Chicago Express | BoardGameGeek

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: How does everyone feel about the 3 companies out of stock end game condition?

jrebelo — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:35:55 +0000

The game doesn't need to be longer. It's supposed to be quick and very tight. Every turn is incredibly valuable. Thus game length control is an important factor. If players could not influence game length so much, there would be fewer ways to play the game and then it would be a different game entirely (and lesser). This rule, as Costas said, basically makes this game what it is.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: How does everyone feel about the 3 companies out of stock end game condition?

QBert80 — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:25:11 +0000

by QBert80

I've always felt the same way but assumed it was because I am not very good at the game.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: How does everyone feel about the 3 companies out of stock end game condition?

blueatheart — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:16:14 +0000

by blueatheart

IMHO, the game narrative is concise and yet lengthy with the endgame condition. It is tightly worked. If it were 4 companies (base game), many games would go much longer, the auctions would have a different focus, the starting moneys would have to be changed, etc. etc.

There is a large amount of manipulations, of development of incentives, of creating incentives for other players, as the game progresses. The game typically ends with options remaining for several of the companies, actions not taken regretted slightly. I've rarely (once or twice) seen a game end with all players null actioning out of lack of viable options, and those were new players who seriously mis-managed game length (they wanted the game to end swiftly, but it went much longer than they had imagined - and the games ended with four or even all five companies running out). With more companies running out of stock as an end condition, this would happen even with better play, and the game would be less interesting.

I can't imagine the WC/CE system becoming any more elegant in terms of it's concise narrative, personally.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: How does everyone feel about the 3 companies out of stock end game condition?

rockusultimus — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:56:35 +0000

by rockusultimus

I feel that the entire game revolves around this condition. I'd say 80% of our games end because of this condition, probably more.

This game is all about controlling when the game will end.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: How does everyone feel about the 3 companies out of stock end game condition?

junction — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:54:28 +0000

by junction

A major key to winning the game is controlling the length of the game. If you want the game continue for an additional round or beyond, you can use Null Actions to limit the number of shares auctioned in the round.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: How does everyone feel about the 3 companies out of stock end game condition?

drunkenKOALA — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:53:31 +0000

by drunkenKOALA

I agree. As is the game really is won in the opening.

Thread: Chicago Express:: General:: How does everyone feel about the 3 companies out of stock end game condition?

shadow9d9 — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:44:23 +0000

by shadow9d9

I've found that it is fairly easy to meet this end game condition, considering the game starts with 2 red, 3 blue, and 4 green shares after the first auction... also if any rail hits chicago, wabash could go very easily.

Games tend to end way too fast imo... especially if you get an early lead and seek to end the game quickly... What are your thoughts? I kinda feel like the requirement should be 4 companies exhausting their stock...

It heavily punishes any beginning mistakes and just ends the game prematurely imo.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Does this game get repetitive?

claudio212 — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:07:29 +0000

by claudio212

clearclaw wrote:
garygarison wrote:
Agreed, but I'm merely pointing out that experienced player playing CE in an experienced way can suffer a loss if everyone else around the table plays the surface game.

Even if all the players are skilled, the game will invariably be thrown by one player's error to another player. The trick is to learn from those experiences so that you can make all new and different mistakes the next time around.

This conversation gets to the heart of why I think this game is very different and therefore very interesting. The groupthink is the beauty. More than any other game I've played, I care less about the outcome (although I'll fry my brain trying to win), and more about the quality of the ~~experience~~ collective effort.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Queen Games Luck Rating

John Bohrer — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:34:04 +0000

by John Bohrer

tuckerotl wrote:
http://www.queen-games.de/index.php?id=5880

Chicago Express:
strategy: 4 out of 5
luck: 3 out of 5
simplicity: 3 out of 5
atmosphere: 4 out of 5

Now it is
luck: 0 out of 5

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Does this game get repetitive?

jrebelo — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:18:58 +0000

by jrebelo

RoyN wrote:
garygarison wrote:
jrebelo wrote:
Having one or more players in the game who don't act in their best interest (whether by choice or inexperience) spoils the game.

A spoiled game would still be palatable if the end result were my winning. Sadly, though, in such a situation, one of my hard driving Chicago-or-bust opponents is typically the victor.

How can you tell them they did something wrong when you are the one that lost?

Well, hopefully they lost as well. If they managed to fluke a win while also making dumb moves, it would be harder to teach.

In most cases, though, there are some pretty obvious glaring mistakes that new players make that once you explain the reason why it wasn't an optimal move, they can understand it. I've taught the game to several new players in the last year and have found some things that come up pretty commonly that serve as good lessons for new players.

A good example is the final round of the game. Enough shares are sold that the game is guaranteed to end this round. Let's assume expands are all used up and there is a single remaining cap action and a single develop action. Joe Blow has the last turn of the game. Very often, Joe Blow (being the generic new player in a game) starts looking at each of "his" companies and finding anywhere he can fit a +2 develop. I'd say probably 80% of the time, a new player assumes this is the obvious action. Sometimes, they'll even do this despite the fact that "their" company won't gain any value per share with a mere $2 increase at that point in the game. Obviously 9 times out of 10, the better choice here would be to capitalise a share in a company which the player has no interest (or very little) for the minimum bid. The player will break even on the share but will hurt every player owning shares in said company by some amount. A final share cap, depending on how holdings sit, can often hurt every other player at the table, which is great.

Another really common thing is you get a player who has $0 left over from the opening auction (bought two shares and spent all cash) and then see that player immediately expand one of "their" companies the first time they get an action. Expanding while capitalise actions still remain is obviously not ideal because other players will target the expanded company and cost the player more than if he had waited. "Most often", the player would have gained more from using a null cap and then forcing the issue on the remaining players to buy shares in anything they can before the opportunity disappears.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Does this game get repetitive?

clearclaw — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:16:34 +0000

by clearclaw

RoyN wrote:
How can you tell them they did something wrong when you are the one that lost?

Easily. The winner will often win due more to other's errors than their own great ability.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Does this game get repetitive?

clearclaw — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:15:42 +0000

by clearclaw

garygarison wrote:
Agreed, but I'm merely pointing out that experienced player playing CE in an experienced way can suffer a loss if everyone else around the table plays the surface game.

Even if all the players are skilled, the game will invariably be thrown by one player's error to another player. The trick is to learn from those experiences so that you can make all new and different mistakes the next time around.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Does this game get repetitive?

garygarison — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:09:03 +0000

by garygarison

Who said anything about "wrong"? Claudio used the word "lazy". I'll accept that.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Does this game get repetitive?

RoyN — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:24:53 +0000

by RoyN

garygarison wrote:
jrebelo wrote:
Having one or more players in the game who don't act in their best interest (whether by choice or inexperience) spoils the game.

A spoiled game would still be palatable if the end result were my winning. Sadly, though, in such a situation, one of my hard driving Chicago-or-bust opponents is typically the victor.

How can you tell them they did something wrong when you are the one that lost?

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Does this game get repetitive?

garygarison — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:30:59 +0000

by garygarison

Agreed, but I'm merely pointing out that experienced player playing CE in an experienced way can suffer a loss if everyone else around the table plays the surface game.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Does this game get repetitive?

claudio212 — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:15:34 +0000

by claudio212

jrebelo wrote:

Meh, I'd rather lose a close, hard-fought game than win a game that a newb handed to me unknowingly.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Does this game get repetitive?

jrebelo — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:57:40 +0000

by jrebelo

Meh, I'd rather lose a close, hard-fought game than win a game that a newb handed to me unknowingly.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Does this game get repetitive?

garygarison — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:20:08 +0000

by garygarison

jrebelo wrote:
Having one or more players in the game who don't act in their best interest (whether by choice or inexperience) spoils the game.

A spoiled game would still be palatable if the end result were my winning. Sadly, though, in such a situation, one of my hard driving Chicago-or-bust opponents is typically the victor.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Does this game get repetitive?

Henkka — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:20:06 +0000

by Henkka

atomzero wrote:
I played this once and liked it a lot, but the game play suggests to me that multiple games could play out in the same manner each time.

Yes, I keep on losing.. :cry:

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Does this game get repetitive?

jrebelo — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:08:46 +0000

by jrebelo

+1

This game requires players who care about winning and learning how to win. Players who can't grasp the deeper aspects of the game and simply see it as 'expand whichever railroad you own the most of' will not only rarely be successful, they will make the game disinteresting to a player who cares about the finer points.

I think CE/WC is a perfect game with players who are at a similar level of skill and all have the right motivation while playing (winning, not having lots of cash). Having one or more players in the game who don't act in their best interest (whether by choice or inexperience) spoils the game.

Learning games with open table talk as you go is the best way to bring weaker players up.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Does this game get repetitive?

claudio212 — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:24:13 +0000

by claudio212

garygarison wrote:
claudio212 wrote:
So, don't play with 'lazy' players who don't care deeply about learning and don't incorporate feedback from prior plays into their approach to future plays. Otherwise, you can get stuck in a red-train-owner-always-wins-in-four dividends rut because people aren't striving to really understand their own best interest.

What, then, is the proper approach when playing with 3 others who are hellbent on each railroad making it to Chicago?

Try treating some games as learning games where you have table talk about moves and their potential effects on the game state - particularly the incentives that are created regarding which trains to improve and how long the game will/should last (in the context of cash positions and incomes). If that doesn't work, have them read http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/4176146#4176146. The whole thread, not just OP. This is one of the best threads that hits some of the mid-game issues. Most others focus on early game positioning via auctions.

If none of that works, play something else. The game just isn't interesting in the situation you describe.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Does this game get repetitive?

garygarison — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:58:19 +0000

by garygarison

claudio212 wrote:
So, don't play with 'lazy' players who don't care deeply about learning and don't incorporate feedback from prior plays into their approach to future plays. Otherwise, you can get stuck in a red-train-owner-always-wins-in-four dividends rut because people aren't striving to really understand their own best interest.

What, then, is the proper approach when playing with 3 others who are hellbent on each railroad making it to Chicago?

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: How to play 4p CE

tryytty — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:31:23 +0000

by tryytty

clearclaw wrote:
tryytty wrote:
Definetely, this is one of basic concepts. From 3rd round and after that capitalizations are in our games mostly for diluting others shares.

Even in and after the fourth round, alliance formation and breakage remains a core concern here. I wonder if we null capitalise more often than you do? We run an average of 1-2 null Capitalises per round.

We have sufficiently low number of null caps. Only if shares are divided very unequally, then there are much more null caps (this is natural consequence). Also in some games there are more null caps in the last rounds, if some players really try to make longer game.

We value dilute effect so highly at least compared to alliances that in many cases null cap is not the best option in our perspective.

Btw, my game in Europemasters was very odd in cap perspective. Winner of the game did make zero caps in whole game and second one make two, which were two last caps in the game. Last one make huge amount of caps (I was 3rd and made of all caps), but did bought only one blue share in first round (by 7). It was very strange game.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Does this game get repetitive?

claudio212 — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:20:40 +0000

by claudio212

I agree with the above posters - that this game has incredible replayability - but with a caveat: only if you play with players that work hard to try and understand the dynamics. This game, for me, defines 'fragile' in that lazy play ruins the game. I say 'lazy' rather than 'poor', because the learning curve on this game is so intense that 'good' play is nearly impossible out of the gate. In fact, most posters who have played 30+ games (I, alas, am not yet one) acknowledge that the more they play, the more they realize how much they have to learn.

So, don't play with 'lazy' players who don't care deeply about learning and don't incorporate feedback from prior plays into their approach to future plays. Otherwise, you can get stuck in a red-train-owner-always-wins-in-four dividends rut because people aren't striving to really understand their own best interest.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: How to play 4p CE

tryytty — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:07:24 +0000

by tryytty

clearclaw wrote:
tryytty wrote:
clearclaw wrote:
I suspect that Red is so good for your players because they are largely positive sum players rather than zero-sum players.

What do you mean with these? CE is positive sum game.

There is one winner and the rest losers. Any progress made by a player is to the detriment of all other players. Score value is irrelevant except to the degree that it is granular (divisions of $1 for spending). More simply I am quite happy to end the game with only $1 to my name -- as long as the other players then have less.

Ok, I get it now. I guess all good players are zero sum players then.

Btw, I guess lowest winning score has been our games 34. Winner has yellow-green from the setup and red gone to Chicago with 1-1 (I was one of red owners). Then both of owners of red get exactly one Wabash and they think, that other player makes it to Chicago. Eventually none get it Chicago and yellow-green won. But it was interesting situation. If actually one of the red owners has made Wabash to Chicago then other one would have won and vice versa.

At least we have seen, that different groups make CE looking very different. I assume, that everyone in this discussion still stands behind his thoughts. After all discussion I still believe (almost?) all concepts I wrote in original post. Probably some of them does not work, when group dynamic is greatly different compared to most of finnish groups. Anyway I have enjoyed discussions so far.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: How to play 4p CE

clearclaw — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:03:49 +0000

by clearclaw

tryytty wrote:
Definetely, this is one of basic concepts. From 3rd round and after that capitalizations are in our games mostly for diluting others shares.

Even in and after the fourth round, alliance formation and breakage remains a core concern here. I wonder if we null capitalise more often than you do? We run an average of 1-2 null Capitalises per round.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: How to play 4p CE

tryytty — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:41:51 +0000

by tryytty

blueatheart wrote:
The important concept here is that decreasing other player's dividend rates is often as good or better than increasing your own rail.

Definetely, this is one of basic concepts. From 3rd round and after that capitalizations are in our games mostly for diluting others shares. Of course game ending perspective is important. Before 3rd round diluting is also important (especially first dilute has big effect), but shares are so valuable compared to players money, that getting a good share perspective is important.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Does this game get repetitive?

rockusultimus — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:40:01 +0000

by rockusultimus

Excalabur wrote:
The game is all about reacting to what the other players do, and controlling what they do.

Exactly. I've probably played 40 games with the same 3 guys and it never gets repetitive. We've had games end on the 4th dividend and we've even had games (very rarely) go the full 9.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Does this game get repetitive?

Excalabur — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:01:57 +0000

by Excalabur

No. The game is all about reacting to what the other players do, and controlling what they do. The game tends to evolve as the understanding of the various players does, and as they react in a meta sense to the things that become common. Different groups also have different equilibria, so if you play it with different people a different outcome will ensue.

I think it's similar to Container in that way.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Does this game get repetitive?

gesa — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:00:25 +0000

by gesa

atomzero wrote:
I played this once and liked it a lot, but the game play suggests to me that multiple games could play out in the same manner each time. I'd be interested in any of your thoughts, and if this is not the case, I'd like to know why.

Well, I've only played CE a few times, but it seems to me to be the type of game with a lot of variety in play and outcomes. I don't see it becoming repetitive.

Thread: Chicago Express:: General:: Does this game get repetitive?

atomzero — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:48:14 +0000

by atomzero

I played this once and liked it a lot, but the game play suggests to me that multiple games could play out in the same manner each time. I'd be interested in any of your thoughts, and if this is not the case, I'd like to know why.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: How to play 4p CE

clearclaw — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 03:38:55 +0000

by clearclaw

I have been in many game in which Red never put a single cube on the board. In some of them it paid an $8 dividend for the entire game. In some of them it paid a $4 or $3 dividend for the entire game. It really doesn't matter. I've also been in many games in which Red made it to Chicago with only two shares out. The key is not having a strict pattern of one path being high or low risk as no trivial rule is going to work well, not at this very crude level of definition. Instead the key is reading the table before you, the mix of investments, of capital, and of the players.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: How to play 4p CE

Petri — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:15:31 +0000

by Petri

Excalabur wrote:
Tournament scoring systems other than 'winner advances/scores' are always distortionary. I think the WBC system, where the qualifiers are strictly based on ranking rather than score, distort less badly than something based on score, but that's not clear.

Having tried it both ways in a variety of groups, I will agree with the camp of 'P1 should NOT expand the PRR on the first move' people. It does little but put a target on your forehead and assure that the second share will be sold.

The problem is: A red share is likely to be capitalized anyway due to its high initial value (you're very lucky if it isn't even if red doesn't expand as its first action). So the question is - do you want to company which can potentially reach high income and block other companies (which you don't own) or a company, which sits still and gives bad dividends throughout the game?

Of course the correct answer depends on the group: If you play in a group where people don't capitalize red shares aggressively, then you might get away with a different strategy. But try this in any table where I've been playing Chicago Express - it simply doesn't work. If I end up with the red share in the initial auction, I will expand it simply because this is a low-risk strategy - I won't instantly lose the game before the first dividends in any case.

This game seems to play very differently in different groups. In our tables we typically wonder whether all three red shares will be sold before the first dividends or just two. I've never been in a game where the second red share isn't capitalized during the first round - and I've been in several games where the red owner has tried something else than exp(red) with disastrous results...

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: How to play 4p CE

Excalabur — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:29:31 +0000

by Excalabur

Tournament scoring systems other than 'winner advances/scores' are always distortionary. I think the WBC system, where the qualifiers are strictly based on ranking rather than score, distort less badly than something based on score, but that's not clear.

Having tried it both ways in a variety of groups, I will agree with the camp of 'P1 should NOT expand the PRR on the first move' people. It does little but put a target on your forehead and assure that the second share will be sold.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: How to play 4p CE

clearclaw — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:45:17 +0000

by clearclaw

Touko wrote:
It should be pointed out that 'the optimum strategy' can change IF you are interested not only in winning the game. For example, my Finnish fellows here tried to come up with strategies that would give them the best result in average and not just to get the highest percentage to win the game (as in the Europemasters you would get some points from the second and third place as well).

This is a primary reason I don't play tournaments that last more than one round. Multi-round tournaments alter the way contenders play the game and I am not willing to tolerate that.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: How to play 4p CE

blueatheart — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:04:44 +0000

by blueatheart

Touko wrote:
Just one short comment:
clearclaw wrote:
There is one winner and some number of losers. The only goal of the game is to be the winner, ie to make everyone else lose. Making profits is irrelevant and not the goal. Winning is the goal. I have no interest in what your profits are, or how how much your shares are diluted or not, or even what your score is, just so long as I win. There is one winner and the rest lose.

It should be pointed out that 'the optimum strategy' can change IF you are interested not only in winning the game. For example, my Finnish fellows here tried to come up with strategies that would give them the best result in average and not just to get the highest percentage to win the game (as in the Europemasters you would get some points from the second and third place as well).

If you're going to play for second, you're not going to get second place at the end of a tournament.

If there are 4 games of 4 players, where in each game, the 1,2 place get to go on, then there will be 2 games of 4 players (first place table, second place table). Again, taking 1,2, there will be 1 game of 4 players. One of those players has gotten 1st in at least two games. Even if they lose this last game, they will get a prize. Two players have gotten 1st in one, 2nd in one. If they win, they will be up for a prize. The 2nd/2nd player will not be up for a prize unless they get 1st, and then it will only be 2nd or 3rd.

Don't play for second, unless you're at the endgame and it's obvious you're not going to win, but can beat out third. This is extremely rare in CE, and a silly way to play in general.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: How to play 4p CE

Touko — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:48:08 +0000

by Touko

Just one short comment:

clearclaw wrote:
There is one winner and some number of losers. The only goal of the game is to be the winner, ie to make everyone else lose. Making profits is irrelevant and not the goal. Winning is the goal. I have no interest in what your profits are, or how how much your shares are diluted or not, or even what your score is, just so long as I win. There is one winner and the rest lose.

It should pointed out that 'the optimum strategy' can change IF you are interested not only in winning the game. For example, my Finnish fellows here tried to come up with strategies that would give them the best result in average and not just to get the highest percentage to win the game (as in the Europemasters you would get some points from the second and third place as well).

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: How to play 4p CE

blueatheart — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:04:50 +0000

by blueatheart

tryytty wrote:
blueatheart wrote:

NO!!! There is no satisfaction like the following:

P1-14 - Red
P2-15 - Blue
P3-15 - Yellow
P4-14 - Green

P1 Capitalizes Blue for 14. P2 has the bad choice of either buying it for 15, or giving it to P1 or P3. If they buy, they will then null-cap, and P3 will cap Green or Red. If P2 passes, they can then buy a share for 15, P3 will either buy that Blue for 15 (followed by null-cap) (unlikely), or later can buy a share for 14 (probably Green).

(Friend pointed that, but did not want to write in this forum.)

p1 cap blue is maybe worst possible choice in this kind of scenario, if third player will get it. After that p2 and p3 can block together (first standard route and then north in mountain) red and it is possible, that after 1st round p1 has only red share, which future expectations are close to nill. This also means basically p1 is out of game after round one.

Look a little further, P1 is not out of the game!

If P3 takes the Blue share for 15, P2 expands(B), P3 expands(B), P4 can take either another Blue share or a Yellow share out. P2 may win the B share, but would likely not take the Y share. P1 then would capitalize either G (if P4 B & P2 won), or B (if P4 Y & P2 !win).

Red is blocked off, but P1 has a share of Red, and possibly of G.

If P1 didn't win any shares:

Next round:

P1=14+(7/1)=21
P2=0+2*(11/3)=8
P3=0+(11/3)+(5/2)=10
P4=0+(8/1)+(5/2)=14

+/- a couple for expansions, etc. Red has massive buying power in R2. Since it is likely (especially in the type of games you guys seem to play) that P1 will begin R2, they can capitalize and win something @ 14, whatever they want (likely G). Or, given your players' lack of desire to Capitalize at first, they can likely cap something they don't actually want, let P4 take it, and take something they want later on for cheap!

If R is cutoff, it will be (especially for your group) unlikely to be split before R3. P1 will have earned 14-18 off of it, with more rounds still to go, and having not had to waste even a single action on it (maybe one or two in R1, but not at the loss of a "better" action).

P1 is by far and away *not* out of the game!

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: How to play 4p CE

Petri — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:55:07 +0000

by Petri

P3 is in a weak position to begin with (he paid 1-2 too much for yellow). I agree that P1 capitalizing blue is a horrible move for P1. P3 needs to buy the blue share, because otherwise he gives the game to P1.

However, expanding blue would perhaps be a mistake for P2, because P4 (or P1) would then get a capitalization action - and they will capitalize blue again (or maybe yellow, because they might actually get it), because they cannot get any other share, because P2 can outbid them.

P2 should capitalize red or green instead for 14 (a coin toss, really - both are good moves) and P3 should maybe null capitalize after this. The resulting situation isn't too good for P1, because either his red dividends are halved or red gets completely blocked by blue or green.

This is just an example which shows that red is not necessarily great share IF the red player performs suboptimal moves. Almost always capitalizing a share and not getting it is a bad move (if we don't count end game moves where you just destroy others' income by capitalizing shares at face value or 2x face falue). Expand red as your first action and it will become a good company.

In my opinion red should never go for anything less than 16, because it's insanely strong start to get red for 15 and then bid 15 for the blue share. Giving red for 15 is a very bad move by P4 because the others can force him to pay 16 or even 17 for a share.

In a group of perfect gamers P4 probably isn't forced to pay 16, because it might result a situation where P2 or P3 gets a really cheap share and runs away with the game and thus forcing P4 to pay a lot isn't in the best interests of all other players, but that's another story...

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: How to play 4p CE

tryytty — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:16:52 +0000

by tryytty

blueatheart wrote:

NO!!! There is no satisfaction like the following:

P1-14 - Red
P2-15 - Blue
P3-15 - Yellow
P4-14 - Green

P1 Capitalizes Blue for 14. P2 has the bad choice of either buying it for 15, or giving it to P1 or P3. If they buy, they will then null-cap, and P3 will cap Green or Red. If P2 passes, they can then buy a share for 15, P3 will either buy that Blue for 15 (followed by null-cap) (unlikely), or later can buy a share for 14 (probably Green).

(Friend pointed that, but did not want to write in this forum.)

p1 cap blue is maybe worst possible choice in this kind of scenario, if third player will get it. After that p2 and p3 can block together (first standard route and then north in mountain) red and it is possible, that after 1st round p1 has only red share, which future expectations are close to nill. This also means basically p1 is out of game after round one.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: How to play 4p CE

Petri — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:51:26 +0000

by Petri

I think that red is good simply because the expected value of its dividend is the highest. It has few cubes, but it doesn't really matter too much - if red drives to south blocking blue and yellow in the process the red owners are just as likely to win as in a game where red goes to Chicago.

I don't want to argue that exp(red) is the only valid opening for the game, because it isn't, but it is a solid move and typically:

- red owner cannot afford 2nd share in the first round
- expanding red makes the green company worse (southern route for green is much better than the northern one)
- by expanding red you can threat to block blue and yellow from Chicago and mines, thus weakening the expected dividend of the shares

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: How to play 4p CE

clearclaw — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:32:12 +0000

by clearclaw

tryytty wrote:
clearclaw wrote:
I suspect that Red is so good for your players because they are largely positive sum players rather than zero-sum players.

What do you mean with these? CE is positive sum game.

There is one winner and the rest losers. Any progress made by a player is to the detriment of all other players. Score value is irrelevant except to the degree that it is granular (divisions of $1 for spending). More simply I am quite happy to end the game with only $1 to my name -- as long as the other players then have less.

There are four players (in this thread) and most of time everyone just tries to make best profit with their shares and same time dilute other player shares.

There is one winner and some number of losers. The only goal of the game is to be the winner, ie to make everyone else lose. Making profits is irrelevant and not the goal. Winning is the goal. I have no interest in what your profits are, or how how much your shares are diluted or not, or even what your score is, just so long as I win. There is one winner and the rest lose.

Yes, these are definetely connected. In our games we actively use blocking power of red and this of course has biggest affect for blue.

I find Blue marginally stronger than Red. It has more cubes to waste, it can make a 2:2 split, and it is usually able to out-run Red into the mines.

The longer the game is, the stronger Yellow is. Its large number of shares give it huge strength in controlling game length and alliance formation. You've never seen the Yellow turn the tables on Blue and Red and charge up the line of mines, cutting off both Red and Blue? Here Yellow is the most common company to abandon, to end the game having never built any track ever in the game. Red is second, Green third.

I disagree. Basic problem of yellow is that it had so much shares.

Piffle. More shares is just more opportunity to get players to commit to a game-length which you then shorten. The biggie however is that yellow has more cubes than anything else, often making it the only company capable of significant income growth later in a longer game.

I'm going to bet strongly here that your analysis only went out 1-1.5 turns and that you did not enclude in your analysis how setting up a strong alliance between other players can help your own position when you are not a member of such an alliance.

3rd position is best, because there is most control, when choosing which shares to get. I don't understand how alliances affect for this issue.

Let's say that I have a potential partnership with another player, but they're not acting on it. I may sell a share to form a clearly strong alliance among the other pair of players to force my not-really-a-partner to get with the problem and start helping me.

This sounds for me trying to make too tricky things in simple game.

I play Wabash Cannonball for those tricky decisions. If they weren't there I wouldn't play the game.

I have always preferred KISS-method (keep it simple stupid). I believe, that I should made most of time actions, which increases directly my profit (cap shares, which I buy, exp and dev).

Ahh. I love beating such players, and I do, regularly. They are so focused on money and growth of position that they lose sight of the fact that the game isn't there, but instead exists in the set of relationships among the players and how those relationships map against time. I am quite serious about being perfectly willing to end the game with $1...just as long as everyone else has less. I don't care about money or position, just winning. I do not single-turn optimise. I will frequently make decisions that in fact put me behind in score and position because I believe that I will be able to manipulate the relationships among the players in the future so as to turn the tables on that decision. Sometimes this is as simple as committing to a long game when the game is clearly headed short, simply because the currently last player, with his now eager alliance with me and my help, will be able to force the game to go long, thus ditching two of the players, ratifying my sub-optimal decision, and leaving me only him to beat. Sometimes it is simply to take myself out of the spotlight, to make what appears to be a mistake so that I'll be factored out for a while while I manipulate the stage.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: How to play 4p CE

blueatheart — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:19:56 +0000

by blueatheart

tryytty wrote:
What do you mean with these? CE is positive sum game. There are four players (in this thread) and most of time everyone just tries to make best profit with their shares and same time dilute other player shares.

I think this is where the bulk of your problems seem to lie.

The game is NOT a metagame competition for the most money you can possibly earn during a game. It IS a competition to have the most money among the (4) players. This is achieved in a linear combination of the following two moves:

1.) Increase the dividend rate of shares you are heavily invested in.

2.) Decrease the dividend rate of shares you are not heavily invested in.

Quiz time:

P1(R,G)
P2(B,Y)
P3(B,G)
P4(R,G)

It is P2's move. Which action is better?

a.) Expanding B for +4 income
b.) Capitalizing G (income @ 19), winning it, for 16 (the rest of P2's money)

Let's look at the utility values of the two actions:

a.)
P1(+0)
P2(+2)
P3(+2)
P4(+0)

b.) (new income is 5, old was 7)
P1(5-7)=-2
P2(5-16,+1 share)=-9+5*further rounds (est.)
P3(5-7)=-2
P4(5-7)=-2

Now, it gets a little tricky to assign real value to that of the share, BUT there is one key element: after b.), G is dead in the water, aside from another Capitalization action. Your -9+5*further rounds (est.) has also stopped P1, P3, and P4 moving G whenever it would be beneficial for them to do something that does not help you. Now, any expansion action is useless. Assuming G would otherwise have grown income at +6/round (including this round), your utility looks more like the following:

b.)
P1=-2-2-2*further rounds=-4-2*further rounds
P2=-9+5*further rounds
P3=-2-2-2*further rounds=-4-2*further rounds
P4=-2-2-2*further rounds=-4-2*further rounds

Which means, in an estimate, if the game lasts even 1 round beyond this one (and players don't capitalize G during that time), your utility value of option b.) is greater than that of option a.)

The important concept here is that decreasing other player's dividend rates is often as good or better than increasing your own rail.

After all, if you chose option a.), your utility value could decrease if someone capitalizes B later on in the same round:

a.) (after B cap)

P1:+0
P2:+1
P3:+1
P4:+0

Hopefully this helps.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: How to play 4p CE

tryytty — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:44:14 +0000

by tryytty

It is true, that exp(R) is key thing, which leads to game state supporting really my ideas. But most of time this is most effective start. cap(0) is not wise for red. p1 really do not want null-cap. If he caps blue or green, p2 or p3 will take it, which is not good. cap(Y) is the best alternative and even good one, if red could get it himself. Yellow is the best alternative, because it is worst of companies (in our analyse) and p2 and p3 wants something better. But most of time still p2 or p3 takes it, because they want to give it for p1.

exp(R) is always good start. After that red could not get blocked, but same time it offer threat for blue and even yellow. And of course every exp leads for better incomes. Red has only three shares and income is divided for three pieces in worst cases. There still much left for everybody.

I explain more about idea, why to cap only shares which you want in the beginning. Final value (cumulative sum of each round dividends) of each share is biggest in first round. Same time there is way too low figures of money compared real values. Also actions in the beginning of game are important mostly because their effect is greater. Of course you want low-cost shares. There is only three caps in each round and every cap, which you use for giving shares away is waste of your actions. Other players (except initial owner of that share) just thank you for getting valuable property.

We break this rule numbers of times in our training games (try to make some nice and clever setups) and failed almost always. Effect of giving share for someone else has so huge weight that you must have some big plan to made something like this.

Greatness of red comes that we make it great. If somebody else owns red share, I like it to be small.

Btw one thing popped to my mind. If you can survive as a only owner in your company three dividends (even if there is not single cube laid for this company), you are really close to win. I can't really remember any case in our games, where this has happened. It should never happen.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: How to play 4p CE

tryytty — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:07:51 +0000

by tryytty

clearclaw wrote:
tryytty wrote:
CE was game we trained most. I guess we pretty much get it. If I remember correctly we got 3 wins and only one last place (8 sessions altogether). Player who was last, could have got 2nd place, but played for winning with high risk.

In practice this doesn't mean much. Even with skilled players, games are decided by errors, not by good play. One player goofs and throws the game to another player, thus deciding the win(ner). Games of Chicago Express are rarely decided by good play, rather exploiting other's errors is the most frequent way to win.

For some point this is true. Game is chaotic and control for your own fate is limited. But we just try to find some ways to increase our winning probalities.

Red is good.

I would downgrade that to better than fair, but not great. Red has the advantage of defining the start player, and unless a player Develops (not so common), the Red player will start each round for most of the early game. The more significant attribute for Red however is that the Red player will get two opportunities at Expand in the first turn. If they manage to wrangle two shares in the initial auction (which is BTW an extremely strong position), then they have a fine opportunity to abandon Red entirely whilst Expanding their other company.

I suspect that Red is so good for your players because they are largely positive sum players rather than zero-sum players.

What do you mean with these? CE is positive sum game. There are four players (in this thread) and most of time everyone just tries to make best profit with their shares and same time dilute other player shares.

- Setup blue in 4th position is just crap, but in second or third position much better. Yellow-blue combination after setup is very dangerous. Avoid these.

These are only true if you assume that your Red-is-Strong and First-Action-Is-Expand conclusions are also true. If either one of those tumble, these conclusions fall too.

Yes, these are definetely connected. In our games we actively use blocking power of red and this of course has biggest affect for blue.

- Yellow is by far crappiest share to get in setup. This is mostly because low start price, most of shares in stock, long way to Chicago and possibility to be totally blocked.

The longer the game is, the stronger Yellow is. Its large number of shares give it huge strength in controlling game length and alliance formation. You've never seen the Yellow turn the tables on Blue and Red and charge up the line of mines, cutting off both Red and Blue? Here Yellow is the most common company to abandon, to end the game having never built any track ever in the game. Red is second, Green third.

I disagree. Basic problem of yellow is that it had so much shares. If yellow goes well, all non-yellow players capitalize yellow and dilute it badly. Even if yellow is active, share value is normally something like 6-7, which do not feel very good, when red has same time share value like 12.

I cannot see, why yellow would have more power (compared to other companies) for game length controlling issues.

- 3th position is the best position in game.
- In first and second round you must capitalize only shares, which you are ready to buy yourself. We broke this rule many times and in post-analyze we almost always notices that breaking rule was not good thing.

I'm going to bet strongly here that your analysis only went out 1-1.5 turns and that you did not enclude in your analysis how setting up a strong alliance between other players can help your own position when you are not a member of such an alliance.

3rd position is best, because there is most control, when choosing which shares to get. I don't understand how alliances affect for this issue.

Basic rationale is that capitalizing share for someone else, you use your valuable action to make something, which does good for other (who gets share). If you only want to dilute company shares in the beginning, it is just bad thought.

Setting up an overly strong alliance between two other players can by reflection create both an alliance in your favour and cause other players to be forced to spend actions to rapidly break that alliance while leaving your alliance still strong. There are many variations on this pattern, as well as sub-patterns that mostly involve tempo-control and game-length control. The key is to get one player to commit to a significantly different posture to the other three players (this will typically require several actions over several turns to pull off).

This sounds for me trying to make too tricky things in simple game. I have always preferred KISS-method (keep it simple stupid). I believe, that I should made most of time actions, which increases directly my profit (cap shares, which I buy, exp and dev).

- Setup, 1st and 2nd rounds are definitely important ones where Decisions are done and after that game is mostly counting and making minor decisions.

I'd extend that to include the third round as well. Typically by the end of the second round the basic stage is set, and as you say, only the details are being haggled -- except that the critical decisions involving long versus short games usually happen in the third round.

Third round everyone has enough money to bid real values for the shares. Of course game length is not sculpted to rock and this changes prices, but anyway third round and after that game is mostly counting game. There are small decisions left, but big issues are solved.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: How to play 4p CE

tryytty — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:14:27 +0000

by tryytty

blueatheart wrote:

This is important case. We analyzed this and if played with bad players or very good players, it is ok. If played with mediocre or almost good players, it is very bad. This follows, because three null-cap in the beginning of game is game-killer for fourth player. If players are bad, they just don’t notice this scenario. If players are very good, they notice, that if they want to fight for winning, null-capping is not good for everyone of them. Three null-cap means that 4th position loses and player with one non-red share is third most of time. To be truthful, we also noticed this after EM event. First our analysis depend on fact, that you can’t be without share in 4th position after setup, but it is not really so.

In what case will any player capitalize a share for P4 to buy? It is contrary to your own logic before, where you have stated that no player should capitalize a share for another player. If that is the case, then no player will ever do any action except null-cap when P4 has no share at setup.

Under no logic I can see, would any player want to capitalize for P4, aside from possibly the Yellow owner wanting to get P4 to do stuff for his/her company.

Let's look this through example. This is real example from Europemasters. After setup there is situation:

p1(R,14)
p2(BY,-)
p3(G,15)
p4(-,30)

Game start two null caps and finnish guy sits is p3. In real life he null-capped too, but first two players advance more than he. But he should have exp(G). Now fourth player has one cap left and of course he use it and buy some share (normally always red, but any other than G is good for finnish) by 15. Now the sitution is much better when looked in perspective of green. If p4 bought red, they even can block blue, which looks very nice for p3.

Did you mostly use all your caps in the beginning of round (also other than kind of situations) and then start to use other actions?

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: How to play 4p CE

clearclaw — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:35:28 +0000

by clearclaw

tryytty wrote:
p1 exp(R) (standard route to west)

Here's where we diverge. I'd Capitalise either Yellow or (less likely) Green without a second thought in this position, thereby forking both P2 and P3. If P2 wins Green, then they're mostly forced to Null Capitalise. If the Green share instead goes to P3, then P2 can safely Capitalise anything for $15 and win it. If I instead go Green, then P2 is mostly happy and P3 will get it for $15 or $16, giving the round's initiative to P2.

p2 exp(G)

Were I P2 in a game in which P1 opened by Expanding Red, I'd instantly Capitalise Red with a bid of $15.

p3 cap(R) and get it by 15
p4 cap(0)
p1 exp(R) south to the mountains
p2 cap(something)
p3 exp(R) south

Ahh yes. But this only works if the game starts with Expands. If P1 opens with Capitalising yellow or Green, then the other later players have much tougher choices.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: How to play 4p CE

tryytty — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:19:22 +0000

by tryytty

blueatheart wrote:
I honestly don't know where this one comes from. If P1 bids 16 for Red, then 14 for Blue, and 2 and 3 pass, 4 should by all means buy Blue for 15, then bid 15 on Yellow. If they win, great.

I straightened curves in many thoughts in original post and does not give any rationale. But most of these have really some kind of thought behind. Of course it is possible that in some ideas we have stucked up to group thinking and they just fail, if we play in other kind of group. And it is nice to see different opinions. I really love fruitful dialogue. CE is such kind of game, that it is not really probable to achieve mutual understanding. Anyway I wanted to write this, because we made really hard work to analyse game and strategy thoughts has been different here in BGG compared to our findings.

But back to answers. Let's look case. Situation after setup could be something like

p1(R,14)
p2(G,15)
p3(-,30)
p4(BY,0)

Example First round
p1 exp(R) (standard route to west)
p2 exp(G)
p3 cap(R) and get it by 15
p4 cap(0)
p1 exp(R) south to the mountains
p2 cap(something)
p3 exp(R) south

After second round blue and red is basically blocked and 4th player is out of the game. This is not even specially constructed scenario, but this has been very common scenario in our games.

p2 in first action is key factor this scenario. He can cap something. If he cap yellow, it is possible that he can "save it". But blue is in big danger and most of scenarios are not so nice for it. But if red is heavily valued (as it has been in our analysis) then p2 could wait to get last red. p2 cap(something) is p2 cap(red) (15) and then he is winning position after p4 is blocked out.

Not me, but my team mate made (with help of his opponent) this kind of scenario in tournament.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: How to play 4p CE

clearclaw — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:49:58 +0000

by clearclaw

tryytty wrote:
CE was game we trained most. I guess we pretty much get it. If I remember correctly we got 3 wins and only one last place (8 sessions altogether). Player who was last, could have got 2nd place, but played for winning with high risk.

In practice this doesn't mean much. Even with skilled players, games are decided by errors, not by good play. One player goofs and throws the game to another player, thus deciding the win(ner). Games of Chicago Express are rarely decided by good play, rather exploiting other's errors is the most frequent way to win.

Red is good.

- Red is by far most important company. If you get two red shares, most of time you won. At least if you know what to do and minor share holder won't destroy red (which is most of time just bad thing for minor shareholder too).

I agree that Red is the most important company in the initial auction, but not past there, not even slightly. I strongly, even violently disagree that a minority shareholder killing Red is rarely a Good Choice (ie in the 2:1 split case). At a rough thumb-suck I'd wager it is a Good-to-Excellent-Choice in around 40% of cases.

- If you have possibility to get second red, you can bid all your money in 2nd round.

Sometimes. Not all that often, but sometimes. Such a (winning) bid assumes that no strong alliances have formed, that the Red alliance is or will be strong, and your encouragement of a shorter game is in fact to your interests. Sometimes that's true, but not as often as even half the time.

- Red is good, because there is only three shares of red, it starts, has nice starting price, nice big cities just to pick and has possibility to totally block blue and even yellow.

I suspect that Red is so good for your players because they are largely positive sum players rather than zero-sum players.

- But of course red is not automatic ticket to win. Most of the non red-winning-cases red is divided 1-1-1. But of course if red is blocked, then things change. But it is very hard effectively block red, if owner(s) of red plays right.

My general view is that there are two ways to play Red well, assuming it is to build any significant track (not a safe assumption), and assuming that a stable 1:1 alliance doesn't form:

0) West to Pittsuburgh and then grabbing as big a lump of mines as it can

1) West to just before Pitstburgh and then south through the mines to the southern edge of the board.

Of course all bets are off if the Red alliance manages to end a round within 6 cubes of Chicago, and with P1 still the start player in the next round. Hard to do, but possible.

- Setup blue in 4th position is just crap, but in second or third position much better. Yellow-blue combination after setup is very dangerous. Avoid these.

These are only true if you assume that your Red-is-Strong and First-Action-Is-Expand conclusions are also true. If either one of those tumble, these conclusions fall too.

- Yellow is by far crappiest share to get in setup. This is mostly because low start price, most of shares in stock, long way to Chicago and possibility to be totally blocked.

- Green is good, because it is never blocked and has high initial company price. Five shares is minus, but I prefer green over blue. It works in every position equally.

None of the companies, except Red, are inherently worth a high initial bid. They're simply not. They're all worth around half your starting capital purely because having s share is better than not having a share. If you lose the high-cost assumption (and the matching low-cost assumption for Yellow), I expect you'll find your view of the game's choices changing rather significantly.

Setting up an overly strong alliance between two other players can by reflection create both an alliance in your favour and cause other players to be forced to spend actions to rapidly break that alliance while leaving your alliance still strong. There are many variations on this pattern, as well as sub-patterns that mostly involve tempo-control and game-length control. The key is to get one player to commit to a significantly different posture to the other three players (this will typically require several actions over several turns to pull off).

- Setup, 1st and 2nd rounds are definitely important ones where Decisions are done and after that game is mostly counting and making minor decisions.

I'd extend that to include the third round as well. Typically by the end of the second round the basic stage is set, and as you say, only the details are being haggled -- except that the critical decisions involving long versus short games usually happen in the third round.

I'll try to remember to come back and comment on the rest later. Lunch time!

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: How to play 4p CE

tryytty — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:46:41 +0000

by tryytty

I polished little my personal opinions about game from the original post, because these were too trollish (which was not original meaning. finnish is harsh language and have bit problems to keep translation to be not harsh). As long as arguments fight it is ok for me. Let's just keep it away from personal attacks (which haven't yet happened).

I answer first the red issue.

Let's look pretty normal case. It is round two and red is something like three hexes away from Chicago with value 17. Last red is auctioned and it goes to one who already has one. Now should owner of one red build so, that it does not get any more income and could not go to Chicago. This means, that red share loses 10 money. It is big amount of money. Does anyone in game really afford that. I can't see that one red owner almost ever wins in that situation. If red goes to Chicago one red owner does not win either (because two red wins), but it is much probable, that in this game one red player is second, when in previous case he is third. Second thing is that players has only very limited of actions to use in whole game. In four round game there are like 10 actions. You can not really afford to use these actions for blockin yourself. It is like giving money to your opponents.

In the beginning of training we even thought that blocking could be good thing for owner of one red, but we dismissed this thought very soon. But we assumed, that it is possible in tournament that some players could thought so and changed preferred option for us to go south in mountains and same time to block blue and yellow. This is nice option, because you increase very fast your value of your company and company could not badly blocked anyway.

We thought that in tournament we have some kind of edge, because other players undervalue red (BGG strategies support mostly your ideas of red, not mine/ours), but what the heck. In my table red was overvalued even in my perspective and I played my game without red. And tournament post-discussion most of the tables has been same kind of ideas than I am presented. Almost in every table red has valued high and if not, then our players crushed table. German teams seemed analysed game somehow wrong and they played CE games badly as far as we know. (Germans are normally very tough).

Btw, I have played something like 10-15 games only. but most of these are against very tough opponents. But in many games we took not so experienced players to play with us, because we tried to prevent to stuck up group thinking.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: How to play 4p CE

jrebelo — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:36:52 +0000

by jrebelo

tryytty wrote:
Dumbass was stupid from me. I'll change that. What I mean, that destroying red badly means most of time, that owner of two red is last and one red is second last. It is not just wise to destroy your own company. Of course there are situations, where it could make your final position better, but these are rare.

Not looking to argue or anything, but for the sake of discussion, I also have to disagree with some of the above comments and particularly with the comments about the power of red as being the most important company in the game. Granted it's probably the company that requires slightly more attention than others due to the small number of shares, but it's potential power is balanced by it's massive vulnerability.

The suggestion that a single-share holder in the PRR who sabotages PRR will rarely win the game is outright wrong, I have to say. I've played a few games of Chicago Express, as you'll see from my play logs. Two things I have noticed in my many plays are directly in contradiction to your findings:

1: You can be a minority share holder solely to keep it under control. In our games, the PRR majority holder will often defend himself by just building track through high income areas in the mountains because he knows the minute he starts charging for the big money, the minority share holder will put an end to his dreams. On the flip side of that, though, sometimes the red shareholder will still force the issue on the minority player because it might cause the minority player to use his turn derailing the PRR when he had something else perhaps of greater benefit to do that turn.

2: The players who get into the mentality that red is the most powerful game and believe that owning 2 shares of it will almost always win the game are the players who most often throw the game away trying too hard to isolate the company to themselves. Our group has ebbed and flowed through strategies and groupthink and has gone through various changes and one significant pattern was how a sole PRR share holder would be overcome with lust for the 2nd PRR share before the end of a round so that he could do a big blast into pittsburgh for a huge payout and a strong position into the next round. He spends actions maneuvering himself into a position to win the PRR share and in doing so puts the other players in positions to do better things. Such as take the 3rd PRR share for a pittance and make much larger profit from his work than he will, or just to ruin the company with saboteur work.

The PRR is like the One Ring. It tempts those who can't control themselves with promises of great riches and pleasures and then when they get it, it consumes them and leaves them wasted and ruined. Only through great will power and practice can one muster the power to resist the trap.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: How to play 4p CE

tryytty — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:13:39 +0000

by tryytty

blueatheart wrote:
tryytty wrote:
Basic ideas

- Red is by far most important company. If you get two red shares, most of time you won. At least if you know what to do and minor share holder is not dumbass.

Without reading any further, it is obvious that there are things about the game you do not understand. The minor share holder is a dumbass if s/he lets you win. It is very easy for them to cripple Red, and if you would otherwise win, they have all the incentive in the world to stop you.

Good to get discussion. I have no time just now to go through all your notices, but later...

Dumbass was stupid from me. I'll change that. What I mean, that destroying red badly means most of time, that owner of two red is last and one red is second last. It is not just wise to destroy your own company. Of course there are situations, where it could make your final position better, but these are rare.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: How to play 4p CE

blueatheart — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:59:48 +0000

by blueatheart

tryytty wrote:
How to play 4p CE

Okay, I'm really going to try not to be rude here. You've put some time into this, and provided what your group sees as insights. But this is more a guide on how not to play 4p CE!

- If you have possibility to get second red, you can bid all your money in 2nd round.

NO!! If you do so, minority Red will stab you, stab you hard, and you will deserve it.

- Red is good, because there is only three shares of red, it starts, has nice starting price, nice big cities just to pick and has possibility to totally block blue and even yellow.

NO!! Red is easily destabilized because there are only three shares. Buyer beware!

The 1-1-1 is one of the most stable. But players are giving Red a "pittance" move, only when something else doesn't better suit their needs. Try to get into bed with a player who has minority in another company, and will move Red for you over their other company.

- Setup blue in 4th position is just crap, but in second or third position much better. Yellow-blue combination after setup is very dangerous. Avoid these.

I honestly don't know where this one comes from. If P1 bids 16 for Red, then 14 for Blue, and 2 and 3 pass, 4 should by all means buy Blue for 15, then bid 15 on Yellow. If they win, great.

- Yellow is by far crappiest share to get in setup. This is mostly because low start price, most of shares in stock, long way to Chicago and possibility to be totally blocked.

NO!!! Yellow is fantastic early game buy (sometimes) - just don't expand it before the Capitalizations have all been taken in R1! I've had a single share of Yellow sit around, untouched by anyone, for three rounds. I've also had it split immediately, and worked with the other share-holder to take out Blue.

- Green is good, because it is never blocked and has high initial company price. Five shares is minus, but I prefer green over blue. It works in every position equally.

Oh, Green can be blocked, very easily, if it goes over the mountains. If it goes north, agreed, it is more difficult to block. It also takes several moves to get "warmed up" to good profits.

- 3th position is the best position in game.

I actually have to agree with you, but only mildly, here.

- In first and second round you must capitalize only shares, which you are ready to buy yourself.

NO!!! There is no satisfaction like the following:

P1-14 - Red
P2-15 - Blue
P3-15 - Yellow
P4-14 - Green

P1 Capitalizes Blue for 14. P2 has the bad choice of either buying it for 15, or giving it to P1 or P3. If they buy, they will then null-cap, and P3 will cap Green or Red. If P2 passes, they can then buy a share for 15, P3 will either buy that Blue for 15 (followed by null-cap) (unlikely), or later can buy a share for 14 (probably Green).

you use your valuable action to make something, which does good for other (who gets share).

Actions are *not* that valuable. They are a tool to manipulate the gamestate.

If you only want to dilute company shares in the beginning, it is just bad thought.

Agreed, dilution is not the only thing to consider!

- Setup, 1st and 2nd rounds are definitely important ones where Decisions are done and after that game is mostly counting and making minor decisions.

NO!!! I have seen many games won and lost by players due to later round manipulations! I've been in the lead in many games, miscalculated the number of rounds left, and lost by a good measure.

Starting prices

- 15 for red is very very good start, but standard price is 16. If there is bid of 15 for red, player in right of that must bid 16. Player in right of bidder of 16 could bid 17, but we are not sure if it is good. At least it is not that bad. In our games (and analysis) bidder of 16 almost never won game. But 4th position is also very bad place. We really try to get nice winning scenarios for 16 bidder of red, but could not find any good one. Most of promising tryings (some else than exp(R) leads) leads to very unstable situations, which has nice probability to advance to disasters for 1st position.

14-15-16 are all fine. They simply lead to different gamestates.

- 2nd or 3rd can bid 15 for blue. For fourth player blue is bad, if you can get it cheap, take, but mostly just pass. Blue for 1st position is good, but rarely happens.
- Yellow is bad. In our games 13 has been some kind of turning point. But even it could be too high.
- Green is good. 2nd and 3rd position 15 is good and 4th position can pay 16.

14-15-16 are fine for all of these. P4, if they have no shares, *needs* to pay 16 for Green.

Being fourth player without share

This is important case. We analyzed this and if played with bad players or very good players, it is ok. If played with mediocre or almost good players, it is very bad. This follows, because three null-cap in the beginning of game is game-killer for fourth player. If players are bad, they just don’t notice this scenario. If players are very good, they notice, that if they want to fight for winning, null-capping is not good for everyone of them. Three null-cap means that 4th position loses and player with one non-red share is third most of time. To be truthful, we also noticed this after EM event. First our analysis depend on fact, that you can’t be without share in 4th position after setup, but it is not really so.

In what case will any player capitalize a share for P4 to buy? It is contrary to your own logic before, where you have stated that no player should capitalize a share for another player. If that is the case, then no player will ever do any action except null-cap when P4 has no share at setup.

Under no logic I can see, would any player want to capitalize for P4, aside from possibly the Yellow owner wanting to get P4 to do stuff for his/her company.

Above all else, they should simply punish P4 for being silly during setup.

The Best position after setup

3rd position without share, when any other player has not more than 15 money left. This means that you get 15 red in first cap and after that you are immediately in better position than 1st player. One money difference with same share means same than in chess you have one pawn more than opponent. With cabable players this is most of time all you need and with lousy players it does not mean anything. Depending board situation you often have possibility to get second red share.

Having 1 more than another player (with same shares) early on is not an entirely dominant position - effects from around the board are easily felt, a single share purchase differentiates you two by quite a bit, and it is easy for a player to make up that $1 difference.

I'd disagree that there is a blanket "best" position after setup. 3rd in general during setup is a nice position, but after that...all bets are off.

- Almost always 1st player should start exp(R). If you have red-blue in 1st position, then it is good to start with exp(B). And maybe it is wise to start so, that your third train is one south from “standard route”. That prevents situation, that some other player tries to block red using blue. Starting blue prevents it to be blocked, which is real danger.

NO!! There is no blanket "almost always," but if there is, it's Capitalize "something." Capitalization is the strongest influence any player has over the overall gamestate (aside from pushing in the Wabash). Once those actions are gone, players push pieces, but the gamestate changes very little, and often predictably.

I think that's enough for now, I'm not going to go through the rest.

Locally, we reached a groupthink plateau similar to yours around 30 plays in. Players were over-valuing the red, whomever got the second share of red would often win. Until I started going on an active campaign of taking minority Red, killing the Red line at some point, and winning (or coming close).

We also thought that having your company "do well" was better than trashing other companies, or even trashing companies you are minority while the majority is winning. This is no longer the case.

I'm probably 100 games in, and still am trying to learn the game. But there are things I now know *not* to do. For starters, do *not* let that majority Red win the game!

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: How to play 4p CE

blueatheart — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:17:58 +0000

by blueatheart

tryytty wrote:
Basic ideas

- Red is by far most important company. If you get two red shares, most of time you won. At least if you know what to do and minor share holder is not dumbass.

Without reading any further, it is obvious that there are things about the game you do not understand. The minor share holder is a dumbass if s/he lets you win. It is very easy for them to cripple Red, and if you would otherwise win, they have all the incentive in the world to stop you.

Thread: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: How to play 4p CE

tryytty — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:51:28 +0000

by tryytty

How to play 4p CE

First, sorry about my bad English. Never been good at writing.

These ideas have born after long discussions and much of analyse. (eg. 130 messages in finnish board game forum) CE was one of games in Europemasters 2009 (team tournament, 4p teams, 4 games) and two Finnish teams participate. Los Caballeros won tournament and our team was 12 (our team won Los Caballeros in Finnish national championship). We trained together and played games using mostly same ideas.

CE was game we trained most. I guess we pretty much get it. If I remember correctly we got 3 wins and only one last place (8 sessions altogether). Player who was last, could have got 2nd place, but played for winning with high risk.

First of all, this analyse concerns directly only 4p games (we trained for tournament). Most of the ideas work also with other player numbers, but at least bidding figures are for 4p game only. Second thought is that game is very chaotic. Small changes can have huge effect (eg. one assumed null cap less from other player and your win can change to 3rd place). This means, that you can play optimally, but lose game. It is very easy to stuck up to group thinking with CE and find local optimum for your group, which don’t work in some other group. But ideas following try be global. They are still most of time almost always kind of type ideas and one can present counter example for every rule (as I said, game is chaotic). If players are newbies, whatever can happen in the game and many ideas below can fail, but remember always at least one. Red is good.

I don’t like game and after tournament I prefer not to play it anymore. Couple of first rounds are stupid tap-dance and last rounds are stupid hard-heavy counting. One of our training games took more than two hours and ended in round 7, when development cubes run out. Painful experience. But analyzing game was surprisingly fun (eg. we made much of case scenarios for each of others and discussed about these) and I even made excel macro for counting cumulated prices for shares in different games.

Some terms

Companies are called by colors.
Setup is round, where initial shared are auctioned.
1st position player is, who got red in setup, 2nd position is player left from that and so on.
exp=expansion, cap=capitalization, dev=development, exp(R) means red expanded and so on.

Basic ideas

- Red is by far most important company. If you get two red shares, most of time you won. At least if you know what to do and minor share holder is not dumbass.
- If you have possibility to get second red, you can bid all your money in 2nd round.
- Red is good, because there is only three shares of red, it starts, has nice starting price, nice big cities just to pick and has possibility to totally block blue and even yellow.
- But of course red is not automatic ticket to win. Most of the non red-winning-cases red is divided 1-1-1. But of course if red is blocked, then things change. But it is very hard effectively block red, if owner(s) of red plays right.
- Setup blue in 4th position is just crap, but in second or third position much better. Yellow-blue combination after setup is very dangerous. Avoid these.
- Yellow is by far crappiest share to get in setup. This is mostly because low start price, most of shares in stock, long way to Chicago and possibility to be totally blocked.
- Green is good, because it is never blocked and has high initial company price. Five shares is minus, but I prefer green over blue. It works in every position equally.
- 3th position is the best position in game.
- In first and second round you must capitalize only shares, which you are ready to buy yourself. We broke this rule many times and in post-analyze we almost always notices that breaking rule was not good thing. Basic rationale is that capitalizing share for someone else, you use your valuable action to make something, which does good for other (who gets share). If you only want to dilute company shares in the beginning, it is just bad thought.
- Setup, 1st and 2nd rounds are definitely important ones where Decisions are done and after that game is mostly counting and making minor decisions.

Starting prices

- 15 for red is very very good start, but standard price is 16. If there is bid of 15 for red, player in right of that must bid 16. Player in right of bidder of 16 could bid 17, but we are not sure if it is good. At least it is not that bad. In our games (and analysis) bidder of 16 almost never won game. But 4th position is also very bad place. We really try to get nice winning scenarios for 16 bidder of red, but could not find any good one. Most of promising tryings (some else than exp(R) leads) leads to very unstable situations, which has nice probability to advance to disasters for 1st position.
- 2nd or 3rd can bid 15 for blue. For fourth player blue is bad, if you can get it cheap, take, but mostly just pass. Blue for 1st position is good, but rarely happens.
- Yellow is bad. In our games 13 has been some kind of turning point. But even it could be too high.
- Green is good. 2nd and 3rd position 15 is good and 4th position can pay 16.

Being fourth player without share

This is important case. We analyzed this and if played with bad players or very good players, it is ok. If played with mediocre or almost good players, it is very bad. This follows, because three null-cap in the beginning of game is game-killer for fourth player. If players are bad, they just don’t notice this scenario. If players are very good, they notice, that if they want to fight for winning, null-capping is not good for everyone of them. Three null-cap means that 4th position loses and player with one non-red share is third most of time. To be truthful, we also noticed this after EM event. First our analysis depend on fact, that you can’t be without share in 4th position after setup, but it is not really so.

The Best position after setup

3rd position without share, when any other player has not more than 15 money left. This means that you get 15 red in first cap and after that you are immediately in better position than 1st player. One money difference with same share means same than in chess you have one pawn more than opponent. With cabable players this is most of time all you need and with lousy players it does not mean anything. Depending board situation you often have possibility to get second red share.

First moves

- Almost always 1st player should start exp(R). If you have red-blue in 1st position, then it is good to start with exp(B). And maybe it is wise to start so, that your third train is one south from “standard route”. That prevents situation, that some other player tries to block red using blue. Starting blue prevents it to be blocked, which is real danger.
- We tried and discussed different scenarios, which includes capping in 1st position. We could not find any workable.
- Player, which has some two combo without red should at least start with null-cap.
- First capitalization should be red. If there are two or three (three should be not normally, because there should be at least one null-cap), then one or two are red and other ones are probably blue or green depending on situation. Even yellow could be ok, because you may want (or at least try) to make co-operation with first yellow owner. These are very situational things.
- If someone own two share non red combo, mostly you want to put second share to auction from other of two colors. If two share owner could go to first money delivery with shares not capitalized, then he is in good position.

What red will do?

What red will do is important, because fate of other companies are related to red (green does not care much). Red has to meaningful options. It can go to Chigaco or go to south in mountains. Both are equally good options for red owners as in income perspective. In Chicago there is one income delivery more, but in mountains, it is easy to get big (>30) income. But mountain option is most of the better option of these too. When there is two red owners (almost always) after first turn (first four actions) of first round, then blue is very close to get blocked. This depends heavily, if blue is owned by 2nd or 4th player. If yellow has only one owner in first round, then it is possible, that yellow can be blocked too. We see couple of training matches, where blue-yellow owner gets both of companies of blocked and lost game in first round. If red goes to Chigaco, game is lasts three or four rounds most of time and some of the red owners (two red first) is winning.

If red is 1-1-1 there is still often profitable to develop red for every red owners. There is such a huge profit, that there is only three shares of red and left it as own is only very good for non-red player. It is too easy to think, that if I make some good to company, some other player benefit it too. Of course this is situation dependent. Use your common sense.

How many rounds?

- Theoretically game can end in two rounds, but probably this never happens.
- Three round game is more common and it almost always means, that red has gone to Chicago. This situation happens, when red, blue and Wabash shares are sold (definetely the most common end scenario by high margin).
- Normal games (~over half of the games) lasts four or five rounds. Long games happen, when none of the companies goes to Chigaco.
- If you count game lasting at least four rounds, it is pretty safe to bid at least 13-15 in any share. Couple of less, if company is blocked. If company is near Chigaco more is ok. Five round game ~20 like figures in round 2 and 13-15 figures round 3 are ok You can pretty well count right share values (third round and after that) in auctions. If you think, that game lasts longer, it is wise to just bid some over and try to get shares. Sometimes it is wise to bid over value just for controlling game length and protect your position (eg. you can lose couple of money, but not ten). These are very situational and with experience you can see these.

Wabash

This is mostly pretty easy to analyze just by looking the board and making some calculations. Remember to check if there is expansions and capitalizations left, when first Wabash comes to auction. Of course, it is nice to be next from player, which build company to Chicago. If there is exps left, you can build Chicago before next share comes to auction. Also this means, that you can bid more than others and still get some plus income. It is easy to undervalue Wabash in the beginning, but most of time it is pretty easy to count, because you know how many rounds are left (sometimes you can’t see). Biggest amount, which I have paid for first Wabash is 23 (I got 27 from that share eventually). Normal price is something like 10-12. But you have to think carefully, who is gonna own Wabash, because there is sometimes weird controlling and game length issues. Sometimes it is wise to bid Wabash too much to protect your situation.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: First game, completely new...what did we do wrong

Darke — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:41:12 +0000

by Darke

Clearly missing a lot of the tactical nuances in our choices...I'm now very excited for another game to try and put some of these thoughts into practice!

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: First game, completely new...what did we do wrong

rockusultimus — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:26:11 +0000

by rockusultimus

Darke wrote:
(although, given the proximity of Wabash, I would imagine that this isn't unrealistic, surely the player who wins the share auction will just take a route expansion on their turn and run it straight there for the +7 and the quick payoff)

Remember, the Wabash is worth the most the person to the left of the person who just ran the first company into Chicago and only if there are expansions left. That person must also be careful to bid the right amount - too low and everyone else can pass and he can't afford to build into Chicago, too high and it's not worth the investment.

If anyone other than the person to the left of the person who just ran the first company into Chicago gets the Wabash, the 2nd share of Wabash can be auctioned off provided there are auction actions left, or expansions used up before the Wabash can make it there.

And so the dance continues...

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: First game, completely new...what did we do wrong

Darke — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:57:11 +0000

by Darke

jasonwocky wrote:

Agreed. My rule of thumb is that only equal partnerships should make it to Chicago, but not necessarily all of them. If I'm partnered with you, we might make it to Chicago. If you're my majority shareholder, we most likely won't.

Hmm, we had two sole ownership companies (C&O and Wabash) both reach Chicago (although, given the proximity of Wabash, I would imagine that this isn't unrealistic, surely the player who wins the share auction will just take a route expansion on their turn and run it straight there for the +7 and the quick payoff)

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: First game, completely new...what did we do wrong

jasonwocky — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 02:44:01 +0000

by jasonwocky

claudio212 wrote:
I find that even equal shares are not enough to create Chicago-bound companies. If I'm equal partners with someone, but behind in cash but with other shares that have upside, I don't necessarily want to get to Chicago and speed the game end.

Agreed. My rule of thumb is that only equal partnerships should make it to Chicago, but not necessarily all of them. If I'm partnered with you, we might make it to Chicago. If you're my majority shareholder, we most likely won't.

It's clear, though, that this game is extremely contextual.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: First game, completely new...what did we do wrong

claudio212 — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:33:51 +0000

by claudio212

jasonwocky wrote:
Another heuristic I play by is that "only equal partnerships should do well / make it to Chicago"...if someone acquires 2 shares in the PA railroad, for example, then the minority shareholder should seriously consider screwing over the majority shareholder. The railroads (especially the PA) don't have very many extra trains, so a minority shareholder can cripple one by expanding onto useless plains or forest spaces or expensive mountain spaces.

When you do this, you're devaluing a railroad that you've invested in. This may seem counter-intuitive, but since the point of the game is to beat the other investors (rather than just "make the most money you can"), it's a common tactic.

I find that even equal shares are not enough to create Chicago-bound companies. If I'm equal partners with someone, but behind in cash but with other shares that have upside, I don't necessarily want to get to Chicago and speed the game end (releasing Wabash has a knack for ending the game pretty quickly through the 3 companies w/no shares trigger). I might choose to work with a partner who is at the back of the pack even if I'm the minority shareholder. Bog the game down, increase income and number of dividends while my other 'partner' slogs across the income-deficient plains. Heck, if he still seems like too much of a threat, I might deep six the company by taking it into the woods.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Maybe a silly question... but too easy to win fast with red?

Petri — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:21:37 +0000

by Petri

Not necessarily. If everybody is battling for the win, the minor share holrder probably should block the company out of Chicago, but more often than not, the minority holder will lose the game (achieve the last position) by doing so - perhaps while knocking the other share holder out of winning position though.

In my opinion: Don't ever expand PRR unless you know it's going to split 1-1-1-0 or 2-1-0 in your favor. Building PRR to Chicago completely alone is not too juicy and other companies might actually get there first and prevent the win of PRR owner. Typcial mistake is to build PRR while you are the only owner or it's owned 1-1 and to not realize that you're not really gaining benefits...

Reply: Chicago Express:: Sessions:: Re: In which I convince my wife to play Chicago Express

carl67lp — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:09:36 +0000

by carl67lp

cayluster wrote:
Sounds like you need to cool it on the expensive stock purchases! Later in the game is the worst time to pay more for a share, as you really only want to capitalize any company with as much money as it can use. As the game goes on, the returns will only get smaller in relation to the cost of the share, as there are fewer dividends... so pay bigger early and less as the game progresses.

I couldn't agree more. It occurred to me after the game that if you're the stock leader in a particular railroad, and if that company has a boatload of money left at the end of the game, you probably screwed up somewhere.

The PRR strategy you describe sounds solid, but you need to be willing to end the game earlier if you are counting on the PRR to put you over the top - while it gets to Chicago quick, it has the lowest potential payout overall, as it has the fewest trains. The C&O is awesome in this respect - if you can extend the game long enough for it to hit Chicago, it will be worth a lot, what with all the +2 cities and mountains along its route.

That also occurred to me after the game. I think I'd like to give it another go, and push the C&O through the mountains in a round-about way toward Chicago, and try and hold control over it as much as I can...and see how I do. It should be interesting!

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Queen Games Luck Rating

Petri — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:06:51 +0000

by Petri

Luck rating is definitely OK at 3/5. If you don't play in a group where everybody is a perfect gamer, you cannot completely predict what they will do - and most likely they will make mistakes, which can cost you the game even when you don't do anything wrong. There's no dice, but there's a lot of chaos.

Just because someone happens to bid 17-18 for PRR in the initial auction and you sit to his right puts you to significant disadvantage which you cannot control at all. You could call this chaos or luck, but I'm perfectly fine with 3/5 rating.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: First game, completely new...what did we do wrong

Darke — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:59:38 +0000

by Darke

clearclaw wrote:

...and nobody sabotaged those shares or drove the game to a close fast enough that they didn't pay off. The game is not as simple as you represent.

Apologies for the lack of detail, but I have a terrible memory! I think by the time the first dividend came round the shares were something like:

player1: 1xPRR and 1xNYC
player2: 2xNYC
player3: nothing
player4: 1xBOO, 1xC&O

That's only 6 so there is probably another share missing from that...

I'm getting the impression from reading some of the other posts that player 3's failure to purchase a share at all during the first round probably broke the game for everyone else. The fact that players 2 and 4 have decent positions puts them ahead.

Our issue was probably not really realising this was the case and undervaluing the shares in the initial round.

I'm definitely taking notes next game!

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: First game, completely new...what did we do wrong

clearclaw — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:22:40 +0000

by clearclaw

Darke wrote:
Effectively they became runaway leaders because they were able to get either exclusive or majority share ownership easily

...and nobody sabotaged those shares or drove the game to a close fast enough that they didn't pay off. The game is not as simple as you represent.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: First game, completely new...what did we do wrong

Darke — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:18:17 +0000

by Darke

dwfiv wrote:
I am wondering if you paid dividends correctly. If a stock is at $20 say, and 4 shares are owned by various players, each share pay $5, not $20 each. That tends to keep any one player from dominating the auctions.

No, we did that right, our problem was generally that the two that were in competition easily had the money to buy the shares they wanted from the second dividend round onwards. Thus they ended up with 3 or 4 share ownership in each company, making it worse. Effectively they became runaway leaders because they were able to get either exclusive or majority share ownership easily

Reply: Chicago Express:: Sessions:: Re: In which I convince my wife to play Chicago Express

cayluster — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 04:02:04 +0000

by cayluster

Sounds like you need to cool it on the expensive stock purchases! Later in the game is the worst time to pay more for a share, as you really only want to capitalize any company with as much money as it can use. As the game goes on, the returns will only get smaller in relation to the cost of the share, as there are fewer dividends... so pay bigger early and less as the game progresses.

The PRR strategy you describe sounds solid, but you need to be willing to end the game earlier if you are counting on the PRR to put you over the top - while it gets to Chicago quick, it has the lowest potential payout overall, as it has the fewest trains. The C&O is awesome in this respect - if you can extend the game long enough for it to hit Chicago, it will be worth a lot, what with all the +2 cities and mountains along its route.

Our scoring has varied. It has been as high as the low-mid $200s for the winner (my fiancé beating me) to the $120 dollar range (when we're about equally competitive, we both usually end up around that). I'm lucky, my fiancé really likes the game so we've played it many times. It's good to hear your wife liked it too. Great session report!

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: First game, completely new...what did we do wrong

clearclaw — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:54:16 +0000

by clearclaw

jasonwocky wrote:
Ah, nice...I haven't seen that happen yet, but I'm imagining how that could work. Need to try that strategy out.

Be careful. There are few approaches in Chicago Express that can be planned for and setup in advance. I'm of the firm belief that there is no strategy in Chicago Express, only tactical decisions. Good play is in reaction and encouragement (or dissuasion) to the current gestaltic vote across the set of players as to how the current game is going to develop. In different positions, different tactics, such as the above, are useful. The trick is to understand how your decisions also help guide the game along what path.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: First game, completely new...what did we do wrong

jasonwocky — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:30:27 +0000

by jasonwocky

clearclaw wrote:
That last depends on the degree to which you control game length. It is quite possible to win with a minor position everywhere, by driving the game to be shorter than the other player's positions required.

Ah, nice...I haven't seen that happen yet, but I'm imagining how that could work. Need to try that strategy out.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: First game, completely new...what did we do wrong

dwfiv — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:47:34 +0000

by dwfiv

I am wondering if you paid dividends correctly. If a stock is at $20 say, and 4 shares are owned by various players, each share pay $5, not $20 each. That tends to keep any one player from dominating the auctions.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Rules:: Re: Game End by Developing Detroit

manymoodys — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:31:34 +0000

by manymoodys

Apologies to the OP.

No problem - I got my answer many posts ago, so it has been entertaining just to watch the other posting. It was mainly a hypothetical question anyway as none of our games have gone that long. I was actually originally going to ask if Detroit got moved up another notch during the final dividend payout, but then realized that the game would end after the dividend payout before Detroit is moved up - if anyone cares to comment on that!

Reply: Chicago Express:: Rules:: Re: Game End by Developing Detroit

thepackrat — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:09:55 +0000

by thepackrat

blueatheart wrote:
Just so everything's clear:

-play through the round (2 markers reach "End"/Red)

Including taking the last action that pushed them there.

-dividends
-is any game-end condition satisfied? If yes, end game. If no, go to next round.

Remember to move Detroit here :)

Everything else is silly semantics that are simply irrelevant to anything.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Rules:: Re: Game End by Developing Detroit

blueatheart — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:59:06 +0000

by blueatheart

Just so everything's clear:

-play through the round (2 markers reach "End"/Red)
-dividends
-is any game-end condition satisfied? If yes, end game. If no, go to next round.

Everything else is silly semantics that are simply irrelevant to anything.

Session: Chicago Express:: In which I convince my wife to play Chicago Express

carl67lp — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:32:07 +0000

by carl67lp

My beautiful wife got me the Chicago Express expansions for my birthday last week, so I asked if she'd like to play the base game with me sans expansions (she's never tried Chicago Express). Sure, CE is supposed to be better with more than two people, but I don't have a game group at present...and I was eager to play one of my favorites.

Now, you must understand something before we go too much farther. My wife is not the type who likes a long-winded explanation of the rules. She's not much for heavy games like Power Grid (although she'll play Age of Steam with me...odd, I know. Maybe she just dislikes Power Grid!). But, she agreed to give CE a go. So, whilst we took the dogs for a walk in the back forty, she asked me to give her a run-down on how the game worked, so that we could jump right in, more or less, when it came time for setup.

As it turns out, that wasn't too bad of an idea; I went over the concepts of the game (the premise, how to win, what actions were available) and made sure to drive home the notion that money matters--it is, after all, how you win the game. When the dogs had had their fun, we went inside and began setup.

In-depth rules explanation didn't take too long, although it was a bit longer than I would have liked; apparently, I'm just bad at explaining rules. But in the end, the wife seemed to understand things just fine...and away we went.

The Pennsy went up for auction first; I won it for around $20. (Somehow I always end up winning the Pennsy. This is important, later.) Next was the B&O, which my wife took for something like $12. I won the C&O and she won the NYC; I don't recall how much these went for, but suffice it to say that no railroad was hurting for money. I, on the other hand, was left wanting, just a bit.

As holder of the Pennsy stock, I went first, and did what I always do--push toward Chicago. The PRR went up on the income track as it does when it hits a city, and I was happy so far. My wife took a similar approach with the NYC. A few turns later, the PRR was beginning to need some money, and I was considering auctioning one of its shares...but my wife beat me to the punch. At this point, I'm thinking that she's taken to heart my description of share dilution...but as it turns out, I'd just fallen hook, line and sinker for the bait. I won the PRR stock, of course, but was bled dry: she won the next auction (for what, I don't recall...B&O I think) for a song.

In the first round, we each took turns to develop hexes and expand the companies' lines, but didn't do too much auctioning. The first dividend round came up and we both received decent incomes--but although I had the slightly larger income, my wife's larger cash reserves would prove important.

The next round saw more auctioning; here, I took a B&O and NYC stock, but my wife won the important third (and final) PRR stock. The majority of my turns were spent beefing up the Pennsy, again as I always do each game (why?!), pushing further and further toward Chicago.

Near the end of the second round, the PRR hit Chicago, and my wife and I reaped the rewards of the special dividend. Alas, she had much more cash than I did, and I had plans to try to win more stock, so she took the Wabash for something like $35. Like a good railroad baron, she immediately sent it to Chicago, triggering a small, but meaningful, dividend for herself and herself alone.

The third round saw even more cutthroat action. I auctioned off a non-Wabash stock and took it for more than it was probably worth; I think it was an NYC stock, since the NYC had pushed into Detroit and it was looking like it might be profitable. Silly me, though, left myself without cash again, and my wife took the second Wabash stock for face value, ensuring that she'd never have to split the profits...and making sure it had cash to spare.

As it turned out, we hit the three-empty stocks early (I'm reasonably sure it was in this third round, but it might have been the fourth. In fact, I might be off by one round overall...the Wabash might have opened in the fourth, for example). Thus, the game was over in perhaps an hour or so.

We paid off one last dividend to each company, and tallied our money. Final result... Me: $66. The wife: $101.

As I always do when we finish a new game, I asked my wife what she thought of the game, and if she'd play again. She said that it wasn't nearly as complicated as she envisioned, and that she'd be happy to play again, seeing as how she beat me and all. I believe she found it to be a fairly fun game; the fact that she didn't seem too distracted during the game surely suggests this.

I have lost this game (miserably) every time I've played it. And yet I love the game to death. I obviously make crucial mistakes each time; I think I rely too much on the PRR. For example, it wasn't until late in the game that I, as the sole holder of C&O stock, pushed it much further than the three hexes I expanded to in the first round. I also focused, I think, too much on the goal of getting to Chicago; I have to remember that first and foremost, it's about making money--and while that +7 in Chicago is nice, it's not the end-all-be-all.

In the end, I had a blast playing Chicago Express with just two players at the table. It was even better that I got my wife to play!

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Queen Games Luck Rating

Touko — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:59:27 +0000

by Touko

clearclaw wrote:
Touko wrote:
There defitely are ways to play it better or worse and also there are some really obvious mistakes that players can do, e.g. expand a company that they hold only small minority of the shares etc.

I fail to see why expanding a company in which I have a minor stake so that it is not longer able to reach Chicago, or expanding a company in which I have minor stake so that it can reach Chicago and will thus distract another player from a more successful alliance (one that doesn't include me) are necessarily obvious mistakes.

When writing that, I kind of already knew that someone would say something like that... :)

And yeah, you are right: in those cases it would be a good move, but in most of the cases it is not.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Queen Games Luck Rating

clearclaw — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:53:48 +0000

by clearclaw

Touko wrote:
There defitely are ways to play it better or worse and also there are some really obvious mistakes that players can do, e.g. expand a company that they hold only small minority of the shares etc.

I fail to see why expanding a company in which I have a minor stake so that it is not longer able to reach Chicago, or expanding a company in which I have minor stake so that it can reach Chicago and will thus distract another player from a more successful alliance (one that doesn't include me) are necessarily obvious mistakes.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: First game, completely new...what did we do wrong

clearclaw — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:47:11 +0000

by clearclaw

That last depends on the degree to which you control game length. It is quite possible to win with a minor position everywhere, by driving the game to be shorter than the other player's positions required.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Queen Games Luck Rating

Touko — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:24:50 +0000

by Touko

Wutai Leviathan wrote:
The only luck in the Chicago Express is determining who the banker is at the start of the game.

I agree. My point was, however, that sometimes there is little difference whether there is a real luck element in the game (like dice), or just chaos caused players. In some games, the players' choices can create enough complexity to make it impossible to employ any real strategy.

Wutai Leviathan wrote:
I don't understand. A non-chaotic would need to remove any propensity of the players involved from employing whacky moves, no? A player can employ such a move or series of moves in any game. So by this definition there are no luck free games?

In most games other player choices have only small impact on your gameplay or in deciding what would be the best move for you. To employ a strategy in a game, one needs to think multiple rounds in the future. In games where the goodness of the action depends heavily what other players did choose on their turn, it is much more harder to carry out a strategy. However, usually these kind of games are tactical not strategic (like CE is in my mind).

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Queen Games Luck Rating

Wutai Leviathan — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:38:55 +0000

by Wutai Leviathan

Touko wrote:
This whacky move can disturb the balance of the game and you can end up with a 'good' play dead last (at least according to my small experience with the game). I would define non-chaotic game to be a game, where if you now how to play it well, you maybe don't always win (if there is a luck element or other players now how to play), but you still score high scores each time.

I don't understand. A non-chaotic would need to remove any propensity of the players involved from employing whacky moves, no? A player can employ such a move or series of moves in any game. So by this definition there are no luck free games?

:what:

The only luck in the Chicago Express is determining who the banker is at the start of the game.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: First game, completely new...what did we do wrong

Asperamanca — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:39:06 +0000

by Asperamanca

jasonwocky wrote:
Another heuristic I play by is that "only equal partnerships should do well / make it to Chicago"...

...which has you in a very bad spot if you don't manage to have at least one majority or at least equal partnership in one of the companies.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: First game, completely new...what did we do wrong

jasonwocky — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:16:19 +0000

by jasonwocky

he chose to pass when the price went above $12 for a share, believing that was too expensive

What I've seen on the forums is that the initial shares are worth somewhere around 50% of your starting capital. When I mention this heuristic at the start of my games with new players, the games have gotten off to a good start.

Where did we go wrong?

You've only posted about the auctions, and didn't talk much about the other gameplay, so I can't be sure. Another heuristic I play by is that "only equal partnerships should do well / make it to Chicago"...if someone acquires 2 shares in the PA railroad, for example, then the minority shareholder should seriously consider screwing over the majority shareholder. The railroads (especially the PA) don't have very many extra trains, so a minority shareholder can cripple one by expanding onto useless plains or forest spaces or expensive mountain spaces.

When you do this, you're devaluing a railroad that you've invested in. This may seem counter-intuitive, but since the point of the game is to beat the other investors (rather than just "make the most money you can"), it's a common tactic.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: First game, completely new...what did we do wrong

Darke — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:51:58 +0000

by Darke

I get the feeling we all totally missed out on the concept of exactly how mixed share ownership SHOULD work, and was approaching it from the perspective of building the train companies up, rather than analysing each players positions and how we should react to them

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: First game, completely new...what did we do wrong

Shane Sather — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:31:11 +0000

by Shane Sather

It's a weird little game the first time around, that's for sure, and yeah that was just a bad call on his part. Too bad they disliked the game so much cause I imagine if they played it a second time, they might enjoy it more, seeing how things played out.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: First game, completely new...what did we do wrong

Darke — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:24:27 +0000

by Darke

He bid on the auctions that came up but was outbid by players 1 and 2 who still had money left. Yes, he had more money and could have won the auctions but he chose to pass when the price went above $12 for a share, believing that was too expensive (I believe, I hasten to add this player was not me and I don't pretend to know what was going round in his head)

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: First game, completely new...what did we do wrong

Shane Sather — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:23:47 +0000

by Shane Sather

Any player getting two shares for 20 bucks total definitely got off easy on the shares; almost definitely went for too little value.

And yes seems weird Player 3 coudln't get shares during the first round at all, he should have been able to easily get any share he wanted (or did no one put shares out the first round?). Consider as well the power of using an action without taking it, simply burning up share actions and such without actually issuing/auctioning shares.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Queen Games Luck Rating

Touko — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:20:32 +0000

by Touko

Excalabur wrote:

That said, I concur that there is no luck in CE, and the amount of chaos in the boardgaming sense of the term should be relatively low if players are competent, as there is little value in unpredictability in CE.

Maybe I should explain little bit more what I meant saying that CE is chaotic. There defitely are ways to play it better or worse and also there are some really obvious mistakes that players can do, e.g. expand a company that they hold only small minority of the shares etc.

But what are the best stategies in each game, can depend heavily on what other players will choose. If all players follow the groupthink, of course the game can be predictable. But let say some players do something 'whacky'. This whacky move can disturb the balance of the game and you can end up with a 'good' play dead last (at least according to my small experience with the game). I would define non-chaotic game to be a game, where if you now how to play it well, you maybe don't always win (if there is a luck element or other players now how to play), but you still score high scores each time. I¨m not sure this is the case with the CE though. But as I said, maybe I just haven't played the game enough.

And don't get me wrong, I still like the game a lot! :)

Reply: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: Re: First game, completely new...what did we do wrong

Asperamanca — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:15:50 +0000

by Asperamanca

How is it possible that player 3 could not get any share before the 1st dividend phase? He should have had way more money than anyone else.

Also, the initial shares have probably gone too cheaply.

Thread: Chicago Express:: Strategy:: First game, completely new...what did we do wrong

Darke — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:09:16 +0000

by Darke

Played my first game last night and I thought I'd post a brief review and ask for comments from more experienced players about how to avoid the scenario we came up against.

I don't remember the exact numbers but the share distribution after the initial round was something like:

Player 1: Pennsylvania - ~$16
Player 2: NYC - ~$12
Player 3: no shares bought
Player 4: B&O and C&O - ~$20 total

Player 1 picked up a share in NYC early on and they were the general income leader for most of the game, matched closely by Pennsylvania as things progressed. We ended up with 6 or 7 general dividend phases but the game was essentially over after 3.

Both player 1 (owning 2xPenn and 3xNYC shares) and Player 4(3xC&O shares) had such a massive lead on dividend payouts that they were able to successfully outbid every other player when it came to an auction, Player 3 never gained more than 1 share during the game, as he tried constantly to start an auction, but always had the share snatched away from him. The limited number of auctions between dividend phases made it impossible for him to catch up with the leaders.

The game rapidly came down to just a fight between players 1 and 4 who were able to control every auction phase. As such, bother players 2 and 3 were turned off the game and didn't find it very interesting as their options rapidly became limited.

Where did we go wrong? My gut feeling is we let the initial shares go too cheaply, thus allowing 2 players to dominate the game. After 1 dividend phase, it was very difficult to stop them gaining a share in a company they already owned and effectively increase their payout options, after 3 it was impossible.

Apologies for the lack of detail, I really wish I'd taken noted now because the game interests me a lot and I'm keen to convert the guys who were turned off by it

Reply: Chicago Express:: Rules:: Re: Game End by Developing Detroit

Wutai Leviathan — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 04:57:21 +0000

by Wutai Leviathan

pastabatman wrote:
Wutai Leviathan wrote:
Exactly how is someone supposed to determine WHEN a condition has been satisfied if they're NOT keeping track of the conditions in the game?

Rule-wise it does NOT MATTER WHEN the condition occurred, so long as it is caught immediately after the next dividend is payed out.

It can also be caught BEFORE the next General Dividend.

:devil:

Reply: Chicago Express:: Rules:: Re: Game End by Developing Detroit

pastabatman — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 01:11:51 +0000

by pastabatman

Wutai Leviathan wrote:
pastabatman wrote:
Wutai Leviathan wrote:
It's common sense. In any game where game state conditions can trigger the end of the game, the conditions are checked after every change in the game state unless otherwise specified by the rules.

Nonsense. It is certainly in each player's best interest to monitor game ending conditions, but there is definitely nothing in the CE rules (implied or otherwise) that requires them to do so.

I disagree. On page 8 of the rules it says:

When of the following four conditions have been met: ... the game ends as soon as the next General Dividend has been paid out.

Exactly.

Wutai Leviathan wrote:
Exactly how is someone supposed to determine WHEN a condition has been satisfied if they're NOT keeping track of the conditions in the game?

Rule-wise it does NOT MATTER WHEN the condition occurred, so long as it is caught immediately after the next dividend is payed out.

Wutai Leviathan wrote:
pastabatman wrote:
Wutai Leviathan wrote:
You've posted the only time the conditions are checked is at the point one of the condition triggers the end of the game. The only way to know a condition has triggered the end of the game is to have checked the condition earlier in the game.

If everyone fails to notice the shares of three companies have been exhausted until immediately after the next dividend payout, do you actually think some rule has been broken?

No. I would however be of the opinion the players sucked at the game. If the players in the game failed to notice and the game continued beyond the next General Dividend, then a rule has been broken.

Whew.

Wutai Leviathan wrote:
pastabatman wrote:
Wutai Leviathan wrote:
It's not like players magically check the conditions only at the time one has triggered the end of the game. Players regularly check the conditions, because controlling the length of the game is a major key to winning the game.

Of course. All well and good. But you seem to be having trouble distinguishing between 'rules' and 'tips on how to win'.

The fact is, the rules never say WHEN to check the conditions, only WHEN the game ends and WHAT conditions trigger the end of the game.

Sigh. I'm done here. Apologies to the OP.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Rules:: Re: Game End by Developing Detroit

Wutai Leviathan — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 23:56:43 +0000

by Wutai Leviathan

pastabatman wrote:
Wutai Leviathan wrote:
It's common sense. In any game where game state conditions can trigger the end of the game, the conditions are checked after every change in the game state unless otherwise specified by the rules.

Nonsense. It is certainly in each player's best interest to monitor game ending conditions, but there is definitely nothing in the CE rules (implied or otherwise) that requires them to do so.

I disagree. On page 8 of the rules it says:

When of the following four conditions have been met: ... the game ends as soon as the next General Dividend has been paid out.

Exactly how is someone supposed to determine WHEN a condition has been satisfied if they're NOT keeping track of the conditions in the game?

pastabatman wrote:
Wutai Leviathan wrote:
You've posted the only time the conditions are checked is at the point one of the condition triggers the end of the game. The only way to know a condition has triggered the end of the game is to have checked the condition earlier in the game.

If everyone fails to notice the shares of three companies have been exhausted until immediately after the next dividend payout, do you actually think some rule has been broken?

No. I would however be of the opinion the players sucked at the game. If the players in the game failed to notice and the game continued beyond the next General Dividend, then a rule has been broken.

pastabatman wrote:
Wutai Leviathan wrote:
It's not like players magically check the conditions only at the time one has triggered the end of the game. Players regularly check the conditions, because controlling the length of the game is a major key to winning the game.

Of course. All well and good. But you seem to be having trouble distinguishing between 'rules' and 'tips on how to win'.

The fact is, the rules never say WHEN to check the conditions, only WHEN the game ends and WHAT conditions trigger the end of the game.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Queen Games Luck Rating

thepackrat — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 23:22:47 +0000

by thepackrat

Touko wrote:

Nooo? Chaotic systems are not deterministic. They might be closely approximated by some deterministic system, but that doesn't make them deterministic because such a deterministic system ignores things, such as Pluto eventually being flung out.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Chaotic systems are deterministic. See for example the wikipedia entry on chaos thery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

Is it worth me pointing out again that the recent popular branch of mathematics you are pointing at turn up a couple of millenia after the word (or origin word at any rate) chaos was first used? That they've appropriated the word doesn't give them any say over its definition.

B>

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Queen Games Luck Rating

Touko — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 22:41:48 +0000

by Touko

thepackrat wrote:
Chaotic or significant? I think you mean significant or disruptive.

I mean chaotic.

Nooo? Chaotic systems are not deterministic. They might be closely approximated by some deterministic system, but that doesn't make them deterministic because such a deterministic system ignores things, such as Pluto eventually being flung out.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Chaotic systems are deterministic. See for example the wikipedia entry on chaos thery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics which studies the behavior of certain dynamical systems that may be highly sensitive to initial conditions. This sensitivity is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. As a result of this sensitivity, which manifests itself as an exponential growth of error, the behavior of chaotic systems appears to be random. That is, tiny differences in the starting state of the system can lead to enormous differences in the final state of the system even over fairly small timescales. This gives the impression that the system is behaving randomly. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully determined by their initial conditions with no random elements involved. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

e: Now I see that Excalabur already commented on this. Well no harm saying it twice I guess...

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Some people take this game a little too seriously.

Sidewynnder — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:15:42 +0000

by Sidewynnder

I shall give it a look.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Rules:: Re: Game End by Developing Detroit

pastabatman — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:58:31 +0000

by pastabatman

Wutai Leviathan wrote:
pastabatman wrote:
Wutai Leviathan wrote:
pastabatman wrote:
Wutai Leviathan wrote:

The game end condition are automatically triggered, so technically they're checked after the Detroit marker is moved too.

You're really thrashing here with some odd semantics. The game ending conditions can occur any time during a turn. But they are checked and trigger the end of the game at precisely one point.

No. The end game conditions are checked after every change in the game state.

I challenge you to cite the section of the rules that requires this.

It's common sense. In any game where game state conditions can trigger the end of the game, the conditions are checked after every change in the game state unless otherwise specified by the rules.

Nonsense. It is certainly in each player's best interest to monitor game ending conditions, but there is definitely nothing in the CE rules (implied or otherwise) that requires them to do so.

Wutai Leviathan wrote:
You've posted the only time the conditions are checked is at the point one of the condition triggers the end of the game. The only way to know a condition has triggered the end of the game is to have checked the condition earlier in the game.

If everyone fails to notice the shares of three companies have been exhausted until immediately after the next dividend payout, do you actually think some rule has been broken?

Wutai Leviathan wrote:
It's not like players magically check the conditions only at the time one has triggered the end of the game. Players regularly check the conditions, because controlling the length of the game is a major key to winning the game.

Of course. All well and good. But you seem to be having trouble distinguishing between 'rules' and 'tips on how to win'.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Rules:: Re: Game End by Developing Detroit

Wutai Leviathan — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:45:32 +0000

by Wutai Leviathan

pastabatman wrote:
Wutai Leviathan wrote:
pastabatman wrote:
Wutai Leviathan wrote:

The game end condition are automatically triggered, so technically they're checked after the Detroit marker is moved too.

You're really thrashing here with some odd semantics. The game ending conditions can occur any time during a turn. But they are checked and trigger the end of the game at precisely one point.

No. The end game conditions are checked after every change in the game state.

I challenge you to cite the section of the rules that requires this.

It's common sense. In any game where game state conditions can trigger the end of the game, the conditions are checked after every change in the game state unless otherwise specified by the rules.

You've posted the only time the conditions are checked is at the point one of the condition triggers the end of the game. The only way to know a condition has triggered the end of the game is to have checked the condition earlier in the game. It's not like players magically check the conditions only at the time one has triggered the end of the game. Players regularly check the conditions, because controlling the length of the game is a major key to winning the game.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Rules:: Re: Game End by Developing Detroit

thepackrat — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:53:07 +0000

by thepackrat

Well you can check them anytime, and it's sensible to be aware of them at all times, but they only trigger the endgame at one specific point.

B>

Reply: Chicago Express:: Rules:: Re: Game End by Developing Detroit

pastabatman — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 05:15:10 +0000

by pastabatman

Wutai Leviathan wrote:
pastabatman wrote:
Wutai Leviathan wrote:

The game end condition are automatically triggered, so technically they're checked after the Detroit marker is moved too.

You're really thrashing here with some odd semantics. The game ending conditions can occur any time during a turn. But they are checked and trigger the end of the game at precisely one point.

No. The end game conditions are checked after every change in the game state.

I challenge you to cite the section of the rules that requires this.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Rules:: Re: Game End by Developing Detroit

Wutai Leviathan — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 02:44:52 +0000

by Wutai Leviathan

pastabatman wrote:
Wutai Leviathan wrote:

The game end condition are automatically triggered, so technically they're checked after the Detroit marker is moved too.

You're really thrashing here with some odd semantics. The game ending conditions can occur any time during a turn. But they are checked and trigger the end of the game at precisely one point.

No. The end game conditions are checked after every change in the game state.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Rules:: Re: Game End by Developing Detroit

pastabatman — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:50:07 +0000

by pastabatman

Wutai Leviathan wrote:

The game end condition are automatically triggered, so technically they're checked after the Detroit marker is moved too.

You're really thrashing here with some odd semantics. The game ending conditions can occur any time during a turn. But they are checked and trigger the end of the game at precisely one point.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Queen Games Luck Rating

Wutai Leviathan — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:54:39 +0000

by Wutai Leviathan

jrebelo wrote:
thepackrat wrote:
Wutai Leviathan wrote:
The only "luck" I can see in the game is determining who will be the banker at the start of the game.

Banker? Use poker chips.

B>

The banker auctions the first share of the PRR in the initial share dealing round and thus gets to choose the first bid. Poker chips or paper money have no bearing on this. A banker (first bidder) must still be chosen somehow.

:thumbsup:

Reply: Chicago Express:: Rules:: Re: Game End by Developing Detroit

clearclaw — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 06:30:15 +0000

by clearclaw

Obviously the pre-requisites for Chicago Express players are incomplete. They miss ability to count to nine and ability to stop when nine is reached. I'll send an email to Queen suggesting the rules be updated accordingly. That should handle everything.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Rules:: Re: Game End by Developing Detroit

blueatheart — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 06:02:14 +0000

by blueatheart

Do the following:

-dividends
-move Detroit to 8
-play one full set of rounds
-dividends
-move Detroit "off the board" - game ends immediately

Reply: Chicago Express:: Rules:: Re: Game End by Developing Detroit

manymoodys — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 05:01:00 +0000

by manymoodys

Yes. You play another round and end the game at the end of the General Dividend step of the Dividend Phase.

Now you're talkin'!!!

Reply: Chicago Express:: Rules:: Re: Game End by Developing Detroit

Wutai Leviathan — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:48:52 +0000

by Wutai Leviathan

pastabatman wrote:
Wutai Leviathan wrote:
pastabatman wrote:

In the dividend phase, the Detroit marker is advanced after checking game ending conditions.

The game end conditions are automatically triggered, so technically they're checked before the Detroit marker is moved too.

I fail to see the distinction here from what I just said.

Oops. :blush:

The game end condition are automatically triggered, so technically they're checked after the Detroit marker is moved too.

manymoodys wrote:
I fail to see the distinction here from what I just said.

Honestly, I am failing to get a clear answer! I think you are both saying: Yes, play another round.

Yes. You play another round and end the game at the end of the General Dividend step of the Dividend Phase.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Rules:: Re: Game End by Developing Detroit

manymoodys — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:12:42 +0000

by manymoodys

I fail to see the distinction here from what I just said.

Honestly, I am failing to get a clear answer! I think you are both saying: Yes, play another round.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Rules:: Re: Game End by Developing Detroit

pastabatman — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:41:52 +0000

by pastabatman

Wutai Leviathan wrote:
pastabatman wrote:

In the dividend phase, the Detroit marker is advanced after checking game ending conditions.

The game end conditions are automatically triggered, so technically they're checked before the Detroit marker is moved too.

I fail to see the distinction here from what I just said.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Rules:: Re: Game End by Developing Detroit

Wutai Leviathan — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:17:26 +0000

by Wutai Leviathan

pastabatman wrote:
manymoodys wrote:
If the game end is triggered by Detroit being developed to 8, do you proceed to play another round? I assume that you would given that the movement of Detroit to 8 comes after the dividend is paid out and the instructions indicate you play until the next dividend is paid out. I can't imagine this would be a likely end game trigger to begin with, but...

In the dividend phase, the Detroit marker is advanced after checking game ending conditions.

The game end conditions are automatically triggered, so technically they're checked before the Detroit marker is moved too.

Regardless of which of the 4 conditions trigger the end of the game, the game is played until the end of the General Dividend step of the next Dividend Phase.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Rules:: Re: Game End by Developing Detroit

pastabatman — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 02:54:59 +0000

by pastabatman

manymoodys wrote:
If the game end is triggered by Detroit being developed to 8, do you proceed to play another round? I assume that you would given that the movement of Detroit to 8 comes after the dividend is paid out and the instructions indicate you play until the next dividend is paid out. I can't imagine this would be a likely end game trigger to begin with, but...

In the dividend phase, the Detroit marker is advanced after checking game ending conditions.

Thread: Chicago Express:: Rules:: Game End by Developing Detroit

manymoodys — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 02:25:00 +0000

by manymoodys

If the game end is triggered by Detroit being developed to 8, do you proceed to play another round? I assume that you would given that the movement of Detroit to 8 comes after the dividend is paid out and the instructions indicate you play until the next dividend is paid out. I can't imagine this would be a likely end game trigger to begin with, but...

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Queen Games Luck Rating

Stoffel — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:04:53 +0000

by Stoffel

Shogun has less luck:
http://www.queen-games.de/index.php?id=2028

Because dice towers are chaotic systems and therefore perfectly deterministic.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Queen Games Luck Rating

jrebelo — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:33:13 +0000

by jrebelo

thepackrat wrote:
Wutai Leviathan wrote:
The only "luck" I can see in the game is determining who will be the banker at the start of the game.

Banker? Use poker chips.

B>

The banker auctions the first share of the PRR in the initial share dealing round and thus gets to choose the first bid. Poker chips or paper money have no bearing on this. A banker (first bidder) must still be chosen somehow.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Queen Games Luck Rating

thepackrat — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:03:48 +0000

by thepackrat

Excalabur wrote:
Bruce, I'm afraid you don't know what chaos is. It's exactly and precisely "unpredictable (in a formal sense) behaviour arising from a deterministic system". As an example, the motion of a light body orbiting around two heavy ones is (in many parts of the parameter space) chaotic.

The formal definition is that for small initial perturbations the long-time behavior is widely dispersed in phase space.

I know precisely what chaos is in the rather less than formal mathematical sense, and disagree strongly with your definition (because after all, formal mathematics doesn't talk about the measurement limits that are at the heart of the unpredictability of chaotic systems), but feel that either your or the correct definition is unhelpful in this discussion.

B>

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Queen Games Luck Rating

Excalabur — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:19:06 +0000

by Excalabur

Bruce, I'm afraid you don't know what chaos is. It's exactly and precisely "unpredictable (in a formal sense) behaviour arising from a deterministic system". As an example, the motion of a light body orbiting around two heavy ones is (in many parts of the parameter space) chaotic.

The formal definition is that for small initial perturbations the long-time behavior is widely dispersed in phase space.

That said, I concur that there is no luck in CE, and the amount of chaos in the boardgaming sense of the term should be relatively low if players are competent, as there is little value in unpredictability in CE.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Queen Games Luck Rating

krainer — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:57:37 +0000

by krainer

Some bozo in marketing who has never played a game, much less this one

LUCK IN CHICAGO EXPRESS : 0 /5

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Queen Games Luck Rating

thepackrat — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:42:59 +0000

by thepackrat

Wutai Leviathan wrote:
The only "luck" I can see in the game is determining who will be the banker at the start of the game.

Banker? Use poker chips.

B>

Reply: Chicago Express:: Reviews:: Re: Video Review - CHICAGO EXPRESS!

Belisarius88 — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:50:53 +0000

by Belisarius88

I like your sound effects and video tricks, like those spinning small windows.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Reviews:: Re: Reseña en español (review in spanish)

Belisarius88 — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:27:30 +0000

by Belisarius88

Con mi espacio para guardar juegos limitados, si que me cae mal juegos con cajas que no están proporcionadas al tamaño de sus contenidos. La excepción es si hay expansiones, o posibilidad de la misma, que quepan en la caja original.

Gracias por la reseña, no tengo ningún juego de trenes pues "Steam" es muy largo y "Ticket to Ride" muy simple para mis gustos.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Queen Games Luck Rating

Wutai Leviathan — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:48:05 +0000

by Wutai Leviathan

The only "luck" I can see in the game is determining who will be the banker at the start of the game.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Queen Games Luck Rating

thepackrat — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:58:15 +0000

by thepackrat

Touko wrote:
Well I think Chicago Express is actually pretty chaotic game. Fun, but chaotic. Although there's no explicit luck element (like dice) players choices can have a pretty chaotic effects to the game play.

Chaotic or significant? I think you mean significant or disruptive.

I think, this is nicely paraller with chaos theory, as chaotic systems are deterministic in real life as well (e.g. planet's orbits) :)

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Queen Games Luck Rating

Touko — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 07:10:00 +0000

by Touko

Well I think Chicago Express is actually pretty chaotic game. Fun, but chaotic. Although there's no explicit luck element (like dice) players choices can have a pretty chaotic effects to the game play.

I think, this is nicely paraller with chaos theory, as chaotic systems are deterministic in real life as well (e.g. planet's orbits) :)

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Queen Games Luck Rating

mikko_r — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 07:06:26 +0000

by mikko_r

I guess it's the chance the two guys playing in the video will get lucky tonight.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Queen Games Luck Rating

wmshub — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 07:01:28 +0000

by wmshub

I guess Queen says you're lucky when your opponents screw up and let you get a share of the New York for cheap.

Thread: Chicago Express:: General:: Queen Games Luck Rating

tuckerotl — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:26 +0000

by tuckerotl

http://www.queen-games.de/index.php?id=5880

Chicago Express:
strategy: 4 out of 5
luck: 3 out of 5
simplicity: 3 out of 5
atmosphere: 4 out of 5

que?

(note: this is not an implicit agreement with Queen Games' other ratings - I'm not sure I agree with any of them, though admittedly I haven't been able to find an explanation of what Queen Games specifically means in these rankings, but if Chicago Express is a 3/5 in regards to luck, what would a 1 or 0 out of 5 be?)

Cross-posted here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/4137338#4137338

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Some people take this game a little too seriously.

Wutai Leviathan — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:31:31 +0000

by Wutai Leviathan

Sidewynnder wrote:
Awesome! What movie was that?

Glengarry Glen Ross

It's the film adaptation of David Mamet's Pulitzer Prize winning play of the same name. The character Blake (Alec Baldwin) is NOT in the original play, which is why Jack Lemmon said the screenplay of the film is superior to the original play. I agree it's the best scene in the film, but the film as a whole is still one of the most enjoyable of all-time in my opinion. I have a tattoo of the movie poster on my ankle.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Some people take this game a little too seriously.

jrebelo — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:13:34 +0000

by jrebelo

Glengarry Glen Ross

It's a good movie, but that scene is so epic and legendary it might give you a false idea of how awesome the movie in. See and judge for yourself. The cast is out of this world.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Some people take this game a little too seriously.

Sidewynnder — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:40:36 +0000

by Sidewynnder

Awesome! What movie was that?

New Image for Chicago Express

Guantanamo — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:30:35 +0000

by Guantanamo

]]>

Mike (Guantanamo) tries to figure out his next move as Jesse (Doubtofbuddha) and Will look on at Mike's Mini Meet VII

New Image for Chicago Express

Guantanamo — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:27:05 +0000

by Guantanamo

]]>

John (Verandi) teaches Neil (Thoia) and Henry (Callidusx3) how to play at Mike's Mini Meet VII

New Image for Chicago Express

Danjell — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:13:34 +0000

by Danjell

]]>

A game in progress at the Europemasters '09 in Essen

Reply: Chicago Express:: Reviews:: Re: Video Review - CHICAGO EXPRESS!

jrebelo — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:14:42 +0000

by jrebelo

Keeping in mind that there is a minimum bid and so it's very seldom that you CAN get a share for anything less than about $3 or $4 (aside from the wabash as mentioned).

But yes, I would not hesitate to under-fund a company to get a cheap share. Having a company build as far as the mountains and then sit still due to lack of capital isn't such a bad thing because you're probably holding the only share. This basically forces players to capitalise shares to split your income, because taking $8 every round for zero invested actions is a great way to coast to victory, assuming you've got other share interests, of course.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Reviews:: Re: Video Review - CHICAGO EXPRESS!

blueatheart — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:06:44 +0000

by blueatheart

I will always buy a company for $1 if I get the chance. Under-funding a company is *not* a bad thing. It *will* pay out >$1, so why not? Even the first share of the Wabash, I would pay $1 for, easily. It is the other players' goal to not create the situations wherein you would be able to capitalize a company for $1.

As for the review, nice, mostly rules, needs some mild work. Some better impressions of your feelings on the game would be great, and since this is a video review, you should probably do a couple of takes. Make some notes before-hand, string them together on the fly in the first take, do it again for a second take, and by the third, things should fit together relatively well. Whatever looks awkward you should be able to fix via editing cuts.

One point of inaccuracy is that the game ends on the round *after* Detroit gets to 8 (i.e., when it would otherwise reach 9). I have never seen a game go that far.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Reviews:: Re: Video Review - CHICAGO EXPRESS!

Magrot — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:19:30 +0000

by Magrot

Great game. I like it because all different types of gamers like this game. Everybody I've showed it to enjoyed it.

I like to see what type of person people are with this game lol. If they are stingy or if they spend way to much. :p

Reply: Chicago Express:: Reviews:: Re: Video Review - CHICAGO EXPRESS!

t2scott — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:02:37 +0000

by t2scott

Nice Review. Was looking for a new game to purchase and this might just fit the ticket.

Keep up the good work and keep gaming!

Reply: Chicago Express:: Reviews:: Re: Video Review - CHICAGO EXPRESS!

polkeroo — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:45:25 +0000

by polkeroo

I think you meant to say the players start out on the EAST coast, or the east side. Besides that, good review.

Review: Chicago Express:: Video Review - CHICAGO EXPRESS!

cajuninms — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:00:51 +0000

by cajuninms

Youtube Video

Here is my video review of a fantastic game. By the end of this video, you should get a good enough feel of the game to decide whether you wish to buy it or not. I hope you guys enjoy it!

With everything else in life, feedback is a nice thing. I am always looking for ways of improving my videos. If you have any suggestions (both negative and positive), please feel free to let me know.

If you like what I am doing, please tip or just plain thumb this thread. That is the only real way that others can see what I have to offer.

Thanks!

Reply: Chicago Express:: Rules:: Re: Which RR goes second?

vegeta37 — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:32:49 +0000

by vegeta37

Thanks!

Reply: Chicago Express:: Rules:: Re: Which RR goes second?

Wutai Leviathan — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:09:11 +0000

by Wutai Leviathan

If you're the player who is sitting to the right of the player who won the IPO for PRR in a 4+ player game, you should make sure you win one of the remaining IPOs, otherwise you can potentially be null-actioned out of buying stock in round one of the game.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Rules:: Re: Which RR goes second?

jrebelo — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:42:36 +0000

by jrebelo

Correct. The important distinction here is that players take turns; not companies (which is the case in some games). Thus, it's not "which RR goes first (or second)", but which player goes first (or second). The player who purchased the PRR share goes first. Then the next player clockwise and so forth.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Rules:: Re: Which RR goes second?

thorndor — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:23:35 +0000

by thorndor

Play order goes clockwise.

Thread: Chicago Express:: Rules:: Which RR goes second?

vegeta37 — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:22:23 +0000

by vegeta37

Which player goes after the Penn owner at the beginning of the game? Is it the B&O owner ,then C&O, then NYC? Or does it just go clockwise around the table?

New Image for Chicago Express

snog — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 04:18:14 +0000

by snog

]]>

CE Wallpaper for your Netbook PC

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Maybe a silly question... but too easy to win fast with red?

Wutai Leviathan — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 03:10:38 +0000

by Wutai Leviathan

shadow9d9 wrote:

Is this common? Just due to inexperienced players that it was so easy?

I'd vote inexperience. If someone owns 2 of the 3 shares, the person who owns the other share should build the line into the middle of nowhere to eliminate the possibility of the company building into Chicago.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Maybe a silly question... but too easy to win fast with red?

shadow9d9 — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 03:39:46 +0000

by shadow9d9

Great, thanks.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Maybe a silly question... but too easy to win fast with red?

clearclaw — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 03:19:51 +0000

by clearclaw

shadow9d9 wrote:
Just due to inexperienced players that it was so easy?

Correct.

Most games end on the 3rd to 5th General Dividend. Going outside of the envelope tends to require skill, well applied.

Thread: Chicago Express:: General:: Maybe a silly question... but too easy to win fast with red?

shadow9d9 — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 03:05:03 +0000

by shadow9d9

I only played my second game tonight.. 4 player game. I bought 2/3 red shares early and took it straight to chicago, after upgrading pittsburgh twice...

I got fairly big dividends, and a very nice chicago dividend, and auctioned off shares of everything afterwards, to trigger the endgame. Detroit ended the game at 4 after the end game dividend.

This was a stark contrast to my first game, last night, which ended in when detroit's marker was around 7-8.

I owned 2 red, and one blue share at the end.

Is this common? Just due to inexperienced players that it was so easy?

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Is there official instructions online......

jearles — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:16:50 +0000

by jearles

There is, but the Queen Games site seems to be unavailable at this time.

You could try one of the Condensed Rules files here:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/39103
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/41572

Thread: Chicago Express:: General:: Is there official instructions online......

done111 — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:07:40 +0000

by done111

I am interested in this game and didn't know if instructions were available as a pdf file or similar online. Thanks for your help.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Rules:: Re: Is Detroit developed after Chicago dividend phase?

clearclaw — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:18:22 +0000

by clearclaw

Yeah, I don't know American geography worth a damn. Ask me about English counties and I'm your man, just not American geography.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Rules:: Re: Is Detroit developed after Chicago dividend phase?

Wutai Leviathan — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 05:11:23 +0000

by Wutai Leviathan

thepackrat wrote:
clearclaw wrote:
No, Chicago is developed only after General Dividends.

Yes, if the last action of the round also connects to Chicago, causing a Chicago Dividend, the sequence of events is:

1) Company is connected to Chicago
2) Chicago Dividend paid
3) Share of Wabash Capitalised
4) General Dividend paid
5) Chicago Developed

And by that last Chicago, one imagines you mean Detroit :)

B>

At least J.C. didn't call it Denver this time. :D

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Chicago Express...what's games is it most like...not Steam?

snog — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:21:12 +0000

by snog

Oddly enough it feels a bit like Modern Art with Railroad shares being auctioned instead of paintings. It has a lot more flavor than Modern Art though - probably because it's not a Knizia game.

I bought it because I wanted a railroad themed game that could be played in a lunchtime at work. It can be! It's fast and furious but has plenty of scope for tactics and scullduggery.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Chicago Express...what's games is it most like...not Steam?

garygarison — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:16:30 +0000

by garygarison

One key difference in Imperial, though, is that only the major shareholder can perform actions on behalf of that country/company.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Chicago Express...what's games is it most like...not Steam?

photocurio — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:02:52 +0000

by photocurio

yup: its like Imperial. The key difference is that shares are auctioned, not simply bought at the marked price. Other than that, Chicago Express is a simplified and streamlined game, shorter than Imperial.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Chicago Express...what's games is it most like...not Steam?

CortexBomb — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:17:58 +0000

by CortexBomb

In mainstream terms, also something like Imperial where you need to focus on similar things (share holdings that Bruce talked about above, cash that each entity has access to), though the board play is completely different.

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Chicago Express...what's games is it most like...not Steam?

thepackrat — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:14:32 +0000

by thepackrat

It's a lot like Pampas Railroad, or Age of Scheme, or perhaps one of the more recent Winsome games. In Wabash Cannonball/Chicago Express it's vastly more important who else owns the same shares you do, more important even than how many you own.

B>

Reply: Chicago Express:: General:: Re: Chicago Express...what's games is it most like...not Steam?

wmshub — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:08:51 +0000

by wmshub

Most similar...maybe Acquire or Stephenson's Rocket. In that in all three games, the most important thing towards winning is owning the "right" stocks.

Thread: Chicago Express:: General:: Chicago Express...what's games is it most like...not Steam?

done111 — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:06:57 +0000

by done111

I have had this one on the radar for some time and am thinking of hitting the "add to cart" button. I would like to hear your opinion regarding what games this is similar to and why it is similar to it. I understand it is nothing like Steam (which I love by the way). Any help you can lend is much appreciated.

Reply: Chicago Express:: Rules:: Re: Is Detroit developed after Chicago dividend phase?

i_team_na — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:13:39 +0000

by i_team_na

thank you all

Reply: Chicago Express:: Rules:: Re: Is Detroit developed after Chicago dividend phase?

thepackrat — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:36:27 +0000

by thepackrat

clearclaw wrote:
No, Chicago is developed only after General Dividends.

Yes, if the last action of the round also connects to Chicago, causing a Chicago Dividend, the sequence of events is:

1) Company is connected to Chicago
2) Chicago Dividend paid
3) Share of Wabash Capitalised
4) General Dividend paid
5) Chicago Developed

And by that last Chicago, one imagines you mean Detroit :)

B>

Reply: Chicago Express:: Rules:: Re: Is Detroit developed after Chicago dividend phase?

thepackrat — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:32:11 +0000

by thepackrat

i_team_na wrote:
Is Detroit developed after Chicago dividend phase?

It's developed after all actions and their consequences (wabash) are taken after the general dividend is paid. Also, the general dividend only occurs after the final action of that round has completed.

Also, when you have general dividend phase immediately after the fist Chicago phase, is the black company (Wabash?) first share auctioned before the general dividend is paid?

Yes. As above, all turn and consequences of the turns are completed before the general dividend which is before the detroit upgrade. This is a little ambiguous in the rules but there are some threads clarifying it.

B>

Reply: Chicago Express:: Rules:: Re: Is Detroit developed after Chicago dividend phase?

clearclaw — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:32:10 +0000

by clearclaw

No, Chicago is developed only after General Dividends.

Yes, if the last action of the round also connects to Chicago, causing a Chicago Dividend, the sequence of events is:

1) Company is connected to Chicago
2) Chicago Dividend paid
3) Share of Wabash Capitalised
4) General Dividend paid
5) Chicago Developed

Thread: Chicago Express:: Rules:: Is Detroit developed after Chicago dividend phase?

i_team_na — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 07:41:50 +0000

by i_team_na

Is Detroit developed after Chicago dividend phase?

Also, when you have general dividend phase immediately after the fist Chicago phase, is the black company (Wabash?) first share auctioned before the general dividend is paid?

Thanks

File: Chicago Express:: Chicago Express - Reguli Comprimate in Limba Romana / Condensed Rules in Romanian

alex1326 — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 04:02:11 +0000

by alex1326

Chicago Express - Reguli Comprimate in Limba Romana / Condensed Rules in Romanian for Board Game: Chicago Express ]]>