headers
Lou Jerkich | 1 Apr 2008 04:56
Picon
Favicon

Re: Re: Stock Round Ordering

I also believe that the calculating of total assets in a face-to-face game
will be too time-consuming and won't work very well.  However, using a
spreadsheet as I've been doing in my Cyberboard games, I see the procedure
as a very simple thing since the spreadsheet is always keeping a running
tally of the assets of each player.  So, if anyone wants to actually try
doing this, I recommend doing it in an online game that uses a spreadsheet.

For face-to-face games, there needs to be something simpler if one is going
to run stock rounds in an order that is contrary to current rules.  What
about having the President of the lowest-valued company go first, but
thereafter rotate through each player in turn in clockwise order from the
first one?  Then resume again with the player who currently is running the
lowest-valued company, continuing as before through each player.  Repeat as
needed.
--Lou Jerkich

> [Original Message]
> From: john boocock <johnlner@...>
> To: <18xx@...>
> Date: 3/31/2008 2:26:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [18xx] Re: Stock Round Ordering
>
> mmmm
>  i damn well am NOT exaggerating the process....
>
> you MAY be a paragon of an 18xx player, always ready with your moves, but
most players i know, and i know some damn good ones, are not always ready. 
>
> anyway, you NEED to watch what the others do, 'cos it WILL affect what
YOU do...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
allen | 1 Apr 2008 05:48
Picon

Re: Re: Stock Round Ordering

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lou Jerkich" <gamecorner@...>

>I also believe that the calculating of total assets in a
>face-to-face game will be too time-consuming
>and won't work very well. 

not so, when there's people out there that
actually calculate what to do for their next
move on PAPER during their turn that takes a lot
of time without consideration for other players.

>However, using a spreadsheet as I've been doing
>in my Cyberboard games, I see the procedure
>as a very simple thing since the spreadsheet
>is always keeping a running tally of the assets
>of each player.  So, if anyone wants to actually
>try doing this, I recommend doing it in an online
>game that uses a spreadsheet.

and there's no reason why it cannot be done on a
pc at the table that's monitored.

>For face-to-face games, there needs to be
>something simpler if one is going to run stock rounds
>in an order that is contrary to current rules. 

and what's simpliar than having priority placed
after the last person to perform an action?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
W.R.Dixon | 1 Apr 2008 06:19

Re: Re: Stock Round Ordering

Ray Mulford wrote:
> Agreed.  In fact, I'd go a step further:
> 
> The 18xx Priority deal mechanism is fine as is and does not need to
> change to accommodate the playing styles of certain people in certain
> gaming groups.

So how about the Priority Occupies a certificate space.

It starts in its normal position (determined by last to do an action) 
and if there is no space for it with that player, it moves clockwise 
around the player positions until it finds a home or comes back to the 
starting location.
If everybody is full up then it rests in the normal position otherwise 
it goes to someone who is not full of shares.

Bill Dixon

------------------------------------

This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/join
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 15 comments |
headers
Chris Shaffer | 1 Apr 2008 12:33
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Re: Stock Round Ordering

>  >I also believe that the calculating of total assets in a
>  >face-to-face game will be too time-consuming
>  >and won't work very well.
>
>  not so, when there's people out there that
>  actually calculate what to do for their next
>  move on PAPER during their turn that takes a lot
>  of time without consideration for other players.

Different people play games different ways, and expecting them to
conform to your system is a good way to make people not want to play
games with you again.

I have a hard enough time convincing people in eastern Iowa to even
put 18xx on the game table.  If I told them they had to track their
net worth on paper (and bluntly!!! stated that not doing so would be
inconsiderate!!!) then I would never get the chance to play 18xx
face-to-face except at conventions.

Simply declaring that it is easy does not make it so!  I would
estimate that *for groups with which I play* it would add at least an
hour to the play time.  That may not be true for your group, but
please don't tell me what is "not so" for my group.

--

-- 
Chris

Keep the flying car. I want the future where "resurrection" is a
medical specialty.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
john boocock | 1 Apr 2008 12:40
Picon
Favicon

Re: Re: Stock Round Ordering

ra ra chris....
  just so..

  john b

Chris Shaffer <chris.shaffer@...> wrote:
  > >I also believe that the calculating of total assets in a
> >face-to-face game will be too time-consuming
> >and won't work very well.
>
> not so, when there's people out there that
> actually calculate what to do for their next
> move on PAPER during their turn that takes a lot
> of time without consideration for other players.

Different people play games different ways, and expecting them to
conform to your system is a good way to make people not want to play
games with you again.

I have a hard enough time convincing people in eastern Iowa to even
put 18xx on the game table. If I told them they had to track their
net worth on paper (and bluntly!!! stated that not doing so would be
inconsiderate!!!) then I would never get the chance to play 18xx
face-to-face except at conventions.

Simply declaring that it is easy does not make it so! I would
estimate that *for groups with which I play* it would add at least an
hour to the play time. That may not be true for your group, but
please don't tell me what is "not so" for my group.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
john boocock | 1 Apr 2008 12:40
Picon
Favicon

Re: Re: Stock Round Ordering

ra ra chris....
  just so..

  john b

Chris Shaffer <chris.shaffer@...> wrote:
  > >I also believe that the calculating of total assets in a
> >face-to-face game will be too time-consuming
> >and won't work very well.
>
> not so, when there's people out there that
> actually calculate what to do for their next
> move on PAPER during their turn that takes a lot
> of time without consideration for other players.

Different people play games different ways, and expecting them to
conform to your system is a good way to make people not want to play
games with you again.

I have a hard enough time convincing people in eastern Iowa to even
put 18xx on the game table. If I told them they had to track their
net worth on paper (and bluntly!!! stated that not doing so would be
inconsiderate!!!) then I would never get the chance to play 18xx
face-to-face except at conventions.

Simply declaring that it is easy does not make it so! I would
estimate that *for groups with which I play* it would add at least an
hour to the play time. That may not be true for your group, but
please don't tell me what is "not so" for my group.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ray Mulford | 1 Apr 2008 13:32
Picon

Re: Re: Stock Round Ordering

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:19 PM, W.R.Dixon <WRDixon@...> wrote:

> Ray Mulford wrote:
> > Agreed. In fact, I'd go a step further:
> >
> > The 18xx Priority deal mechanism is fine as is and does not need to
> > change to accommodate the playing styles of certain people in certain
> > gaming groups.
>
> So how about the Priority Occupies a certificate space.
>
> It starts in its normal position (determined by last to do an action)
> and if there is no space for it with that player, it moves clockwise
> around the player positions until it finds a home or comes back to the
> starting location.
> If everybody is full up then it rests in the normal position otherwise
> it goes to someone who is not full of shares.
>
> Bill Dixon

This will have zero effect on the game until someone reaches their
certificate limit, so I like the idea until that point.

But I see no reason to penalize the player who is at his limit (but
maybe not doing better than his opponent with "Limit -1" shares) and I
do not see how this makes the game any better.

------------------------------------

This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.Yahoo! Groups Links
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 9 comments |
headers
allen | 1 Apr 2008 16:06
Picon

Re: Re: Stock Round Ordering

at least bill dixon's approach is a modest
solution without any more complications than
what everyone else proposes!

as for chris's remark, keeping track of one's total assets
is no more annoying than waiting for someone
that takes their time calculating what their move
would do ON PAPER on their turn.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ray Mulford" <ray.mulford@...>
To: <18xx@...>
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 4:32 AM
Subject: Re: [18xx] Re: Stock Round Ordering

> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:19 PM, W.R.Dixon <WRDixon@...> wrote:
> 
>> Ray Mulford wrote:
>> > Agreed. In fact, I'd go a step further:
>> >
>> > The 18xx Priority deal mechanism is fine as is and does not need to
>> > change to accommodate the playing styles of certain people in certain
>> > gaming groups.
>>
>> So how about the Priority Occupies a certificate space.
>>
>> It starts in its normal position (determined by last to do an action)
>> and if there is no space for it with that player, it moves clockwise
>> around the player positions until it finds a home or comes back to the
>> starting location.
>> If everybody is full up then it rests in the normal position otherwise
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Chris Shaffer | 1 Apr 2008 16:34
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Re: Stock Round Ordering

>  as for chris's remark, keeping track of one's total assets
>  is no more annoying than waiting for someone
>  that takes their time calculating what their move
>  would do ON PAPER on their turn.

Sorry, Allen, but you do not get to decide for me or my friends what
is annoying or not.  What may seem perfectly reasonable to you can
seem completely unreasonable to others.  Live with it.

-- 
Chris

Keep the flying car. I want the future where "resurrection" is a
medical specialty.

------------------------------------

This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Tim Franklin | 1 Apr 2008 16:42

Re: Re: Stock Round Ordering

On Tue, April 1, 2008 3:06 pm, allen wrote:

> as for chris's remark, keeping track of one's total assets
> is no more annoying than waiting for someone
> that takes their time calculating what their move
> would do ON PAPER on their turn.

While I'm always desperate to play 18xx, I'm not desperate enough to play
with people who would do that.  In fact, if I was hosting, I think I'd ask
them to leave.

I think the asset-tracking (and any rule change depending on it) is
possible with a computer moderator (whether that's PB(E)M, or a laptop at
the table), but by hand it's turning a game into an exercise in
book-keeping.

Regards,
Tim.

------------------------------------

This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane