I ran some thought models last night. They didn’t work so well. Today’s talk with Tim on #bgdf_chat summarises well enough:

[2008-08-29/12:51] <clearclaw> The Neuland action system has problems as described – it forces all players to ally equally.

[2008-08-29/12:51] <gamesonthebrain> How so?

[2008-08-29/12:52] <clearclaw> You want to make money on every player’s turn when they cross the boundary. Thus you want to invest in everything they hold a plurality in.

[2008-08-29/12:52] <clearclaw> Similarly you only want to forward companies you at least hold an equal share in.

[2008-08-29/12:53] <clearclaw> But that’s due to the definition of when/how dividends get paid.

[2008-08-29/12:53] <gamesonthebrain> Right, which can be changed

[2008-08-29/12:53] <clearclaw> Yep. Changing that constraint can change everything.

[2008-08-29/12:54] <clearclaw> I’m toying with having everything the player is invested in pays out, just to that player.

[2008-08-29/12:54] <gamesonthebrain> I did’t realize until today that Neuland’s turn order system is fairly different from Thebes

[2008-08-29/12:54] <clearclaw> That does really interesting things to the incentives.

[2008-08-29/12:54] <clearclaw> I’ve never played Thebes so can’t comment.

[2008-08-29/12:54] <clearclaw> Neuland is a favourite though.

[2008-08-29/12:54] <gamesonthebrain> In Thebes, the person in the back of the line always takes the next action

[2008-08-29/12:55] <gamesonthebrain> So the actions would be much more broken up

[2008-08-29/12:55] <gamesonthebrain> If I was on space 4 and you on 3, it would be your turn

[2008-08-29/12:55] <clearclaw> Ditto Neuland except that in Neuland players get to keep using actions until they quit, as long as they don’t pass themselves.

[2008-08-29/12:55] * clearclaw nods.

[2008-08-29/12:55] <clearclaw> That is finer grained.

[2008-08-29/12:55] <gamesonthebrain> If you took a 1 AP point action, you’d then be on “top” of me, and thus still your turn

[2008-08-29/12:55] <gamesonthebrain> Ya

[2008-08-29/12:55] <clearclaw> I’m thinking of that graining for this game.

[2008-08-29/12:56] <clearclaw> Tinner’s Trail is somewhat similar.

[2008-08-29/12:56] <gamesonthebrain> Yes… the only real difference is the fixed round in TT, and the “top” person does not go again…

[2008-08-29/12:57] <gamesonthebrain> Like you said in our chat the other day, the finer grained Thebes system might make the game substantially longer

[2008-08-29/12:57] * clearclaw pondering.

[2008-08-29/12:58] <clearclaw> I am liking the idea of paying just the active player for everything they hold though. It feels like it might work.

[2008-08-29/12:58] <gamesonthebrain> It certainly would be easier

[2008-08-29/12:58] <gamesonthebrain> Less fiddly

[2008-08-29/12:58] <clearclaw> As for game length, that’s also a question of end-definition. That can be adjusted.

[2008-08-29/12:58] <clearclaw> It also makes the play decisions, especially Capitalisation, much harder.

[2008-08-29/12:59] <clearclaw> Very odd tempos.

[2008-08-29/12:59] <clearclaw> Very hard to predict.

[2008-08-29/12:59] <clearclaw> Strange effects on alliances.

[2008-08-29/12:59] <clearclaw> I don’t think I understand what it will in fact do....

[2008-08-29/12:59] <gamesonthebrain> Sure, but at least it is completely controlled by the players

[2008-08-29/12:59] <clearclaw> There is that advantage. Players are my favourite source of randomity.

[2008-08-29/13:00] <gamesonthebrain> It’s hard to say without testing it, but it sounds perfect to me

[2008-08-29/13:01] * clearclaw grins.

[2008-08-29/13:01] <clearclaw> I have more models to run.

[2008-08-29/13:01] <gamesonthebrain> Let me know about the results… my email is gamesonthebrain@---------.com

[2008-08-29/13:02] <gamesonthebrain> As I said the other day, I have an experienced train gaming group ready to playtest

[2008-08-29/13:04] <clearclaw> Hehn. Wilco. I suspect the blog and the IRC here are the best channels until it gels.

[2008-08-29/13:05] <clearclaw> Thanks

[2008-08-29/13:06] <gamesonthebrain> Fine… I’m on here a lot more now with the new IRC channel

The real key is the control of what pays when as that drives the incentives that drive alliance formation. That prediction by the players is (going to be) the base on which they determine their interest and thus their action selections.

I’ve been wanting to get back to work on Colonial Zoo for a while now but every time I start re-assembling my thoughts they veer off and turn into odd ideas about Trade Winds and/or Muck & Brass or some collision of the two. It has been frustrating.

The main thought for Muck & Brass is that the Pampas Railroads-style action selection mechanism isn’t sufficiently expressive. It provides interesting choices, but they tend to short-term tactical due to the ever-shifting turn order¹. Both Pampas Railroads and Wabash Cannonball exploit right/left binding as a way of providing enough certainty for alliance formation. My largely certain assumption is that fixed turn order isn’t required for emergent alliances, just merely helpful. Emergent alliance formation can still operate in games with variable turn order, as seen with Han’s Riding Series.

Without admitting a problem, perhaps a more free-form action system would make the game more interestingly phase-driven and thus cast a stronger structural light on the game of mergers? Additionally such a system might offer some of the long-term certainties that are missing with variable turn order and thus allow for more interestingly strategic decisions.

The thoughts were solidified by a discussion with Tim Harrison (GamesOnTheBrain) on #bgdf_chat:

[2008-08-27/10:46] <gamesonthebrain> hmmm… JC… I just had an idea… you remember my basic description of my holy grail train game above… I wonder if the Thebes/Neuland AP thing would work well in a game like that

[2008-08-27/10:50] <clearclaw> The Neuland turn-order pattern will tend to drive a longer game.

[2008-08-27/10:51] <clearclaw> Think about it this way: How many turns per player and how many rounds per player per game.

[2008-08-27/10:52] <clearclaw> In general players should have 10-14 turns in non-epic games which feature non-trivial turns. Less and the game is too short to build interest, longer and it bloats.

[2008-08-27/10:52] <gamesonthebrain> Ya, you’re right

[2008-08-27/10:52] <clearclaw> (there are of course exceptions)

[2008-08-27/10:53] <gamesonthebrain> I do tend to like games that have a lot of short turns rather than few long ones though

[2008-08-27/10:53] <gamesonthebrain> like the rondel games

[2008-08-27/10:56] <clearclaw> The Rondel games are interesting. All the rondel really does is present a specific choice-costing structure on each turn.

[2008-08-27/10:56] <clearclaw> His next game does exactly the same sort of choice-costing, just without the rondel and thereby affords a somewhat more interesting graph of choice-relationships.

[2008-08-27/10:56] <gamesonthebrain> I’m really looking forward to princes

[2008-08-27/10:57] <gamesonthebrain> sounds like a must buy for me

[2008-08-27/10:57] <clearclaw> My sense however is that for a game turn to be interesting a player must manage 5-7 (not more!) discrete elements, and must make at least 3 significant and inter-related decisions.

[2008-08-27/10:58] <clearclaw> But that may be more revealing my own preferences than setting an abstract guide.

[2008-08-27/10:58] * clearclaw nods. It does sound interesting.

[2008-08-27/10:58] * clearclaw says things about the implications of the rule of seven etc.

[2008-08-27/10:59] <gamesonthebrain> with the AP thing, wouldn’t a successful player have to be thinking several turns ahead in order to do well? thus, it seems, they would have to be managing 5 or so elements and be making 3 significant decisions per turn.

[2008-08-27/10:59] * clearclaw nods GamesOnTheBrain

[2008-08-27/11:00] <gamesonthebrain> I agree that it might make the game way too long though

[2008-08-27/11:00] <clearclaw> That think-ahead can be one of the dimensions managed on the turn, thus allowing the choices contained within the turn to be simpler. Goa does that trick particularly well.

The brief thought is to make the following changes:

1. A Neuland-style action point track (length TBD, probably in the 7-9 range))
2. One location on the track is called out (colour or other marking)
3. Players may perform any of the standard Capitalise/Develop/Expand actions in the normal manner
4. Each action has an associated AP cost, eg Capitalise 3 AP, Develop (single) 2 AP, Develop (double) 3AP, Expand (single) 1AP, Expand (double) 2AP
5. APs result in the player’s token orbiting the Neuland-style track in the normal manner
6. Turn order is dictated by the action point track Neuland-style (very uncertain about this)
7. Should a players action take them to or past the specially marked location on the action track (cf Imperial’s Investor rondel location) then all the companies of which that player is the plurality shareholder pay dividends

Methinks I need to run some simulations.

I’m not getting to play with Muck & Brass as much as I’d like lately – Lords of the Spanish Main is occupying too much of my attention – so a little disclosure seems in order: Rules for Muck & Brass!

I also give you the brief graphical evolution of Muck & Brass.

• Dividends are always truncated (this got lost somewhere).
• The moving company always merges away and pays the special dividend
• Clarified already-connected merger case
• Double builds are only available to the clear plurality share holder
• Clarified mergers and new shares
• Removed the artistic extra dividend markers from the map
• Added income markers to the manifest
• Simplified London development to must always be the most valuable city
• Reduced double development cost to $3
• Cleaned up language in definitions
• Extended setup section to be more explicit
• Clarified that inactive company treasuries are not paid to shareholders
• Simplified and clarified game ending language
• Clarified that build expenses are always paid from company treasuries
• Clarified port expenses
• Added Dieter Danziger and Lokomotive Werks as inspirational
• etc

A few things I like here:

• The forced directionality plus the limitation on double builds of mergers makes poaching a bir more constrained and I think interesting. It also makes foreign ports a little more interesting as well as posing the nominal director’s interests in opposition with the minor shareholders.
• The simplified London value ruling makes London far touchier in the early game, triggering an explosion of development if it is developed. Nice.
• Inactive treasuries not paying out makes the first share of a secondary company pleasantly risky and asymmetric

A quick outing of Muck & Brass at the last hour of the gamesday last night. After ~14 hours of gaming and it being the wee hours of the morning we did not play well and it really didn’t get a good or fair showing as a game. Which was all fine as that wasn’t the point. It was nice to watch the exercise while having other people make most of the game decisions. More importantly I got my first reasonably external look at the game.

Being in a rush I completely forgot to teach that new companies build a track as they open, which would have changed a lot. I also simplified the London rules down to London must be the most valuable location on the board which added some nice tension and was simpler. A few rules holes were found by the ever inquisitive Michael Van Biesbrouck (mlvanbie), which was appreciated. eg What happens to corporate treasuries for companies that don’t float? Oddly enough all my companies have always floated when I solo play so I never considered that.

Other quick notes:

• Merger rules should be clarified
• Game-end condition needs to be clarified
• Possibly force the direction of mergers and merger dividends (moving company must pay) as this seems the more interesting decision and makes track building more subtle
• Remove extra dividends from board art
• The value and power of turn order was only appreciated post-game
• Too-rapid mergers can lock out players without reasonable futures, and additionally put the leading players incetivised to keep them locked out by over-paying for secondary company shares; a curious form of financial bludgeoning

Another more basic observation, and this goes back to earlier plays of Lokomotive Werks, Dutch Intercity, Wooden Shoes & Iron Monsters and Wabash Cannonball and my 18XX history is that many people don’t grok income vehicle lifecycles. Of course this concept is central to good 18XX play and for the more recent games some of this is my fault as game teacher, but there seems to be a hole there in the gaming panoply. Players seem to natively assume that everything they can buy is good and that the only difference is that some things are better than others or need to be set/combinatorial collected in order to realise their best value. The idea that some investments vary from good to bad to horrible to great depending on a game-based lifecycle appears unusual and unfamiliar. (Aside: 1825 Unit 1, 1825 Unit 2 and 1825 Unit 3 are of course entirely driven by this concept of optimised portfolio management) This probably ties to the general paucity of phase-driven games. That might be an interesting area to explore with Modern Mogul or Trade Winds.

Time to get cracking on the rules again.

The L&MR has moved back to Liverpool and the smal town of Selby has inserted itself between York and Sheffield (which is at least mildly historically accurate). This puts both the L&MR and L&SR three builds away from the hinge-point in Peterborough, and gives the three southern companies time to start soaking up the northern connectivity to London (Peterborough/London or Peterborough/Cambridge/London), thus moderating the early income power of the northerns, weakening the hinge point of Peterborough and encouraging the northerns to more strongly nest their track around Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield while remaining positioned for both mutual merger and possible assault on the EUR via Peterborough. I’d guess that in a third or more of games the northerns won’t reach London before the 3rd General dividend, which is a nice quality point of variance and control. As a side effect it also makes the Peterborough/Grimsby link a lynch pin in the southern’s assault on the northerns, which seems reasonable, while also making complete northern/southern segregation until the late game quite surprisingly viable – if turn order is good it is now possible for the northerns to prevent the southerns from merging into them quickly/easily.

So far so good.

Another thought model struck however. Instead of simply auctioning the first shares of the 5 initial companies in order, how about allowing it to mess about a bit?

Proposal: The game starts with the auction of a share of the L&MR. The next player can auction either a share of the L&SR or another share of the L&MR. The player after that can auction the next company in order that hasn’t sold a share yet, or a share from any earlier company which still has unsold shares. Each share sale would be accompanied by a free track build.

This feels like an astoundingly Bad Idea (tm), but it is also kinda cute and appealing. I’m pretty sure I shouldn’t do it.

The current rewrite of an (un)surprisingly delicate section:

Mergers occur:

• when a company connects to another active company’s home station

or:

• when a secondary company floats and its home station is already connected by track

For mergers caused by connecting to another company’s home station, one of the two companies will acquire the other (active player chooses):

1. The acquired company pays a Special Dividend (see Dividends)

2. All route markers on the board from the acquired company are replaced with route markers from the acquiring company

3. Each player’s shares in the acquired company are replaced 1:1 with merger shares from the new parent company.

4. All shares and route markers from the acquired company are discarded from the game

5. The acquired company’s income is added to the acquiring company’s income, and the acquired company’s marker is removed from the income track

When a secondary company floats and its home station is already connected by track, all connected companies are acquired by the new secondary company:

1. Any route markers on the board for the acquired companies are replaced with route markers from the new secondary company

2. All shares and route markers from the acquired companies are discarded from the game

3. Each player’s shares in the acquired companies are replaced 1:1 with merger shares from the new secondary company

4. The resulting merged company pays a Special Dividend (see Dividends)

After the merger the active player must capitalise a share of a non-operating company in the normal manner with a minimum bid of £5. If all companies are already operating, then the player may auction any share in the bank pool or one of his own shares in the normal manner. If all companies have floated and there are no shares left in the bank pool, then the player must auction one of their own shares in the normal manner (see Capitalise).

If the auctioned share floats a company then proceed in the normal manner, including resolving any resulting mergers.

The bones are there, but it can still bear polish.

Ahh, the witness to my temerity:

Currently the L&SR is the only northern company likely to reach London. When the share sells it builds from York to Sheffield and on its furst turn, from Sheffield to Peterborough. That puts it one or two hops from London (tho it may be blocked) and two hops from a merger with the EUR. If it does reach London it is in easy snapping distance of the L&SCR. In short the northern company that reaches Peterborough likely has good options before it. Unfortunately the L&MR is cut out of this game. Unless the L&SR player simply screws up or fails to pay any attention to turn order control, the L&SR will always get to Peterborough first, leaving the L&MR with a rather more rote set of choices. Conversely the L&MR’s only early prospect is to merge into the L&SR either before or right after it merges into something down south. For shame – the decisions should be more interesting.

For the nonce I’ve moved the L&MR’s home station to Manchester from Liverpool. That still leaves the Peterborough question in the L&SR’s control via turn order, but it is no longer an automatic. I’ve also tentatively changes the initial company auction order to be be a little more interesting and a little more historic:

1. L&MR (started 1830)
2. L&SR (started 1830)
3. B&BR (started 1840)
4. EUR (started 1846)
5. LB&SCR (started 1846)

While not only in approximate date order (caveat: the actual parliamentary petition processes started much earlier than the above dates), that gives three opportunities after the first two shares sell to determine the initial please turn order and thus set Peterborough’s fate.

A more interesting decision set; these seem fine changes.

In other news I’m still tempted by two changes:

1. Allowing a player to simply sell one of their shares back to the bank for an instant dividend on that one share.
   The concern about this particularly lies in the first three rounds. PlayerA buys a share of CompanyX and then buys another at auction when another player capitalises CompanyX. PlayerA then immediately capitalises the share and sells it to the bank for a one-share dividend. If that’s the last dividend, then PlayerA is now both cash-richer to the noise of one share’s dividend, but also owns a company with a far better capitalisation future as it will now potentially capitalise for 3+1 shares instead of the normal 3. This is clearly a potential problem, but, I’m tempted. Something sings to me here, just not enough yet to make the change.
2. Increase the rule-of-three (company may build no more than 3 exits from a city) to a rule-of-four.
   This one doesn’t have such strenuous drawbacks as the share sell-back but alarum bells are ringing none the less. I wish I knew why. It seems like the rule-of-four would allow for more clever track play.

I’ve been solo-playing Muck & Brass, 4 games so far. This has revealed several problems and addresses:

1. Leaving acquired-company track in place after a merger is confusing. It is very hard to tell which merged company has track where, especially after the 4th or 5th merger.
   • Address: After an acquisition replace all acuired track with the acquiring company’s track. I’d avoided this solution previously as overly fiddly and requiring of large numbers of track bits for each company (30-40), but I’ve reversed that view. The confusion is much worse.
2. Too much money in the game. Final scores after the first game were $500+ for all players. Given that the players start with $45 this growth rate is excessive.
   • Address: Increase track building prices to $10 for a single and $30 for a double build. Also change all dividends to round down (truncate). Subsequent games have borne this out as a sufficient and accurate change.
3. Companies were too rich. Several companies ended the game with several hundred dollars in their treasuries. Additionally all foreign ports were built. All of them.
   • Address: Double all foreign port prices. Subsequent play tests suggest this was excessive when combined with the increased building costs. I’ve now reduced the price increase to about 40% which seems about right but I’ve not played with it yet.
4. Development was too weak and never chosen after the early mid-game. This was caused by two factors: one mergers are SO much more profitable that development is ignored, and two, once past the mid-game companies are sol diluted that development raises income too slowly to affect noticeably dividends.
   • Address: Increase the power of development so that two locations that are connected by the same company are developed per turn. Untested.
5. Dividends for merged companies (remainders going to treasury were too fiddly.
   • Address: All dividends now round down with remainders discarded. This has play tested well.
6. Overly hard to keep track of what shares are available vs issued.
   • Address: Put bank pool boxes back on the map. This has worked well in play testing.
7. Cash advantage too strong in turn order.
   • Address: Turn order is now from poorest player to cash-richest player. This has worked notably well in play tests and affords and interesting alternating pump strategy of oscillating between high and low cash to profit from each end of the turn order.
8. Hard to remember which company had which colour trakc (when using pens).
   • Address: Add little colour-in boxes to the bank pool boxes to show track colour per company. Possibly a better idea in concept than usage. I’ve not used the boxes.
9. End-game too diffuse and difficult to predict. In part this was from an excess of poorly defined and chosen game ending conditions.
   • Address: New game ending conditions: only one active railway or 7 dividends. That simple. It works.
10. End-game scoring was a pain. Foreign ports were especially annoying.
    • Address: No more end-game scoring. Cash is it. Yep, nice, clean, simple, works.
11. Game ended on 5th dividend. Too fast – not enough control over game-ending. Uninteresting.
    • Address: See above tweaks to game ending conditions. This seems to be enough. I’d like the game to almost invariable end on the 6th ro 7th dividend with the primary question being, Which?. Last night’s game suggest we’re there now.
12. West midlands boring, unviable, too diffuse. Well, its true!
    • Address: Removed Straford-upon-Avon and Northampton. Hey, it works!

The remaining concern is that mergers may simply be too profitable and attractive. I’m not convinced but I’m concerned. In the last game the NER ran over the game, ending the game with 28 shares issued and a final income of $183. Merger mania. Foreign ports are nice, but very expensive. Mergers give safer special dividends that imply less variance in future revenue potential of the shares than foreign ports. I’m very uncertain how or if to address this.