Game: Tycoon

Thread: Re: User Review

CortexBomb — 2008-07-01T13:19:31+00:00

I have not played Go West, but the system sounds different, albeit related. I would have to play GW to be 100% on this though.

In Tycoon there is always one piece per square. Certain spots on each city track are shaded differently though, and when a piece is placed on that square, the oldest piece is removed from play and placed in the centre of the city square. On later rounds, the player can come back to the city, and have the displaced piece put back onto the board for free, but it will be at the head of the line instead of the back, which is very significant for Tycoon because "furthest back in the line" is the tie-break.

Thread: Re: User Review

ropearoni4 — 2008-05-21T16:25:00+00:00

Does the game Go West usea similar mechanism as tycoon for filling spaces? In GW the tokens are placed in a square and if there is no room, the first one that was there will be taken off and the new tooken will be placed there. Is that kind of what happens in tycoon? Did Colovini "borrow" this idea and change it a tad?

Thread: Re: Flat earth?

Johan — 2008-03-30T13:15:43+00:00

Great Dane wrote:
Johan wrote:
Great Dane wrote:
So you are clearly mistaken.

Well, that's only because you are clearly misunderstanding the question.
Nope. I understood it allright. But I don't your premise that the limiation is because the world is flat.

Whenever you buy a ticket to a specific destination you cannot simply use it to fly 'anywhere in the world'. This has nothing to do with physics, it is a matter of economics.

If Kramer instead had opted to list a number of alternable destinations instead, would you never have used the same argument. However such a list would limit the usefulness of the tickets, so therefore has the 'airline' decreed that their ticket can be used for a limited number of alternate destinations in which they are operating

- at least that is MY interpretation

My premise of the limitation was only an (apparently) failing attempt to inject some humour into the question. If the flat earth theory bothers you, let me rephrase the question:

As a specific example, there is a scheduled flight ticket in the game that allows either a direct flight to Sydney from anywhere OR allows you to fly one stop from wherever you happen to be at the moment. With the example of being in Tokyo, according to my understanding you could use this to either fly direct to Sydney (even though that is two stops), or you could fly one stop to either Monaco or Hong Kong. Seeing as the Earth is normally considered to be round, my question was if you could use this ticket to fly east one stop to New York.

Or, to put it another way (perhaps more simply): Do the airlines in the game operate across the Pacific? Now, Larry has already confirmed that this is working as I understood it, i.e. they don't.

Interestingly enough, the same ticket can actually be used to fly to New York, but only if you start out in Monaco or Mexico City, which would suggest there is just one big airline anyway, so personally I'm going to stick with Larry's date-line phobia theory when explaining the game.

Thread: Re: Flat earth?

Great Dane — 2008-03-30T09:30:09+00:00

Johan wrote:
Great Dane wrote:
So you are clearly mistaken.

Well, that's only because you are clearly misunderstanding the question.
Nope. I understood it allright. But I don't your premise that the limiation is because the world is flat.

Whenever you buy a ticket to a specific destination you cannot simply use it to fly 'anywhere in the world'. This has nothing to do with physics, it is a matter of economics.

If Kramer instead had opted to list a number of alternable destinations instead, would you never have used the same argument. However such a list would limit the usefulness of the tickets, so therefore has the 'airline' decreed that their ticket can be used for a limited number of alternate destinations in which they are operating

- at least that is MY interpretation

Thread: Re: Flat earth?

Johan — 2008-03-29T22:36:09+00:00

Larry Levy wrote:
If for some reason you're unwilling to accept either of those lame reasons

Thanks Larry, I suspected that was the case. I assume this is for playability reasons, so the lame reasons sound like perfectly fine excuses to me (as well giving me the opportunity to type 'ROFL').

Thread: Re: Flat earth?

Johan — 2008-03-29T22:32:33+00:00

Great Dane wrote:
So you are clearly mistaken.

Well, that's only because you are clearly misunderstanding the question.

Thread: Re: Flat earth?

Larry Levy — 2008-03-29T17:19:37+00:00

While Mik is correct that you could make the flight if the listed destination was New York, the answer to your specific question, Johan, is no. The earth is indeed flat in Tycoon and you can't move from one side of the board to the other with a one link card. After all, the Pacific is much wider than the Atlantic and most businessmen have an irrational fear of crossing the International Date Line. If for some reason you're unwilling to accept either of those lame reasons, let me ask you why a flat earth bothers you and not a world where plane tickets cost as much as hotels!

P.S. It's a great game!

Thread: Re: Flat earth?

Great Dane — 2008-03-29T13:46:50+00:00

A sceduled ticket will allow you to fly to the city stated on the ticket - even across the Pacific. So you are clearly mistaken.

Thread: Flat earth?

Johan — 2008-03-29T12:14:36+00:00

Is the earth flat in Tycoon? This is the impression I get from having read the rules, but it doesn't sound very logical that jet-setting tycoons couldn't fly across the Pacific.
Or is it possible to spend a scheduled flight ticket with one stop to fly from e.g. Tokyo to New York (i.e. around the globe)?

Thread: Re: Can you avoid loans

Psauberer — 2008-01-18T15:13:07+00:00

The $15 million you start the game with will not be enough to get you through the first round. Generally players will take a loan on their first turn.

Thread: Re: Can you avoid loans

snoozefest — 2008-01-18T15:11:29+00:00

neoshmengi wrote:
Given that you don't start with any money, I don't see how you can avoid the loans. Unless you just want to collect the cards for all of your turns...

Don't you start with $15?

Anyway, even if you do, $15 is not enough. Remember each session/phase/whatever will last at least 7 rounds, if one player plays a hotel every round: The minimum cost is $4 to get on the board + 6 x $2 to play 6 hotels = total $16; so that player would have to take a loan, then fly to a cheap city and sit there playing hotels. Therefore, everyone ought to be taking at least one loan to maximize efficiency (avoid having to take loans in the middle of the session, which "wastes" a turn AND forces you to buy another expensive ticket to get back onto the board.

Thread: Re: Can you avoid loans

neoshmengi — 2008-01-18T14:20:43+00:00

Given that you don't start with any money, I don't see how you can avoid the loans. Unless you just want to collect the cards for all of your turns...

Thread: Can you avoid loans

LarsGertsen — 2008-01-18T14:16:50+00:00

Hi,

Have only playe a few games but as I can see it, there are no way to avoid a load in the first round?

Lars

Thread: Re: What's its value?

Tim Synge — 2007-11-24T19:45:56+00:00

Just picked up a copy in a charity shop (thrift store) for GBP 2.00 today. It's in shrink, and seems to be a dual-language Japanese and English version. Published by Jumbo. No obvious designer credits on the box - is that the same as with the standard version?

Image

simonh — 2007-11-20T07:56:46+00:00

A Game in Progress at BGG.con'07

Thread: Re: Rules Clarifications

icheyne — 2007-11-16T10:22:36+00:00

Here is Kramer's email.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.games.board/browse_thre...

Thread: thanks

EmperorJacob — 2007-11-12T16:52:12+00:00

This is a really good review. I hope you keep writing more of them. I read your review once and feel like I know this game well now. Thank you.

Image

Typse2Fsat — 2007-10-11T06:50:23+00:00

Cover of the rules - note the little Jumbo logo joke

Image

Typse2Fsat — 2007-10-09T11:13:41+00:00

Plastic Pieces - Microsoft edition

Image

Zopper-Alf — 2007-08-06T08:10:28+00:00

Thread: Re: What's its value?

BettyEgan — 2007-06-10T11:43:08+00:00

I bought a copy today at a fleamarket for 2 euro in very good condition too.

Thread: Re: What's its value?

PrairieBoy — 2007-06-09T12:08:38+00:00

eknauer wrote:
Sell it quick before Valley Games announces a reprint.

Funny you should say... QWG just announced a remake of this as El Capitan (#3 in their masterprint line).

http://www.boardgamenews.com/index.php/boardgamenews/comment...

Thread: Re: What's its value?

Flix — 2007-05-09T23:02:02+00:00

I remember seeing some copies at www.magnus-spiele.de in Viernheim (Germany) a couple of weeks ago for only EUR 12,-
Maybe this is a good chance for anybody interested in this game...?

Regards,
Flix

P.S. I saw them in the local store on a shelf - they are not listed in the online shop, maybe because there were only a couple of copies left?)

Thread: Re: What's its value?

Axelfudge — 2007-05-03T14:16:53+00:00

This was the first euro I ever played. I picked it up in a pound store while I was living in England for 5pounds. (sorry no pound symbol on this keyboard)

Wish I could have it again.

Thread: Re: What's its value?

SouthernMan — 2007-05-03T14:03:41+00:00

Sounds like it is more appreciated across the pond ... I just sold mine on eBay for £10 (1 bidder only) and that was a bit more than I paid for it. It was an OK game but no one in our group enthused about playing it again.

Thread: Re: What's its value?

JeffyJeff — 2007-05-03T03:07:24+00:00

See http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geekstore.php3?action=marketinf...

Thread: Re: What's its value?

ed95005 — 2007-05-03T02:20:37+00:00

I just bought a copy in shrink for $35.

Thread: Re: What's its value?

nexttothemoon — 2007-05-03T02:15:08+00:00

I'm not sure of it's $$$value but I do know it's one of the best quick playing, medium weight economic games ever made. In the same league with a classic like Acquire. Too bad it's fairly hard to find and relatively unknown.

Thread: Re: What's its value?

eknauer — 2007-05-02T21:54:53+00:00

Sell it quick before Valley Games announces a reprint.

Thread: What's its value?

jpbartleby — 2007-05-02T21:38:07+00:00

I found a copy of Tycoon new in shrink. It's the Jumbo version. Anybody know what this game in this condition goes for these days?

Thread: Re: re: Ticket Availability/Refresh

CortexBomb — 2006-12-05T21:56:12+00:00

I honestly have no idea if clogging is a problem, because we always have played the game with the automatic refresh.

I like the game with the rules as we have been playing them, but I'm sure the originals work just as well.

Thread: Re: re: Ticket Availability/Refresh

slowcorner — 2006-12-05T21:23:58+00:00

I had read the rules to mean refresh after your turn. Do you find clogging to be a problem, or is it just the matter of luck-v-control? (I haven't played yet, but I'm looking forward to it.)

Thread: Re: re: Ticket Availability/Refresh

asfhgwt — 2006-12-05T20:53:07+00:00

DeMarco is correct.

Thread: Re: A bit of luck...

asfhgwt — 2006-12-05T20:50:14+00:00

Not a bad idea, but I'd make it 6 for a scheduled and 4 for a charter. (I don't like the other variant -- instantly replenishing tickets taken -- since it could lead to one player buying all the cheap tickets on a single turn.)

Thread: Re: How many steps per scheduled flight?

asfhgwt — 2006-12-05T20:46:00+00:00

W.Kramer himself emailed long ago that you may not use less than the number of hops on the card.

Image

Forza — 2006-09-11T14:24:03+00:00

Thread: Re: A bit of luck...

CortexBomb — 2006-08-08T13:20:25+00:00

We use a similar variant locally, but instead of allowing players to buy cards off the top of the deck we instead instantly refresh any purchased cards. This leads to a very similar situation, with players often buying cheap tickets, churning through the deck, and hoping to find something useful.

Thread: A bit of luck...

Superfage — 2006-08-08T12:52:27+00:00

I played last night my first game and I came out with this house rule:

during your turn you can pick from the top of a card pile of your choice one ticket paying it 5 for scheduled or 2 for charter.

In this way a player without any interesting moves can try for a bit of luck with own risk.

Comments about it?

Thanks,
Superfage

Image

itiswon — 2006-07-21T06:30:14+00:00

airplane as a personal marker

Image

puppi — 2006-05-07T13:07:11+00:00

Image

puppi — 2006-05-07T12:32:35+00:00

Thread: Re: Starting player

Waylander1 — 2006-04-11T04:01:35+00:00

Paul -

No problem. I hate it when I screw up the rules.

In any event, while I agree that there is a lot of meat there, for me, the game is missing the "fun" element. There are other area control games that are more fun to me (El Grande and Hacienda come to mind quickly as better efforts by Herr Kramer). Tycoon is a bit too dry and analytical to me.

But, that's why there are lots of games - we all get to pick out our favorites.

Thread: Re: Starting player

Psauberer — 2006-04-11T03:39:21+00:00

Michael,

Just to clarify, I was not casting any aspersions on you. We have all misread and misplayed rules at times, if we have played more than, say, two different games. That's common and not particularly dense.

I was smacking my own forehead because I have played by the correct rules and instead of identifying a misplay as the source of your question I launched into a defensive posture. I could have been far more helpful.

Don't necessarily give up on Tycoon. It really is a great game. There is a lot of meat packed into a shorter time frame than many games of a similar depth.

Thread: Re: Starting player

Waylander1 — 2006-04-11T02:48:52+00:00

No, I feel stupid.

I obviously misread the rules (which aren't a model of clarity to me). I suppose I should have had a few extra turns.

It wouldn't have made me like the game that much more, but at least now I understand why it seemed like a dumb rule.

I generally agree that if I had played correctly, then I don't think that there would have been any particular advantage to going 4th every round.

Thread: Re: Starting player

Psauberer — 2006-04-10T23:25:08+00:00

OK, I feel stupid.

Yes, you play to the end of the round when the trigger happens so everyone does get the same number of turns (although in practice some times you end up having to go home for an unnecessary loan just before getting money- but that is a result of poor play).

However, I still maintain that having the same player start each round does not give any player a particular advantage. Also, it is still important to anticipate when the round should and/or will end.

Thread: Re: Starting player

GaryP — 2006-04-10T19:31:08+00:00

Although possible to do better than others with less turns, I certainly do not see that as being equal footing for having a chance at the win. I have not read through the English translation on here, but I learned to play on Stan Hilinski's excellent online adaptation:
http://hilinski.net/games/online/tycoon/index.html

The rules there say that any player may trigger the end of a phase (session), but the phase does not end until all players have had their turn for that round. Thus, all players will have the same number of turns at the end of the game, but the same player will begin each phase. Indeed, this is how the online version plays, and I think it works wonderfully. The earlier players have an advantage of getting their hotels on first to break ties, while the later players have the advantage of being able to best react to (or cause) the end of a phase. I would certainly never play with rules that make it very likely that the fourth player would lose three whole turns! I highly suspect this may be a mistaken translation.

Thread: Re: Starting player

Psauberer — 2006-04-10T19:01:37+00:00

If the third player ended each turn, then that means he/she adopted a strategy to rush the game farther along than either of the first two players did. If you were harmed, then it is mostly a result of your failure to plan for it than somethign "unfair" in the rules.

The turn end is not arbitrary. It is controlled to a great extent by the actions of the players. It can also be seen and planned for, at least as far as its potential.

Going first is not necessarily an advantage. You get to places first, but you don't have as much opportunity to react. If you do not play well you can end up getting slaughtered by redevelopment in the later stages of the game.

Getting an equal number of turns is also not necessarily that big a deal as your overall profit is what is important, not necessarily getting a lot of turns. It is certainly possible to make more money in less turns than someone else who has more turns and is putting up hotels in less efficient and/or more vulnerable spots in order to push the game along at a faster pace.

Tycoon is one of my favorite games. There is a lot to explore here. True, it is not symmetrical, but that does not make it unfair nor necessarily give one seat an advantage over the others. It's all about what you do with what you have that determines the winner.

Thread: Starting player

Waylander1 — 2006-04-08T15:09:08+00:00

I've got a question about the starting player. Near the end of the English rules posted here, it says that whatever player started the first phase of the game also starts the second and third phases.

Why is this, and why does this make sense?

I was the fourth player last night in a game of Tycoon, and the third player ended every phase of the game. So, I got 3 less turns than everyone else. This doesn't seem to be fair or correct.

Image

Verti — 2006-02-18T22:04:35+00:00

Tycoonic action in Monaco

Thread: Re: re: Ticket Availability/Refresh

Richard M — 2006-02-17T01:42:34+00:00

I'm with Tom DeMarco on this one; I'd never even thought of your interpretation when reading the rules. Afterall, the rules are quite specific as to when you reveal any replacement tickets.

Looking at it now I do agree that the first paragraph is poorly phrased, but reading it in the context of the following paragraph, I'm sure that the intention is that there will always be six plus two tickets at the start of your turn to choose from. No more, no less.

Thread: Re: re: Ticket Availability/Refresh

Tom DeMarco — 2006-02-16T23:40:52+00:00

We've always played that the tickets are not refreshed until after a player's turn is finished. That is also the way it is played in Stan Hilinski's computer implementation at http://hilinski.net/games/online/.

Thread: re: Ticket Availability/Refresh

CortexBomb — 2006-02-16T23:21:21+00:00

I just picked this game up again after not having played it in some time, and I realized there is a rather serious ambiguity in the rules (both German and English translation) that my group resolved one way, but I was curious as to what the consensus is here at the Geek:

In the section on tickets the rules state:

"There are always 6 tickets face up for charter flights and 2 for scheduled flights. You may buy as many as you want." A little later, the rules state that, "After your turn new tickets are turned over, so the next player can always choose from 6 charter and 2 scheduled flights."

This seems to be saying two things. On one hand, to ensure that there are always (immer) the alloted number of flights up, one has to refresh the display immediately after each purchase. This is the way my group plays.

The other, is that one should only have the full 6/2 available at the start of one's turn, and that the display is completely refreshed only after the current player's turn.

The German rules are not any more clear on this matter, even using my spotty German it appears that the English translation is quite literal.

Personally, I like the immediate refreshing, because it sometimes goads players into buying flights that they don't really want in search of bargains deeper in the stacks (or a particular flight that they desperately need). It also gives players more of a feeling of control...rather than just saying "Oh, look what he was lucky enough to have pop up in the display" they are more likely to say "Man, I wish I had bought one more flight so I could have seen that pop up!"

Thoughts?

Image

Scarlet — 2005-11-14T15:39:22+00:00

Thread: Tycoon

Jonathan Degann — 2005-09-30T06:48:22+00:00

Dave*, Lincoln, Jonathan, John
John had owned this game for a long time but never played it. I've
played it lots, but it had been gathering cobwebs. Perfect excuse to
dust off this buried treasure.

Tycoon is a lesser known Kramer-Rossner game of gaining majorities of
hotel building in 9 cities. Some of the unique mechanisms:

1) As more people build in a city, the value goes up... but eventually
begins to drop!
2) You need to buy and collect tickets which enable you to move to
specific cities, because you must move to a city to build there.
Creating a network of movement tickets can often drive your strategy.
3) Less unique: Money is really tight. Age of Steam tight. And
raising money costs you a turn.

John took an early lead, city-hopping, putting down single hotels, in
a successful effort to get the diversity bonus of having some presence
in lots of cities. It came back to bite him later as he had
indefensibly thin positions, and the majority bonuses got more
valuable. Dave and I got into a mildly friendly war in Monaco -
mutually building up its value, and also the value of our "factories",
which can pay off especially well in the city with the most hotels in
it. Lincoln trashed up, moving down to Sydney and building a TON of
hotels there, which devalued our Monaco factories. As I saw take a
strong lead in round two, I found myself with little constructive to
do in round 3, so much of my work was in attacking Dave and Lincoln,
trying to devalue their own holdings. Alas, John, now clearly
trailing, challenged me in New York, so I had great incentive to spend
lots of money for a network of tickets that could bring me back to the
Big Apple and reestablish myself at his expense.

Dave won, I think with a strong lead. Lincoln and I were kinda close
(I was third). John was not a happy camper.

The real discovery that night was: up until this particular session
we'd been playing the game wrong! Two mistakes:

1) I'd always played that in each round, every player has exactly 6
hotels, that the unused ones from previous turns are discarded. Not
so - they carry over. This is a mixed blessing, since it makes it
harder for a trailing player to control the end of the round, but does
possibly enable him to get more hotels out. The round ends when any
player places his last hotel of the six (or more) he was allotted in
that round. It continues around until everyone has had the same
number of turns, and then you score. Repeat three times.

2) The start player does not in fact rotate each round. Not sure how I feel about that.

Thread: Re: How many steps per scheduled flight?

Jonathan Degann — 2005-09-29T08:14:09+00:00

FWIW, I agree that you must take the entire allotment BUT I prefer playing that you may take less. The scheduled flights are already expensive, and I feel that a player spending the bucks ought to be able to have some flexibility. Certainly, the game works fine with the adaptation.

Thread: Re: How many steps per scheduled flight?

nexttothemoon — 2005-08-29T15:40:24+00:00

1) That sounds correct to me. You must use all stops on the card...but there is nothing stopping you from hopping back and forth and then to the location you wanted...so you'd need a 1 or 3 hop card to get to a location 1 hop away, a 2 hop card to get to a location 2 hops away and of course a 3 hop card to get to a location 3 hops away. All other combinations don't work.

2) When at the home office you can only fly to the single specific city listed on the scheduled flight ticket and the card is then discarded and the hops on the card are useless in this case. The hops on a scheduled flight ticket are only useful once you are actually on the board and want to fly from one city to another.

Thread: Re: How many steps per scheduled flight?

SCROOGE — 2005-08-29T10:31:17+00:00

So you are saying that when you use a scheduled flight you must either fly directly to the destination or make ALL(1-3) the steps of the card and not as many as you like???

Secondly, I have a question regarding the use of the steps if you are at Home. In our version we play it that you can't use them but only flight directly to the destination of the card...Are we correct about this?

Thanks again Stan!

Thread: What a cracker!

Biltricks — 2005-07-18T19:03:13+00:00

After a quick game of For Sale it was decided to get straight into a game of Tycoon, a game I had borrowed off Mr Wade and was keen to try out again as I hadn’t played it for a few years. My playing partners were Dave and Tim. Dave was a relative newbee to gaming but extremely enthusiastic after a number of recent games evenings. Tim was a gaming virgin and keen to play after feeling gutted at missing past gaming nights. Tycoon was a perfect introduction. The board was greeted with interest as the players studied the somewhat retro artwork and played with the simple plastic planes. The rules were pretty easy to explain and pretty soon we were ready to take off.
The mood was very jovial and as the wine and beer flowed, almost immediately the money was being referred to as “elephantums” and the act of flying around the world to various cities had taken on a life of its own. Before long Dave had spent most of his money on tickets, Tim had got side tracked in Sydney and I was content to fly here and there to boost my distribution and get ahead in some hotel chains. Very soon all of us had lost our initial angst at getting out loans and were borrowing freely.
Now I won’t get bogged down in the boring details of scores and results because quite frankly I can’t remember them. It was one of those nights. All I would say is that Dave had a very good head for numbers and kept tabs on his borrowing/investments. Into the last round Dave and I were pretty equal on the money front with Tim lagging behind with a few debts still to pay. Dave and Tim had quite a few factories including one each in Sydney which was the longest hotel chain. The state of play was such that I decided to go all out and invest heavily in Monaco, making it the longest chain plus getting two factories there. This was working a treat until the penultimate turn where Dave and Tim managed to join forces, fly to sydney and both buy a hotel making the chain one longer than mine. This doubled their score and halved mine. Error on my part. Dave won with 158 million elephantums and Tim came an amazingly close second with 156 million elephantums. I was way back with only 112 million elephantums. The two newbees had stitched the relative old timer and I was well impressed with their efforts.
I have to say that I think that this is an excellent game. It has to be a young classic. The slightly old fashioned 80’s style artwork is charming. The theme is brilliant. You really do become absorbed in flying around the world and buying the tickets to make the connections makes you feel like one of the jet set just for a moment. And as for the crack. I haven’t laughed so much in ages. This game made a refreshing change and I would give it my full recommendation as a more light hearted game which still has enough strategy to keep everyone interested.

Thread: Re: How many steps per scheduled flight?

timbur — 2005-05-19T14:38:04+00:00

Thanks Stan, for clarifying that. Wow, that makes it even harder to plan your moves in advance. Kramer games (especially with Kiesling) are known for succumbing to analysis paralysis. I expect this change will make that worse, but I suppose there is a good reason for making it that way!

Funny, but in my box I had printed out some rules from an online version of the game - I bet it was yours! I hadn't checked them when we played this last time, and it's been about a year.

Thread: Re: How many steps per scheduled flight?

shilinski — 2005-05-19T05:00:47+00:00

You must fly the entire allotment. You can't stop short.

I've implemented an online version, and my first version allowed players to fly shorter routes, which I personally preferred. I got a bunch of emails with a confirmation by the designer (it's been so long that I'm hazy on this), but there was enough evidence for me to change it. It's not obvious from the English translation, by the way.

Stan