Dave Berry
Scotland
Edinburgh
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Here's an alternative idea for introducting new players to 1862:

1. Ignore non-chartered companies. All companies must be chartered companies, bid for during a parliamentary round and fully-capitalised.

2. All trains receive a single warranty. Players may not buy additional warranties.

3. Ignore the George Hudson manoeuvre.

The idea behind this suggestion is to simplify decisions by reducing the amount of choice (for an introductory game only).

When I first played the game, I had really no idea when to start a chartered company vs a non-chartered company. For someone new to 18xx, this is even more of a puzzle, and they are faced with learning rules for both full capitalisation and incremental capitalisation on their first game. It is rare to find both mechanics in the same design. So my (tentative) suggestion is to let people learn the core of the game first and then introduce the additional complication of non-chartered companies later.

(Possibly this just reflects the bias of our group towards operations over stock market shenanigans. We were more motivated to learn about different types of trains than different types of financing).

Likewise, simplifying the warranty rule and ignoring the George Hudson manoeuvre are ideas to reduce the number of rules people will need to think about on their first game.

I haven't actually tried this variant. Do people think it may work?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paolo Russo
Italy
Roma
flag msg tools
mb
Hi, I fully agree with you, better to simplify the financial complexity, more than the operational one.
Another side note: I missed a proper M/A section in the rules, even if it wont be anymore concise. Repetita juvant.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
Why force the game into a role to which it is ill-suited? Start them with a different title.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Berry
Scotland
Edinburgh
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
clearclaw wrote:
Why force the game into a role to which it is ill-suited? Start them with a different title.

I was mainly thinking of people who have played an 18xx game or two (e.g. 1830 or 1846, those being the most widely available at the moment), and who are moving on to 1862 as a second or third game. 1862 has a lot of new ideas, and it may be useful to hold off introducing some of those ideas until the second time through - for some groups, anyway.

It's a fair point that 1862 probably isn't a good place to start with 18xx as a whole. Even so, when the GMT version is released, some people may buy it on spec from their FLGS, and an option for a simpler first game may help them learn the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randy Brown
United States
Manchester
New Hampshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've given the subject of introducing new players to the 18XX world some thought. While 1862 is complicated, and may be a poor entry point in the system, many of the simpler titles do not show the system off very well. Someone who likes complex Euro titles, such as Through the Ages or Arkwright, might be tempted to try an 18XX for the first time. If such a person were to play 1870 (for example), that might be their last foray into the niche. Many of the older titles just don't have the pay off that a modern gamer has come to expect.

There are a handful of Euro games that are good starters for gauging interest in 18XX (I'm liking Continental Divide more and more for this). And there are a few gateway XXs that feel like a natural starting point (Poseidon and 1846 come to mind). The next step may very well be 1862 (although 18CZ is also an intriguing option; probably a better option). 1862 really shows off the system well, and it looks a lot nicer on the table than most 18XXs. Honestly, it's almost easier to teach this to a player new to 18XX than it is to a seasoned vet of older titles.

In the case of teaching 1862 to a group with some familiarity with the system, Dave's suggestion makes more sense to me than the single train type variant in the book. I even like it a little more than the two train type variant. I think that you are on to something, Dave.

Not only does Dave's suggestion simplify some of the decision-making while retaining some of the bells & whistles, it also allows you to start the game more quickly.

Give it a shot and let us know how it goes!

RB
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lance Harrop
United States
Manassas
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
daveberry wrote:
clearclaw wrote:
Why force the game into a role to which it is ill-suited? Start them with a different title.


It's a fair point that 1862 probably isn't a good place to start with 18xx as a whole. Even so, when the GMT version is released, some people may buy it on spec from their FLGS, and an option for a simpler first game may help them learn the game.


That's funny because it was pretty much the 18XX I was introduced to.

I've played a few others, but aside from 1822 this is the one I've played more than a few times.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Hutton
United Kingdom
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Leifr wrote:
daveberry wrote:
clearclaw wrote:
Why force the game into a role to which it is ill-suited? Start them with a different title.


It's a fair point that 1862 probably isn't a good place to start with 18xx as a whole. Even so, when the GMT version is released, some people may buy it on spec from their FLGS, and an option for a simpler first game may help them learn the game.


That's funny because it was pretty much the 18XX I was introduced to.

I've played a few others, but aside from 1822 this is the one I've played more than a few times.


I've heard this a number of times from a number of different sources.

I think the difficulty a lot of 18xx players have is that they expect a game to be pretty much "1830 with McGuffins". This is largely because the majority of titles produced up to a couple of years ago tended to fit that model, and the feeling was that it was easier for a player to "learn" 18xx using games regarded as mainstream to the genre.

1862/EA and 1860 don't really follow that pattern.

That said, for players who play 18xx the first time it doesn't really matter too much. More modern designs have moved away from the core of what makes 1830 distinctive within the hobby, partly because the effects are quite drastic and, well, unfriendly. Given the games I've been introduced to over the last few years, the core loot-n-dump mechanics you find in 1830 are actually become far less mainstream than they used to be.

All that aside, I have been considering the "simplified" variants, and will probably alter the proposed options in the new edition, partly along the lines proposed here.
2 
 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.