Graham Lockwood
Australia
Blacktown
NSW
-
Three of us sat down to try this new(ish) expansion yesterday. I didn't make any notes, since I had no intention of writing up a 'geek session report. We are reasonably experienced Chicago Express players.
However, it is interesting to note that as far as the narrow gauge part of the expansion goes, we found it to be a bit of a fizzer. Yes, I know that it's use is to block other railroads in forest and mountain hexes and to increase the building cost in the plains. Non of us bothered. No one bothered in the plains, because it was only going to cost an extra dollar for the major railroads to build within the same hex as a narrow gauge. You are restricted as to where you can build in forests and mountains, since you must choose an empty non-city hex adjacent to an existing major railroad company. Again no one bothered. Lastly, since you can take any of the three actions to build a narrow gauge, it's an action that allows a rail build or stock issue to be taken, in order to advance the indicator needles. But you can do that in the standard game anyway, it's just that you don't get to place a narrow gauge rail build in addition.
Now, the Erie. Well, that's another story. As soon as the required conditions were met (the Penn RR was the first to reach the hex row at Youngstown), I put up the one and only share of the Erie and bid $25 for it. The other two looked at each other and shook their heads (in disbelief?). I got my Erie share.
However, I used its cash to build to Chicago instead of New York. Since I was partners in all the other railroads, I just concentrated on building the Erie to Chicago and let the others build the rest of the majors. I had estimated it was going to cost at least $9 to build in Chicago (since the Penn was well on its way there and the Wabash was going to get in before the Erie), so I felt that it need a fair bit of cash since there was only one share issue and the prospects of getting an extra few dollars by improving a forest hex or two was poor. Luckily the New York Central was nowhere near Buffalo and since I had no NYC shares at that time, it was going to cost that railroad a packet to go through my Erie hexes to get to Chicago as well. It was a winning strategy. The Erie reached $27 by the last dividend (as I had managed to get into Detroit also) and I had previously taken two other payouts at $25 and one at $17. So for my outlay of $25, I had received $94 return. It pushed my final score to around $240 or so, leaving second place at just over $200 ($204, to be exact, as I remember).
Have we got this expansion figured out wrong somehow? The Narrow gauge was not utilized by us at all, and the Erie was not utilized as intended(?), that of building to NY. The only reason I would build to NY with the Erie is if the NYC is well past Buffalo and well on its way to Chicago and I have to double build into its' hexes.
I doubt whether we'll use the narrow gauge part of the expansion again, unless we can come up with some more convincing house rules or strategies to utilize this part of the expansion. The Erie will no doubt be a much more permanent fixture and bidding for its sole share will be high.
-
Mikko Saari
Finland
http://www.lautapeliopas.fi/ - the best Finnish board game resource!
-
I'm not sure Erie is particularly intended to go to New York, it just can do it.
-
Costas
Canada
London
Ontario
-
The expansions are not suited to 3-player games, IMHO.
If you're burning actions, the NG trains can add some interesting options with significant screwage in higher game counts, but don't do too much with 3.
The Erie is too powerful with 3 players. Whoever gets the Erie in a 3-player game will almost certainly win. The Erie's gravy build is to Chicago and Detroit; NY is a last resort.
-
Graham Lockwood
Australia
Blacktown
NSW
-
rockusultimus wrote:
The Erie is too powerful with 3 players.
Wouldn't it be even more powerful a play with 4 or more players?
Since the other shares are going to be even more diluted with more players.
I think that the single Erie share has got to cost whoever buys it dearly (as in fact all other share sales should try to attain a similar effect, it's a basic tennet of the game).
-
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
-
promuso wrote: rockusultimus wrote:
The Erie is too powerful with 3 players.
Wouldn't it be even more powerful a play with 4 or more players?
No. The value of the Erie depends on game-length control. With 3 players it is very hard for the other two players to effectively control game-length for themselves and against the Erie player (assuming that the Erie in fact is ever allowed to open). With four (skilled) players the Erie player's ability to manage game-length is roughly balanced by the other players.
Quote: I think that the single Erie share has got to cost whoever buys it dearly (as in fact all other share sales should try to attain a similar effect, it's a basic tennet of the game).
No. The Erie is effectively a gamble on game-length and its value is purely proportional to the Erie player's ability to control game-length to their advantage. If the game runs long, the Erie player simply wins. If the game runs short, they lose.
-
Graham Lockwood
Australia
Blacktown
NSW
-
I see, thank you for your enlightening remarks.
-
|
|
Posted Sat Oct 24, 2009 11:35 pm
