Rule Questions
Scott Petersen
<ianwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> 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
--- On Sun, 16/1/11, Scott Petersen <sc...@redracecar.com> wrote:
|
>> 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." |
Noted. There are two schools of thought.
|
>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?" |
Probably. I'll have another look at the next revision.
|
>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. |
Mmmm. This rule was always going to be tricky to write. Perhaps an example or two would be helpful?
|
>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? |
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.
|
>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? |
I'll answer this one in a separate mail, since it's likely to be a long answer...
Ian D |
Ian D Wilson
--- On Sun, 16/1/11, Scott Petersen <sc...@redracecar.com> wrote:
|
>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? |
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
|
john boocock
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
--- On Sun, 16/1/11, Ian D Wilson <ianwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
Ian D Wilson
| 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: |
Justin Rebelo
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
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: |
Justin Rebelo
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
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 |
John Shelley
> 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
>
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
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
| 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. |
Justin Rebelo
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
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. |
Ian D Wilson
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: |
|
Justin Rebelo
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.
On 1/17/11, Ian D Wilson <ianwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
Ian D Wilson
| 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: |
|
Ian D
(with Lisbon improved). The results were:
Game A: 1st Cordoba/Seville, 2nd Portugal, 3rd Madrid-S, 4th Barcelona
Game B: 1st Madrid-S, 2nd Barcelona, 3rd Cordoba/Seville, 4th North,
5th Portugal.
It seems that Portugal isn't an automatic last place any more. The
choice/option of second company can be important: in game A the
Portugal player had the company starting in Valladolid (i.e. North),
but in game B he had one starting in the North-West, which has always
been the pits in 1858. It seems that the O&V and S&C privates are not
completely worthless, but starting a company with them is not such a
good idea.
Ian D