JC,

Assuming your system no longer eats my posts (I’ve moved, it better not):

Have you played 1841 yet? I think you’d love it, knowing your tastes: it’s a constant struggle, with subtle knobs and tricks to be played. Be warned that it’s not much like most 18xx games strategy-wise.

I’m glad you’ve made it to 18xx: I look forward to seeing what you have to say about them, particularly the more interesting games.

Hey, it worked!

I’ve not played 1841. A friend owns v2 and plays it somewhat regularly, I’ve watched bits of a couple games but I’ve not yet had the pleasure. I suspect that the idea of the game will be more fascinating to me than the reality, but that’s just a suspicion. Of the three basic types of a8xx games (run-good-companies, where’s-the-free-money? and plug-things-together) I’m most fond of the plug-things-together games with a side-dose of good companies (and a great liking for games which can be won by running crappy companies).

I’ve been playing 18xx for about 5 years now. The first 6-9 months had 1-2 games a week (the glory days) but that fell off steeply as people moved, families intervened and life happened. I’ve gotten a low rate of plays of 1825s, our yearly bash at 18C2C at Kublacon and other odd games squeezed in since then, but nothing regular. Last month I founded a monthly 18xx group as a sub-chapter of the SB-Boardgamers weekly group I attend. So far we’re getting 2 games-worth of attendees. I’m hopeful that the group will grow as we keep plugging away. I know of ~20 other 18xxers in the area — we should be able to get 3-4 tables going with a little recruitment.

So far I’ve played 1824, 1825 (all three units plus all regionals and kits) 1830, 1837, 1849, 1856, 1860, 1861, 1870, 1889, 18C2C, 18EU, 18Mex, and 18Scan (and mayhap a few I’ve forgotten). Additional games on the roster to be played soon are 1832, 1848, 18GA and 18VA (all recent local acquisitions), and maybe even 1841. My favourite of what I’ve played so far is 1860; a very nasty and contorted game. The game I most want to get on the table but don’t own is 1873 (I’m trying to score a copy from Klaus via Bjorn). After 1860, the game I own and most want to play is 1848 (but the copy I have is uncut and I’m lazy).

Moment of truth: I’m now back on my own computer, but behind a different router. We’ll see if this works.

Our experiences don’t overlap that much: I’ve mostly played 1856 and 1841, with helpings of various other games, including 18AL, 18GA, 18GL, 1826, 1861, and the 1825s, as well as 1829 Mainline (which shall not be mentioned again, ugh). 1830 also saw regular rotation, and some of the things that make it obviously great seem to have slipped from more recent releases. 1870, on the other hand, makes me grumpy.

1856 contains a wonderful set of decision points: the IA and the early game, getting your self rich and your company capitalized; the timing decision around if/when to open a second government-bound company, as well as when to take the arbitrage opportunities in others’ companies; the fiddle around the running order just before the government forms, along with the third wave of companies; financing the diesels, and so on.

I find the ‘everybody gets rich’ games much less fascinating: I’d like to be in a nonlinear regime where the actions of the other players are important to predict very closely.

I’m not sure what you mean by a plug-things-together game, to be honest.

1841 appears to be about free money, but is, in a more meta sense, about running a good company. It’s just that running a good company is not necessarily about trains any more. I was dubious about it before I first played it, but I love it.

I haven’t played 1860, unfortunately, and have been without a decent 18xx group for 2-1/2 years (since I moved away from mine). I’m moving again, so we’ll see if I can find some folks in Brisbane.

It also worked.

The plug-things-together games are usually merger based 9eg 18EU or 18C2C). Sometimes they’re just about companies working well together with appropriate train and token sharing (eg 1860).

I like 1856, I’m just troubled by the cross-investment pattern (two players buy out each other’s shares). There’s every reason for each player to do that, there’s no real first-to-defect advantage, and it gives them both a huge step over the other players. Fortunately it doesn’t happen often locally, but it has made for far less interesting games when it has happened and that’s soured me a bit.

I agree, run-good-company games are just not as interesting. There’s a fourth minor sub-class which is all about tempo and timing and internal synergies (1860 again or even large chunks of 1830 and 1856) which I also like. I’m not much of a financier. I’ll hold my own there but I’m not really interested.

Yeah, 1841 does look like a where’s-the-free-money game. I’ll have to play it one of these days.

Brisbane QLD? That’s my old stomping grounds. I grew up in Bulimba.

The problem I have with 18EU is that such a huge fraction of who wins is in the auction. It would be a great intro game if it weren’t for that. The other merger game I’ve played a few times, 1861, suffers from too much money and a totally zombified stock marked.

I agree that 1856 suffers if players explicitly collude, and more than most games. Oh well. It’s great anyway. Your comparing it to 1860 has made me more intrigued: does not the linear stock market have negative effects?

Yeah, I’m headed, paperwork willing, to UQ (St. Lucia campus) to do a PhD.

The problem I have with 18EU is that such a huge fraction of who wins is in the auction. It would be a great intro game if it weren’t for that.

There’s a lot to the 18EU auction, yes, but I don’t think it is so very hard. The natural pairs of companies are pretty obvious. The big thing is getting an appropriate pair and then controlling operating order to your advantage. While there’s much to the auction, most of the game and most of the significant game decisions lie in the later game.

The other merger game I’ve played a few times, 1861, suffers from too much money and a totally zombified stock marked.

Yeah, I’m not impressed with 1861 either. I don’t mind the somnolent stock market so much, but the fairly procedural track lays and resulting processional game-path weren’t interesting. Caveat: 1 play. Counter-caveat: Unlikely to be more plays.

I agree that 1856 suffers if players explicitly collude, and more than most games. Oh well. It’s great anyway.

The thing with 1856 is that they don’t have to collude, they don’t even need to negotiate. It is in the best interest of both players, there’s no penalty for defaulting, there’s no first mover advantage or disadvantage, just a strong reward for doing what is already in their best interest. I know of several groups that simply refuse to ever play 1856 for this reason. It is simply an of-course for them that you cross-invest. What else is there to do that is as much to your interest as that? Agreed, without that behaviour it is a great game.

Your comparing it to 1860 has made me more intrigued: does not the linear stock market have negative effects?

1860 has numerous odd traits. It really is weird, weirder than 18EU or 1841. The stock market is extremely facile and more active than even 1830s. It is not uncommon for companies to zoom from one end of the market to the other over a couple SRs — in either direction. The track nest is a horror to behold and the tile selection enough to promote early baldness. It is a very dynamic, twisted and delightfully frustrating 3 player game. I think it is brilliant.

Make sure you read the rules on insolvent companies, directorless companies and the formation of the Southern Railway and thence British Rail rules carefully. Those three aspects drive old-time 1830 fans nuts. They are bizarre and put the focus of the game in a rather different place than most other 18xx. Get a good mental hold of them though and figure out how to use them to your advantage and Bob’s your uncle and then some. I’ve seen many a game won simply by carefully manufacturing insolvent companies, timing the formation of British rail, picking the insolvent companies back up along with a great train from another company and running it for 4x stock leaps every OR while every other company gets merged away. Done well it is sheer beauty.

Yeah, I’m headed, paperwork willing, to UQ (St. Lucia campus) to do a PhD.

Cool. I liked Brisbane. A hick town but with some charms.