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

Re: [18xx] Timely Stock Buys

Expand Messages
  • Richard Wein
    From: tnvips@aol.com ... Generally ... buy ... dumps ... This confirms my view (based on very limited playing of any 18xx game other than
    Message 1 of 26 , Jul 5, 2000
      From: tnvips@... <tnvips@...>

      >In many tournament games I have to decide where to invest my money.
      Generally
      >I want to invest in my own railroads by buying more shares of an existing
      >company or to start another company.However; in many occassions I cannot
      buy
      >more than 60% of that particular railroad and I can afford to start another
      >railway. So here I am with this $175 to $250 amount trying to figure out
      >which of the other guys' railroad should I buy? A good timely investment in
      >another player's lead company may yield 30% of the highest valued stock at
      >the end of the game or it may lead to bankruptcy!(when the other player
      dumps
      >that particular road on me).

      This confirms my view (based on very limited playing of any 18xx game other
      than 1829), that the "new" stock market system encourages players to
      concentrate on investing in their own companies and avoid splitting their
      investment among several companies, leading to a relatively straightforward
      identification between the interests of players and companies. One thing I
      prefer about the 1829 system is that a company's shares tend to be
      distributed more evenly between players, leading to the chance of players
      losing directorships and some more difficult operating decisions (do I want
      to hurt company X when I own 3 shares in that company?).

      I've ordered a copy of 1851. When I receive it, I'm going to try playing
      with the following rules (which are closer to 1829). I'm not sure if they'll
      work with a game that wasn't designed to be played that way, but I think
      it's worth a try.

      - Public companies enter the game one at a time (in any order). So, once
      the directorship of a company has been bought, all other shares of that
      company must be sold before the next directorship can be bought.

      - Players don't choose the initial share price. The first public company
      starts at the maximum starting price. The second starts one step down from
      there, and so on. (I might want to increase the maximum starting price.)

      - Players can't buy-sell or sell-buy (shares in a single company in one
      round).

      - Players can always sell shares, even if this means there will be no
      director. If no player has 2 shares in a company, then that company is in
      "receivership" (or whatever the equivalent US term is). A company in
      receivership:
      (a) builds/upgrades no track;
      (b) places no tokens;
      (c) pays no dividends;
      (d) runs its train(s) for the maximium revenue that any player points out;
      (e) if it has no trains, it buys one (from the bank only);
      (f) if it has no trains and cannot afford to buy one, it may run a notional
      train of the type currently available for sale (the final type if all trains
      have been sold).

      - (I might also scrap the rule about vertical movements on the share
      chart.)

      Any comments?

      Richard Wein (Tich)
    • Alex Rhomberg
      ... Yes. I suggest you play 1851 with the supplied rules, at least a few times, before you start developing a different game with the same map. It s a good
      Message 2 of 26 , Jul 5, 2000
        Richard Wein wrote:

        > I've ordered a copy of 1851. When I receive it, I'm going to try playing
        > with the following rules (which are closer to 1829).

        > Any comments?

        Yes.

        I suggest you play 1851 with the supplied rules, at least a few times,
        before you start developing a different game with the same map.
        It's a good game out of the box

        - Alex
      • Lawson Chris
        ... [snipped all rule changes] ... Yes, I ll think I ll cancel your order for 1851 ^_^ Cheers Chris
        Message 3 of 26 , Jul 5, 2000
          > From: Richard Wein [mailto:rwein@...]
          > I've ordered a copy of 1851. When I receive it, I'm going to try playing
          > with the following rules
          [snipped all rule changes]

          > Any comments?

          Yes, I'll think I'll cancel your order for 1851 ^_^

          Cheers
          Chris
        • Mike Hutton (Romford)
          Richard, ... Hear hear. This aspect is totally lost with the 1830-style market. However, this produces a totally different game which a lot of people prefer
          Message 4 of 26 , Jul 5, 2000
            Richard,

            > ----------
            > From: Richard Wein[SMTP:rwein@...]
            > Sent: 05 July 2000 11:15
            > To: 18xx@egroups.com
            > Subject: Re: [18xx] Timely Stock Buys
            >
            > From: tnvips@... <tnvips@...>
            >
            > >In many tournament games I have to decide where to invest my money.
            > Generally
            > >I want to invest in my own railroads by buying more shares of an existing
            > >company or to start another company.However; in many occassions I cannot
            > buy
            > >more than 60% of that particular railroad and I can afford to start
            > another
            > >railway. So here I am with this $175 to $250 amount trying to figure out
            > >which of the other guys' railroad should I buy? A good timely investment
            > in
            > >another player's lead company may yield 30% of the highest valued stock
            > at
            > >the end of the game or it may lead to bankruptcy!(when the other player
            > dumps
            > >that particular road on me).
            >
            > This confirms my view (based on very limited playing of any 18xx game
            > other
            > than 1829), that the "new" stock market system encourages players to
            > concentrate on investing in their own companies and avoid splitting their
            > investment among several companies, leading to a relatively
            > straightforward
            > identification between the interests of players and companies. One thing I
            > prefer about the 1829 system is that a company's shares tend to be
            > distributed more evenly between players, leading to the chance of players
            > losing directorships and some more difficult operating decisions (do I
            > want
            > to hurt company X when I own 3 shares in that company?).
            >
            Hear hear. This aspect is totally lost with the 1830-style market. However,
            this produces a totally different game which a lot of people prefer
            (heathens!!).

            > I've ordered a copy of 1851. When I receive it, I'm going to try playing
            > with the following rules (which are closer to 1829). I'm not sure if
            > they'll
            > work with a game that wasn't designed to be played that way, but I think
            > it's worth a try.
            >
            You could try it with the supplied rules. You know, it may even work...

            > - Public companies enter the game one at a time (in any order). So, once
            > the directorship of a company has been bought, all other shares of that
            > company must be sold before the next directorship can be bought.
            >
            This is OK up to a point, but with 1851 it's quite important for the early
            companies to start in quick succession. Later companies may struggle if
            their start is delayed. You'd probably need to up the starting money to cope
            with this as well.

            > - Players don't choose the initial share price. The first public company
            > starts at the maximum starting price. The second starts one step down from
            > there, and so on. (I might want to increase the maximum starting price.)
            >
            Interesting, but probably not necessary. It probably gives too much
            advantage to L&N and can hamper what people want to do with the later
            companies.

            > - Players can't buy-sell or sell-buy (shares in a single company in one
            > round).
            >
            This will slow things down, but it does make the market more stable. I doubt
            many players would want that.

            > - Players can always sell shares, even if this means there will be no
            > director. If no player has 2 shares in a company, then that company is in
            > "receivership" (or whatever the equivalent US term is). A company in
            > receivership:
            > (a) builds/upgrades no track;
            > (b) places no tokens;
            > (c) pays no dividends;
            > (d) runs its train(s) for the maximium revenue that any player points out;
            > (e) if it has no trains, it buys one (from the bank only);
            > (f) if it has no trains and cannot afford to buy one, it may run a
            > notional
            > train of the type currently available for sale (the final type if all
            > trains
            > have been sold).
            >
            Ah. While we both like the receivership rule (it makes a lot of sense in the
            UK) we're in a minority. It's also not very accurate for the US. The other
            problem is that for it to be effective you really want 8 or more companies
            in the game.

            > - (I might also scrap the rule about vertical movements on the share
            > chart.)
            >
            Aarrgghh!! Don't!! Take this out and the game WILL be broken. You'll end up
            with a standard win for the L&N president every time.

            > Any comments?
            >
            I rather suspect Chris won't be too keen on this. (Ah.. I see he isn't). If
            you want an 1829 clone there are better games to do it with (and it has been
            done before in pre-1830 days). A smaller board causes problems, and Chris'
            1851 is heavily dependent on the degree of control companies have over their
            own stock. Take that away and you're left with a big chunk of the game
            missing.

            Play 1851 as it is. If you prefer 1829 then it's easy enough to transfer the
            rules onto another board, but I'd choose a simpler game with a larger board
            and more companies. 1870 would work better, but that's no guarantee that it
            would be OK. Ditto with 1835. Anything smaller and you're asking for
            trouble.

            Or....

            You could order 1826 and try a variant with that (how's that for marketing,
            Chris?). You'd need to work on the stock market a bit, and I have no idea
            how you'd deal with the Etat or SNCF. You'd probably want an 1835-style
            market in preference to the linear model. There's also no guarantee of
            balance.

            Or...

            You could design your own board. Choose a country with either heavy British
            or European influence and just superimpose a hex grid. Choose (or invent) a
            number of companies start in various places and see what happens. At least
            this way it keeps Chris happy.

            Mike.



            ***DISCLAIMER***

            This message and/or any attached documents may contain Privileged and Confidential Information and should only be read by those persons to whom this message is addressed.

            Other than where expressly stated to the contrary, the contents of this message and/or of any attached document(s) are not intended to be relied upon by any person without subsequent express written confirmation to that effect.

            Sherwood International disclaim all responsibility and accept no liability (including liability for negligence) for the consequences for any person acting, or refraining from acting, on the information contained in this E-mail or in the attached document (s) before receiving such written confirmation.

            If you have received this E-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone. Please also delete the message from your computer.

            Any form of unauthorised reproduction, publication, distribution, disclosure, and/or modification of this E-mail message and/or its contents is strictly prohibited.
          • Steve Thomas
            ... If you really want these rules, try 1829. It makes some decisions in the operating rounds somewhat more complex, but at the same time the stock rounds are
            Message 5 of 26 , Jul 5, 2000
              Richard Wein wrote:

              > Any comments?

              If you really want these rules, try 1829. It makes some
              decisions in the operating rounds somewhat more complex, but
              at the same time the stock rounds are mostly exceedingly
              dull. (There is, I concede, usually one stock round which
              lasts upwards of an hour and which holds interest for some
              players.)

              There aren't any new designs on the market which operate the
              way 1829 does. (1825 is not a new design - it's the result
              of minor tinkering with 1829.) There's a reason for this.
              1829 brings some interesting concepts but it is, in the
              minds of most 18xx players, broken.

              Steve
            • Mike Hutton (Romford)
              ... Broken? I can understand people not liking it if they don t want to have to wait to start a company or want the excitement of trashing shares, but broken?
              Message 6 of 26 , Jul 5, 2000
                > There aren't any new designs on the market which operate the
                > way 1829 does. (1825 is not a new design - it's the result
                > of minor tinkering with 1829.) There's a reason for this.
                > 1829 brings some interesting concepts but it is, in the
                > minds of most 18xx players, broken.
                >
                Broken? I can understand people not liking it if they don't want to have to
                wait to start a company or want the excitement of trashing shares, but
                broken?

                How so?

                Mike.

                PS: To be pedantic I suppose I also ought to question the "most 18xx
                players" bit too. I rather suspect that "most 18xx players" haven't seen
                1829, let alone played it. Its reputation among these players is formed by
                reputation, not experience. This is particularly so since the main
                proponents of the genre in terms of new development (Chris, David, Bill,
                Mark and your good self spring to mind) seem to talk people out of even
                trying it, however unintentionally.


                ***DISCLAIMER***

                This message and/or any attached documents may contain Privileged and Confidential Information and should only be read by those persons to whom this message is addressed.

                Other than where expressly stated to the contrary, the contents of this message and/or of any attached document(s) are not intended to be relied upon by any person without subsequent express written confirmation to that effect.

                Sherwood International disclaim all responsibility and accept no liability (including liability for negligence) for the consequences for any person acting, or refraining from acting, on the information contained in this E-mail or in the attached document (s) before receiving such written confirmation.

                If you have received this E-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone. Please also delete the message from your computer.

                Any form of unauthorised reproduction, publication, distribution, disclosure, and/or modification of this E-mail message and/or its contents is strictly prohibited.
              • Steve Thomas
                ... The main drawback of 1829, from my perspective, is that if you don t get an early company, it s a really bad idea to get a late one since with competent
                Message 7 of 26 , Jul 5, 2000
                  Mike Hutton (Romford) wrote:

                  > Broken? I can understand people not liking it if they don't want to have to
                  > wait to start a company or want the excitement of trashing shares, but
                  > broken?

                  The main drawback of 1829, from my perspective, is that if
                  you don't get an early company, it's a really bad idea to
                  get a late one since with competent play by the directors
                  of the early companies it will never get a route. This
                  concentrates the companies in the hands of a subset of the
                  players and the rest have a dull time in the operating
                  rounds. Waiting to own a company for an SR or two is one
                  thing, but waiting until the next game is quite another.

                  Also, if the player to your right doesn't want you to get
                  a directorship, you won't get a directorship. Well, except
                  for that of a company which is deservedly in receivership.

                  Speaking of receivership, the Banker has a substantial in-
                  game advantage. This makes players clamour to be the
                  banker, which makes a pleasant change from having them try
                  to void it, but it's another unbalancing factor.

                  > PS: To be pedantic I suppose I also ought to question the "most 18xx
                  > players" bit too. I rather suspect that "most 18xx players" haven't seen
                  > 1829, let alone played it. Its reputation among these players is formed by
                  > reputation, not experience. This is particularly so since the main
                  > proponents of the genre in terms of new development (Chris, David, Bill,
                  > Mark and your good self spring to mind) seem to talk people out of even
                  > trying it, however unintentionally.

                  Fair enough. Perhaps I should have said "most 18xx
                  players who have tried 1829". There are some players who
                  still play 1829 in preference to the newer titles, but
                  they are thin on the ground. It's played postally, where
                  down-time is less critical and directorships get spread
                  out more because of the difficulty (for most players) of
                  planning and ordering for an entire stock round.

                  With respect to your last point, would-be 18xx designers
                  often send Chris their designs, in the hope that he'll
                  publish them. I can recall only one with an 1829-style
                  restriction on buying shares, and even that had a merger
                  mechanism which in theory should spread the early
                  companies around.

                  Steve
                • Lou Jerkich
                  ... In most games of 1830 that I have played, experienced players were generally savvy enough to avoid investing in more than one share of an opponent s
                  Message 8 of 26 , Jul 5, 2000
                    tnvips@... wrote:
                    >
                    > In many tournament games I have to decide where to invest my money. Generally
                    > I want to invest in my own railroads by buying more shares of an existing
                    > company or to start another company.However; in many occassions I cannot buy
                    > more than 60% of that particular railroad and I can afford to start another
                    > railway. So here I am with this $175 to $250 amount trying to figure out
                    > which of the other guys' railroad should I buy? A good timely investment in
                    > another player's lead company may yield 30% of the highest valued stock at
                    > the end of the game or it may lead to bankruptcy!(when the other player dumps
                    > that particular road on me).
                    > Lou's original message mentioned 1830. In 1830, there are big differences
                    > between the good railroads(B&O, Penn, NYC) and the bad(Erie & CanPac) such
                    > that a player probably would not dump his "good" company.

                    In most games of 1830 that I have played, experienced players were
                    generally savvy enough to avoid investing in more than one share of an
                    opponent's railroad unless there was good reason to believe that the
                    owner was unlikely to dump his company. In my gaming circle, players
                    don't usually make themselves very vulnerable to having a poor company
                    dumped on them. When stock is successfully dumped to give someone else
                    control, the one who dumped it rarely seems to ensure his own victory in
                    doing so. Sometimes, the one who inherited the company has gone on to
                    do even better than the one who dumped it (and yes, has even on occasion
                    won the game). There are times when it is safe to invest in more than
                    one share of a company, and there are obviously times when it is
                    unwise. Experience gives one a feel for that kind of timing, so few
                    players end up having a company dumped on them, and in my circle
                    bankruptcies just don't tend to occur.

                    Lou Jerkich
                  • Lawson Chris
                    I love it when the subject of 1825/29/53 comes up. Mike will be there waving the flag and Steve and I will come in with the bovver boots ^_^ And I like the
                    Message 9 of 26 , Jul 5, 2000
                      I love it when the subject of 1825/29/53 comes up. Mike will be there waving
                      the flag and Steve and I will come in with the bovver boots ^_^

                      And I like the 'discussions' we have. While the two camps are firmly set in
                      their ways I think we all actually enjoy the ensuing threads. I find Mike's
                      views useful and helpful but that doesn't stop us hitting each other over
                      the head with 2 by 4s. We might not well agree with each other but (I hope)
                      we respect each others viewpoints.

                      I hope everyone else isn't to bored with us by now, but we don't mind anyway
                      ^_^ Fortunately, I don't always have time to put my oar in such threads.

                      > From: Mike Hutton (Romford)
                      > > From: Richard Wein[SMTP:rwein@...]
                      [suggested rules snipped]
                      > > - Public companies enter the game one at a time (in any order). So,
                      once
                      > > the directorship of a company has been bought, all other shares of that
                      > > company must be sold before the next directorship can be bought.
                      >
                      > This is OK up to a point, but with 1851 it's quite important for the early
                      > companies to start in quick succession. Later companies may struggle if
                      > their start is delayed. You'd probably need to up the starting money to
                      cope
                      > with this as well.

                      Steve has pointed out the fact that it can mean you never get to run a
                      company and it takes away *so* much choice. This is true for any of the
                      games that use this type of rule, and is one of the reasons why people don't
                      like 1835 or 1825/29/53

                      > > - Players don't choose the initial share price. The first public
                      company
                      > > starts at the maximum starting price. The second starts one step down
                      from
                      > > there, and so on. (I might want to increase the maximum starting price.)
                      >
                      > Interesting, but probably not necessary. It probably gives too much
                      > advantage to L&N and can hamper what people want to do with the later
                      > companies.

                      Again, takes away choice.

                      > > - Players can't buy-sell or sell-buy (shares in a single company in one
                      > > round).
                      > >
                      > This will slow things down, but it does make the market more stable. I
                      doubt
                      > many players would want that.

                      Ignoring the fact that you are not allowed to sell-buy anyway, I doubt it
                      makes that much difference (it depends on the play style, you may find your
                      group doesn't do this sort of thing anyway "Not the done thing, Old Chap").

                      > > [receivership]
                      > Ah. While we both like the receivership rule (it makes a lot of sense in
                      the
                      > UK) we're in a minority. It's also not very accurate for the US. The other
                      > problem is that for it to be effective you really want 8 or more companies
                      > in the game.

                      The problem with this kind of thinking is that a receivership rule just
                      doesn't work in competitive play. All you need do is launch company after
                      company, siphon off the funds to your 'keeper' company and discard the husks
                      of the others.

                      In many ways it comes down to the style of play, or group think. If the
                      players are happy to run the companies 'honestly' then a receivership rule
                      would be OK, each player runs a company to the best of its ability, not to
                      the best interest of the principle shareholder. But the ability to launch a
                      second company, strip and dump it (to the bank no less) makes shooting fish
                      in a barrel seem like hard work.

                      The president needs to have *some* responsibility toward the company, that's
                      why the rule that requires a company to own a train is there. If he can dump
                      a company, fine, stops those freeloaders and makes them think about
                      purchasing that second share. And yes, while this doesn't reflect reality in
                      the way the 'real' stock market works, the bottom line is that this is a
                      game and I prefer a workable design over one that mirrors life (all a
                      question of degree after all).

                      Maybe in conjunction with the "only allowed to purchase the next available
                      share from the Initial Offering" the receivership rule works a bit better.
                      After all, then it will be effectively arbitrary if you manage to get to run
                      a company anyway. But for me it's soooo unsatisfactory.

                      > > - (I might also scrap the rule about vertical movements on the share
                      > > chart.)
                      > >
                      > Aarrgghh!! Don't!! Take this out and the game WILL be broken. You'll end
                      up
                      > with a standard win for the L&N president every time.

                      Nod, nod. Just like the LNW in 1825. Sorry Mike, couldn't resist that one.

                      But this very fact is one of the reasons why I don't like 1825.

                      > > Any comments?
                      > >
                      > I rather suspect Chris won't be too keen on this. (Ah.. I see he isn't).
                      If
                      > you want an 1829 clone there are better games to do it with (and it has
                      been
                      > done before in pre-1830 days). A smaller board causes problems, and Chris'
                      > 1851 is heavily dependent on the degree of control companies have over
                      their
                      > own stock. Take that away and you're left with a big chunk of the game
                      > missing.
                      >
                      > Play 1851 as it is. If you prefer 1829 then it's easy enough to transfer
                      the
                      > rules onto another board, but I'd choose a simpler game with a larger
                      board
                      > and more companies. 1870 would work better, but that's no guarantee that
                      it
                      > would be OK. Ditto with 1835. Anything smaller and you're asking for
                      > trouble.
                      >
                      > Or....

                      Try all the rules you suggest (assuming you can get an 1851 set). There is
                      of course nothing in the world that should stop you from playing the way you
                      want.

                      > You could order 1826 and try a variant with that (how's that for
                      marketing,
                      > Chris?). You'd need to work on the stock market a bit, and I have no idea
                      > how you'd deal with the Etat or SNCF. You'd probably want an 1835-style
                      > market in preference to the linear model. There's also no guarantee of
                      > balance.

                      Nice one Mike. Interestingly enough 1826 *did* start off with a linear Stock
                      Market. It (IMO) almost worked but fortunately David saw the error of his
                      ways and relented to the 'traditional' 2D stock market ^_^

                      A linear Stock Market can work but it requires work to it. 1834 does work in
                      this respect (mind, it did take a lot for me to see the error of my ways
                      over this one, Tom eventually convinced me that it was in fact A Good Thing
                      for the design).

                      > Or...
                      >
                      > You could design your own board. Choose a country with either heavy
                      British
                      > or European influence and just superimpose a hex grid. Choose (or invent)
                      a
                      > number of companies start in various places and see what happens. At least
                      > this way it keeps Chris happy.

                      While an attitude of "keep Chris happy" is a splendid one, it isn't actually
                      an 18xx requirement ^_^

                      Cheers
                      Chris
                    • Richard Wein
                      From: Steve Thomas ... I ve played 1829 many times. I want a change, and something shorter. ... Since I ve hardly played the other
                      Message 10 of 26 , Jul 5, 2000
                        From: Steve Thomas <Steve.Thomas@...>

                        >If you really want these rules, try 1829.

                        I've played 1829 many times. I want a change, and something shorter.

                        >It makes some
                        >decisions in the operating rounds somewhat more complex, but
                        >at the same time the stock rounds are mostly exceedingly
                        >dull. (There is, I concede, usually one stock round which
                        >lasts upwards of an hour and which holds interest for some
                        >players.)

                        Since I've hardly played the other games, I can't really compare. But I
                        found there was a lot of interest in the 1829 stock rounds. Decisions like:
                        - when to sell LNWR and GWR shares to start up the Midlands and LSWR;
                        - whether to buy the final share in a company, allowing another player to
                        start the next company (and conversely trying to engineer the situation so
                        you would get the directorship yourself);
                        - whether to challenge another player for directorship;
                        - whether to help engineer a change in directorship (e.g. minority share
                        holder sells his shares one-by-one rather than simultaneously, to give
                        another minority share holder a chance to buy them all).
                        One interesting tactic which was the subject of much debate was for the
                        directors of the first two companies to deliberately refrain from paying out
                        dividends in order to delay the start of the later companies. (I still can't
                        decide if this is a good tactic.)

                        >There aren't any new designs on the market which operate the
                        >way 1829 does. (1825 is not a new design - it's the result
                        >of minor tinkering with 1829.) There's a reason for this.
                        >1829 brings some interesting concepts but it is, in the
                        >minds of most 18xx players, broken.

                        It has one or two major big problems if played as written. But a couple of
                        house rules (like not using surveyors) will fix those.

                        Back in the 70s and 80s my friends and I got many hours of enjoyment from
                        this "broken" game. ;-)

                        >The main drawback of 1829, from my perspective, is that if
                        >you don't get an early company, it's a really bad idea to
                        >get a late one since with competent play by the directors
                        >of the early companies it will never get a route.

                        This only happens if you're playing with surveyors, and we stopped using
                        those very early on.

                        In my experience, the later companies can do very well, except the 10th
                        company (SECR) which rarely if ever gets started. The first two companies
                        (LNWR and GWR) tend to have a mid-game crisis, when all their early trains
                        rust and they have to start avoiding their low-rated home station. (I
                        remember one game in which the GWR built a complicated "Swindon by-pass" to
                        avoid his home station.)

                        >This
                        >concentrates the companies in the hands of a subset of the
                        >players and the rest have a dull time in the operating
                        >rounds. Waiting to own a company for an SR or two is one
                        >thing, but waiting until the next game is quite another.

                        I don't think I ever played a game of 1829 in which a player never held a
                        directorship. With enough players, I suppose that would happen. We usually
                        played with 5-6.

                        >Also, if the player to your right doesn't want you to get
                        >a directorship, you won't get a directorship. Well, except
                        >for that of a company which is deservedly in receivership.

                        If another player is out to screw you, even at his own expense, you've got a
                        problem. But that's probably true in 1830 too.

                        >Speaking of receivership, the Banker has a substantial in-
                        >game advantage. This makes players clamour to be the
                        >banker, which makes a pleasant change from having them try
                        >to void it, but it's another unbalancing factor.

                        We never found this to be a big problem. The small advantage gained by the
                        banker was balanced by the fact that that player had less time to attend to
                        the game. I was quite happy to let someone else be banker. But, if I was
                        playing again, I would use a rule like I suggested in my earlier post, which
                        avoids the need for a receiver.

                        Anyway, I don't mean to criticise you for disliking 1829. It's a matter of
                        taste. I expect both systems are viable, and I just want to try my preferred
                        system with a variety of games.

                        Richard Wein (Tich)
                      • David Hecht
                        ... ... linear Stock ... of his ... does work in ... ways ... Good Thing ... One of the interesting things about designing and
                        Message 11 of 26 , Jul 5, 2000
                          --- In 18xx@egroups.com, Lawson Chris <ChrisR.Lawson@i...> wrote:

                          <most of post snipped>

                          >
                          > Nice one Mike. Interestingly enough 1826 *did* start off with a
                          linear Stock
                          > Market. It (IMO) almost worked but fortunately David saw the error
                          of his
                          > ways and relented to the 'traditional' 2D stock market ^_^
                          >
                          > A linear Stock Market can work but it requires work to it. 1834
                          does work in
                          > this respect (mind, it did take a lot for me to see the error of my
                          ways
                          > over this one, Tom eventually convinced me that it was in fact A
                          Good Thing
                          > for the design).
                          >

                          One of the interesting things about designing and developing an 18xx
                          game (I suppose this applies to any derivative effort) is that it is
                          an object lesson on how seemingly arbitrary design decisions are
                          arrived at.

                          I started out with a linear stock market because Federico Vellani had
                          one in 1827 Jr. (and encouraged me to try it) and I thought it would
                          be worthwhile doing something different.

                          After several iterations of the design I discovered that (1) you
                          didn't want to allow players to trash a newly-formed company all the
                          way into the Dead Zone, and (2) large positional swings resulted from
                          too-free price swings at the higher price ranges (e.g., dropping a
                          stock price F100 or more by selling 4 shares). So I wound up, in
                          effect, reinventing the wheel (or at least the 2D stock market).

                          This illustrates my version of the (small-c) conservative principle:

                          "There are things we do for no apparent reason, that, when we change
                          them, we quickly rediscover why we were doing them that way in the
                          first place."

                          Here endeth the lesson.
                        • Richard Wein
                          From: Lawson Chris ... Don t worry, Chris. I m not trying to undermine your rules. I don t suppose anyone outside my circle will play
                          Message 12 of 26 , Jul 5, 2000
                            From: Lawson Chris <ChrisR.Lawson@...>

                            >> Any comments?
                            >
                            >Yes, I'll think I'll cancel your order for 1851 ^_^

                            Don't worry, Chris. I'm not trying to undermine your rules. I don't suppose
                            anyone outside my circle will play my variant, even if it works.

                            But, if you can get my order to me by next weekend, when I have a couple
                            of friends coming over for games, I promise to play by the printed rules
                            first! ;-)

                            Richard.
                          • Richard Wein
                            From: Mike Hutton (Romford) ... Whew! I thought I was a lone voice in the wilderness. ;-) ... I ll try it with both,
                            Message 13 of 26 , Jul 5, 2000
                              From: Mike Hutton (Romford) <mike.hutton@...>

                              >Hear hear. This aspect is totally lost with the 1830-style market. However,
                              >this produces a totally different game which a lot of people prefer
                              >(heathens!!).

                              Whew! I thought I was a lone voice in the wilderness. ;-)

                              >You could try it with the supplied rules. You know, it may even work...

                              I'll try it with both, if I have the chance. The trouble is I get very few
                              opportunities to play.

                              [...]

                              >I rather suspect Chris won't be too keen on this. (Ah.. I see he isn't). If
                              >you want an 1829 clone there are better games to do it with (and it has
                              been
                              >done before in pre-1830 days). A smaller board causes problems, and Chris'
                              >1851 is heavily dependent on the degree of control companies have over
                              their
                              >own stock. Take that away and you're left with a big chunk of the game
                              >missing.
                              >
                              >Play 1851 as it is. If you prefer 1829 then it's easy enough to transfer
                              the
                              >rules onto another board, but I'd choose a simpler game with a larger board
                              >and more companies. 1870 would work better, but that's no guarantee that it
                              >would be OK. Ditto with 1835. Anything smaller and you're asking for
                              >trouble.

                              I see your point. The trouble is I want a shorter game.

                              >Or....
                              >
                              >You could order 1826 and try a variant with that (how's that for marketing,
                              >Chris?). You'd need to work on the stock market a bit, and I have no idea
                              >how you'd deal with the Etat or SNCF. You'd probably want an 1835-style
                              >market in preference to the linear model. There's also no guarantee of
                              >balance.
                              >
                              >Or...
                              >
                              >You could design your own board. Choose a country with either heavy British
                              >or European influence and just superimpose a hex grid. Choose (or invent) a
                              >number of companies start in various places and see what happens. At least
                              >this way it keeps Chris happy.

                              Ah, if only I had the time...

                              Richard Wein
                            • Mike Hutton (Romford)
                              ... Indeed. It s just a shame you re so seriously deluded. ;-) I honestly think 1830 and those games which follow its general thread are enjoyable. I just
                              Message 14 of 26 , Jul 5, 2000
                                > I love it when the subject of 1825/29/53 comes up. Mike will be there
                                > waving
                                > the flag and Steve and I will come in with the bovver boots ^_^
                                >
                                > And I like the 'discussions' we have. While the two camps are firmly set
                                > in
                                > their ways I think we all actually enjoy the ensuing threads. I find
                                > Mike's
                                > views useful and helpful but that doesn't stop us hitting each other over
                                > the head with 2 by 4s. We might not well agree with each other but (I
                                > hope)
                                > we respect each others viewpoints.
                                >
                                Indeed. It's just a shame you're so seriously deluded. ;-)

                                I honestly think 1830 and those games which follow its general thread are
                                enjoyable. I just think they lose something of the flavour of 1829 by:

                                * restricting players to 6 shares in a company
                                * allowing what is effectively a free-for-all with starting companies
                                * rewarding a player more for manipulating stock than running a company
                                well.

                                The first of these rules (along with bankrupcy) change the whole nature of
                                the game soooo much. What I dislike most is that it deters cross-investment
                                in companies. You just don't get it happening, and the game lacks a dynamic
                                I enjoy as a result.

                                > I hope everyone else isn't to bored with us by now, but we don't mind
                                > anyway
                                > ^_^ Fortunately, I don't always have time to put my oar in such threads.
                                >
                                > > From: Mike Hutton (Romford)
                                > > > From: Richard Wein[SMTP:rwein@...]
                                > [suggested rules snipped]
                                > > > - Public companies enter the game one at a time (in any order). So,
                                > once
                                > > > the directorship of a company has been bought, all other shares of
                                > that
                                > > > company must be sold before the next directorship can be bought.
                                > >
                                > > This is OK up to a point, but with 1851 it's quite important for the
                                > early
                                > > companies to start in quick succession. Later companies may struggle if
                                > > their start is delayed. You'd probably need to up the starting money to
                                > cope
                                > > with this as well.
                                >
                                > Steve has pointed out the fact that it can mean you never get to run a
                                > company and it takes away *so* much choice. This is true for any of the
                                > games that use this type of rule, and is one of the reasons why people
                                > don't
                                > like 1835 or 1825/29/53
                                >
                                That's really down to perception than merit. One of the things 1830 bought
                                to the series was the idea that you "should" have the option to decide these
                                things. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that a new 18xx game "has" to
                                allow this freedom.

                                Now, one variant to this rule which would mitigate the problem of the "last
                                share dilemma" would be allowing access the next company after 6 shares
                                (i.e. the shares which float the previous company). That way if you invest
                                in a company you will effectively have to "pass the baton" to the player on
                                your left if you want to guarantee floating your company. I suspect that
                                would really spice things up, particularly if it's a choice of buy the 6th
                                share or potentially lose a directorship...

                                > > > - Players don't choose the initial share price. The first public
                                > company
                                > > > starts at the maximum starting price. The second starts one step down
                                > from
                                > > > there, and so on. (I might want to increase the maximum starting
                                > price.)
                                > >
                                > > Interesting, but probably not necessary. It probably gives too much
                                > > advantage to L&N and can hamper what people want to do with the later
                                > > companies.
                                >
                                > Again, takes away choice.
                                >
                                I don't agree that choice is the point with this rule. In 1851 (IMO) the
                                later companies are most effective if they start with a high par value. If
                                you prevent this from happening then it restricts how effective they can be.

                                > > > - Players can't buy-sell or sell-buy (shares in a single company in
                                > one
                                > > > round).
                                > > >
                                > > This will slow things down, but it does make the market more stable. I
                                > doubt
                                > > many players would want that.
                                >
                                > Ignoring the fact that you are not allowed to sell-buy anyway, I doubt it
                                > makes that much difference (it depends on the play style, you may find
                                > your
                                > group doesn't do this sort of thing anyway "Not the done thing, Old
                                > Chap").
                                >
                                > > > [receivership]
                                > > Ah. While we both like the receivership rule (it makes a lot of sense in
                                > the
                                > > UK) we're in a minority. It's also not very accurate for the US. The
                                > other
                                > > problem is that for it to be effective you really want 8 or more
                                > companies
                                > > in the game.
                                >
                                > The problem with this kind of thinking is that a receivership rule just
                                > doesn't work in competitive play. All you need do is launch company after
                                > company, siphon off the funds to your 'keeper' company and discard the
                                > husks
                                > of the others.
                                >
                                > In many ways it comes down to the style of play, or group think. If the
                                > players are happy to run the companies 'honestly' then a receivership rule
                                > would be OK, each player runs a company to the best of its ability, not to
                                > the best interest of the principle shareholder. But the ability to launch
                                > a
                                > second company, strip and dump it (to the bank no less) makes shooting
                                > fish
                                > in a barrel seem like hard work.
                                >
                                > The president needs to have *some* responsibility toward the company,
                                > that's
                                > why the rule that requires a company to own a train is there. If he can
                                > dump
                                > a company, fine, stops those freeloaders and makes them think about
                                > purchasing that second share. And yes, while this doesn't reflect reality
                                > in
                                > the way the 'real' stock market works, the bottom line is that this is a
                                > game and I prefer a workable design over one that mirrors life (all a
                                > question of degree after all).
                                >
                                That "responsibility" may be mitigated by ensuring a company can't go into
                                receivership without a train. It makes timing the asset strip rather more
                                difficult, and you could end up losing out if there's a sudden train rush.

                                > Maybe in conjunction with the "only allowed to purchase the next available
                                > share from the Initial Offering" the receivership rule works a bit better.
                                >
                                I doubt it would work otherwise.

                                > After all, then it will be effectively arbitrary if you manage to get to
                                > run
                                > a company anyway. But for me it's soooo unsatisfactory.
                                >
                                > > > - (I might also scrap the rule about vertical movements on the share
                                > > > chart.)
                                > > >
                                > > Aarrgghh!! Don't!! Take this out and the game WILL be broken. You'll end
                                > up
                                > > with a standard win for the L&N president every time.
                                >
                                > Nod, nod. Just like the LNW in 1825. Sorry Mike, couldn't resist that one.
                                >
                                I have yet to play a game where the LNWR wins the game. If a player wins
                                with the LNWR it tends to be despite having the LNWR rather than because of
                                it.

                                > But this very fact is one of the reasons why I don't like 1825.
                                >
                                Don't? I think you mean Didn't. Can't imagine you've actually played it in
                                the last 4 years, and certainly not with Phase 4 or additional trains or any
                                regional kits.

                                > > > Any comments?
                                > > >
                                > > I rather suspect Chris won't be too keen on this. (Ah.. I see he isn't).
                                > If
                                > > you want an 1829 clone there are better games to do it with (and it has
                                > been
                                > > done before in pre-1830 days). A smaller board causes problems, and
                                > Chris'
                                > > 1851 is heavily dependent on the degree of control companies have over
                                > their
                                > > own stock. Take that away and you're left with a big chunk of the game
                                > > missing.
                                > >
                                > > Play 1851 as it is. If you prefer 1829 then it's easy enough to transfer
                                > the
                                > > rules onto another board, but I'd choose a simpler game with a larger
                                > board
                                > > and more companies. 1870 would work better, but that's no guarantee that
                                > it
                                > > would be OK. Ditto with 1835. Anything smaller and you're asking for
                                > > trouble.
                                > >
                                > > Or....
                                >
                                > Try all the rules you suggest (assuming you can get an 1851 set). There is
                                > of course nothing in the world that should stop you from playing the way
                                > you
                                > want.
                                >
                                Except that in this case it would be like asking a rabbit to pull a cart.
                                You need a bigger and longer 18xx game for this lot to work.

                                > > You could order 1826 and try a variant with that (how's that for
                                > marketing,
                                > > Chris?). You'd need to work on the stock market a bit, and I have no
                                > idea
                                > > how you'd deal with the Etat or SNCF. You'd probably want an 1835-style
                                > > market in preference to the linear model. There's also no guarantee of
                                > > balance.
                                >
                                > Nice one Mike. Interestingly enough 1826 *did* start off with a linear
                                > Stock
                                > Market. It (IMO) almost worked but fortunately David saw the error of his
                                > ways and relented to the 'traditional' 2D stock market ^_^
                                >
                                Interesting. Perhaps a modified linear model would have worked too. But then
                                I suppose it would have had to put up with all this anti-1D prejudice, and
                                wouldn't sell so well. ;-)

                                > A linear Stock Market can work but it requires work to it. 1834 does work
                                > in
                                > this respect (mind, it did take a lot for me to see the error of my ways
                                > over this one, Tom eventually convinced me that it was in fact A Good
                                > Thing
                                > for the design).
                                >
                                I'd be interested in more detail on this one. I don't remember seeing it on
                                Blackwater Station...

                                > > Or...
                                > >
                                > > You could design your own board. Choose a country with either heavy
                                > British
                                > > or European influence and just superimpose a hex grid. Choose (or
                                > invent)
                                > a
                                > > number of companies start in various places and see what happens. At
                                > least
                                > > this way it keeps Chris happy.
                                >
                                > While an attitude of "keep Chris happy" is a splendid one, it isn't
                                > actually
                                > an 18xx requirement ^_^
                                >
                                I thought it was written into the rules...

                                ... sorry, rule differences...

                                Mike.


                                ***DISCLAIMER***

                                This message and/or any attached documents may contain Privileged and Confidential Information and should only be read by those persons to whom this message is addressed.

                                Other than where expressly stated to the contrary, the contents of this message and/or of any attached document(s) are not intended to be relied upon by any person without subsequent express written confirmation to that effect.

                                Sherwood International disclaim all responsibility and accept no liability (including liability for negligence) for the consequences for any person acting, or refraining from acting, on the information contained in this E-mail or in the attached document (s) before receiving such written confirmation.

                                If you have received this E-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone. Please also delete the message from your computer.

                                Any form of unauthorised reproduction, publication, distribution, disclosure, and/or modification of this E-mail message and/or its contents is strictly prohibited.
                              • Joachim Ring
                                ... From: Mike Hutton (Romford) To: Sent: Mittwoch, 5. Juli 2000 15:13 Subject: RE: [18xx] Timely
                                Message 15 of 26 , Jul 5, 2000
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: "Mike Hutton (Romford)" <mike.hutton@...>
                                  To: <18xx@egroups.com>
                                  Sent: Mittwoch, 5. Juli 2000 15:13
                                  Subject: RE: [18xx] Timely Stock Buys


                                  > I honestly think 1830 and those games which follow its general thread
                                  are
                                  > enjoyable.

                                  btw mike, your prr is up in 1830d or 7b...

                                  joachim
                                • Richard Wein
                                  From: Lawson Chris ... husks ... Well, of course, a receivership rule doesn t work if it s so easy to start company after company. But,
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Jul 5, 2000
                                    From: Lawson Chris <ChrisR.Lawson@...>

                                    >The problem with this kind of thinking is that a receivership rule just
                                    >doesn't work in competitive play. All you need do is launch company after
                                    >company, siphon off the funds to your 'keeper' company and discard the
                                    husks
                                    >of the others.

                                    Well, of course, a receivership rule doesn't work if it's so easy to start
                                    company after company. But, in the 1829 system, that isn't the case, at
                                    least not if you have a no buy-sell or sell-buy house rule.

                                    >In many ways it comes down to the style of play, or group think. If the
                                    >players are happy to run the companies 'honestly' then a receivership rule
                                    >would be OK, each player runs a company to the best of its ability, not to
                                    >the best interest of the principle shareholder. But the ability to launch a
                                    >second company, strip and dump it (to the bank no less) makes shooting fish
                                    >in a barrel seem like hard work.

                                    As I say, with some slight tightening of the 1829 rules, strip-dump is not
                                    so easy.

                                    In the games I played, players very much ran companies for their personal
                                    interest, and strip-dumps happened occasionally--one or two per game at
                                    most. But the costs associated with strip-dump, in terms of selling shares
                                    which might otherwise have proven useful, made it far from a perfect
                                    strategy.

                                    On the other hand, the only way to prevent strip-dump in 1830 etc is for
                                    players to refrain from buying more than one share in a hostile company. I
                                    find this too limiting.

                                    Still, I *will* try the printed 1851 rules (assuming I can get a copy!).

                                    Richard Wein
                                  • Mike Hutton (Romford)
                                    Whoops. I m on the case. ... ***DISCLAIMER*** This message and/or any attached documents may contain Privileged and Confidential Information and should only be
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Jul 5, 2000
                                      Whoops. I'm on the case.

                                      > ----------
                                      > From: Joachim Ring[SMTP:jring@...]
                                      > Sent: 05 July 2000 14:42
                                      > To: 18xx@egroups.com
                                      > Subject: Re: [18xx] Timely Stock Buys
                                      >
                                      > ----- Original Message -----
                                      > From: "Mike Hutton (Romford)" <mike.hutton@...>
                                      > To: <18xx@egroups.com>
                                      > Sent: Mittwoch, 5. Juli 2000 15:13
                                      > Subject: RE: [18xx] Timely Stock Buys
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > > I honestly think 1830 and those games which follow its general thread
                                      > are
                                      > > enjoyable.
                                      >
                                      > btw mike, your prr is up in 1830d or 7b...
                                      >
                                      > joachim
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      > Life's too short to send boring email. Let SuperSig come to the rescue.
                                      > http://click.egroups.com/1/6137/2/_/467712/_/962804128/
                                      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      >
                                      > This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
                                      >

                                      ***DISCLAIMER***

                                      This message and/or any attached documents may contain Privileged and Confidential Information and should only be read by those persons to whom this message is addressed.

                                      Other than where expressly stated to the contrary, the contents of this message and/or of any attached document(s) are not intended to be relied upon by any person without subsequent express written confirmation to that effect.

                                      Sherwood International disclaim all responsibility and accept no liability (including liability for negligence) for the consequences for any person acting, or refraining from acting, on the information contained in this E-mail or in the attached document (s) before receiving such written confirmation.

                                      If you have received this E-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone. Please also delete the message from your computer.

                                      Any form of unauthorised reproduction, publication, distribution, disclosure, and/or modification of this E-mail message and/or its contents is strictly prohibited.
                                    • Marco Rocci
                                      On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 12:33:30 +0100, Steve Thomas ... (Having never seen 1829,) could you explain what this advantage is? Regards, -- Marco Rocci MicroEra srl
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Jul 5, 2000
                                        On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 12:33:30 +0100, Steve Thomas
                                        <Steve.Thomas@...> wrote:

                                        >Speaking of receivership, the Banker has a substantial in-
                                        >game advantage. This makes players clamour to be the
                                        >banker, which makes a pleasant change from having them try
                                        >to void it, but it's another unbalancing factor.

                                        (Having never seen 1829,) could you explain what this advantage is?

                                        Regards,

                                        --
                                        Marco Rocci
                                        MicroEra srl
                                        Turin, Italy
                                      • Richard Wein
                                        From: Marco Rocci ... In 1829, the banker (aka receiver) gets to run any companies in receivership (i.e. those with less than 5 shares in
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Jul 5, 2000
                                          From: Marco Rocci <mrocci@...>


                                          >On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 12:33:30 +0100, Steve Thomas
                                          ><Steve.Thomas@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          >>Speaking of receivership, the Banker has a substantial in-
                                          >>game advantage. This makes players clamour to be the
                                          >>banker, which makes a pleasant change from having them try
                                          >>to void it, but it's another unbalancing factor.
                                          >
                                          >(Having never seen 1829,) could you explain what this advantage is?


                                          In 1829, the banker (aka receiver) gets to run any companies in receivership
                                          (i.e. those with less than 5 shares in circulation), but there are some
                                          limitations on what he can do with them.

                                          Richard Wein (Tich)
                                          "The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it; ignorance may deride
                                          it; malice may distort it; but there it is." -- Winston Churchill
                                        • Steve Thomas
                                          ... I think we re converging here. 1829 is broken, but there are games which can be played with the 1829 components which are less broken. Is that fair? ...
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Jul 6, 2000
                                            Richard Wein wrote:

                                            > It has one or two major big problems if played as written. But a couple of
                                            > house rules (like not using surveyors) will fix those.

                                            I think we're converging here. 1829 is broken, but there are
                                            games which can be played with the 1829 components which are
                                            less broken. Is that fair?

                                            > I don't think I ever played a game of 1829 in which a player never held a
                                            > directorship. With enough players, I suppose that would happen. We usually
                                            > played with 5-6.

                                            Most of my experience is with 4-6 players. The last time I
                                            played, I never owned a company and one opponent decided to
                                            open the SECR because it was the first company he'd been
                                            offered which had enough money for a train. That was with
                                            5 players. The other three had a great time.

                                            > Anyway, I don't mean to criticise you for disliking 1829. It's a matter of
                                            > taste. I expect both systems are viable, and I just want to try my preferred
                                            > system with a variety of games.

                                            Indeed. I make no secret of my tastes in 18xx games, but I
                                            don't expect everyone to agree.

                                            Steve
                                          • Steve Thomas
                                            ... 1834 is a game set in New England and a little bit of Canada. Major cities are Boston, Montreal, Portland (ME) and Providence. New York is an off-board
                                            Message 21 of 26 , Jul 6, 2000
                                              Mike Hutton (Romford) wrote:

                                              > > A linear Stock Market can work but it requires work to it. 1834 does
                                              > > work in this respect (mind, it did take a lot for me to see the error
                                              > > of my ways over this one, Tom eventually convinced me that it was in
                                              > > fact A Good Thing for the design).

                                              > I'd be interested in more detail on this one. I don't remember seeing it on
                                              > Blackwater Station...

                                              1834 is a game set in New England and a little bit of Canada.
                                              Major cities are Boston, Montreal, Portland (ME) and Providence.
                                              New York is an off-board connection. Tom Lehmann, of Prism, is
                                              the designer and he still hopes to publish the game commercially.
                                              That's assuming the intellectual property rights can be sorted
                                              out. So I'm a bit reluctant to describe the game in too much
                                              detail. But the game has a 1D stock market, linear at the cheap
                                              end and exponentlal when prices get higher. Stock sales by
                                              investors don't hurt the price, but the price drops if there's
                                              still stock in the pool at the end of the round (and rises for
                                              all sold, of course). Prices rise by -1 to 3 steps in ORs
                                              depending on the ratio of dividend to stock price and one or two
                                              other things.

                                              When the game was in its initial stages, the stock market was 1D
                                              but with somewhat different rules, and I was sceptical that it
                                              could be made to work. But with a few relatively minor tweaks
                                              it does work, and very well too. Tom's other brain-wave, that
                                              of abandoning stock limits, didn't work, and the game is now
                                              fairly conventional in that respect.

                                              There are two sets in existence; Tom and I each have one. The
                                              game is occasionally seen at conventions.

                                              Steve
                                            • Mark Dulcey
                                              ... That s not exactly right. The rules state that the receiver shall be a player who is not the directory of any company. If there is no such player, the
                                              Message 22 of 26 , Jul 6, 2000
                                                Richard Wein wrote:
                                                >
                                                > From: Marco Rocci <mrocci@...>
                                                >
                                                > >On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 12:33:30 +0100, Steve Thomas
                                                > ><Steve.Thomas@...> wrote:
                                                > >
                                                > >>Speaking of receivership, the Banker has a substantial in-
                                                > >>game advantage. This makes players clamour to be the
                                                > >>banker, which makes a pleasant change from having them try
                                                > >>to void it, but it's another unbalancing factor.
                                                > >
                                                > >(Having never seen 1829,) could you explain what this advantage is?
                                                >
                                                > In 1829, the banker (aka receiver) gets to run any companies in receivership
                                                > (i.e. those with less than 5 shares in circulation), but there are some
                                                > limitations on what he can do with them.

                                                That's not exactly right. The rules state that "the receiver
                                                shall be a player who is not the directory of any company. If
                                                there is no such player, the receiver shall be the banker." In a
                                                large 1829 game (6 or more players), the receiver is likely to be
                                                someone other than the banker.

                                                --
                                                Mark J. Dulcey mark@...
                                                Visit my house's home page: http://www.buttery.org/
                                                Visit my home page: http://www.buttery.org/markpoly/
                                              • Richard Wein
                                                From: Steve Thomas ... of ... I wouldn t agree. I don t consider a game broken because it needs a couple of changes. If you want to
                                                Message 23 of 26 , Jul 6, 2000
                                                  From: Steve Thomas <Steve.Thomas@...>


                                                  >Richard Wein wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  >> It has one or two major big problems if played as written. But a couple
                                                  of
                                                  >> house rules (like not using surveyors) will fix those.
                                                  >
                                                  >I think we're converging here. 1829 is broken, but there are
                                                  >games which can be played with the 1829 components which are
                                                  >less broken. Is that fair?

                                                  I wouldn't agree. I don't consider a game broken because it needs a couple
                                                  of changes. If you want to say it's broken *if played as written*, then I'll
                                                  agree. But changing a couple of rules is not the same as playing another
                                                  game with the same components! ;-)

                                                  Richard Wein (Tich)
                                                • Richard Wein
                                                  From: Mark Dulcey ... receivership ... I must have an older version of the rules than you. I have the original (1974) rules. I didn t
                                                  Message 24 of 26 , Jul 6, 2000
                                                    From: Mark Dulcey <mark@...>

                                                    >Richard Wein wrote:
                                                    >>
                                                    >> From: Marco Rocci <mrocci@...>
                                                    >>
                                                    >> >On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 12:33:30 +0100, Steve Thomas
                                                    >> ><Steve.Thomas@...> wrote:
                                                    >> >
                                                    >> >>Speaking of receivership, the Banker has a substantial in-
                                                    >> >>game advantage. This makes players clamour to be the
                                                    >> >>banker, which makes a pleasant change from having them try
                                                    >> >>to void it, but it's another unbalancing factor.
                                                    >> >
                                                    >> >(Having never seen 1829,) could you explain what this advantage is?
                                                    >>
                                                    >> In 1829, the banker (aka receiver) gets to run any companies in
                                                    receivership
                                                    >> (i.e. those with less than 5 shares in circulation), but there are some
                                                    >> limitations on what he can do with them.
                                                    >
                                                    >That's not exactly right. The rules state that "the receiver
                                                    >shall be a player who is not the directory of any company. If
                                                    >there is no such player, the receiver shall be the banker." In a
                                                    >large 1829 game (6 or more players), the receiver is likely to be
                                                    >someone other than the banker.

                                                    I must have an older version of the rules than you. I have the original
                                                    (1974) rules. I didn't realize there was another one.

                                                    Richard Wein (Tich)
                                                  • John_David_Galt@acm.org
                                                    ... I ve played 1829 (years ago) and never had this experience. Then again, in every group I ve played in, all or most players will insist on opening a
                                                    Message 25 of 26 , Jul 6, 2000
                                                      Steve Thomas wrote:

                                                      > The main drawback of 1829, from my perspective, is that if
                                                      > you don't get an early company, it's a really bad idea to
                                                      > get a late one since with competent play by the directors
                                                      > of the early companies it will never get a route.

                                                      I've played 1829 (years ago) and never had this experience. Then
                                                      again, in every group I've played in, all or most players will
                                                      insist on opening a company in the first stock round, and regard as
                                                      broken any game that doesn't allow all players to do so every time.

                                                      John
                                                    • Steve Thomas
                                                      ... I suspect it s a matter of how bad the game is when played to the original rules. My group plays 1830 in a manner consistent with the rule book except for
                                                      Message 26 of 26 , Jul 8, 2000
                                                        Richard Wein wrote:

                                                        > I wouldn't agree. I don't consider a game broken because it needs a couple
                                                        > of changes. If you want to say it's broken *if played as written*, then I'll
                                                        > agree. But changing a couple of rules is not the same as playing another
                                                        > game with the same components! ;-)

                                                        I suspect it's a matter of how bad the game is when played to
                                                        the original rules. My group plays 1830 in a manner consistent
                                                        with the rule book except for one rule - the one about company
                                                        treasuries being secret. (I accept that there are other rules
                                                        which have widely variant interpretations.) So in that sense
                                                        you could say that I've never played 1830 as such, but merely
                                                        a different game with the same components. But a player who
                                                        has a perfect memory (such as Nick Wedd's friend Clive) knows
                                                        how much money companies have, so all we're doing is reducing
                                                        the mental effort required by the players. I see your changes
                                                        in a rather different light - they change the set of legal
                                                        moves.

                                                        This isn't a bad thing - we do exactly the same in 1841, where
                                                        for various reasons we don't play to the printed rules in all
                                                        respects. And we call it 1841, for want of a better term.
                                                        But it's not 1841, and I have to adjust when I play with other
                                                        groups.

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