Re: [18xx] Re: 1860: Nonsense Rule for Privates Auctions
- Mike, I'm sure Robert would not waste his energies on a game he considered unworthy. As a
designer you are no doubt taking great pleasure that people want to engage with your design. But
(especially with 18xx) you have to expect people will modify, tweak, re-emphasise and otherwise
explain away some things that you would reather they didn't.
In watching this thread so far it is clear to me that the style of play Robert's group engages in
is what I think of as well-developed metaplay, where as in say chess or Go, the most common
openings, along with their strengths and weaknesses, are known to all. In such a context Robert's
comments make sense.
However, if Robert was to find himself playing with a group of players of unknown or mixed
ability, then he could not be sure of other players knowing all those "standard openings", and
then the game becomes less like chess and more like tennis. That is, with mixed or unkown
opponents you must try to anticipate a wider spectrum of moves others may make (which may bear
little resemblance to the moves that they "should" make). In this context Robert's comments make
I think you are simply talking past each other. Robert's suggestions have merit for a group that
has a strong metaplay element. But for many if not most 18xx games/groups, his suggestions
address issues that simply do not become prominent, given the issues are likely swallowed by other
factors of uncertainty, inefficient gameplay, outright errors, time constraints, and such.
So Mike, don't be miffed that Robert has 1860 in his sights. As far as I can see that means it
will be a good option for groups like his as well as for groups with the more usual player-mix.
I confess I do not have 1860, due to budgetary constraints just now. But imo Robert's interest
certainly makes it more desirable as a future aquaisition, not less.
Regards, and greetings all from Melbourne Australia. Nicholas Barclay.
--- Mike Hutton <Mike.Hutton@...> wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Robert Jasiek <jasiek@s...> wrote:
> > No need to bother the FAQ. It will be in the Berlin Rules, which
> > I shall publish in due course, when I will have received my
> > 1860 and thus can formulate difference rules properly.
> I'm not quite sure how I'm supposed to react to this.
> While you and your group are quite free to experiment with whatever
> rules you find fulfilling - and here I include your preference for
> using cash in hand to determine Priority Deal issues - I am a little
> uncomfortable with a "rival" set of rules being published before many
> people have had a chance to even buy 1860, let alone play it.
> I'm also a little surprised that you should choose 1860 in particular
> to do this. Crisis does seem to be a rather more appropriate and
> necessary vehicle for your energies.
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
--- In email@example.com, Robert Jasiek <jasiek@s...> wrote:
> I am currently playing a 4 player PBM 1860 with players for that it
> is maybe their first 1860 game. We use the official rules. What has
> happended? I have got IOW for 45 (I would have bid 75), someone else
> has got CN for 25 (I would have bid 56, if I had not already had
> The strategic stupidity here starts with ridiculously low bids. What
> happended next? The CN winner has bought Ryde and Cowes and retains
> $215 to buy 5 shares at, say 74, of CN (including the director
> certificate). This means, of course, that a third player without any
> private but with the PD is going to become the CN director. All
> because of strategic stupidity. In other words, because of a missing
> strategy guide.
So, the strategy guide would say "If you're going to launch a
company, make sure you have enough money."
If you're playing 18xx and you don't already know that, youre
unlikely to do well anyway!