Re: 18PA playtest 1/17/13 (barzai@earthlink.net)

[David Hecht]

It occurs to me that I can easily solve all my problems with the non-LGC companies (at this point reduced to NJC and NYNHH) by simply abolishing the differences between them: I could give NJC a destination in PHI and the NYNHH could have one in either PVD or BOS. If the latter, I'd eliminate the B&M (local #7) and free up the hole that created for a NYNHH destination token.

What think you?

On 1/22/2013 8:56 PM, John A. Tamplin wrote:

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 8:52 PM, David Hecht <bar...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Looks about right. If we go back to a balanced number of #82/#83 (eight apiece) that should do it.

Reax to the new approach to the initial auctions? We used the same again in another game and that worked out fine too--that's the one where I lost to Dave L. by $25 , where he had three locals and I had none (the other players had the remaining three).

I think it worked ok.

 

I was concerned that our game got off to a slow start--I'm thinking now that we should add a few bux to the three-player start (and similarly take a few away from the five-player start). In lieu of $400 per player throughout, what think you of $500/$400/$300 for 3/4/5 players?

That seems a pretty big swing from what has been playtested.  Are you hoping that someone will start an extra company by not getting many privates?

--
John A. Tamplin

[David Hecht]

If I thought that would be the effect, I'd hesitate to do it.

However I do not necessarily think that a uniform set of rules for the companies is necessarily homogenization (say that three times real fast! <vbg>). After all they would still have different destinations and so on. The main difference would be the doubling token (a pretty good deal) and the fact that each would collect some small income in their first OR as it does not strike me as very likely that either CNJ or NYNHH would not want to buy a train immediately.

Do you find that the much greater similarities between the 1870 companies flattens out the paths to victory?

On 1/23/2013 10:17 AM, mike.m...@comcast.net wrote:

Scuse my delay in joining the conversation. Still getting settled back in.

 

But I felt inspired to respond to this.

 

I would hesitate to homoginize most of the companies and paths to victory.

---

[mike.m...@comcast.net]

Not so much but if I wanted to play 1870 I would do so.

 

Realizing in the 2 out of 3 game historical similation is usually the first to fall I would ask if the CNJ or NYNHH were primarily funded with land grants.

 

There was an appeal in the original 1+ train compnies which seemed appropriate for the first emergent companies.  I was sorry to see it go.

 

However that was not to start an in depth discussion, it was merely a hip shot comment.   Certainly having all the same rules for all companies is also appealing.

[Walt Collins]

The double strength destination tokens are indeed quite powerful, and their lack seems to significantly decrease the value of starting a non-LGC.  Eliminating the concept of a non-LGC (by making all companies LGCs) would surely make companies like NJC and NYNHH more playable, if that is desired.  But are those companies as significant, historically?  And is that important to the game design?  Should players be equally drawn to what I'll call "less historically significant" companies, or is it simply okay if there's a bit of imbalance that serves to guide players to more "important" companies?  What if players started to decline to start the PRR or the B&O, in favor of the NJC, for example?  Would that be a positive trend for game play?

Walt