• The average cost of a card is $latex (5+10+15+20+25+30+35+40) / 8 = \$22.5$.
• The average cost of a set of 7 auctioned cards is $157.50
• The average turn-to-turn-ROI of a card is 29% (52/180)
• In each set of 7 auctioned cards an average of (22.5*7) = $157.50 will be spent in card cost across the players (assuming no rounds in which everyone passes and assuming no duplicate card values in the set)
• If only one card is purchased per round at face value (likely to be one or two), then a minimum of $12 was spent in bid reservations, giving an average total expenditure per round of $169.50
• Assuming that bidding pressure forces an average over-cost payment of 30% per card, that means the total per-round expenditure is $220.35
• An average player will spend 1/N of that (N is number of players) in acquiring cards.
• Mapping out the turns:
• if a player spends $X on cards in a given round
  • At the end of the round they will earn 29% of $X
• if the player spends $X on the second round
  • Their starting capital will need to have been at least 171% of $X
  • They will earn 58% of $X in revenue
• If they spend $X on the third round
  • Their starting capital will need to have been at least 213% of $X
  • They will earn 87% of $X
• If they again spend $X on the fourth round
  • Their starting capital will need to have been at least 226% of $X
  • They will earn 116% of $X
  • They are now profitable; their per-round expenditures of $X are exceeded by their revenue income
• Thus the total capital required among the players at the start of the game is $latex (4*220.35 * 2.26) = \$1,991.96$

The above doesn’t account for the probabilities of multiple cards of the same value in a lot, thus increasing over-payment, or the potential of players passing and thus driving prices down. It also ignores the fact that cards pay out 6 times per game, thus making the big cards even more valuable than they already are. And there are some other nice fat holes in the logic. Still, $500 per player in a 4 player game seems a reasonable sum.

Hurm.

An idle thought to enliven the mix:

• When passing a player may instead tap some or all their cards for cash and receive Q% (50%?) of their revenue in cash. Such tapped cards do not pay again at the end of the round.

Quick changes that seem useful:

• Project name (yep, it is no longer just a notion): Corner Property
• Theme around property./market collection
• Reduce the suit sizes to 8 cards and the game to 5 rounds
• Lose the chips
• Variants:
• Deal our 5 cards and display them as what will not be in play
• Deal out a 7x7 grid of cards and: - Resolve them in columnar order - Low cash player picks which column to resolve at the start of the round

Vague possibilities: - Turn-order players in order of cash or income

Still have to determine starting capital.

1830 uses a remarkable auction format for distributing the private companies at the start of the game. In somewhat abstract terms:

1. A number of properties are arranged in order of approximate ascending value
2. On their turn a player may do one of the following: - Bid on a properly for whichever is the larger of the face value of the property plus $5 or the largest bid on the property plus $5 - Buy the cheapest property for face value if it doesn’t have a bid on it - Pass
3. If all players pass the face value of the lowest property is reduced by $5
4. If the cheapest available contains only a single bid, then the property is instantly awarded to that bidder for that price
5. If the cheapest available property contains multiple bids there is an auction among those players to resolve who gets the property - The player who has already placed the largest bid is considered to be winning the property for that price - Players in rotation may either raise their bid to more than the current highest bid or drop out of the auction - When only one bidder is left they win the property for their bid price - Losing bidders retain their losing bids
6. The process of resolving the cheapest value property continues until either the cheapest available property hasn’t been bid on, or there are no more available properties.
7. The turn then passes to the next player to the left who proceeds by bidding, buying or passing.
8. This continues until all properties have been acquired

In essence bids on properties reserve the ability for that player to compete for the property later. They pay a premium for that privilege. As several properties are worth considerably more than their face values, there is competition both to acquire those properties and to force the eventual purchaser to pay reasonably for it.

1830’s private auction is often cited for being excessively complex and opaque. It is the primary point of differentiation in the early game and new players have a very hard time with it as each of the private companies has special powers, but also various pairs of private companies can synergistically work together. It should be no surprise that I’ve long admired the private auction and wanted to base a game around it just that portion of the game, much like Günter Cornett and Michael Uhlemann’s Greentown is a rendition of the 18xx route-tracing game, and Wolfgang Kramer and Michael Kiesling’s Cavum is a rendition of the 18xx track building game.

Materials:

• 55 cards, 5 each with values of 5/$3, 10/$4, 15/$5, 20/$6, 25/$7, 30/$8, 35/$9, 40/$10 and 50/$15.
• The first value is the default cost of the card. The second value is the revenue of the card.
• 55 chips, 11 in each of 5 colours
• Poker chips
• A bag

Setup

1. Give each player money(a function of player count).
2. Randomly select a dealer for the first round

Pattern of play

1. Shuffle the card deck
2. Deal out 7 cards
3. Arrange the cards in order by increasing value (the value before the slash)
4. Put 2 chips of each colour into the bag
5. Randomly draw 7 chips and randomly put one on each card
6. Stating with the dealer the players conduct an 1830-type auction for the cards - If there are multiple cards of the same value:
   • the base cost of each card of the same value is $2 more than the card below it in order of the same value
   • Bids must be which ever is the larger of $2 higher than the cost of the card or $1 higher than the largest bid on the card
7. Keep the chips on the cards as they are taken, that indicates the suit of the card (cards are unsuited)
8. The round ends when all cards have been purchased
9. At the end of the round each player receives money equal to the dollar values on each of the cards they own.
10. Repeat from dealing out 7 cards, adding chips to those left in the bag from the last round
11. End after seven rounds (5 cards won’t be used)
12. Pay the players double money at the end of the last round

Scoring

• Cash is points
• Cash in each set of three or more cards of the same value held by a player for the number of cards held of that value multiplied by the revenue of the card
• Cash in each sequence of three or more cards of the same suit (same colour chip) with sequential revenue values for the number of cards cards in the sequence multiplied by the revenue of the largest card in the sequence (50/$15 cards can’t be scored in this way)
• A card may participate in scoring sets in both directions
• Player with the most money win.
• Three is no tie-breaker (of course)

Option: Lose the chips and suit the cards with 5 suits.

My sense is that the game is too long, the deck needs to be smaller, there need to be fewer rounds etc. It needs a diet. I haven’t investigated that yet.

A night dominated by Dominion at the other tables for SB-Boardgamers. So far it is showing no signs of fading. It was good to see Hammer of Scots come back into play; it has been a while for that classic. I managed to get in:

• Hive
• Stephenson’s Rocket ¹
• Bridges of Shangri-La²
• Thor (x2)
• Army of Frogs³

Sorry, no pictures of the Bridges of Shangri-La, Thor and Army of Frogs games. I must recall to take pictures of my own games, not just other’s games. I’m also not sure why the pictures are all so badly cropped on the right end. Oops. They weren’t so badly cropped when I took them!

gallery

• Tired, cranky, looking forward to getting out of resume hell and playing tonight. #
• In founding the local 18xx group, what is the realised value of session reports and score reporting? I am unsure. #
• Saw Push this weekend with Q. Disappointing. It spent more time setting up the sequel than delivering plot coherence. #
• Tonight was my night – won all three games played: Imperial & two games of Army of Frogs (the latter is much better with 3 than 4). #
• Ideogram makes a nice distinction among types of economic games: http://tinyurl.com/d94vdm #
• Yale has released a most excellent series of game theory class videos: http://tinyurl.com/5mbqev #
• If you haven’t seen Coraline in 3D yet, do so before Saturday. It is about to lose it’s 3D screens for the next 3D movie. Well worth it. #
• @Crumpleton you’ll save the ticket cost? If you are a Gaiman or Laiko fan and wish to see the movie as intended you’ve but few days left. in reply to Crumpleton #
• Dinner at Trends (lots of prickley ash) then gaming at SVB. #
• Skylon reusable orbital lifter: http://tinyurl.com/99nk83 #
• RT @neilhimself: Philip Jose Farmer died. He was 91, wrote many wonderful things. A worldbuilder, of influence and some real magic. Sigh. #
• RT @raphkoster: Blogged! Another silly game design meme http://cli.gs/apa6NB

  Ahh a boundless source of questionable game themes. #

• A nice discussion of intricacy, decision points and the role of a game player as spectator: http://tinyurl.com/atmskf #

Note: This article was also posted to Boardgamegeek at Wabash Cannonball set piece: #2.

Given the following situation in a three player game of Wabash Cannonball after the starting auction:

• Player #1: PRR $20 Cash $20
• Player #2: B&O $20 Cash $20
• Player #3: C&O $20 NYC $20 Cash $0

Questions:

1. Was Player #3 right to force-win that share of the NYC or should he have let it go to another player instead after enforcing a minimum bid level?
2. What did Player #3’s choice to force-win the NYC share do to his position?
3. What does each player do for their first action? Is this an easy or automatic decision for each player? Why?
4. For each player, are they in a good or bad position? What are their primary risks and opportunities? Compare and contrast their positions.
5. Have any of the players adopted game-length postures yet?
6. Have any decisions been made which will affect how many General Dividend are likely to be paid in this game? If so, what were they?

Enjoy.

A fine dinner – I ate so many peppers I was slurring words. I should put myself through this abuse more often.

Played 3 games of Axiom and lost them all – I blame low blood sugar from an overly replete belly! Axiom is both less and more than I was expecting; a fine but not terribly engaging combinatorial game. I still somewhat wish Axiom were the game I imagined it to be on first sight, a game of moving pieces about the entire exterior surface of a constantly changing 3D shape which the players held in their hands and manipulated (changing the shape and the locations of their bits) before handing it to the other player to do likewise.

I screwed up the last auction of Medici, simply wasn’t paying attention again and drew an extra tile to a set that was already worth nothing to every other player but would also have given me biggest ship plus a max on the wheat track for a +60 bonus (I was already at +5 on wheat). Apparently I let my internal snoring break my absent concentration. Gahh.

gallery

Note: This article was also posted to Boardgamegeek at Wabash Cannonball set piece: #1

I’d promised a while ago to post a move-by-move analysis of one of our Wabash Cannonball games but for various reasons that hasn’t happened and is unlikely to happen. But there is hope. I had an interesting discussion with Adam Kao last night regarding Wabash Cannonball tactics (the game has been popular at Eudemonia). During the discussion we worked through a few set pieces in order to illuminate some of the points I was making. The first set piece is below. If this proves popular/effective I’ll see about posting other set pieces.

Assume a 4 player game of Wabash Cannonball and that the initial share auction resulted in the following share distribution:

• Player #1: PRR $15, B&O $15, Cash $0
• Player #2: Cash $30
• Player #3: C&O $15, Cash $15
• Player #4: NYC $16, Cash $14

Questions:

1. Why did Player #4 spend $16 on the NYC? Is this a good or weak position?
2. Is Player #2 in a strong or weak position? Does Player #2? control initiative?
3. What is each of the four player’s posture as regards game length?
4. What is the first action of each of the four players in the first round of the game? Why?
5. Do they have any other reasonable choices? Why?
6. Might any of the players use a Develop action during the first round? If so, why?

Enjoy.

Last night was the fifth anniversary of SB-Boardgamers. This is also my first attempt at a blog post using my iPhone from end-to-end. It was a fairly typical night at SB-Boardgamers, perhaps a little low on attendance and most people left a bit earlier than usual (morning meetings), but that happens now and again. I took some quick snapshots (see below) to give an idea of the evening.

Eugene Huang gave a short speech about the history of the group and awarded prizes to the people who had played with the most different people (thus fostering the group’s goal of evangelising gaming) and there were pies, cake and cookies to munch. Ted Alspach’s table were surprised that I did not win the award; they thought it was a given for me and not by a small margin. So goes perception bias. It may have been close but Randy Farmer and John Yeager took the prizes instead (a copy of Tadsch Mahal and one of Knizia’s Lord of the Rings games) which seems reasonable (I’ve no interest in either game).

I played 5 player Imperial (won) and two 3 player games of Army of Frogs (won both). Apparently it was my night. Adam Kao (my primary opponent in all of the night’s games) was excellent competition. I had to (surreptitiously) muster and coordinate all three other players against him while also playing tempo hard against him, pushing him to decelerate when he really needed to keep accelerating the game in order to win Imperial. It was an excellent game!

Observations:

• Army of Frogs does not suffer the uncontrollable blocking problem with 3 players as it does with 4.
• My iPhone camera skills need improvement.
• The native camera application on the iPhone is poor. Darkroom does image stabilisation and is much better.
• Lack of cut’n’paste support on the iPhone is a problem.
• Lack of integration between the iPhone’s Wordpress application and the NextGen gallery module I use on this blog is unfortunate. I will probably end up post-processing all iPhone posted entries with pictures to move them over to better gallery product. Bah!
• Lack of easy cite support (partly a function of the lack of cut’n’paste support) for AREFs and the like (mostly for boardgamegeek links) is annoying. It is tempting to write a Wordpress module to extend the markup language for Boardgamegeek links.

gallery

I’m currently fiddling about with integrating my iPhone, various supplemental iPhone features (eg camera), Twitter, Facebook and this blog. There will be some noise and dust. Patience!