GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters at year's end: 1000!
9,805 Supporters
$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
15 Days Left

Support:

Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
13 Posts

1853» Forums » General

Subject: How good with 2 players? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Michael
Germany
around Ulm
Ba-Wü
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hello.

I'm interested in this game and I'm wondering, how well it plays with just 2 players. How long does it take with this configuration? How much variance?

Thanks,
Michael
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JR
Canada
Victoria
British Columbia
flag msg tools
Memento ferrugo
badge
Memento ferrugo
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I personally wouldn't be so quick to assume this game wouldn't work well with two. I have enjoyed 1825 with two players and 1853 shares similarities that lend it to 2-player games (no mandatory train ownership, can sell 100% into market). The typical 18xx rules (of the 1830 branch) are probably less ideal for 2p, but I'd be willing to try 1853 with 2 for sure if the opportunity ever arose.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dick Ruck
United Kingdom
Brighton
East Sussex
flag msg tools
badge
Crabro was my first own-design stunt kite, named after a genus of black and yellow stinging insect in the UK
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If you want 2 player 18xx then take a serious look at 1825 Unit 2, 1825 Unit 3 (which AFAIK is the only 18xx designed as 2-p only) and 1860.

I know the subject of 2 player has been raised several times on BGG so you may find comments in the forums of these games.

HTH
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael
Germany
around Ulm
Ba-Wü
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I own all the 1825 units and enjoyed Units 2 and 3 with 2 players. But does the 1853 system offer as much variance as 1825 (with all its extensions...)?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hanno Girke
Germany
Schwabenheim an der Selz
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BrenoK wrote:
Probably not very good. The basic structure of 18xx does not lend itself well to 2-player games without heavy modifications.


Disagree. Especially 1830 shines with 2 players.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ingo Griebsch
Germany
Bochum
North Rhine-Westphalia
flag msg tools
Coding Architect | Husband and father | Boardgame addict | Loves Clutch as well as Tricky
badge
Coding Architect | Husband and father | Boardgame addict | Loves Clutch as well as Tricky
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi,
Hanno wrote:
BrenoK wrote:
Probably not very good. The basic structure of 18xx does not lend itself well to 2-player games without heavy modifications.


Disagree. Especially 1830 shines with 2 players.

are you really sure that you mean 18 30 ?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JR
Canada
Victoria
British Columbia
flag msg tools
Memento ferrugo
badge
Memento ferrugo
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
He probably does mean 1830. It does come with 2p rules out of the box, as I recall. I don't think I would enjoy an 1830-style game as much for 2 players but some certainly may. I think that the huge swing of dumping a company in a 2p game would limit the ability for players to diversify their holdings in a very meaningful way, only controlling their own companies and holding just enough of the other players' to not get burned. In a '25 style game, with gentler liability rules, players can more freely buy and hold stock, rewarding good planning ahead. I don't claim one or the other is better, but my preference is toward this style of game. I still think 1853 would be quite interesting with two if you could nail down a good set of parameters (cert limit, start cash etc).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hanno Girke
Germany
Schwabenheim an der Selz
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yep, 1830. Both players will control at least 3 companies, and this is heaven for stock & train market manipulation and competitive building wars.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jim b
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
For 1829-family games- including 1853, 1825, etc- 1853 is simply large. 1853's dual-guage track is an additional, large-scale complexity.

For these reasons, I dislike 1853 as a 2player game- the 1825 units provide a much denser 2p battlefield, and, more dynamic railroads and portfolios.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Frédéric Saunier
France
Le Mans
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Could 1853 be more challenging with 2 players by reducing the playing area (for example north or south of India, or area corresponding to today's Pakistan, etc) and reducing numbers of companies as well ?

I have several friends completely fond of India, or Indian theirselves, so 1853 could be a better hook than USA's contexts found in 18AL, FL or 1830. And unfortunately I can't gather all that friends in one session, so I would need a 2 player-ability for 1853, if such a variant is possible.

(1825 could have been cool too but I can't manage to find a copy at a reasonable price.)

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Shaffer
United States
San Francisco
CA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I would use the Bruce Beard method. Have both players control two positions. Compare the final standings of each player's lower score.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Mumford
United States
Somerville
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
ceci n'est pas une pipe
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
18NEB is designed for 2-4 players, and it works very well at all counts.
 
 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.