18PA - after-action report and musings on the next steps

[David Hecht]

I attended ClawsCon in Lincoln, Nebraska last weekend, which gave me the
opportunity to play three games of 18PA with various players: some
experienced, some less so; some familiar with previous iterations of
18PA, others not.

We played one game under a close-order approximation of the current
rules, and then two others with some changes: one fewer each of the
2/3/4 trains (i.e. 5/4/3 rather than 6/5/4); and an increase in the cost
of absorbing a local company (up from $110 to the owner, to $220: $110
to the owner and an additional $110 to the bank).

I was generally dissatisfied with the slow midgame in the first game we
played: four 2-trains went in the first pair of ORs, leading to a "train
clog" as no one wanted to pop the 4-trains: the players with two
2-trains on their companies didn't want to destroy their existing
positions, and the players with two 3-trains were perfectly happy to
play on with such a strong comparative advantage.

The flip side, however, after reducing the number of 3-trains (and
4-trains) was that the one 2-train that was bought never ran: two
players each bought two 3-trains, one was then constrained by the force
of circumstances to buy a 4-train...and the last player, who had bought
the 2-train the previous turn, had to perform an emergency money-raising
to buy a 4-train as well.

The third game was played by the same rules and went more smoothly, but
I cannot help but be a trifle dissatisfied: it appears that the relative
worth of 2-trains is largely determined by groupthink...if a lot get
bought, they clog up the system, run for a long time, and are perceived
as valuable; if not, not.

My view: if I stick with the reduced train mix, it seems likely I will
have to remove the rule making the 3-trains available in OR-3, and add
in my modified version of the Mark Derrick rule (only one train may be
bought per OR, unless you are buying the last of a class, in which case
you may buy the first of the new class as well). I may also possibly
need to add in a delayed-obsolescence rule (ugh) similar to the one in
18Ardennes (any 2-trains that haven't run when the first 4-train is
bought get one last turn of life).

As an alternative, if I revert to the larger train mix, I will need to
add either an 1844/1824-style "foreigners eat trains" rule, an
1824-style train upgrade rule, or perhaps both. The saving grace would
be that I could then do away with using the NYC-in-waiting as a
pseudo-Russian State company: what I would then do is start the NYC with
a 3-train and the pre-NYC half-earnings that currently go to the
NYC-in-waiting would simply be discarded. The NYC would then simply
start with a 3-train and $770.

On another topic, it seems increasingly the case that--in the
four-player game at any rate--the land-grant companies are always the
first to start. The two non-LGCs are then always the last to go. So I am
pondering making all the companies share the LGC property:
or--perhaps--abolish it altogether.

If I promote the NJC and the NYNHH to LGCs, the NJC's destination would
be PHI and the NYNHH's destination would be BOS. I would then eliminate
the #7 local company, and probably Portland, ME (the $30 dot-town behind
BOS) as well. I am also thinking I will eliminate the Montreal off-map
area as no one ever seems to take much interest in it.

We played all three games using the 18Scan (bid for the right to buy)
style auction rather than the 18VA-style one currently in the rules, and
I plan to formalize that change.

Finally, I plan to rebalance the initial capital to a fixed total from
the current fixed distribution: the four-player game would still have
$400 per player, but the three-player game would go to $500 per player
and the five-player game to (probably) $350 per player.

Your thoughts and suggestions on these and other topics of interest are
respectfully requested.