Areas of Operation
Jon
(AoO) and believe that they are moving from a McGuffin to chrome with
each rule change.
With the current rules they restrict which minors can convert in SR3
(after 4 ORs) and perhaps in SR4.
In SR3 priority reduces the impact of the rule. P1 has a free choice.
P2/P3 are slightly restricted. P4/P5 have major problems.
Giving more options is allowing the early players to block the later
players more than giving the later players an option.
I think that the complexity of the AoO and the benifit it gives the
priority are disadvantages that outweigh the colour it adds to the
game.
I suggest dropping the Areas of Operation.
Jon
Scott Petersen
I have been thinking about the rules concerning Areas of Operation
(AoO) and believe that they are moving from a McGuffin to chrome with
each rule change.
Giving more options is allowing the early players to block the later
players more than giving the later players an option.
I was thinking about this too after my problematic 5p game not getting to start a major company. Like you said, it's just too easy for the other players to choose their majors to screw the last couple players. There is the additional benefit that if those one or two players can't convert, it will be more likely that P1-P3 have another major left over if that works strategically.
I was thinking maybe there could be an interim round where majors are rationed out so that no one gets screwed, but I couldn't think of an elegant way to do it. I suppose players could bid a premium for major companies as they are opened a la 1861's minors. I actually wouldn't mind this and there would be the opportunity to remove the awkward seat positioning in the initial stock round.
David G.D. Hecht
I see your point. I'm concerned, though, that to do so then makes this into
18EU on a different map.
I'm willing to give it a try while I'm in UK, but I'm less enthused by it
than you are. I'd rather go back to an older dispensation--where a player
who had a qualifying company could contest another player's attempt to open
a particular major, using an auction system. This would then replace phase 3
of the initial auction.
The version I used with Bill Jaffe was an open, sequential auction system:
when a player decided to open a company, other players with qualifying
companies could jump in and contest this, leading to an auction by multiples
of f.5. The high player then paid his tab to the bank and opened the
company.
It's also possible that players should secretly decide which companies
they're willing to bid for, akin to the concession system in 1841, though
not using the sealed-bidding system.
But either approach takes (at least some of) the curse off of being too far
down in the order.
Jon Draper
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jon" <jdr...@f2s.com>
> To: "dtg-proto" <dtg-...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 12:56 PM
> Subject: [dtg-proto] Areas of Operation
>
>
>
>> I have been thinking about the rules concerning Areas of Operation
>> (AoO) and believe that they are moving from a McGuffin to chrome with
>> each rule change.
>>
>> With the current rules they restrict which minors can convert in SR3
>> (after 4 ORs) and perhaps in SR4.
>>
>> In SR3 priority reduces the impact of the rule. P1 has a free choice.
>> P2/P3 are slightly restricted. P4/P5 have major problems.
>>
>> Giving more options is allowing the early players to block the later
>> players more than giving the later players an option.
>>
>> I think that the complexity of the AoO and the benifit it gives the
>> priority are disadvantages that outweigh the colour it adds to the
>> game.
>>
>> I suggest dropping the Areas of Operation.
>>
>>
>
> I see your point. I'm concerned, though, that to do so then makes this into
> 18EU on a different map.
>
> I'm willing to give it a try while I'm in UK, but I'm less enthused by it
> than you are. I'd rather go back to an older dispensation--where a player
> who had a qualifying company could contest another player's attempt to open
> a particular major, using an auction system. This would then replace phase 3
> of the initial auction.
>
> The version I used with Bill Jaffe was an open, sequential auction system:
> when a player decided to open a company, other players with qualifying
> companies could jump in and contest this, leading to an auction by multiples
> of f.5. The high player then paid his tab to the bank and opened the
> company.
>
>
fine, but stuffing the poorest player, which is not.
> It's also possible that players should secretly decide which companies
> they're willing to bid for, akin to the concession system in 1841, though
> not using the sealed-bidding system.
>
> But either approach takes (at least some of) the curse off of being too far
> down in the order.
>
needed to start a company at the price of your minor).
Perhaps you could have a minor penalty, e.g left one on the spc, if you
start outside the correct area. You will probably need to let all the
proper conversions go first, to stop players stealing matching companies
from following players.
David G.D. Hecht
Well, yeah...not really what I was aiming for.
>> I'm willing to give it a try while I'm in UK, but I'm less enthused by it
>> than you are. I'd rather go back to an older dispensation--where a player
>> who had a qualifying company could contest another player's attempt to
>> open
>> a particular major, using an auction system. This would then replace
>> phase 3
>> of the initial auction.
>>
>> The version I used with Bill Jaffe was an open, sequential auction
>> system:
>> when a player decided to open a company, other players with qualifying
>> companies could jump in and contest this, leading to an auction by
>> multiples
>> of f.5. The high player then paid his tab to the bank and opened the
>> company.
>>
>>
> This seems like giving the best choice to the richest player, which is
> fine, but stuffing the poorest player, which is not.
Not necessarily. Since the winners have to pay their bid to the bank, it has
the effect of taking a bit of cash out of the hands of the richest players.
Also, bear in mind that in this situation, "richest" isn't the criterion:
it's "disposable cash after what you need to start the company". A player
who wants to start the Belge with #14, trading at f.110, needs f.440 to
start it: another player who wants to start it with #13, trading at f.60,
only needs f.240. I'm going to guess that the latter will have more
disposable cash to bid with.
>> It's also possible that players should secretly decide which companies
>> they're willing to bid for, akin to the concession system in 1841, though
>> not using the sealed-bidding system.
>>
>> But either approach takes (at least some of) the curse off of being too
>> far
>> down in the order.
>>
> It moves the curse to being the poorest (or furthest from the cash
> needed to start a company at the price of your minor).
>
> Perhaps you could have a minor penalty, e.g left one on the spc, if you
> start outside the correct area. You will probably need to let all the
> proper conversions go first, to stop players stealing matching companies
> from following players.
>
The more we talk about it, the more I think it's just going to be an
artifact of too few companies being fought over by too many players. There's
only six public companies: necessarily, under any dispensation, the fourth
and fifth players will be disadvantaged.
It's possible that the game simply doesn't lend itself to play with that
many, but I have to say that--having played mostly 4-player games, and a few
3-player--I've not seen the game get too far out of whack.
I suggest we try a few of the things we've talked about before we give up
entirely.
Ian D Wilson
--- On Mon, 6/7/09, David G.D. Hecht <bar...@earthlink.net> wrote:
"It's possible that the game simply doesn't lend itself to play with that many, but I have to say that--having played mostly 4-player games, and a few 3-player--I've not seen the game get too far out of whack." |
I suspect you are right. With 4 players, it seems relatively straightforward to get 4 minors which can start any of 4 companies. You might not get your first choice, but you must get at least one company. But with 5 players, getting 3 minors with a choice of 5 companies is much tougher - you might be better off trying to corner the market (although not all players can do this). |
David G.D. Hecht
----- Original Message -----From: Ian D WilsonSent: Monday, July 06, 2009 4:34 PMSubject: [dtg-proto] Re: Areas of Operation
Scott Petersen
The version I used with Bill Jaffe was an open, sequential auction system:
when a player decided to open a company, other players with qualifying
companies could jump in and contest this, leading to an auction by multiples
of f.5. The high player then paid his tab to the bank and opened the
company.
I also like this system for strategic reasons. You might have a reason that you want to convert one particular minor and it's better to put this to an auction than to just leave it up to chance whether the players ahead of you start the major associated with it.
I also don't much like the phase three blind bid as there is missing information on how the minors will lay track. It's better to make bid after having the information to evaluate.
Jon Draper
> The more we talk about it, the more I think it's just going to be an
> artifact of too few companies being fought over by too many players. There's
> only six public companies: necessarily, under any dispensation, the fourth
> and fifth players will be disadvantaged.
>
> It's possible that the game simply doesn't lend itself to play with that
> many, but I have to say that--having played mostly 4-player games, and a few
> 3-player--I've not seen the game get too far out of whack.
>
> I suggest we try a few of the things we've talked about before we give up
> entirely.
>
>
>
major. When it happened to me on Friday I was able to get permanent
trains in 2 out of 3 minors. These paid about as well as anything else.
The problem I had was that for most of the game I had 6 shares and the
other players 7 or 8. (We all had 1 more for the last pair.)
The 40% cert for a 5-share company is a big advantage. Perhaps it could
be changed to a 20% cert? (+1 to cert limits all round to allow for this.)
Lots of options to try at ManorCon or before.
Jon
David G.D. Hecht
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Draper" <jdr...@f2s.com>
To: <dtg-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 12:04 PM
Subject: [dtg-proto] Re: Areas of Operation
>
I've been thinking about this and I have yet another thought.
I'm thinking we're addressing this from the wrong end. Suppose the problem
is--as you rightly point out--an inability to acquire a proper portfolio of
stock. We've also identified that 5-share companies are pretty powerful as
revenue generators, and I certainly see some correlation between the ability
to keep your company a smallboy the entire game and winning.
So what if I simply go back to the classic company holding limit of 60
percent, unless you buy from the pool? In other words, you wouldn't have the
ability, as you currently do, to simply gobble up 80 or 100 percent of your
first company right out of the box: you'd have to allow others to play in
your sandbox, at least until they got bored with it.
This would (potentially) kill three birds with one stone: (1) the tendency
to put all your eggs in your own proprietary basket, (2) the lack of
diversification that plagues the stock side of the game to a great degree,
and (3) the structural imbalance you have identified between minor-company
holders and public-company holders.
I would keep the 1844 rule--if people want to sell off your stock, you
should have the ability to repatriate it--and it would also allow you to
bulk up if you issued stock to the pool to raise capital: people do this now
when they convert to 10-share, but you'd have the ability to do it in
5-share as well if people didn't invest in your company.
Jon Draper
as too much of an advantage. Not allowing folding in of extra minors by
the president removes an interesting option.
The problem with filling up your portfolio is not so much a lack of
quality stock as a lack of any stock.
I have been thinking about AoO - if you want to keep them they should be
used more often. For example, change the rule allowing minors to merge
from "must be connected" to "must be in the AoO" for phases 3-4.
David G.D. Hecht
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Draper" <jdr...@f2s.com>
To: <dtg-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 11:53 AM
Subject: [dtg-proto] Re: Areas of Operation
>
That might work, although it will prevent people from building some of the
large networks I've seen (e.g. 9-12-14 or 13-3-15). I think it will take us
back to the undesirable "circle the wagons" phenomenon we've essentially
eliminated.
I'm surprised that you don't see holding 80 or 100 percent of a company as a
huge advantage. I just see it as the inverse of the Anthony Carver theory,
which basically (I'm oversimplifying) says, if I'm not getting at least half
of my company's revenue (and more than anyone else--no 50-50 splits with
another player), I may as well use it as a train factory.
In the one game in Portland that I won by a lot, I had two 100 percent
5-share companies. There were no minors, and I had a 4-train on one and a
3-train and a 4-train on the other. So I didn't even have the best train mix
or the highest stock values, and I was still killing them.
Mark Geary
> So what if I simply go back to the classic company holding limit of 60
> percent, unless you buy from the pool? In other words, you wouldn't
> have the
> ability, as you currently do, to simply gobble up 80 or 100 percent
> of your
> first company right out of the box: you'd have to allow others to
> play in
> your sandbox, at least until they got bored with it.
Do I understand correctly that, before phase 5, this would prevent
the president from merging two or more minors into a single 5-share
company? She could only put a single minor into a 5-share company?
Mark Geary
Jon Draper
>>
>>
>
> That might work, although it will prevent people from building some of the
> large networks I've seen (e.g. 9-12-14 or 13-3-15). I think it will take us
> back to the undesirable "circle the wagons" phenomenon we've essentially
> eliminated.
>
>
> I'm surprised that you don't see holding 80 or 100 percent of a company as a
> huge advantage. I just see it as the inverse of the Anthony Carver theory,
> which basically (I'm oversimplifying) says, if I'm not getting at least half
> of my company's revenue (and more than anyone else--no 50-50 splits with
> another player), I may as well use it as a train factory.
>
>
In most games that I have seen, most presidents get 80% of their 5 share
companies.
> In the one game in Portland that I won by a lot, I had two 100 percent
> 5-share companies. There were no minors, and I had a 4-train on one and a
> 3-train and a 4-train on the other. So I didn't even have the best train mix
> or the highest stock values, and I was still killing them.
>
>
other players is almost as good as an 80/20 split.
David G.D. Hecht
Subject: [dtg-proto] Re: Areas of Operation
>
Correct. That's a serious issue, and a serious game change: your comments
would be welcome.
John David Galt
> So what if I simply go back to the classic company holding limit of 60
> percent, unless you buy from the pool? In other words, you wouldn't have the
> ability, as you currently do, to simply gobble up 80 or 100 percent of your
> first company right out of the box: you'd have to allow others to play in
> your sandbox, at least until they got bored with it.
>
> This would (potentially) kill three birds with one stone: (1) the tendency
> to put all your eggs in your own proprietary basket, (2) the lack of
> diversification that plagues the stock side of the game to a great degree,
> and (3) the structural imbalance you have identified between minor-company
> holders and public-company holders.
I like the idea of letting other people buy in, but I don't like the fact
that the rule prevents you from getting your company 100% funded right
away if you have the money and no one else is willing to buy it.
So I suggest this alternative rule:
* A player may buy shares, one at a time, from any source, without any
limit on the number of shares of one company.
* However, if you already hold 60% or more of the company, any additional
shares you buy *from the initial offering* become only "tentatively owned"
by you. That means that other players may buy them, directly from you, at
the market price as if they were in the bank pool -- but only if there are
no shares of that company in the bank pool.
* If a player who buys a "tentatively owned" share sells any (the same or
different) shares of that company during the same stock round, you have
the right to rescue the shares. This works as in 1870 except that you
can choose to rescue all, some, or none. Rescued shares are fully owned.
* At the end of a stock round, all "tentatively owned" shares become
fully owned.
David G.D. Hecht
what would happen if you are exchanging in (which is the most common
situation)? Also, bear in mind that there's no selling of stock in
newly-acquired companies, nor do stock sales by other than the President
depress the price, so there'd be no need for the 1870-style rules.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John David Galt" <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
To: <dtg-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 2:15 PM
Subject: [dtg-proto] Re: Areas of Operation
>
Matthew L. Campbell
the President and subsequently changes their mind about owning it the
sale is conducted with the President acting as bank if he desires. This
stops funny manipulations of the Priority placement.
Matt