Game: 1829 Mainline

Image

icheyne — 2007-11-02T11:43:22+00:00

The end game

Thread: How many rounds to go out when playing solitaire?

icheyne — 2007-10-20T22:12:48+00:00

I played this solitaire the other day and it was very interesting. How many rounds does it take for experienced 18xx players to go out?

Thread: 7 Players on the Main Line

nwhyman — 2007-09-11T23:40:19+00:00

Most of the players were playing this game for the first time, though we had all played other 18XX titles before (but to widely varying degrees of experience).

Starting capital was just £370. Each player was dealt 6 certificates, and the certificate limit was 10. So there were 81 share certificates and 6 private company certificates to fill 70 available slots.

SR1
Player 1 bought the Directorship and one other of Great Northern. Player 2 bought the Directorship and one other of the NER. Player 3 bought a share each of GNR and NER, and the cheapest private (A&F?). Player 4 bought the Directorship of GWR. Player 5 bought the Directorship of L&YR, and a private. Player 6 bought the Directorship and one other of GCR, and a private. And player 7 played individual shares, not having the opportunity to start a company of his own.

So five of the nine public companies were started in OR1.

OR1-3:
GWR went straight to London and bought two 2-trains. NER built a long wandering route down the east coast, entering London at the central terminal. NER bought a single 2-train. GCR headed toward Manchester and bought a 2-train. GNR upgraded so as to access the route that NER built into London. GNR bought the last 2-train. And finally L&YR were left with insufficient money to afford a train since only three shares were sold in the opening SR and the next train available was the first 3-train for £300. All they could do was build Preston and hope to collect enough connection bonuses. Even after just one OR the players were already saying that Player 2 (Director of NER) was going to win.

It was already apparent that several seemingly normal building choices were going to be stymied by a shortage of certain tiles in the tile set. GWR had great trouble finding the right tiles to get up to Liverpool, but did so eventually. GWR upgraded a train, which GCR then bought. L&YR still in the hole. NER avoided Newcastle and built to Edinburgh and seems on the verge of connecting London to Glasgow very early in the game. GNR is doing very well indeed because GNR/NER have mutually upgraded Darlington to grey and placed a GNR token there, thus blocking it to all but themselves. Both are running Edinburgh-Darlington and Darlinton-London. L&YR finally gets a train. L&YR and GWR are co-operating to develop the Liverpool/Manchester area before heading for Glasgow up the west coast.

SR2
Mild surprise that we can afford anything at all in SR2! Have been playing regular 18XX too long I suppose. No new companies started. Several shares bought for the five operating companies. But to everybody's relief Player 2 (NER) does not get any more NER shares, they seem to go to everybody else thus diluting his advantage. Player 1 has suddenly become the player that everybody thinks is now certain to win – at least everybody who is vocal about it.

OR4-6
GWR/L&YR forestalled in their drive on Glasgow by lack of tiles. But they do a nice job with Liverpool and Manchester. GCR seals off their access to his track, which, in conjunction with the L&YR and GWR tokens in Preston, seals NER/GNR out of accessing Liverpool and Manchester from the North. GNR works on connecting to Leeds and York. NER gets to Glasgow, but now sees that the efforts of GWR/L&YR to build the west coast mainline will not result in NER being able to run to Liverpool and Manchester. Needing to look elsewhere for a 70-valued city he eyes Birmingham, as yet completely undeveloped. GWR is doing very nicely, but has sealed Wolverhampton off from being accessed from the East. L&Y is still looking a bit lame.

SR3
Almost all the Privates are sold. Player 2 takes the £160 private off the discard pile so as to get at a share of Midland that is beneath it. He also takes a Midland share from the Bank Pool (formerly in the Mulligan hand) and one from his starting 6 to launch the mighty Midland. LNWR also gets going with Player 4 as Director, and finally NBR is started by Player 3. Nobody will touch the Caledonian as it has no access to any of the 70-value cities. All shares are out in all of the original 5 companies started. Player 6 has got 5 of the GCR shares; Player 1 also has the luxury of 50% ownership (GNR), but inexperience has caused her to drift off the pace a bit.

OR7-9
GWR finally gets to Glasgow up the west coast. Player 2 sees that he has more advantage with his 4 shares of Midland than his 3 shares of NER and, knowing that there are still 3 Midland shares and no NER shares out there, fills Midland with NER’s cash and trains. NER now looks very ordinary. Midland and GNR build a second route from Nottingham to London, and also move toward Birmingham. GWR and GCR also want to get to Birmingham. L&Y is hamstrung by lack of cash and cannot afford to build through the Peak District south of their area of operations. LNWR emerges are the dividend front-runner; GCR also doing very nicely thanks to the Manchester to London run through Sheffield. NBR looking very lame; but eventually managed to connect itself to Preston via Glasgow and to the NER east-coast line to Darlington. The advent of the 4+4E’s and 2+2E’s pushes revenues mostly into the 500-800 range. GWR is the only company taking passengers from Glasgow to London without changing trains.

SR4
Player 3 sells some good shares and picks up two new NBR’s just to get capital into the company. Player 4 can scarcely believe his luck. Still nobody will touch the Caledonian. Player 7 has gone the entire game without running a company. Player 2 acquires a fifth share of Midland, putting him back in the game against Player 6. Unlucky not to be presented with another NBR share to fill his hand, player 3 was forced into buying a Private Company.

The certificates that nobody wanted were the 9 certificates of the Caledonian, plus two of the NBR and five of the six private companies. In addition, player 7 was still holding a share of LNWR in is personal stash.

OR10-12
Birmingham reaches full development. Midland and GNR have nice routes from Birmingham to London via Derby and Nottingham, but then LNWR seals Nottingham against GNR. GWR is powering up the final stretch of the stock price chart, but only gets to 420 before the bank runs out of money. GWR hit a maximum revenue of 1010. Second was Midland on 940. Here's how things looked at the end:

]]>

The Stock Prices at the end were as follows:

GWR: 420
GCR: 400
GNR: 380
MR: 360
L&YR: 360
NER: 300
LNWR: 230
NBR: 160

The Placings:

7226 Player 2: LNWR, GWR, 5 MR, 3 NER, 2 GCR
7184 Player 6: GWR, MR, 2 NER, NBR, 5 GCR, GNR
7051 Player 4: 4 LNWR, 3 GWR, MR, NER, GNR, 2 L&YR
6901 Player 7: LNWR, GWR, NER, 3 GCR, GNR, 3 L&YR
6354 Player 1: 2 LNWR, GWR, 2 NER, NBR, 5 GNR
6248 Player 5: LNWR, 2 GWR, NER, 2 NBR, 2 GNR, 3 L&YR
5708 Player 3: GWR, 3 MR, 4 NBR, 2 L&YR, Private (160)

Some after-thoughts:

The winner was the player that everybody said would win in OR1, Player 2 (NER/Midland Director)! The directors of the first three companies to operate took the top three places. The director of the last company to operate came last. The director of the company that took three OR’s to get its first train came one from last. The game took about 7 hours so it was a bit ominous that we could predict the winner after just one OR.

Yellow two-town tiles cannot be upgraded – ever.

The restrictions of the tile set and allowable upgrades made it easy to create impassable boundaries without actually using tokens.

Most of the companies ended with broadly similar stock prices, only two were not on the last row of the table.

There were too many companies using green tokens.

Apart from private companies, nobody sold any stock except Player 3; and that was universally regarded as having been an bad idea in hindsight.

Thread: Re: About a dozen rule questions for 1829 Mainline

cfarrell — 2007-05-02T21:39:39+00:00

hellium wrote:
Here are some answers I remember

...

2) The money is lost - if it goes to the companies they early companies get too rich.

...

I pretty confident that this is the correct answer, but there is some genuine ambiguity in the rulebook as to how to play it.

There are two sides to the story, though. Early companies that sell out all their stock raise plenty of cash in their treasury and are in a very strong position. Early companies that don't sell much stock can get really hamstrung for cash, and if the stock isn't bought because it simply isn't available (someone is sitting on it in their private pool, unfortunate timing in the card flow), then companies that don't sell through their initial offering can get really hurt and have a hard time generating enough money to grow.

I think if you allowed companies to retain dividends for *unsold* stock (i.e., still in the initial offering, and not in the bank pool), it actually might help balance the game a little bit. Early companies that only manage to sell 30-40% of their stock wouldn't be in such a poor position compared to companies that sell 80-100%, and who are therefore flush with cash.

It's the same thing that happens sort of in 1856, where you can float companies with very few shares outstanding, but only get cash for sold shares. In 1856, companies that sell out early are very strong. But in 1856, companies that *don't* get bought heavily still have options to capitalize: the director can "flip" a few shares, or the companies can take out loans. These options are not generally available to companies in 1829 Mainline.

Thread: Re: About a dozen rule questions for 1829 Mainline

hellium — 2007-04-30T12:01:02+00:00

Here are some answers I remember

1) In this cae a director is appointed to run the company, I have seen this situation where a company has no money and no train. The rules then effectively give it a train and the company pays it off. At this stage the company is usually very cheap with a new train a much better proposition.

2) The money is lost - if it goes to the companies they early companies get too rich.

3) I think these are protected hexes that only the company can lay to ensure they can get out of their start position.

4) Yes as the river croses from one side of the hex to another.

6) I think you assume a base value of nought for the other city and apply the two values as per the rules.

7) Value is 0

8) I think it is 30%, so the directors and one other certificate it might be intermating

9) I think you are right, he might have used the word deal as in conduct a transaction.

10) I would presume you mulligan when you see you shares. You then choose to play with the mulligan hand and buy the shares in the normal way around the table.

11) Probably

Comment 1) Yes I think it was meant to be a turn marker.
Comment 2) I think we played it as is.

These are my guess answers having no rule book with me and only played it three times so it might not be gospel.

regards

Thread: About a dozen rule questions for 1829 Mainline

Rance — 2007-04-30T01:02:48+00:00

By the way: Does anyone know of an official rules site for this game or whether the game designer answers questions?

1) Are owners of shares to a railroad allowed to sell every last share thereby making a company completely unowned? If so, what happens in that case?

2) When a dividend is paid out for a train run, what happens to the amount earned that exceeds the payout to shareholders when not all shares are owned? Does this amount go to the company treasury or is it lost?

3) There is no mention in the rulebook of the labels 'Midland', 'LNWR', and 'GWR' on hexes R14, U17 and V18 respectively. Does these labels indicate, as in the game 1825, that those companies must lay the first yellow tiles in those hexes (through any company may upgrade them later)? Was the rule left out of the rulebook or were the labels unintentionally left on the mapboard?

4) Does it cost £40 to place a yellow tile on Grimsby (hex O19)? Practically, track built on that place would not be crossing a river as represented on this gameboard.

5) Regarding Section 9, Part C of the yellow tile placement table: Tiles 2 and 114 are double-station town tiles with sharp curves. Does laying one of these tiles immediately end the company's tile laying stage 1) if the sharp curve is utilized in the intentional line connected to the company's base?, and, 2) if the sharp curve is utilized on the incidental (unconnected) track?

6) How are earnings determined when only variable value cities are counted in a train run? Note that it is possible for Glasgow and York to be connected directly and counted in a 2 Train run. Note that it is possible for such cities to be the only ones counted in an express train run.

7) A train runs from Crewe through Llandudho to Holyhead. The first two cities count as 10 points each. Holyhead then counts as 10 minus 20. Is its value then zero in this case?

8) Initial Share purchase (page 4): There seems to be a potential conflict with the 2nd sentence of the 4th paragraph in Section 4 with the 1st sentence of Section 5 on the same page. The sentence in Section 4 indicates either a Director's share (worth only 2 shares) or either three ordinary shares will float (form/start up) a company. However, the first sentence in Section 5 clearly indicates three shares must be bought. Apparently, in any case, a company will form under 30% ownership. But does the Director's share alone also start up a company?

9) Share dealing rounds (Section 19, page 13, 2nd paragraph): The rule states "The player on the left of the last player to deal receives the Priority Deal card ...". From my reading of the rules, there is only one deal in the game--at the beginning of the initial share purchase phase. Should this sentence read "The player on the left of the last player to make a purchase receives the Priority Deal card ..."? (This change would seem logical and in step with other 18XX games.)

10) Regarding the Mulligan option: Does a player outright own all shares in the new set of cards if exchanging his current set of cards for the new set? Or, are some of the cards in the new set considered "face-down" cards in the personal retained pile? How would you determine which cards received from the Mulligan pile are owned or not owned?

11) My bank money equaled £19,995. Should it have been an even £20,000?

Comments:

1) There is a white token supplied in the game. Obviously, there is an "operating round/share round" track that was not printed on the board that ought to be (as in some other 18XX games).

2) In Mainline, the token moves up the SPI table when dividends are equal to or more than 50% of the current share price (Section 17, 2nd paragraph). However, in the related 1825 games, the token moves up only if more than 50% of the current share price. Is this difference intentional on the part of the game designer? It actually causes a difference with twelve "current price" values (100, 160, 180, 280, 300, 320, 340, 360, 380, 400, 420, and 440). [I use a ready-reference chart for quickly determining the SPI token move.]

Thread: Re: Rules help, anyone?

promuso — 2007-03-29T06:36:00+00:00

Nah, sorry. We're not telling you when we play this again - you keep getting placed ahead of me when we play 18xx games.

Thread: Re: Rules help, anyone?

cyromax — 2007-03-29T00:08:42+00:00

At least it didn't get violent. Anyone who can help in this would be appreciated, as the rules get a little wooley around this area. We both have good points to make, and in the end it was decided to play the game my way. I think that we should play the game the other way next time though, to see how things go.

Thread: Rules help, anyone?

promuso — 2007-03-26T05:35:00+00:00

I'm currently having a disagreement with one of my gaming pals regarding the rules interpretation of the 1829 stock rounds, can anyone help?
His contention is that whatever action you take (from the 2nd stock round onwards & either passing or dealing in stock), must end with option D as described on the next to last paragraph on page 12 of the rules.
I argue that taking a pass action does not constitute taking a turn, so a player takes no actions in dealing with any cards.

Thread: Re: Upon first reading the rules

tool — 2006-11-28T15:53:38+00:00

I'd have to look at the rule again to be sure, but when we played my interpretation of the first issue (after checking several sections) was that you ran in descending order by CURRENT price.

Thread: Re: Upon first reading the rules

viktor_haag — 2006-11-28T15:23:32+00:00

By forcing LNWR to operate first each turn, doesn't that put other lines in a position where they get to react tactically to its operation in a way that LNWR can't really return? (I haven't played yet, just reading the rules...)

Thread: Re: 1829 Mainline: Analysis

viktor_haag — 2006-11-14T21:05:06+00:00

Thanks for your analysis, Chris; much appreciated.

Could you mitigate the draw deck problem by dividing the shares for all companies into (say) three groups and shuffling all the A, B, and C groups together into an "early", "mid", and "late" draw deck? That way you preserve some surprise, but get some uniformity in distribution of the shares through out the deck.

Would some other mechanism for assembling the draw deck work more appropriately?

Thread: Re: Upon first reading the rules

steveowen — 2006-11-03T15:32:58+00:00

I agree with Akke that current share price order is more logical and makes no difference to the game as compared with the other method

As for bonus payments I believe it is self evident that it is only the large stations that qualify

Steve

Thread: Variant for the First Stock Round

Mike Hutton — 2006-07-06T16:54:33+00:00

One issue people have had with Mainline is that it is quite possible for a player to be "locked out" of owning any worthwhile shares, or may have control of a company wrested from him/her before the game properly gets under way.

I have developed the following variant which we now use in most of our games. It only really makes a sizeable impact when playing with 4 or more.

*******************************************************************

The first stock round now consists of two rounds.

The first of the two rounds is played as per the original rules, with the following exception:

If a director/manager loses control of the company he/she started as a result of another player buying more shares from hand than the director did, the outgoing director/manager may "back out" of buying the shares in that company. The outgoing director/manager takes back the money paid for the shares, takes the share certificates he bought, and shuffles them into the draw pile. The player then draws the same number of certificates from the draw pile as were shuffled back in, into his/her hand.

In this way a player may "opt out" of owning shares in a company which has been taken over by an opponent in the first stock round.

The second of the two stock rounds is played as per the original rules, with the following exceptions:

Only players who do not have any shares face up in front if them at the start of their turn may buy shares in the second stock round. Furthermore, players may not buy more shares in a company already started by another player than are owned by its current director. I.e. you can't take over someone else's company in the second round. If you buy a director's share, in a company which already has a director/manager, from your hand in this way then this is automatically exchanged for two shares held by the current director/manager.

*******************************************************************

The "opt-out" rule stops a player from getting hosed when someone else takes over a company from him/her in the first stock round. This is probably the single biggest annoyance we have found with the game as a whole.

The second round allows players unfortunate enough to have a poor spread of shares in their hand at the start to have the opportunity to become minor shareholders for the first set of operating rounds. Otherwise such players miss out on early revenue, which can be hard to make up.

*******************************************************************

This does not solve the other thorny issue of the game, which is caused by the GWR or LNWR building a ludicrously long route in the first operating round (something like Swindon and/or Crewe to London via Norwich). At present the best remedy we have found is to reserve the hex between Bristol and Swindon for the GWR, and also to forbid the GWR from building in the hex north of London.

Oh yes, and we also play that each company can only extend one railhead from one station, although this is probably not strictly necessary after the first few rounds. Apparently the rule is that you can extend as many railheads as you like from a single station, which is cleaner but can allow (for example) the NER to build from Scotland to London in the first operating turn. You can play this way, but we are more comfortable with slowing down the early building game.

I hope people find the above variant helpful.

Thread: Re: What's the ideal number of players?

cfarrell — 2006-05-25T23:06:40+00:00

I suspect that it's in the neighborhood of 4-5. I played with 3 and it felt a touch thin. Like most 18xx games, I assume it would be pretty slow with 7, but given the many streamlinings perhaps not as bad as the others.

Thread: Re: Now available from Heron Games!

keiththomasson — 2006-05-17T12:48:13+00:00

Time for an update. Exactly seven months after I placed my order, which went in the day before Essen 2005 opened, the balance of my stock has arrived. That means it really is available, and should be available at other outlets as well.

Thread: Re: What's the ideal number of players?

JimF — 2006-05-15T10:59:21+00:00

darn, someone got in with the punchline before me, but yes I would answer zero as well.

Thread: What's the ideal number of players?

Cavedog_pdx — 2006-05-14T22:58:09+00:00

With the stock dealing rules I would speculate that the game might work better with two players or possibly many (6-7) what do you guys think?

Thread: Re: Reserved hexags

Akke — 2006-02-06T12:31:57+00:00

In 1825, these hexes are reserved for these companies, no other company may lay a tile there. (upgrades may be done)

Thread: Re: Upon first reading the rules

Akke — 2006-02-06T12:28:18+00:00

My opinion only:

Dave4B wrote:
7 COMPANY OPERATION
"All companies that are eligible now run in order of decreasing share price as given in TABLE 1."
Is it always in Table 1 order, or in current share price order?

Always in table 1 order, I find this illogical and not elegant.

9 LAYING YELLOW TILES
May track be laid through the unused sides of existing yellow two-small-station tiles, like it can through brown hexags?

No

13 BONUS PAYMENTS
Are connection payments made for all stations, or only large stations?

For all stations, which makes the long route that LNWR can make at the start even more overpowered.

16 VARIABLE VALUE STATIONS
If a '2' train runs from Crewe to Holyhead, is the value of the variable station really -10?

No, it's 0: there is a small station in the middle.

Thread: Reserved hexags

david karfoot — 2005-12-28T16:49:15+00:00

I can't find any mention of it in the rulebook, but are the hexags R14, U17 and V18 labelled Midland, LNWR and GWR respecively so designated to indicate that those companies must lay the first yellow tiles in those hexags?

Thread: Upon first reading the rules

Dave4B — 2005-12-24T12:07:52+00:00

7 COMPANY OPERATION
"All companies that are eligible now run in order of decreasing share price as given in TABLE 1."
Is it always in Table 1 order, or in current share price order?

9 LAYING YELLOW TILES
May track be laid through the unused sides of existing yellow two-small-station tiles, like it can through brown hexags?

13 BONUS PAYMENTS
Are connection payments made for all stations, or only large stations?

16 VARIABLE VALUE STATIONS
If a '2' train runs from Crewe to Holyhead, is the value of the variable station really -10?

Image

Mike Hutton — 2005-12-07T20:34:43+00:00

Solitaire game - finished in 14 operating rounds

Thread: Re: 1829 Mainline: Analysis

cfarrell — 2005-12-07T18:52:55+00:00

There is one error in this piece that I forgot to correct: the building costs for terrain are in fact in the rulebook, just not in the usual place - they're under the mapboard description, not under the track-building section.

This doesn't fundamentally alter my opinion that the rulebook is not as clear as it could be on a number of points.

Thread: 1829 Mainline: Analysis

cfarrell — 2005-12-06T17:33:27+00:00

This article was originally published on my website at:
http://homepage.mac.com/c_farrell/iblog/C2097221587/E2005120...
.. where there may be some additional discussion. This is not so much a review as a bit of analysis based on my first play of the game. On with the article ...

1829 (South) was the first 18xx game, published back – it's hard to believe it was so long ago now – in 1974. 1829 is a very fine game, with the caveat that it takes, oh, about 12 hours to play. Especially problematic in light of the fact that it's only fun for maybe 6. But you know, there just weren't as many good games back then.

1825 tackled this problem by keeping the core game more or less intact, but chopping the huge 1829 up into much more manageable chunks. Two games (1829 and 1829 North) become 3 base games plus 3 regional expansions plus an expansion to lengthen the game plus at least half a dozen more mini-expansions adding various features from the original. Some additional rules streamlining and game balancing was done, and players were given significantly more flexibility, but 1829 at its core is clearly recognizable.

Playing the small 1825 games, though, you miss out on the scope of the bigger 1829, the long runs and open play. 1829 Mainline is an attempt to do an 18xx game that is both simple and short(er), and operates on a large geographical playing field, as well as bring us a game that is different enough from 1825 and 1829 to be worthwhile.

The first thing I noticed was the streamlining that eliminates the last few major 18xx features that non-regular players find troublesome. The main one is the phases of play (certain trains trigger rusting of other trains, changes in tiles available, changes in train holding limits, and colors of track available). Now you can just buy whatever is available, and upgrade track whenever you want. All good. There are also no longer restrictions on buying and selling stock; you can buy whatever is available and sell whatever you want. All of which is a relief.

The operations phase is mainly familiar to players of 1825 or 1830, with the only major rules change being that yellow tiles (basic track) can be put down in large batches, jumping ahead to the next city in one fell swoop as long as no drastic maneuvers are required. This is simple, but combined with the larger board it opens up a much richer tactical game than is typical in these games. No longer are entire geographical regions non-viable because of the plodding pace of tile laying. No longer is building bypasses necessarily an excruciating process of laying one time at a time over many turns. You now have a lot more flexibility in developing your runs, and with lots of cities and lots of companies, there is interesting competition for the best routes.

The major changes, though, are in the stock round.

For those unfamiliar with 18xx, stocks are bought and sold in rounds, where each round you can buy a single share. This tends to give everyone a crack at owning desirable companies, and also allows some to-and-fro as some players may sell to take advantage of an opportunity or defend their holdings from takeover, and others then scoop things up, with opportunities opening and closing as the round goes on.

It also means things can take a while, and can be uneven when some players are buying and selling heavily while others are watching (due to cash constraints, lack of interest, or greater or lesser foresight). 1829 Mainline tries to both simplify and speed this up. Instead of selling at any time, you can only sell the first time around the table. Instead of buying one stock at a time, each turn you just buy as many as you can afford.

Obviously, this shortcut wouldn't work with the basic 18xx system of having a large pool of stocks available to everyone at the same time. So instead there is a mixed system. Each player is dealt a hand of some number of stock cards (around 10) at the beginning of the game, which you can buy from freely. This is your private pool. Then there is a draw deck of stock cards; if you want, you can take a random draw from it and either buy it, or not (ending your turn if you don't, thus adding an interesting element of risk). And there is the discard pile of rejected stocks, which you can keep buying off the top of. To keep some motion going, your turn must end by flipping a card of the draw deck and not buying it.

I like all this in principle. It dramatically speeds up the stock rounds. It eliminates a couple fiddly rules about when you can't buy stocks you've already sold, rules which sometimes seem artificial and can hammer new players. And it adds a nice element of variance (because the stocks available for immediate purchase will vary each game), planning (working with the cards you've been dealt as well as judging when to keep reserves of cash to take advantage of opportunities since you can't freely sell) and uncertainty (the draw pile) which 18xx generally lacks. I'd be happy with it if it were not for two issues.

The first is how companies float. Like in 1856, your company can begin running as soon as two shares are sold. Also like 1856, your company gets money to its treasury only when people buy stock.

Here is the problem: your companies need a lot of cash to succeed in the long-term. Therefore, they need to sell shares. What if those shares aren't available, because they are buried in the draw/discard pile or because someone is sitting on them in his or her hand because he or she has other priorities? It's really tough to be sitting there in the middle game on a company starved for cash, but with 50% of the stock unavailable to purchase at any price. Also, companies that other players buy into early will tend to do much better than those with a single sponsor, as they have so much more money. This problem can crop up a bit in 1856, where good companies like the CPR, LPS, or Welland will get other players' cash, while second-tier companies won't, to their own detriment. At least in 1856, though, you have the ability to take out loans and "flip" your own stock to generate the cash you need. 1829 has no loans, your ability to flip stock is limited, and with the random availability of stock, who knows if it's even available to buy? It's possible to get behind the 8-ball here and not have a lot you can do about it.

The second problem combined with the above is simply one of length. We played with 3 very experienced 18xx players who didn't play slowly, and the game took 4.5 hours. On the scale of 18xx games, and with players new to the specific game, that doesn't sound too bad. But with the random allocation of shares, and the reduction in flexibility in the stock round, I think 1829 Mainline really wants to be 2.5 to 3 hours. Which, interestingly, is what it says on the box – and Mr. Tresham is usually pretty good about getting these estimates right, even when they are unpalatable; the numbers for 1829, 1853, 1825, and Revolution have been quite accurate, even erring in favor of being too generous, for me. But I have a hard time seeing my way clear to a 2.5 hour playing time on this one.

Which leads me to my last point. Somewhat unusual for a Francis Tresham game, the 1829 Mainline rules have a few problems. As a fan of 1825 I was able to work them through, but the cost to build on various terrain types (rivers and mountains) are nowhere to be found - we just used 1825 values. Also, it is possible, if unlikely, for a company to become completely unowned, and what happens in that case is not covered (as it is with the receivership rules in 1825). So it's possible that there is a rule missing here. If, for example, whatever cash is not paid out in dividends were to go to the company treasury, this might make a significant and possibly positive difference in the game.

At the end of the day I'm a bit on the fence about 1829 Mainline. Although I am unsure if it works quite right, I do like the new stock round rules and will give Mr. Tresham the benefit of the doubt until I've played some more. I like the large-scale tactical feel of the game, and I do think it's successful in giving us the opportunity to do some really interesting, long-distance route development. But I am concerned by the time it took us to play it. I don't mind losing a bit of control in the stock round in general, especially if it compresses the game a bit and because the game has opened up more flexible and interesting route-building options. But given that the semi-random allocation of stock does have a driving effect on the game, I worry that it's a bit too easy to suffer misfortune in the middle game and then have to play a game you are out of for too long.

Image

Walt Mulder — 2005-10-25T17:06:15+00:00

No, not Francis Tresham but his younger brother!

Thread: Re: 1829 Mainline - First Impression

CharlieWilson — 2005-10-24T20:56:40+00:00

I would confirm Keith's comments about the components. Having helped Francis to put together kits at Essen all the components were up to (or beyond in the case of the tiles) the normally expected standard.

Thread: Re: 1829 Mainline - First Impression

keiththomasson — 2005-10-24T10:26:22+00:00

I think I can explain what is going on with the missing components and hand-marked items. Francis was concerned late in the Essen show that the demo copy of 1829 Mainline had gone missing - it sounds like you got given that copy instead of one of the complete consumer copies.

If you contact Francis I'm sure he'll be more than willing to rectify the matter and exchange the game you were given with one of the offically released copies. Those I have seen contain consistent components, no handwritten notes, etc., so please put it down to a confusion on the day rather than a lower quality product than you should expect.

I've advised him that you appear to have the demo copy and he will send you a replacement in the near future.

Thread: 1829 Mainline - First Impression

robvw — 2005-10-23T19:24:37+00:00

(This review is written with the assumption that you know 1829 or 1830 or 1825 or any other 18** game)

Originally this review started with a complaint on the quality of some components. However, it seems that I mistakenly was given the demo copy, in which corrections with pen were written on some generic components. So I have deleted my original remarks on the quality of the components.

How does the game play? Very surprising to say the least. Everything you know about 1825 is now changed, although only a very few rules have been changed. So the gameplay feels the same, but all experience you have in playing 1825 or 1829 does not help you here.

First: there is no 1830 kind of stock action, the stock prices go linear like in 1825. Main differences:
1- there is no real limit to the amount of yellow tiles you can build, you can continue to extend track untill you built a sharp turn or end in a big city.
2- the company gets a bonus for cennecting a city equal to the value of that station.
3- you get shares dealt at the start of the game, you can buy these from your hand whenever you can afford them
4- another place you buy stock from is a stock pile where the rest of the shares are put face down (shuffled), you buy shares there as long as you like, turn one, buy it, turn one etc. untill you don't want to buy or you run out of cash.
5 - When you don't want to buy shares from situation 4 these are put on a discard pile. You can buy from that pile too as long as you like, but only from the top to the bottom.
6 - only in the FIRST turn of a share dealing round are you allowed to sell shares
7 - the game has no phases, so you can start promoting to green etc right from the start of the game
8 - there are four cities on the board with a relative value: meaning for instance than London is worth the most expensive city in your route plus 30. Glasgow is plus 20. The most profitable route is probably one between London and Glasgow, run with a 4+4e train (you can skip any stations you don't like and you are allowed to use the most expensive stations twice).

The rules are as disorganised as ever, for instance the costs for building railroads trough mountains or over water are mentioned in chapter 2 - Company Bases.

The game is very weird for people used to 1825. It is faster, more chaotic, and the routes turn out longer than in the original game. It might even be a very good 18** title for people not familiar with the systems, as a lot of rules (like the phases) are not used here. On the other hand, because there are no phases, you should from the start understand how promotins work, so that makes it more difficult for beginners.

For experienced players who like variations on the rulesets this one is a must. Tresham is still the best in trashing his own gamerules, as if he doesn't care :-)

Only played it once, but I though you might like my first impression when you have to decide on spending 50 euros on a box with cardboard.

Thread: Re: Now available from Heron Games!

keiththomasson — 2005-10-21T12:43:11+00:00

To be more precise, 1829 Mainline is available for pre-order from me. Having sold out at Essen, Francis Tresham has to build more copies before he can supply anyone. I am hoping this will be sooner rather than later!

Update (Dec 22nd) - the first part of my order has arrived, but all these are spoken for - and won't cover all the requests I have had. It is bound to be 2006 before I see any more copies...

Thread: Now available from Heron Games!

Mark.Watson — 2005-10-20T04:19:33+00:00

http://www.fwtwr.com/store/list.asp?xCat=Mainline

35 pounds... more than 1825 but far less than 1853 (especially now that it's OOP).

mark

Thread: Re: Availability

Mark.Watson — 2005-10-19T16:53:49+00:00

I'm glad it came out -- it was just 1 essen later than predicted.

Also, 2 tresham games in 2 year...he seems to have become prolific in his old age.

Thread: Re: Availability

Akke — 2005-10-19T11:08:55+00:00

It was available in limited quantities in Essen. (sold out on thursdaymorning)

Image

Lexi — 2005-10-18T05:04:57+00:00

Image

Fiske Warren — 2005-10-18T05:04:56+00:00

Image

Fiske Warren — 2005-10-18T05:04:56+00:00

Image

Fiske Warren — 2005-10-18T05:04:56+00:00

Image

Akke — 2005-10-18T04:56:26+00:00

the Map

Image

Akke — 2005-10-18T04:56:26+00:00

the Bpx

Thread: Re:Availability

Mark.Watson — 2005-04-17T21:54:20+00:00

Blackpope (#473182),

As I recall, according to gamefest, Tresham was annoyed that Essen was announced as the release date as the game was not planned to be finished by then. I think it's still in the queue.

Thread: Availability

Blackpope — 2005-04-13T14:33:24+00:00

Where is possible to buy this title?