1858 - the start packet problem

[Ian D]

After many playtests, especially my latest (at Chatcon'12), I'm now
convinced the start of 1858 is badly flawed. Let me describe the
problem:

The start packet consists of 16 privates (+ a consolation prize). They
generally all get bought in SR1 (maybe one left over). Their income is
20% of face value - deliberately low to encourage players to convert
to majors in SR2. The more of these privates you can convert into
shares in SR2 the better, so you want a set you can connect in the
first 2 ORs. More privates into the major = more capital = more trains/
tokens/routes = more income, also you might get an extra share
increment etc etc. The best is 4 privates into your major, that way
you get 100%.

For the three-player there's little problem - you have plenty of money
and there are three 4-private combinations available. For five-player,
there are five 3-private combinations (although some are a lot better
than others). But for four-player, there are still only three 4-
private combinations - one or more players are doomed to lose from the
end of SR1. (Nor are the 3/5 player games going to be balanced unless
the players understand the need to get the right combinations.)

The problem is made worse by the rule which requires the consent of
the director to fold in a private into a major, even if you are
connected. So, once the "key" private has been sold, there's little
incentive to drive up the price of the rest of the group because you
might get landed with a lame duck. [Changing the rule to be like 18EU
(where you don't need consent in the SR the major forms) will just see
prospective directors building track to exclude other players'
privates.]

It seems like something moderately radical is needed to fix this issue
- any ideas anyone?

[john boocock]

hi all

ian, why do you 'NEED TO BE CONNECTED'

i know that's how it is usually done, but when railways merged in real life, this was not always the case., you only need to look at the lswr and some of the railways it took over/merged with in sw england to see that.

i know that's how it is in 1861, but does it HAVE to be so in 58?

if you can't bear the thought of a barcelona company merging with a lisbon company, then make it it within a province or two.......

this would seem to solve the problems you mention, and have some bearing in real life as well......

john b

radical but simple.......

---

From: Ian D <ianwil...@btinternet.com>
To: 1858 playtest discussion <1858-playtes...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 25 January 2012, 21:19
Subject: 1858 - the start packet problem

[Dave Berry]

Hi Ian,

Are the combinations you mention pretty much the same in every game?

Dave.

[john boocock]

hi dave

having played 1858 quite a few times, i can confirm that mionor a usually goes together with minor b, and sometimes with minor c as well.

it would be quite a mistake for anyone to buy minor a, and then NOT buy at least minor b and/or c.

the same applies to all the other minors involved.

if you were playing 1861, for instance, you would not normally say in a 4 player game, buy the spw and the mv. it would be most unusual, and probably lead to a losing position right from the outset.

1858, due to the 'must be linked 'rule, has much the same 'dead hand' of inevitabilty.

which why i questioned WHY do participating minors NEED to be connected?

as far as i can see, the only reason is that the rules say they do......

so, change that part of the rules.

john b

---

From: Dave Berry <da...@berrybental.me.uk>
To: 1858-playtes...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 26 January 2012, 18:40
Subject: Re: 1858 - the start packet problem

[Ian D Wilson]

--- On Thu, 26/1/12, Dave Berry <da...@berrybental.me.uk> wrote: >Are the combinations you mention pretty much the same in every game?

More or less. There are some minor variations in some of them.

[Ian D Wilson]

--- On Thu, 26/1/12, john boocock <john...@yahoo.com> wrote: >if you were playing 1861, for instance, you would not normally say in a 4 player game, >buy the spw and the mv. it would be most unusual, and probably lead to a losing position >right from the outset.

I've won a game of 1861 by merging the SPW & MV! The privates in 1858 are very different from the minors of 1861 - deliberately so. I'm not wanting another 1861 variant. It's turned out more like 18EU - but that has more viable combinations, nor do you need to combine all your minors immediately to win.

[john boocock]

hi ian

so, what is wrong with relaxing or removing the 'must be connected' rule??

john b

---

From: Ian D Wilson <ianwil...@btinternet.com>
To: 1858-playtes...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 26 January 2012, 21:53

Subject: Re: 1858 - the start packet problem

[Bob]

Ian and all,

Part of the problem as I see it, is the start packet pretty well sets
the pattern. Changes I would suggest is to allow the Narrow Gauges to
start from the get-go (maybe in the North, but definitely in the
South). Add one more port that allows competition between the parts
of the board. In the Center you have Madrid, in the West you have
Lisbon, and you have the northern border and the southern
concentration. Allow each to have the chance to become the premiere
location.

Allow the upgrades to be either this tile or that tile. For example
in 1870 there are lots of spaces for a certain brown city tile, but
less tiles are actually in the manifest. Perhaps choose Lisbon,
Madrid, Bilboa, and either Cadiz/Malaga to have the one or two grey
upgrades, but then everyone else will be stuck as brown. Competition
may then be very fierce for which city is top-dog. Plus the game will
change each time.

My 2 pesos.

Robert Schroeder

[john boocock]

hi all

i don't think lisbon is good as a start point....

even after ian has added the port....

i'm trying this in a pbm game at the moment, and there is not enuf synergy in the start position to grow fast enuf...

john b

---

From: Bob <Hza...@aol.com>

To: 1858 playtest discussion <1858-playtes...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Friday, 27 January 2012, 2:29

Subject: Re: 1858 - the start packet problem

[Dave4B]

What would be the likely effects of limiting a player to owning 60% of
a 5-share company?
Obviously the're unlikely to rise in price on their first turn and the
2-trains may not sell out before the later companies get to run.
But it might encourage players to grow up sooner so they can get their
other privates absorbed.

[john boocock]

hi all

i think that still makes getting 'sets' of small companies as being part of the game.....

which i think is what ian is trying to change.....

john b

---

From: Dave4B <walama...@o2.co.uk>

To: 1858 playtest discussion <1858-playtes...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Sunday, 29 January 2012, 20:00

Subject: Re: 1858 - the start packet problem

[Ian D Wilson]

--- On Thu, 26/1/12, john boocock <john...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>ian, why do you 'NEED TO BE CONNECTED' >i know that's how it is usually done, but when railways merged in real life, this was not >always the case., you only need to look at the lswr and some of the railways it took >over/merged with in sw england to see that. >i know that's how it is in 1861, but does it HAVE to be so in 58? >if you can't bear the thought of a barcelona company merging with a lisbon company, then >make it it within a province or two....... >this would seem to solve the problems you mention, and have some bearing in real life as >well......

An intruiging idea, and not without historic precedent in Spain too.   But, it doesn't really solve the central problem (how to stop a player winning the game in the initial auction).

[Ian D Wilson]

--- On Thu, 26/1/12, john boocock <john...@yahoo.com> wrote: >so, what is wrong with relaxing or removing the 'must be connected' rule??

Well, apart from not actually solving the problem... a) it makes the game too easy, b) it discourages proper route-building, c) if you set a distance rule - say two provinces - it slows down the game as players have to keep referring to the map copy to see if they qualify, d) it adds another new rule to a game with plenty, and that's for starters!

[john boocock]

hi ian

just remind me again of the problem.......

you said that the initial minors tend to 'grouped', and if you bought one of a group, you would naturally want the rest.

also, if 'a' had bought some one or two in group 'x', you would not bid too much for others in that group, in case you were left in lurch with it and unable to connect to 'your' group.

unless you avoid the 'must connect' rule, you need to make certain that the groups have about equal values, and payouts, and make sure that the values of the starting minors are equal.

if you took the southern group of companies as is now, they cannot start a major at the same price as say a barcelona company.

lisbon is even worse.

i think you either abandon the 'connect' rule to fold in, (thus negating the 'group' idea), or increase the value to about equal in each of the possible groups, to make staring a company about equal.

cf1812, where it is usually important to start your major first or second on the stock chart.

john b

---

From: Ian D Wilson <ianwil...@btinternet.com>
To: 1858-playtes...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Monday, 30 January 2012, 22:18
Subject: Re: 1858 - the start packet problem

[Ian D Wilson]

--- On Sun, 29/1/12, Dave4B <walama...@o2.co.uk> wrote: >What would be the likely effects of limiting a player to owning 60% of >a 5-share company? >Obviously the're unlikely to rise in price on their first turn and the >2-trains may not sell out before the later companies get to run. >But it might encourage players to grow up sooner so they can get their >other privates absorbed.

Since posing the question, it occurred to me that some sort of limitation on share ownership (even with trade-in) was going to be neccessary. Great minds think alike?   What I'm not sure about is whether to just go back to the 60% limit - as you suggest - or something else. It could be 80%. Or a sliding scale according to the number of players - 100% for 3 (there are 3 quads), 80% for 4-5 (there are 5 triples), 60% for 6 (there are many pairs).   You could still get a quad and trade in to 5 shares, but only by growing to 10-share. So you'd have a super company (as before) but only get 50% of the income. Another idea I'm toying with is to have the early minors increase income with the green trains (so they get the 30% income-to-face-value of the later privates). This should make non-conversion a little less bad.

[john boocock]

hi ian

the increase in minor income in later rounds is good, cf l&mr in 1761.

what were the triples you were thinking of? in 4-5 players.?

i can see 3 that would be good, but the others are, i think, a recipe for 4th or 5th place.

if you fail to do right in the opening auction, you are at a disadvantage.

i know this is true of most 18xx games, but if you get a reasonable start in most, you will have a chance of a win.    if you get outbid, or whatever in '58, you cannot win! or even come 2nd...

in my opinion.

barcelona is a good start.

madrid is good.

the southern 3 are good.

but lisbon and any other 3 are not.

john b

---

From: Ian D Wilson <ianwil...@btinternet.com>
To: 1858-playtes...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, 31 January 2012, 22:31

Subject: Re: 1858 - the start packet problem

[Ian D Wilson]

--- On Fri, 27/1/12, Bob <Hza...@aol.com> wrote: >Part of the problem as I see it, is the start packet pretty well sets >the pattern.  Changes I would suggest is to allow the Narrow Gauges to >start from the get-go (maybe in the North, but definitely in the >South).

I think we've already discussed this. I'm still convinced this would be a bad idea (and unhistorical).

>  Add one more port that allows competition between the parts >of the board.  In the Center you have Madrid, in the West you have >Lisbon, and you have the northern border and the southern >concentration.  Allow each to have the chance to become the premiere >location.

The balance of the map may still need adjusting, but that isn't the issue here. As the game stands, if you get a quad and nobody else does, you will win wherever on the map you are.

>Allow the upgrades to be either this tile or that tile.  For example >in 1870 there are lots of spaces for a certain brown city tile, but >less tiles are actually in the manifest.  Perhaps choose Lisbon, >Madrid, Bilboa, and either Cadiz/Malaga to have the one or two grey >upgrades, but then everyone else will be stuck as brown.  Competition >may then be very fierce for which city is top-dog.  Plus the game will >change each time.

In the New World, cities could grow large as a consequence of being at a railroad hub e.g. Chicago. But in the Old World, the relative size of the cities was already determined before the advent of rail - so the rails had to go to the cities. Especially in Iberia, where all but Madrid already had good water transport links (river and/or sea). >My 2 pesos. Thanks!

[Ian D Wilson]

--- On Fri, 27/1/12, john boocock <john...@yahoo.com> wrote: >i don't think lisbon is good as a start point.... >even after ian has added the port.... >i'm trying this in a pbm game at the moment, and there is not enuf synergy in the start >position to grow fast enuf...

That's because you screwed up the tile laying. You have to get a token in the south-west ASAP. Admittedly, it wasn't helped by the fact that nobody started in the SW.   Portugal isn't the best place to start - you have to bid up the better places and then get the Portuguese privates at a discount. Or start in Portugal as your 2nd company (I've seen people do that successfully).

[Ian D Wilson]

--- On Mon, 30/1/12, john boocock <john...@yahoo.com> wrote: >just remind me again of the problem.......

The problem is that if my set is bigger than your set, I will do better than you. What is needed is a mechanism which makes a quad, a triple + single, or two pairs roughly equivalent. At the moment, quad beats triple beats 2pair every time - but this is 18xx not poker!   If, as you suggest, we throw away the connectivity rule, that means everyone (in a 4-player game) should have some sort of quad. Seems fairly boring to me.

>if you took the southern group of companies as is now, they cannot start a major at the >same price as say a barcelona company. >lisbon is even worse.

You are not entirely correct. Start prices are: Madrid N & S 120 Barcelona & Portugal 110 SW & SE 100

>cf1812, where it is usually important to start your major first or second on the stock chart.

1858 is different. Running last can be better - you get fewer yellow trains (which don't last as long).

[Ian D Wilson]

--- On Wed, 1/2/12, john boocock <john...@yahoo.com> wrote: >what were the triples you were thinking of? in 4-5 players.? >i can see 3 that would be good, but the others are, i think, a recipe for 4th or 5th place.

>in my opinion. >barcelona is a good start. >madrid is good. >the southern 3 are good. >but lisbon and any other 3 are not.

The triples are: Madrid(S): M&A, plus two of M&C / M&Z / V&J Madrid(N): M&V, A&S, C&B Barcelona: B&M, R&T, plus one of V&J / M&Z / Z&P Southwest: C&M, SJ&C, C&M Portugal: O&L, L&C, B&CR But if I reduce the share limit to 60%, a triple won't be much better than a pair.

[john boocock]

hi ian

yes, i agree your triples.

but the last one is deffo a lose situation, i think.....

60% limit whatever might work....

we should try it..

john b

---

From: Ian D Wilson <ianwil...@btinternet.com>
To: 1858-playtes...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2012, 20:58

Subject: Re: 1858 - the start packet problem