J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
-
This article was originally written for an posted on my blog at: Wabash Cannonball set piece: #2
Given the following situation in a three player game of Wabash Cannonball after the starting auction:
Player #1: PRR $20 Cash $20
Player #2: B&O $20 Cash $20
Player #3: C&O $20 NYC $20 Cash $0
Questions:
1. Was Player #3 right to force-win that share of the NYC or should he have let it go to another player instead after enforcing a minimum bid level?
2. What did Player #3's choice to force-win the NYC share do to his position?
3. What does each player do for their first action? Is this an easy or automatic decision for each player? Why?
4. For each player, are they in a good or bad position? What are their primary risks and opportunities? Compare and contrast their positions.
5. Have any of the players adopted game-length postures yet?
6. Have any decisions been made which will affect how many General Dividend are likely to be paid in this game? If so, what were they?
Enjoy.
-
The Seal of Approval
Austria
Vienna
-
DISCLAIMER: Very little playing experience. I mainly answer the questions to see how my answers will compare to those of more experienced players.
Quote: 1. Was Player #3 right to force-win that share of the NYC or should he have let it go to another player instead after enforcing a minimum bid level?
2. What did Player #3's choice to force-win the NYC share do to his position?
Bad decision. Should have let go. Has two railroads to take care of, and no cash reserve.
Quote: 3. What does each player do for their first action? Is this an easy or automatic decision for each player? Why?
4. For each player, are they in a good or bad position? What are their primary risks and opportunities? Compare and contrast their positions.
Players 1 and 2 are in a bit of a deadlock: Each one can buy a share of their choice, but once they do it, the other player has a free choice of a (cheap) share. A bit like the cold war.
Their options are:
a) Get a share of their choice, but also let the other player have one
b) Build track for the own railroad
Player 3 can also build, but he might try to offer up a share of one of his own railroads, so he'll have one railroad where he can "share the work". Since it's likely the share will go for less than what Player 3 paid, it's still a loss situation for him.
-
Patrick Jamet
France
Paris
-
Player P3 did a huge mistake. Player P1 and P2 may now buy a bond for $10. NYC for P1, C&O for P2. P3 must null capitalize. P1 should go South to cut the road from B&O.
It's all I can said.
-
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
-
Asperamanca wrote: DISCLAIMER: Very little playing experience. I mainly answer the questions to see how my answers will compare to those of more experienced players.
We all start somewhere and that's the point of these little joseki posts: to observe and learn.
Quote: Quote: 1. Was Player #3 right to force-win that share of the NYC or should he have let it go to another player instead after enforcing a minimum bid level?
2. What did Player #3's choice to force-win the NYC share do to his position? Bad decision. Should have let go. Has two railroads to take care of, and no cash reserve.
I'm not so sure. He has two shares and no personal cash. It will take him about two rounds to regain bid control. However even in the second round he can enforce minimum bid values. The problem, and there's a large one, exists between Player #1 and Player #2. Neither of them is so tempted to Capitalise or to bid on a share lest they give the advantage to their single-share opponent. The problem there is that Player #1 has a higher income than Player #2 -- and that fact more than anything else may force the detente to break.
Quote: Quote: 3. What does each player do for their first action? Is this an easy or automatic decision for each player? Why?
4. For each player, are they in a good or bad position? What are their primary risks and opportunities? Compare and contrast their positions. Players 1 and 2 are in a bit of a deadlock: Each one can buy a share of their choice, but once they do it, the other player has a free choice of a (cheap) share. A bit like the cold war.
Exactly. It is a deadlock that neither has any interest in changing. Player #1 has the advantage of the two in that his income is higher. This is one of the very few cases where I'd expect Player #1 to open round with an Expand action instead of a Capitalise, and Player #2 may well follow suit for the same reasons. I've seen this situation play out with the round ending on 5 Expands followed by 4 Develops!
Quote: Their options are:
a) Get a share of their choice, but also let the other player have one
b) Build track for the own railroad
Player 3 can also build, but he might try to offer up a share of one of his own railroads, so he'll have one railroad where he can "share the work". Since it's likely the share will go for less than what Player 3 paid, it's still a loss situation for him.
The problem with such a shared situation is that there's little incentive for the buyer to share the work. They make more delta by concentrating on their undiluted share (3 player games are more about delta than 4 players games, which are more about alliances).
-
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
-
Pyjam wrote: Player P3 did a huge mistake. Player P1 and P2 may now buy a bond for $10.
They could, yes, but who does the first Capitalise?
Quote: NYC for P1, C&O for P2. P3 must null capitalize.
Why would Player #1 open with a Capitalise rather than another action? could he gain something by waiting?
Quote: P1 should go South to cut the road from B&O.
It usually requires an alliance to get enough Expand actions to use the PRR to effectively cut off the B&O and C&O as it first has to get out to the mines and then head south (remember: multiple companies may build in the farms).
-
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
-
A key point in this set piece is that you can't stop someone from getting a Capitalise action in a 3 player game. Normally the Capitalise actions are used first in a round as they set the incentives for the rest of the round and are the most significant factor regarding game-length control. However in 3 player games the situation can be a little more flexible and sometimes there's value in waiting until another player in a more difficult position commits first and reveals what you'll need to play against. This isn't common, most of the time it is more valuable to dictate than to respond, but this set piece is one of the exceptions.
-
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
-
clearclaw wrote: I've seen this situation play out with the round ending on 5 Expands followed by 4 Develops!
This is especially true if Player #2 gets the last Develop. That extra action can remove the income gap between him and Player #1.
-
Martin G
United Kingdom
London
-
Just trying to make sure I've understood this dilemma.
If Player 1 capitalises then either he or Player 2 will end up buying the share.
If Player 1 buys it for (10 + x) then Player 2 will be able to buy a share of his choice for (10 - x) and so will have got a better deal.
However if Player 2 buys it for (10 + x), Players 2 and 3 will both null capitalise, leaving Player 1 with only one share.
But if Player 1 doesn't capitalise, Player 2 is presented with exactly the same dilemma.
-
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
-
qwertymartin wrote: But if Player 1 doesn't capitalise, Player 2 is presented with exactly the same dilemma.
Bingo, and even better Player #2 is falling behind Player #1 at this point and thus has the largest incentive to make the commitment first, but he does so on very unstable ground. Conversely if Player #1 Capitalises first then Player #1 has a much harder time of it as he doesn't know the lay of the ground -- he might as well let Player #2 make the hard choice and thus make that easier for himself.
-
Bill J
United States
Batavia
Ohio
-
This poses a really interesting, shaky moment for Player #2.
If #2 gets the first Auction/Capitalize action, then I would bid 10 (if the minimum isn't higher) on the NYC. The logic is that Player #3 really cannot compete in the auction process and will very likely develop NYC with expansion or development - ride #3's coattails for while on a good line.
The $10 bid will force Player #1 to bid $11 and upward for the stock - depleting #1's bank account and leaving #2 with more purchasing power later in the turn. On the other hand, if #2 loses the bid and then #3 and #1 immediately proceed to null capitalize, #2 will be hurting without having made any purchases because there are only 3 auctions available per turn.
In this scenario, #3 really has an opportunity to burn #2 in the auction department, even though they have no money! Awesome!
-
Martin G
United Kingdom
London
-
BillJ1967 wrote: If #2 gets the first Auction/Capitalize action, then I would bid 10 (if the minimum isn't higher) on the NYC. The logic is that Player #3 really cannot compete in the auction process and will very likely develop NYC with expansion or development - ride #3's coattails for while on a good line.
Wouldn't #3 expand his undiluted C&O instead?
-
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
-
BillJ1967 wrote: This poses a really interesting, shaky moment for Player #2.
Precisely.
Quote: If #2 gets the first Auction/Capitalize action, then I would bid 10 (if the minimum isn't higher) on the NYC. The logic is that Player #3 really cannot compete in the auction process and will very likely develop NYC with expansion or development - ride #3's coattails for while on a good line.
It is a fairly safe assumption that Player #3 will null Capitalise as soon as some other player Capitalises. However they have no need to Capitalise at all unless another player does so first.
Quote: The $10 bid will force Player #1 to bid $11 and upward for the stock - depleting #1's bank account and leaving #2 with more purchasing power later in the turn. On the other hand, if #2 loses the bid and then #3 and #1 immediately proceed to null capitalize, #2 will be hurting without having made any purchases because there are only 3 auctions available per turn.
Grin. You'd almost think I planned that when I constructed the set piece!
Quote: In this scenario, #3 really has an opportunity to burn #2 in the auction department, even though they have no money! Awesome!
Quite. One resolution I've seen is:
- Player #1 Expand PRR
- Player #2: Capitalise and win PRR for $10
- Player #3: null Capitalise
- Player #1: Capitalise and win B&O for $10
...etc.
The fragility with that approach is that it gives Player #1 a positional advantage of earlier bidder for (most) future auctions.
Another not-so-uncommon outcome is:
- Player #1 Expand PRR
- Player #2: Capitalise PRR and Player #1 wins it for $$$
- Player #3: null Capitalise
- Player #1: null Capitalise
...etc.
That leaves Player #2 high cash, but also third in the turn order for the next round. In the next round Player #3 will probably open by Capitalising the B&O (and may win it), Player #1 will either null Capitalise or Expand (esp if Player #3 wins the B&O), and Player #2 will Capitalise whichever of the C&O and NYC that Player #3 Expanded and will make damned sure he wins it (and Player #1 will make him pay for it). Then Player #3 will either null Capitalise in order to prevent Player #1 from getting a cheap C&O or NYC share but giving them 3 of the 5 Expands that turn.
Also:
- Player #1 Expand PRR
- Player #2: Capitalise PRR and Player #2 wins it for $$$ (bid up by Player #1)
- Player #3: null Capitalise
- Player #1: Cheap share of either the B&O or whichever of the C&O or NYC looks better.
...etc.
Yes, the choices are hard.
-
Martin G
United Kingdom
London
-
Argh! I played a game tonight which ended up with almost exactly this situation after the initial auction. I was the PRR player and I put up a share for auction, forgetting all about this little set-piece until just too late. Player 2 got a cheap share, Player 3 expanded and I was stuck having to null capitalise or give P2 another cheap one. P1 never looked back from there - it's such an unforgiving game.
-
Patrick Jamet
France
Paris
-
Argh! I played a game last week which ended up with almost exactly this situation after the initial auction.
Player #1: PRR (Red) $20 + Cash $20
Player #2: B&O (Blue) $20 + C&O (Yellow) $20 + Cash $0
Player #3: NYC (Green) $20 + Cash $20
Player #1: Capitalised B&O and got it for $? (I don’t remember but it doesn’t matter).
Player #2 (me) : Capitalised PPR, player #3 passed, and player #1 got it for $4 !!! (At this moment I had murder envy against player #3)
Player #3 : Capitalised C&O and got it.
Player #1 won the game easily. Yes, it's an unforgiving game.
During the initial auction, I got the B&O for $20, then I offered $20 for the C&O and player #3 passed. Did I do a mistake ?
Clearclaw, could you please provide the answers for you first two questions ?
Thank you for these little pieces of joseki.
Quote: - Player #1 Expand PRR
- Player #2: Capitalise PRR and Player #1 wins it for $13
- Player #3: null Capitalise
Isn’t it better for Player #3 if he capitalises PRR ? Player #2 will get it for $8 but at least the income will be divided between two players.
Same example :
Quote: Player #2 will Capitalise whichever of the C&O and NYC that Player #3 Expanded and will make damned sure he wins it (and Player #1 will make him pay for it).
Player #2 should bid until $20 ?
-
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
-
Pyjam wrote: Player #2 (me) : Capitalised PPR, player #3 passed, and player #1 got it for $4 !!! (At this moment I had murder envy against player #3)
Depending on Player#1's cash at that point I either would have null capitalised or capitalised a NYC at this point.
Quote: During the initial auction, I got the B&O for $20, then I offered $20 for the C&O and player #3 passed. Did I do a mistake ?
Given that you're going to be #2 in the first round and #3 in the second round, I probably would have opened the C&O for ~$16, thus setting the minimum bar for Player#1/Player#3. I then wouldn't bid again on the C&O. If you get it, great, if not you're in a great position to set up for a Gotham maneuvre.
Quote: Clearclaw, could you please provide the answers for you first two questions ?
Q1: It is tough. Player#3 puts Player#1 in a delightfully difficult position by doing so but commits hard to both a long game and a delicate position. That's not a terrible thing, but it has to be recognised immediately so that the rest of Player#3's game is consistent with that commitment.
Q2: It commits him to a long game position, null capitalise for his first action and having to play a very delicate balancing/tempo game between the other two players.
Quote: Thank you for these little pieces of joseki.
You are most welcome! I need to break some time free to get the next two posted.
-
-
what does null capitalise mean?
-
Paul Clarke
United Kingdom
Southampton
Hampshire
-
littleboy wrote: what does null capitalise mean?
Null auction- select an action but don't perform it.
-
-
oh, thanks. Was it called capitalise in its previous incarnation, or does "null auction" not roll off the tongue nicely enough?
-
Paul Clarke
United Kingdom
Southampton
Hampshire
-
littleboy wrote: oh, thanks. Was it called capitalise in its previous incarnation, or does "null auction" not roll off the tongue nicely enough?
Original game:
Gallery
http://boardgamegeek.com/images/boardgame/42485/wabash-canno...
-
-
ok, thanks, so "null" capitalisation means you select the action but don't put anything up for auction, to push the dial up, or you put something up for auction with no intention of buying the share yourself?
-
Mikko Saari
Finland
http://www.lautapeliopas.fi/ - the best Finnish board game resource!
-
It's choosing the action, but not auctioning anything.
Auctioning something is not a null cap.
-
-
Thanks for the replies, was a bit confusing as someone here (was it 'clearclaw'?) said
1) he'd won a game with only 2 shares. I don't understand how that's possible, if he was earning dividends with those shares, why were the others not buying shares in the same company?
2) it's not a game about building. If you don't build any track, don't the income levels for the companies stay the same, I'm not sure how the game works without track building
3) the effect of adding capital to companies by auctioning shares is a trivial effect. Again, I'm not sure what that means, is it that you're supposed to auction the opening shares so high that the company has enough to build (assuming build is OK, see point 2) to its ultimate destination? Otherwise, I'm not sure again how these lines make money, it costs to build into hexes, and the only way they can do that is with money which comes from the auction of shares
it's very confusing when starting a game to see these kinds of comments, as it feels like we're playing the game wrong. FWLIW this was a 2P affair, which was very enjoyable, it's a very clever system but it's going to take some time to wrap our heads round the interplay between company capital, share value, company income etc
awesome game
-
Mikko Saari
Finland
http://www.lautapeliopas.fi/ - the best Finnish board game resource!
-
Of course it's a game of building - after all, you need to exhaust two of the three tracks to end a round, and probably 95% rounds end with the building track and the capitalization track exhausted - and those building actions are rarely null actions, while the auctions often are.
You build track, yes, but that's not the goal of the game or the purpose of buying the shares. It's more of a side product of the share game.
It is a very opaque game, and 2P experience is not representative of how the game works with four players.
-
-
no, I'm sure there's a lot more going on with more players, but it's a nice quick playing and still interesting game with just 2, as an introduction to this genre at least.
-
|
|
