The perrenial discussion of poker chips has resurfaced yet again and for odd reasons I’ve taken to fiddling with ChipTalk’s Chip Factory. It is a cute little system.

The chipset I finally came up with:

Among the design’s advantages, asides from using a moderately standard colour sequence, are that the edgespots bind to both the previous and next chip in the sequence, including wrapping around the ends of course¹. Thus the chips themselves form explicit documentation on their relative placement within the value ranking system[^2].

My normal poker chip requirement list:

• At least 7 visually distinct colours including white, red, green, black or blue
• At least 10 grams per chip (11.5 preferred – I’ve used dice/suited chips so much they feel right to me)
• Inter-chip friction important (stacking/non-slippy)
• Edge spots preferred must not interfere with chip colour recognition
• No writing on the chip (that includes no denominations)

The above set mostly match that.

Gahh! I posted the wrong image and didn’t notice. Corrected:

I played a wonderful, just wonderful, game of 18Mex. Final scores were delightfully tight: ~5,700, ~5,600, ~5,500, ~4,800. The 18xx are firmly cementing themselves as my favourite games; solid and somehow enheartening comfort-games.

gallery

I arrived late and didn’t get much onto the table:

• Medici
• Pampas Railroads
• Cavum

Tomorrow is the second 18xx night at SB-Boardgamers. A fairly typical gamesday in all.

gallery

• @brookscl GTD? in reply to brookscl #
• @brookscl Thanks. in reply to brookscl #
• BAP: Too late for Steel Driver, watched Supernova, sat out Agricola, played Hive & Princes of Machu Pichu (won both). Forgot to tale pics. #
• Steampunk Myths & Legends winners announced. Amazing work. http://tinyurl.com/dbzkm8 #
• Juan Enriquez’ TED talks may be porous (format constraint), but he’s a sharp and polished optimist: http://bit.ly/oB9eY #
• My youngest wears glasses. He’s, well, a kid. Replacements cost. Enter Zenni: http://zennioptical.com/ Thanks: @epopt ! #
• RDBMS without a lot of the R and with relaxed integrity constraints: http://bit.ly/1DTsN Brilliant for lightly keyed datastructures. #
• Good comment thread on that last URL BTW. #
• @jdludlow There’s much to love about Outpost for fans of dZvZ. Some say dZvZ neutered what make Outpost great. Bigger snowball in Outpost. in reply to jdludlow #
• @jdludlow A friend (Jon Leonard) is an outpost addict (a/time a/where). He taught me the game. That’s where I started my -ve obsession. in reply to jdludlow #
• I must not fall in love. I must not: http://ilovetypography.com/ #
• @jdludlow It is severely OOP. Talk to Tom Lehmann about what is required for reconstruction? Or I can ask him on Thurs If I remember. in reply to jdludlow #
• @jdludlow You might also consider Lehmann’s Phoenicia. The rules are borked (publisher rewrite) but it is classic Lehmann snowball. Short! in reply to jdludlow #
• @jdludlow That’s pretty decent timing for dZvZ. 180 minutes is common here. in reply to jdludlow #
• School desks that allow kids to stand, lean, sit etc: just like modern adult workstation. Excellent idea. http://bit.ly/QTSY9 #
• NASA can still do real science. Only a few more days until the Kepler launch: http://kepler.nasa.gov/ #
• The net of a thousand lies also never forgets: http://tinyurl.com/ctagfa #
• The only real response possible to Seth Godin’s google-memory post: http://tinyurl.com/6de3jw #
• @Seth_Godin On Google memory, are you familiar with Dr Fun and the ghosts of Usenet past? http://tinyurl.com/6de3jw #
• RT @davemcclure: Happy Birthday Dr. Seuss: http://bit.ly/seussday (thx for reminder @mona :) #
• RT @timoreilly: RT @lowflyingrocks: 2009 DD45 just passed the Earth at 9km/s, approximately seventy-four thousand, eight hundred km away. #
• @doctorow Dunno know the X, but it could be, “Why do you find ___ so interesting? What is so interesting about it?” in reply to doctorow #
• RT @raphkoster: RT: @juliandibbell deconstructs “Kittens” to an amazing degree http://is.gd/lrHZ #
• RT @timoreilly: “…premise that correlation was more of a constant than a variable.” http://bit.ly/hdtrt The math behind the meltdown #
• @NotGodinREPOSTs WRT “Looking for yes”: I suspect that a primary humans look for is opportunity to help & to be helped. We delight in it. in reply to NotGodinREPOSTs #
• Surprise! Yahoo Outperforming Google (YHOO, GOOG): http://tinyurl.com/c2m7hw #
• Meteor 2009 DD45, 21-47m dia, missed earth by only 72,000 Km. Impact would be 10K times bigger than Hiroshima. http://bit.ly/oehST Phew! #
• @davemcclure The jam Study sounds like a rule-of-seven result. in reply to davemcclure #
• @davemcclure Twitter is hi-speed time shifted conv; a looser-coupled no-history Usenet. Facebook is media-richer but narrow and w/ history. in reply to davemcclure #
• Politics, long term growth, recovery. Pick any one: http://bit.ly/uhsIE #
• @brooksci: I used to drive stick. 15 years later at 03:00 hours in the morning I didna remember what did what. My arms and legs did tho. #
• @brookscl I went cold turkey for ~2 years. It came flooding back. I didn’t know why i was doing e/g I did, but I was winning! #
• @brookscl Funny really. Had to figure out why it was working as I watched myself do it. Uhhh, because! #
• I think I like Twirl more than Tweetdeck. Smaller. Denser. Less obtrusive. Need to play more. #
• Stunning: RT @raphkoster: Lovely: http://www.vimeo.com/3365942 #
• @icheyne Gwibbber eh? Nope, I’ll look at it. Thanks. in reply to icheyne #
• Zelazny left big inspiring footprints: http://tinyurl.com/626k7k #
• @timoreilly Stuff that matters: Mortality and resources: How to build next frontier so both can sustainably benefit? Otherwise bad zero-sum in reply to timoreilly #
• @judell The network is the human. in reply to judell #
• Job searching is too damn stressful (and fun)! Adrenaline rush performance. Another one down, next round to be scheduled. Nice problems. #
• ‘Tis the square root of Xmas. Nerdigras. (@timoreilly, @gnat): http://tinyurl.com/bkyfqp #
• Doug Purdy’s info-systems dream defined in terms of discrete use-case qualities: http://tinyurl.com/d6fl92 #
• Muddle & Go Nowhere. Topical name for this economy. Nearly used M&GN in Muck & Brass & kinda wish I had. Charming: http://bit.ly/hCJ5x #
• @neilhimself Declare! Dictate! “Stop here!” Bit late now. in reply to neilhimself #
• Maps to tabletop too. RT @andrew_chen: GReader share: What is your game design style? http://tinyurl.com/br8sh7 #

• 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.