Which 18xx game is "best"?
Peter Clinch
>
> For a group of three players who have never played a 18xx game before?
> (We are all experienced gamers though.)
1825 works okay with 3 and is relatively straightforward and "tame" (not
great for backstabbers like some other titles). You can make it more
interesting by adding the expansion kits that are available.
I won't go so far as to say it's the *best* for you (I've only really
played 1829 and 1825, my 1830 and 1853 sets awaiting a proper airing),
but just note it will work.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Kimberly Beattie
Niels L Ellegaard
> 1825 works okay with 3 and is relatively straightforward and "tame" (not
> great for backstabbers like some other titles).
> my 1830 and 1853 sets awaiting a proper airing), but just note it
> will work.
Cool :)
--
Niels L Ellegaard
Peter Clinch
> So which ones are great for backstabbers then?
1830 is in some ways as much about playing fast and loose to bankrupt
opponents as it's about building railways. Designed that way to be in
keeping with the rather sharp operators who made big money on early US
railroads.
May be other designs that promote this aspect as well, but the English
and Indian ones are (again quite deliberately) far more sedate.
ganr...@my-deja.com
bottom, most "backstabbing" (read: volatile) to least:
1856
1830
1870
1825
1835
1853
My personal favorite is 1830, but i also like and play quite a bit of
1856 and 1870. The stock markets of 1825, 1835, and 1853, along with
the forced order of opening, are distasteful to me (they narrow a
player's range of choices in the game).
As far as a "best" 18xx game to learn on, however, i would suggest
1835, or 1830. 1830 seems to me to be the easiest of the 18xx games to
learn (although that may have just been due to my having learned it
first).
Have alot of fun, the 18xx series is undoubtedly one of the best game
series on the market.
-Ganraeln
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
David G.D. Hecht
news:i11fksg0f0h6afro8...@4ax.com...
> For a group of three players who have never played a 18xx game before?
> (We are all experienced gamers though.)
>
>
1851 (Kentucky/Tennessee), if you can get it, is perfect for three and as an
intro game.
Of the "Big Three," (1830/1856/1870) I rate none of them as all that great
for three-player play. As an intro game I would prefer 1856, simply because
I think it is the most forgiving of the three.
Brian Bankler
Kimberly Beattie wrote:
>
> For a group of three players who have never played a 18xx game before?
> (We are all experienced gamers though.)
I'm not sure there is a best among the easily available
titles (1830, 1856, 1870).
1830 -- Very cuthroat, fast bankruptcies are possible. Destructive
play (trashing other stock price) is common.
1870 -- Big map, tile play is more important, 'share price protection'
rules make it better for people who like to build up a company.
Destructive
play is more board based.
1856 -- Capitalization rules and loans mean that this is more of a money
management game, although the board is nice and cramped in places.
Pick the style that your group likes.
I wrote up a detailed description of the differences, published in the
game report. I really should put a copy of the article on my site, but
for now you can read it at:
http://www.gamereport.com/tgr12/18xxsurvey.html
Brian
http://website.mciworld.com/~brian....@mciworld.com/tao_board.html
Will Beckley
player game, and I found the game to be a great way to learn the core 18XX
gameplay. It wasn't cuthroat, it was relatively short, and it was alot of
fun. As Mark has to make these, it may not be the best one for you, but if
you're interested, I can put you in touch with him. Great guy who's done
some great train games.
Will Beckley
"Kimberly Beattie" <ki...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:i11fksg0f0h6afro8...@4ax.com...
Joachim Ring
news:8i8fvl$6qv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> As far as a "best" 18xx game to learn on, however, i would suggest
> 1835, or 1830. 1830 seems to me to be the easiest of the 18xx games to
> learn (although that may have just been due to my having learned it
> first).
i tend to disagree, but being a german i learned 1835 first ;-)
but imho the forced opening order & starting packet make it a lot easier
for beginners by narrowing down your choices on the stock market to a
few sensible ones...
also 1835 track laying is a lot more forgiving than 1830 (think of those
irreplacable two-little-station pieces demanding difficult choices early
on...).
my third points is how easily you can go bankrupt in 1830 if you do
s.th. slightly wrong - can get frustrating...
> Have alot of fun, the 18xx series is undoubtedly one of the best game
> series on the market.
we seem to agree on that :-)
joachim
Richard
Kimberly Beattie <ki...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:i11fksg0f0h6afro8...@4ax.com...
> For a group of three players who have never played a 18xx game before?
> (We are all experienced gamers though.)
I agree with David (who knows just how little right I have to be passing
judgement on 18xx) - 1851 is a superb start. Ideal for 3, ideal for
beginners, it's a full game (unlike 1825) but with a number of tweaks that
make it particularly suited for beginners. Components designed to smooth
play, rules that encourage straight track, but with all the usual fun of the
fair.
Richard
Michael Tsuk
news:8i92ce$g4u$1...@gxsn.com...
> I agree with David (who knows just how little right I have to be passing
> judgement on 18xx) - 1851 is a superb start. Ideal for 3, ideal for
> beginners, it's a full game (unlike 1825) but with a number of tweaks that
> make it particularly suited for beginners. Components designed to smooth
> play, rules that encourage straight track, but with all the usual fun of
the
> fair.
This is my recommendation as well, but you need to know that it's a "kit"
game available from Chris Lawson:
http://freespace.virgin.net/chris.lawson/18xx/1851/1851a.htm
The quality of Chris's work must be seen to be believed. At this point, I
think his games look better than almost all published 18xx games. And the
care he puts into ease-of-play issues makes them a joy to play, as well.
--
Michael Tsuk
ts...@mediaone.net
David D. Hooton
<ki...@usa.net> writes:
|> For a group of three players who have never played a 18xx game before?
|> (We are all experienced gamers though.)
They're no longer in print, but I've both 1829 south and 1829 north have
a scenario which deletes the stock market half of the game and simply
gives each player a railroad to run. I've successfully used it to
introduce my 7-year-old daughter and others to the system.
- DDH
Richard
Michael Tsuk <ts...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:jtY15.50126$Ft1.2...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
"Kit"? "Kit"?? You might as well describe a gold ingot as a bit of metal
you dug up then melted.
Kit tends to imply a few B&W photocopied sheets of A4 in a big ziplock bag.
Go for the Gold Edition 1851 and after a few hours work*, you'll have a
boardgame which is _vastly superior_ in production quality to the Hartland
Trefoil 1825s, and every bit the equal of the Mayfair 1856s and 70s - which
is a pretty good achievement, as 56 and 70 are both high quality
productions.
Don't be put off 1851 because it's a kit - IMHO it's one of the
best-produced 18xx games, the only difference being the work required to sut
out the full-colour components.
* work is defined as being about 12 hours starting with an extremely sharp
scalpel or pair of scissors and finishing with RSI in the wrist.
Richard
(not on commission, BTW - but hoping to store up enough goodwill from Chris
that he forgets to mention Samurai ever again)
Mike Schneider
Hecht" <David...@msn.com> wrote:
> "Kimberly Beattie" <ki...@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:i11fksg0f0h6afro8...@4ax.com...
> > For a group of three players who have never played a 18xx game before?
> > (We are all experienced gamers though.)
>
> 1851 (Kentucky/Tennessee), if you can get it, is perfect for three and as an
> intro game.
If he can't get it, I'd recommend 1870 (or less preferably, 1830),
playing the first couple games without the Privates. Also reduce the
victory conditions to shorten the length of the game (i.e., take some cash
out of the bank, or end game if a stock token reachs $XXX or some such).
> Of the "Big Three," (1830/1856/1870) I rate none of them as all that great
> for three-player play. As an intro game I would prefer 1856, simply because
> I think it is the most forgiving of the three.
I think it's the worst, since it has the most chrome (I wouldn't
attempt to foist the tricky business of debt financing on newbies, and the
arcane destination payoffs in 1856 still cause head-scratching at our
sessions). 1830 is clean & lean, but track-laying is a little dull.
For players who enjoy operating their railroads as much as the stock
market shenanigans, 1853 and 1870 would be my choices.
Mike Schneider, VRWC Sentinel Outpost. "Autoguns, on-line!" +--+--+--+
Reply to mike1@@@winternet.com sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
"My new name for this sort of slavish lying by the Clinton whores is the
Renfield Complex -- a degenerated state of human existence, neither alive
nor dead, where a master has gained control of subjects so as to organize
their minds and will as an attenuation of his own malevolent desires."
-- Martin McPhillips, commenting on the Great Church Arson Lie.
"'Toon' has the rule that you don't fall off a cliff (running in mid-air)
if your intelligence is sufficiently *low*." -- David Allsopp
Mike Schneider
Tsuk" <ts...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> http://freespace.virgin.net/chris.lawson/18xx/1851/1851a.htm
>
> The quality of Chris's work must be seen to be believed. At this point, I
> think his games look better than almost all published 18xx games. And the
> care he puts into ease-of-play issues makes them a joy to play, as well.
Caveat: It's the $200 "platinum" edition that is so fantastic. Unless
he's doing another run of that, you can't get one. The "silver" edition
requires the buyer to cut out lots of paper bits. The map is very nice
(but not hard-backed). It's nice, but nowhere as sumptuous as, say, 1856
or 1870.
TLDreaming
1856 game and I have never played any of the 18XX games. Anyone want to buy my
still unopened (still in shrinkwrap) copy -so that I can go get something a
little easier for a group of train rookies w/out a ton of time to devote to a
learning curve? Trade ya for Battle Cry?
-Fez
Dietmar Logoz
<WBec...@Mindspring.com> writes:
>
>Well, I learned on 18GA (18XX Georgia), a Mark Derrick design, in a three
>player game, and I found the game to be a great way to learn the core 18XX
>gameplay. It wasn't cuthroat, it was relatively short, and it was alot of
>fun. As Mark has to make these, it may not be the best one for you, but if
>you're interested, I can put you in touch with him. Great guy who's done
>some great train games.
>
>Will Beckley
>
I also think 18GA would make a good start. Here is the connection to
Mark:
http://home.chattanooga.net/~derrick/
der...@chattanooga.net
Other versions I would recommend are 1851 and 1870.
Dietmar http://oktogon.org
David G.D. Hecht
18xx game, except for some that are deliberately simplified such as 1851.
As I said earlier, of the "Big Three" (1830/1856/1870) I rate it the most
accessible and benign to new players. Others have however expressed their
non-concurrence.
YMMV, TINAR, etc.
"TLDreaming" <tldre...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000615181843...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
David G.D. Hecht
"Mike Schneider" <tuc...@redux.org> wrote in message
news:tucker-1506...@ppp-66-33.dialup.winternet.com...
> In article <hdP15.283$_54.1...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com>, "David G.D.
> Hecht" <David...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > "Kimberly Beattie" <ki...@usa.net> wrote in message
> > news:i11fksg0f0h6afro8...@4ax.com...
> > > For a group of three players who have never played a 18xx game before?
> > > (We are all experienced gamers though.)
> >
> > 1851 (Kentucky/Tennessee), if you can get it, is perfect for three and
as an
> > intro game.
>
>
> If he can't get it, I'd recommend 1870 (or less preferably, 1830),
> playing the first couple games without the Privates. Also reduce the
> victory conditions to shorten the length of the game (i.e., take some cash
> out of the bank, or end game if a stock token reachs $XXX or some such).
>
I guess I find the price protection rules in 1870 lead to at least one and
often several "stock rounds from Hell" which I would think would be
offputting to new players. Also the business of the destination runs and
tokens is by no means simple to administer, even among experienced players.
1830 OTOH is way too cutthroat for new players.
Playing any 18xx without the privates is guaranteed to provide a very
distorted perspective, at a minimum you need to find a distribution
mechanism for them, even if it is a random one like in 1851.
>
> > Of the "Big Three," (1830/1856/1870) I rate none of them as all that
great
> > for three-player play. As an intro game I would prefer 1856, simply
because
> > I think it is the most forgiving of the three.
>
>
> I think it's the worst, since it has the most chrome (I wouldn't
> attempt to foist the tricky business of debt financing on newbies, and the
> arcane destination payoffs in 1856 still cause head-scratching at our
> sessions). 1830 is clean & lean, but track-laying is a little dull.
> For players who enjoy operating their railroads as much as the stock
> market shenanigans, 1853 and 1870 would be my choices.
>
Interesting that you see the loans as hard-to-administer chrome, in this
context I see them as a way of cushioning the new player from the normally
rather unforgiving economics of the 18xx midgame, which is why I made the
recommendation.
>
> Mike Schneider, VRWC Sentinel Outpost. "Autoguns, on-line!" +--+--+--+
> Reply to mike1@@@winternet.com sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
>
Mike Schneider
tldre...@aol.com (TLDreaming) wrote:
> Wow. Sounds like I bought the wrong game. I have the complicated
> 1856 game and I have never played any of the 18XX games. Anyone want to buy
> still unopened (still in shrinkwrap) copy -so that I can go get something a
> little easier for a group of train rookies w/out a ton of time to devote to a
> learning curve?
Don't sell 1856. You'll come to like it anyway.
Just put it on hold for awhile, or trade it at your game store for 1830
or 1870 (if you're in a financial pinch).
Aside: 1856 and 1870 have the best-looking paper money of any board
games I've ever played.
Mike Schneider
Hecht" <David...@msn.com> wrote:
> "Mike Schneider" <tuc...@redux.org> wrote in message
> news:tucker-1506...@ppp-66-33.dialup.winternet.com...
> > In article <hdP15.283$_54.1...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com>, "David G.D.
> > Hecht" <David...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Kimberly Beattie" <ki...@usa.net> wrote in message
> > > news:i11fksg0f0h6afro8...@4ax.com...
> > > > For a group of three players who have never played a 18xx game before?
> > > > (We are all experienced gamers though.)
> > >
> > > 1851 (Kentucky/Tennessee), if you can get it, is perfect for three and
> as an
> > > intro game.
> >
> >
> > If he can't get it, I'd recommend 1870 (or less preferably, 1830),
> > playing the first couple games without the Privates. Also reduce the
> > victory conditions to shorten the length of the game (i.e., take some cash
> > out of the bank, or end game if a stock token reachs $XXX or some such).
> >
>
> I guess I find the price protection rules in 1870 lead to at least one and
> often several "stock rounds from Hell" which I would think would be
> offputting to new players. Also the business of the destination runs and
> tokens is by no means simple to administer, even among experienced players.
The concept of Price Protection was always intuitive to me (owner gets
first crack), but destination cities and runs will screw with newbie heads
(although nothing on the order of 1856's CGR formation). Skip them the
first couple games.
> 1830 OTOH is way too cutthroat for new players.
I remember my first several games of 1830 being pretty sedate. It
wasn't until we had several under our belt that we became good enough to
know how to really screw each other like John Holmes. (In a game last year
we had a deliberately-entered bankruptcy very early by a player who was
screwed with by another in such a manner to be well behind. Next stock
round, he bought two presidencies at $100 par, dumped his other holdings
save a few shares of his starting company. Nobody helped him open the new
companies. During the subsequent operating round, he blew up his treasury
and engineered a train crisis with the arrival of the 4s, which he
couldn't cover. His plan was to win the game by having a very high share
value in the form of three president's certificates and a private that he
could not be forced to sell, at a point where most players had
substantially less than $500 total in assets.)
> Playing any 18xx without the privates is guaranteed to provide a very
> distorted perspective,
True, but that's only from the hindsight of experience.
> at a minimum you need to find a distribution
> mechanism for them, even if it is a random one like in 1851.
That might be a good idea: Just randomly deal them out for the first
game; a crowd of newbies won't be shrewd enough to know which are better
than which with X players anyway, so an auction is pointless waste of
time.
> >
> > > Of the "Big Three," (1830/1856/1870) I rate none of them as all that
> great
> > > for three-player play. As an intro game I would prefer 1856, simply
> because
> > > I think it is the most forgiving of the three.
> >
> >
> > I think it's the worst, since it has the most chrome (I wouldn't
> > attempt to foist the tricky business of debt financing on newbies, and the
> > arcane destination payoffs in 1856 still cause head-scratching at our
> > sessions). 1830 is clean & lean, but track-laying is a little dull.
> > For players who enjoy operating their railroads as much as the stock
> > market shenanigans, 1853 and 1870 would be my choices.
> >
>
> Interesting that you see the loans as hard-to-administer chrome, in this
> context I see them as a way of cushioning the new player from the normally
> rather unforgiving economics of the 18xx midgame, which is why I made the
> recommendation.
What makes loans brutal in 1856 is the requirement that the company
have no more loans than there are shares of it in player hands, and
players are forced to start taking loans almost immediately since trains
are so expensive and companies acquire capitalization per share purchase.
This usually leads to a "uh-oh, now yer screwed!" situation just before
the formation of the CGR where a player who thought he was going to get
one of the last 5s is suddenly forced to pay off a bunch of loans because
some stock got dumped in the previous SR by other players needing funds to
open new companies. All in all, it's a lot to throw at newbies. By
contrast, in 1870 everyone starts with a decent pile, newly-opened
companies have bulging treasuries, trains are really cheap, and the 12s an
eternity away.
Chris Lawson
> "Michael Tsuk" <ts...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > http://freespace.virgin.net/chris.lawson/18xx/1851/1851a.htm
> > The quality of Chris's work must be seen to be believed. At this
> > point, I think his games look better than almost all published 18xx
> > games. And the care he puts into ease-of-play issues makes them a
> > joy to play, as well.
>
> Caveat: It's the $200 "platinum" edition that is so fantastic.
When the platinum was available it cost $100 / £50 and that was 'cos it
was hand built and ready-to-play with laminated components, mounted
map, wooden tokens, etc. Less than 40 were made (not because of lack of
demand but due to the need to preserve my sanity).
The standard version is still available at $25 but as it has been
pointed out, the components do need to be cut out.
Cheers
Chris
hu...@sherwood.co.uk
> For a group of three players who have never played a 18xx game before?
> (We are all experienced gamers though.)
Eee. Well, you've got (probably too) many replies to this. There are a
number of factors involved in what you choose. The first and most
important is time, as some 18XX games take an awful lot longer than
others. The next question is how often you're likely to play.
If you want a simpler and/or shorter game, you really have a choice of
4 titles: 1825, 1851, 18GA or AL, or 1830.
1825 (SE England) is the simplest and (IMO) the easiest to teach. The
techniques required to play well are subtlely different than from other
games and there is a greater emphasis on track development than trading
in stock. There are a number of expansions available which allow you to
vary the game length and complexity. 1825 has not been universally well
received as there are many who hoped it would steer in a more complex
and innovative direction than it did. These people regularly pan the
game, but pay no attention to them - 1825 IS a good 18XX game and it
DOES specifically work well with 3. This would be my recommendation,
but there are others worth considering.
1851 (Tennessee) is a gamekit, produced by Chris Lawson in the UK. It's
the next simplest available and does require assembly, but it is a good
short game, with enough depth for more experienced players. It tends to
appeal well to those who like a more stock-oriented game as well. From
a beginner's point of view, you can breathe a sigh of relief as the
full game rules (albeit in draft form) are now available. Otherwise you
would have to use the 1830 rule differences list (which means you have
to learn 1830 first). There are also a number of player aids I wish
existed for other 18xx games to remind players of game mechanics. If
you do plump for 1851 then contact him direct. I would recommend asking
him to mount the mapboard for you if he can - it can be a bit tricky to
do otherwise. When you get the gamekit laminate everything you can with
matt (note, it must be matt) laminate.
1830 is the "standard" 18XX game for many players, but it is more
complex and does take longer to play (if 1825/51 takes 3 hours, 1830
should take about 5-6). It's out of print but you should be able to get
a fairly cheap copy from an EBAY auction. If you are going to use it as
an introductory game, use the introductory rules (no diesels, no $500
bills, 1 extra '6' train) and deal out the private companies along the
following lines:
Player 1 gets SVRR and C&A
Player 2 gets C&SL and B&O
Player 3 gets D&H and M&H
Pay for these and then start the first stock round. 1830 is a lot more
cutthroat than most 18XX games and really works best with 4-5 players.
It's also more tactically complex than 1825/51 and will take longer to
learn how to play well.
18GA / 18AL are also gamekits, produced by Mark Derrick. These are 1830
variants which should take about as long as 1851 to play. The
production quality isn't up to 1851 standards, but that standard is
pretty high. I don't know if there are standalone rules (most 18XX
gamekits are in the form of rule differences, usually with 1830 as the
starting point). That said, I can't say I've played it so I can't
comment further than saying I've not heard of anyone not enjoying it.
Of the other titles:
1856 and 1870 are more complex and difficult than 1830. They take
longer (6-8 hours on the scale I gave above) but the production is
about as good as 18XX games get. I would not recommend them to
beginners, although there are introductory rules included where the
stock element is removed and each player runs one company. This helps
in track development but it doesn't give you a full flavour of the game.
1835 is another medium-long game, which is less cutthroat than
1830/56/70 but takes a while to work out good tactics.
1853 is out of print. Shame - I wanted a copy. I wouldn't recommend it
to beginners though.
There are a number of other gamekits out there, but I'd recomment
sticking to 1851/GA/AL before moving on to those.
Hope you choose wisely and enjoy 18xx as much as I do!
Mike.
Will Beckley
> variants which should take about as long as 1851 to play. The
> production quality isn't up to 1851 standards, but that standard is
> pretty high. I don't know if there are standalone rules (most 18XX
> gamekits are in the form of rule differences, usually with 1830 as the
> starting point). That said, I can't say I've played it so I can't
> comment further than saying I've not heard of anyone not enjoying it.
The rules are in standalone form and both of these are great for beginners,
and balance track building with the stock market so that neither becomes the
focus of the game.
Will Beckley
Richard Bell
David G.D. Hecht <David...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>"Mike Schneider" <tuc...@redux.org> wrote in message
>news:tucker-1506...@ppp-66-33.dialup.winternet.com...
>> In article <hdP15.283$_54.1...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com>, "David G.D.
>>
>great
>> > for three-player play. As an intro game I would prefer 1856, simply
>because
>> > I think it is the most forgiving of the three.
>>
>>
>> I think it's the worst, since it has the most chrome (I wouldn't
>> attempt to foist the tricky business of debt financing on newbies, and the
>> arcane destination payoffs in 1856 still cause head-scratching at our
>> sessions). 1830 is clean & lean, but track-laying is a little dull.
>> For players who enjoy operating their railroads as much as the stock
>> market shenanigans, 1853 and 1870 would be my choices.
>>
>
>Interesting that you see the loans as hard-to-administer chrome, in this
>context I see them as a way of cushioning the new player from the normally
>rather unforgiving economics of the 18xx midgame, which is why I made the
>recommendation.
It is not the debt financing that is tricky, its how you fold debt laden
companies into the CGR. My best 1856 win occurred when I realized that if
I let my two debt laden companies join a third into the CGR, I would have the
presidency, not much worse stock valuation, and the CGR would start with two
permanent 5-trains.
Mike Schneider
<chris....@virgin.net> wrote:
I didn't dare cut my originals; I took everything to a copy shop, then
hacked on the duplicates. (It costs almost as much as buying two sets, but
I have a nice laminated map now.)
Mike Schneider
hacked on the duplicates. (It cost almost as much as buying two sets, but
I have a nice laminated map now, and an untouched set of "masters".)
BTW, I've completed the design of 18HeXX (I wanted to call it Iron
Horse, but there's already a train game of that name, though it's sold
only in Europe I believe...). I'll send you some pics when I get around to
it.
Mike Schneider
> tuc...@redux.org (Mike Schneider) wrote:
> > "Michael Tsuk" <ts...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > > http://freespace.virgin.net/chris.lawson/18xx/1851/1851a.htm
> > > The quality of Chris's work must be seen to be believed. At this
> > > point, I think his games look better than almost all published 18xx
> > > games. And the care he puts into ease-of-play issues makes them a
> > > joy to play, as well.
> >
> > Caveat: It's the $200 "platinum" edition that is so fantastic.
>
> When the platinum was available it cost $100 / £50 and that was 'cos it
> was hand built and ready-to-play with laminated components, mounted
> map, wooden tokens, etc. Less than 40 were made (not because of lack of
> demand but due to the need to preserve my sanity).
>
> The standard version is still available at $25 but as it has been
> pointed out, the components do need to be cut out.
I didn't dare cut my originals; I took everything to a copy shop, then
hacked on the duplicates. (It cost almost as much as buying two sets, but
I have a nice laminated map now, and an untouched set of "masters".)
IMO you could save some money by not including sheets of currency. Just
tell folks how much cash should be in the game, and they'll pull it from
another set.
Greg Aleknevicus
>Wow. Sounds like I bought the wrong game. I have the (apparently) complicated
>1856 game and I have never played any of the 18XX games. Anyone want to buy my
>still unopened (still in shrinkwrap) copy -so that I can go get something a
>little easier for a group of train rookies w/out a ton of time to devote to a
>learning curve? Trade ya for Battle Cry?
My entire group started with 1856 as our first 18xx game. We played
the "short game" in order to learn the basics of running a company and
then (a week later or so) jumped into the full game. None of the
players (other than myself) had ever played any complex wargames and
we all had no problem with the game. As such I think its reasonable
for you to start off with it.
Having said this, I've since played a lot of 1830 and would recommend
it first as it is a little more straightforward (assuming you could
get a copy).
--Greg
http://pacificcoast.net/~greg/index.html - Wood Cubes & Cardboard
David G.D. Hecht
"Richard Bell" <rlb...@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:8idji6$7pl$1...@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca...
<snip>
> >
> >Interesting that you see the loans as hard-to-administer chrome, in this
> >context I see them as a way of cushioning the new player from the
normally
> >rather unforgiving economics of the 18xx midgame, which is why I made the
> >recommendation.
>
> It is not the debt financing that is tricky, its how you fold debt laden
> companies into the CGR. My best 1856 win occurred when I realized that if
> I let my two debt laden companies join a third into the CGR, I would have
the
> presidency, not much worse stock valuation, and the CGR would start with
two
> permanent 5-trains.
>
Right, but by that time they will at least have some grasp of the mechanics.
The strategy nuances can come later.
Kimberly Beattie
exactly is a "kit" game? Judging from comments a kit game is one
where I have put the pieces together. What kind of skill level is
required here? (Punching counters, twisting pieces off of trees (ala
Battle Cry, or more along the lines of mounting and cutting?) Also,
are "kit" games complete -- or do I need a previous game of the
series?
Thanks in advance for your replies.
Richard
It depends ...
Some kits are alternative scenarios/maps etc for 1830 - requiring the 1830
rulebook. Some kits are complete games, with their own rulebooks.
Check out Chris Lawson's website at
http://freespace.virgin.net/chris.lawson/18xx/index.htm
Pictures of 1851 (my recommendation) - it's a complete game, including box.
http://freespace.virgin.net/chris.lawson/18xx/1851/1851p.htm
You need to cut out the bank notes, share certificates, tiles (these are the
killer, as they're hexagons about 1.5" across) etc, and possibly mount the
board on some artboard. Not brain surgery, but if you can't handle a pair
of scissors you'll struggle.
Richard
Will Beckley
to be short and to be used for 3 or 4 people to learn to play) comes with 1
sheet of tiles that need to be cut and 3 sheets of mayfair tiles that can be
punched... a nice touch. The board has to be mounted, but that's not hard,
and other things must be cut out too. You'll need your own money, but Mark
gives instructions for using a set of Monopoly money.
Will Beckley