Breno K.
Brazil
Brasília
Distrito Federal
-
No worries, I'll update this topic with further postings on new impressions after each play (considering it's an 18xx, if I get five by the end of the year I'm very lucky). This review will go more into the specific rules of the game than my usual fare, since it's an 18xx game, it's really made of those small rules that differ from the norm.
Just as some background information on the reviewer, out of the whole series I've played (in order from best to least-favorite) 1856, 1830, 18AL, 1895 Namibia, 1870, 18SP, 18GA, 1861 and 1825. Around 20 matches, total.
So, 1848 is Ohley's latest 18xx, made with the help of his newest design partner, Lonny Orgler (of 1837 and 1854 fame). First thing that should be noted is that even though this is clearly a hand-made product (or something close to it), the production value is pretty nice. The cards are all previously cut-out, the tiles are of nice thick paper (not as thick as Mayfair's editions, but if you laminate it it'll feel much nicer). The wooden tokens are pretty cool (they did feel a bit too chunky for the stock market, but nothing too bad), and the different colors for the companies really helps things out.
So, gameplay characteristics. This is an interesting variation on the 18xx formula. I guess the heaviest change to the game would be the Bank of England and how the train rush works: players CANNOT contribute their own money to the companies if they are trainless, you must take compulsory loans from the bank of england, loans that you never pay back, but make the company lose share value by two-spaces-to-the-left for each loan. If it's during a train rush, a player may need more than just one loan, and then those (if it's outside of a train rush, then a company can only take one loan per turn).
In practice, it's like you have a secondary financial valve. You can distribute dividends and take a loan, making the end result of the share price one space to the left from the previous turn (but the player still gets the money from the dividends), your you can turn it on full-power for a 3-space share-loss and some nice money for your company's treasure (plus some heavy manipulation in turn order). This gives the game some extra flexibility, which I found to be interesting and promising in future plays, much better than the wimpy half-dividend from 1870.
Shares in the initial offering and in the bank pool do not give money to the companies, so the only source of capital other than the initial par value × 10 is by withholding dividends or taking loans. So there's really no advantage of having your shares bought and sold by other players (at least it only goes down once per set of shares sold).
You can buy shares of the Bank of England, which go up in share value every time someone takes a new loan (it can also serve to end the game, if 16 or more loans are taken). It's something that I found to be very cool in concept, but ended up being less interesting during the gameplay (At least in my first play of it). We all just bought the shares before the first train rush and sold them after the companies with the 4-trains had left the game.
If the company ends up in the left-hand column of the stock market, it goes into receivership. Too bad. The company's stations are flipped over, the company's treasury is used to pay the secondary shareholders (the former director gets nothing, and even has to pay if the treasury isn't enough...) and now those new Bank-of-England Stations add to the fixed dividends that the Bank pays before the operations of the train companies.
What I disliked about the bank of england was the possibility of it not being really a factor in certain matches. In 1856, the government always plays an important role (unless people are total newbies); here, it can end up not affecting the game at all, or at least I so imagine after my first match.
Perhaps as a sort of incentive for loan-taking, the game has a special train that's available after the first 5-train is purchased, the 2E. It goes from any station of the company to a northern off-board area of the map called Alice springs that's worth 40-60 $s, ignoring any towns or unblocked cities along the way. Again, this did not see play in our match, but what I can imagine is that it boosts a company's dividends slightly (from 60 to all the way to 140). So it's a way to use the company's leftover $ from advanced train purchases.
The map is interesting, it's pretty small and always develops mostly around the coast. To keep that from becoming boring, I think, the game gives the companies a crapload of stations. Seriously. Out of the 8 companies of the game, 2 of them have 3 stations (counting the home station), 3 companies have 4 stations and 3 companies have 5 stations. That's a total of 33 stations. For a 55-hex map (1870's map is around two times as big, and the companies there have 36 stations total, counting the destination tokens. Yeah, I counted. 1856 has 32 station tokens, not counting CGR). Yep, rough stuff.
To add insult to injury, the game also has those impossible-to-upgrade two-dot-town yellow hexes (they don't count towards train capacities, though). There are actually NO other dot towns other than these 3 specific hexes (which, of course, are situated in key locations). You also get 3 double-white-city hexes (much like the one Erie starts in in 1830, except with a usable yellow version of it) that upgrade to those lovely brown tiles that are so crucial near New York in 1830 and are oh-so-easy to block. Nice.
One new aspect of the game that will always interfere with play are the K bonuses. Every time a train goes in a route that travels through the most important cities in australia (conveniently spread in the farthest corners of the map, like in a videogame where the main character has to get the 5-orbs-of-destiny before entering the final castle, and they're always on the farthest corners of the earth so that the game lasts more than 30 hours and the player feels satisfied even though he's just sitting there doing the same inane tasks of unlocking doors and killing pallete-swapped monsters... but that's another story) the dividends get a bonus of +50/100/150/200. I imagine the diesels can be a killer in this one, for that reason (racking up all those cities AND that nice bonus?). Again, it did not see play, because it's mighty pricy and the players that ended up with the advanced trains actually didn't do it with enough slack in their pants to pay the extra $300 for the diesel instead of the 8-train.
Working against those bonuses, you have the track gauges. The game simulates track gauges by the placement on the hexes of white-station markers that are worth zero yet count against a train's range (a route with two cities and two of these markers require a 4 train, for an example. pretty unlikely route, but good for an example). When you buy a train, you can opt to pay a little extra (around 10%, it depends) to get a + train, which can ignore ONE of those markers. (you could do the route in the previous example with a 3+ train, ignoring one of the 2 markers). The choice between normal and "+" trains was somewhat interesting, but not as nail-biting as I expected, since there wasn't so much train-laundry between companies as most 18xx (the loans helped the companies get some extra last-minute $) to make these transactions tastier. Again, this may be a factor of the particular match that I played.
So, what do I think of the game, in summary? It's pretty good. So far, if I were to take seriously my rank of the 18xx's I've played, I'd put it between 18AL and 1895 Namibia, or perhaps above 18AL, depending on how the future matches develop. There's a bunch of added stuff in this one, so it's not the best 18xx to start playing the series with (though the absolute-18xx-newbie seemed to enjoy it and asked about other titles, even asking where he could find the files for 18AL to print it out). In fact, I think the total 18xx newbie's reaction will help me explain the "artificial" feel of the added rules in this one:
From my experience, people that have just played 18xx for the first time are usually surprised when we mention the rules differences some variations have over others. It's perhaps due to the somewhat dense basic strategies involved in playing 18xx, they have just gotten used to the basic mechanisms of capitalization, operation rounds and etc. I remember distinctly a player saying that 1830 must be very boring for having the 60%-shares 100%-capital capitalization rule instead of 1856's fragmented style after playing 18xx for the first time (yeah, it was a match of 1856). Another one said that 1856 must be neverending considering that 18AL took us four hours and half as much companies (when the previous weekend we had played a match of 1856 to the end in 5 hours).
With 1848, the 18xx-newbie immediately believed that not all 18xx games have loans like the bank of england, or track gauges, or 2E trains, or + trains, or receivership, or ... you get the point. Sure, it may be due to the fact that it was my (the game explainer) first match of 1848, but I still get the nagging feeling that the changes here do not feel as organic to the system as in the other 18xx's (even 1825 and 1861, versions that I did not care at all for). If this "organic feel" is important to you, if apparently unimportant rules that sometimes do not even go into play bother you, then my guess is that 1848 won't be your favorite. Don't take it the wrong way, it's not particularly hard to play, and it all fits inside your head quite nicely halfway through the first match (I was able to write most of this from memory, except the crazy parts where I actually count the number of stations the game has...)
Anyway. I'm glad I bought it, I really liked it, and even would really consider buying me a copy if I had played someone else's. I expect (and even hope) that it'll to take up a nice chunk of my 18xx playing in the future. You'll see more posts on this topic as I play the game more and more. Let's see if all my predictions turn out to be true or not.
Edits: for those of you who don't know, the game is CURRENTLY AVAILABLE for immediate purchase (not such a common thing, as far as 18xx goes) at Helmut Ohley's website: http://www.ohley.de/english/1848/index.html . I should mention that he was extra nice about my rules doubts over the couple of e-mails we have exchanged.
Also, thanks, derk, for the chunky geekgold tip 
-
Breno K.
Brazil
Brasília
Distrito Federal
-
Oh yeah, the train roster is six 2's, five 3's, four 4's, three 5's, two 6's and five 8/D's.
All trains can be bought in the + versions (just flip over the card), the version that ignores one track gauge marker.
You also have 5 2E trains, which go through that special route to Alice Springs. Since they can't be sold from one company to another, each company can only own one of them, they can only be bought after the permanents are available and they do not help against compulsory train purchases (they do not count as a train the company must own at the end of a turn), they hardly really count in the train roster.
Also, the auction for the privates in the beginning of the game is dutch-style: in your turn you either buy a private or you lower one of the prices of the privates. It works nicely, since the starting prices are so damn high.
Also, the game's stock market has no yellow regions, so the certificates always count towards your limit. With 8 companies plus 10 Bank of England shares, you have 82 shares. The share limit with no bankrupted companies (each time a company goes into receivership, the limit is lowered) for 4 players is 17, so that's 68 shares. That's at least 14 shares in the Bank Pool/initial offering at the end of the game in that case.
(mini-session-report time: )
It was actually some portfolio management after the final train rush that scored the 2nd place in the game (the 2nd place ended up with no companies at the end, his only one went into receivership, but he made some clever investments when everyone thought there wasn't much else to be done in the game). As the president of 3 companies and with more 18xx experience (20 plays versus 3 plays versus 2 versus 0), I got me a practically obligatory 1st place at +-9300. Others were all in the 7K region (7900, 7600 and 7200, I think).
---
More reflections: since players cannot contribute $ to a trainless company, in 1848 you have to be extra careful when being reckless (wtf?): you cannot just go on maximizing short-term profit, paying dividends, gaining share value and then make up for it with your own money: you WILL lose all that gained share value with compulsory loans if you're not careful. In our match, a company went in one go from 160 to 40 (and subsequently, receivership); thankfully, the player had only 2 shares in it (it was clearly a busted company... and I did it, heh, throwing it at his lap when I was through with it). Even with many newbies on the table the threat seemed very clear, so it's not likely someone will be caught by this by surprise.
-
simon craddock
England
widnes
cheshire
-
Another nice review Breno.
One aspect on the Bank of England that you may wish to think about is that it is possible to run your early companies with a view to adding to the Banks share price and dividend.For example maxing out on 2 trains early will see hefty dividends for your company.The company can take a loan each round and should place all of its tokens early.
The larger dividends let you buy Bank shares and when your company goes belly up the Banks dividends can be quite impressive.
-
Breno K.
Brazil
Brasília
Distrito Federal
-
Yeah, that's what I've been thinking. It would definitely raise my 8.5 rating by a full point if such manipulation is competitively possible. It requires a lot of subtlety (buying bank shares before you trash your company, selling the company shares before it goes bankrupt, making sure it's already a little ruined so that other players don't take it from you, etc). Sounds very promising.
-
Sean Shaw
United States
Georgia
-
Thanks, I haven't played this one, sounds interesting, though I'm not certain how I'd feel about the bank/loan dynamic overall.
Nice Review
-
Breno K.
Brazil
Brasília
Distrito Federal
-
So, I had my second play yesterday (second victory, yay!)
One of the players who had played the first match with me tried to manipulate the game towards teh bank of england (bankrupting a company on purpose). He came in third, though he made some crucial mistakes related and unrelated to this manipulation. So it remains to be seen wether or not such manipulation is possible. I suspect it is, but very hard to accomplish. The thing is, once a player owns a large portion of the shares in teh bank of england, all other players will retain their dividends rather than take loans, which are already kind of expensive to begin with.
Both matches lasted 5 hours. While there are many specific rules to this game, the softened company-dump mechanism (players no longer have to pay for a train for a busted company) makes it more newbie friendly in my opinion, or at least it appears to be.
For an example, the director of a busted company sells his shares in the stock round before the train rush, all the new president loses is his ability to sell the shares himself before they lose all value. (since directors are not compensated for shares of companies that end up closing). While mathematically it may be very harming (losing 320 bucks, like in our last game), it doesn't appear to be as rough as having to buy the train yourself.
-
-
BrenoK wrote: For an example, the director of a busted company sells his shares in the stock round before the train rush, all the new president loses is his ability to sell the shares himself before they lose all value. (since directors are not compensated for shares of companies that end up closing). While mathematically it may be very harming (losing 320 bucks, like in our last game), it doesn't appear to be as rough as having to buy the train yourself.
You also lose one or two slots from your personal certificate limit (depending on the number of players), which I think is kinda important.
-
Breno K.
Brazil
Brasília
Distrito Federal
-
All players lose those slots, I think. I mean, there are less shares to go around, right?
-
-
BrenoK wrote: All players lose those slots, I think. I mean, there are less shares to go around, right?
The president of scrapped company loses additional slots (so after the dust have settled he has less slots than other players).
I have a high respect for 1848 Australia. I currently have rated it '9' but it is more like '9.3' or '9.4'...
.mikko
-
-
Yeah, what Mikko said. It's in the rules under "Companies in Receivership"
Quote:
- The share limit is reduced for all players according to the corresponding table.
- In a 3 or 4 player game the share limit for the former Director is reduced by an additional 2.
- In a 5 or 6 player game the share limit for the former Director is reduced by an additional 1.
-
Breno K.
Brazil
Brasília
Distrito Federal
-
Henkka wrote: Yeah, what Mikko said. It's in the rules under "Companies in Receivership" Quote:
- The share limit is reduced for all players according to the corresponding table.
- In a 3 or 4 player game the share limit for the former Director is reduced by an additional 2.
- In a 5 or 6 player game the share limit for the former Director is reduced by an additional 1.
Thanks! But I'm not sure I like that rule, it makes it more difficult to manipulate receivership in your favor.
-
-
BrenoK wrote: Thanks! But I'm not sure I like that rule, it makes it more difficult to manipulate receivership in your favor.
I don't think it was ever intended to be manipulated.
It's a different kind of penalty for having a company dumped to you, which conveniently removes player bankruptcy from the game, which I think is the whole point of this rule.
I could be wrong, though.
-
Breno K.
Brazil
Brasília
Distrito Federal
-
Yeah, I think you're correct. But I just like manipulation
-
simon craddock
England
widnes
cheshire
-
BrenoK wrote: Henkka wrote: Yeah, what Mikko said. It's in the rules under "Companies in Receivership" Quote:
- The share limit is reduced for all players according to the corresponding table.
- In a 3 or 4 player game the share limit for the former Director is reduced by an additional 2.
- In a 5 or 6 player game the share limit for the former Director is reduced by an additional 1.
Thanks! But I'm not sure I like that rule, it makes it more difficult to manipulate receivership in your favor.
I think that you may you may be playing this one slightly wrong.The two bottom lines are only refering to the table later in the rules and penalise everyone, not just the director.The better translation would be to use company rather than director.
-
-
simon craddock wrote: BrenoK wrote: Henkka wrote: Yeah, what Mikko said. It's in the rules under "Companies in Receivership" Quote:
- The share limit is reduced for all players according to the corresponding table.
- In a 3 or 4 player game the share limit for the former Director is reduced by an additional 2.
- In a 5 or 6 player game the share limit for the former Director is reduced by an additional 1.
Thanks! But I'm not sure I like that rule, it makes it more difficult to manipulate receivership in your favor. I think that you may you may be playing this one slightly wrong.The two bottom lines are only refering to the table later in the rules and penalise everyone, not just the director.The better translation would be to use company rather than director.
Well, I shot the designer with a question regarding this. But I wonder why there is the word "additional"? Google translation from the German rules says additional too..
Edit:
Ohley's answer confirmed that the former director of the company that went into receivership indeed loses additional slots from his personal share limit.
-
-
BrenoK wrote: Henkka wrote: Yeah, what Mikko said. It's in the rules under "Companies in Receivership" Quote:
- The share limit is reduced for all players according to the corresponding table.
- In a 3 or 4 player game the share limit for the former Director is reduced by an additional 2.
- In a 5 or 6 player game the share limit for the former Director is reduced by an additional 1.
Thanks! But I'm not sure I like that rule, it makes it more difficult to manipulate receivership in your favor.
I think it would be too obvious (and too powerful?) strategy to ditch bad companies without above penalty. Now it appears to be skill test enough with a tempting but dangerous path.
.mikko
-
Breno K.
Brazil
Brasília
Distrito Federal
-
Nah, I think it would've been harder than it is in 1856, for an example: to sell your shares in the stock round right before the crash, and make it worth your while with purchasing of Bank of England shares.
Dunno, the game does seem kind of overwrought, if this is just an alternative scheme to "don't become trainless" challenge of most 18xx's.
-
|
|
Posted Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:59 pm
