Posts about posts (old posts, page 29)

18xx night: 2009-03-27

Got together with Daniel, Jacob and Todd las night to play 18xx. We played 1846, 18Mex and 1832 – and with small exception I played terribly, embarrassingly badly; rank amateurs could easily have done better. I don’t know where my head was last night, but it wasn’t in that room. The one gleaming light was that I was able to consistently manage the private auctions to my own best advantage. Actually making good use of what I got from there…not so much. Bah. Thankfully I also forgot to take any pictures. A small blessing.

My head finally hit the pillow at around 08:00 this morning, so I’m a bit groggy as I type this. However my brief sleep and the time afterward has been filled with the most delightful many flavoured forms of Oh I should have done XXX! realisations. The 18xx are so wonderfully expressive in their almost symbiotic layers of counter-reactions in that regard.

1846

I’d been wanting to play 1846 for a long time and it has been near the top of my ever-almost Deep Thought Games order as a shorter and clever 18xx by Tom Lehmann. I’m less interested now, verging on active revulsion. I’m generally not a fan of partial capitalisation games as they push players to continuously invest in their own companies in order to validate their prior investment and make it viable. As such cross-investment is more of a spare-cash activity than a selective investment, presidency transfers are far less common, and the emphasis is moved heavily to run good companies rather than free money, combinations, or timing1. In short the question is How do I ride this vehicle to success? rather than, How do I exploit the other players in order to win? However, more simply, the game seemed intensely tactical, almost entirely non-confrontational and an effective rendering of a standard euro-style economic-snowball into 18xx form. Shudder. I have not had a more unpleasant 18xx experience. I’m willing to play again, I’d like to play again2 just to make sure I saw the game reasonably clearly, but I’m tempted to rate this one at 3.5/10 or under.

18Mex

We played up through Phase 3.5 and into the start of Phase 4. I had a clear lead with the NdM presidency, the 20 trigger private, 40% of the Chihuawa and 20% of the, err, gray/black thing down in the south (the two clearly best companies in our game, with the Chihuawua set to merge into the NdM), Jacob wasn’t far behind but was a noticeable step behind me, Todd managed admirably for not knowing the board and I don’t think Daniel had much idea of how terrible a position he was really in once the train rush really broke. Sadly Jacob had to go home (wife, kid) so we called it just as we entered Phase 4. Finally, at least once, I had some of my act together and wasn’t entirely stupid. Even better we got to see some neat track-build patterns with the minors that raked in the money (A and B were both running for ~$100 before they folded) while also driving the game development in entertaining fashions. Tres chic.

18Mex is growing on me. I like the phase 3.5 evolution3 plus the almost as large mutation in phase 5 one or two ORs later when the NdM forms. By reflection (same designer, similar system) 18TN (which I also have) is climbing rapidly on my want-to-play list. Just delightful.

1832

Perhaps I’m just not a stylisitic fan of Bill Dixon games. Perhaps the less said here is also the better as this was where my brain clearly exeunt stage left, leaving me to ungracefully and unconsciously suicide4. I admire the huge number of levers the game provides the players, the game has good arc, good development curves and an interesting track-system. That said, the game felt bloated. I suspect that’s an unfair characterisation as the interesting facets of the many many levers provided couldn’t fully express in a shorter game5, but having 2-trains run 6-8 times and 8 ranks of trains ( same as 1870: 2/3/4/5/6/8/10/12) is perhaps a bit too much for my taste.


  1. Blog post due RSN on the four basic types of 18xx designs. 

  2. Glutton for punishment? 

  3. Easily comparable to 1856’s CGR formation 

  4. Deliberate bankruptcy in the 8 trains. 

  5. I’d guess it averages 12-14 OR sets 

Twitter Week: 2009-03-28

  • @raphkoster I’ve yet to be disappointed by Charles deLint. Unusually liquid prose. in reply to raphkoster #
  • @raphkoster It has been long, educational & adventurous in graceless ways. Life, bah humbug! Hehn. How long are you in SF? #
  • @raphkoster Oof, so leaving early then. in reply to raphkoster #
  • RT @davemcclure: 3 AAA’s of Metrics: Actionable, Accessible, Auditable (@EricRies) #
  • RT @EricRies: 3 AAA’s of Metrics: Actionable, Accessible, Auditable #
  • RT @NASA: A close view of today’s Soyuz launch. Bill Ingalls captures terrific images! http://tr.im/hQF6 #
  • R A Lafferty’s droll “Slow Tuesday Night” (SF short). Welcome to modernity. (via @nielhimself ) http://lin.cr/hbe #
  • Eddie Izzard just finished filming on John Wyndam’s Day of the Triffiids. BBC TV so often has it so right. I miss it. (@via eddieizzard) #
  • RT @hnshah: @CAUSECAST Tesla Unveils Groundbreaking Electric Car, The Telsa Model S http://ping.fm/QtEGh #tesla #teslamodels #electriccar #
  • Who called me for a web usability study? <drum rioll> Yep, PayPal – and almost certainly the group I worked with for the last 3+ years. #
  • Watchmen does Wall-E, and well (via #trishm): http://lin.cr/hbm #
  • Saw Watchman. Talked w/ kids abt fear of nukewar in 70s&80s. Greenpeacer then. Forgot how oppressive it was but it came back. Always fear. #
  • @brettspiel And yet I count every cube in each played game – after it is in the bag , not before – here. I figure sheep herding is next. in reply to brettspiel #
  • @brettspiel Yeah, I’m still waiting on mine. Lots of Setters of Catan roads for Muck&Brass and the like. in reply to brettspiel #
  • @brookscl What is the name of this (prototype)? http://is.gd/pcxB #gamestorm in reply to brookscl #
  • Things I don’t understand: roofs over wells. Why, to keep the rain out? #

Elbowing cove detours

We’ve been playing Corner Lot quite a bit lately. It is popular and playing more quickly than I’d expected. Our games have been averaging under 45 minutes when I’d predicted a game length of around 75-90 based on decision complexity. I am…surprised.

So far we’ve played with 3 and 4 players with both working well. I think 4 players is marginally more interesting than 3, but it is a tough call. The common consensus is that 5 players is right out due to multi-player chaos effects. I’d like to soften that 5 player edge somewhat and have been working through a number of ideas around extending the suits, adding suits and adding some form of wildcard property card to the mix. The suit extension concepts ran afoul of the game’s basic arithmetic and sank there; however the wildcard concepts are being more interesting. The current idea:

  • 5 wildcards (one in each suit) that are set out beside the markets during setup
  • $20(?) cost and no stated revenue ($?) on the wildcards
  • Players may buy a wildcard from the display as their turn
  • The card must be assigned a value when it is taken – this is marked by putting that much cash (from the bank) on the card.
  • At the end of each round:
  • Each player has to pay $2 to the bank for each suit in which they have properties cards whose wildcard has not yet been taken
  • Each player that has taken a wildcard has to pay $5 to the bank for the card
  • The bank pays the card’s revenue to the card
    • The revenues accumulate on the card and are not available to the owning player
  • During the bonus phase:
  • The player retrieves the accumulated revenues on their wildcards
  • Melds score as normally, counting the wildcard as if it were the claimed card
  • If the wildcard duplicates a card that the player also has, then it counts as being of a different suit for the N-of-a-type bonus.

Thematically wildcards are empty lots that detract from the business and thus revenues of the other properties in the area. On purchase they empty lot is (slowly) developed and thus begins to accumulate revenues.

Knocking off the corners

We played several games of Corner Lot last night, all in comfortably less than hour. It was quite the hit. However a few small changes also resulted:

  • The starting capital has been set at $480/players. This was where I’d started actually but I wasn’t quite sure it was right. It is right, or at least close enough to right for more than government work.
  • No more emergency fund raising. The rule simply isn’t needed and has been excised.
  • The partially hidden variant has been normalised as the basic form of the game and the other variants discarded.
  • The $10 cards are being put back to being $12 cards. Again, this is where I’d started with the initial design, but then I vacillated and dropped it back down to $10. I’m not entirely convinced the $10s should be $12s, but it sure looks like it.

The rules have been updated.

On the stoop selling cigars

I’ve renamed Corner Property to Corner Lot as being a little more colloquial.

I’ve made a first draught of the rules. I’ve made the cards required for play (thanks go to Ariel Seoane for helping with the art) and hope to play at tomorrow’s gamenight at SB-Boardgamers.

Twitter Week: 2009-03-21

Condensed English rules for So Long Sucker

Another older file, the condensed game-oriented rules for So Long Sucker, the economic theory game developed by John Forbes Nash, Mel Hausner, Lloyd S. Shapley and Martin Shubik in 1950. It is a stunning exercise and analysis tool for applied game theory. The rules for So Long Sucker on a single page: rules.

As always, corrections and comments are welcomed.

Unified English rules for Intrige

I made this a while ago. A slightly older copy has been posted to Boardgamegeek. The collated and edited rules for the 2003 Amigo and 1995 FX Schmidt versions of Intrige1: rules.

As always, comments and corrections are welcomed.


  1. I’ve not looked at the rules for the recent English edition from Mayfair Games, but believe it to be consistent with these rules. 

Twitter Week: 2009-03-14