Game: Rails of Europe

Thread: Re: Reprint Arrival Date?

matthew.marquand — 2008-08-29T12:44:25+00:00

Still waiting... arg!

Thread: Re: Where to get this in the UK?

Budley — 2008-08-26T15:24:06+00:00

If you have a favorite store in the UK, just have them call their games distributor (Esdevium).

Cheers,

Glenn

Image

Malachi — 2008-08-23T17:56:09+00:00

Modified to be colorblind friendly, blue cities and goods are green (end of a 4 player game)

Image

EndersGame — 2008-08-22T04:25:11+00:00

Catching the red train to Essen 2009! (Game convention building marked with purple cube)

Image

EndersGame — 2008-08-22T04:07:41+00:00

A domination of Blue railroads in Spain

Image

EndersGame — 2008-08-22T04:05:30+00:00

Sunset in Budapest...

Thread: No reduced number of cubes when playing with 2 or 3 players

EndersGame — 2008-08-20T15:35:02+00:00

keithblume2 wrote:
For the two player variant, during set up, cities receive 1 less goods cube per city, with a minimum of one goods cube per city (for example a city with the number "3" would receive two cubes and a city with the number "1" would receive one cube).
In another thread there's been quite some discussion about whether or not the amount of cubes need to be reduced for 2 or 3 player games:

Reduced Goods Cubes for 2 or 3 players?
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/289577

I corresponded with the game designer Glenn Drover, who gave a slightly different answer than Keith Blume, when I asked about the two and three player variants:
Glenn Drover wrote:
In Rails of Europe there is no reduction of cubes. The game was actually designed to play well with fewer players.

Image

EndersGame — 2008-08-20T13:47:43+00:00

Example of a seven-link train (for the black player) from Amsterdam to Naples

Thread: Re: Reduced Goods Cubes for 2 or 3 players?

EndersGame — 2008-08-20T05:00:33+00:00

I have corresponded with the game designer Glenn Drover, who gave the following answer:
In Rails of Europe there is no reduction of cubes. The game was actually designed to play well with fewer players.

Image

EndersGame — 2008-08-20T04:19:51+00:00

Italian link: a connection between Rome and Naples, in the closing stages of a game.

Thread: Re: The color curse continues!

EndersGame — 2008-08-19T19:03:50+00:00

I have the international edition of Railroad Tycoon and the purple/blue/black cities are quite easily distinguished. The quality of the Rails of Europe board is far superior overall, but for some reason the blue of Moscow is quite hard to distinguish from the black of the other cities. So for me it's more of a problem with the Rails of Europe expansion than it is with the original American board.

Our solution: we put blue poker chips under the blue cities, and use Risk bits for the blue goods cubes.

]]>
As a result, the blue cities and blue goods are very clearly distinguished from the black and the purple ones.

]]> . ]]>

It's ironic that while the designers perhaps avoided having green and red cities since these are easily confused by those who are color blind, the lack of clear distinction between blue/purple/black can cause similar problems, even for those of us who are not color blind.

Thread: Re: Define city

EndersGame — 2008-08-19T18:55:03+00:00

This also has implications for the "City Growth" card, which states that two random cubes be added to a "city" - i.e. can this also be applied to gray unurbanized locations? The FAQ says yes. For more discussion see here:

What defines a "city"?
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/334220

Image

EndersGame — 2008-08-19T18:17:18+00:00

Solving the color problem: a completed two player game using blue poker chips and blue Risk bits to distinguish the blue cities and goods from the purple/black ones.

Image

EndersGame — 2008-08-19T17:49:37+00:00

St Petersburg!!! Beautiful artwork and components in the North-East

Thread: Re: Keeping track of major lines accomplished

EndersGame — 2008-08-19T17:48:56+00:00

KlydeFrog wrote:
In the future I think we’ll, instead of using beads, actually set a train from the player who accomplished the line on the board.
This is precisely the way we do it, as pictured here:

]]>

Image

EndersGame — 2008-08-19T17:41:23+00:00

Rewards in Naples: A typical Service Bounty card

Image

EndersGame — 2008-08-19T17:39:45+00:00

A major line complete: Berlin to Rome

Thread: Re: So where are these player order auction rules?

PrairieBoy — 2008-08-19T16:43:18+00:00

EndersGame wrote:
Surely the amount of times where you'd be willing to pay money in order to go second or third wouldn't be often enough to justify the added complexity of a complete turn order auction every turn? Or is that not the case?

The "added complexity" isn't that great if people don't muck about for the sake of mucking about. When it's a straight ahead auction for first place people bid for first or drop out, and it takes no longer than the original bidding system.

As for the need for the system... in a four or five player game the bid for second gets heated about 30% of the time which is enough to convince me that it's worth it.

The biggest concern that I had in trying it out was the time factor. So far everyone in our groups agrees that the time added is negligible and increases the enjoyment of the game.

Edit: And yes it works on the American map too!

Thread: Re: 2 Players

EndersGame — 2008-08-19T15:59:31+00:00

squash wrote:
During the game set-up, I decided to go with the Railroad Tycoon 2-player rule of putting one less goods cube in each city, with the single-cube cities still getting their one cube of course.
This is how we played the two-player game also, and we found that it resulted in a very close game. Do you have any thoughts about the pros or cons of reducing the number of goods cubes?

Aelf wrote:
Do you have any hints for tightening the 2 player experience?
Aelf, did you play with reduced cubes or the regular amount? We found that with reduced cubes the game is very tight, especially in the first half, so if you might want to try with reduced cubes if that was not how you played. I figure that the game might be better without reduced cubes, but perhaps playtesting will result in a different conclusion. See more discussion on that point here:

Reduced Goods Cubes for 2 or 3 players?
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/2569511#2569511

Thread: Re: How does this play with two?

EndersGame — 2008-08-19T15:51:01+00:00

WhiteKong wrote:
Removing one cube per city would have helped, too.
Why do you think that removing one cube per city would have helped?

I have played a two-player game with reduced cubes, but wondered if it makes the early stages of the game too difficult, and the later stages of the game too short. For more discussion on whether reducing cubes in the two player game improves it, see here:
Reduced Goods Cubes for 2 or 3 players?
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/2569511#2569511

Overall, however, I found it was excellent as a two-player game.

Thread: Re: So where are these player order auction rules?

EndersGame — 2008-08-19T15:42:30+00:00

Maybe I haven't played Railroad Tycoon or Rails of Europe enough yet, but it seems to me that the primary reward of the turn order goes to the person who plays first, so there can be a good incentive to want to go first. But an incentive to want to be second or third? Surely the amount of times where you'd be willing to pay money in order to go second or third wouldn't be often enough to justify the added complexity of a complete turn order auction every turn? Or is that not the case?

Thread: Re: turn order

EndersGame — 2008-08-19T15:37:14+00:00

There's much more extensive discussion about the auction for turn order in this thread:

So where are these player order auction rules?
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/289885

Thread: Re: Reduced Goods Cubes for 2 or 3 players?

EndersGame — 2008-08-19T15:25:49+00:00

Is there any more word on this question? Has anyone tried playing both ways, and can make any comments about you found it changes the game?

We had a similar question when playing Rails of Europe for the first time:
a) Argument in favour of reducing cubes: The Rails of Europe rules clearly state that the Railroad Tycoon rules apply unless mentioned otherwise. Since nothing is mentioned about reducing cubes for 2 or 3 players, a technical interpretation of the rules would imply that with Rails of Europe, cubes also need to be reduced for 2 or 3 players. If this is incorrect, I would also like to hear something official about this. Has Glenn Drover been asked about this, or stated anything about it?
b) Argument against reducing cubes: As Keith Blume points out, Europe is a different and tighter map, so reducing the cubes shouldn't be necessary. Reducing the cubes will make the game too difficult in the early stages, and too short in the closing stages, because with less cubes on the board the end will be triggered more quickly, and the long-link deliveries play less of a role.

I have some tentative thoughts about how the reduced cubes would change the game:

1. Reduced cubes for 2/3 players makes the game much harder in the early stages.
In our first game (two players) we did reduce the amount of cubes, and money was very tight and we found it very challenging in the first half of the game. There are not as many cities of each colour as there are on the US map, so there are fewer options for transporting cubes, and with less cubes on the board there are less possibilities for one-link and two-link deliveries at the beginning of the game. The lower income track also makes this more difficult. If reduced cubes were not used, I expect that more cubes would be available for delivering, and this would make it slightly easier in the early stages of the game.

2. Reduced cubes for 2/3 players makes the game shorter in the later stages.
Since there are less cubes in cities, they are emptied more quickly. If the amount of cubes are not reduced, then it will take longer for cities to be emptied and for the end of the game to be triggered. As a result, with reduced cubes, transporting goods over distances with a large amount of links happens more infrequently and plays less of a role in a game. I expect that if the amount of cubes is not reduced, perhaps the deliveries over longer distances with more links will play more of a role?

I look forward to trying without reducing the amount of cubes next time I play, to make the first part of the game slightly easier and to make the closing stages of the game slightly longer. But meanwhile I welcome any further discussion and comments on the above thoughts, since it is based on only one play.

Edit: In a later post, Keith Blume suggests that a future edition of Rails of Europe will include mention of 2 players, and states that there are reduced cubes for the 2 player game, but not for the 3 player game. See here and here.

Thread: Re: Where to get this in the UK?

brokasaphasia — 2008-08-19T01:18:46+00:00

The "boardstar.net" link that Matthew posted just above was from Eagle Games suggesting that they would have their U.K. map available at GenCon this year. I don't think that happened?

As a side note, my FLGS (after much annoying badgering by me) just re-stocked a "bunch" of Rails of Europe. I saw at least 6 or so when I picked up my copy. However, none of the online sources I usually check still has any back in stock:
Funagain
Thoughthammer
Boardsnbits
Coolstuffinc
etc.

I'm a happy gamer again

Thread: Re: Where to get this in the UK?

grumblesmurf — 2008-08-18T09:52:39+00:00

AFAIK Rails of Britain (or whatever it's called) isn't due until 2009. Again, SFAIK Rails of Europe is awaiting a reprint which IIRC was due fairly shortly - Septemberish?

I've been busy waiting for it to come out to get it back in stock again.

Thread: Re: RRT on an AoS map

blueatheart — 2008-08-16T05:29:32+00:00

Ceej wrote:
A very good review that I simply can't agree with overall. I think my main disconnect with you is regarding the randomness, which seems to be the root of your two major complaints about RoE. I found the randomness in RoE to be just about right for the level and length of the game - just enough to provide some variation in how the game plays out, without dictating how it plays out because some random events are so much deeper in impact than others.

Whereas I believe the level of randomness present in RRT is about right. I really think that the level of strategy and length of the game is fit for a game with less randomness to it. Randomness is not the only source of variation in a game - see Wabash Cannonball, Imperial, or a myriad of other games for examples of this.

There do exist games which would be stagnant without randomness; a large percentage of these are more due to poor design or being more "family friendly" in nature.

Anyway, I find the map to be too tight for the amount of randomness present, while being too difficult for the amount of fun present. Aside from occasional usage as a "stepping stone" from RRT to AoS, I will be hard-pressed to really play this frequently. If AoS proves too difficult/unpopular, this will be a handy alternative.

Thread: Re: RRT on an AoS map

Ceej — 2008-08-16T01:39:37+00:00

A very good review that I simply can't agree with overall. I think my main disconnect with you is regarding the randomness, which seems to be the root of your two major complaints about RoE. I found the randomness in RoE to be just about right for the level and length of the game - just enough to provide some variation in how the game plays out, without dictating how it plays out because some random events are so much deeper in impact than others.

Thread: RRT on an AoS map

blueatheart — 2008-08-13T00:11:57+00:00

I was really excited to get Rails of Europe, a map which was a little smaller, and rumored to be a tighter game than Railroad Tycoon. The game certainly lived up to this rumor, and I find it to play like it is halfway between RRT and Age of Steam. Is this a good thing, or a bad thing?

]]>

Components

The components are simply a board and some cards. The board looks nice, albeit a bit odd due to the color of the ocean. Instead of the blue/purple issue, there is now a blue/black issue, not so pronounced as before. The cards are decent enough, they feel the same as the RRT cards, so any issues you might have had with those, you will have with these. The best addition is the player aid cards, with actions on one side and major lines on the other. If you are playing RoE, you'd probably better know the actions very well, as the game is more difficult, but I find these cards very handy a.) for new players when playing RRT (player aid side), and b.) for new players playing RoE (major lines side).

]]>

Aside from this, you use all components from RRT, which are very nice, and I have reviewed elsewhere.

My one main gripe is that they did not include European train cards with this. While redundant, they would have added a nice bit of extra flavor for this map.

The last good thing is that this all fits in the RRT box perfectly. Bring one box, have two options!

]]>

Rules/Gameplay

The rules are, unfortunately, not laid out very well. The information given covers nearly all the new inclusions, but not auctions. For a player getting this game without BGG as a reference, the Player order thing must be confusing. Even for me, this is a point of confusion and consternation. We tend to play it with RRT-esque auction rules, where the high bidder is the only one who pays, but players pass in a certain order dictating their turn order (as opposed to RRT, in which the high bidder pays, and the turns go around in a circle). I have played occasionally with AoS auctioning rules (high bidder pays full, first to pass pays nothing, all others pay half), with mixed results - mostly people just pass more. This is something which should have been playtested more before released, and at least made mention of in the rulebook.

So how does the game itself play? We'll assume the "high bidder pays, no others pay, but pass in turn order" auction style.

I rather dislike most of the new cards, but not all. The city charter and capital charter cards are silly, and really just feel weird. I believe they are meant to create further conflict in the central region (where only 2 people ever really go, anyway). The Passenger line (deliver 4 different colors to cities) replaces the "first to engine level 4" starting card, which is a great starting card. The tunnel engineer is a necessity in such a mountainous game.

The instructions indicate to take two Baron cards and discard one as a new rule, but this is something I've done since RRT. The new Baron cards fit very well with this map, the changes are well-done.

The game ends with less empty city markers, but is not necessarily a shorter game. One will commonly wind up with 8-10 shares, as opposed to a common 2-5 shares in RRT (although I've heard of a player winning RRT with 30+ shares). This makes the game feel more difficult, as money is constantly an issue. The maximum income is lower than RRT by a few dollars, as well. And it is *always* painful to take another share, even if everyone else has quite a few.

Having the Major Lines not come up randomly is a wonderful thing, and makes the game flow more towards accomplishing those lines for a guaranteed bonus, rather than a hopeful one.

Lastly, Athens seems to be a nearly useless place, unless the cubes can align *just* so. It is similar to New Orleans in RRT, but is more difficult to get to, and without as much of a reward. It feels out of place in the game.

And we get to my main issue with the game: it feels like a combination of RRT and AoS. The game is more difficult, more shares are taken, you must think much more about what you are doing, rather than using pretty well-defined routes a la RRT, which gives it the feel of an AoS map. But there are still random cards being pulled up, random cubes coming out when you develop a city, and a few other elements from RRT which made the game a bit "lighter."

In the end, the game feels like RRT on an AoS map. The two don't mesh particularly well, unfortunately. While playing, I am constantly wondering why I'm not playing either RRT or AoS. RoE in itself is not bad, it just doesn't have any of the best elements from either of the two predecessors. I have expressed this comment to players who enjoy both of those games, and gotten mostly agreement.

Fun/Randomness/Luck

A word on randomness. I tend to hate randomness in a game, and it must be a very fun game or a very short game to make me want to play it again.

A word on “fun.” By fun, I am referring to how enjoyable the game is in the time that it takes to play. Some games would be fun if the game took half an hour, but since they take 3, they are no longer any fun. Some games are so fun, they would continue being fun for 3x as long as it takes to play. Sometimes this is characterized by the desire to play again immediately.

This is one of the major issues I have with the game: the fun no longer supersedes the randomness, as it does in both RRT and AoS. The fun has turned into the type of fun found in AoS (which is more about managing a struggle against the game than building up the engine), while retaining the randomness of RRT. This in effect hurts the fun I have in struggling against the game, as a random effect can help or hinder this process.

The levels here are just off for my taste.

*note* 5 stars on fun is if you finish and immediately want to play another game - something which probably won't happen with games longer than an hour. 5 Randomness is simply rolling dice, 0 randomness is entirely predetermined, 1/2 is no randomness, but not a labyrinth/Candyland, either.

Fun:
Randomness:

Plays best with...

The sweet spot here is about 3-4. 2 people in the center, one heading south, the other east. One person in Spain, and one in Poland/Russia seems to provide a good spread on the board, and providing conflict at interesting times. 5 gets crowded and can leave a spot more open for one player who can do sufficiently better as a result; 2 doesn't provide much opportunity for conflict (assuming you extrapolate 9 Empty City markers unofficially) - although could be better than 2 in RRT.

Another note: 5 stars means the game plays best with this, all other stars are relative amounts.

2:
3:
4:
5:

Conclusion

If you enjoy RRT but not AoS, chances are you will like this game. if you like both of them, chances are you won't, and will find it somewhat lacking.

I personally love playing RRT with newer players, or for a more relaxed game with some fun engine-building. AoS is great for some real, difficult/brain-burning decisions with players who are able to play something more difficult. RoE might fit a good spot for getting some newer players to play something very familiar but more difficult before moving on to AoS, but I would rather pull out either of the two other games rather than RoE, any day. While I've had a few good experiences with this game, and the game itself has some very good qualities, it will likely not be hitting the table very frequently in the future.

If you find AoS too difficult for you, or don't like it for some other reason, but find RRT too easy, RoE may very well be exactly what you want in a game.

]]>

Thread: Re: [Review] Rails of Europe

Arcadious — 2008-08-12T17:24:57+00:00

Myrdin T Sasnak wrote:
Thanks for the great review. I hope this helps RT gain in popularity. I think it is unfairly dismissed by some. RoE improves a great game and makes it greater. They are both amongst my favorite games and I also hope there are more expansions in store. Rails of Britain? Rails of the Old West?I can't find the thread now, but I had read something about how they were planning on reprinting the RRT base game, but with a map of Mexico, and release an improved US map as an expansion. It sounded like they were going to print the Mexico map on paper rather then a board (like most wargames) to reduce the cost.

Edit (found the thread): http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/325102

Thread: Re: [Review] Rails of Europe

prof_cunning — 2008-08-12T16:50:52+00:00

Nice review. The main issue that we have found with Rails of Europe is that there is far more conflict than the original game, due to less space on the board. I play with non-aggressive players who like to do their own thing and avoid everyone else, which is possible with the original game (unless you're in the North-East), but much more difficult with the new version.

I think that the smaller board is much better, as we have very seldom had a table that can accommodate the original board, and with overhanging someone inevitably jogs the table and chaos results. City and capital charters have not been that popular so far (the city charters are all for grey cities), apart from the strategy to keep putting new cubes on the chartered city, which sometimes works well.

I will say that when I buy an expansion I like things to add to the original game, and not replace. Potential buyers should be aware that the "expansion" is really a "replacement". However, it does add some longevity to RT.

Thread: Re: [Review] Rails of Europe

Myrdin T Sasnak — 2008-08-12T15:16:00+00:00

Thanks for the great review. I hope this helps RT gain in popularity. I think it is unfairly dismissed by some. RoE improves a great game and makes it greater. They are both amongst my favorite games and I also hope there are more expansions in store. Rails of Britain? Rails of the Old West?

Thread: Re: Reprint Arrival Date?

HisDivineShadow — 2008-08-12T15:08:33+00:00

Ahhh! *fingers crossed*

Thread: Re: [Review] Rails of Europe

HisDivineShadow — 2008-08-12T15:08:05+00:00

Nice review.

Now I'm REALLY annoyed I didn't pick this up when I had the opportunity!

Thread: [Review] Rails of Europe

TomVasel — 2008-08-12T13:03:30+00:00

When one designer continues to design games in the same series, it's a neat thing to watch; as the games get better and better. I'm in the camp that Railroad Tycoon took the great game Age of Steam and made it more accessible to most folks, adding in great components and more fun. Railroad Tycoon wasn't perfect, but I still wanted to see some expansions for it - especially as Age of Steam seems to be the most expansion-oriented game ever. Finally, Rails of Europe (Eagle Games, 2008 - Glenn Drover) has been released, which is technically an expansion for Railroad Tycoon but can almost be called a slight upgrade as well.

Rails of Europe does an excellent job at tightening up the board a bit (as well as the obvious fact that the map changes to Europe) and adds a few other changes that make it slightly superior to the original game. I can play either game and be satisfied, but I certainly prefer the European version. Rails over Europe is hopefully the first expansion in a line of games that takes the Railroad Tycoon system and improves and expands it.

So what's in the expansion?

- The map is Europe, a noticeable change from the original game map, which was the Eastern section of the United States of America. More importantly, the board is about 2/3 the size of the original board, which while still covering a large amount of the table is slightly easier to manage. The board is also a single piece (less shifting!), although it still folds inward with those annoying little "valleys" that it creates. Extra space is included on the scoring track, making it easier to move the scoring pieces around. There's a lot less wasted space on the board (although Great Britain is sadly ignored). The board is a little clearer with regard to colors, as it is easier to tell blue and purple hexes apart. At the same time, in poor lighting, the blue and black hexes can be occasionally confused. The map has much less of a sprawl than the previous one did, and there is no "high income" zone, like the far northeast in the first map. Everything is evenly spread out, with more mountains, and fewer connections.
- Railroad Barons are dealt to each player (the same as the original game), but this time players are dealt two and can choose between them. While they are very similar to the original Tycoons (points for the most links, the most consecutive links, etc.), having the choice is nice - especially if one of the Barons is a play style you don't wish to use. If you don't like either one, well, that's tough luck; but one of them should be interesting and possibly enough to build a strategy around.
- Major Rail Lines are handled completely differently than in the original game. Instead of players waiting until a specific Railroad Operation card is turned over, they can complete any of the five major lines (all listed on six convenient Major Line cards). Players simply have to connect the two cities on the cards (not an easy task) to score the points. Since players can start attempting to connect the cities from turn one, this (along with the Baron cards) helps determine a player's strategy.
- The game comes with twenty-nine new Railroad Operation cards, which take the place of the original deck. Many of these are very similar to the original cards with a few interesting additions. City Charters choose a city (a smaller one), and the player who takes that card is the only player who may build a link into that city. As you can imagine, if these cards show up early in the game, the demand (especially in a five player game) is quite high. Capital Charters are similar to hotels, except that they give a player one point for every link built into a particular city. These are extremely powerful, which is why they are limited to only one per player. At the same time, they allow for some interesting player interactions, as other players may deliberately build tracks in such a way as to limit the number of connections into a city. Tunnel Engineer cards cut the price of a future build in half for mountains and ridges. Considering how many mountains are on the map, this card is also quickly snapped up when it appears.
- Interestingly, the rules about "following" rivers are no longer in place. Instead, if a hex has any water at all, it's a water hex. This makes the game simpler, I suppose; but we still play with the rules from the original edition.

Players will need the money (if you haven't replaced it with superior poker chips), trains, tiles, and other physical pieces from the original game; and everything fits fairly well into the original box, although I have no idea how future expansions will fit.

The rules are fairly simple and short, although a few things could have been made clearer. For example, the rules about major lines are under the "Strategy" section, which could easily be missed by folks who don't want to read that section. Teaching the game is simple; it's the same thing as Railroad Tycoon - most changes are minor. Regardless, the game feels like a much-polished version of the original game. While I enjoy Railroad Tycoon quite a bit (it's knocked Age of Steam rather far down my list of enjoyable games), I think I prefer this version.

If I want to play a wide, sprawling game, with six players (since the expansion only covers up to five), then the original game is what I'm looking for. However, a tighter, faster, different animal emerges with the new map (twenty-six fewer cities), and the major links and simplified rules go a far way into making this expansion practically Railroad Tycoon 1.2. Fans of the original will easily enjoy the expansion; and hopefully, it's the first in a long line of expansions to come.

Tom Vasel
"Real men play board games"
www.thedicetower.com

Thread: Re: Reprint Arrival Date?

matthew.marquand — 2008-08-12T12:52:25+00:00

Flix wrote:
Hm, the reprint has just arrived in my German FLGS so it shouldn't take too long for you either.

Thanks!

Thread: Re: Reprint Arrival Date?

Flix — 2008-08-12T12:51:02+00:00

Hm, the reprint has just arrived in my German FLGS so it shouldn't take too long for you either.

Thread: Reprint Arrival Date?

matthew.marquand — 2008-08-12T12:15:47+00:00

I've got an order stuck at Game Surplus for a copy of Rails of Europe and another slow to market reprint, Galaxy Trucker.

Anybody know when RoE is scheduled for being available again?

Thread: Re: Where to get this in the UK?

brokasaphasia — 2008-08-09T22:06:10+00:00

HisDivineShadow wrote:
I found confirmation (of a sort) on the Eagle Games site that a "Rails of the UK" board is coming out...
There doesn't seem to be any update on this information in a long while. It would be interesting to see if they do in fact bring a copy to GenCon next week. I'm also really interested to hear when Rails of Europe will be reprinted.

Hopefully someone going to GenCon can bug the Eagle games guys about RRT and RoE.

Thread: Re: Where to get this in the UK?

HisDivineShadow — 2008-08-09T09:38:26+00:00

I'm kicking myself now, because I almost got it when it first came out.

Ah well, I found confirmation (of a sort) on the Eagle Games site that a "Rails of the UK" board is coming out:

http://boardster.net/eaglegames/viewtopic.php?t=29&sid=a3afd...

I'll just have to wait the months until that comes out.

Thread: Re: Where to get this in the UK?

Johan — 2008-08-08T18:00:38+00:00

I got mine from Shire Games some time back, but they don't seem to have them, and neither does any of the other shops I checked. It does seem like Milan-Spiele.de has stock though in case you don't mind ordering from Germany.

As for the expansion itself, I do like it and think it improves the base game (although I've only played twice so far so take that with a pinch of salt).

Thread: Where to get this in the UK?

HisDivineShadow — 2008-08-07T23:55:47+00:00

I stupidly left it too long before I tried to get this expansion - and now I can't find it anywhere (in the UK).

Does anyone know somewhere to get it?

On the other hand, I heard rumours that "Rails of Britain" was going to come out; has anyone else heard that? Maybe I should just hang on for that?

Thread: Re: Pardon me boy, is this the Transylvania station?

eightbit — 2008-08-07T02:45:42+00:00

brokasaphasia wrote:
ooogene wrote:
I'm hoping to get Rails of Europe at GenCon this year
Good luck with that. I have been unsuccessful in finding this in stock ANYWHERE and both Eagle Games and Fred Distribution have failed to answer my email questions about re-printing.
The marketplace here has a few copies of it, I've been eying buying one.

Thread: Re: Pardon me boy, is this the Transylvania station?

brokasaphasia — 2008-08-07T00:10:37+00:00

Great session report! I love this game so I was an easy sell, but it was still fun to read.

ooogene wrote:
I'm hoping to get Rails of Europe at GenCon this year
Good luck with that. I have been unsuccessful in finding this in stock ANYWHERE and both Eagle Games and Fred Distribution have failed to answer my email questions about re-printing.

Fred Distribution's website says "FRED Distribution does not stock this edition of this title."

Thread: Re: Pardon me boy, is this the Transylvania station?

rholzgrafe — 2008-08-04T04:28:07+00:00

Rails of Europe has been growing on me. While I still prefer the original's big board, greater length, and Western Link feature, RoE definitely gives a tight game. I raised my opinion a notch (and it was already high) after a dynamite 5-player session a couple of weeks ago.

Thread: Re: Pardon me boy, is this the Transylvania station?

ooogene — 2008-08-03T22:20:48+00:00

Great session report! We've been playing the original quite a bit lately and have been playing with the Major lines already out. I'm not usually the type to customize rules to games, but this is one thing that really improves RRT. I'm hoping to get Rails of Europe at GenCon this year, since I know it will get quite a few plays, a couple of my non-gamer friends are really hooked on the original.

Thread: Pardon me boy, is this the Transylvania station?

manowarplayer — 2008-08-03T19:53:08+00:00

I've had this expansion for RRT since it first came out early this year but I had not had a chance to play it until last night. Having just played the standard RRT the night before, I was motivated to pull this out and finally give it a go.

The rules are only slighty different so we were able to jump right in after a brief explanation of the changes.

My two Railroad Baron cards were for the fastest locomotive or the most money. Feeling like I would have a better shot at being ahead with money, I kept that one.

The initial outlay of cards had a service bounty to Lisbon and my friend Jeff won the auction and went for that where as my wife and I both centered around Paris and Berlin. Jeff jumped out to an early lead gaining 8 points over the first turn where Mary and I had only 3 or 4.

My goal was to try and get some of the Major Line bonus in the center of the board and it appeared that Mary had the same goal. After a few turns I was able to upgrade to level 3 first and I grabbed the 3 link bonus while Mary managed to get the Passenger bonus of 4 different color goods.

Jeff was kind of floundering in Spain as he had many links coming in to Madrid, but not many cubes to deliver. Still, he managed to hold onto his lead for the early part of the game. Mary and I were in direct competition for links in the center of the board with her favoring the eastern half and me on the western.

Rails of Europe is a bit more streamlined that Railroad Tycoon and the end game can sneak up on you fairly quickly. After 5 or so turns, I had grabbed the Major Line bonuses for Rome/Berlin and Marseille/Amsterdam. Jeff had the Madrid and Milan Major Line and Mary the one for Moscow/Vienna. I also grabbed a service bounty to Naples and had upgraded to a level 5 train where everyone else was a 3.

With all that, you would think that I would have had a comfortable lead, but our scores were actually very close still. After a few more turns I managed to pull away a bit, but by then other problems started to develop.

Cube placement was now killing me as I needed to be a level 6 AND build several more links to maximize my points, where Mary had grabbed a Hotel in Vienna and was able link to the various smaller eastern European cities that had black cubes. She upgraded to a Level 4 engine and was earning 4 or 5 points for each delivery - gaining on me by 1 or 2 with each delivery compared to what I could do.

At this point, I had a 10 point lead over her so I triggered the end game hoping to finish the game before she caught me. She had better income than I and was able to outbid me for turn order and grabbed the New Industry card that I really wanted and converted Minsk to a purple city. It turned out her cube draw was perfect as it gave her two more cubes to deliver for 3 and 4 points.

I needed to Industrialize as well and so I made Essen-Ruhr into a yellow city to deliver the 3 yellow cubes that had been sitting in Rome the whole game. As my 1st action was to Industrialize, I could only make 2 of the deliveries for 5 points each. I was gaining on her again by 1 or 2 points, but I knew it was going to be close once shares and Railroad Baron cards came into play.

At the end of the game, I had 9 shares to her 4 which put her 3 behind me. I virtually had no money at this point and she had quite a bit, so I did not get my bonus. If she either had most money or fewest shares she had me. She flipped over her card... Fewest Shares and jumped up 6 points to beat me by 3 points!

It was so close! Had I kept the other of my two Railroad Baron cards (Fastest Engine) I would have also got 6 points and I would have won. Jeff surprised us both by having the Most Spanish Cities bonus and came with 10 points of me.

Overall the game took 2 hours, 15 minutes to play (with several interuptions) and we all agreed it was a great game. The game goes a little faster with the tighter board and the Major Line bonuses being on the board and not card based make it a bit more strategic when you are building links.

I'll definately be playing this one more.

Thread: Re: Cyberboard gamebox submitted for posting

p38_Lightning — 2008-07-31T19:02:07+00:00

Cyberboard is I do a turn, send you the file then you do a turn and send, right?

Seems like it would be a hard way to play this. Is there a VASAL module for this?

Thread: Re: Define city

Flix — 2008-07-13T21:42:56+00:00

jurgenaut wrote:
Hello.

I guess this is pretty obvious to some, but when counting cities for Alexander Lyman Holley, are white towns also considered cities?

Absolutely! Just because they're white, they aren't less valuable for end-game scoring purposes than cities of other colors.

Enjoy,
Flix

Thread: Define city

jurgenaut — 2008-07-13T18:46:01+00:00

Hello.

I guess this is pretty obvious to some, but when counting cities for Alexander Lyman Holley, are white towns also considered cities?

I suppose the reason we're asking is that when you urbanize a white town, it _becomes_ a "new city", but that would make the spanish baron somewhat tricky as you would have to urbanize the two white towns to get the bonus.

/Jurgenaut

Thread: Re: Rails of Europe - Room for Five

mark.gamer — 2008-07-01T21:25:51+00:00

The times we've played with it have seen connections made to Edinbrugh and Dublin in the late game as resources become tight and options to ship long distances (for anything but yellow) open up.

Thread: Re: My Take on Rails of Europe

cmcdougall — 2008-06-25T11:37:24+00:00

I love that comment re NE. The point has always been made when I have played and more often than not one person is left alone in the NE. I think making that comment before a game causes players to start second guessing each other before a single track is even laid (which is great IMO). You can literally see each player thinking cunning thoughts after such a comment i.e. "if everyone else is going NE I'll have that lovely cubically rich midwest all to myself ahaaa". You then find yourself with plenty of neighbours in the middle and one player creaming it in the NE. Once someone starts in the NE I actually feel some players are relucant to go in as if they will lose face.

Thread: Re: My Take on Rails of Europe

ejcarter — 2008-06-17T19:13:49+00:00

That point was made in our group, too.

Thread: Re: Is it shorter than the original RRT?

MrWeasely — 2008-06-15T05:24:01+00:00

Not shorter.
Just more streamlined and less 'gotcha'-ish.

Thread: Re: Rails of Europe - Room for Five

DocD — 2008-06-14T01:57:26+00:00

Looks like a very interesting variant. I was wondering about doing something like this the moment I saw the map.

However, I'm curious as to how this variant has been working out. I don't see much "profit" in going further than London. I mean all of those water hexes are expensive to pay for and there are only two gray cities there to work with. England just seems too expensive to go after until late game, and it looks like it would help the leader more than anyone else.
Am I wrong?

Thread: Re: issuing shares to get cash

ermd — 2008-06-12T20:30:35+00:00

Thanks, that was as I suspected. I noted that there are almost no references to routine rules of RRT made in RoE and that there must have been a reason that this one was specifically mentioned.

Thread: Re: issuing shares to get cash

keithblume2 — 2008-06-12T13:20:03+00:00

Hi Bruce,

Scott is correct. We wanted to move away from the situation where people were issuing shares during the end game to try and get most money. That was not the intent of the original rule from RRT.

Keith

Thread: Re: issuing shares to get cash

qzhdad — 2008-06-11T23:40:33+00:00

No, shares may only be issued as needed.

Thread: issuing shares to get cash

ermd — 2008-06-11T23:25:44+00:00

My interpretation of the rules for issuing new shares in RoE is that one may not issue a share just to get (or keep) more cash on hand. An example is as follows:

Play has $10 on hand, but the track that he wishes to lay costs $15. Is it allowable for him to take 3 shares to pay for the new track and keep his $10?

Thread: Re: Is it shorter than the original RRT?

Schroinger — 2008-06-09T17:32:26+00:00

kalevi1999 wrote:
The original game can be very long, almost 3 hours which is a long gaming time for my group. Does this expansion plays shorter?

For us, RoE is way shorter than RRT.

Thread: Re: Is it shorter than the original RRT?

spearjr — 2008-06-09T12:30:06+00:00

I don't think RoE is shorter, but my group plays RRT in 1½-2 hrs.