$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 105.06

6,574 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
41.4% of Goal | left

Support:

Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
8 Posts

1899» Forums » General

Subject: Smaller bank? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
RvdH
Netherlands
Enschede
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I notice this game is not so highly rated, partly due to its length. I was wondering if a anyone tried to play it with a "regular" $12,000 bank?

Or are there more "problems" in this game, than just its bank size?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
flag msg tools
designer
Terrain cost is so large as to often be crippling. The result is that the game mostly works if the trains go really slowly...but they never do.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
RvdH
Netherlands
Enschede
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I see. That's unfortunate. Do you think lower terrain costs (2/3 or 1/2 of the current costs) would improve the game? Or would that be "too simple".

(The reason I'm asking is that I'm trying to expand my collection of 1830-like games. Since many people here know the rules of 1830, it's easier to get those to the table.)

Also, the hex north-east of Seoul shows a colored dot and an open dot. I presume the latter should be closed as well? i.e. so it needs a yellow tile with 2 dots?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
flag msg tools
designer
RvdH83 wrote:
I see. That's unfortunate. Do you think lower terrain costs (2/3 or 1/2 of the current costs) would improve the game? Or would that be "too simple".


Ooof. I'm a bit too far from the game and having played to dig that deep. The income-to-treasury/mail-run rules are a band-aide in the direction of matching the new terrain costs, and they're not nothing, but I also recall them clearly not really being enough.

We have a fortnight 18xx paroxysm approaching (a mate is in town for a week and then a convention). I'll try and nudge '99 toward the table.

Quote:
(The reason I'm asking is that I'm trying to expand my collection of 1830-like games. Since many people here know the rules of 1830, it's easier to get those to the table.)


Right.

18Kaas is better than most (and topical for you) but requires picking which Ruhr definition to use (I advise any one which is good-not-great). 18FR is decent. Candidly, my '43 is '30 with masses of chrome and I kinda like it while admitting my bias (it was amusing to hear how divisive it was in Portland this year). Wolfram is redoing 18NL...but with 9 companies...? The original 18NL is pretty mediocre but maybe there's something there in his new version. There's also the two maps in the expansion kit that Wolfram did a while back -- at least one of them is pretty good (I recall the other as "not bad" rather than "good", but couldn't tell you why). 18EC is basically '30 and of course several of the other Marflow games are pretty close to 1830-with-a-dash-of-1835 (I'm fond of 18Rhl and his Cologne game might warrant another look (the base game is pretty meh but some of the as-published variants may be more than enough to rescue it -- not tried them yet)). Then there's the recent Winsome stuff. '89...'TN is basically a watery '30 with mergers of arbitrary pairs ('51 does that ever so much better)...

Quote:
Also, the hex north-east of Seoul shows a colored dot and an open dot. I presume the latter should be closed as well? i.e. so it needs a yellow tile with 2 dots?


Uhh, that's explicitly covered in the rules in paragraph 8 (which also helpfully specify a tile #91 that isn't in the game?). The V2 variant on BlackWater Station seems like a good start here with the minor caveat that they don't show the (permitted) #3 yellow dead end case.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
RvdH
Netherlands
Enschede
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
clearclaw wrote:
RvdH83 wrote:
I see. That's unfortunate. Do you think lower terrain costs (2/3 or 1/2 of the current costs) would improve the game? Or would that be "too simple".


Ooof. I'm a bit too far from the game and having played to dig that deep. The income-to-treasury/mail-run rules are a band-aide in the direction of matching the new terrain costs, and they're not nothing, but I also recall them clearly not really being enough.

We have a fortnight 18xx paroxysm approaching (a mate is in town for a week and then a convention). I'll try and nudge '99 toward the table.


Cool. Thanks.

clearclaw wrote:
Quote:
(The reason I'm asking is that I'm trying to expand my collection of 1830-like games. Since many people here know the rules of 1830, it's easier to get those to the table.)


18Kaas is better than most (and topical for you) but requires picking which Ruhr definition to use (I advise any one which is good-not-great). 18FR is decent. Candidly, my '43 is '30 with masses of chrome and I kinda like it while admitting my bias (it was amusing to hear how divisive it was in Portland this year). Wolfram is redoing 18NL...but with 9 companies...? The original 18NL is pretty mediocre but maybe there's something there in his new version. There's also the two maps in the expansion kit that Wolfram did a while back -- at least one of them is pretty good (I recall the other as "not bad" rather than "good", but couldn't tell you why). 18EC is basically '30 and of course several of the other Marflow games are pretty close to 1830-with-a-dash-of-1835 (I'm fond of 18Rhl and his Cologne game might warrant another look (the base game is pretty meh but some of the as-published variants may be more than enough to rescue it -- not tried them yet)). Then there's the recent Winsome stuff. '89...'TN is basically a watery '30 with mergers of arbitrary pairs ('51 does that ever so much better)...

Thanks for the many suggestions! I'll see if I can print 1843.

A friend picked up 18NL at Spiel, Essen and we played it last Sunday (5 player game). Indeed 9 companies with an additional 4-train and and 6-train (compared to 1830). I found it a fine game, but I'm not sure if it plays out the same every time. I presume it will hit the table more often, so some more plays will probably answer this. Component wise I was very pleased with the game (except for the thin tiles maybe). It has a clear board, shares, tokens and stock market.

I saw 18EC: USA East Coast at Essen but didn't buy it. The map seemed too similar to 1830, so it didn't seem that attractive. But I'll reconsider.

I played the Winsome stuff. I like 1879; it is different enough every game and is my go-to 18xx with first time players.
1857 a bit less, as it plays out roughly the same every game: buying two trains of the same type is probably going to kill you, track lays are often the same, and I don't really like the turn order system. There is no punishment in priority if you trash stock and you can pass a lot of turns before you do any shenanigans, since priority isn't based on last-to-pass. As corporations float at 50%, a bankruptcy in OR3.1 or OR3.2 is not uncommon. Train Rush: The Game. Experienced 18xx players should easily be able to finish it in under 2 hours.
1859 felt fresh, but I've played it only once.

I've played 1889 a few times, but I found something missing compared to 1830. Not sure what. Maybe I need to play it more.

I'll look into 18TN.

clearclaw wrote:
Quote:
Also, the hex north-east of Seoul shows a colored dot and an open dot. I presume the latter should be closed as well? i.e. so it needs a yellow tile with 2 dots?


Uhh, that's explicitly covered in the rules in paragraph 8 (which also helpfully specify a tile #91 that isn't in the game?). The V2 variant on BlackWater Station seems like a good start here with the minor caveat that they don't show the (permitted) #3 yellow dead end case.

Argh, yes, missed it. Tile #91 seems odd. Should be either #981 or #991.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
flag msg tools
designer
We just played 3-player. The mail runs are better than I recalled. However I'd tend to make two small changes to the game, one to slightly simplify it and the other to modestly temper the significant tendency for an early bankruptcy:

1) The decision-overhead of the mailruns is not worth it. Instead pay a fixed amount for the mail runs rather than faffing about with the starts/ends of routes. IIRC this is one of the standard/recommended variants, but I don't recall the exact numbers they use. I suggest something like $10 multiplied by the size of the current train available from the supply (eg for a 4T, 4*$10 = $40. This means that the mail runs are slightly richer as the game proceeds (but not enough to make any significant difference) and there's no pointless faffing about wiggling a route to optimise a dividend versus a mailrun or visa versa.

2) Play with the extra 6T from 1830, most especially if playing with 4 or more players. The game will still be prone to bankruptcies -- and it is already even more prone to bankruptcies than base 1830 -- but the extra 6T should temper that a bit (not quite every game will end in a bankruptcy) without doing much to relax the basic delightful pressure of the game.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bruce Murphy
Australia
Pyrmont
NSW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Have the mail run just be your largest rev centre perhaps? Or half largest two. Simplifies without doing terrible things to location texture.

B>
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gavin Kenny
United Kingdom
Nr Godalming
Surrey
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
I've never found a problem with 1899, though the companies in the bottom right hand corner of the map are much harder to start than around Peking. Controlling the bridge can be a slightly unbalancing tactic in the game, but it can be mitigated by locking that company out from access to the very profitable Peking.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.