This article was originally written for and posted on my blog: Wabash Cannonball Set Piece: #1

I'd promised a while ago to post a move-by-move analysis of one of our Wabash Cannonball games but for various reasons that hasn't happened and is unlikely to happen. But there is hope. I had an interesting discussion with Adam Kao last night regarding Wabash Cannonball tactics (the game has been popular at Eudemonia). During the discussion we worked through a few set pieces in order to illuminate some of the points I was making. The first set piece is below. If this proves popular/effective I'll see about posting other set pieces.

Assume a 4 player game of Wabash Cannonball and that the initial share auction resulted in the following share distribution:

Player #1: PRR $15, B&O $15, Cash $0
Player #2: Cash $30
Player #3: C&O $15, Cash $15
Player #4: NYC $16, Cash $14

Questions:

1. Why did Player #4 spend $16 on the NYC? Is this a good or weak position?
2. Is Player #2 in a strong or weak position? Does Player #2? control initiative?
3. What is each of the four player's posture as regards game length?
4. What is the first action of each of the four players in the first round of the game? Why?
5. Do they have any other reasonable choices? Why?
6. Might any of the players use a Develop action during the first round? If so, why?

Enjoy.

1. It is a great position because he mysteriously started the game with $31. Was he the banker?
2. Player #2 is forcing the other players into taking null capitalizations to prevent him from getting shares of his choice. As it stands he will get his choice of one share in a railroad of his choice, and has a reasonably strong chance of getting a share in a railroad of his choice in the second round 2. Where it goes from there depends on individual player actions. So because of his place in player order, he is in a reasonably strong position.
3. Player #1 wants a long game. Player #2 wants a short game. Player #3 and #4 are between the two.
4. Player #1: Null Capitalization. Player #2: Capitalize. Player #3: Null Capitalize.
5. Player #3 can get away with a Capitalization if player #2 has to pay more than $15 for his share. Because of this, Player #2 should almost certainly open with a bid of $15 on a particular stock to ensure both that he gets it and that he can strengthen his position for the following round.
6. Yes. To change what the turn order is going to be for the following round, and to give them a slight financial advantage if they have sole ownership of the railroad. Is it unlikely, however.

Ooops, fixed.



Why? Player #3 can Capitalise anything he wants and win it too. What share should Player #2 Capitalise? Why?



Really? Is his position in turn order fixed? Why (not)?



Okay, why?



What does Player #2 Capitalise? Why doesn't Player #3 also Capitalise and win a share for $15? Does Player #3's ability to also win a share influence Player #2's choice of which share to Capitalise? How and why?



Surely that leaves Player #3 also open to winning his choice of share for $15.



Which player is most likely to use a Develop action?

You have a good point about the double capitalizations. That was a bit of a misjudgement on my part. In that case, yes, both player #2 and player #3 should capitalize. Player #2 should go into the PRR because of its higher initial pay-off and also to dilute Player #1's ability to get maximum returns from his initial share positions, leaving him with less share acquisition potential for a longer amount of time. This also has the advantage of forcing him into an even longer game length stance, by retarding his income growth and thus his investment potential. If he doesn't go for the PRR, he should go for the NYC. This allows him to hurt Player #4's position in round 2, while at the same time forcing an alliance with Player #4, due to Player #4's limited options.

Player #2's position in the turn order is not fixed because of the Develop action. However, unless there are two Develop actions taken Player #2 will still have the capability to capitalize, as he will control one of the three capitalize actions. It is most advantageous for Player #4 to Develop, as that gives him control of one of the three Capitalize actions. Otherwise he will have less control over the game, beyond the threat that his pile of money provides him. However, there is a potential that he will choose not to Develop, particularly if he ends up being the sole owner of NYC at the end of the round. If he is, than it is more advantageous for him to double Expand NYC. This leaves him in a better position for round 2, and provides more for other players to consider as he will likely have the most assets.

There is also the potential that someone will take a Develop action in order to force one of the Capitalize actions out from the control of Player #1 and prevent him from having the ability to exert control over the game length.

Player #1 needs a long game to recoup for the fact that he currently has no money. Player #2 wants a shorter game, because of his financial advantage. Player #4 wants a longer game to make up for his mistake in bidding $16 on the NYC. He currently lacks much leverage, and is basically a non-entity as far as bidding is concerned because of his lack of control over a Capitalize actions. This may change in Round 2, but it could take a while before he is in a position of strength again. Player #3 wants a short game, for reasons similar to #2, though his short game is slightly longer than Player #2's short game because of his initial investment.

As such, on further thought, I would say that Player #2 and Player #3 are in strong positions, while Players #1 and #4 are in weak positions. They are in very precarious positions because their relative access to the Captialize action (#1 could easily lose it, while $4 has no control over it) and their bidding choices during the initial auction.

I've only got 12 games under my belt, but I'd like to take a crack at these, if only to see where I have misconceptions.

1. My assumption is that Player #3 opened with a bid of 15 on the NYC. Player #4 needed to get the NYC share because they won't have any control of the capitalizations, since it is very likely the first three actions will be auctions. It's a weak position because Player #3 won't be able to ultimately outbid anyone during the first round.

2. Player #2 is in a weak position. The best they can accomplish is to catch up with the other players by buying their first share, which will already be diluted. It is likely there will be two null caps, so Player #2 can only buy one share.

3. I'm not sure if this is clear from the initial auction. Would be glad to hear other opinions.

4. Null, capitalize NYC, null, expand.

5a. Sometimes Player #1 might expand the PRR because it is often in danger of getting blocked by the B&O (from the mountains first, from expanding West second). However, in this example Player #1 owns the B&O share so they wouldn't be concerned about it right away.

5b. If Player #2 spent 15 on an NYC share, then Player #3 may be interested in capitalizing a share of the B&O or the PRR at a $15 opening bid to weaken Player #1.

6. I'm not sure about this one. I wouldn't think so--at least, it doesn't happen in the first round very often in the games I have played.

I'm afraid I'm mostly going to play Socrates in this thread. I could lay out answers but I think that would be uninteresting. Instead I'll ask questions.



Grin.



We can put this set of possible capitalisations out as a table. It is perhaps useful to consider it that way. Player #2 has 4 options: PRR, B&O, C&O, NYC. Each has possible advantages. Each also influences the resulting decision made by Player #3 (and then Player #4). Surely for instance if Player #2 buys the NYC then Player #3 will head for the PRR? Likewise if Player #2 takes the PRR then Player #2 will go for the NYC.

What if Player #2 instead takes a C&O? What should Player #3 do then? Are these good choices for either player?

I can also see an argument for Player #1 either doing an Expand instead of a Capitalise, or actually Capitalising a share. Why might he do this? If he did Capitalise a share, which share would be best and why? Would it change the other player's choices significantly?

Does Player #4 want a partner in this first round?



Bingo.



If an NYC is Capitalised, Player #4 has a problem of being a dollar and a share short. What can he do to recover?



Fair dinkum, tho there are some serious questions as to what happens with Player #1. For instance if Player #3 takes a PRR and the two of them Expand it twice?



Ahh ha! Yes! I wasn't expecting the use of Develop in order to deny players access to Capitalisation to come up so early in ths thread.



Why was that a mistake? Did he really have any other viable choice?



But he can set the minimum bid quite effectively and thus in the process allow Player #2 to exit the Capitalisations with $1 in hand, a dollar that could be significant in round #2.



Right, so what should his basic game approach be? What is he looking for?



Nod.

Given the predicted actions from the first round, what is the expected number of General Dividends in the game? Has it changed due to those action choices?



I'd put Player #2 and Player #3 as currently in control of initiative, with Player #3 being the more susceptible of the two, and with Player #1 being in the strongest position. ObAdmit: Much of that is a stylistic/subjective preference statement.

Correct.



I think you mean Player #4 there.

How might Player #4 turn that seeming weakness to their advantage? Is there a rescue path for Player #4?



As discussed above there are likely to be at least two shares sold. It is possible that three shares will be sold. Either way Player #3 exits the round with half a share and $15. The best any of the other players can do is either one or one and a half shares and $14. That doesn't seem so bad. Is it?



Why wouldn't Player #3 Capitalise a share?

Would Player #1 necessarily do a null Capitalise? Might Player #1 actually court Player #4 by Capitalising a share? Which one? Would that be effective? How could that work?



Okay. But what is the primary value of a Develop in this situation?

Without reading other replies...

1. Bad move. Terrible position.
2. Weak, at least relative to player 3. No real initiative.
3. 1 and 3, long, 2 and 4, shorter - depends slightly on who gets what shares.
4. #1: Null cap. #2: Cap (PRR most likely). #3 Cap (toss-up between PRR and NYC, most likely PRR). #4: expand NYC if #3 capped PRR, possible null expand/develop if NYC.
5. #4 might want to expand the NYC anyway, at least once.
6. #4, depending on what #3 caps. Possibly #2.

Reading other replies...

Hmm, I'm not following. Could someone explain a bit more fully how taking develops impacts who can capitalize in this scenario?

If no develops are taken, only Expansion and Capitalization will be taken. 3 Cap + 5 Exp = 8 actions. 8 mod 4 = 0 (in other words, 8 is a multiple of 4, there being 4 players in the game) so if only those are taken, then player #1 will be first in the second round, too. By taking a development action, you skip over player #1, who will undoubtedly null cap at every opportunity for the first 2-3 rounds.

I'd like to look back at one specific point. I wrote earlier that Player #1 might consider Capitalise a share for his first action rather than doing a null Capitalise. In fact were I player #1 I'd very strongly consider it and would likely do it depending on the experience level and distribution of the other players. I have a very specific share and reason in mind for this choice.

Why do you think I might Capitalise a share and which share would I sell?

Might you opt to capitalize a B&O share, expecting player #2 to get it and engage in a partnership expanding blue together for the next round?

Caveat: I love this game but, so far, I'm pretty terrible at it.

You would Capitalize a share of B&O counting on #2 to partner up. This has the effect of basically reverse-diluting #2's B&O stock, since s/he will do your work for you on that line, hopefully.

EDIT: Darn, above beat me to it.

The problem with the B&O is that if Player #2 wins it (presumably for $15), his best action choice is to then grab an NYC. That leaves Player #3 in a rough position as he can grab any share he wants and the most attractive share out there is my undiluted PRR. That's not good for my early cashflow. Maybe something else?

No problem with your methods. I am finding this exercise to be quite entertaining!

If player #2 takes the C&O, Player #3 is in a bit of a bind. He probably needs to take a share in the PRR, in order to slow Player #1 down a little bit, and recoup some of his long term losses. Taking the NYC could also be worthwhile, but I see effecting Player #1's incentives as more important at this point in the game. Another option would be to capitalize his own C&O again, giving himself a majority stake in the railroad as well as some additional funds, but with an unequal stake, that might encourage #2 to run it off in some odd direction or try to use it for nefarious ends as opposed to letting it expand and grow normally.

I can't really see many reasons why Player #1 would want to capitalize a share, but if he was to do so, I think it would probably be the C&O, simply to increase the likelihood that, going into the second round he will have something resembling a financial advantage. Of course, this is a risky proposition because he has no control over where the others end up Capitalizing. He needs both the NYC and the C&O to be capitalized in order for it to work in anything resembling this manner. So if he were to capitalize, he would probably to do it with the C&O (since both Player #2 and Player #3 are incentivized to get into the NYC, while they are not incentivized to get into the C&O.) and hope that Player #2 or Player #3 realize that they need to get into the NYC.

Player #4 does not want a partner in the NYC at this point in the game, but if for some reason a share comes in another railroad that he can purchase, I could see him going for it. If I were him I probably would wait for the 2nd or 3rd bid share to actually get in on the action, however, to prevent someone from being able to get into the NYC on the cheap, if at all.

In the event that it does get away for him, which seems reasonably likely, I would definitely make sure that I take a develop action as soon as is convenient in order to adjust capitalize availability for the second round of the game. I am actually not sure which railroad he should cash into at that point. It depends too much on what the other players do with all the capitalize actions up to that point.



I am not sure I understand this question.


I am not a total noob. Though, my play opponent's do not play exactly as supposed is optimal on BGG, so a situation like this would never come up. I am typically the only person to capitalize during my first wave of actions, for example.



I guess the other option was to leave two people with two shares of a railroad and no access to a capitalize action. This would result in the first player and whoever one the NYC with access to capitalize actions that they would almost certainly null. Meaning either he or Player #2 would be without ownership of a railroad at the end of round #1. At the end of round #2, both of them would have 2 shares, while the other players would still be left with a single share, due to a comparative lack of money. Starting in round 3, players #1 and #3 would have a money advantage again, but it wouldn't be an immense one, and it would still be a bit of a game. So yeah, I think that is also a viable choice.


His advantage right now is that he will probably be the money leader in round 2. This enables him to gain a share in a railroad of his choice, and basically enables him to create (or break) any alliances he desires at this point. He can kill the PRR, by giving it triple ownership, or force himself into any railroad that looks like it is going to be particularly profitable at this point, or later down the line.




I would say six general dividends. It has changed due to the choice of null capitalizations for Player #1, and his long game stance.



I could see that, but I also see him as more vulnerable due to his clear lack of overall leverage. However, if the other players make any mistakes #1 will run away with the game. I have been in #1's position a few times (mostly due to me trying to bid people up and winning a railroad unexpectedly and for less money than I was expecting it to go for...) However, if the other players successfully attack his position then he will be destroyed. It will be interesting to see if #2 and #3 are up for the task.

Okay, what would be the advantages for Player #1 to Capitalise a C&O on his first turn? What would Player #2 then bid? Player #3? Player #4?

How would that affect Player #4 with his NYC and $14?



True, but it takes a lot to kill the C&O. It has so many extra cubes.



What about game length control, might that affect the decision?



If player #1 capitalises the C&O, who will win it and for how much?

What does Player #2 then capitalise? Player #3?



Once you pass you're out of the auction. I would not expect bids to circle the table. If anything I'd expect only one or two bids total per auction as players bid precisely to either force wins or force unwelcome commitments on the other players. Thus for instance if/when Player #2 auctions the NYC I expect he'd to open the bidding at precisely $15 in order to force the win. Similar forcing logic can applies to the bids for any other Capitalise actions in the round.



In truth it took me a great many games to notice that little feature.



Aye, and that can be deadly given that each of the earlier players has some incentive to null Capitalise on their first action. He may well exit the round still not owning any shares.



Figure Player #2 wins the NYC for $15. The opening holdings are then:

Player #1: PRR $15, B&O $15, Cash $0
Player #2: NYC $15 Cash $15
Player #3: C&O $15, Cash $15
Player #4: Cash $30

All three starting players have good reason to open the game with a null Capitalise. Unless someone Develops, this could happen again in the next round. Player #4 is unlikely to be enthused over about such an outcome.



Yep. He is also in the odd position of setting the basic structure of game-length control for the rest of the game.



I wouldn't go that long. A typical game is 3-5 General Dividends. Whether or not Player #1 capitalises a C&O in the first turn, only one share of a small-share-count company was sold in the first round. That puts the probable General Dividend count in the 3.5-5.5 range. The kicker is that it is usually easier to drive a long game with 4 players than it is with 3 players (subjective evaluation). I'd say that 4 General Dividends is pretty safe and 5 is looking reasonable. 6 is certainly possible but I wouldn't put any money on it at this point as it isn't clear how many players are fighting for a long versus short game yet.



Yep.

Belatedly joining this thread.. I'm not sure this question has been answered. #4 wants a partner to help him drive the NYC. Unfortunately he is not is control of the situation. But I think the NYC is an attractive option for #2 to buy. #2 does not want to partner with #1, who is ahead in shares and must be slowed down.

#2 can buy the Chesapeake instead of the NYC, and they look equally advantageous. #3, however does not care so much about the NYC, because his two RRs will be far separated, and won't have any synchronicity (its better to have adjacent railroads). So, if #2 capitalizes the Chesapeake instead of the NYC, #4 could be in a jam.

[edit] thinking some more about this situation.. I now realize that in a 4 handed game it might be advantageous to bid aggressively for the Penn in the initial auctions. If you got a share for $16, you at least wouldn't be stuck with the double disadvantage of being lowest on cash, and last.

Even more he wants to abandon his NYC share (with the highest per-share income in the game) and to instead work with another player on some other company.



Yes, the lack of control is the core problem. Player 4 has almost no control in the first round. Over the next several rounds they can gain considerable control once they get in range of a Capitalise actions but for now they're more prey than predator. Thankfully the NYC has attractive early Develop targets in its two default routes.



Player #1 is at risk of a short game and currently has no other players pushing for a long game. If Player #1 starts the game by Capitalising a C&O (as held by Player #3) they open the strong possibility of at least two players being on the long game side, and for one of them to be in the range of a Capitalise action for the next several rounds. That's not a bad ticket for Player #1.



There are far worse positions for Player #2 than to win a C&O for $14 and an NYC for $15. They're on the long-game side, they've a good cash position and their position is wonderfully flexible. That leaves player #3 to pick up a PRR or B&O for $14. Player #4 then expands the NYC, Player #1 the B&O, and Player #2 and Player #3 get to pick on unclear grounds.

If Player #1 doesn't Capitalise a C&O (admittedly a safer and more common choice) then the NYC is more attractive than the C&O as Player #4 has no other reasonable choice but to Expand the NYC. Player #3 in that case is left either picking the company that Player #1 will then ignore or doing a null Capitalise with an idea to driving for a very short game, possibly with Player #4's grudging support.



I don't see much value in adjacent companies. What are you thinking of?



Yep, that's also a factor. Being first and low cash isn't necessarily so wonderful either however.

Other considerations being equal, there are two advantages to owning shares in adjacent railroads:
1) you have some control over blocking or outflanking tactics in the hills and woods.
2) If you choose development, either to change turn order, or because in late game there are fewer choices, it is better to develop a city where you have more than one company. This requires building both railroads into shared cities, but this often happens in any case.

While it is a small thing, that's one of the reasons I slightly prefer widely separated companies.



Ahh. It isn't common here for multiple companies to build into the same cities short of the late game.