Game: Steam

Thread: Re: New name?

RDewsbery — 2008-12-02T10:13:15+00:00

Are people confused by this sort of thing? If they are, they must get sick of paying Mcrosoft every time they look through the framed glass in the walls in their homes and places of work.

One's a game, one's a software download service.

Thread: Re: New name?

Kevin C — 2008-12-02T09:00:22+00:00

Not to be confused with the other game related use of the word "Steam" as a trademark:
http://store.steampowered.com/

Image

AlexYeager — 2008-12-02T06:07:39+00:00

Art for the Locomotive action tile

Image

AlexYeager — 2008-12-02T06:06:47+00:00

Art for the Engineer action tile

Image

AlexYeager — 2008-12-02T06:05:53+00:00

Art for the First Move action tile

Thread: Re: Will the Age of Steam expansions work with the new Steam edition?

Roliander — 2008-12-01T01:39:22+00:00

clearclaw wrote:
AIUI the published MSRP is less than Steam's MSRP.

ICSWAABFEIHPE Steam's actual price may end up being lower if you order online since Mayfair allows 20% discounting whereas FRED allows none...

Thread: Re: Will the Age of Steam expansions work with the new Steam edition?

mussels — 2008-11-17T23:12:16+00:00

Thanks for the answers all around. This is precisely the kind of information I wanted. You guys are great.

Thread: Re: Will the Age of Steam expansions work with the new Steam edition?

clearclaw — 2008-11-17T22:45:20+00:00

mussels wrote:
I own neither Age of Steam nor Steam, and I'd probably be perfectly happy with either edition. Given that the new Steam release will be less expensive than trackign down a copy of Age of Steam, the new game is currently my preference.

Age of Steam is currently being reprinted by FRED and is due to hit store shelves shortly (next couple months?). AIUI the published MSRP is less than Steam's MSRP.

Will the existing AoS expansion maps work with Steam?

Some will, some won't.

All the expansion maps should work with the componentry supplied with Steam though, with the caveat that you'll need to figure out a way to handle Steam's somewhat different tile distribution (some maps are specifically geared against Age of Steam's specific tile distribution) and you'll also need to provide your own town markers when playing Age of Steam using Steam's components.

Some expansion maps (not all) will work with the changed rules in Steam versus the original rules in Age of Steam. Some other expansions will only work as variations on the original Age of Steam rules. The original Age of Steam rules will not be provided with Steam. The only place to get the Age of Steam rules is in the Age of Steam box.

Thread: Re: Will the Age of Steam expansions work with the new Steam edition?

rockusultimus — 2008-11-17T22:43:31+00:00

Technically speaking, they should work.

The issue is, which ruleset will you use?

In another posting, Martin Wallace even said you can play the new game using the original rules. Most AoS expansions' rules start out with:
'Unless otherwise noted here, all standard rules for Age of Steam apply.' (or something similar)

But the original Age of Steam rules will not be included with Steam.

So even though you may have all the pieces you need to play the old expansions, you need to know the original Age of Steam rules to get the full experience as intended by the expansion designers.

Thread: Re: Will the Age of Steam expansions work with the new Steam edition?

RDewsbery — 2008-11-17T22:00:45+00:00

AFAIK, it will be compatible with all of the Warfrog Age of Steam expansions. Getting the old expansions to work and be well-balanced has not however been a priority of any playtesting that *I* know about. the old maps might provide a tight, well-balanced game, they might not. But the Steam rules and components should work with the old maps.

Steam ought to be compatible with a large number of the third party expansions too, as the Steam "Standard Game" only differs from Age of Steam in a few details - although the more the expansions depart from the standard AoS rules, the less likely they are to work with Steam "out of the box". Hopefully the third parties who have published Age Of Steam expansions can be encouraged to make them work with Steam.

Thread: Re: Will the Age of Steam expansions work with the new Steam edition?

locusshifter — 2008-11-17T20:41:45+00:00

One of the people developing the game told me that the game would be compatible to the previous editions.

Thread: Re: Will the Age of Steam expansions work with the new Steam edition?

jtakagi — 2008-11-17T20:09:38+00:00

Yes, they have made it a priority to make the new version of AoS compatible with the expansion maps. Though I'm not necessarily an authority, I've seen too many statements made by those in the know to think otherwise.

Thread: Will the Age of Steam expansions work with the new Steam edition?

mussels — 2008-11-17T20:03:26+00:00

I own neither Age of Steam nor Steam, and I'd probably be perfectly happy with either edition. Given that the new Steam release will be less expensive than tracking down a copy of Age of Steam, the new game is currently my preference.

However, one of the points of interest for me with the original Age of Steam is the continuing flow of extension maps.

Will the existing AoS expansion maps work with Steam?

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

RDewsbery — 2008-11-16T21:47:55+00:00

clearclaw wrote:

It is rare that an auction is not important to every player at the table. I always want to win the auction. Always. There is always a valuable action for me in the auction, even if it is just to keep away from another player. The auction is the primary locus where the player compete to establish their own success and confound each other's plans.

However this is a thread about Steam, not Age of Steam. Let's keep the AoS discussions for somewhere else.

I'm pretty sure that if you think that 70% of AoS is the auction, you'll feel exactly the same way about the Standard game of Steam (as distinct from the Basic game).

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

clearclaw — 2008-11-11T00:31:42+00:00

sedjtroll wrote:
clearclaw wrote:
The game isn't about deliveries.

The only thing that increases your score is deliveries. The game is about deliveries. It's also about managing your shares and money, but without deliveries, there is no game.

In a typical game 30% of a player points will come from track. The rest comes from Income-Dividends. While deliveries are key to maintaining and enlarging that delta, the gap is the thing that's actually important, not the deliveries.

I cede that this is an interesting point, and does make for hard decisions when taking shares. I contend that it's not interesting enough, and if it were up to me the focus would shift off of that tension and onto the delivery competition.

I suspect you find the delivery portion of the game interesting. I don't. The board and map receives relatively little of my attention during the game. Most of my attention in a game is spent on the charts, tracks and player cash. That's where the game actually takes place. The board, track and cubes are merely a way of generating interesting numbers to input into the system defined by the charts.

On the other hand, I don't consider the auction to be the entire game, and would like AoS even less if that were true:

It clearly isn't the entire game but it I find it the primary decision point that defines the game and it is where the vast majority of my time and attention is spent in the game.

...various cubes at each

A typical game of Age of Steam is cube-starved. There are not enough cubes for all the players and there are certainly not enough long deliveries at any level for all the players.

There is more than...

The value of actions is fairly clear cut. Locomotive is the most valuable action in the game followed by Urbanisation, Engineer or Turn Order Pass and Production in that order. First Build and First Move are contextual as you say and their values grow rapidly as the player count increases or as contention rises for accesses.

There is more than 1 way to improve your engine (you can do so at the cost of money/shares via winning the auction if you are fighting for the Locomotive space, or you can do so at the expense of a delivery action).

At core Age of Steam is a relatively simple game: 1) Get Links up to 6 fast. 2) Make 6-Link deliveries until the game ends. The player that best approximates both those two conditions will win almost every time.

There are lots of ways to build, and the relatively free manner in which you are allowed to build means there's usually no competition really for the 'build 4 track' action.

Engineer is variously the third or fourth most valuable action in the game. There is frequently competition for Engineer due to game contexts.

So what's the big deal about the auction?

Because it defines what action I get, what action other players don't get, and what order the players operate in. That's most of the game right there.

Why is it viewed as 70% of the game? Occasionally you'll want to win an auction, or at least not pass before another particular player, and other times it matters very little.

It is rare that an auction is not important to every player at the table. I always want to win the auction. Always. There is always a valuable action for me in the auction, even if it is just to keep away from another player. The auction is the primary locus where the player compete to establish their own success and confound each other's plans.

However this is a thread about Steam, not Age of Steam. Let's keep the AoS discussions for somewhere else.

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

sedjtroll — 2008-11-11T00:06:26+00:00

sedjtroll wrote:
On the other hand, I don't consider the auction to be the entire game, and would like AoS even less if that were true:

There is more than 1 place on the board to build (various cities, various cubes at each).

There is more than 1 way to improve your engine (you can do so at the cost of money/shares via winning the auction if you are fighting for the Locomotive space, or you can do so at the expense of a delivery action).

There are lots of ways to build, and the relatively free manner in which you are allowed to build means there's usually no competition really for the 'build 4 track' action. Also, this reduces the importance of the First Build role a lot, making it highly situational.

Fighting for 1st Delivery is also very situational, though it does become very important at times because the availability of cubes is low.

So what's the big deal about the auction? Why is it viewed as 70% of the game? Occasionally you'll want to win an auction, or at least not pass before another particular player, and other times it matters very little. Much more interesting is where you build, what you deliver, and how you go about increasing your infrastructure without going broke so that you can secure big scoring late game plays.

Of course some of those plays you might pass up, because they would put you within range of someone bumping you into the next income reduction bracket. As I said before, I think that is not the kind of concern that should exist in this game.
It is true that I have not played very much Age of Steam. If you want to tell me that I'd think differently after 20 odd games, then go right ahead.

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

sedjtroll — 2008-11-10T23:49:47+00:00

fellonmyhead wrote:
CortexBomb wrote:
I think it's important to stress why as well...though I think J C has covered the heart of this it bears repeating: it makes the auction more interesting.

This reminds me that JC once said, wrt AoS, that the auction is 70% of the game.
On the other hand, I don't consider the auction to be the entire game, and would like AoS even less if that were true:

There is more than 1 place on the board to build (various cities, various cubes at each).

There is more than 1 way to improve your engine (you can do so at the cost of money/shares via winning the auction if you are fighting for the Locomotive space, or you can do so at the expense of a delivery action).

There are lots of ways to build, and the relatively free manner in which you are allowed to build means there's usually no competition really for the 'build 4 track' action. Also, this reduces the importance of the First Build role a lot, making it highly situational.

Fighting for 1st Delivery is also very situational, though it does become very important at times because the availability of cubes is low.

So what's the big deal about the auction? Why is it viewed as 70% of the game? Occasionally you'll want to win an auction, or at least not pass before another particular player, and other times it matters very little. Much more interesting is where you build, what you deliver, and how you go about increasing your infrastructure without going broke so that you can secure big scoring late game plays.

Of course some of those plays you might pass up, because they would put you within range of someone bumping you into the next income reduction bracket. As I said before, I think that is not the kind of concern that should exist in this game.

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

sedjtroll — 2008-11-10T23:36:39+00:00

clearclaw wrote:
sedjtroll wrote:
The problem with the Income Reduction in AoS is that you lose VPs as well as income. I fully agree with Alex's concern that the income reduction in AoS is just stupid - that someone could hurt their own score to hurt you a little more (By bumping you into the next Income Reduction bracket).

I don't see this as a problem. I see a tool to be measured and wielded like any other game system. It seems quite fine.

I hate the thought of the big late-game deliveries being passed up or unused to avoid this particular phenomenon.

Why? The game isn't about deliveries.
The only thing that increases your score is deliveries. The game is about deliveries. It's also about managing your shares and money, but without deliveries, there is no game.

Requiring players to decide their shares before the auction creates enormous tension and challenge, especially for the players early in the turn order. It gives the players late in the turn order all the positional advantage and forces the early turn order players to position against that unknown. The early players don't know how many shares the late players will issue, making it difficult to estimate their costs in the auction. The late-turn order players know exactly how much they'll need to issue to overcome the early players, or that they can safely duck and let the early players pay more than they need to in dividends. That particular uncertainty challenge drives much of the mid- and late-game and accurate management of that problem is where the good players are revealed.
I cede that this is an interesting point, and does make for hard decisions when taking shares. I contend that it's not interesting enough, and if it were up to me the focus would shift off of that tension and onto the delivery competition.

I see nothing but upside in the early share commitment requirement.I do, as I described. Though it provides an interesting decision, I feel it's more work than benefit and detracts from what I'd consider the point of the game. It's obviously not up to me, but if it were, the shares would work like they do in RRT, not AoS.

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

Coca Lite — 2008-11-10T18:40:16+00:00

RDewsbery wrote:
This is probably a useless explaination until you actually see it in action.
Well, some of it sounds a little bit familiar.

Thread: Re: New name?

Castef — 2008-11-10T17:12:01+00:00

Bathtub Hoax wrote:
Good, solid title. Memorable and evocative, perhaps better than the original.

I like it.

Well... i guess that now some-other-producer will announce "Stream: Flails to Riches"...

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

RDewsbery — 2008-11-09T18:53:39+00:00

Roliander wrote:

With the tracks split how is the diminishing income present in the previous games going to work in this one? In AoS there are zones that automatically push you backwards on the track a certain number of steps. In RRT those are done away and as you push forward for more VP, you pass the peak of income and start getting less and less.

In Steam, how is this accomplished? It seems that I could move my marker to the peak level of income and then from that point only take victory points. If I don't move my income track marker any more my income never diminishes. If there is no construct in the game to push my marker back, my income never diminishes.

It's there, but it's subtle. I'll talk about the base game, as it's the onle I'm most familiar with.

If you take so much income over the first half of the game that younever have any money worries for the rest of the game, then you probably took *too much* income and should have taken some VPs at some point. If you take too little, you're never going to make the investment it requires to build a good network. All pretty obvious so far. Early on, with no starting cash you often need to move back on the income track to raise extra cash (so much so that - just like AoS - you can end up wondering whether your railroad will ever be profitable).

But you can forfeit a point of income at any time that you need the money in order to have extra funds to pay for further expansion - not just at the start of the game. The best play is often going to be to take enough cash to build up some capacity, push your income up enough to see you through the mid-game, but towards the end game convert those income points back into cash to pay for expensive track builds and locomotive improvements - take too little, you won't have enough to spend compared to your rivals, take too much and you'll hurt your score. but players who start to draw down their income points in this way will generally be able to out-spend those who are sitting on maximum income points and just living off that income.

This is probably a useless explaination until you actually see it in action. I rather liked the banded VP/income track from Brass/RRT, and it was tried in Steam before it ever made an appearance in Brass. But the new system is even better, not least because it adds in an extra layer of decisions that are there throughout the game. I *thought* that it would be a simple case of putting all of your points in income early on, then deciding when to switch to all-VPs. But there are better ways to play than that.

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

Roliander — 2008-11-08T18:14:59+00:00

AlexYeager wrote:
In the base game, that continuum is fairly broad; in the standard game, it's MUCH tighter (and., dare I say, brutal).

Dare....dare.

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

AlexYeager — 2008-11-07T17:08:44+00:00

Just a quick note: in order to, y'know, actually work on the game and all, I'm intending to keep an eye on, but not necessarily respond to, comments during the gap between diary entries. I'll tag this thread with the next entry when it goes live. So I'm not ignoring questions proposed here after the fact; I'll simply let them be my guide for future entries. As my other entries may suggest, I enjoy talking about games in general at some length...

But, as a quick answer to Roland: there's no reduction element at all in base Steam; there will be a reduction mechanic in the standard game that's simply "pay $X for engine level Y". It goes back to the concept that raising income is spending VPs; you may max it out (and there's both a hard upper and lower limit to income), but it's likely that you'll have spent some VPs you didn't need to. And, you will find the need to spend income points to finance turns on occasion (Locomotive and Urbanization actions ain't cheap in the base game, as we'll discuss later). Part of the charm is deciding how high to let it float, or how close to $0 you want to play (as every -$1 is -2 VP at the end...). In the base game, that continuum is fairly broad; in the standard game, it's MUCH tighter (and., dare I say, brutal).

Alex Yeager
Mayfair Games

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

fellonmyhead — 2008-11-07T11:00:25+00:00

ekted wrote:
Although I rate it a 10, there are 3 silly things in AoS: up-front auctions, discrete income reduction, and town tracks.

Silly? Do you think the new design is going to improve on these then?

ekted wrote:
Up-front auctions create the same kind of chaos points found in Puerto Rico and Agricola that makes them annoying to play.

Not sure what you mean here; I think you're referring to the turn order elements, but possibly choice of actions?

AoS is probably less chaotic overall for this "chaos point". I'm sure I don't need to tell you that victory in the auction will be necessary if you know more than one player wants the same action; I'm also sure I don't need to tell you that this will (or should) affect your choice in the Issue Shares phase (as Michael pointed out earlier in this thread).

ekted wrote:
Income reduction is an abstraction created to prevent runaway leaders and asks to be gamed.

It's a simple but effective abstraction; it might ask to be gamed, but the player doing the gaming needs to put himself in a strong position to do so. It's no good tipping an opponent over the edge of the zone if you can't decrease the differential between you and him.

ekted wrote:
Town tracks add unnecessary complexity and gamey-ness. I don't buy the "it's not a simulation; that's just the way the game works" argument. If you're not going to make an attempt at a theme, then remove all references to track, cities, towns, goods, and call it Gifp-Links.

I'm having trouble finding anyone who ever put that argument forth regarding town tracks; if anything I have seen thematic arguments - not excuses - for this. Like the argument that internal city infrastructure means there is no requirement to build one. Or the argument that, when a town is left a town, the rail company serving it will still be serving it.

Is this "unnecessary complexity" the pricing? I found that pretty straightforward, no more complex than, say, a "complex" tile. Gamey? You've really got me puzzled on that one; unless you mean the $3 instead of $2 for building into a town that's already connected - in which case I still have to disagree with the word "gamey". Completed link scoring? I still disagree; the cost-benefit ratio's just too low to be gamey.

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

fellonmyhead — 2008-11-07T10:21:07+00:00

Barticus88 wrote:
spearjr wrote:
This is just one of the reasons why I ended up deciding that AoS was more work than fun and RRT was a better game for me.

From what I hear from AoS fans, "more work than fun" is the reason they love AoS.

I'd have said more game than experience. While I appreciate both to a certain extent, it took a map of Europe (the fan-designed one - credit where credit is due - designed by Chris Boote) to take RT from just being a pastime to something that permitted skilful play to take a player towards victory. The official Europe expansion did have a similar effect.

IME, basic RT has too often been determined by the big swing brought on by the tycoon cards, the timely draw/draft of a useful card or two and where you manage to sit yourself around the table. Mostly the first of the three. Not a bad game by any means, but much more an experience than a game.

I can't envisage this new design, Steam, being anywhere near that arbitrary.

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

fellonmyhead — 2008-11-07T09:07:15+00:00

Barkam wrote:
fellonmyhead wrote:
The version I tried had a single income/VP track (akin to that utilised in Brass), and shares issue was still a crucial decision (because it meant a direct and visible reduction in points and income); now I just don't know.

Points and Income are in two "seperate" tracks in Brass. There might be only one track but there are distinct two markers that keep track of one and another. When you take loans you don't lose points, you just drop income brackets.

Ah, but I was referring to the track topology, not how it was used - hence the word "akin". Apologies for my lack of clarity.

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

Roliander — 2008-11-07T04:52:33+00:00

Another question for Alex:

With the tracks split how is the diminishing income present in the previous games going to work in this one? In AoS there are zones that automatically push you backwards on the track a certain number of steps. In RRT those are done away and as you push forward for more VP, you pass the peak of income and start getting less and less.

In Steam, how is this accomplished? It seems that I could move my marker to the peak level of income and then from that point only take victory points. If I don't move my income track marker any more my income never diminishes. If there is no construct in the game to push my marker back, my income never diminishes.

How?

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

Barticus88 — 2008-11-06T23:30:27+00:00

spearjr wrote:
This is just one of the reasons why I ended up deciding that AoS was more work than fun and RRT was a better game for me.

From what I hear from AoS fans, "more work than fun" is the reason they love AoS.

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

clearclaw — 2008-11-06T21:53:38+00:00

RDewsbery wrote:
Yes, I'm aware of the danger of reopening that particular debate; I'll cheerfully concede that of the two, AoS was the cleverer, arguably "better" game than RRT - I just preferred to play RRT.

For the record: I have no interest in that debate except to the degree that it clarifies or aids understanding of contributor's posts. In the spirit of disclosure (to a doubtless well informed audience): I am on the other side of the AoS/RRT fence and have played some 200-300 face-to-face games of Age of Steam, and well over 1,500 games if you also count electronic simulations during the development of my maps (I didn't track but would easily run through ~30 games in an evening of map development).

Is RRT a "beginner's game"? Well, perhaps if compared to 1856. But you probably wouldn't start a new player out on RRT with the hope that they might migrate to 18xx.

I am happy to consider the two game forms of Steam as disjoint games. With the exception of the playtesters we don't know enough about the differences to accurately argue their similarities and differences. I expect for at least a few months this will make for entertainingly confused discussions.

As for introducing players to 18XX: the last time I taught a newbie 18XX we threw him right into the middle of 18C2C (Coast to Coast). 14 hours later we rolled off to sleep. The next morning that same newbie dived into 1861: The Railroads of the Russian Empire, 1824, a prototype 18XX set in New England and then finally 1841 with us. It was quite the leap from the griddle into the blast furnace. He (and we) loved it.

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

rockusultimus — 2008-11-06T21:25:36+00:00

fellonmyhead wrote:
This reminds me that JC once said, wrt AoS, that the auction is 70% of the game. I tend to agree and always have. The removal of the auction element in the new version does make things radically different, especially insofar as Steam is not an auction game at all. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, just different - significantly different.
I agree.

It's a good thing they changed the name, as this game is not Age of Steam.

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

RDewsbery — 2008-11-06T21:18:59+00:00

CortexBomb wrote:

In the beginner's version of this ...

I'm going to take issue with this. Gently, mind you.

The official nomenclature is "base game rules" and "standard game rules". Though for "standard" you could just as easily read "advanced", as it is supposed to add in all of the stuff that makes AoS such a hardcore game.

But "base game rules" - or even "basic" if you must - doesn't imply "beginner's version". I've played a reasonable amount of AoS, RRT and now Steam, and I can tell you that the "base" game rules will be *my* preferred way of playing the game.

Although it's lighter than the full-on AoS experience, it's more fun (to *me*, at least) - for many of the reasons why I found playing RRT more fun than AoS. Yes, I'm aware of the danger of reopening that particular debate; I'll cheerfully concede that of the two, AoS was the cleverer, arguably "better" game than RRT - I just preferred to play RRT.

The base rules for Steam are probably slightly more involved and (in conjunction with the maps) create a slightly more demanding game than RRT. They are also absent any randomness in play (I never liked the RRT cards, the one big weakness in the game). Is RRT a "beginner's game"? Well, perhaps if compared to 1856. But you probably wouldn't start a new player out on RRT with the hope that they might migrate to 18xx. You *might* introduce a new player to the Steam base rules in the hope that they graduate to the standard rules, but you do run the risk that after trying the standard game they're happy to stick with the base version. Just like many people are happy to play Settlers without the added depth and complexity of Cities and Knights.

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

clearclaw — 2008-11-06T20:34:27+00:00

spearjr wrote:
...AoS feels more like work than fun.

There are a few canned comments that attract my attention to a game, suggesting that it may well be something I'd like:

- ...frustrating
- Too much like work or More work than fun
- ...like doing taxes
- too much AP or too much calculation
- etc

I'm looking forward to Steam. Alex has mentioned numerous differences and I've thought, ok that sounds interesting or even great!, while you've posted, "Oh, but the AoS way was better."

I also think some of the changes are interesting, however some of the changes as described lose significant values that were present in Age of Steam. I regret those losses, but perhaps they also uncover better things? It isn't always clear. The 50% delivery rule is a clear step backwards without any justification than attempting to ineffectively salve a human problem and not a game-design problem. The split tracks may be a large step backwards but might also simply be ignorable (I'm fairly certain they won't be interesting). The new turn order controls could go either way, either very interesting or a great loss (I doubt they'll be ignorable). And so forth.

Ultimately the game needs to stand on its own laurels and not in the shadow of Age of Steam and just-another-variant. Getting that clear view, especially this early, is difficult.

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

spearjr — 2008-11-06T20:07:01+00:00

clearclaw wrote:
spearjr wrote:
This is just one of the reasons why I ended up deciding that AoS was more work than fun and RRT was a better game for me.

How long were your games? AoS was a dependable 120-150 minute game here depending on the map and player count. What little downtime there was hasn't bothered me. I simply don't mind much -- why should I begrudge them one of the more enjoyable portions of the game?

It's been a while since I played AoS, so I don't remember game length. Anyways, I probably exaggerated the "enormous downtime", frustration is probably more accurate. As I said above, AoS feels more like work than fun.

JC, you and I are looking for different gaming experiences. Many of my favorite games are ones you've said you don't care for.

I'm looking forward to Steam. Alex has mentioned numerous differences and I've thought, ok that sounds interesting or even great!, while you've posted, "Oh, but the AoS way was better."

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

clearclaw — 2008-11-06T19:44:24+00:00

spearjr wrote:
This is just one of the reasons why I ended up deciding that AoS was more work than fun and RRT was a better game for me.

How long were your games? AoS was a dependable 120-150 minute game here depending on the map and player count. What little downtime there was hasn't bothered me. I simply don't mind much -- why should I begrudge them one of the more enjoyable portions of the game?

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

ekted — 2008-11-06T19:15:23+00:00

I'll try the game as written (both ways), but I think I'll end up using the components and using my own rules. Although I rate it a 10, there are 3 silly things in AoS: up-front auctions, discrete income reduction, and town tracks. Up-front auctions create the same kind of chaos points found in Puerto Rico and Agricola that makes them annoying to play. Income reduction is an abstraction created to prevent runaway leaders and asks to be gamed. Town tracks add unnecessary complexity and gamey-ness. I don't buy the "it's not a simulation; that's just the way the game works" argument. If you're not going to make an attempt at a theme, then remove all references to track, cities, towns, goods, and call it Gifp-Links.

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

Barkam — 2008-11-06T17:31:51+00:00

fellonmyhead wrote:
The version I tried had a single income/VP track (akin to that utilised in Brass), and shares issue was still a crucial decision (because it meant a direct and visible reduction in points and income); now I just don't know.

Points and Income are in two "seperate" tracks in Brass. There might be only one track but there are distinct two markers that keep track of one and another. When you take loans you don't lose points, you just drop income brackets.

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

fellonmyhead — 2008-11-06T16:13:03+00:00

CortexBomb wrote:
I think it's important to stress why as well...though I think J C has covered the heart of this it bears repeating: it makes the auction more interesting.

This reminds me that JC once said, wrt AoS, that the auction is 70% of the game. I tend to agree and always have. The removal of the auction element in the new version does make things radically different, especially insofar as Steam is not an auction game at all. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, just different - significantly different.

This probably means the influence that the shares issue phase had on the outcome of the turn order auction has completely vanished. I'm not even sure it will have an effect on VP in this new version because, it would appear, income and VP are now separate entities.

The version I tried had a single income/VP track (akin to that utilised in Brass), and shares issue was still a crucial decision (because it meant a direct and visible reduction in points and income); now I just don't know.

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

Coca Lite — 2008-11-06T16:11:30+00:00

fellonmyhead wrote:
Arguably the original game has a similar economic engine pattern at its core. Even though points and income are inexorably tied by a 3:1 ratio, there is an early stage of building a useful infrastructure to enable income, which will in turn enable more building, which will enable income to reach a level where you are just "scoring points for your engine" because that excess income just doesn't matter.
Thanks for this excellent reply. Is a classic economic engine pattern already present in Age of Steam, and just made explicit in Steam? In other words, if one were to tack on only the dual-track rules to Age of Steam, would the game play any differently?

I think the answer is a qualified 'no.' While some details would change (like for example behavior around income reduction points), my basic approach to the game wouldn't. The dual track wouldn't alter Age of Steam's basic problems, but it would add a small new one: how do I balance cash and points as I approach profitability? The reason this problem is interesting in Puerto Rico is because not only is that point difficult to determine, but the means by which players generate points are usually different from those by which players generate income. The dual track in our hypothetical dual-tracked Age of Steam takes just one input, and the work players do to generate that input won't be any different than in Age of Steam. I'm also unconvinced that the balance would be so difficult for players to manage.

My personal objection to the dual track, then, is that it sounds unnecessary and therefore a waste of everyone's time. This isn't an objection to the fundamental gameplay, just to the tacked-on extra track. If, on the other hand, the game now requires players to adjust their pre-input behavior in anticipation of the dual-track decision point, then the game is taking on more characteristics of a classic engine pattern. I don't necessarily have any complaints about that, but it would be a fundamental change from the problems presented to players in Age of Steam.

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

CortexBomb — 2008-11-06T13:24:33+00:00

It's already been implied that shares up front is present in the advanced rules, not in the beginner's game.

I am very glad that they kept this rule.

edit: I think it's important to stress why as well...though I think J C has covered the heart of this it bears repeating: it makes the auction more interesting. In terms of having operating capital it's not usually a big deal once you know how to play the game. If the game didn't have an auction, then an issuing shares phase makes little sense because the primary function that I can see of forcing players to decide in player order, up front is that it allows people late in the order to win the auction if they so desire. It can also create interesting decision spaces when someone else wants to win the auction more than you anticipated, as it can often force players to choose between getting the role they wanted, or building the track they intended to, or even eating reduction as a result of spending it all and not having enough to cover expenses (probably more important in the original game with the unified VP/income track, but likely at least still present in some form in this version of the system).

In the beginner's version of this there is no auction, so the need to issue shares up front simply isn't as pressing. Sure, there could be some unexpected expenses if someone cut off your track placement and forced you to take a more expensive path. Sure, you might end up with access to a role that costs more money than you were anticipating. The auction though, I think, is what really drives the need for a special shares issuing phase. The money calculation for the turn can be tough for newer players, but the real key, once you are used to the system, is the ways in which the order can be manipulated to the benefit of those later in the pack.

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

spearjr — 2008-11-06T12:21:00+00:00

clearclaw wrote:
sedjtroll wrote:
I haven't read the rules to Steam, but I rather hope they address the other main problem I have with AoS... the Shares-upfront issue.

Requiring players to decide their shares before the auction creates enormous tension and challenge, especially for the players early in the turn order. It gives the players late in the turn order all the positional advantage and forces the early turn order players to position against that unknown. The early players don't know how many shares the late players will issue, making it difficult to estimate their costs in the auction. The late-turn order players know exactly how much they'll need to issue to overcome the early players, or that they can safely duck and let the early players pay more than they need to in dividends. That particular uncertainty challenge drives much of the mid- and late-game and accurate management of that problem is where the good players are revealed.

I see nothing but upside in the early share commitment requirement. We didn't find it created "enormous tension" so much as "enormous downtime" as a player spent a while trying to calculate how much they'd need.

This is just one of the reasons why I ended up deciding that AoS was more work than fun and RRT was a better game for me.

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

fellonmyhead — 2008-11-06T11:00:39+00:00

Coca Lite wrote:
RDewsbery wrote:
That was my thought on reading the rule (after having tried out some of the earlier iterations). But it works well in practice. Part of the reason for that is that it's often *not* a decision to go all-income at the start then switch at some particular point - rather there is often a need for more money later on (especially to get the big trains), so you usually need to top up your income at some point. Which is great if someone will do it for you by using your track; not so great if they aren't being so accomodating. But pushing your income up too far is a mistake too - you might run out of things to spend on, and find yourself having given up valuable VPs.
To be fair, whether the game's playtesters and developers feel the rule 'works well' doesn't really speak to J C's basic objection, which is that Steam appears to feature the kind of economic engine pattern found in games like Puerto Rico, Race for the Galaxy, St. Petersburg, and Dominion (to name but a few!). In every economic engine game, players will often find themselves in need of cash even after they've fully committed to a focus on points. The pattern you've described is a classic engine pattern.

To put it another way, J C has said 'I don't like this pattern and am disappointed to hear that it will be featured in Steam,' to which you have replied, 'I do like this pattern. Let me explain how it works.' This is a reasonable comment, but I think it's helpful to identify it not as an actual response to J C's complaint, but primarily as a stage-whispered opinion concerning a pattern about which neither ostensible participant actually needs clarification.

Arguably the original game has a similar economic engine pattern at its core. Even though points and income are inexorably tied by a 3:1 ratio, there is an early stage of building a useful infrastructure to enable income, which will in turn enable more building, which will enable income to reach a level where you are just "scoring points for your engine" because that excess income just doesn't matter.

Income is important in the early game in good, old-fashioned AoS; when saturation is reached then income is less of an issue and maximising points is key. What makes AoS stand out is that this saturation is usually not evident until the closing stages; if it constantly occurred 2-3 turns before the endgame, I'd agree the endgame needs to be moved forward.

Back on topic, the split of the income and VP to separate tracks has me intrigued; is this forcing players to constantly choose between the two or are there other scores to consider?

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

clearclaw — 2008-11-06T10:03:41+00:00

sedjtroll wrote:
The problem with the Income Reduction in AoS is that you lose VPs as well as income. I fully agree with Alex's concern that the income reduction in AoS is just stupid - that someone could hurt their own score to hurt you a little more (By bumping you into the next Income Reduction bracket).

I don't see this as a problem. I see a tool to be measured and wielded like any other game system. It seems quite fine.

I hate the thought of the big late-game deliveries being passed up or unused to avoid this particular phenomenon.

Why? The game isn't about deliveries.

I haven't read the rules to Steam, but I rather hope they address the other main problem I have with AoS... the Shares-upfront issue.

Requiring players to decide their shares before the auction creates enormous tension and challenge, especially for the players early in the turn order. It gives the players late in the turn order all the positional advantage and forces the early turn order players to position against that unknown. The early players don't know how many shares the late players will issue, making it difficult to estimate their costs in the auction. The late-turn order players know exactly how much they'll need to issue to overcome the early players, or that they can safely duck and let the early players pay more than they need to in dividends. That particular uncertainty challenge drives much of the mid- and late-game and accurate management of that problem is where the good players are revealed.

I see nothing but upside in the early share commitment requirement.

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

sedjtroll — 2008-11-06T08:03:51+00:00

AlexYeager wrote:
after the parade of reduction schemes we evaluated (old AoS bands, reducing income based on VP, and on and on), this felt like the most streamlined application, and it was the rule as presented.
I don't understand how any implementation of "income reduction" could be more streamlined than the system used in Railroad Tycoon (Brass is the same). Any shift to 2 tracks, or to discreet income reduction intervals like in AoS, seems like a step backwards to me.

The problem with the Income Reduction in AoS is that you lose VPs as well as income. I fully agree with Alex's concern that the income reduction in AoS is just stupid - that someone could hurt their own score to hurt you a little more (By bumping you into the next Income Reduction bracket). I hate the thought of the big late-game deliveries being passed up or unused to avoid this particular phenomenon.

The Railroad Tycoon Income/VP track does a terrific job, if someone really wants to hurt your income, they can give you some points - but since the VPs don't reduce with income, it's never really worth it.

I haven't read the rules to Steam, but I rather hope they address the other main problem I have with AoS... the Shares-upfront issue. RRT got that one right too. Allowing shares whenever necessary doesn't change any of the strategy, it simply reduces the amount of forecalculation that must be done each turn. It is murder to be just $1 short, and it's also very bad to take 1 share too many. That translates to a lot of time and energy spent figuring out exactly how much stock to take, and a lot of time waiting for other players to do the same (not to mention recalculating for a plan B, in case their first plan is foiled).

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

Barticus88 — 2008-11-06T06:57:50+00:00

ekted wrote:
It's not really a gameplay vs simulation issue that I have. It's just the notion that the all-or-nothing rule feels like a patch to fix a perceived underlying problem.
It works as a game mechanic and it's rational as a simulation. Suppose your real life business choice is between renting a building or buying it. There may not be a halfway choice, or structuring a halfway choice may have its own cost. We could have a game mechanic for that. Let's allow you to split the return, but at a cost of 1. You can put 3 on one track or the other, or 1 on each. You can put 4 on one track or 2 on one and 1 on the other. Would that rule please you?
ekted wrote:
It's the same with Power Grid; jockeying for turn order by NOT doing as well as you could is a flaw in the design.
It's not a flaw in the game it's a flaw in your play. Maximizing your return this quarter while taking a big risk that you'll be paying next year is "NOT doing as well as you could" in real business and it is "NOT doing as well as you could" in a game.

Last Sunday, when Step 3 started I was in last place. The player to my left marveled at how I had done that again. In part that was luck, but in part it was that I had outbid him for the 30 plant two turns before.

Power Grid has high opportunity costs, though not as high as Agricola. You may prefer games which operate in simpler economic models, but that does not make high opportunity cost a design flaw.

ekted wrote:
In Steam, is runaway leader caused by skillful play, or by design flaw (unbalanced actions, turn order bias, extreme distributions in goods, etc). If it's the former, then I have no problem with it.
If it happens much it's a problem. Once the winner and loser are decided, the game should end.

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

Barticus88 — 2008-11-06T05:49:47+00:00

AlexYeager wrote:
By way of introduction, I’m Alex Yeager, Mayfair junior bottlewasher and development manager on the Steam project.
Then why don't you have a Game Developer badge?

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

Barticus88 — 2008-11-06T05:08:56+00:00

ekted wrote:
The new cover (with the corrected name) was rejected as the representative image.

Update: I got an admin to fix it.
I approved it. At first glance I didn't see what was different, so I can see how someone might miss it.

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

Coca Lite — 2008-11-05T17:53:57+00:00

RDewsbery wrote:
That was my thought on reading the rule (after having tried out some of the earlier iterations). But it works well in practice. Part of the reason for that is that it's often *not* a decision to go all-income at the start then switch at some particular point - rather there is often a need for more money later on (especially to get the big trains), so you usually need to top up your income at some point. Which is great if someone will do it for you by using your track; not so great if they aren't being so accomodating. But pushing your income up too far is a mistake too - you might run out of things to spend on, and find yourself having given up valuable VPs.
To be fair, whether the game's playtesters and developers feel the rule 'works well' doesn't really speak to J C's basic objection, which is that Steam appears to feature the kind of economic engine pattern found in games like Puerto Rico, Race for the Galaxy, St. Petersburg, and Dominion (to name but a few!). In every economic engine game, players will often find themselves in need of cash even after they've fully committed to a focus on points. The pattern you've described is a classic engine pattern.

To put it another way, J C has said 'I don't like this pattern and am disappointed to hear that it will be featured in Steam,' to which you have replied, 'I do like this pattern. Let me explain how it works.' This is a reasonable comment, but I think it's helpful to identify it not as an actual response to J C's complaint, but primarily as a stage-whispered opinion concerning a pattern about which neither ostensible participant actually needs clarification.

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

RDewsbery — 2008-11-05T07:50:52+00:00

clearclaw wrote:
AlexYeager wrote:
So yeah, let's talk separate tracks a bit. There were versions that had a single track that were considered, but as soon as we played this version, we felt like we had the design we wanted. From a strictly game mechanic standpoint, anytime you can add another decision tree, I'll consider it, and deciding when to make the move from all-income to VPs is an interesting process.

Oh dear. This greatly reduces my interest in Steam. If I read you right you've effectively transplanted a standard exponential economic engine game of: build-engine-then-run-engine-for-VPs into the middle of Age of Steam.

That was my thought on reading the rule (after having tried out some of the earlier iterations). But it works well in practice. Part of the reason for that is that it's often *not* a decision to go all-income at the start then switch at some particular point - rather there is often a need for more money later on (especially to get the big trains), so you usually need to top up your income at some point. Which is great if someone will do it for you by using your track; not so great if they aren't being so accomodating. But pushing your income up too far is a mistake too - you might run out of things to spend on, and find yourself having given up valuable VPs.

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

ekted — 2008-11-05T04:50:07+00:00

AlexYeager wrote:
Heh. Sucker's bet, and you know it.
Well, I'll buy one anyways.

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

clearclaw — 2008-11-05T01:03:10+00:00

AlexYeager wrote:
So yeah, let's talk separate tracks a bit. There were versions that had a single track that were considered, but as soon as we played this version, we felt like we had the design we wanted. From a strictly game mechanic standpoint, anytime you can add another decision tree, I'll consider it, and deciding when to make the move from all-income to VPs is an interesting process.

Oh dear. This greatly reduces my interest in Steam. If I read you right you've effectively transplanted a standard exponential economic engine game of: build-engine-then-run-engine-for-VPs into the middle of Age of Steam. If so, oh, what a waste of a game! I have a strong dislike of economic engine games (Power Grid, St Petersburg, Outpost, Agricola etc) and one of the aspects I most liked about Age of Steam was its almost linear nature (and thus I played it twice a week every week).

One of the things I disliked about the original design is the gaming of the income breaks; deciding to come up short on a delivery so that another player wouldn't give you points to push you over an income line felt awkward and game-y.

That is trivially simple to address if you feel it is important: move the breaks to $1 for every $5 rather than $2/$10. I've done this with some of my maps (most notably Wales). It makes little effective difference.

Also as a complete aside, players may only travel other players' tracks if they travel at least half of the trip on their own tracks. No more overt kingmaking in the final round...

That's a bad rule. It prevents the ability to so constrict another player's position that their best method of improving their own position is to give your position an even bigger boost. Losing that simple exploitative ability from the base game is a significant strategic loss.

Most of us have had the experience of watching the leaders not build track and/or bidding to ridiculous quantities during the final round with their soon-to-be-worthless cash, the inevitable victory already out of reach for the others.

Yes and I fail to see that as a problem. By default all levers and clubs with which to afflict the other players are good.

With this version, every $5 you spend is a VP you didn't claim. (That's overly broad, but it certainly frames the decision you have to make...)

My general view of AoS is that the game should, nay, must end as soon as the players approach sustained profitability and that it probably should end when profitability becomes visible on the horizon but has yet to be achieved. The current rules of Age of Steam let the game drag on too long, well into profitability and past the point of richest interest. Trimming one to two rounds off is not entirely a Bad Thing except to the degree that it also weakens strong long-term track building/planning.

I've done my own single-track designs (SE Australia, Denmark & Isle of Wight). The results are akin to an earlier prototype version of Steam but yet rather strongly different (I built a rather different economic model). The effect on gameplay is to push players into an oscillating cycle of ever increasing magnitude and ever increasing risk. Mismanage even slightly toward the middle and players will fall off into the pit. Do it right and they fly into the vistas of huge profitability just as the game ends. Come from behind, come-from-way-behind wins are possible if managed well and even occur with reasonable frequency, but require massive risk management. More pleasingly the system's natural rhythms effectively force the players to differentiate into unique oscillation patterns and magnitudes. Thus there will usually be one steady grower, one huge-risk managing hail-mary, one snipe-and-lunger, one slow-big-stepper etc.

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

AlexYeager — 2008-11-05T00:17:47+00:00

ekted wrote:
It's just the notion that the all-or-nothing rule feels like a patch to fix a perceived underlying problem.
I can't call it a patch, really; for us, the evaulation was more an outgrowth of due diligence on the design as Martin provided it. In the end, playtesting suggested that all-or-nothing made for the better game. And, after the parade of reduction schemes we evaluated (old AoS bands, reducing income based on VP, and on and on), this felt like the most streamlined application, and it was the rule as presented.

ekted wrote:
It's the same with Power Grid; jockeying for turn order by NOT doing as well as you could is a flaw in the design.
Here, I'd disagree with you. You're balancing two issues with PG: turn order AND access to cities. I've absolutely sandbagged number of cities to improve my resource purchasing and city choice positions, but I both potentially lose access to cities in the near future, and I'm able to collect cash that will allow me to catch up almost at will when I'm ready to make my move during the first turn of Phase 2. To me, that feels much more organic; that's balancing short-term vs. long-term capabilities with benefits to me directly both ways.

ekted wrote:
In Steam, is runaway leader caused by skillful play, or by design flaw (unbalanced actions, turn order bias, extreme distributions in goods, etc)?
As things stand, I sure believe it's the former. There's no doubt that you can absolutely run away with a Steam game in the same way that you can an AoS game due to poor play by opponents, and even the base Steam game isn't going to allow sloppy play to come roaring back. What the design does allow for are opportunities to take risks; not taking income or shares, hoping that you can perhaps build a particular track or claim a certain goods set cheaply, or taking a run's points into income, hoping that you will both generate enough cash short-term and allow the income level to float long-term to finance future turns. What I HAVE seen with Steam is that more players, equally skilled, tend to have a chance at the end than with earlier editions. The final Steam design promoted that; it wasn't something we tweaked in after the fact. Subsequent playtesting suggested ways we could destroy that.

ekted wrote:
AlexYeager wrote:
And I'm not sure I understand your point.
I might want to make 1 delivery only this turn, but be required to make 2 just to be able to increase both income and VPs. This may hurt my overall position for artificial reasons.
Mmm, maybe, but cube competition is so fierce, that leaving any cube on the board unattended gets a bit scary. Certainly, I can see the choice of not making a delivery to boost your loco level (which can be done to replace either first OR second delivery, but not both) vs. delivering two cubes simply to make sure that someone else doesn't get it; it becomes more a cost-benefit analysis rather than an artificial construct.

ekted wrote:
AlexYeager wrote:
...what I found awkward about the earlier arrangement is that if I played as efficiently as possible, it was possible for someone to hurt me not through efficient play of their own, but through inefficient play that "adds" to my score simply to drag me down at an artificially set breakpoint.
If I use your track to make a delivery, can't you simply take VPs? How can I hurt you (income reduction?) through my own actions?
In Steam, you can't - giving someone points by riding their track has no down side for the recipient. In AoS, I might have to think about taking, for example, a 4-point delivery as my second delivery if I'm early in the turn order if it pushes me to 39 or 40 VPs, if another player, ignoring a 4- or 5-point run that they have, has the opportunity to take a run to give me enough points to shove me into the -8 income reduction category, nullifying and possibly even leaving me lower than I started.

ekted wrote:
I'll also re-state my earlier offer. I am willing to proof the Steam rules before they go to press. I'll even make you a little wager should you refuse: I bet I can find 5 quantifiable errors...
Heh. Sucker's bet, and you know it. (Besides, if you think I'm going to state that I have control over comp copies to this lot, you're sorely mistaken.) We're going to have FAR more eyes on this than with previous rule sets, including our first-ever beta-rules release to the gaming public, but I know what can get through regardless. It will be interesting to develop the structure for feedback to us on the rules; I've got a few models from my SJ Games days to fall back on for aggregation and tracking. We'll advise anon.

So - that's that for a few days. Unless something earthshaking comes along, I'll have another entry in 2-3 weeks, probably showing off some art and talking about the action value evaluation process.

Thanks!
Alex Yeager
Mayfair Games

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

ekted — 2008-11-04T19:58:10+00:00

AlexYeager wrote:
I'd encourage you to try it, but do know that in this case, gameplay won out over simulation and it was rejected pretty easily by the team here.
Obviously I don't know the rules to Steam, and am basing my thoughts on AoS. It's not really a gameplay vs simulation issue that I have. It's just the notion that the all-or-nothing rule feels like a patch to fix a perceived underlying problem. It's the same with Power Grid; jockeying for turn order by NOT doing as well as you could is a flaw in the design.

In Steam, is runaway leader caused by skillful play, or by design flaw (unbalanced actions, turn order bias, extreme distributions in goods, etc). If it's the former, then I have no problem with it. If it's the latter, then maybe the underlying systems need another look. I'm just speaking generically; I don't know the Steam rules.

AlexYeager wrote:
And I'm not sure I understand your point.
I might want to make 1 delivery only this turn, but be required to make 2 just to be able to increase both income and VPs. This may hurt my overall position for artificial reasons.

AlexYeager wrote:
...what I found awkward about the earlier arrangement is that if I played as efficiently as possible, it was possible for someone to hurt me not through efficient play of their own, but through inefficient play that "adds" to my score simply to drag me down at an artificially set breakpoint. I can appreciate designs that have a braking mechanism; Power Grid comes immediately to mind, of course. But in PG, it's your decision to linger back on the city count in order to modify turn order; other players can't build your network for you. In any event, that's probably more about my preferences than the development of this mechanic; we simply found the game played better with the all-or-nothing feature.
Again, I think this is a design flaw, unless I'm not understanding you correctly. If I use your track to make a delivery, can't you simply take VPs? How can I hurt you (income reduction?) through my own actions?

I'll also re-state my earlier offer. I am willing to proof the Steam rules before they go to press. I'll even make you a little wager should you refuse: I bet I can find 5 quantifiable errors (spelling, hyphenation, punctuation, grammar, syntax, layout, flow, text style hierarchy) and/or obvious ambiguities. If I can, I get a free copy. If I can't I will buy 2 copies.

Thread: Re: Steam Production Diary

AlexYeager — 2008-11-04T19:24:57+00:00

Well, artificial rather than gamey, but you'll likely find the runaway leader syndrome creep back in, though perhaps not to the level of earlier editions. We've played it both ways a bunch, and allowing a split may seem more real world, but it sure did suck some tension out of the game. I'd encourage you to try it, but do know that in this case, gameplay won out over simulation and it was rejected pretty easily by the team here.

And I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that you might run a shorter run in order to put it against income, saving a longer run for VPs (which has certainly been done in our games, and is a valid tactic)? What I have seen is that cubes are a hotter commodity in this version, since once a new city either receives them once (Urbanization) or an existing city is replenished once (City Growth), they do not receive more cubes. So, players are always aggressively looking for cubes to deliver, and hanging one around to take later is a larger risk.

I think there are several ways of approaching income vs. VPs (collecting income throughout the game for a high income that creeps down, or efficiently issuing shares with a minimum of income allotments are the two obvious ones), but certainly rules get iffy trying to overlay them with real life ("Here's $1 million! You may either take all of it into capital expenses, or all into profit!..."). Perhaps saying it better, what I found awkward about the earlier arrangement is that if I played as efficiently as possible, it was possible for someone to hurt me not through efficient play of their own, but through inefficient play that "adds" to my score simply to drag me down at an artificially set breakpoint. I can appreciate designs that have a braking mechanism; Power Grid comes immediately to mind, of course. But in PG, it's your decision to linger back on the city count in order to modify turn order; other players can't build your network for you. In any event, that's probably more about my preferences than the development of this mechanic; we simply found the game played better with the all-or-nothing feature.

Princes of Florence...I haven't played that in forEVER. I was always much more of a Traders of Genoa guy, and as I recall, my last coupla PoF games became either Jester-fests or trying to fight against Jester-fests, and my attention wandered a bit. I'll have to pull it out again!

Alex Yeager
Mayfair Games

Image

AlexYeager — 2008-11-03T20:55:01+00:00

Revised box with "Steam" title

Image

sisteray — 2008-02-29T04:36:53+00:00

Age of Steam (Third Edition) Box Fold-out

Image

sisteray — 2008-02-29T04:33:03+00:00

Age of Steam (Third Edition) Box Cover