Ian Scrivins | 1 Mar 09:30 2011

Re: SoRCon 2011


So how did 18Kent go? Did you test it? I'd love to see a photo of the components.

Ian

--- In 18xx@..., "huttm" <huttm <at> ...> wrote:
>
> I intend to be there on the Saturday, although I probably don't count as sharkkind. I will have 18EA, 1825,
1860, and 18Kent+ with me.
> 
> In terms of sharks, I'd have to check on the day. Certainly if the Kentish mob (+ honoraries) are there I'm
quite happy to point you in their direction. I have no idea who else is likely to be there apart from the
Mundays, and while they're good, they're not quite as extreme as the mob. I don't even know if they have
playing 18xx in mind.
> 
> If you're travelling up by car on the day, would you be interested in carsharing? I'm presuming you're in
the Romfordish area or en route from their to Colchester.
> 
> Mike.
> 

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

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
(Continue reading)

Lou Jerkich | 1 Mar 12:42 2011
Picon
Picon

1826: Best privates and corporations

Checking my records on ten games of 1826, I have discovered that the owner
of the Bridge private has won six of those games, including all of the most
recent five.  In three of those games that player also owned the Paris
private, and in two of them the Bridge was associated with the Belge.  The
winners almost always have run either the Paris or the PO as their initial
corporation.

Here are the private companies owned by the winners, along with their
initial corporation:
1. Paris -- Paris 
2. Train -- PO
3. Bridge, Paris -- Paris
4. Mail, Train -- PO
5. Mail, Paris -- Paris
6. Bridge, Paris -- Paris
7. Bridge, Belge -- GC
8. Bridge, Belge, Paris -- Paris
9. Bridge -- PO
10. Bridge, Paris -- PO

Notes:
Game #1 was a 6-player game; all the rest were four player games with the
same four people.

Game #7's winner was in last place when OR8A began.  He gradually moved up
in each OR of the eighth set to win it on the income of his last run in the
last move of OR8C.  The winner also held stock in the yellow zone at the
start of OR8A.

In game #10, the PO was started and the Paris corporation's Presidency was
(Continue reading)

Phil Davies | 1 Mar 13:10 2011
Picon

Re: SoRCon 2011

Ian,

There is a photo here of us midgame: http://destrin.posterous.com/playtesting-18kent

Components are still playtest form so not much to look at but perfectly functional for the game we were playing.

I don't want to steal Mike's thunder by detailing too much about the mechanics but I did enjoy the game we
played.  This is far from your average 18xx with all of the rules changes.  Once I'd got to grips with it I found
it wasn't too difficult to get a handle on what was going on (although I did come 3rd out of 4 players so I
clearly didn't grasp it sufficiently!).  

It's currently weighing in at a rather hefty 8 or so hours for 4 players who hadn't played before.  I'm sure
this will come down with experience and a little streamlining of the rules.  Would happily play again.

Phil

--- In 18xx@..., "Ian Scrivins" <iansc <at> ...> wrote:
>
> 
> So how did 18Kent go? Did you test it? I'd love to see a photo of the components.
> 
> Ian
> 
> --- In 18xx@..., "huttm" <huttm <at> > wrote:
> >
> > I intend to be there on the Saturday, although I probably don't count as sharkkind. I will have 18EA, 1825,
1860, and 18Kent+ with me.
> > 
> > In terms of sharks, I'd have to check on the day. Certainly if the Kentish mob (+ honoraries) are there I'm
quite happy to point you in their direction. I have no idea who else is likely to be there apart from the
(Continue reading)

Beard, Bruce D. | 1 Mar 13:32 2011

RE: 1826: Best privates and corporations

Lou,

Thanks for the data.  I do not find it startling.  My three favorite starting RRs are Belge, Paris and PO and my 2
favorite privates are the Mail and the Paris.

In the game I am playing now, 3 of the 4 players lost their initial company to the SNCF.  The Belge player will
get the 2nd 10H and is the current leader but I am still hoping to revive my fortunes.  I suspect surviving the
governemtn formation intact is more critical in 26 than which RR one starts.

-Bruce
________________________________
From: 18xx@...
[18xx@...] On Behalf Of Lou Jerkich [gamecorner@...]
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 6:42 AM
To: 18xx@...
Subject: [18xx] 1826: Best privates and corporations

Checking my records on ten games of 1826, I have discovered that the owner
of the Bridge private has won six of those games, including all of the most
recent five. In three of those games that player also owned the Paris
private, and in two of them the Bridge was associated with the Belge. The
winners almost always have run either the Paris or the PO as their initial
corporation.

Here are the private companies owned by the winners, along with their
initial corporation:
1. Paris -- Paris
2. Train -- PO
3. Bridge, Paris -- Paris
4. Mail, Train -- PO
(Continue reading)

Robert Jasiek | 1 Mar 13:59 2011
Picon

Re: 1826: Best privates and corporations

On 01.03.2011 12:42, Lou Jerkich wrote:
> 1. Paris -- Paris
> 2. Train -- PO
> 3. Bridge, Paris -- Paris
> 4. Mail, Train -- PO
> 5. Mail, Paris -- Paris
> 6. Bridge, Paris -- Paris
> 7. Bridge, Belge -- GC
> 8. Bridge, Belge, Paris -- Paris
> 9. Bridge -- PO
> 10. Bridge, Paris -- PO

The essential information needed for judgement is:
- bids on the privates
- when did Belge float
- which companies were prevented from early token placement in Belgium

> No matter what kind of strategy the players try, it appears that those who
> float the Paris or the PO corporations are most likely to win, and having
> the Bridge or the Paris private is the best ticket to success.  Do others
> have the same results or do you have more variety in winning approaches?

We have very other results WRT to Paris, which almost always is denied 
access to Belgium at least until the TGV. The Bridge is no winner and 
the TrainLimit is neither because we bid high (95-115) for it.

--

-- 
robert jasiek

------------------------------------
(Continue reading)

Steve Thomas | 1 Mar 14:37 2011

For sale: 1829 south, and 1829 north conversion kit

Late last year I took charge of the late Tony Wheatley's 1829 (south board) 
and 1829 (south to north conversion kit).  The idea was that I should raise 
some cash for them and donate the proceeds to two funds, UK EDC (intended to 
support playing Diplomacy) and HDF (intended to support UK board gaming in 
general).  For reasons in part beyond my control I have not yet found a 
buyer.

Both games are complete.  The components have been played with quite a lot, 
though not lately.  This shows up mostly in the money, which is quite worn, 
though still usable.  The share certificates and the like spent quite a 
number of years bound in elastic bands.  These degraded over time and left 
some stains on some of the cards.  The boxes are a bit dented, but otherwise 
in fair shape.

If you want these, send me an offer.

--
Steve Thomas  maisnestce@...

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

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)

huttm | 1 Mar 15:00 2011
Picon

Re: SoRCon 2011

Phil did a better job of handling the game than I did.

Overall the game mostly does what I want it to, but takes too long. 10 companies + 8 minors is probably too
much, so I'm looking to a streamlined version with 6 + 6.

A few late rule changes probably didn't help things. Allowing more than one branch line early on slowed
things down, and I may get the minors to run together before/after the majors instead of each being run
before its owning major. That's more to minimise downtime rather than anything else.

Other changes are in the pipeline - if I keep the operating order rules (descending order of revenue) then
the two-level linear stockmarket probably needs to go, to be replaced by a simple linear one. The
capitalisation may need to be a little more lenient, and operating minors may need to be simplified.

All in all, not to bad considering. I've got a few more pics, but they need prettying up before posting anywhere.

Mike.

--- In 18xx@..., "Phil Davies" <destrin <at> ...> wrote:
>
> Ian,
> 
> There is a photo here of us midgame: http://destrin.posterous.com/playtesting-18kent
> 
> Components are still playtest form so not much to look at but perfectly functional for the game we were playing.
> 
> I don't want to steal Mike's thunder by detailing too much about the mechanics but I did enjoy the game we
played.  This is far from your average 18xx with all of the rules changes.  Once I'd got to grips with it I found
it wasn't too difficult to get a handle on what was going on (although I did come 3rd out of 4 players so I
clearly didn't grasp it sufficiently!).  
> 
(Continue reading)

d_mitton | 1 Mar 15:35 2011

1861 Finish rounds

At Total Confusion, Sunday, the 18XX Finals game was chosen to be 1861.

The interpretation of the endgame rules was contested.  I found myself doing a Google search, and
downloading a FAQ from BBG to rule on the issue in real time.  A first for that.

The rule says (from memory) "If the 8-train is purchased in the first OR, then two more ORs are played. 
Otherwise, play a stock round, then 3 ORs"  This seems rather straightforward, [1861 normally only has 2
ORs between SRs].   The problem is the next phrase, "this way a game always ends in a set of 3 ORs".

In this particular game, the 8-train was bought by the Russian State Railway, which always runs last, and as
a train purchase is the last action of the company, the OR ends at that point.   The player didn't seem to think
that should count as the first of 3.   I pointed out that the rule seemed fairly clear for the circumstance,
even though their wasn't any later action in that round.  Playing two more would show a game record of 3
rounds from the SR.  But he wasn't convinced.
I think the unofficial FAQ comes to the same conclusion.

This seems to be a case where the rule writer attempted to add clarity but caused confusion.  A better word
than "set" for those with a mathematical or logic background, would be a "series" or even "contiguous".  
And you may need to add some words to explain that this includes the round the train was bought.

Any further comments?
Dave.

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

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/

(Continue reading)

Beard, Bruce D. | 1 Mar 15:40 2011

RE: 1861 Finish rounds

Dave,

If the RSR bought the first 8 in SR 6A (1861 almost always lasts exactly 6 SRs), then there should have been no
SR and two more ORs.

3 questions:

1) How many players played 18XX?
2) Who made the finals?
3) who won?

We had 22 at prezCon (a record).  We played 8 official games and and 6 pick-up games.

-Bruce

________________________________
From: 18xx@...
[18xx@...] On Behalf Of d_mitton [dave@...]
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 9:35 AM
To: 18xx@...
Subject: [18xx] 1861 Finish rounds

At Total Confusion, Sunday, the 18XX Finals game was chosen to be 1861.

The interpretation of the endgame rules was contested. I found myself doing a Google search, and
downloading a FAQ from BBG to rule on the issue in real time. A first for that.

The rule says (from memory) "If the 8-train is purchased in the first OR, then two more ORs are played.
Otherwise, play a stock round, then 3 ORs" This seems rather straightforward, [1861 normally only has 2
ORs between SRs]. The problem is the next phrase, "this way a game always ends in a set of 3 ORs".
(Continue reading)

Ian D Wilson | 1 Mar 15:55 2011

Re: 1861 Finish rounds

Hi Dave,
 
I have since come up with a new wording for the rule as follows:
 
"The game end is signalled by the purchase of the first 8 train. If this purchase is during the first
operating round of a set, then complete this round and play two more (without a stock round). Otherwise,
complete the round, execute a stock round, and then play three more operating rounds. Therefore the game
normally ends with a triple set of operating rounds (but there is always two between each stock round)."
 
Is this any clearer?
 
Ian D

--- On Tue, 1/3/11, d_mitton <dave@...> wrote:

From: d_mitton <dave@...>
Subject: [18xx] 1861 Finish rounds
To: 18xx@...
Date: Tuesday, 1 March, 2011, 14:35

  

At Total Confusion, Sunday, the 18XX Finals game was chosen to be 1861.

The interpretation of the endgame rules was contested. I found myself doing a Google search, and
downloading a FAQ from BBG to rule on the issue in real time. A first for that.

The rule says (from memory) "If the 8-train is purchased in the first OR, then two more ORs are played.
Otherwise, play a stock round, then 3 ORs" This seems rather straightforward, [1861 normally only has 2
ORs between SRs]. The problem is the next phrase, "this way a game always ends in a set of 3 ORs".
(Continue reading)


Gmane