Re: [18xx] Buying multiple trains with minor in 1812

[Ian D Wilson]

Jeremy,   Can you give us more detail about how the game opened, please? How many players, which privates were in and what they went for (roughly), which minors started and the sort of starting prices.   Thanks, Ian D --- On Mon, 31/1/11, Jeremy <jermey.v...@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Jeremy <jermey.v...@yahoo.com> Subject: [18xx] Buying multiple trains with minor in 1812 To: 18...@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, 31 January, 2011, 2:37   In 1812, the game starts with "n"-number of 2/1G trains, one per player. Each player can starts with 195pounds, which is enough to start one minor. Then the minor buys one 2/1G train in the first operating round. But at Chattanooga, John Tamplin illustrated that a company could use Stephenson's Engine Works to buy two 2-trains or simply buy two 1G trains without Stephenson's Engine Works. This could mean that minor might not have a 2-train available to purchase if it was started at a low stock price. I'm missing something here. Could a player with more experience at 1812 show me what I'm not getting? Thanks. __._,_.___ Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1) Recent Activity: New Members 5 Visit Your Group This is a message from the 18xx mailing list. Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___

[john boocock]

hi ian mmmm looking at it, if you have 195 to start, and you DON'T buy a private, you can start a company at 180 and buy 2 x 1g trains. cute. but as you have to have one coal mine per goods train, i think, i dont see how you can run them. but if you had the engine works, bought for 30 or so, you could start say the nm at 165, buy in the works first go for 10 and buy 1 2 train at 100 and one at 55, and run them both the second go ditto with the sam, but i think they are the only two..... assuming the other players let you do it...  mind you, if you only had 1 private you would have more to bid than anyone else so you WOULD get the sam or the nm if you went that route..... and the last company would be forced to take two loans to buy a 3 train.... mm lets see if we can do it at baycon or easter... john b john b --- On Mon, 31/1/11, Ian D Wilson <ianwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "1812 playtest discussion" group. To post to this group, send email to 1812-playtes...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 1812-playtest-disc...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/1812-playtest-discussion?hl=en.

[Dave Berry]

At 21:53 31/01/2011, john boocock wrote:
>and the last company would be forced to take two loans to buy a 3 train....

It will be interesting to see how this tactic
works. Will the company with two 2-trains
perform better than the one with a three
train? Will the others be completely left high and dry?

The worst outcome would be if the last company
was launched for just £100 and couldn't run a
2G. That player would probably have a dire game
from the off. I wonder whether the rules for
loans should be changed so that you don't pay
interest on the turn you take them out? Then any
minor company could afford a 3 train.

(There are alternative fixes, of course, even
assuming you think a fix is needed. The 1846
rule for the first OR is one such).

Dave.

[Ian D Wilson]

I can see three scenarios:   1. Buy the SEW @ minimum (£30) and start the SAM for £165. Buy in the SEW for £5 and buy 2*2's on the first round. Second round upgrade Sheffield and build to Manchester with loans (assuming 3 is bought), run for 170. Cash into SR2 = 10+5+85 = 100 only.   2. Buy the SEW @ minimum (£30) and start the ND for £165. Buy in the SEW for £5, double-build to Hartlepool port, and buy 2*1G's on the first round. Second round upgrade Newcastle & build mine to the north, run for 160. SR2 cash = 95 only.   3. Buy Tanfield @ min (£5) and start the ND for £180. Buy 2*1G's and one build. If the NB does the build north of Newcastle you can double-build and run both trains for 160 (and buy in the Tan). SR2 cash = 115 (105 if Tan bought at face).   In all cases you're relying on your opponents letting you get away with murder! The SEW should never go for less than £40, in my opinion; in case 3 the NB doesn't have to lay anything on its first turn (even assuming it starts). Also bear in mind that you need the last company to buy a 3/2G, but once this happens you're facing the 3+1/2+1G's in OR3 and 110 isn't enough...   All this tactic will do is screw/hose one of your opponents and put you at a disadvantage - so probably only viable in a 2-player game. I will leave the defence against it in a 2p for you to work out...

[John A. Tamplin]

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Ian D Wilson <ianwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:

I can see three scenarios:   1. Buy the SEW @ minimum (£30) and start the SAM for £165. Buy in the SEW for £5 and buy 2*2's on the first round. Second round upgrade Sheffield and build to Manchester with loans (assuming 3 is bought), run for 170. Cash into SR2 = 10+5+85 = 100 only.   2. Buy the SEW @ minimum (£30) and start the ND for £165. Buy in the SEW for £5, double-build to Hartlepool port, and buy 2*1G's on the first round. Second round upgrade Newcastle & build mine to the north, run for 160. SR2 cash = 95 only.   3. Buy Tanfield @ min (£5) and start the ND for £180. Buy 2*1G's and one build. If the NB does the build north of Newcastle you can double-build and run both trains for 160 (and buy in the Tan). SR2 cash = 115 (105 if Tan bought at face).   In all cases you're relying on your opponents letting you get away with murder! The SEW should never go for less than £40, in my opinion; in case 3 the NB doesn't have to lay anything on its first turn (even assuming it starts). Also bear in mind that you need the last company to buy a 3/2G, but once this happens you're facing the 3+1/2+1G's in OR3 and 110 isn't enough...   All this tactic will do is screw/hose one of your opponents and put you at a disadvantage - so probably only viable in a 2-player game. I will leave the defence against it in a 2p for you to work out...

What if you don't buy a private at all?  Then you can easily buy two trains. Even if you can't run them immediately, the last minor is probably really screwed and you have a cheap train to buy over when you start a second minor or you can get a second run for it shortly.

--
John A. Tamplin

[Ian D Wilson]

In 3+ players, I think the 'other' player(s) who go ahead as normal, buying a 2/1G & buying in their privates will do better. I think the 2p defence might also work with 3p+.

--- On Tue, 1/2/11, John A. Tamplin <j...@jaet.org> wrote:

[Chris Shaffer]

But what about the player who doesn't have a 2/1G train available for purchase, and is looking at a more expensive train that he can't afford?  What does he do?

--
Chris

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

--

[Ian D Wilson]

--- On Tue, 1/2/11, Chris Shaffer <chris....@gmail.com> wrote: >But what about the player who doesn't have a 2/1G train available for purchase, and is >looking at a more expensive train that he can't afford?  What does he do?

The simple answer is: lose horribly.   The more complex answer is: don't get into that situation in the first place. Don't buy more that two privates if a player still has £180+ (or £145+ and the SEW). (Also, don't let the SEW go for min bid, it's worth £35 at the very least.) If the last private gets passed out, you go straight to a pair of ORs and you're outearning the player trying the two trains tactic. If a third party buys the last private, his company should be running last and he'll get screwed, not you.   QED Ian D

[John A. Tamplin]

I think it would be preferable to not have traps like this in the opening.  Otherwise, new players are likely to find they are out of the game at the beginning, suffer through a long game, and then not be interested in playing again.  Similarly, the likelihood of losing the game in the initial auction is one of the main complaints leveled against 18EU. 

--
John A. Tamplin

[Scott Petersen]

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:39 PM, John A. Tamplin <j...@jaet.org> wrote:

I think it would be preferable to not have traps like this in the opening.  Otherwise, new players are likely to find they are out of the game at the beginning, suffer through a long game, and then not be interested in playing again.  Similarly, the likelihood of losing the game in the initial auction is one of the main complaints leveled against 18EU.

 

Since we are expecting players to not shoot themselves in the foot (and it's at least a little tricky to work out how NOT to do that), perhaps a different method for distributing privates is in order.  Maybe give each player a fixed number of bidding tokens and normalize the privates so that it is not possible to get in this situation?  My impression is that Ian wants the game to start out with each company getting one 2T, but doesn't necessarily want the game to simply give the trains to the companies (like 18EU).  A blander opening might help this--not that this game needs to be any LESS dynamic, but it could fix this problem.

Or just add a rule prohibiting the purchase of more than one train in the first OR.

[Ian D Wilson]

--- On Wed, 2/2/11, John A. Tamplin <j...@jaet.org> wrote: >I think it would be preferable to not have traps like this in the opening.  Otherwise, new >players are likely to find they are out of the game at the beginning, suffer through a long >game, and then not be interested in playing again.  Similarly, the likelihood of losing the >game in the initial auction is one of the main complaints leveled against 18EU.

OK, I was just trying to show that the game isn't broken(!) I'm also trying to avoid yet another 'special rule' which players are likely to miss/forget, and turn the game into a strait-jacket.   There are several fixes that spring to mind: 1. 1846 reverse operating first round 2. Disallow buying 2 new trains in the first OR 2A. or every OR 2B  or like Mex 3. Allow companies to take 3 loans 3A or waive interest on turn you take out   Of these, I think (1) is too complicated, and (3) might change the balance of the game. (2A) is the simplest, and should not affect the game in any other way.   Thoughts? Ian D

[David Hecht]

If you can never buy more than one train per company per OR (what I refer to as the "Mark Derrick Rule" since he pioneered it in 18GA and 18AL), it may create a "poison 2" situation, as you don't want to buy the last 2-train only to kick open the door to every one else buying up a 3-train (and the next thing you know, some fool buys a 4-train and your 2-train never runs!).

I respectfully suggest my own modified version of this rule, as seen in 18Scan and 18FL, where, if you buy the last (e.g.) 2-train, you can also buy the first 3-train (but not a second 3-train).

[Chris Shaffer]

I like 2 (not 2A) - restrict buying to one train in the first OR only.

--
Chris

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

--

[Ian D Wilson]

--- On Wed, 2/2/11, Scott Petersen <sc...@redracecar.com> wrote:

>A blander opening might help this--not that this game needs to be any LESS dynamic, >but it could fix this problem.

I couldn't agree more. After finding a tactic to liven up the game, John T is now suggesting we ban it!   As for people's complaints about 18EU, there are plenty of 18xx's which you can lose in the initial auction (1861, for one). Neither 18EU nor 1861 are games for beginners, and nor is 1812 intended to be such. In addition, 1812 is sufficiently short that you don't sit for ages losing horribly (2p you could concede and start again). If you have a novice (or player unfamiliar with 1812), you could explain the problem if it looks relevant.   Ian D

[Ian D Wilson]

--- On Wed, 2/2/11, David Hecht <bar...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>If you can never buy more than one train per company per OR (what I refer to as the "Mark >Derrick Rule" since he pioneered it in 18GA and 18AL), it may create a "poison 2" >situation, as you don't want to buy the last 2-train only to kick open the door to every one >else buying up a 3-train (and the next thing you know, some fool buys a 4-train and your >2-train never runs!). >I respectfully suggest my own modified version of this rule, as seen in 18Scan and 18FL, >where, if you buy the last (e.g.) 2-train, you can also buy the first 3-train (but not a second >3-train).

Thanks for the suggestion David, but there already are rules in place to remove/replace potentially poison trains i.e. at the end of a set of ORs, any 2's left are discarded or any 3's are replaced with 3+1's.   Ian D

[Dave4B]

On Feb 2, 10:22 pm, Ian D Wilson <ianwilson...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the suggestion David, but there already are rules in place to remove/replace potentially poison trains i.e. at the end of a set of ORs, any 2's left are discarded or any 3's are replaced with 3+1's.
>  

So another possible solution would be to provide an unlimited number
of 2-trains (like 1817) the remainder of which are discarded.

[Ian D Wilson]

--- On Thu, 3/2/11, Dave4B <walama...@o2.co.uk> wrote: >So another possible solution would be to provide an unlimited number >of 2-trains (like 1817) the remainder of which are discarded.

Yes, or the 1848LT system: X 2's, any unbought at the end of the first set become 3's. i.e. there are the same number of 2+3's (nx2.5), buying an extra 2 just reduces the number of 3's by one. This would accelerate the trains a bit. (If somebody didn't start a minor at the beginning, the opposite effect would happen but there still wouldn't be a poison train.) Ian D

[Chris Shaffer]

Another option is the 18West system, where there are a bunch of 2 trains, and after the first OR, all the leftovers in the bank are moved to the pool.  Then, in the second OR, both the remaining 2 trains in the pool and the 3 trains in the bank are available.

--
Chris

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

--

[Ian D Wilson]

I haven't played 18West often enough to know what usually happens, but I suspect the 2's just sit in the pool until they die - the 3's are so much better. That's what is going to happen 99% of the time in 1812. So in effect it's the same as discarding leftovers.   Ian D --- On Thu, 3/2/11, Chris Shaffer <chris....@gmail.com> wrote:

[Dave Berry]

I'd be inclined to leave things as they rather than change or restrict the number of trains.  My reasoning is that the start of the game has other potential pitfalls for the unwary.  Introducing an extra rule to remember, just to fix one of these traps, doesn't seem worthwhile.  Players should note that there are traps to avoid, and avoid them.  (In a game last year, one player began SR2 with just £105 - enough to float a minor but not to buy a 3 train, and the 2G option didn't work for the minors that were open to him, if I recall correctly).

Dave.

[john boocock]

hi all and ian is this really a problem? if someone tries this 2nd 2 train buy, surely this just postpones their buy of a second minor. this then reduces the price of the major that will form? unless three rounds of two two's will lead to a high price for the second minor.... how did it play out in the actual game? did it make the person who had 2 twos a much better position? john b

--- On Thu, 3/2/11, Ian D Wilson <ianwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:

From: Ian D Wilson <ianwil...@btinternet.com>

Subject: Re: Buying multiple trains with minor in 1812 To: 1812-playtes...@googlegroups.com

--

[John A. Tamplin]

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:46 PM, john boocock <john...@yahoo.com> wrote:

is this really a problem? if someone tries this 2nd 2 train buy, surely this just postpones their buy of a second minor. this then reduces the price of the major that will form? unless three rounds of two two's will lead to a high price for the second minor....

The issue isn't whether it is better for the player who does it, but rather how painful it is for the one who is caught by it.  The player buying two trains may not be doing well, but he is certainly doing better than the one that takes two loans to buy a train he can't run.  Obviously, the company running last has the least resources to buy a more expensive train, which is exactly why in 1846/1834 the first OR is run in reverse order.

As a player, I would be unhappy if my game is screwed, through no fault of my own, by another player doing something that also hurt them, before the game even gets started.  I agree you can adapt to it, just like in 1830 making sure someone who knows what they are doing bids on the C&A before triggering any purchases, but it really shouldn't be necessary.

Of the proposed solutions, I like having infinite 2s available in the first OR the best.  The game already has a very similar mechanism to discard remaining 2s, so just adding a few more won't be any harder to remember (and there is precedent in other games for the rule, making it less of an exception than it currently is) and it seems unlikely to significantly impact the game.  At worst, you use up 1 or 2 extra train slots before the 4s come out, but there should still be plenty of slots to make sure you get to the 4s.  You could even adapt for that by changing how many 2+'s you swap in if it seems important.

 

how did it play out in the actual game? did it make the person who had 2 twos a much better position?

 

I was in position to do so, but chose not to.

--
John A. Tamplin

[john boocock]

i must say, your move to buy a second train had never occurred to me, because i was always (in my several 1812 games) trying to get two privates that i could then get max out of the company i DID run first, so as to get a good price for the second company i started... if you follow me. if you do this, and are forced to take two loans to get a 3 train in the first round, is that necessarily a bad thing? i agree if you pick the wrong company, you won't run a 3t effectively until the second lot of op rounds...... you don't have to worry about the nasty 4 train coming along... john b --- On Thu, 3/2/11, John A. Tamplin <j...@jaet.org> wrote:

From: John A. Tamplin <j...@jaet.org> Subject: Re: Buying multiple trains with minor in 1812 To: 1812-playtes...@googlegroups.com

--

[Chris Shaffer]

The player on the receiving end can't even afford the 3 train at all, even with the loans.

--
Chris

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

[John A. Tamplin]

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Chris Shaffer <chris....@gmail.com> wrote:

The player on the receiving end can't even afford the 3 train at all, even with the loans.

Right, you have to buy a 2G that you may not be even able to run. 

--
John A. Tamplin

[john boocock]

??

2 loans = 90, and surely at least 110 in the company = 200 = 3 train??

If not 110 in the company, what did he spend 95 on??

john b

--- On Fri, 4/2/11, Chris Shaffer <chris....@gmail.com> wrote:

[Chris Shaffer]

The company's stock value falls below 40, and the company is closed.

--
Chris

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

[Ian D Wilson]

--- On Fri, 4/2/11, john boocock <john...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>If not 110 in the company, what did he spend 95 on??

Presumably all the privates that the player with 2*2 didn't buy.   It's worse than that, though. Even if you do have 110 and can cobble together a route, you can't afford to buy in enough privates to get to the 130 needed for your second company, so you fall behind there instead.   Ian D

[John A. Tamplin]

Right.

There has been an underlying question of whether this needs to be fixed, because unless the stars align just right, the player buying two trains isn't going to be able to use them effectively and

will fall behind players just buying one train.

Even if you assume that is hard to arrange, there are still other considerations that make it reasonable to do this.  For example, imagine you are at a table with Bruce Beard (or some other shark) and some chum.  It might be a very good strategic move to cripple Bruce's by making him buy a 2G he can't run even if you can't immediately run the second train and it puts you at a disadvantage relative to the other player.

Maybe there is a bidding strategy which defends against this, but then you are making significant changes in your strategy to prevent a risk that seems shouldn't be there at all.  So, my preference would still be to avoid that risk at all, and I think the easiest way, that shouldn't change "normal" plays of the game at all (since it apparently wasn't intended that you be able to buy a 3 train at all in the first OR), is to treat 2 trains as unlimited in the first OR. 

--
John A. Tamplin

[Dave Berry]

That's a very good argument against the "fix" that I suggested (i.e. not paying loan interest on the turn the loan is taken out).

Dave.

[Dave Berry]

At 17:14 04/02/2011, John A. Tamplin wrote:
I think the easiest way, that shouldn't change "normal" plays of the
game at all (since it apparently wasn't intended that you be able to
buy a 3 train at all in the first OR), is to treat 2 trains as
unlimited in the first OR.

I haven't done the sums, but I guess in practice that will work out
as just having one more 2/1G train then there are players?

Dave.

[Dave4B]

On Feb 4, 10:49 pm, Dave Berry <d...@berrybental.me.uk> wrote:
> I think the easiest way, that shouldn't change "normal" plays of the
> game at all (since it apparently wasn't intended that you be able to
> buy a 3 train at all in the first OR), is to treat 2 trains as
> unlimited in the first OR.
>
> I haven't done the sums, but I guess in practice that will work out
> as just having one more 2/1G train then there are players?
>

In a four player game, two players can buy all of the privates and
still launch a company; the other two can launch companies that can
afford a 2 and a 1G (and if they're NB and ND they'll be able to run
them after Newcastle upgrades).
So you could have six trains sold in the first round.

[john boocock]

i think it is all the designers fault.... he went round saying that the game was not meant to have any starting company in or 1 afford two trains, by limiting everyone to a 195 start sum..... trust some shark to come up with a way round it.... although i think i am correct in saying that the loco works was not one of the privates in the first gestation of the game. of course, you could increase the value of the loco works, and/or add a caveat that the discount can only be used on a green or higher train.... john b --- On Sat, 5/2/11, Dave4B <walama...@o2.co.uk> wrote:

From: Dave4B <walama...@o2.co.uk> Subject: Re: Buying multiple trains with minor in 1812

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "1812 playtest discussion" group. To post to this group, send email to 1812-playtes...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 1812-playtest-discussion+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Ian D Wilson]

--- On Sat, 5/2/11, john boocock <john...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>i think it is all the designers fault....

Well, obviously...

>he went round saying that the game was not meant to have any starting company in or 1 >afford two trains, by limiting everyone to a 195 start sum.....

Well, that was my intention (although I don't recall ever saying as such).

>trust some shark to come up with a way round it....

It's a bit unfair to class John T as a "shark"?

>although i think i am correct in saying that the loco works was not one of the privates in >the first gestation of the game.

You can do it without the loco works - 2x1G only costs £180.   Ian D

[Ian D Wilson]

--- On Fri, 4/2/11, John A. Tamplin <j...@jaet.org> wrote: >There has been an underlying question of whether this needs to be fixed, because unless >the stars align just right, the player buying two trains isn't going to be able to use them >effectively and will fall behind players just buying one train.

I'm still not entirely convinced there's any need to change, but your proposal to have unlimited 2/1G's at the beginning seems like a minimal change. As pointed out by Dave, we need an extra two trains supplied with the game (six total), and the current rule discarding any left at the end of the first set of ORs will take care of the spares.   Now, the only way to pay with both trains in OR2, is to get the SEW @ minimum and start the SAM (or NM). Green tiles cannot be available in OR2 so the Newcastle companies cannot run 2x1G, and even the SEW/SAM combo cannot earn enough to buy a second minor in SR2.   With potentially more 2's, the advent of the first 4 may be delayed - which makes the 2x2 strategy more attractive? Thus the concept of a fixed number of 2+3's might be better, but this would mean providing a lot more trains with the set (to cover silly possibilities).   Ian D

[john boocock]

hi all i only say shark, cos i'm not,    sigh....... i'm just too nice, just a good little company builder.... mmm true, 2 x 1g is 180, but which company can run 2 x 1g in or2? john b

--- On Sat, 5/2/11, Ian D Wilson <ianwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:

From: Ian D Wilson <ianwil...@btinternet.com>

Subject: Re: Buying multiple trains with minor in 1812

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "1812 playtest discussion" group. To post to this group, send email to 1812-playtes...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 1812-playtest-disc...@googlegroups.com.

[John A. Tamplin]

On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 3:07 PM, john boocock <john...@yahoo.com> wrote:

mmm true, 2 x 1g is 180, but which company can run 2 x 1g in or2?

Ian gave a couple of examples, but the point is it doesn't matter.  If you can eliminate a strong opponent from contention while only taking minor damage yourself (and you will have a cheap train available for your second minor if nothing else), then it may not be a bad play for you.  It is clearly a bad deal for the person on the receiving end, and I think they shouldn't be required to play the auction defensively against a strategy that wasn't intended to be present in the first place.  So, rather than requiring every player to be vigilant for this, I propose to eliminate the tactic that wasn't suppose to be there, doing it in such a way as to have minimal impact elsewhere.

One of the things that always happens with games once they get wider playtesting is that strategies arise which never occurred to the designer or the original playtest groups.  So, I think the role of the 2nd/3rd tier playtesters is to try and break the game by doing unexpected things.  Some of those tactics we may decide don't need fixing, while others may require some tweaks to avoid.

--
John A. Tamplin