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

Re: Game Distribution (was stock manipulation)

Expand Messages
  • destrinstorm
    ... I d favour an RTP version and don t think $80 is too high. On a related note, have you looked at http://www.thegamecrafter.com/ and seen if producing a
    Message 1 of 29 , Feb 1 12:35 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In 18xx@yahoogroups.com, Craig Bartell <home@...> wrote:
      >
      > By finished, I mean the rules are set, and the only changes being made
      > are cosmetic. We will play test anytime we can get a third person to
      > join us :)
      >
      > Tim and I are debating how to distribute the game. 1817 has a lot of
      > components. There are 180 tokens, 70 loan markers, and 380 stock
      > certificates among all the other various pieces. This seems to make
      > print-n-play more work than many people are willing to go through.
      > Although a few people have said they would be willing to build their own
      > set. We think a high quality published game can be sold for $80. A
      > little expensive due to the amount of components. I hope we can make a
      > decision, choose a direction, and move forward quickly by the end of
      > February. What would your preference be?
      >
      > Craig

      I'd favour an RTP version and don't think $80 is too high. On a related note, have you looked at http://www.thegamecrafter.com/ and seen if producing a game through there would work out to be a good idea? I've only tangentially glanced at the site since noticing it on BGG so I have no idea of the (dis)advantages but it seems like it might be a decent option.

      Phil
    • Steve Thomas
      ... As others have noted, there are very rare occasions in 1830 when the winner never runs a company; by leeching well, you never have to chip in from hand,
      Message 2 of 29 , Feb 1 5:04 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Bruce Beard wrote:


        > Is there game that you could win without running a RR?
        > Simply by buying and selling stocks and or privates and
        > playing financial games. 1817 sounds like it might be possible.

        As others have noted, there are very rare occasions in 1830 when the winner
        never runs a company; by leeching well, you never have to chip in from hand,
        and that might in principle overcome the advantages of being president (more
        shares when at certificate limit, being able to soak up privates). I've
        done it once, and I've seen it done once postally.

        It's hard in some games to do this trick in other games, either because the
        penalties attached to being president aren't there, or because there's
        nothing much to leech on early on. One has to lower one's standards. I
        once won a game of 1846 by observing, at about the third stock round, that
        my company had the poorest prospects, by a distance, so I bailed out as much
        as I could and invested in competently-managed railroads. Some time later
        my company had recovered a little, so it got snapped up and I ended up with
        only 40% of it.

        --
        Steve Thomas maisnestce@b...
      • Daniel Victor
        Sorry,Steve,you have subjected me to irresistible temptation.So I will take the bait.Are you implying that your own railroad was not competently run? Danny
        Message 3 of 29 , Feb 1 5:23 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Sorry,Steve,you have subjected me to irresistible temptation.So I will take the bait.Are you implying that your own railroad was not competently run?
          Danny Victor



          ----- Original Message ----
          From: Steve Thomas <maisnestce@...>
          To: 18xx@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Mon, 1 February, 2010 13:04:36
          Subject: Re: [18xx] stock manipulation

          Bruce Beard wrote:


          > Is there game that you could win without running a RR?
          > Simply by buying and selling stocks and or privates and
          > playing financial games. 1817 sounds like it might be possible.

          As others have noted, there are very rare occasions in 1830 when the winner
          never runs a company; by leeching well, you never have to chip in from hand,
          and that might in principle overcome the advantages of being president (more
          shares when at certificate limit, being able to soak up privates). I've
          done it once, and I've seen it done once postally.

          It's hard in some games to do this trick in other games, either because the
          penalties attached to being president aren't there, or because there's
          nothing much to leech on early on. One has to lower one's standards. I
          once won a game of 1846 by observing, at about the third stock round, that
          my company had the poorest prospects, by a distance, so I bailed out as much
          as I could and invested in competently-managed railroads. Some time later
          my company had recovered a little, so it got snapped up and I ended up with
          only 40% of it.

          --
          Steve Thomas maisnestce@b...




          ------------------------------------

          This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.Yahoo! Groups Links
        • Beard, Bruce D.
          Steve and Danny, I know someone who won a 5-player 1870 without ever being a president. In theory, by buying the best stock and never going into your hand you
          Message 4 of 29 , Feb 1 5:32 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Steve and Danny,

            I know someone who won a 5-player 1870 without ever being a president. In theory, by buying the best stock and never going into your hand you can make up for the lack of a president cert.

            But observant players should notice that you are winning and you cannot help but be vulnerable to a dump.

            I tried to duplicate the feat but got bored, sold everything, started 2 companies, bought 3 5Ts and finished second.

            -Bruce

            Pete Chase and I once tied in a game of 61 where he never owned a major. Since one rarely hits cert limit until the last 3 ORs, this seems easier than in many other games.
            ________________________________
            From: 18xx@yahoogroups.com [18xx@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Daniel Victor [nonteadrinker@...]
            Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 8:23 AM
            To: 18xx@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [18xx] stock manipulation



            Sorry,Steve,you have subjected me to irresistible temptation.So I will take the bait.Are you implying that your own railroad was not competently run?
            Danny Victor

            ----- Original Message ----
            From: Steve Thomas <maisnestce@...<mailto:maisnestce%40btinternet.com>>
            To: 18xx@yahoogroups.com<mailto:18xx%40yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Mon, 1 February, 2010 13:04:36
            Subject: Re: [18xx] stock manipulation

            Bruce Beard wrote:

            > Is there game that you could win without running a RR?
            > Simply by buying and selling stocks and or privates and
            > playing financial games. 1817 sounds like it might be possible.

            As others have noted, there are very rare occasions in 1830 when the winner
            never runs a company; by leeching well, you never have to chip in from hand,
            and that might in principle overcome the advantages of being president (more
            shares when at certificate limit, being able to soak up privates). I've
            done it once, and I've seen it done once postally.

            It's hard in some games to do this trick in other games, either because the
            penalties attached to being president aren't there, or because there's
            nothing much to leech on early on. One has to lower one's standards. I
            once won a game of 1846 by observing, at about the third stock round, that
            my company had the poorest prospects, by a distance, so I bailed out as much
            as I could and invested in competently-managed railroads. Some time later
            my company had recovered a little, so it got snapped up and I ended up with
            only 40% of it.

            --
            Steve Thomas maisnestce@b...

            ------------------------------------

            This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.Yahoo! Groups Links
          • Steve Thomas
            ... There s a statement in the rules to 2038 along the lines of we want players to open companies because it s the right thing to do, not because they re
            Message 5 of 29 , Feb 1 6:00 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Bruce Beard wrote:

              > I tried to duplicate the feat but got bored, sold everything,
              > started 2 companies, bought 3 5Ts and finished second.

              There's a statement in the rules to 2038 along the lines of "we want players
              to open companies because it's the right thing to do, not because they're
              bored." The corollary--don't do it if it's wrong, even if you are
              bored--should be engraved on every gamer's heart. Spend the time making up
              dirty limericks, or something equally productive, instead.

              Now I think on it, I once played a game of 1841 where I ran a Tuscan minor
              for a while but nothing thereafter. I'd have won, too, except that the
              cretin^Wplayer running a company in which I had nearly as many shares as he
              did chose to ignore my advice on the best way to run the company in his
              interests, and thereby demoted me to second and himself to third.

              Danny Victor wrote:

              > Sorry,Steve,you have subjected me to irresistible temptation.
              > So I will take the bait.Are you implying that your own railroad
              > was not competently run?

              There's a narrow dividing line between an implication so strong even you
              can't miss it, and an outright statement of fact. But whichever side of the
              line you care to place my statement, my company had certainly not been
              managed in the best interests of prospective investors.

              --
              Steve Thomas maisnestce@b...
            • Daniel Victor
              ... From: Beard, Bruce D. To: 18xx@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, 1 February, 2010 13:32:58 Subject: RE:
              Message 6 of 29 , Feb 1 6:03 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                ----- Original Message ----
                From: "Beard, Bruce D." <bruce_d_beard@...>
                To: "18xx@yahoogroups.com" <18xx@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Mon, 1 February, 2010 13:32:58
                Subject: RE: [18xx] stock manipulation

                Steve and Danny,

                I know someone who won a 5-player 1870 without ever being a president. In theory, by buying the best stock and never going into your hand you can make up for the lack of a president cert.

                But observant players should notice that you are winning and you cannot help but be vulnerable to a dump.

                I tried to duplicate the feat but got bored, sold everything, started 2 companies, bought 3 5Ts and finished second.

                -Bruce

                Pete Chase and I once tied in a game of 61 where he never owned a major. Since one rarely hits cert limit until the last 3 ORs, this seems easier than in many other games.
                ________________________________

                Bruce,many years ago,I totally blew the chance to win a six-player game of 1830 without having ever run a company.I was going first in the share-dealing round.There were one or two sharks in the game,and one of them - he knows who he is - had done his damnedest to persuade a chap named Ken Simpson to help dump a company on me during the operating rounds.Ken,to his credit, refused.I was mightily relieved about this,as I knew that I could not be dumped with a company during the sharedealing round,as I was going first.
                I was so relieved that,when the sharedealing round started,I quickly passed on my turn.The problem with that was that I had failed to observe that one of the companies in which I held multiple shares was,in fact,trainless.I soon found myself President of it....
                Danny Victor
              • Robert Jasiek
                ... Isn t the purpose of any competently run railroad to be depleted for their investors sake? Concerning our local railroad here, Berlin s S-Bahn, daughter
                Message 7 of 29 , Feb 1 6:48 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Daniel Victor wrote:
                  > Are you implying that your own railroad was not competently run?

                  Isn't the purpose of any competently run railroad to be depleted for
                  their investors' sake? Concerning our local railroad here, Berlin's
                  S-Bahn, daughter of Deutsche Bahn, was mercilessly run to the ground in
                  favour of its parent and to the best disgrace of all (ex-)customers.
                  Security and maintenance were almost non-existent; very profitable, I
                  tell you! Now wheels are breaking, points don't work under snow and many
                  cars are being repaired. Deutsche Bahn has won the game (so far...) much
                  more convincingly than any current railway in England.

                  --
                  robert jasiek
                • MorganD
                  You could count me in on a preorder for 1817.
                  Message 8 of 29 , Feb 2 6:19 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    You could count me in on a preorder for 1817.
                  • Michael Leuchtenburg
                    ... I d prefer a published game rather than PnP only. I d definitely pick up 1817 for $80, as it sounds like an interesting game. However, I agree with some of
                    Message 9 of 29 , Feb 2 10:59 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On 2010-01-30 21:41, Craig Bartell wrote:
                      > Tim and I are debating how to distribute the game. 1817 has a lot of
                      > components. There are 180 tokens, 70 loan markers, and 380 stock
                      > certificates among all the other various pieces. This seems to make
                      > print-n-play more work than many people are willing to go through.
                      > Although a few people have said they would be willing to build their own
                      > set. We think a high quality published game can be sold for $80. A
                      > little expensive due to the amount of components. I hope we can make a
                      > decision, choose a direction, and move forward quickly by the end of
                      > February. What would your preference be?

                      I'd prefer a published game rather than PnP only. I'd definitely pick up
                      1817 for $80, as it sounds like an interesting game. However, I agree
                      with some of the other folks that if you haven't already, you should
                      consider doing some blind playtesting, possibly by publishing the
                      rules/components for PnP.

                      - Michael
                    • J C Lawrence
                      ... So far I ve read several comments from experienced 18xx players akin to, With a little more development this could be brilliant! How expensive would it
                      Message 10 of 29 , Feb 2 11:36 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Michael Leuchtenburg wrote:

                        > I agree
                        > with some of the other folks that if you haven't already, you should
                        > consider doing some blind playtesting, possibly by publishing the
                        > rules/components for PnP.

                        So far I've read several comments from experienced 18xx players akin to,
                        "With a little more development this could be brilliant!" How expensive
                        would it be to find out if they're right? The risk of blind playtesting
                        is that the game may be revealed to be a dead dog, and/or may sell a few
                        less copies as some stay with their PnP copies. The potential gain is
                        that the game may be significantly improved by external feedback, and
                        that the feedback may build broader market interest, both resulting in
                        higher sales. The cost is a little time, in a market which thoroughly
                        timing insensitive.

                        -- JCL stating the bloody obvious yet again because someone should
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.