Re: Digest for 1858-playtest-discussion@googlegroups.com - 16 Messages in 3 Topics

[hza...@aol.com]

I am still reading and looking everything over (just downloaded yesterday).  Following the conversation regarding Portugal.  In many of the 18xx games, certain companies are better than others to start out.  In others, the number of players can affect how the game plays due to the way things start.  Just a thought, if the routes are so poor initially, could you not reverse order the payout somewhat. Without calling it a port, could one or two cities in Portugal start out with a higher amount that decreases in the mid-game and then goes back up in the end?  It would allow the idea of a port without any real mechanic behind it.

Robert Schroeder

-----Original Message-----
From: 1858-playtest-discussion+noreply <1858-playtest-di...@googlegroups.com>
To: Digest Recipients <1858-playtest-d...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Jan 17, 2011 7:08 pm
Subject: Digest for 1858-playtes...@googlegroups.com - 16 Messages in 3 Topics

  Today's Topic Summary

Group: http://groups.google.com/group/1858-playtest-discussion/topics

• Rule Questions [14 Updates]
• 60% share ownership rule [1 Update]
• Digest for 1858-playtes...@googlegroups.com - 11 Messages in 4 Topics [1 Update]

 Topic: Rule Questions

john boocock <john...@yahoo.com> Jan 17 11:08AM ^
 
hi ian
 
i agree that initially starting in portugal is a sure fire way of not being first.
 
starting in barcelona, or madrid, or in the 'southern trio' works, i've done all three, i think, and won with each option.
 
i think it is the difficulty to getting to madrid early with a portugal start.
 
the only thing i could think of to sort, would be to increase the value of the lisbon and possibly oporto tiles.
 
but this might unbalance the rest of the game.
 
john b
 

 

Ian D Wilson <ianwil...@btinternet.com> Jan 17 05:39PM ^
 
I'm not convinced that any small improvements to the Portuguese cities/towns is going to make that much of a difference. The problem is more that there is a great big empty space between Portugal and the good bits of Spain...
 
--- On Mon, 17/1/11, john boocock <john...@yahoo.com> wrote:
 
 
From: john boocock <john...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Rule Questions
To: 1858-playtes...@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, 17 January, 2011, 11:08
 
 
hi ian
 
i agree that initially starting in portugal is a sure fire way of not being first.
 
starting in barcelona, or madrid, or in the 'southern trio' works, i've done all three, i think, and won with each option.
 
i think it is the difficulty to getting to madrid early with a portugal start.
 
the only thing i could think of to sort, would be to increase the value of the lisbon and possibly oporto tiles.
 
but this might unbalance the rest of the game.
 
john b
 

 

Justin Rebelo <justin...@gmail.com> Jan 17 09:47AM -0800 ^
 
This seems thematically accurate, given that coastal portugal (where
the money is in real life) is separated from spain by a mountain
range.
 
Ian, have you considered making Portugal more viable by creating one
or more off-board locations on the west of the map? Portugal has long
been a nation built on trading through its sea ports. It seems to me
like a northern off-board to northern europe or Great Britain
(Portugal's oldest ally) and maybe an off-board to North American or
something further in the south-west which represents trade to the
mediterranea, africa or south america would help make Portugal a more
viable place to start a company and seems fitting with the geography
etc.
 

 

Ian D Wilson <ianwil...@btinternet.com> Jan 17 06:17PM ^
 
Adding an off-map port or two (pun intended) to Portugal sounds like an interesting proposition. The main drawback (that I can see) is that the Spaniards are going to clamour for some ports in Spain (e.g. Cadiz to the Americas), and by the time I'm finished there will be too many good routes all over the place.
Although overseas trade was the lifeblood of both Portugal & Spain in earlier times, I think it was less important for the railways in this period.
 
--- On Mon, 17/1/11, Justin Rebelo <justin...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
 
From: Justin Rebelo <justin...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Rule Questions
To: 1858-playtes...@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, 17 January, 2011, 17:47
 
 
This seems thematically accurate, given that coastal portugal (where
the money is in real life) is separated from spain by a mountain
range.
 
Ian, have you considered making Portugal more viable by creating one
or more off-board locations on the west of the map? Portugal has long
been a nation built on trading through its sea ports. It seems to me
like a northern off-board to northern europe or Great Britain
(Portugal's oldest ally) and maybe an off-board to North American or
something further in the south-west which represents trade to the
mediterranea, africa or south america would help make Portugal a more
viable place to start a company and seems fitting with the geography
etc.
 

 

Justin Rebelo <justin...@gmail.com> Jan 17 10:23AM -0800 ^
 
You may be right. I was just throwing it out there as a way to
encourage SOME interest in the Portuguese region, as the concensus
already seems to be that it's a loser and will presumably sit until
the spanish companies expand into that region making those companies
viable.
 
The Spanish already have the highest valued cities in the game plus
they have the massive French off-board region.
 
At least one port out of Oporto or Lisbon seems to make sense
considering how spare that side of the map is.
 
Barring that, another possibility that comes to mind is forcing
Portuguese development by introducing a mechanic which forces a
company to start developing that region but had some kind of trade-off
so that the player who gets it isn't a loser right from the start. I'm
referring to something like the Frisco in 1870, which is unique from
all other companies in the game by starting with only the presidency
(which must be purchased in the opening ISR) and gets full
capitalisation.
 

 

john boocock <john...@yahoo.com> Jan 17 06:27PM ^
 
hi ian
 
i spose its abit like 1861, in that everyone likes to start a moscow company, for the initial extra income, and later a through route via moscow, not just to moscow.
 
doesn't the big private leading lisbonwards start second? not in the first group of privates?
 
possibly change it to the first group? in exchange for a madrid one, or a southern one?
 
john b
 
--- On Mon, 17/1/11, Ian D Wilson <ianwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
 
 
From: Ian D Wilson <ianwil...@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Rule Questions
To: 1858-playtes...@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, 17 January, 2011, 18:17
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Adding an off-map port or two (pun intended) to Portugal sounds like an interesting proposition. The main drawback (that I can see) is that the Spaniards are going to clamour for some ports in Spain (e.g. Cadiz to the Americas), and by the time I'm finished there will be too many good routes all over the place.
Although overseas trade was the lifeblood of both Portugal & Spain in earlier times, I think it was less important for the railways in this period.
 
--- On Mon, 17/1/11, Justin Rebelo <justin...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
 
From: Justin Rebelo <justin...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Rule Questions
To: 1858-playtes...@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, 17 January, 2011, 17:47
 
 
This seems thematically accurate, given that coastal portugal (where
the money is in real life) is separated from spain by a mountain
range.
 
Ian, have you considered making Portugal more viable by creating one
or more off-board locations on the west of the map? Portugal has long
been a nation built on trading through its sea ports. It seems to me
like a northern off-board to northern europe or Great Britain
(Portugal's oldest ally) and maybe an off-board to North American or
something further in the south-west which represents trade to the
mediterranea, africa or south america would help make Portugal a more
viable place to start a company and seems fitting with the geography
etc.
 

 

John Shelley <john.s...@orange.fr> Jan 17 07:39PM +0100 ^
 
On 17/01/2011 19:27, john boocock wrote:
 
> doesn't the big private leading lisbonwards start second? not in the first group of privates?
 
> possibly change it to the first group? in exchange for a madrid one, or a southern one?
 
> john b
 
Initially my thought was also sea borne traffic, however, maybe high
value initially, and dropping over time as railways took away the
coastal traffic. i.e. the port only represents "local" trade and not
the suggested trans-atlantic.
 
Another thought.
If Portugal starters are actually such pigs, why not move all to second
phase of launching so that they would have something to build into and
also help prevent a novice committing suicide in the first few turns.
 
--
Cheers for now,
 
John, from St Ciers 33820, France

 

Justin Rebelo <justin...@gmail.com> Jan 17 10:59AM -0800 ^
 
Continuing this thought, if you wanted something smaller than
trans-atlantic trade to buff up the portuguese coast, you could
thematically make it a connection to the Azorean islands. The small
archipelago of islands in the Atlantic has been part of Portugal for
hundreds of years and for a long time it was a stopping point for
ships sailing across the atlantic. So, local trade between mainland
Portugal and the Azores was initially more significant until ships got
large enough and then aircraft started to appear and eventually the
Azores became more of an rural autonomous community. The USA
eventually installed an airforce base on the Azorean island of
Terceira, as further evidence of it's relative significants in the
region. Portugal and Spain battled over the islands in the years prior
to the setting of the game, because of its strategic importance. It
could be a good case for a portuguese off-board which starts high for
early incentive but then trickles off or just doesn't ramp up like
other locations.
 

 

Ian D Wilson <ianwil...@btinternet.com> Jan 17 08:06PM ^
 
Perhaps a rule like the IC in1846 (which starts with an extra share's worth of capital)? Call it a grant from the Portuguese government. But I suspect the main problem is lack of routes, not capital.
 
--- On Mon, 17/1/11, Justin Rebelo <justin...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
 
From: Justin Rebelo <justin...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Rule Questions
To: 1858-playtes...@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, 17 January, 2011, 18:23
 
 
You may be right. I was just throwing it out there as a way to
encourage SOME interest in the Portuguese region, as the concensus
already seems to be that it's a loser and will presumably sit until
the spanish companies expand into that region making those companies
viable.
 
The Spanish already have the highest valued cities in the game plus
they have the massive French off-board region.
 
At least one port out of Oporto or Lisbon seems to make sense
considering how spare that side of the map is.
 
Barring that, another possibility that comes to mind is forcing
Portuguese development by introducing a mechanic which forces a
company to start developing that region but had some kind of trade-off
so that the player who gets it isn't a loser right from the start. I'm
referring to something like the Frisco in 1870, which is unique from
all other companies in the game by starting with only the presidency
(which must be purchased in the opening ISR) and gets full
capitalisation.
 

 

Justin Rebelo <justin...@gmail.com> Jan 17 12:10PM -0800 ^
 
I think you're right that a bit of capital alone might not address the
problem (if it's a problem - I'm not saying it is).
 
IC also gets free tile lays in its starting region. So you could also
borrow from that concept. Or perhaps bonus tile lays for the company
starting in Portugal so that it offsets the poor starting location by
at least being able to expand a bit quicker to what little money is
available?
 

 

Ian D Wilson <ianwil...@btinternet.com> Jan 17 08:16PM ^
 
The Madrid-Caceres-Portugal, of which you write, won't help because the early trains are H-trains and Madrid is too far from Lisbon (with very little inbetween). Also, it didn't historically start till later (the numerical order of the privates is approximately the order they started).
 
Unlike 1861, the Madrid companies are not the best ones at the start: the routes around Barcelona and in Andalusia are better. Madrid tokens are more important once you get to the permanent trains.
 
--- On Mon, 17/1/11, john boocock <john...@yahoo.com> wrote:
 
 
From: john boocock <john...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Rule Questions
To: 1858-playtes...@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, 17 January, 2011, 18:27
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
hi ian
 
i spose its abit like 1861, in that everyone likes to start a moscow company, for the initial extra income, and later a through route via moscow, not just to moscow.
 
doesn't the big private leading lisbonwards start second? not in the first group of privates?
 
possibly change it to the first group? in exchange for a madrid one, or a southern one?
 
john b
 
--- On Mon, 17/1/11, Ian D Wilson <ianwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
 
 
From: Ian D Wilson <ianwil...@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Rule Questions
To: 1858-playtes...@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, 17 January, 2011, 18:17
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Adding an off-map port or two (pun intended) to Portugal sounds like an interesting proposition. The main drawback (that I can see) is that the Spaniards are going to clamour for some ports in Spain (e.g. Cadiz to the Americas), and by the time I'm finished there will be too many good routes all over the place.
Although overseas trade was the lifeblood of both Portugal & Spain in earlier times, I think it was less important for the railways in this period.
 
--- On Mon, 17/1/11, Justin Rebelo <justin...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
 
From: Justin Rebelo <justin...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Rule Questions
To: 1858-playtes...@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, 17 January, 2011, 17:47
 
 
This seems thematically accurate, given that coastal portugal (where
the money is in real life) is separated from spain by a mountain
range.
 
Ian, have you considered making Portugal more viable by creating one
or more off-board locations on the west of the map? Portugal has long
been a nation built on trading through its sea ports. It seems to me
like a northern off-board to northern europe or Great Britain
(Portugal's oldest ally) and maybe an off-board to North American or
something further in the south-west which represents trade to the
mediterranea, africa or south america would help make Portugal a more
viable place to start a company and seems fitting with the geography
etc.
 

 

Ian D Wilson <ianwil...@btinternet.com> Jan 17 08:23PM ^
 
My thoughts are for port(s) worth a fixed, medium value (20-30, say). They would be very useful early on with H-trains, but mostly irrelevant in the later game with E-trains and everything is 40+.
 
It's important that the two Portuguese privates start from the beginning, or there will be a permanent under-development of Portugal (plus, they really did start at the same time as the Spanish companies).
 
--- On Mon, 17/1/11, John Shelley <john.s...@orange.fr> wrote:
 
 
From: John Shelley <john.s...@orange.fr>
Subject: Re: Rule Questions
To: 1858-playtes...@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, 17 January, 2011, 18:39
 
 
On 17/01/2011 19:27, john boocock wrote:
 
> doesn't the big private leading lisbonwards start second? not in the first group of privates?
 
> possibly change it to the first group? in exchange for a madrid one, or a southern one?
 
> john b
 
Initially my thought was also sea borne traffic, however, maybe high value initially, and dropping over time as railways took away the coastal traffic.  i.e. the port only represents "local"  trade and not the suggested trans-atlantic.
 
Another thought.
If Portugal starters are actually such pigs, why not move all to second phase of launching so that they would have something to build into and also help prevent a novice committing suicide in the first few turns.
 
-- Cheers for now,
 
John, from St Ciers 33820, France

 

Justin Rebelo <justin...@gmail.com> Jan 17 12:25PM -0800 ^
 
I think your suggested solution and reasoning are both sound. A little
boost of early value for the Portuguese companies is all it sounded
like was required, and as you say, later in the game those ports will
become mostly irrelevant.
 

 

Ian D Wilson <ianwil...@btinternet.com> Jan 17 08:31PM ^
 
One advantage of a port is that they don't generally have a name (other than "Port of Lisbon", I suppose). Players can then justify them in their minds whichever way they like, if they feel the need for such justification.
 
--- On Mon, 17/1/11, Justin Rebelo <justin...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
 
From: Justin Rebelo <justin...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Rule Questions
To: 1858-playtes...@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, 17 January, 2011, 18:59
 
 
Continuing this thought, if you wanted something smaller than
trans-atlantic trade to buff up the portuguese coast, you could
thematically make it a connection to the Azorean islands. The small
archipelago of islands in the Atlantic has been part of Portugal for
hundreds of years and for a long time it was a stopping point for
ships sailing across the atlantic. So, local trade between mainland
Portugal and the Azores was initially more significant until ships got
large enough and then aircraft started to appear and eventually the
Azores became more of an rural autonomous community. The USA
eventually installed an airforce base on the Azorean island of
Terceira, as further evidence of it's relative significants in the
region. Portugal and Spain battled over the islands in the years prior
to the setting of the game, because of its strategic importance. It
could be a good case for a portuguese off-board which starts high for
early incentive but then trickles off or just doesn't ramp up like
other locations.
 

 

 Topic: 60% share ownership rule

john boocock <john...@yahoo.com> Jan 17 11:01AM ^
 
hi ian
 
i think you need something in the rules to specifically say that you cannot buy to more than 60% of a company.
 
also, in the same rule, you need to say that if you get to more than 60% by 'private exchange', then that is ok, AND YOU NEED NOT SELL DOWN TO 60%.
 
this is so key to the game.....
 
john b
 

 

 Topic: Digest for 1858-playtes...@googlegroups.com - 11 Messages in 4 Topics

hza...@aol.com Jan 16 11:39PM -0500 ^
 
>consider the design to be essentially complete and are looking for
>people to vet the rules or are you interested in comments on changing
>the game?
I'll answer this one in a separate mail, since it's likely to be a long answer...
 
Ian,
 
Then you might want to post it. I find as I playtest, I am looking for different things and I might not find a problem until I've played it a few times. Knowing what parts, if any, are open to rewrite/modification might help me out a bit.
 
My two cents, so far.
 
Robert Schroeder
 

 
 

 

 
-----Original Message-----
From: 1858-playtest-discussion+noreply <1858-playtest-di...@googlegroups.com>
To: Digest Recipients <1858-playtest-d...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Jan 16, 2011 6:35 pm
Subject: Digest for 1858-playtes...@googlegroups.com - 11 Messages in 4 Topics
 
 
Today's Topic Summary
Group: http://groups.google.com/group/1858-playtest-discussion/topics
 
Toponyms [2 Updates]
1858_zip_20110115.zip [4 Updates]
Rule Questions [3 Updates]
60% share ownership rule [2 Updates]

Topic: Toponyms

Jose-san <josesan...@hotmail.com> Jan 16 02:30PM -0800 ^


Just to point out two minor typos on the map:

Cacares -> Caceres
Huevla -> Huelva

Jose




Ian D Wilson <ianwil...@btinternet.com> Jan 16 10:42PM ^


I'd have sworn it was Huevla, but looking closer at my atlas it really is Huelva... thanks Jose!

--- On Sun, 16/1/11, Jose-san <josesan...@hotmail.com> wrote:


From: Jose-san <josesan...@hotmail.com>
Subject: Toponyms
To: "1858 playtest discussion" <1858-playtes...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Sunday, 16 January, 2011, 22:30


Just to point out two minor typos on the map:

Cacares -> Caceres
Huevla -> Huelva

Jose




Topic: 1858_zip_20110115.zip

Dave4B <walama...@o2.co.uk> Jan 16 05:51AM -0800 ^


"... he nominates one of the unsold Private Companies and bids a
multiple of £5 ..."
What is the exchange rate berteen Pounds and Pesetas?

"Phase 4 starts on the purchase of the first 6H/4M Train."
I think you mean 6H/3M.

I'd suggest applying colour to the Charters, to make them easier to
associate with the tokens/shares.

Printing "Available after first 4H/2M is purchased" in Green might
highlight the phase the secondard Privates are available.




Ian D Wilson <ianwil...@btinternet.com> Jan 16 03:26PM ^


>"... he nominates one of the unsold Private Companies and bids a
>multiple of £5 ..."
>What is the exchange rate berteen Pounds and Pesetas?
Ooops. £1=P1

>"Phase 4 starts on the purchase of the first 6H/4M Train."
>I think you mean 6H/3M.
Yes.

>associate with the tokens/shares.
>Printing "Available after first 4H/2M is purchased" in Green might
>highlight the phase the secondard Privates are available.
Noted.

Ian D






"Gregory R. Payne" <shrapn...@gmail.com> Jan 16 09:33PM ^


How big is the bank? The rules don't say, and I can't remember.

Greg




Ian D Wilson <ianwil...@btinternet.com> Jan 16 10:20PM ^


Doh!!!
Sorry, a Homer Simpson moment there.
The bank size is 12,000.

Ian D

--- On Sun, 16/1/11, Gregory R. Payne <shrapn...@gmail.com> wrote:


From: Gregory R. Payne <shrapn...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 1858_zip_20110115.zip
To: 1858-playtes...@googlegroups.com
Date: Sunday, 16 January, 2011, 21:33


How big is the bank? The rules don't say, and I can't remember.

Greg




Topic: Rule Questions

Scott Petersen <sc...@redracecar.com> Jan 16 08:21AM -0600 ^


On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 3:59 AM, Ian D Wilson

> The rules only forbid going over 60% if you are buying a share (from the Pool or Company). There is no such restriction when exchanging a private (which is classed as a sell action). Also, there is no requirement to sell down to 60%, should you use this means to go over.

> This raises an old problem with writing 18xx rules: how many non-rules do you put in, to negate "common practice" rules like this? I have put in a note about no fully-sold-at-end-of-SR, for example.

Ian, when I read the sections related to these items, I incorrectly
inferred that the rules would somewhere else mention that players must
sell down to 60% when possible. I'd say this would be worth adding as
a "non-rule."

Some other comments.

1. The last sentence of the second to last paragraph of page 5 was
initially confusing to me. "If a player with the double-share
non-Director Certificate exceeds the holding of the Director, he must
exchange the double-share certificate for the Director Certificate."
Perhaps it would have been more clear to me to add the words "junior"
and "senior?"

2. This sentence was confusing to me as well "Private Companies
placing track in home hexes have to align the track to connect to the
other home hexes of Privates shown in that hex." I think it means that
if there are Privates marked on the map, the yellow tile must be laid
to match them. Some have one, some have two, so there is sometimes an
option of what to play and sometimes not. Perhaps it would be good for
the rules to refer to the printed private routes.

3. How well do the privates work in practice once tiles start getting
laid? Since there is no token for the Privates, I assume players need
to remember where their home city is. Not much of a problem, but do
people ever forget and have to later check which city they run from?

4. Could you talk about where you are in the design process? Do you
consider the design to be essentially complete and are looking for
people to vet the rules or are you interested in comments on changing
the game?




Ian D Wilson <ianwil...@btinternet.com> Jan 16 03:54PM ^


>inferred that the rules would somewhere else mention that players must
>sell down to 60% when possible. I'd say this would be worth adding as
>a "non-rule."
Noted. There are two schools of thought.

>exchange the double-share certificate for the Director Certificate."
>Perhaps it would have been more clear to me to add the words "junior"
>and "senior?"
Probably. I'll have another look at the next revision.

>to match them. Some have one, some have two, so there is sometimes an
>option of what to play and sometimes not. Perhaps it would be good for
>the rules to refer to the printed private routes.
Mmmm. This rule was always going to be tricky to write. Perhaps an example or two would be helpful?

>laid? Since there is no token for the Privates, I assume players need
>to remember where their home city is. Not much of a problem, but do
>people ever forget and have to later check which city they run from?
Generally it's not too bad. I'd recommend printing out the one-sheet map to refer to (it's even more useful when it comes to placing tokens of majors).
Note: privates can build from any of their home hexes, not just their home city/cities.

>consider the design to be essentially complete and are looking for
>people to vet the rules or are you interested in comments on changing
>the game?
I'll answer this one in a separate mail, since it's likely to be a long answer...

Ian D





Ian D Wilson <ianwil...@btinternet.com> Jan 16 04:23PM ^


>consider the design to be essentially complete and are looking for
>people to vet the rules or are you interested in comments on changing
>the game?
This game has been under design for many years. It has gone through several major revisions. Earlier versions were either hopelessly unbalanced or dreadfully dull. I now feel the game is OK but needs some fine-tuning: I don't want to change anything fundamental but small changes are going to be neccessary and/or desirable.

Obviously, I welcome reports of any loopholes, ambiguities, typos etc. you might find in the rules.

One area of concern for me at the moment is the start prices of the privates. They have already gone through one revision (details available on request). The auction mechanism should balance any problems, at least amoungst experienced players, but ideally each private should be worth around face value. (The start capital is slightly higher than the sum of the face values of the privates.)

Another problem is that starting your first company in Portugal seems to be a recipe for coming last. It just seems to be a product of the geography, a bit like Italy in 18EU (for example). Perhaps I should include this in a 'strategy guide'.

Ian D






Topic: 60% share ownership rule

eddyln <john...@yahoo.com> Jan 15 02:49PM -0800 ^


hi ian

in the rules it says, 'limit of share buying is 60%' if shares BOUGHT.

it also says you can exchange shares for privates.

it makes no mention of the 60% rule above for BUYING.

i think when we played it, you could end up with 80% or 100% of a
company this way.

in the current rules, i don't think it says that this IS ALLOWED.

i also don't think it says if, once done, you can retain the excess
shares over 60% forever, or if you have to sell them later.

clarification please?

ta

john b




Ian D Wilson <ianwil...@btinternet.com> Jan 16 09:59AM ^


Hi John,

The rules only forbid going over 60% if you are buying a share (from the Pool or Company). There is no such restriction when exchanging a private (which is classed as a sell action). Also, there is no requirement to sell down to 60%, should you use this means to go over.

This raises an old problem with writing 18xx rules: how many non-rules do you put in, to negate "common practice" rules like this? I have put in a note about no fully-sold-at-end-of-SR, for example.

Cheers,
Ian D

--- On Sat, 15/1/11, eddyln <john...@yahoo.com> wrote:


From: eddyln <john...@yahoo.com>
Subject: 60% share ownership rule
To: "1858 playtest discussion" <1858-playtes...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Saturday, 15 January, 2011, 22:49


hi ian

in the rules it says, 'limit of share buying is 60%' if shares BOUGHT.

it also says you can exchange shares for privates.

it makes no mention of the 60% rule above for BUYING.

i think when we played it, you could end up with 80% or 100% of a
company this way.

in the current rules, i don't think it says that this IS ALLOWED.

i also don't think it says if, once done, you can retain the excess
shares over 60% forever, or if you have to sell them later.

clarification please?

ta

john b

 

[Ian D Wilson]

This is indeed an option, but it might look odd if Lisbon was worth a lot more than Madrid and Barcelona at the start. Also, there's a difference between running one train to the port and two trains to an inflated Lisbon. --- On Tue, 18/1/11, hza...@aol.com <hza...@aol.com> wrote: