|
William Shields
Australia
Inglewood
WA
-
That's "Age of Steam" that avoids any ridiculous trademark claims for the uninitiated.
Components
I don't normally say much about the components but you have to draw the comparison to Age of Steam. Steam has better components. The tiles and the board are both more attractive. Income, etc have spots on the board (rather than being pieces of paper at the side) and the money is better. Incoming a bag for the cubes is a nice touch.
In Age of Steam (2nd ed at least; I haven't seen the Fred version) you get one map. In Steam you get two (Germany and US), which is nice.
The Game
Steam is basically the third edition of Age of Steam, the trademark of which was notoriously disputed last year.
In Steam, players each take the part of a railroad company in the mid-19th century. There are a fixed number of turns (varying to number of players). In each turn you extend your rail network, operate your company and hope not to go bankrupt.
Issue Shares
In the basic game this can be done at any time. In the standard game it must be done at the beginning of the turn. Each share issued raises $5 and reduces your income level by $1.
Turn Order
In the basic game the turn order is based on the role chosen in the previous turn. This is quite an elegant simplification of the standard game's rules. The better actions mean worse turn order next turn. The better ones also cost you money.
In the standard game, much like Age of Steam, there is an auction. Once you pass you're out otherwise you have to raise or pass. When you pass you take the latest available turn order. If you're last you pay nothing. If you're first or second you pay the full price. Otherwise you pay half rounded up. Just as in Age of Steam this is an effective and often brutal game mechanic.
In the worst case (in Age of Steam) I've seen players bid so high and its clear they're bidding for the same thing that whoever loses will go bankrupt so they have to keep bidding up til they both go bankrupt. That's how brutal it can get. It's poor planning that leads to that point however.
Choose Roles
In turn order the players choose roles:
- Urbanize: place a new city on the board and give it a supply of goods. I stress this because in Age of Steam the new city gets no goods;
- Locomotive: raise your engine level by 1;
- Engineer: build up to 4 track instead of up to 3;
- First Build: build first regardless of turn order;
- First Move: move goods first regardless of turn order;
- Turn Order: in the basic game you go first next round, otherwise it gives you one free "pass" in the next auction;
- Goods Growth: select one of the piles and place it on a city on the board. No city can receive goods growth twice in the same game. Urbanized cities don't get goods growth other than those they start with.
The most radical change here is Goods Growth. Some have argued this is too powerful. In Age of Steam you get 2 random goods and get to place them on the goods chart and then hope those numbers get rolled.
All things considered I think I prefer the Steam version as it creates a second desirable action late in the game, rather than just one (Locomotive). The counterargument is that there are so many good actions (add Urbanize) that turn order is meaningless.
Turn order is never meaningless in Steam/AoS.
Build Track
Players can each build up to three track segments (four with Engineer, plus a new city tile with Urbanize). The costs of building track have been simplified from Age of Steam (not that it was that complex but it did have varying amounts with upgrading track depending on if the new track crossed or not, as one example).
Move Goods
There are two rounds of moving goods. One at most one of these rounds a player can choose to upgrade their train size by 1. The size of your train determines how many links you can move a good when you do a delivery.
A good must be delivered to a city of the same colour. You can't move a good part way. You have to either deliver it or not. A good must stop at the first city of the right colour, can never do a loop back to whence it came and it can never pass through the same city twice on its journey.
Each link thats used earns the owner either 1 VP or $1 income. These points can't be split. If you use 3 of your own links you take either $3 income or 3 VP.
Income
In the basic game whatever your income level is, you either receive that or pay it (if it's negative). This is extremely forgiving.
In the standard game you must upkeep on your locomotive equal to its size. This is much closer to Age of Steam but is still extremely forgiving.
In Age of Steam the number of shares is like a weight around your neck. In Steam it's like they're basically irrelevant. I can remember in the first game of Steam shying away from taking Locomotive on the first turn because in Steam this can be a dodgy proposition. The extra maintenance can be that important. It's really something you have to balance.
In Steam, don't even think about it. Go as big as fast as you can, basically.
Game End
The game ends after a player-dependent fixed number of turns. Whoever has the most VPs wins. Half your income is added to your total (or twice that number if negative). The number of links are added. This is another difference with Age of Steam: in AoS links are effectively worth 1/3 VP not 1 VP.
Ideally you want to end the game on 0 income. Not enough to earn 2x negative VPs and positive income for 1/2 VP each that could've been 1 VP if you'd taken it as VPs. So try to work out how much money you'll need for the rest of the game and when you hit that income level never take income again. Just take shares to raise money and hopefully you'll get to 0 or close to it at game end.
What's To Like
I think the best thing about Steam is the basic game. It's a good way of getting new players into the genre without scaring them off with all the brain-bending that early AoS/Steam games tend to be.
It's controversial but I also like the Goods Growth action. I like that theres something else of value in the late game.
Ultimately if you like AoS, you'll like this unless you're a diehard irrational fanboy (and there are a few of those lurking here). You can argue the relative merits of one over the other but really they're 90% the same game. To like one and hate the other is just... irrational.
What's Not To Like
Frankly the element I dislike the most is the income/VP track splits and the lack of income reduction. A runaway leader is a far bigger problem in Steam, in my experience, than in Age of Steam. This alone makes me prefer Age of Steam for the most part.
And frankly I don't think the income/VP split even makes sense. I just don't think it works.
Conclusion
There's nothing hugely surprising. It's a rework of a successful formula and it still works as a whole. It's slightly different and you could easily live with owning one and not the other and that could easily be either game.
Overall: 9 out of 10.
-
Łukasz Grabuń
Poland
Warsaw
-
Rule summary pretending to be a review?
-
Matt Olson
Australia
Darlington
WA
-
grouchysmurf wrote: Rule summary pretending to be a review?
There's a review here, but you'd have to have read it to know that. 
Thanks for the review
-
Jonathan Morton
Canada
Kitchener
Ontario
-
Quote: In the standard game you must upkeep on your locomotive equal to its size. This is much closer to Age of Steam but is still extremely forgiving.
In Age of Steam the number of shares is like a weight around your neck. In Steam it's like they're basically irrelevant.
I think you're misunderstanding the impact of dropping down a spot on the income track every time you take a share. To compensate for this, you must earn an extra dollar in every subsequent round. Which is to say, exactly the same impact as shares in Age of Steam. It's not gentler, it's streamlined.
The only thing that's more forgiving about shares in Steam is that there is no cap. Not that the cap comes into play in every game of Age of Steam either.
Quote: And frankly I don't think the income/VP split even makes sense. I just don't think it works.
Themeatically, it makes sense to me as money plowed back into the company vs. money paid out to investors. YMMV on that, but without it there would be more of a runaway leader problem.
-
William Springer
United States
Brooklyn
Wisconsin
-
hagin wrote:
In Age of Steam the number of shares is like a weight around your neck. In Steam it's like they're basically irrelevant. I can remember in the first game of Steam shying away from taking Locomotive on the first turn because in Steam this can be a dodgy proposition. The extra maintenance can be that important. It's really something you have to balance.
In Steam, don't even think about it. Go as big as fast as you can, basically.
I find that in AoS also, it's almost always correct to grow your locomotive as fast as possible. Yes, it costs you a dollar every turn...but (ignoring income reduction) your first delivery with the extra length compensates for that, and afterwards it's all profit. If anything, AoS/Steam is a race to see who can make the most 6-length deliveries (although of course that depends on the map; in my last game, AoS: Zombie Apocolypse, we had no 6-length deliveries the whole game)
-
William Shields
Australia
Inglewood
WA
-
Jonny5 wrote: I think you're misunderstanding the impact of dropping down a spot on the income track every time you take a share. To compensate for this, you must earn an extra dollar in every subsequent round. Which is to say, exactly the same impact as shares in Age of Steam. It's not gentler, it's streamlined.
It's not streamlined. It's both different and worse. Income reduction is the difference.
Quote: The only thing that's more forgiving about shares in Steam is that there is no cap. Not that the cap comes into play in every game of Age of Steam either.
It does come into play though. Even if you don't hit the cap you're aware of it and it affects your spending.
-
Adam Daulton
United States
Indianapolis
Indiana
-
A
 just because I liked the title.
-
Richard Young
Canada
Victoria
BC
Old Ways Are Best!
Check Six!
-
A good review and a fair one as well. I'm a little surprised that the usual suspects haven't taken you to task on some of your observations - but it's early yet. I agree with your placing of this game in the lineage and for many it could be the end of the line.
I have both Age of Steam and Steam and appreciate both - hell, I even have Railways of the World/Railroad Tycoon, so call me a rail game junkie. If I was forced to choose just one rail game to keep, it would be...1856...but I digress - we're talking about Martin's rail games here. The one I'd go with would be Steam for a lot of the reasons you've given.
The best feature is that you are given two ways to play that both work just fine for the appropriate audience. The basic game is more forgiving, more streamlined and perfect as an introductory rail game but which still offers more than simply fetch and deliver. The standard game is more of a gamer's game but has a little more polish than its fore bearer. I think of it as AoS with some of the rough edges smoothed off.
The addition of Steam Barons to add the stock market element finishes the picture although I need to get more familiar with it before getting too excited. I'm concerned that here, as with RoE&W, the addition of the market meant that the progression of train technology had to be discarded - thus removing one of the key dynamics of the game. If 18XX games could have both why not these?
But this isn't about Steam Barons - this is about a review of Steam that covered most of the salient points with some insight. I liked the observation that "turn order is always important," despite this game's having evened the roles to retain some need for decisions even in the late game and to soften the blow for the second highest bidder who is mostly always screwed in AoS (as you accurately describe). Yes, auctions become irrelevant if all the roles are of equal value but even here in Steam, they are not (and these values change as the game progresses). I like what he's done here.
The income/VP split tracks have their advocates and detractors. I like the mechanic but also have to accept that there are those that dislike it. On the other hand, I've also found the income reduction bands in AoS arbitrary and inelegant - while at the same time I have to admit that they do their job, albeit clumsily. I guess the bottom line for me is that I don't find anything in Steam, basic or standard, that I would label "clumsy." Thanks for your review.
-
William Shields
Australia
Inglewood
WA
-
Bubslug wrote: I have both Age of Steam and Steam and appreciate both - hell, I even have Railways of the World/Railroad Tycoon, so call me a rail game junkie. If I was forced to choose just one rail game to keep, it would be...1856...but I digress -
I haven't played the full gamut of fan 18XX variants, only 1830, 1856, 1870, 1835, 2038 and 1861 and 1856 and 1830 and definitely my favourite. In 1870 all the companies end up being basically the same. 1856 is far more interesting than that (imho).
Quote: The best feature is that you are given two ways to play that both work just fine for the appropriate audience.
I agree. On another thread a diehard AoS fanboy commented that this detracts from the game and (basically) that real players just play the real thing. He must be fun to play with. If there are two games A and B that are equally complex and enjoyable, A is not better than B because B has introductory variants. Elitism is not a virtue.
-
Richard Young
Canada
Victoria
BC
Old Ways Are Best!
Check Six!
-
I like 1830 very much as well, but don't own a copy (yet). I satisfy that urge via the Avalon Hill published PC game from the mid-nineties. If I did own it, I would be hard pressed to choose between it and 1856 - although, since 1856 is a depiction of the development of Canadian rail, my bias might favour it. I just hope choices like that never face me.
Your reference to the individual that criticized Steam for giving you two ways to play probably didn't like either way, really. Sounds like something you'd hear from an AoS fanboi. As such, I'm not sure I would describe it as "elitism." Maybe Autism?
-
|
|
|
