headers
thomas wall hannaford, jr. | 1 May 2012 01:40
Picon
Favicon

Re: Re: 18?? Destination run question

Just to add to Hecht's comment about the Vellani rule, IF you were playing with stock-price appreciation
rules where it was possible to double or triple-jump based on the relationship between the run-value (or
dividend pay-out) and the current share price, THEN you'd definitely want to hold off on executing a
destination run UNTIL you had an optimized destination run (but note that '18??' does not have this style
of stock-appreciation rules [hmmm, here's another potential optional rule, which definitely would
make stock-price-appreciation a MUCH GREATER component in Player Total Worth calculations,
especially if we increased the range of potential share prices on the stock market chart]). -TWHJr

________________________________
 From: David Hecht <Barzai@...>
To: 18xx@... 
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: [18xx] Re: 18?? Destination run question

  
Not only is money now better than money later, but the essential is 
getting that 2x token down. In an 1870-type environment, where there are 
few "big" cities of the NYC/London/Paris type, that 2x is effectively 
giving you an extra city: so a 3t runs like a 4t, a 4t like a 5t, and so 
on. It may not seem like much but it adds up.

I need scarcely add that if 1870 used the Vellani rule (you have to pay 
out equal to or more than your share value to go up) it would be even 
more obvious, as there would be capital value effects as well as revenue 
ones.

On 4/30/2012 2:21 PM, Tom McCorry wrote:
> So it is written, so shall it be done...
>
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 12 comments |
headers
Mike Coyne | 1 May 2012 01:54
Picon
Favicon

Re: Re: 18?? Destination run question

OR, you'd want to destinate early, and get more multiple jumps. If a large destination run gave you a triple
jump, that might allow your stock price to catch up. But if you had been steadily paying out more revenue,
and making single/double jumps, you might not NEED to catch up. I'm afraid even that scenario can't
definitively end this argument. Kind of why this is a fun one - it's more a matter of style and taste than certainty.

Mike Coyne
mpcoyne@...

-----Original Message-----
From: thomas wall hannaford, jr. <twall1958@...>
To: 18xx <18xx@...>
Cc: Allen Sliwinski <allensli@...>; Russ Rusnak <rrrrrusnak@...>
Sent: Mon, Apr 30, 2012 7:40 pm
Subject: Re: [18xx] Re: 18?? Destination run question

Just to add to Hecht's comment about the Vellani rule, IF you were playing with 
tock-price appreciation rules where it was possible to double or triple-jump 
ased on the relationship between the run-value (or dividend pay-out) and the 
urrent share price, THEN you'd definitely want to hold off on executing a 
estination run UNTIL you had an optimized destination run (but note that '18??' 
oes not have this style of stock-appreciation rules [hmmm, here's another 
otential optional rule, which definitely would make stock-price-appreciation a 
UCH GREATER component in Player Total Worth calculations, especially if we 
ncreased the range of potential share prices on the stock market chart]). 
TWHJr

________________________________
From: David Hecht <Barzai@...>
o: 18xx@... 
ent: Monday, April 30, 2012 1:53 PM
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
JC Lawrence | 1 May 2012 02:08
Picon
Picon
Picon
Gravatar

Re: 18?? Destination run question

The problem is not that simple.  Your change makes dividends the dominant force, not stock appreciation.

Multi-jumps reward dividends without regard for when they are paid.  Right-movement only on paid
dividends rewards paying continuously, even if that creates capital challenges for the company.  This
can be seen fairly clearly in 1830: the player with the most shares furthest to the right (usually) wins. 
How did they get there so far to the right?  By constantly paying and damning the torpedoes of upcoming train
purchases -- which can be a hefty burden.  With multi-jumps however the temptation is to keep a company way
back in the colour corner, and to then multi-jump all the way right in the last few ORs to achieve the same
stock price as if it had paid every turn since the beginning of the game.  If you put in a rule that
coloured-companies can't multi-jump to try and salvage this, then t
 he temptation is to hover right at the border and then multi-jump away to blissful stock-price.  Same
problem: slightly different expression.

-- JCL

On 30 Apr 2012, at 16:40, thomas wall hannaford, jr. wrote:

> Just to add to Hecht's comment about the Vellani rule, IF you were playing with stock-price appreciation
rules where it was possible to double or triple-jump based on the relationship between the run-value (or
dividend pay-out) and the current share price, THEN you'd definitely want to hold off on executing a
destination run UNTIL you had an optimized destination run (but note that '18??' does not have this style
of stock-appreciation rules [hmmm, here's another potential optional rule, which definitely would
make stock-price-appreciation a MUCH GREATER component in Player Total Worth calculations,
especially if we increased the range of potential share prices on the stock market chart]). -TWHJr
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: David Hecht <Barzai@...>
> To: 18xx@...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 9 comments |
headers
Allen Sli | 1 May 2012 02:21
Picon
Favicon

Re: Re: 18?? Destination run question

Companies don't get "extra destination runs." I don't understand your question, but here is a more wordy
explanation of destination station marker limits. Hopefully, your answer in in here:
 
Each company can make no more than one connection run per game. Only one company may make a connection run to
any red off-board location until four companies have completed their connection runs to four different
locations. Then, after four connection runs are completed, one additional company (the first one
there) can make a connection run to any location that already contains exactly one destination station
marker. No more than two companies may make connection runs to or have destination markers at any one location.
 
If a company closes, all of its station markers are removed from the game. If the closed company had made its
destination run, the closing would remove its destination station marker and reopen the destination
spot that it had taken, as if the closed company had never existed. However, in the very unlikely event
that exactly four companies had made connection runs to four locations and one of those companies
closes, leaving only three companies with destination station markers, other companies would still
be able to make destination runs to locations that already contain one destination station marker.
 
Allen
 
 
  

  

another point that needs more clarification is:
When four or more companies have made their connection runs, one additional 
company may make a connection run to a location that already contains 
another company's destination station marker. This does not change if one or 
more of the four companies are later closed.

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

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Beard, Bruce D. | 1 May 2012 02:23

RE: Re: 18?? Destination run question (to Allen)

In 1870, you can run 4 trains out of Dallas or Fort Worth or St. Louis, Allen.  Can you run 4 trains out of SE, SW,
or Denver?  The destinations in ?? are off board red areas.

-Bruce

________________________________
From: 18xx@...
[18xx@...] On Behalf Of allen stancius [astancius@...]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 3:26 PM
To: 18xx@...
Subject: Re: [18xx] Re: 18?? Destination run question

well, since 18qq follows mostly the same rules as 1870, then it's viable to
force any company that meets the minimum requirements to make a destination
run as soon as it's possible to do so.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Coyne" <mpcoyne@...<mailto:mpcoyne%40aol.com>>
To: <18xx@...<mailto:18xx%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: [18xx] Re: 18?? Destination run question

Any decision rule that short and simple will be bound to have the occasional
exception. But getting to a destination, dropping the token, and being able
to use it for double the value now, and in all future turns, is a powerful
argument for earlier. Especially since it is also possible to then use it
for multiple trains many more times. The folks who like to delay, and make a
killer destination run later with large trains, are in my opinion overly
impressed with the size of the individual run, and losing sight of the lost
opportunities they have let go by. They also lose sight of the growth effect
of their money invested earlier, in more shares which make them more money
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Allen Sli | 1 May 2012 02:25
Picon
Favicon

Re: Re: 18?? Destination run question

No. Where did that come from?
 
Allen

So a company could be "forced" to destinate at a location they don't want?

On 4/30/12, allen stancius <astancius@...> wrote:
> another point that needs more clarification is:
> When four or more companies have made their connection runs, one additional
>
> company may make a connection run to a location that already contains
> another company's destination station marker. This does not change if one or
>
> more of the four companies are later closed.
>
> --- --- --- ---
> question, how is it determined which "one company" gets this extra
> destination run?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "allen stancius" <astancius@...>
> To: <18xx@...>
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 1:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [18xx] Re: 18?? Destination run question
>
>
>> not true.
>> if the company is "able" to make a destination at the end of it's
>> operating
>> turn, then it either accepts it, or buys a $100 token in place of the
>> destination token.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Beard, Bruce D. | 1 May 2012 02:30

RE: Re: 18?? Destination run question

A decade ago I played with a group of very good 1870 players who taught me a lot.  There priority rule of thumb was:

1) Get a number of cities + to your train needs

2) Upgrade those cities

3) Build to destination

What I was objecting to is players who are within 1 build of destination and decide to wait until they are on
all brown cities before connecting.

-Bruce

________________________________
From: 18xx@...
[18xx@...] On Behalf Of thomas wall hannaford, jr. [twall1958@...]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 7:40 PM
To: 18xx@...
Cc: Allen Sliwinski; Russ Rusnak
Subject: Re: [18xx] Re: 18?? Destination run question

Just to add to Hecht's comment about the Vellani rule, IF you were playing with stock-price appreciation
rules where it was possible to double or triple-jump based on the relationship between the run-value (or
dividend pay-out) and the current share price, THEN you'd definitely want to hold off on executing a
destination run UNTIL you had an optimized destination run (but note that '18??' does not have this style
of stock-appreciation rules [hmmm, here's another potential optional rule, which definitely would
make stock-price-appreciation a MUCH GREATER component in Player Total Worth calculations,
especially if we increased the range of potential share prices on the stock market chart]). -TWHJr

________________________________
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Allen Sli | 1 May 2012 02:36
Picon
Favicon

Re: Re: 18?? Destination run question

If nothing is done after the current operation, placing the extra $100 station marker may be done at a
future opportunity, just like the option of completing the connection run. On your list of choices, I
would write: c. Do nothing this time. 
 
Allen 

--- On Mon, 4/30/12, allen stancius <astancius@...> wrote:

From: allen stancius <astancius@...>
Subject: Re: [18xx] Re: 18?? Destination run question
To: 18xx@...
Date: Monday, April 30, 2012, 4:13 PM

  

to clarify my comment.
it may state that the destination is optional, but then is followed up with 
an option to buy that token for $100, and concludes with what happens by 
taking this action.

this is nearly the same rules in 1870 in a briefly stated form without any 
clarification.
it'll be better stated if the explaination "gave" a list of what these 
options were instead of assuming what it could be, and thus eliminating the 
conflict between these rules and those stated in 1870 as another determining 
factor.

thus, instead of stating:
company can only make its connection run at the end of
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Allen Sli | 1 May 2012 02:45
Picon
Favicon

Re: Re: 18?? Destination run question

All you say is true. I don't see what you are arguing about. Oh, you are talking to the other Allen! I'm not used
to someone else having my name.
 
Allen S.
 
--- On Mon, 4/30/12, Mike Coyne <mpcoyne@...> wrote:

From: Mike Coyne <mpcoyne@...>
Subject: Re: [18xx] Re: 18?? Destination run question
To: 18xx@...
Date: Monday, April 30, 2012, 4:58 PM

  

Allen,

Your willingness to make absolute (and fairly confrontational) statements on little experience is
astonishing. You are also misquoting the rules. Based not only on reading the rules, but on playing with
the designer over the weekend, and upon questioning him upon this very point to make sure that I understood
it, I can unequivocally state that you are mistaken.

There are two paragraphs in the rules at the end of the section on connection runs. The first reads:

A company can only make a connection run at the end of its own operation. Making a connection run is optional.
The company's president decides whaether his company will make a connection run or not.

The second reads: 

If a company is able to make a connection run at the end of its operation, the president may decide to pay $100
from the company's treasury to immediately build a regular station marker using the destiantion station
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Allen Sli | 1 May 2012 02:57
Picon
Favicon

RE: Re: 18?? Destination run question (to Allen)

Since I think that you know the answer, this appears to be a pointed question, but I don't know what it is
pointed at. In 18?? the four corner red off-board locations have two entrances, and the the two center
ones have three entrances.
 
Allen S. 

--- On Mon, 4/30/12, Beard, Bruce D. <bruce_d_beard@...> wrote:

From: Beard, Bruce D. <bruce_d_beard@...>
Subject: RE: [18xx] Re: 18?? Destination run question (to Allen)
To: "18xx@..." <18xx@...>
Date: Monday, April 30, 2012, 7:23 PM

In 1870, you can run 4 trains out of Dallas or Fort Worth or St. Louis, Allen.  Can you run 4 trains out of SE,
SW, or Denver?  The destinations in ?? are off board red areas.

-Bruce

________________________________
From: 18xx@...
[18xx@...] On Behalf Of allen stancius [astancius@...]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 3:26 PM
To: 18xx@...
Subject: Re: [18xx] Re: 18?? Destination run question

well, since 18qq follows mostly the same rules as 1870, then it's viable to
force any company that meets the minimum requirements to make a destination
run as soon as it's possible to do so.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Coyne" <mpcoyne@...<mailto:mpcoyne%40aol.com>>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |

Gmane