In an infinite field there are no tangible differences

The Neuland action-track, even Thebe’s simpler version, is just an action costing/selection mechanism akin to the rondel that Mac Gerdts has been so fond of using. The track controls turn order and expresses choices in terms of action versus cost where the cost is implied against turn order. Key to the whole pattern is differentiation both in terms of board position and action track position. This localises values to that the turn order ramifications of subsequent action choices are significant.

Neuland does this through the combination of three patterns:

1. Food and Wood must (nearly) always be protected through occupation/production
2. Players must consume their products each turn or lose them at the end of their turn
3. Players ending with their action market on a slow already occupied by another player must slide forward to the next free slot

The result is an accelerating wave front of consumption, driven from behind by the constant input of food and wood and fanning out into ever more orchestrally difficult complexity in the mature mature products. The wave front collapses when products must be discarded rather than consumed¹ and around point-producing buildings consume of mature/complex products, allowing the player to reset back to a simpler world² and begin the next heady climb³.

The key here is differentiation. Differentiation is required by any temporary emergent alliance game else the alliances have no value gradients to form around. Like both Pampas Railroads and Wabash Cannonball the current initial share auction in Muck & Brass establishes a couple primary points of differentiation:

1. What shares are held by whom at the end of the auction
2. Total cash holdings (and resulting turn order)

However those differences are too small for Muck & Brass. Unlike Wabash Cannonball and Pampas Railroads, companies are poorly differentiated in Muck & Brass as their long-term income potentials are mostly dependent on action selections that surround the early mid-game (access to London and merge opportunities). Again like Wabash Cannonball and Pampas Railroads, Muck & Brass uses competition for limited action supplies to provide the rest of the differentiation. Any replacement action selection and turn order system will need to at least equal that level of differentiation if not improve on it, and there are a few problems.

Unlike Neuland, Muck & Brass does not have an oscillating wave-front of commitment. Actions will generally not be selected in large sets, rather a player will take an action (sliding forwards Neuland-style as needed) and the player furthest behind on the action track will take the next action (usually a different player). The result is that opportunity cost becomes significant – not opportunity for self but opportunity afforded to others. A large/expensive action which passes over other players affords them the opportunity to perform multiple smaller/cheaper actions before the expensive-action-player can react.

This has large implications for the numbers selected. If, for instance, all the costs are even values, then the players will rapidly sort themselves into sets, the odds and the evens, with transfers between sets occurring only on collisions⁴ All odd costs also has the same behaviour. Having the action cost values close to each other suggests that collisions will be more frequent, but also suggests that players will select actions in part to avoid collisions (they might as well spend the action they’d otherwise lose by sliding forward). The intersection of these two patterns arrives when some costs are multiples of other costs. Multiples suggest phase relationships with the parity of the modulo affecting action selection in order to avoid collisions, Additionally there’s a relationship between the size of the average action cost and the number of players. For instance if the costs are 1/2/3 and there are 5 players in the game, then after a few turns every action choice will result in a collision.

The significant attributes appear to be:

1. Odd/even spread of costs
2. Ratio of average cost to number of players
3. Density of action cost values
4. Average rate of collisions
5. Strength of set-formation among players along parity lines
6. Breath of action cost range in terms of cost-multiples

And of course:

1. Length of action track as a function of action costs as a determinant of dividend rate

Hurm. I was looking at 1/2-2/3-4 as action costs, but that seems clearly poor, especially when compared to player counts. 2/5-3/5-7 seems attractive. This is going to take some work.

As a total aside, I’ve also been toying with an extension to the Capitalisation action:

- In addition to the normal behaviours a player holding a clear plurality of shares in a company may have that company reclaim any one of its shares held by any player for a sum equal to twice the current dividend value of the share