Share appreciation vs income

[Dave Berry]

Ian,

On the 18xx list, a couple of people have made the point that in some
games, share value is the more important aspect, while in others
income from dividends is a bigger factor. I was wondering where you
see your games fit on that continuum, and whether it is something
you've specifically considered in the design of 1858?

Dave.

[Ian D Wilson]

--- On Thu, 10/2/11, Dave Berry <da...@berrybental.me.uk> wrote: >On the 18xx list, a couple of people have made the point that in some games, share value >is the more important aspect, while in others income from dividends is a bigger factor.  I >was wondering where you see your games fit on that continuum, and whether it is >something you've specifically considered in the design of 1858?

1861 is probably more biased to the share value side: you win by having high early/mid-game income translate into more shares than your opponents; only occasionally does higher income in the late stages decide the game. 1812 is much the same, I suspect.   In 1858 I've not given it a lot of thought, but I hope it is more balanced. In order to acquire a second permanent train, you generally have to withold and/or issue stock; you have a real decision to make balancing income now & final share value vs higher income until the bank breaks.   There have been those who suggested I put in multiple jumps into 1858, but I have streadfastly rejected this on the grounds that it would turn it into too much of an "income" game. On reflection, I find I enjoy both types of 18xx and so I'm less concerned about this issue.   Ian D