Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [18xx] Re: 1826 - best # of players?

Expand Messages
  • Steve Thomas
    ... There are many players who dislike 1830 6-player, but the reason cited is usually that the start is awkward and tends to promote excessive diplomacy.
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 5, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      David Hecht wrote:

      > Nonetheless, the game is viable at the 6-player level:
      > unlike, for instance, 1830, in which the players who wind up with
      > only one company are probably doomed.

      There are many players who dislike 1830 6-player, but the reason
      cited is usually that the start is awkward and tends to promote
      excessive diplomacy. Those who like 6-player 1830 tend to think
      that there is no such thing as excessive diplomacy. Once the
      game gets going, things aren't so bad. Yes, it's easier to
      control things when you have two companies, but in order to get
      to that stage you have to sell paying shares to launch your
      second company. Your second company is usually a bad idea from
      the perspective of immediate return on investment, even if it is
      a good idea overall.

      You can avoid painful corporation dumps by investing primarily
      in companies whose president is near your left. It's best if
      the player on your left knows what he's doing and can run his
      company profitably and, furthermore, has few expensive private
      companies himself. But even without such fortune, it's not too
      hard to invest. After all, six shares of one company and one
      each of each of the rest is more than you're allowed to own in a
      6-player game, unless some shares don't count.

      Steve
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.