Re: Digest for 1858-playtest-discussion@googlegroups.com - 1 Message in 1 Topic

[David Hecht]

FWIW I always felt that the start mechanism posed this sort of problem, but I could never figure out either how to express it clearly, nor any plausible solution that didn't require a substantial rewrite.

On 1/25/2012 6:42 PM, 1858-playtes...@googlegroups.com wrote:

  Today's Topic Summary

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

• 1858 - the start packet problem [1 Update]

 1858 - the start packet problem

Ian D <ianwil...@btinternet.com> Jan 25 01:19PM -0800  

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?


 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group 1858-playtest-discussion.
You can post via email.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an empty message.
For more options, visit this group.