppose.

[Scott Petersen]

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Ian D Wilson <ianwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> (IW) Does the player who buys loads of privates tend to win (or come close)? If not, you might be able to persuade him that his strategy is flawed.
> One of the design aims is to make the privates "worth" around about face value, so you buy ~2 and float a minor. If not getting a private is disastrous and buying many is not, then I need to rethink the way the game starts or somesuch (In 1861 buying too many is bad & buying none is OK.)

This player is winning.  He is starting a minor in SR2, then slowly buying the privates into the minor companies.  The first time he won, I thought it might be a fluke as no one was particularly bad at managing their railroads and he didn't seem to do anything remarkable.  One major benefit of starting the minor late was that he never bought a 2T and thus never had to deal with saving a minor that would be left without a train when the 4T was bought.  He was able to run his minors longer than the rest of us and bought into our companies with his leftover money instead of starting his major company (until near the end).  The private buying helped keep his cash flow moving.

> Another issue in this game was that the lack of certsin the game (36) handed the game to the two players that first bought up to the 10-cert limit.  Then at the end of the game, while all four companies were running for about 60, these maxed out players were making at least that much more (plus stock value).  For a 4p game, I think it would usually be a bad idea to be the one to start the fifth major company.  Maybe consider reducing the cert limit to 9 to avoid this issue?
> (IW) If the cert limit were reduced then there wouldn't be any slots for the (n+1)th company.  My experience is that the game is pretty much decided by the purchase of the first grey train - but it doesn't take long to finish after that. Getting the (n+1)th company is just a consolation prize for whoever's losing, I suspect.
> The game seems to revolve about getting to cert limit first and/or owning the company which buys the killer train(s).

Well, if the intention is that the game should be about getting to the cert limit then I suppose there is no issue at all.  I'm used to games where there is at least *something* available if I'm not at my share limit--especially with so few shares (4*9=36).  In this game, I paid halves for a couple rounds in the midgame because I was running three trains and knew the extra cash would get used well in the endgame.  Those rounds probably prevented me from having the cash to reach my share limit when they were available.  By the end of the game, it didn't matter that I was running for the *most* because everyone runs for a lot and the real difference was how many shares are paying.

[Ian D Wilson]

--- On Thu, 28/5/09, Scott Petersen <sc...@redracecar.com> wrote:

> Another issue in this game was that the lack of certsin the game (36) handed the game to the two players that first bought up to the 10-cert limit.  Then at the end of the game, while all four companies were running for about 60, these maxed out players were making at least that much more (plus stock value).  For a 4p game, I think it would usually be a bad idea to be the one to start the fifth major company.  Maybe consider reducing the cert limit to 9 to avoid this issue? > (IW) If the cert limit were reduced then there wouldn't be any slots for the (n+1)th company.  My experience is that the game is pretty much decided by the purchase of the first grey train - but it doesn't take long to finish after that. Getting the (n+1)th company is just a consolation prize for whoever's losing, I suspect. > The game seems to revolve about getting to cert limit first and/or owning the company which buys the killer train(s).

Well, if the intention is that the game should be about getting to the cert limit then I suppose there is no issue at all.  I'm used to games where there is at least *something* available if I'm not at my share limit--especially with so few shares (4*9=36).  In this game, I paid halves for a couple rounds in the midgame because I was running three trains and knew the extra cash would get used well in the endgame.  Those rounds probably prevented me from having the cash to reach my share limit when they were available.  By the end of the game, it didn't matter that I was running for the *most* because everyone runs for a lot and the real difference was how many shares are paying.

(IW) Are we talking at cross-purposes here? There are *5* companies in a 4-player game, so there are 9*5=45 certs available amoungst 4 players with a limit of 10 each.

[ianwil...@btinternet.com]

Actually, there's only space for 40%(2/4-player) or 30%(3-player) and
the max start price is £135. Enough for a 5/4G with a loan or five,
but a stretch for a 3+3E!

> > 9 to avoid this issue?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Scott Petersen]

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 4:23 PM, <ianwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:

Actually, there's only space for 40%(2/4-player) or 30%(3-player) and
the max start price is £135. Enough for a 5/4G with a loan or five,
but a stretch for a 3+3E!

 

Okay, I was thinking that the player to start the last company would have to sell "good" shares to free up space to float the last major.  I'm okay with the share limit of 10.

[Scott Petersen]

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Ian D Wilson <ianwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> (IW) Does the player who buys loads of privates tend to win (or come close)? If not, you might be able to persuade him that his strategy is flawed.
> One of the design aims is to make the privates "worth" around about face value, so you buy ~2 and float a minor. If not getting a private is disastrous and buying many is not, then I need to rethink the way the game starts or somesuch (In 1861 buying too many is bad & buying none is OK.)

This player is winning.  He is starting a minor in SR2, then slowly buying the privates into the minor companies.  The first time he won, I thought it might be a fluke as no one was particularly bad at managing their railroads and he didn't seem to do anything remarkable.  One major benefit of starting the minor late was that he never bought a 2T and thus never had to deal with saving a minor that would be left without a train when the 4T was bought.  He was able to run his minors longer than the rest of us and bought into our companies with his leftover money instead of starting his major company (until near the end).  The private buying helped keep his cash flow moving.

Getting back to this discussion, I think something needs to be changed so that no one gets stuck buying two 2Ts because one player is sitting on a majority of the privates.  I'm thinking that simply delaying the buy-in time to phase 3 is not a good way to deal with it.  If one player is getting 50 for their privates, this is probably still more than the ones running minors are making.

A few options?
-Change to an 1830-style auction where it is less likely for one player to get a chance to bid on everything.
-Scale down the private revenue a bit (5 per item?)
-Set an artificial limit on how much income from privates one person can make (dumb idea).
-More drastic changes like adding 2Ts, decreasing the price and increasing the train limits so that companies could reasonable buy 2-2Ts.  I'm sure this would have serious balancing implications.

If I had to choose today, I would do the 1830-style auction.  Under the current rules, I could see a case where it turns into an escalation of who can get the most privates. Two players that are bidding high against one another competing for this could take themselves out of the game. However if there is no competition, one person probably starts with a big advantage.

[Dave4B]

There's 4 slots in a 4 player game, which makes 50% including the
Director's certificate.
Times £135 = £675 which is only 2 loans short of a 3+3E.

[Dave4B]

I haven't worked this through, but what if the players who already
have companies don't buy in their privates and don't launch in SR2?
Then the private-rich player buys the last 2 train in his new company
and gets 1 round of income from it plus his private buy-ins.
The other players get 2 rounds of income and can probably launch their
second company without buying in their privates. Also their companies
will be better funded for when the 4 trains come out.
Don't change the rules; change the group think.

[Scott Petersen]

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 2:02 AM, Dave4B <dave....@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:

I haven't worked this through, but what if the players who already
have companies don't buy in their privates and don't launch in SR2?
Then the private-rich player buys the last 2 train in his new company
and gets 1 round of income from it plus his private buy-ins.
The other players get 2 rounds of income and can probably launch their
second company without buying in their privates. Also their companies
will be better funded for when the 4 trains come out.
Don't change the rules; change the group think.

Dave, I like your solution.  I'll suggest it next time.  But what about the people who aren't clever enough to solve this problem or don't have clever people like you around? ;-)

We'll just have to wait until the buyer of the privates gives in and starts a minor--then we'll all have to start the other minors at an equal or lesser price.  Unless he starts it in OR2 and we didn't buy the privates in to start second minors.  Then he has a big head start on us.

Even if he waits until OR3, if he starts at 50, the rest of us might get hosed and have to buy 2Gs (100+90(loans)=190), but I'm guessing there is a good chance we wouldn't all have minors that could run them, especially because that doesn't leave money for buying terrain.
 
And then there's the case that he doesn't buy a minor. I would hate to give control over the game timing to just one player.  I think I'd still rather spread the privates out a little more by modifying the auction.

[Scott Petersen]

Oops, SR instead of OR in the previous message.

[Ian D Wilson]

Doh! Forgot the extra share for the director's cert. --- On Fri, 29/5/09, Dave4B <dave....@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:

From: Dave4B <dave....@ukonline.co.uk> Subject: Re: 1812 Buy in privates early or late

[Ian D Wilson]

After giving this matter some thought, it is clear that the privates are too good. Taking the usual example (H, S&D @face, ND @ 100): after 2 ORs, the privates go from 75 to 125 (a 66% gain) but the minor goes from 100 to 130 (a 30% gain); after 4 ORs, the privates rise to 175 (a 133% gain) and the minor to 210 (a 110% gain). In both cases the privates are clearly better, so they must be worth significantly more than face value - somewhere between 20-30% I guess (10-15 each, as you found).   I can think of two possible fixes for this: a) reduce the earnings/price ratio, so instead of earning 15 from a 45 face-value, drop to 10 from a 40 face-value. Now you get 60 to 90 (50% gain) in 2 ORs; and to 120 (100% gain) in 4 ORs. This will make the 4-private option less attractive. b) force players to buy exactly 2 privates at face-value, using a switch-back selection procedure. No private can be priced above 45. A quick way of starting the game, but prevents players from trying something different (like buying 4 privates). Requires all privates to be much the same price/performance ratio. Good for beginners. Another problem highlighted is the 'poison 2-train', if a player doesn't start a minor in SR1. This can be fixed easily: at the end of OR2, replace all unbought 2/1G's with an equal number of 3/2G's. (Not needed with option b.)   Ian

--- On Fri, 29/5/09, Scott Petersen <sc...@redracecar.com> wrote:

From: Scott Petersen <sc...@redracecar.com> Subject: Re: 1812 Buy in privates early or late

To: 1812-playtes...@googlegroups.com Date: Friday, 29 May, 2009, 6:04 AM

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Ian D Wilson <ianwil...@btinternet.com> wrote: > (IW) Does the player who buys loads of privates tend to win (or come close)? If not, you might be able to persuade him that his strategy is flawed. > One of the design aims is to make the privates "worth" around about face value, so you buy ~2 and float a minor. If not getting a private is disastrous and buying many is not, then I need to rethink the way the game starts or somesuch (In 1861 buying too many is bad & buying none is OK.) This player is winning.  He is starting a minor in SR2, then slowly buying the privates into the minor companies.  The first time he won, I thought it might be a fluke as no one was particularly bad at managing their railroads and he didn't seem to do anything remarkable.  One major benefit of starting the minor late was that he never bought a 2T and thus never had to deal with saving a minor that would be left without a train when the 4T was bought.  He was able to run his minors longer than the rest of us and bought into our companies with his leftover money instead of starting his major company (until near the end).  The private buying helped keep his cash flow moving.

Getting back to this discussion, I think something needs to be changed so that no one gets stuck buying two 2Ts because one player is sitting on a majority of the privates.  I'm thinking that simply delaying the buy-in time to phase 3 is not a good way to deal with it.  If one player is getting 50 for their privates, this is probably still more than the ones running minors are making.

[Scott Petersen]

For our next game, I think we'll try dialing back the privates to:
min/face/income
10/15/5
20/30/10
30/45/15
40/60/20

Interesting thought about replacing the 2Ts with 3Ts. I wonder if it
would then make sense to wait until SR2 to open a train with the sole
purpose of avoiding the 2Ts. For now, I'm just going to give a strong
warning against buying a second 2T and see if the private income
adjustment stops players from not starting a minor in SR1.

[Dave4B]

Except if in a 4 player game, two players buy all of the privates and
don't start companies.
Two 2 trains are bought; the other two become 3 trains.
When the first 4 train is bought there are eight 3 trains and four 4
trains in the game.
This means that the fifth company has to be floated in order for the
first 5 train to be bought.

An alternate solution would be to place unsold 2 trains in the Bank
Pool, as in one of David Hecht's designs (18US or 18West, I forget
which).

On Jun 1, 9:14 pm, Ian D Wilson <ianwilson...@btinternet.com> wrote:
<snip>

[Ian D Wilson]

An interesting point, but very unlikely, since one or two players will most likely still have a minor running with a 3/2G.   Taking out the 2/1G's might have the opposite effect of accelerating the game, bringing the 4/3G's in too soon.   Ian

--- On Tue, 2/6/09, Dave4B <dave....@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:

From: Dave4B <dave....@ukonline.co.uk> Subject: Re: 1812 Buy in privates early or late

To: "1812 playtest discussion" <1812-playtes...@googlegroups.com>

[Ian D Wilson]

You don't seem to have changed the privates?

--- On Tue, 2/6/09, Scott Petersen <sc...@redracecar.com> wrote:

From: Scott Petersen <sc...@redracecar.com> Subject: Re: 1812 Buy in privates early or late

To: 1812-playtes...@googlegroups.com Date: Tuesday, 2 June, 2009, 2:25 PM

For our next game, I think we'll try dialing back the privates to: min/face/income 10/15/5 20/30/10 30/45/15 40/60/20 Interesting thought about replacing the 2Ts with 3Ts.  I wonder if it would then make sense to wait until SR2 to open a train with the sole purpose of avoiding the 2Ts.  For now, I'm just going to give a strong warning against buying a second 2T and see if the private income adjustment stops players from not starting a minor in SR1. On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Ian D Wilson <ianwil...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > After giving this matter some thought, it is clear that the privates are too good. Taking the usual example (H, S&D @face, ND @ 100): after 2 ORs, the privates go from 75 to 125 (a 66% gain) but the minor goes from 100 to 130 (a 30% gain); after 4 ORs, the privates rise to 175 (a 133% gain) and the minor to 210 (a 110% gain). In both cases the privates are clearly better, so they must be worth significantly more than face value - somewhere between 20-30% I guess (10-15 each, as you found). > > I can think of two possible fixes for this: > a) reduce the earnings/price ratio, so instead of earning 15 from a 45 face-value, drop to 10 from a 40 face-value. Now you get 60 to 90 (50% gain) in 2 ORs; and to 120 (100% gain) in 4 ORs. This will make the 4-private option less attractive. > b) force players to buy exactly 2 privates at face-value, using a switch-back selection procedure. No private can be priced above 45. A quick way of starting the game, but prevents players from trying something different (like buying 4 privates). Requires all privates to be much the same price/performance ratio. Good for beginners.

> Another problem highlighted is the 'poison 2-train', if a player doesn't start a minor in SR1. This can be fixed easily: at the end of OR2, replace all unbought 2/1G's with an equal number of 3/2G's. (Not needed with option b.) >

> Ian

[Dave Berry]

Ian,

Dropping the income from privates seems a sensible approach.  In your example, did you also drop the 30-value companies to 5 income from 20 face value?  (That's the only way I can make your figures work).  Would you need to reduce the starting capital to compensate for the cheaper privates?

Is your intention that the main role for privates should be to provide special powers to companies?  I.e. players will buy them, sell them to companies (thus transferring money from the companies to themselves) and invest the new money elsewhere.  This suggests to me that a low earnings/price ratio would be fine, provided that the bonuses provided to companies are worth having.

You mentioned in an earlier post to the 18xx list that you were thinking of halving the maximum amount that companies could pay for privates in phase 3.  This would also encourage the early sale of privates to companies.  (You could extend this sliding scale into later phases, setting a £1 max in phase 4 and forbidding the sale of the Hull Docks in phase 5, but this seems less important).

BTW, would it make much difference is the minimum cost for buying privates was £0 instead of £1?

Regarding the poison 2-train, I share Scott's concern.  If unsold 2/1G trains were replaced with 3/2G trains, wouldn't this provide an incentive to wait until SDR2 before floating a minor, so that you can get a 3/2G train immediately?

Dave.

[Dave4B]

You could make the privates even less attractive in a player's hand
but more attractive in a company. eg:
5/15/5
15/25/5/+20
30/50/10/+20
45/75/15/+30
Then players would want to start a company in OR1 in order to be able
to buy them in.

On Jun 1, 9:14 pm, Ian D Wilson <ianwilson...@btinternet.com> wrote:

[Ian D Wilson]

--- On Wed, 3/6/09, Dave Berry <da...@berrybental.me.uk> wrote:   Dropping the income from privates seems a sensible approach.

(IW) It seems the simplest solution.

In your example, did you also drop the 30-value companies to 5 income from 20 face value?  (That's the only way I can make your figures work).

(IW) Yes

Would you need to reduce the starting capital to compensate for the cheaper privates?

(IW) No, or you might struggle to make 110 for SR2.

Is your intention that the main role for privates should be to provide special powers to companies?  I.e. players will buy them, sell them to companies (thus transferring money from the companies to themselves) and invest the new money elsewhere.

(IW) The primary function of privates is to differentiate the players before the auction of the minors. But in effect, you are correct.

This suggests to me that a low earnings/price ratio would be fine, provided that the bonuses provided to companies are worth having.

(IW) The Hetton definitely needs to go, and various others changed or improved. The auction should allow the players decide which are best, otherwise.

You mentioned in an earlier post to the 18xx list that you were thinking of halving the maximum amount that companies could pay for privates in phase 3.  This would also encourage the early sale of privates to companies.  (You could extend this sliding scale into later phases, setting a £1 max in phase 4 and forbidding the sale of the Hull Docks in phase 5, but this seems less important).

(IW) I think you have mis-remembered what I said, which was to reduce the max buy-in at all times. But the reduced earnings is probably a better solution.

BTW, would it make much difference is the minimum cost for buying privates was £0 instead of £1?

(IW) Probably not, this is just 'normal 18xx' practice, and 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'.

Regarding the poison 2-train, I share Scott's concern.  If unsold 2/1G trains were replaced with 3/2G trains, wouldn't this provide an incentive to wait until SDR2 before floating a minor, so that you can get a 3/2G train immediately?

(IW) No. As long as you buy a 2/1G in the first OR, you should get about 4 runs splitting about 80/run plus share increments - sounds a solid investment to me! And with the early buy-in you can also start a second minor in SR2 which buys a 3/2G. (Unlike 1861, the 3's aren't better than the 2's?) (IW) Following on from Dave4B's comment, it may be better to replace all 2/1G's with exactly one 3/2G.

[Ian D Wilson]

Mmmm, maybe. We could try this sometime & see how it goes, but my gut reaction is that it is OTT.

--- On Wed, 3/6/09, Dave4B <dave....@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:

From: Dave4B <dave....@ukonline.co.uk> Subject: Re: 1812 Buy in privates early or late

To: "1812 playtest discussion" <1812-playtes...@googlegroups.com>