Recommend
45 
 Thumb up
 Hide
65 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

1817» Forums » Reviews

Subject: 1817: Best 18xx title to date - a review for experienced xx-ers rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Bill Byrd
United States
Mt Prospect
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
Now that 1817 is available from Deep Thought Games, it is time for me to start proselytizing.

1817 is now the 18xx title to play. At 6+ hours, it won't always be possible, but I find that when time will not allow 1817 to come out, I am not really interested in any other 18xx title. They all seem so....tame....

1817 adds a new loan mechanism; short selling of company stock; complex company conversion, merger and acquisition rules; and an 'ahistorical' method for forming new companies that combine to create a very open-ended and delightfully challenging play experience.

Veteran 18xx players will find that their ideas of strategic play will come into sharp focus here, and many will need to be discarded. It is far too easy, based on winning play in other games, to allow a company in 1817 to become overvalued. The corrections doled out by your opponents will not be gentle. An inexorable, but variably paced train rush will keep you on your toes. But, the voluntary acquisition mechanism can help you when the train rush misbehaves. A company's ability to take multiple loans allows for a financial fluidity that is often surprising -- this to the point that loan management is a critical skill, and a difficult one to learn.

If you've played 18xx enough to know you love it, please disregard any rumors you may encounter about 1817's short sale mechanism as an attack tool, capable of destroying any healthy company on a malicious whim. It just ain't so. Short selling is an option that adds a lot of depth to the decision making process during a stock round, providing potentially risky funding options for players. Short selling can be detrimental to a company whose share price is too high, but good players rarely let that happen. Thus, the short sale mechanism helps shape the operating rounds as well, as capable presidents will keep a close watch on their company's true value. Among experienced 1817 players, any company that is sold short to the maximum number of shares allowed has been mismanaged -- that, or the short sellers will suffer, sometimes fatally.

Also, the idea that the map play is not important is another born of inexperience. In fact, the map play in 1817 is the most intense of any 18xx title I've played. Route building is fiendishly difficult and may be where the game is won and lost -- the game's tricky financial shenanigans serve to enable successful route building. My 1817 arch-nemesis has been known to build a privately held company able to run two permanent trains for the last half of the game – he calls it his ATM. (I have sworn to never let it happen again, but he believes he can do it without my permission. Now, the game is afoot!) At the same time, another company might be forced to buy a 7 train stuck running as a 4; such a train may never pay for itself. So, I believe that the map play is SO important that any player who hasn't started planning his end-game routes after the first few privates have sold is not playing to win. I will quickly concede that mid-game play is where the really large swings can occur, and any plan has to be flexible enough to survive contact with wily opponents. But that contact happens on the map.

As a new player learns to deal with loans, short selling, and complex company structures, it may seem as though shorting can be an offensive weapon, or that token placement and route building are mostly inconsequential. But, after a few full plays, it becomes apparent that a different sense of company evaluation is needed. Short selling grows rare, but when it does occur it is important (and often a win-win for shorter and shortee). Presidents perform a complex dance to balance a dynamic loan interest against the need for company funding. Companies come and go in a whirlpool of IPOs and acquisitions/liquidations, and station tokens change hands as all involved strive to make routes for permanent trains...permanent trains that are coming, like it or not.

1817 is not for the meek, nor for that breed of 18xx-er who plays for the historical experience. Further, a steep learning curve (even steeper than is normal for 18xx) may be a barrier to entry for some, even veteran 18xx players. But, for my time, there is no other game worthy of table space....when time is short, we settle for less.











42 
 Thumb up
1.26
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Abn Rgr1978
United States
Portland Area
Oregon
flag msg tools
I would agree that 1817 is an excellent game definitely worthy of considerations when you have 8 hours to devote to a single task. I would stop way short of the superlatives you heap upon it.

It is true that same winning tactics used in most 18xx games will not work here. There is a complexity of financial management and risk taking which is not as “easily” determined as other 18xx games, say like 1841 (just kidding, the complexity is on par with 1841).

I take issue with your statement that short selling is not an attack tool, it most certainly can be and often is used as such. At least with the latest rule revisions, this ability has been greatly attenuated so that destroying a healthy company (which is not a malicious whim) is unlikely to happen. It is true that using it as an attack tool without correctly understanding and evaluating the risk and payback will likely backfire against an inexperienced player.

This is not a game where you are likely to take your starting company and run it to fame and fortune with good board position and tokens with ever increasing stock value. Those instincts will get a player in trouble. As this is a quality which many players (the “Engineers” as Francis Tresham would say) find appealing they might be disappointed. Financiers on the other hand should be delighted, after being handed their heads a few times.

1817, as the designer has stated, is either a game you like or dislike. I partially dislike it because of rule choices which I disagree with. At that same time it has a fascination which calls to me and it is not a hardship to endure yet another game so as to validate my dislike.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Berry
Scotland
Edinburgh
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
AbnRgr wrote:
This is not a game where you are likely to take your starting company and run it to fame and fortune with good board position and tokens with ever increasing stock value. Those instincts will get a player in trouble. As this is a quality which many players (the "Engineers" as Francis Tresham would say) find appealing they might be disappointed. Financiers on the other hand should be delighted, after being handed their heads a few times.


I've played 1817 once. I was really looking forward to it and was very disappointed. The problem I found was the tedious amount of financial minutiae involved, dealing with loans and repayments and mergers and conversion and acquisitions and liquidations. It felt like being an accountant, which isn't a job I have, nor one to which I aspire. On top of this, I got off to a poor start and couldn't do much about it, which meant the next 2-3 hours were the most boring time I've ever spent playing an 18xx game - and we were only 1/3 of the way through.

The short-selling, when it started, was great fun. I still think this is a superb mechanism that needs to find a shorter, less complex, base game.

In contrast to the previous comment, I've no objection to games in which companies get dumped and lose their stock value. The reasons I didn't enjoy 1817 weren't directly related to those aspects. I respect the quality of the design, and obviously there are people to whom it appeals. But there's no way I want to spend over £100 on a copy for myself and there are other long 18xx games on which I'd prefer to spend my time.

I'm willing to give 1817 another try, perhaps next time I'm at a convention. It's possible that if I hadn't got off to a poor start (against experienced players), I would have enjoyed it more. Maybe another attempt will change my mind - if so, I'll post an update.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ed Holzman
United States
Seffner
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
As grey traces of dawn tinge the eastern sky, the three travellers, men of Willowdale, emerge from the forest's shadow. Fording the river, they turn south, journeying into the dark and forbidding lands of The Necromancer...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
boatner wrote:
Now that 1817 is available from Deep Thought Games, it is time for me to start proselytizing.

You're right, there's only about 18 months before it hits the street

Yes, I know that DTG does a great job but it's a small operation and it takes a looooong time to get your game after placing an order. The site currently lists 7-11 months but that is grossly unrealistic. My order has moved about 50 or 60 spots since I placed it 8 months ago and is still behind 150+ other orders.

Go ahead and order 1817 but don't get too excited about playing it in 2012.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Byrd
United States
Mt Prospect
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
AbnRgr wrote:

I take issue with your statement that short selling is not an attack tool, it most certainly can be and often is used as such. At least with the latest rule revisions, this ability has been greatly attenuated so that destroying a healthy company (which is not a malicious whim) is unlikely to happen. It is true that using it as an attack tool without correctly understanding and evaluating the risk and payback will likely backfire against an inexperienced player.



I am sorry to belabor this point further, but the myth of short selling as an attack has been rather thoroughly debunked. If a company can be hurt in any meaningful way simply by having its stock sold short, then it is not, by clear definition, a healthy company. The rule change you refer to (I think; no more than 5 shares shortable in a 10-share company?) had to do with printing costs, and, in fact, damaged the game.

I agree that attempting to destroy an opponent's company, healthy or not, is not malicious. However, play games for long enough and you'll run into a player who takes actions out of simple malice, whether these actions are of strategic benefit or not. It has been said of 1817's short selling mechanism that such malice can be directed at *any* company and utterly destroy it (and the president) with short sales. This turns out not to be true.

What is true about short selling is that it is a source of player funds, often win-win, during a stock round that most of us are not accustomed to seeing. It takes a lot of practice to fully understand -- thus newer players tend to exaggerate its actual impact on play. As players gain experience with shorting, it becomes more and more rare, and real opportunities to short a company to the max allowable number of shares nearly vanish. In this context, short selling is exactly as much of an attack as running an IPO, or converting a company from 5- to 10-share, or buying the first 6 train, etc., etc., etc... If all these things are attacks, then we have 18xx as war, an idea I'm not necessarily opposed to, but one that doesn't present too often.


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Flood
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bearcat89 wrote:
You're right, there's only about 18 months before it hits the street

Yes, I know that DTG does a great job but it's a small operation and it takes a looooong time to get your game after placing an order. The site currently lists 7-11 months but that is grossly unrealistic. My order has moved about 50 or 60 spots since I placed it 8 months ago and is still behind 150+ other orders.

Go ahead and order 1817 but don't get too excited about playing it in 2012.


As you can see from my previous DTG tracker, 11 months was quite accurate, and the jump from 100 to 0 is near instantaneous, due to backup'ed orders.

There are many people whose number is up in the queue, but are deliberately waiting upon 1817 (and perhaps others) before they actually pull the trigger and pay for/finish the order of their games in the queue. I imagine we will see copies inside one month from now, and I *really* bet we'll see some distribute at Chattanooga this weekend.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Juho Snellman
Switzerland
Zurich
Zurich
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
boatner wrote:
I am sorry to belabor this point further, but the myth of short selling as an attack has been rather thoroughly debunked. If a company can be hurt in any meaningful way simply by having its stock sold short, then it is not, by clear definition, a healthy company.

Well, sure, if you use some inane circular definition of a healthy company as one that can't be meaningfully harmed by short selling.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
AbnRgr wrote:
I partially dislike it because of rule choices which I disagree with.


To whit?

Bearcat89 wrote:
Go ahead and order 1817 but don't get too excited about playing it in 2012.


Unless, like many of us, you're already at the head of the queue with an order awaiting 1834's release. The question then is whether to trigger now for 1817, or to continue to await 1834.

jsnell wrote:
Well, sure, if you use some inane circular definition of a healthy company as one that can't be meaningfully harmed by short selling.


That seems pretty reasonable to me given the assumption of a competitive game: a heathy company is one which is not subject to fatal attacks in the course of normal play. Unhealthy companies are those prone to dieing or crippling injury, either by themselves or through the actions of others. Either way they die: the absolute end state of unhealth.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Byrd
United States
Mt Prospect
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
jsnell wrote:
boatner wrote:
I am sorry to belabor this point further, but the myth of short selling as an attack has been rather thoroughly debunked. If a company can be hurt in any meaningful way simply by having its stock sold short, then it is not, by clear definition, a healthy company.

Well, sure, if you use some inane circular definition of a healthy company as one that can't be meaningfully harmed by short selling.


I have to wonder how you would define "healthy".

I've asked elsewhere for an example of an in-game situation in which a healthy company can be damaged by short selling -- none has yet been put forward. Mis-managed companies can be hurt, even destroyed, by short selling. One of the keys to learning 1817 is this understanding. I guess my point is that any definition of "healthy company" in 1817 has to include a bit about immunity from harm due to short selling. Nothing inane or circular about it -- it's just sound strategic reasoning.

I can still remember the first time I got handed the president's certificate of a company that had no train and no cash. Am I to assume that my play was sound up to that point? Was it wrong for an experienced player to have pointed out the rather obvious error in my play?

I can also remember the first time in 1817 a company I directed had all 10 of its short positions taken. That company barely survived the ensuing rounds and I was knocked well into last place. Am I now wrong to admit I had played poorly? Should I not have adjusted my view of what constitutes a well-run company?



4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ed Holzman
United States
Seffner
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
As grey traces of dawn tinge the eastern sky, the three travellers, men of Willowdale, emerge from the forest's shadow. Fording the river, they turn south, journeying into the dark and forbidding lands of The Necromancer...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
blueatheart wrote:
Bearcat89 wrote:
You're right, there's only about 18 months before it hits the street

Yes, I know that DTG does a great job but it's a small operation and it takes a looooong time to get your game after placing an order. The site currently lists 7-11 months but that is grossly unrealistic. My order has moved about 50 or 60 spots since I placed it 8 months ago and is still behind 150+ other orders.

Go ahead and order 1817 but don't get too excited about playing it in 2012.


As you can see from my previous DTG tracker, 11 months was quite accurate, and the jump from 100 to 0 is near instantaneous, due to backup'ed orders.

There are many people whose number is up in the queue, but are deliberately waiting upon 1817 (and perhaps others) before they actually pull the trigger and pay for/finish the order of their games in the queue. I imagine we will see copies inside one month from now, and I *really* bet we'll see some distribute at Chattanooga this weekend.

That there will copies for Chattanooga is a given...that's just good business sense. I am hopeful that my experience will mirror yours and my order will be processed soon...sitting at 159 right now.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Brosius
United States
Needham Heights
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
My favorite 18xx game for six players is two games of 1846 with three players each.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
daveberry wrote:
The problem I found was the tedious amount of financial minutiae involved, dealing with loans and repayments and mergers and conversion and acquisitions and liquidations. It felt like being an accountant, which isn't a job I have, nor one to which I aspire.


It's funny; I understand what you are saying, but I don't associate these qualities with 1817. I find the rules to be remarkably straightforward, actually, though the implications are complex.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Brosius
United States
Needham Heights
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
My favorite 18xx game for six players is two games of 1846 with three players each.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jsnell wrote:
boatner wrote:
I am sorry to belabor this point further, but the myth of short selling as an attack has been rather thoroughly debunked. If a company can be hurt in any meaningful way simply by having its stock sold short, then it is not, by clear definition, a healthy company.

Well, sure, if you use some inane circular definition of a healthy company as one that can't be meaningfully harmed by short selling.


I agree that Bill's statement is almost a tautology in form, but nevertheless there's a real point behind it. The question is whether a company that has good routes, is not overleveraged, has adequate cash on hand, a train that is not about to vanish, a stock price not in excess of its value (*) can be harmed by shorting. I believe he's claiming that it cannot be.

In fact, if such a company is shorted it can buy back its own shares (taking loans where necessary) and end up owning as much as 180% of itself. There's little in the 18XX world better than running a company of which you are president for good money, paying out dividends, collecting for the shares you own, having more than 100% of what you earned go into the company treasury, and having your opponents fund part of that payment through their payment of earnings on shares they hold short.

(*) You can measure value either using cost accounting or by asking, "if I were to take an amount of money equal to the company's total stock market valuation and create a new company, would the new company soon be worth more than the existing company?"
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Bankler
United States
San Antonio
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"Keep Summer Safe!"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Eric Brosius wrote:
There's little in the 18XX world better than running a company of which you are president for good money, paying out dividends, collecting for the shares you own, having more than 100% of what you earned go into the company treasury, and having your opponents fund part of that payment through their payment of earnings on shares they hold short.

So true that Conan almost used that exact answer for the question "What is best in life?"
17 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Juho Snellman
Switzerland
Zurich
Zurich
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
boatner wrote:
One of the keys to learning 1817 is this understanding. I guess my point is that any definition of "healthy company" in 1817 has to include a bit about immunity from harm due to short selling. Nothing inane or circular about it -- it's just sound strategic reasoning.

Sure, that position in itself is totally reasonable. But your argument becomes circular when you then go on to say that there's be nothing wrong with the short selling rules, since it can only harm unhealthy companies. Clearly the combination of those two positions could be used to justify arbitrarily draconian penalties.

And yes, I have had a perfectly good company be short-sold to the brink of destruction just because it was a the best source of capital available on a share round where several people wanted to start multiple companies each at max price. Everyone acknowledged that it was really a rather good company, and some people even considered backing it instead of joining the short selling pack. But it was equally clear that there just wasn't enough capital in player's hands to prevent it from dropping at least 5 steps even if players invested in the company (it ended up dropping 15 steps, IIRC), and end up operating after new companies, making a backing investment unlikely to pay off in the short term.

The company still survived, staying barely out of the acquisition zone, despite all plans having been scuppered by it moving from first to last in turn order, and all the new well capitalized companies starting an epic train rush. But given that massive share price drop, just surviving was never going to make the short sellers regret what they did. I did eventually win the game, so this isn't a case of sour grapes.

Was it mismanagement to have the company with the highest share price, even if it had good tokens, good trains, and a fair bit of capital? By your criteria it apparently was. But really there was nothing wrong with the company, and the high share price was actually justifiable by the fundamentals. It's just that it was the best source of low interest short term loans available to players, and the fact that what was on trajectory to be a top company of the game ended up trashed to a mid-range one was just collateral damage.

I think that the 5 short share limit is a good change. It makes short selling a bit riskier, since the possibility of all shares being snapped up and the share price not plummeting down a bit higher. And it reduces the amount of liquidity that can be injected into the game during SRs, making them at least slightly more predictable, and SRs from hell taking 1.5 hours a bit less likely.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Juho Snellman
Switzerland
Zurich
Zurich
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
Eric Brosius wrote:
In fact, if such a company is shorted it can buy back its own shares (taking loans where necessary) and end up owning as much as 180% of itself.

I've seen that attempted multiple times, but so far it's always failed. Possibly due to the biggest bursts of short selling coinciding with the interest rate peak. Usually the effect is that short selling does indeed stop due to the immediately suppressed share price, but the company can't deal with the extra debt load.

The best way I've seen so far is to control two companies, with the implicit threat of having them collude for the benefit of whichever is sold short.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Abn Rgr1978
United States
Portland Area
Oregon
flag msg tools
boatner wrote:
jsnell wrote:
boatner wrote:
I am sorry to belabor this point further, but the myth of short selling as an attack has been rather thoroughly debunked. If a company can be hurt in any meaningful way simply by having its stock sold short, then it is not, by clear definition, a healthy company.

Well, sure, if you use some inane circular definition of a healthy company as one that can't be meaningfully harmed by short selling.


I have to wonder how you would define "healthy".

I've asked elsewhere for an example of an in-game situation in which a healthy company can be damaged by short selling -- none has yet been put forward. Mis-managed companies can be hurt, even destroyed, by short selling. One of the keys to learning 1817 is this understanding. I guess my point is that any definition of "healthy company" in 1817 has to include a bit about immunity from harm due to short selling. Nothing inane or circular about it -- it's just sound strategic reasoning.



Okay case in point. 10 share company with 5 train, ~$200, 3 loans $20 loan insterest, @220 and in position to buy a 6 (I think the first). Owner has 50%. It has good token locations (5 if I recall correctly). How is this not an attackable position for an otherwise healthy company?

Now you can define the position as overpriced, but if no short selling is done then the value is easily recognized. What is the value of tokens on the board? How is the value of this company so much less than the new $2000 companies (with no current train) coming out?

Knowing the group it is easy to forecast the end of the stock round will end up with at least 14 shares in the bank pool. The company will not get a 2nd train on it's own. Without a 2nd train there is no risk in short selling, it is free money.

With the reduction of shorts to 5, that means only 9 shares are in the bank if the President is fully invested. This makes shorting more of a decision and less of a no brainer.

The rules I do not like.

#1 You can sell more shares than you can legally own (60%). Ownership limitations should have been done away with with short selling. It is an artifact holdover from the 18xx standard model, the only purpose I can see is to make sure that short selling in nonsensical situations can be done more safely by limiting the ability of the President to rescue. Alternatively allow short position purchases in excess of the 60%.

#2 Company redemption of shorts can only be done at the full market price. In practice, short sales are purchased at the reduced price. Eliminating this "feature" I beleive would almost completely eliminate the attack aspects of short selling healthy companies.

#3 Newly launched companies are immune to short selling. Now this is a perfectly reasonable constraint for 30 days when it is regulated but given our epic games I believe is it a skewed application designed to encourage short selling way in excess of logical parameters.

#4 Short selling on this time scale is a completely ridiculous proposition. But since it is just a game and we could be modelling Wigit companies this is somewhat forgivable.


In light of these comments, it may seem like I hate the game. That is not true. I dislike the game (maybe because my opinion is it might be better if Craig just adopted my rule recommendations).

So in the end I will just have to suck it up and play the game I dislike whenever I can.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Abn Rgr1978
United States
Portland Area
Oregon
flag msg tools
jsnell wrote:
[q="Eric Brosius"]In fact, if such a company is shorted it can buy back its own shares (taking loans where necessary) and end up owning as much as 180% of itself.


Exactly where did the money come from to acquire 180% percent? And own a train that would make that painful? The real ideal situation is a company with 140% and you with 60%. It might than make sense for you to donate a train to the cause.

Nice scenario, extremely unlikely (but not impossible). You would have to be playing with players who had already gone home and left you written instructions.



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Brosius
United States
Needham Heights
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
My favorite 18xx game for six players is two games of 1846 with three players each.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The immediate place the money comes from is via loans. If you take out enough loans to drop the share price to $40, you can buy back 18 shares for a cost that just exceeds 7 loans. More likely, you buy up to 60% yourself so the company does not have to purchase more than 14 shares, which takes 6 loans.

I am of course describing an ideal situation (as Brian recognized in his humorous response!) I'm not saying that situation is always achievable.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Byrd
United States
Mt Prospect
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
jsnell wrote:

And yes, I have had a perfectly good company be short-sold to the brink of destruction just because it was a the best source of capital available on a share round where several people wanted to start multiple companies each at max price.


Without knowing more details of the situation, all I can say is that a company that is "the best source of capitol", is probably overvalued.

jsnell wrote:
Everyone acknowledged that it was really a rather good company, and some people even considered backing it instead of joining the short selling pack. But it was equally clear that there just wasn't enough capital in player's hands to prevent it from dropping at least 5 steps even if players invested in the company (it ended up dropping 15 steps, IIRC), and end up operating after new companies, making a backing investment unlikely to pay off in the short term.


Why did the company itself not buy back its shares in the open market? If it was unable to do so, and was overvalued, then I am sorry to tell you that this company has been badly mis-managed...by 1817 standards anyway.

jsnell wrote:
I did eventually win the game, so this isn't a case of sour grapes.


So, perhaps, as is often the case, the short sellers were in fact punished after-all...again, without more details it's hard to know for sure.


jsnell wrote:
Was it mismanagement to have the company with the highest share price, even if it had good tokens, good trains, and a fair bit of capital? By your criteria it apparently was. But really there was nothing wrong with the company, and the high share price was actually justifiable by the fundamentals.


Maybe by 1870 fundamentals, but apparently not by 1817 fundamentals. You MUST rethink your sense of company evaluation to do well in 1817.

jsnell wrote:
It's just that it was the best source of low interest short term loans available to players, and the fact that what was on trajectory to be a top company of the game ended up trashed to a mid-range one was just collateral damage.


There is really way to sugar coat this; a company that is a source of low interest loans to players is NOT healthy.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Lutz
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bearcat89 wrote:
blueatheart wrote:
Bearcat89 wrote:
You're right, there's only about 18 months before it hits the street

Yes, I know that DTG does a great job but it's a small operation and it takes a looooong time to get your game after placing an order. The site currently lists 7-11 months but that is grossly unrealistic. My order has moved about 50 or 60 spots since I placed it 8 months ago and is still behind 150+ other orders.

Go ahead and order 1817 but don't get too excited about playing it in 2012.


As you can see from my previous DTG tracker, 11 months was quite accurate, and the jump from 100 to 0 is near instantaneous, due to backup'ed orders.

There are many people whose number is up in the queue, but are deliberately waiting upon 1817 (and perhaps others) before they actually pull the trigger and pay for/finish the order of their games in the queue. I imagine we will see copies inside one month from now, and I *really* bet we'll see some distribute at Chattanooga this weekend.

That there will copies for Chattanooga is a given...that's just good business sense. I am hopeful that my experience will mirror yours and my order will be processed soon...sitting at 159 right now.


Well, in the mean time we do have 1844 in the queue to play before then. While it won't be this weekend... I hope perhaps we can set something up in the next 3-4 weeks.

BOb

(is this what hyjaking a thread feels like?)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Byrd
United States
Mt Prospect
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
jsnell wrote:
Eric Brosius wrote:
In fact, if such a company is shorted it can buy back its own shares (taking loans where necessary) and end up owning as much as 180% of itself.

I've seen that attempted multiple times, but so far it's always failed. Possibly due to the biggest bursts of short selling coinciding with the interest rate peak. Usually the effect is that short selling does indeed stop due to the immediately suppressed share price, but the company can't deal with the extra debt load.


Buying up shares from the pool is one way a company can hurt the short sellers. Knowing this, a company that is not in a position to buy its own stock from the market is in danger. Knowing this, we plan accordingly during the ORs (where the meat of the game occurs in any case).

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Abn Rgr1978
United States
Portland Area
Oregon
flag msg tools
Eric Brosius wrote:
The immediate place the money comes from is via loans. If you take out enough loans to drop the share price to $40, you can buy back 18 shares for a cost that just exceeds 7 loans. More likely, you buy up to 60% yourself so the company does not have to purchase more than 14 shares, which takes 6 loans.

I am of course describing an ideal situation (as Brian recognized in his humorous response!) I'm not saying that situation is always achievable.


Not to beat you up Eric, this is just not the way it happens. Wholesale shorting does (should) not occur for a company (intended to survive) below 120 unless there are illicit substances involved in the game. As the value rises above 110 so does the price you can depress the stock to.

With all those loans comes increasing interest payments.

It is unlikely that the company so shorted will have more than one train (and often none) when it comes to its operating turn. So wholesale harm is not likely in the first OR. In the second OR, if you have transferred sufficient assets in trains and cash, you can make it hurt. But usually the cost is also punitive to you in the company that was stripped to execute the said plan.

What you are describing is theoretically possible but not against players with even a basic understanding of the rules.

And of course now the maximum company ownership is 130%.








 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Brosius
United States
Needham Heights
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
My favorite 18xx game for six players is two games of 1846 with three players each.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
AbnRgr wrote:
And of course now the maximum company ownership is 130%.


I think we were discussing the situation present prior to the recent rules revision.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Byrd
United States
Mt Prospect
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
AbnRgr wrote:
boatner wrote:


I've asked elsewhere for an example of an in-game situation in which a healthy company can be damaged by short selling -- none has yet been put forward. Mis-managed companies can be hurt, even destroyed, by short selling. One of the keys to learning 1817 is this understanding. I guess my point is that any definition of "healthy company" in 1817 has to include a bit about immunity from harm due to short selling. Nothing inane or circular about it -- it's just sound strategic reasoning.



Okay case in point. 10 share company with 5 train, ~$200, 3 loans $20 loan insterest, @220 and in position to buy a 6 (I think the first). Owner has 50%. It has good token locations (5 if I recall correctly). How is this not an attackable position for an otherwise healthy company?

Now you can define the position as overpriced, but if no short selling is done then the value is easily recognized.


1817 allows short selling , so I do in fact define that company as overvalued. It has been somewhat badly mismanaged, to allow a share price of 220, with only a 5 train and 3 mid-priced loans going into a Stock Round with the 6s imminent. I can't think of any clearer way to say this: You can NOT run a company in 1817 the way you do in 1870 (et al).

This company may well survive...hard to kill a permanent train with a set run in place. Depending on myriad other factors it will very likely get back all it's share price by end game (some players will make out like bandits there, maybe even the shorters.)


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Byrd
United States
Mt Prospect
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
Eric Brosius wrote:
AbnRgr wrote:
And of course now the maximum company ownership is 130%.


I think we were discussing the situation present prior to the recent rules revision.


Actually, I am discussing the game as (I believe) it should be played, with the 'variant' that allows 10 short positions on 10-share companies.

To each his own and all that, but no-one has yet to show a reason why the game suffers from having 10 shorts available on 10-share companies. And, I've been through a few discussions like this one.

The decision to cut back to 5 had to do with print costs, not game-play.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
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.