Re: 1820 review

[J C Lawrence]

Early thoughts:

- I was extraordinarily pleased with how Maurice was able to rescue
his position.

- The rush through the green trains (thanks Daniel!) resulted in a
slow in blue (as should be expected). This was further amplified by
Maurice's struggles. Yes, I would have liked the trains to move a tad
faster, but I think the curve we had was reasonable given Maurice's
effective absence.

- $1,200/player and a 17 company start seemed about right for a
4-player game. Nice dynamism, some pushing and shoving and clear
challenges in the lobbying and positional control (and thus the great
value of lobby blocks and lobby control).

- Ergo 3-player needs more per player than the $1,200 we used. I'm
leaning toward $1,450. The goal is to stay at 16-18 company starts.

- 10 tokens per small company seems...too good. Maybe 6? Then
another 2 at 10 shares, then 2 more at 20 shares and then maybe a last 2
at 50 shares (max of 12)? 6 tokens will trim the sails of privates a
bit and increase the importance of accurate lobbies. It also increases
tension in privates between a single line of tokens (revenue) and a mesh
of tokens (visibility).

- This could also drive tension between early issue count increases
which consume good capital (but also generate good treasury) and instead
making 2 publics and then having one merged public take over the other
later in the game. There's a capital control game there similar to the
one Shelby executed so well on in the Monday game.

- Possibly allow companies to move their stations for a (higher)
cost, possibly leaving a blocking station in the left-place, thus
staying at a count but relinquishing one position for another. This
could also include inter-company token sales/trades, or the use of
tokens as a funding instrument for other purchases (I buy a train from
you with cash and a placed token). Fiddly? The back of my head is
saying there's something there.

- The core assumption here is that 18 tokens is just too many for a
50-share company running a FLOOD. Get all those tokens down and you see
everything and there are no choices: your shares are automatically as
good as any . That's bad. 10-12 tokens leaves potentially significant
positional decisions in control and visibility and timing.

- 6 Tokens also leaves a 4-player/5 companies per player start with
potentially interesting decisions. Merge into one private and toss most
of the second tokens? Merge into two privates? Merge into one
cherry-picked private and the seed of your public-to-be? How viable are
those choices?

- What is the import of a player running two privates?

- Getting public seeds to start in SR1 also leads to some shares
being viably/profitably buy-able in SR1.

- Thinking about having all companies move on the stock market
identically: pay stock to move up, double to double jump, quadruple to
treble jump. In our game that would have put the privates ~6 steps
further up, or 6-7 steps from qualifying to end the game.

- We REALLY didn't use the loans enough. $10/OR for $100? That's a
steal -- especially as the stock hit tends to be made up with an easier
later multi-jump.

-- JCL

On 02/16/2016 10:05 AM, cl...@kanga.nu wrote:
> Looking for feedback: What didn't quite work? What was not as good as
> it could be?
>
> (I was particularly pleased with the resurgences in Shelby's and
> Maurice's positions)
>
> Noticed that Daniel managed to get an illegal dit down in Thetford
> (West of Ipswich in the east)...and none of us noticed! And yes
> Shelby, you were right, Scotland was tight as a drum unless someone
> upgraded that dit to a city.
>
> -- JCL (mobile)

[Shelby Noonan]

Looking at our map, I see that you need ~8 tokens to see most of the cities of the map, so the 12 token 50share could run that flood well, as could a 10 share with exactly the right tokens.   I think the reduction would serve well in flood, a bit harsher having to keep the 7+ and 5D running as well as plan for the flood, but the 50share will survive that ok.

With the lower token counts I was thinking... Start 6/5 and pool into two privates, then sr2 start 3-4 more and pool them into a larger company (or a third private?)  When the 10 shares become available, start one high then buy up some of the privates when it is time for them to die.  This lets me run for lots of $$ without taxes, and saves me from worries about takeovers, until I get a bigger co up and running that can take a pile of loans and buy the private assets in to run the flood, at that point I don't mind dumping a few tokens that don't extend the visibility too far.  

I would applaud the effort to make a public early for cross investing (would be sr2 not sr1 as no one really knows what companies will grow up/stay public yet, but am not sure that the cap magnification at the lower pars is better than the efficiency and tax-free nature of privates.  Loans offset this to some effect, but it may be short term enough that I will take them in my folding in companies and pay them off at purchase time.

On an unrelated note.  Something that may have helped Maurice is if he could have bought a company but left it operating independently.  This goes against the normal president transfer rules, but with hostile buyouts it is not really that far off.  Or spinning out a company (take these tokens and this train, president ensures 50% stock bought and full cap cash) likely as a parliament action.  Hmm, ok, maybe not.

I am thinking that moves leaving a blocking token could be interesting, but not sure it is really all that good.  We had a number of companies that had free tokens and were just not placing them. The track needed to get built out (and new colours) to get the holes where they were interesting to be. With tighter limits on tokens that might change, but I can't see that without playing it through.

I think that the train auctions went well, and that the 5d got bought cheap.  Just wish I could afford to bid more on them, but was cash tight at that PR.  The company I gave mine to didn't run it well the first or, but it did well after that. I would buy again at around the same price.

Other than that I don't really have any mutations to request or suggest based on the 4 player game.  I think it will be 'interesting' to get that float level managed in a 3 player, just so much to keep track of for each person, but do agree that the pressure and tempo will be better for it. Maybe a bit too good without the reduced token count as you would get everything you wanted in just one place after merging.

[db1...@gmail.com]

My thoughts in CAPS

I was extraordinarily pleased with how Maurice was able to rescue his position.  YES, IT WAS COOL TO SEE...

    - The rush through the green trains (thanks Daniel!) YOUR WELCOME!

resulted in a slow in blue (as should be expected).  This was further amplified by Maurice's struggles.  Yes, I would have liked the trains to move a tad faster, but I think the curve we had was reasonable given Maurice's effective absence.

    - $1,200/player and a 17 company start seemed about right for a 4-player game.  Nice dynamism, some pushing and shoving and clear challenges in the lobbying and positional control (and thus the great value of lobby blocks and lobby control).

    - Ergo 3-player needs more per player than the $1,200 we used. I'm leaning toward $1,450.  The goal is to stay at 16-18 company starts. (IF YOU WANT ALL PLAYERS TO START 6 COMPANIES, YOU'LL NEED TO GO WITH $1500 OR $1600 PER PLAYER,

    - 10 tokens per small company seems...too good.  Maybe 6? 6-SEEMS LIKE A GOOD NUMBER - AS IT WILL LEAD TO PEOPLE FORMING 2 PRIVATE COMPANIES, OR ONE PRIVATE AND ONE PUBLIC
  Then another 2 at 10 shares, then 2 more at 20 shares and then maybe a last 2 at 50 shares (max of 12)?  6 tokens will trim the sails of privates a bit and increase the importance of accurate lobbies.  It also increases tension in privates between a single line of tokens (revenue) and a mesh of tokens (visibility). - I'M NOT SURE PRIVATES HAVE BEEN TOO STRONG- THEY RUN INTO CAPITALIZATION CHALLENGES FAIRLY QUICKLY - AND THE MONEY GETS SUCKED INTO THE AUCTIONED 7 AND 5d TRAINS FAIRLY QUICKLY....

    - This could also drive tension between early issue count increases which consume good capital (but also generate good treasury) and instead making 2 publics and then having one merged public take over the other later in the game.  There's a capital control game there similar to the one Shelby executed so well on in the Monday game.

NEED TO NOT LOSE MONEY ON TAKEOVERS -- MONEY GOES TO EXISTING SHAREHOLDERS, PERIOD.

    - Possibly allow companies to move their stations for a (higher) cost, possibly leaving a blocking station in the left-place, thus staying at a count but relinquishing one position for another.  This could also include inter-company token sales/trades, or the use of tokens as a funding instrument for other purchases (I buy a train from you with cash and a placed token).  Fiddly? The back of my head is saying there's something there.

NO INTERCOMPANY TOKEN SALES/TRADES, TOO MUCH FLEXIBILTY....TOO FIDDLY... MAKES CROSS INVESTING EVEN LESS LIKELY.

    - The core assumption here is that 18 tokens is just too many for a 50-share company running a FLOOD.  Get all those tokens down and you see everything and there are no choices: your shares are automatically as good as any .  That's bad.  10-12 tokens leaves potentially significant positional decisions in control and visibility and timing.

MANY TOKENS ARE WASTED IN A CONSOLIDATED COMPANY - THERE IS ONLY 4-5 CORNERS WHERE MOST PLAYERS LACK VISIBILITY - AND WE AREN'T SURE IF FLOODS WILL PROVIDE MOST OF THE GAME END SCORE, OR IF THEY ARE MORE OF A BREAKEVEN....

    - 6 Tokens also leaves a 4-player/5 companies per player start with potentially interesting decisions.  Merge into one private and toss most of the second tokens?  Merge into two privates?   Merge into one cherry-picked private and the seed of your public-to-be? How viable are those choices?  AGREED - THE 6 TOKEN IS A NICE MANAGEABLE NUMBER... IT ALSO LEADS TO LESS CASH AVAILALBE IN sr2 HOWEVER....THAT MAY NOT BE WHAT YOU WANT...

    - What is the import of a player running two privates?

    - Getting public seeds to start in SR1 also leads to some shares being viably/profitably buy-able in SR1.

    - Thinking about having all companies move on the stock market identically: pay stock to move up, double to double jump, quadruple to treble jump.  In our game that would have put the privates ~6 steps further up, or 6-7 steps from qualifying to end the game. - YES, EQUAL RULES IS A GOOD THING - AND THE PRIVATE COMPANIES ARE SERIOUSLY UNDERVALUED IN STOCK VALUE - THEY SHOULD BE MOVING UP 3-5 SPACES A TURN TO REFLECT THEIR VALUE.....MAYBE - DOUBE, TO DOUBLE JUMP, QUADRUPLE TO TREBLE JUMP, SEXTUPE TO 4X JUMP, 10X TO 5X JUMP.... (POSSIBLE WITH 3-4 GREEN TRAINS, OR A 5 & 7 TRAIN)  THEN THOSE PRIVATES GET PRICEY = AND TAKEOVER PRICES ARE MORE CLEAR - STARTING BID: $300 PRIVATE - IS $300!

    - We REALLY didn't use the loans enough.  $10/OR for $100? That's a steal -- especially as the stock hit tends to be made up with an easier later multi-jump.

prOBABLY - ALLTHOUGH DEBT IS A SQUISHY THING ALWAYS.... AS LOAN INTEREST HITS $20, AND IT TAKES 10 LOANS TO BY A 7+ TRAIN - YOU ARE LOOKING AT $200 OF INTEREST A ROUND FOR THAT 7+ TRAIN, GOING UP TO $300 OF INTEREST AND A $1000 LIABILITY - LOANS MAY BE TOO CHEAP, BUT NOT BY MUCH, THAT'S WHY NOT SO MANY WERE TAKEN!  ~DB

-- JCL

Saved

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:21 PM, J C Lawrence <cl...@kanga.nu> wrote:

--
--
SFBay-18xx: http://groups.google.com/group/sfbay-18xx

--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SFBay-18xx" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sfbay-18xx+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[J C Lawrence]

Replying to this first as I need to do rather a lot more thought before
replying to Maurice and Shelby.

Brief points:

- I'm broadly looking for a 16-18 company start regardless of
player count. Possibly 20 company starts with 5 players, but not much
more than that.

- I'm also of the mind that privates are not over-powered -- that's
why I didn't give them income tax as we'd previously discussed.

- Disagreed on takeovers. Privates taking over publics MUST be a
money-losing proposition. The game quickly becomes degenerate if it
isn't. Takeovers by publics however should remain money conserving
because they're already fairly inefficient.

- I'm mostly agreeing with you WRT tokens but for rather different
reasons. Mobile tokens increase efficiency and the game already suffers
from being too efficient.

- FLOODS are not intended to be major money earners. The intent is
for the money fountain to shrink and increasingly dry up starting in
brown: the lights start to go out and the game becomes a bit grim. In
this I do not want all players successfully running publics in the
end-game. Ideally I'd like the end-game to only have room for say one
N-1 publics -- so one player sells their about-to-be-money-sucking
public for takeover, possibly at a firesale, probably in/about Red and
uses the money raised to pig out on side-shares.

- So why run a public in the late game? Because if it is a good
public you hold 30 shares of it, while the dividends are crap, the stock
appreciation is fat at the top of the market. The expectation is that
70%+ of scores will be portfolio.

- Yeah, controlling cash into SR2 is a problem. I'd like it to
generally run into SR2 with players with around 75% of starting
capital. Then ~20% goes to future trains, 10% or so goes to lobbies and
70% goes to more companies and their free money, and there's 15% losses
due to 5 share companies -- in toto delivering about 120% inflation.
And that seems about right.

- I don't intend private stock values to represent their values as
companies. Privates are a young man's game and they don't survive
middle age. The early game is the youthful fountain of trains and money
and enthusiasm of the late 1830s and 1840s. Then there's a wave of
crushing recessions, cascading banking collapse (sound familiar?) at the
back half of the 1800s, and the sudden effect of newly efficient
cross-country competition created by ubiquitous railways crushing
remaining profits to nonexistence. Thus the end-game should be rather
starved and even grim: hold on tight, trim the fat and try to survive as
the Great War approaches. Flexible post-Victorian and early Edwardian
grimness mind you due to the massive repeated waves of forced
consolidation that will end in repeated waves of destitute
nationalisation. Or at least that's the idea.

- All the way until brown loans are great. Bloody wonderful. $100
with a $10/OR fee. Take 'em, take lots, splat tokens and track and
trains. Splurge! There is only optimism. They protect from unwelcome
takeovers, increase revenues and control and are easy to pay off...in
brown. Wait too long as the Bank of England stiffens and struggles and
then they're a fairly serious problem. But they're only great in the
days of youth, not rheumatic middle age.

Okay, maybe not so brief.

Also thinking about changing out FLOODs for something else (pause for
Bruce's cheers). Little idea what yet. Getting that money curve right
for the end-game is going to be interesting.

Oh, and I though the train track (thing with all the maintenance costs
etc) was dead brilliant. Kudos to Bruce for the initial idea.

-- JCL

> Saved

> <mailto:sfbay-18xx%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.

> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>

> --
> --
> SFBay-18xx: http://groups.google.com/group/sfbay-18xx
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "SFBay-18xx" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to sfbay-18xx+...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:sfbay-18xx+...@googlegroups.com>.

[J C Lawrence]

Yes, tokens are important and I'd like to make them even more important.

The current token schema is:

- All new companies come with two tokens: home + 1.
- The cost for the new company to place its additional station is
$40, the same cost as terrain for track.
- The cost for a merged company to place a token is $100 (250% of
the prior price).

In the current game just spamming tokens down is viable. Get enough
down and you'll do alright. Shelby is also right that an ideally placed
set of ~8 tokens can see the entire board. The problem with that
observation is that those 8 tokens run like crap for the first two
thirds of the game and thus are rather hard to survive. Reducing the
token counts as discussed and perhaps scaling token costs with company
size or game-stage also seems like a Good Idea.

I think our failure to pursue aggressive take-overs is just that. As a
for instance, ploughing in OR2.x, sucking up loans and then taking over
another player's public in I&T 2.3 seems a credible approach. Then
either buy a red future or jump your issue size and use the capital to
pay off loans and zoom even further up the market -- which is only 26
steps long. Its not a slam dunk, you may be taken over yourself in
OR3.x if you're not careful, but it seems a strongly viable tactic.

Yeah, the first OR set is annoying but I don't think is as formulaic as
we've suggested. Daniel showed that there are other viable options when
he put $500 out of his hand into two 3Ts right before the SR and
remained viable.

And yes, the private-buys-public pricing needs to be revisited.

It was great to play with you! I'm hopeful of another game up that
way in a ~fortnight.

-- JCL

On 02/18/2016 08:29 PM, Maurice Wahl wrote:
> Gentlemen,
>
> thanks for the 1820 introduction.
>
> As mentioned earlier I think the game is to a great extent about
> having tokens in the right spots. Without having seen the endgame
> evolve I suspect this also means flooding the board with tokens for
> the flood train.
>
> One way to limit tokens would be to only receive the already placed
> tokens of a company that is being bought, and not the ones on its
> charter (or maybe buy the additional tokens at a premium).
> This could lead to companies spending money to place those tokens
> before being bought up. In turn fewer companies are available to be
> bought up, unless loans are taken. Loans didn't play much of a role in
> our game, so that may be a nice side effect. On the other hand it may
> throw off the economy and there may not be enough money around to keep
> up with the pace of the game.
>
> Also those companies would be harder to defend in a takeover
> situation. IIRC nobody stole a company because paying for the shares
> plus money in the treasury seemed often prohibitive, especially in the
> beginning. But with less treasury that may be different and open a
> path for other strategies and more shenanigans in the I&T (?) rounds.
>
> Thinks I liked are the bidding mechanic in the parliamentary rounds
> and the two auctions of two trains, ahead of general availability.
>
> What bugged me is the railroaded first set of ORs and a situation
> where the seller wouldn't know exactly how much money he receives. Not
> knowing who the buyer is, is not an issue for me. Not knowing how much
> money will be received seems wrong.
>
> bye,
> Maurice
>

[J C Lawrence]

While technically true, getting survivable runs with those ~8 tokens in
the first 2/3 of the game could be entertaining in a train wreck kind of
way.

My current thoughts are:

- 6+etc tokens probably as discussed.
- Possibly increasing the price of tokens with the game phase or
company size.
- Side goal: I want more strongly viable reasons to grow from
5->10 shares in SR3.
- Change the FLOOD definition to FLOOD from a single token.
- My other thoughts have been akin to changing the FLOOD to an
8Dx2 (ala '43's double trains).

Your private plan is something I've been trying to make
viable-for-only-one-player-but-not-dominant. There are appreciable
timing games in flipping out of the privates and in getting enough cash
and visibility into that 10-share company.

On the one hand I don't like token moves because they increase
efficiency and the game is already way too efficient. But...I think
there's something there. Maybe something that leaves blocking tokens
behind, maybe a revisioning of a doubled token ala '39 but with a
different definition, maybe scaled token costs, perhaps a designated
home station concept along with train-running and take-over implications...

Yes, the future trains were curiously priced but I think the mechanism
worked well and did pretty much exactly what I wanted in the game.

I'd also like brown to break at the bottom of OR2.2. Not always, just
sometimes.

-- JCL

I keep ending back at patterns like tiles

[Shelby Noonan]

Brown is 2.2? I hope you meant blue....

[J C Lawrence]

Nope.

We had brown at the bottom of OR 2.3 compliments of the government. A
little sooner wouldn't be so bad. Not every game, just some.

-- JCL

> <mailto:cl...@kanga.nu> <mailto:cl...@kanga.nu

> <mailto:cl...@kanga.nu> <mailto:cl...@kanga.nu

> <mailto:cl...@kanga.nu>> wrote:
>
> Looking for feedback: What didn't quite work? What was
> not as
> good as it could be?
>
> (I was particularly pleased with the resurgences in
> Shelby's
> and Maurice's positions)
>
> Noticed that Daniel managed to get an illegal dit down in
> Thetford (West of Ipswich in the east)...and none of us
> noticed! And yes Shelby, you were right, Scotland was
> tight
> as a drum unless someone upgraded that dit to a city.
>
> -- JCL (mobile)
>
>
>
>
>

[Shelby Noonan]

Right, 2.1 broke blue so 2.3 (end) broke brown.  Knocked a whole SR off the game.  Brown in 2.2 is a really fast blue, lots of $450 trains bought.  and those pre-sale trains are not so pre anymore.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sfbay-18xx+...@googlegroups.com.

[J C Lawrence]

Why...yes!

It also means that the players sitting on unplaced tokens are much
happier, and the players with lots of loans are less happy, and...it is
a different game.

-- JCL might have a cunning plan

On 02/20/2016 08:14 PM, Shelby Noonan wrote:
> Right, 2.1 broke blue so 2.3 (end) broke brown. Knocked a whole SR off
> the game. Brown in 2.2 is a really fast blue, lots of $450 trains
> bought. and those pre-sale trains are not so pre anymore.
>
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 8:02 PM, J C Lawrence <cl...@kanga.nu
> <mailto:cl...@kanga.nu>> wrote:
>
> Nope.
>
> We had brown at the bottom of OR 2.3 compliments of the
> government. A little sooner wouldn't be so bad. Not every game,
> just some.
>
> -- JCL
>
> On 02/20/2016 07:57 PM, Shelby Noonan wrote:
>
> Brown is 2.2? I hope you meant blue....
>
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 7:50 PM, J C Lawrence <cl...@kanga.nu

> <mailto:sfbay-18xx%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> <mailto:sfbay-18xx+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:sfbay-18xx%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>>.

> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> --
> --
> SFBay-18xx: http://groups.google.com/group/sfbay-18xx
>
> --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google Groups "SFBay-18xx" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to sfbay-18xx+...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:sfbay-18xx%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.

[J C Lawrence]

On 02/20/2016 07:50 PM, J C Lawrence wrote:
> My current thoughts are:
>
> - 6+etc tokens probably as discussed.
> - Possibly increasing the price of tokens with the game phase or
> company size.
> - Side goal: I want more strongly viable reasons to grow from
> 5->10 shares in SR3.
> - Change the FLOOD definition to FLOOD from a single token.
> - My other thoughts have been akin to changing the FLOOD to an
> 8Dx2 (ala '43's double trains).

After review, I think I'm going with these:

- Up to 6 tokens per company at 5 shares, up to 8 at 10 shares, 10
at 20 shares, 12 at 50 shares.
- The "up to " phrasing is meant to denote that tokens can only
be acquired through takeovers.
- The flat 10 and 12 at 20 and 50 shares indicates that
companies simply get that many placeable tokens at those share sizes,
with or without takeovers.
- No increase in token costs.

- Change the FLOOD definition to FLOOD from a single token.

- ie pick one token and work outward from there with full track
re-use.
- Estimate ~15% reduction of FLOOD incomes, but also markedly
simpler/faster run counting and a rougher/tough mid-game which focuses a
bit more on route development versus token splatting.
- Reduce from 10 blue trains to 7 blue trains.
- That should allow brown to hit before the end of OR2.3 in
__some__ games.
- Reduce the value of brown OO tiles from 60 to 50 and in gray from
70 to 60.
- Remove the third token in gray big cities.
- Big cities max at 2 tokens just like small cities.

That lot should have about a $120 net reduction on player capitalisation
going into SR2...which is not so bad. We had 17 companies float in SR1
and then 9 in SR2 (~3 companies of capital went into future brown
trains). Pulling that down to ~7 in SR2, or more likely, pulling down
par prices a bit, seems not so bad.

Oh, and much like I often call the big city that often forms against the
welsh border "Hereford" (though it could just as well be called
Shrewsbury), I think I've decided to name the big city that tends to
form between London and Birmingham..."Oxford". Like Hereford -- which I
simply for the cow jokes -- the position is a bit off, but its a darned
sight better than Milton Keynes!

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.1542543,-2.0257807,8.25z

Had an interesting conversation today around how different areas of the
map lend themselves to different train strategies/arcs, particularly in
regards to focus on 3+Ts vs 5+Ts. I think there's something to that,
but also a large factor in whether the primary grain of the board is
east-west or north-south (the orientation of the main connections formed
in the middle of the board in OR1.x).

-- JCL

[Db]

We had 19 companies formed in sr1
We had 2 trains go to brown, not 3 in pre purchase

Love the blue train change.
You are murdering us. Then killing us. Pretty sure bk awaits.

And I totally don't get the single token. You won't bill able to pick up 1/2 the flood revenue. Because all ports will be blocked from a single token flood count. I.e. Wtf???



Sent from my iPhone

[cl...@kanga.nu]

If those two brown trains had not been sold, then 2-3 more companies would have floated instead.

That's the danger of 3 OR sets: the game can diverge from prediction by a lot before you can fully respond -- which is why I mentioned the silly possibility of selling companies at below stock price in the late game.  Part of this is the certainty that some company-nursing 18xx players will refuse to recognise that there's just not enough room in the game for everyone to have a FLOOD/public and thus that their right choice is to sell out and end the game as an investor.

The single token simply means that if you have disconnected track/tokens which can't even see each other (cut in half), then you run one side or the other, not both.  Everything else remains the same.

-- JCL (mobile)

--
--
SFBay-18xx: http://groups.google.com/group/sfbay-18xx

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SFBay-18xx" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sfbay-18xx+...@googlegroups.com.