Steve Thomas | 1 Dec 15:46 2009

Re: Re: How much table talk is too much table talk?

Bruce Beard wrote:

> Please note--David Hecht just described EU as interminable!

He didn't say that--he just said that under certain conditions it seems 
interminable.

Many years ago I published an article on this list (or more likely one of 
its predecessors) on 18xx games that had no end.  (I'd just had a 
particularly tedious office meeting )  The rules of the exercise are that 
the players cooperate to get the game into some dead-end state from which no 
possible set of moves can extricate them.  With some games, it's easy--in 
1856, for instance, you must launch all of the companies, have some company 
acquire a 5-train, and then withhold until all of the companies fall down 
the bottomless pit in the corner of the stock chart; obviously, the CGR must 
not form.  With others, it's more of a challenge.  1830 is particularly 
tricky.

A fairly rapid analysis suggests that it takes a bit of work to get 18EU 
into a state from which the game must continue indefinitely, but it's not 
all that hard.  If only minors #6, #9, and #12 could build themselves into a 
cul-de-sac, like all of the others, it would be a doddle.  Or if it didn't 
have a last-man-standing rule, you could drive everyone bankrupt.  As it is, 
you have to have the minors earn £1300 of company capital between them, and 
use the money to buy up to the first 4-train, leaving the minors without a 
penny.  The players would therefore have at least £1300 between them, and 
this must be spent on presidencies, lots of them, but without buying any 
extra shares.  The public corporations thus started can't be floated, so 
they don't run.  The minors with trains don't have routes, because they've 
built into dead ends (I knew there had to be a reason why minors can't lay 
(Continue reading)

Beard, Bruce D. | 1 Dec 15:52 2009

RE: Interminable 18XX

Steve,

I realize David did not say that--but pretending he did made it funnier (I guess that makes me a toon--like
Roger Rabbit).

The first time I played 1841 one of the players had to sell off all his stock to buy a train.  He ended up with 3L,
just short of bankruptcy.  So he could not restart with 500L, he could never buy a share of stock.  He just had
to sit there (it was a tournament).  It has not indefinite but I bet it felt interminable.

Technically, I suppose he should have been at the table to say "pass" every time it was his turn in the SR.  In
reality, we just called the game--tournament or no.

-Bruce

________________________________________
From: 18xx@...
[18xx@...] On Behalf Of Steve Thomas [maisnestce@...]
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 9:46 AM
To: 18xx@...
Subject: Re: [18xx] Re: How much table talk is too much table talk?

Bruce Beard wrote:

> Please note--David Hecht just described EU as interminable!

He didn't say that--he just said that under certain conditions it seems
interminable.

Many years ago I published an article on this list (or more likely one of
its predecessors) on 18xx games that had no end.  (I'd just had a
(Continue reading)

Ian D Wilson | 1 Dec 18:50 2009

RE: Re: 18Dragons & Cannons

There is only one copy, gathering dust somewhere on my shelves...

--- On Mon, 30/11/09, Beard, Bruce D. <bruce_d_beard@...> wrote:

From: Beard, Bruce D. <bruce_d_beard@...>
Subject: RE: [18xx] Re: 18Dragons & Cannons
To: "18xx@..." <18xx@...>
Date: Monday, 30 November, 2009, 23:06

And for that reason, Ian, I will wager you sold very few copies in Brasilia!

-Bruce
________________________________
From: 18xx@...
[18xx@...] On Behalf Of Ian D Wilson [ianwilson156@...]
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 3:31 PM
To: 18xx@...
Subject: Re: [18xx] Re: 18Dragons & Cannons

But 18ME was sadly lacking dragons & wizards.
Nor did cannon play any significant role.

Ian D

--- On Mon, 30/11/09, dave4b
<dave.thorby@...<mailto:dave.thorby%40ukonline.co.uk>> wrote:

From: dave4b <dave.thorby@...<mailto:dave.thorby%40ukonline.co.uk>>
Subject: [18xx] Re: 18Dragons & Cannons
To: 18xx@...<mailto:18xx%40yahoogroups.com>
(Continue reading)

Ian D Wilson | 1 Dec 18:57 2009

RE: Interminable 18XX

So, is it possible for all players to go not-quite-bankrupt in 1841?

--- On Tue, 1/12/09, Beard, Bruce D. <bruce_d_beard@...> wrote:

From: Beard, Bruce D. <bruce_d_beard@...>
Subject: RE: [18xx] Interminable 18XX
To: "18xx@..." <18xx@...>
Date: Tuesday, 1 December, 2009, 14:52

  

Steve,

I realize David did not say that--but pretending he did made it funnier (I guess that makes me a toon--like
Roger Rabbit).

The first time I played 1841 one of the players had to sell off all his stock to buy a train. He ended up with 3L,
just short of bankruptcy. So he could not restart with 500L, he could never buy a share of stock. He just had
to sit there (it was a tournament). It has not indefinite but I bet it felt interminable.

Technically, I suppose he should have been at the table to say "pass" every time it was his turn in the SR. In
reality, we just called the game--tournament or no.

-Bruce

____________ _________ _________ _________ _
From: 18xx <at> yahoogroups. com [18xx <at> yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Steve Thomas [maisnestce <at> btintern et.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 9:46 AM
To: 18xx <at> yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [18xx] Re: How much table talk is too much table talk?
(Continue reading)

Vesa-Pekka Palmu | 1 Dec 19:34 2009
Picon

RE: Interminable 18XX

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Ian D Wilson wrote:

> So, is it possible for all players to go not-quite-bankrupt in 1841?
>

I think it might be possible, needs a company owned by another company
that is owned by a player to buy the train that triggers the train-rusting
that triggers the bankrubsies, so that none of the companies under direct
player control will have a train ;)

-- 
^^^ Tämä on siguerotin, se ei pure

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

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:
    18xx-digest@... 
    18xx-fullfeatured@...
(Continue reading)

Ricky Gray | 1 Dec 20:17 2009
Picon

Multiple Stations on a tile by same corporation

I was just casually reading the 1832 rules when I noticed that there is no
rule prohibiting a corporation placing multiple station tokens on a single
tile (not in the same OR, of course).  A quick and non-thorough search
revealed that the same is true in the rules for 18GL and 1826 (18TN, 18GA,
1846, 18Scan, and others do specifically prohibit it).  Is this simply an
oversight, or is it intentional?  

Thanks,

Ricky

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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

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:
    18xx-digest@... 
    18xx-fullfeatured@...
(Continue reading)

David G.D. Hecht | 1 Dec 22:23 2009
Picon
Picon

Re: Multiple Stations on a tile by same corporation


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ricky Gray" <regray8@...>
To: <18xx@...>
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 2:17 PM
Subject: [18xx] Multiple Stations on a tile by same corporation

>I was just casually reading the 1832 rules when I noticed that there is no
> rule prohibiting a corporation placing multiple station tokens on a single
> tile (not in the same OR, of course).  A quick and non-thorough search
> revealed that the same is true in the rules for 18GL and 1826 (18TN, 18GA,
> 1846, 18Scan, and others do specifically prohibit it).  Is this simply an
> oversight, or is it intentional?
>

An unfortunate oversight in the 26 rules, unintentionally perpetuated into 
the GL ones. 

E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (7.0.0.508)
Database version: 6.13820
http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/

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

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:
(Continue reading)

Stephen Webb | 2 Dec 08:56 2009
Picon

Re: Multiple Stations on a tile by same corporation

I don't know about the other games but 1826 covers this.

Under Additional Token Placement, this is permitted "in any open City
to which it may legally run from one of its existing tokens".

Under Train Operation and Earnings Calculation "a train amy not run more
than once to the same City..."

By extension, if you start in a a City with one of your existing tokens and
obey the placement rule, you cannot place a token in the same city.

Stephen Webb

2009/12/1 Ricky Gray <regray8@...>

>
>
> I was just casually reading the 1832 rules when I noticed that there is no
> rule prohibiting a corporation placing multiple station tokens on a single
> tile (not in the same OR, of course). A quick and non-thorough search
> revealed that the same is true in the rules for 18GL and 1826 (18TN, 18GA,
> 1846, 18Scan, and others do specifically prohibit it). Is this simply an
> oversight, or is it intentional?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ricky
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
(Continue reading)

JC Lawrence | 2 Dec 09:07 2009
Picon
Picon
Picon

Re: Multiple Stations on a tile by same corporation

That doesn't cover the exception of Double-Os and other multiple-city  
tiles.

-- JCL

On 1 Dec 2009, at 23:56 , Stephen Webb wrote:

> I don't know about the other games but 1826 covers this.
>
>
> Under Additional Token Placement, this is permitted "in any open City
> to which it may legally run from one of its existing tokens".
>
> Under Train Operation and Earnings Calculation "a train amy not run  
> more
> than once to the same City..."
>
> By extension, if you start in a a City with one of your existing  
> tokens and
> obey the placement rule, you cannot place a token in the same city.
>
> Stephen Webb
>
>
> 2009/12/1 Ricky Gray <regray8@...>
>
>>
>>
>> I was just casually reading the 1832 rules when I noticed that  
>> there is no
(Continue reading)

Stephen Webb | 2 Dec 10:23 2009
Picon

Re: Multiple Stations on a tile by same corporation

Which don't exist in 1826!

Stephen Webb
Sent from Chatham, Eng, United Kingdom

2009/12/2 JC Lawrence <claw@...>

>
>
> That doesn't cover the exception of Double-Os and other multiple-city
> tiles.
>
> -- JCL
>
> On 1 Dec 2009, at 23:56 , Stephen Webb wrote:
>
> > I don't know about the other games but 1826 covers this.
> >
> >
> > Under Additional Token Placement, this is permitted "in any open City
> > to which it may legally run from one of its existing tokens".
> >
> > Under Train Operation and Earnings Calculation "a train amy not run
> > more
> > than once to the same City..."
> >
> > By extension, if you start in a a City with one of your existing
> > tokens and
> > obey the placement rule, you cannot place a token in the same city.
> >
(Continue reading)


Gmane