Introducing 18xx to new players (was 18xx at Strategicon (Gateway 2014))

['Jean Michalski' [e-mail] [18xx]]

Hi Everyone,



Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this topic, a recurring one in our little group (Namur, Belgium).



Most people we have trained, even after 2-3 games, are reluctant to play again because they want to win and they feel they stand no chance against experienced players. They are often discouraged to realize they fail to think about the correct parameters to take into account when making decisions. They do take some parameters into account, but these are not the most relevant ones, and they always end up losing to better players who know what the best parameters are at every stage of the game.



It is a bit like chess games (or martial arts) between beginners and advanced players. So my conclusion at this stage is that beginners must play (a lot) between themselves, and eventually they will acquire the skills necessary to have fun at tables with more expert players. Also, the learning curve is quite long with every 18xx title, but you can reuse some of your previous experience when learning each new game.



However, it is very frustrating for beginners and even intermediate players to play 18xx if they are left to themselves: not only are the rules complex and long to master, but there are lots of strategic and tactical decisions to make all along the game. Add the difficulty of calculating revenue, keeping the money separated, etc., and you’ll easily end up with an expert player (master) at the table, which is, I repeat, a mistake: the beginners should play amongst themselves in order to have fun.



So for now I show 18xx like a “school” (Ressha-Do ;-). My participation to conventions is just about this, too. I go and play, of course, but I also observe and learn, in order to improve my game and discover new and better possibilities.



My two cents,



Jean





From: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:18xx-***@public.gmane.org]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 2:54 AM
To: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [18xx] Re: 18xx at Strategicon (Gateway 2014)





Two thoughts:



1.) Tournament play is certainly not ideal for new players, but new players frequently only allocate convention time for such "adventurous/lengthy/complicated" games, which frequently overlaps with the only available 18xx event at a convention being a tournament (or 18C2C/18OE...). Very similar patterns can be found with games like Twilight Imperium, Diplomacy, or any other similarly rules-heavy and time-consuming games. So long as that continues to be the case, the "problem" will continue to exist. Even worse, those players rarely repeat as these events occur completely out of their normal context and they frequently do not follow up on ways of continuing with local groups, so the effort of teaching is completely wasted. As a result, I rarely allow myself to be in games with new players in such circumstances, and prefer to establish relatively frequent local sessions which I announce in certain public sectors (currently Joe's SF Board Game Geeks meetup is my preferred method).



2.) Playing a game like 18AL does new players a complete disservice. 18AL is so gentle as to not provide any real threat or challenge, instead being an almost pure snowball game - leaving new players wondering why anyone would play 18xx over a typical 60-90 minute Eurogame. I've had extremely low success with that one. My preferred intro titles are 1889 (can't kill yourself on the privates, very rough edge of the 6T breaking or not [and the paranoia it can cause], very simple track/routes/revenue calculations, and some real station screwage possible), 18Neb (privates extremely gentle auction although overly long, only towns at the beginning of the game which grow into cities, total station screwage possibilities in the midgame, route-building to get the E-W bonus, and a not-too-gentle train rush), and probably 1879 will be a new one I'll try soon (no privates, brutal train rush, difficult track decisions, bankruptcy seems extremely likely).



-Eric

I completely agree, Joe.
This is one of my biggest complaints about how games are taught,
especially more complex games like 18xx. It can be really easy to shift
from explaining how things work to playing someone else's position for
them. If I'm going to play someone else's position for them, then why
are they even sitting there? The fastest way to ensure someone never
comes back to the table is to make it irrelevant that they, the person,
are at the table. That just kills the fun for many people.

I agree too. This is why, if I want to teach 18xx to a newby, I pull out
a reasonably short and simple game, like 18AL. Second best are the most
common games like 1830, but 1830 with newbies can easily run 10 hours if
you don't hurry them so much that they don't enjoy playing.

Playing someone else's position for them can not only spoil a game for
the newby but also for everyone else, both because it tends to double the
playing time (so you don't finish) and because the committee-played
position becomes unbeatably strong.







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------
Posted by: "Jean Michalski" <yaho.jean-bwSJHTjVb7Q1+***@public.gmane.org>
------------------------------------

This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.

[Mike Hutton huttm-/[e-mail] [18xx]]

As a not-too-strong player myself, the prospect of a long game (which for me is 6+ hours) where I know I have no chance of doing well takes a lot to gather enthusiasm for. In my case (and I suspect a number of others) I then work on a mini-metagame once I'm out of the running, such as highest revenue, or more usually just not to come last. That works for me, but it certainly won't work for everyone.

A lot of the attraction of 18xx games to non-18xx players is not the 1830 screw-your-opponent-over element. It's the constructive company building and stock trading elements. Nothing puts a player off more than being forced bankrupt every time they play. It is this reason why I would NEVER put 1830 in front of a newbie. NEVER. It is simply too nasty, and if misfortune comes early then the poor victim has the prospect of spending the last 2-3 hours with not a lot to do. Nothing is likely to put a player off more. This is not to say that 1830 is a poor game. Far from it. But there are so many opportunities for experienced players to really put the mockers on that new players really need a primer on what to avoid doing if they want to avoid Trouble. E.g. don't buy that second share in someone else's company unless it's got a permanent train (etc).

The thought that newbies want a full-blown "challenge" when they first play is a mistake. They might think they do, but all that will happen is they get blown away and don't come back. I believe that the increase in interest in 18xx in general is down, in part, to the move to more "gentle" games. So while you may think 18AL is tame, it may just be the only way you can bridge the gap to encourage players to delve more deeply into the 18xx hobby.

I suspect this has a lot to do with the hobby veering away - sometimes quite violently - from the 1830 nastiness in recent years. There simply isn't the audience for it out there, like it or not. There are plenty of other non-18xx games containing that degree of screwage which play in distinctly less time and require an awful lot less brain-power. A more constructive game is what I would normally recommend - alongside the shorter titles of course. To that end the likes of 1861, 1851, 18FL and 18Scan are probably where I'd start. 1861 in particular "feels" constructive, and it's only really the last hour or so where someone doing really badly has little to do. It is noticeable that my own designs (1860/62 and 33) feature different types of screwage which aren't so likely as to destroy a players' position utterly. In this way they're all back-loaded so players have more of a chance of recovering their position after an Unfortunate Turn Of Events.

The other option is to give new(er) players an advantage. This will probably need to be different for each game, For example, you could give newer players extra cash at the start, or a £10 advantage in all bidding, or something to that effect. One option in 1860 is to allow the player to ignore the restrictions on moving trains between companies, or in 1862 to allow players flexibility on pricing intercompany train sales. Getting this right is tricky, but it can help.

I would agree that less experienced players are probably better off avoiding the Sharks if winning is becoming more important than learning. But all too often it can be difficult to meet enough local 18xx players at that level of experience, so the only opportunity to play 18xx games comes at conventions. There the choice is to introduce people to the hobby with an 18xx which is more accessible and constructive and allows new players to get a flavour of the genre, or to just play our old (or new) favourites with all the complication and vindictiveness that can go with these titles, and risk putting them off for life.

I know which option I would go for.

Mike.


________________________________
From: "'Jean Michalski' yaho.jean-bwSJHTjVb7Q1+***@public.gmane.org [18xx]" <***@yahoogroups.com>
To: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org
Sent: Sunday, 7 September 2014, 12:30
Subject: [18xx] Introducing 18xx to new players (was 18xx at Strategicon (Gateway 2014))




Hi Everyone,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this topic, a recurring one in our little group (Namur, Belgium).

Most people we have trained, even after 2-3 games, are reluctant to play again because they want to win and they feel they stand no chance against experienced players. They are often discouraged to realize they fail to think about the correct parameters to take into account when making decisions. They do take some parameters into account, but these are not the most relevant ones, and they always end up losing to better players who know what the best parameters are at every stage of the game.

It is a bit like chess games (or martial arts) between beginners and advanced players. So my conclusion at this stage is that beginners must play (a lot) between themselves, and eventually they will acquire the skills necessary to have fun at tables with more expert players. Also, the learning curve is quite long with every 18xx title, but you can reuse some of your previous experience when learning each new game.

However, it is very frustrating for beginners and even intermediate players to play 18xx if they are left to themselves: not only are the rules complex and long to master, but there are lots of strategic and tactical decisions to make all along the game. Add the difficulty of calculating revenue, keeping the money separated, etc., and you’ll easily end up with an expert player (master) at the table, which is, I repeat, a mistake: the beginners should play amongst themselves in order to have fun.

So for now I show 18xx like a “school” (Ressha-Do ;-). My participation to conventions is just about this, too. I go and play, of course, but I also observe and learn, in order to improve my game and discover new and better possibilities.

My two cents,

Jean

From: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:18xx-***@public.gmane.org]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 2:54 AM
To: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [18xx] Re: 18xx at Strategicon (Gateway 2014)

Two thoughts:

1.) Tournament play is certainly not ideal for new players, but new players frequently only allocate convention time for such "adventurous/lengthy/complicated" games, which frequently overlaps with the only available 18xx event at a convention being a tournament (or 18C2C/18OE...). Very similar patterns can be found with games like Twilight Imperium, Diplomacy, or any other similarly rules-heavy and time-consuming games. So long as that continues to be the case, the "problem" will continue to exist. Even worse, those players rarely repeat as these events occur completely out of their normal context and they frequently do not follow up on ways of continuing with local groups, so the effort of teaching is completely wasted. As a result, I rarely allow myself to be in games with new players in such circumstances, and prefer to establish relatively frequent local sessions which I announce in certain public sectors (currently Joe's SF Board Game Geeks
meetup is my preferred method).

2.) Playing a game like 18AL does new players a complete disservice. 18AL is so gentle as to not provide any real threat or challenge, instead being an almost pure snowball game - leaving new players wondering why anyone would play 18xx over a typical 60-90 minute Eurogame. I've had extremely low success with that one. My preferred intro titles are 1889 (can't kill yourself on the privates, very rough edge of the 6T breaking or not [and the paranoia it can cause], very simple track/routes/revenue calculations, and some real station screwage possible), 18Neb (privates extremely gentle auction although overly long, only towns at the beginning of the game which grow into cities, total station screwage possibilities in the midgame, route-building to get the E-W bonus, and a not-too-gentle train rush), and probably 1879 will be a new one I'll try soon (no privates, brutal train rush, difficult track decisions, bankruptcy seems extremely likely).

-Eric

I completely agree, Joe.
This is one of my biggest complaints about how games are taught,
especially more complex games like 18xx. It can be really easy to shift
from explaining how things work to playing someone else's position for
them. If I'm going to play someone else's position for them, then why
are they even sitting there? The fastest way to ensure someone never
comes back to the table is to make it irrelevant that they, the person,
are at the table. That just kills the fun for many people.

I agree too. This is why, if I want to teach 18xx to a newby, I pull out
a reasonably short and simple game, like 18AL. Second best are the most
common games like 1830, but 1830 with newbies can easily run 10 hours if
you don't hurry them so much that they don't enjoy playing.

Playing someone else's position for them can not only spoil a game for
the newby but also for everyone else, both because it tends to double the
playing time (so you don't finish) and because the committee-played
position becomes unbeatably strong.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

['Jean Michalski' [e-mail] [18xx]]

BTW, 1889 and 18GA are our favourite titles for new players, and we try to get them at ease with those two before they move on to other titles (takes 2-3 games of each).



There are of course exceptions: Cédric’s first game was 1856 and mine was an unfinished 1830 (after 10 hours of play – quite a painful experience)… What kept us both interested was the absence of luck factors, and the good atmosphere around the table.



The possibility to play 1830 solo on the computer, with the PC’s AI was also very helpful for me. This allowed me to play tens of games (short and sweet), and understand all basic mechanics of the game. I remember keeping track of my scores and trying to fill the Hall of Fame with my name.



I think a good implementation of 18xx on Android and/or IOS would bring hundreds of new players to the community.



My two cents,



Jean



From: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:18xx-***@public.gmane.org]
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 4:52 PM
To: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [18xx] Introducing 18xx to new players (was 18xx at Strategicon (Gateway 2014))





As a not-too-strong player myself, the prospect of a long game (which for me is 6+ hours) where I know I have no chance of doing well takes a lot to gather enthusiasm for. In my case (and I suspect a number of others) I then work on a mini-metagame once I'm out of the running, such as highest revenue, or more usually just not to come last. That works for me, but it certainly won't work for everyone.



A lot of the attraction of 18xx games to non-18xx players is not the 1830 screw-your-opponent-over element. It's the constructive company building and stock trading elements. Nothing puts a player off more than being forced bankrupt every time they play. It is this reason why I would NEVER put 1830 in front of a newbie. NEVER. It is simply too nasty, and if misfortune comes early then the poor victim has the prospect of spending the last 2-3 hours with not a lot to do. Nothing is likely to put a player off more. This is not to say that 1830 is a poor game. Far from it. But there are so many opportunities for experienced players to really put the mockers on that new players really need a primer on what to avoid doing if they want to avoid Trouble. E.g. don't buy that second share in someone else's company unless it's got a permanent train (etc).



The thought that newbies want a full-blown "challenge" when they first play is a mistake. They might think they do, but all that will happen is they get blown away and don't come back. I believe that the increase in interest in 18xx in general is down, in part, to the move to more "gentle" games. So while you may think 18AL is tame, it may just be the only way you can bridge the gap to encourage players to delve more deeply into the 18xx hobby.



I suspect this has a lot to do with the hobby veering away - sometimes quite violently - from the 1830 nastiness in recent years. There simply isn't the audience for it out there, like it or not. There are plenty of other non-18xx games containing that degree of screwage which play in distinctly less time and require an awful lot less brain-power. A more constructive game is what I would normally recommend - alongside the shorter titles of course. To that end the likes of 1861, 1851, 18FL and 18Scan are probably where I'd start. 1861 in particular "feels" constructive, and it's only really the last hour or so where someone doing really badly has little to do. It is noticeable that my own designs (1860/62 and 33) feature different types of screwage which aren't so likely as to destroy a players' position utterly. In this way they're all back-loaded so players have more of a chance of recovering their position after an Unfortunate Turn Of Events.



The other option is to give new(er) players an advantage. This will probably need to be different for each game, For example, you could give newer players extra cash at the start, or a £10 advantage in all bidding, or something to that effect. One option in 1860 is to allow the player to ignore the restrictions on moving trains between companies, or in 1862 to allow players flexibility on pricing intercompany train sales. Getting this right is tricky, but it can help.



I would agree that less experienced players are probably better off avoiding the Sharks if winning is becoming more important than learning. But all too often it can be difficult to meet enough local 18xx players at that level of experience, so the only opportunity to play 18xx games comes at conventions. There the choice is to introduce people to the hobby with an 18xx which is more accessible and constructive and allows new players to get a flavour of the genre, or to just play our old (or new) favourites with all the complication and vindictiveness that can go with these titles, and risk putting them off for life.



I know which option I would go for.



Mike.



_____

From: "'Jean Michalski' yaho.jean-bwSJHTjVb7Q1+***@public.gmane.org [18xx]" <***@yahoogroups.com>
To: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org
Sent: Sunday, 7 September 2014, 12:30
Subject: [18xx] Introducing 18xx to new players (was 18xx at Strategicon (Gateway 2014))





Hi Everyone,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this topic, a recurring one in our little group (Namur, Belgium).

Most people we have trained, even after 2-3 games, are reluctant to play again because they want to win and they feel they stand no chance against experienced players. They are often discouraged to realize they fail to think about the correct parameters to take into account when making decisions. They do take some parameters into account, but these are not the most relevant ones, and they always end up losing to better players who know what the best parameters are at every stage of the game.

It is a bit like chess games (or martial arts) between beginners and advanced players. So my conclusion at this stage is that beginners must play (a lot) between themselves, and eventually they will acquire the skills necessary to have fun at tables with more expert players. Also, the learning curve is quite long with every 18xx title, but you can reuse some of your previous experience when learning each new game.

However, it is very frustrating for beginners and even intermediate players to play 18xx if they are left to themselves: not only are the rules complex and long to master, but there are lots of strategic and tactical decisions to make all along the game. Add the difficulty of calculating revenue, keeping the money separated, etc., and you’ll easily end up with an expert player (master) at the table, which is, I repeat, a mistake: the beginners should play amongst themselves in order to have fun.

So for now I show 18xx like a “school” (Ressha-Do ;-). My participation to conventions is just about this, too. I go and play, of course, but I also observe and learn, in order to improve my game and discover new and better possibilities.

My two cents,

Jean

From: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:18xx-***@public.gmane.org]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 2:54 AM
To: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [18xx] Re: 18xx at Strategicon (Gateway 2014)

Two thoughts:

1.) Tournament play is certainly not ideal for new players, but new players frequently only allocate convention time for such "adventurous/lengthy/complicated" games, which frequently overlaps with the only available 18xx event at a convention being a tournament (or 18C2C/18OE...). Very similar patterns can be found with games like Twilight Imperium, Diplomacy, or any other similarly rules-heavy and time-consuming games. So long as that continues to be the case, the "problem" will continue to exist. Even worse, those players rarely repeat as these events occur completely out of their normal context and they frequently do not follow up on ways of continuing with local groups, so the effort of teaching is completely wasted. As a result, I rarely allow myself to be in games with new players in such circumstances, and prefer to establish relatively frequent local sessions which I announce in certain public sectors (currently Joe's SF Board Game Geeks meetup is my preferred method).

2.) Playing a game like 18AL does new players a complete disservice. 18AL is so gentle as to not provide any real threat or challenge, instead being an almost pure snowball game - leaving new players wondering why anyone would play 18xx over a typical 60-90 minute Eurogame. I've had extremely low success with that one. My preferred intro titles are 1889 (can't kill yourself on the privates, very rough edge of the 6T breaking or not [and the paranoia it can cause], very simple track/routes/revenue calculations, and some real station screwage possible), 18Neb (privates extremely gentle auction although overly long, only towns at the beginning of the game which grow into cities, total station screwage possibilities in the midgame, route-building to get the E-W bonus, and a not-too-gentle train rush), and probably 1879 will be a new one I'll try soon (no privates, brutal train rush, difficult track decisions, bankruptcy seems extremely likely).

-Eric

I completely agree, Joe.
This is one of my biggest complaints about how games are taught,
especially more complex games like 18xx. It can be really easy to shift
from explaining how things work to playing someone else's position for
them. If I'm going to play someone else's position for them, then why
are they even sitting there? The fastest way to ensure someone never
comes back to the table is to make it irrelevant that they, the person,
are at the table. That just kills the fun for many people.

I agree too. This is why, if I want to teach 18xx to a newby, I pull out
a reasonably short and simple game, like 18AL. Second best are the most
common games like 1830, but 1830 with newbies can easily run 10 hours if
you don't hurry them so much that they don't enjoy playing.

Playing someone else's position for them can not only spoil a game for
the newby but also for everyone else, both because it tends to double the
playing time (so you don't finish) and because the committee-played
position becomes unbeatably strong.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------
Posted by: "Jean Michalski" <yaho.jean-bwSJHTjVb7Q1+***@public.gmane.org>
------------------------------------

This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.

[Mike Hutton huttm-/[e-mail] [18xx]]

Given the choice of 1856 or 1830 as a starting game I would pick 1856 every day, even with its additional complications and longer playing time. The mere fact that there's a good chance you'll be operating a company early on makes a big difference. How you survived your 10-hour 1830 game is beyond me, and I'm pretty patient. Once you get past 9 hours I'd rather be playing Civilization.

Now, if there was some way of fixing the perennial 1856 problems of "standard" starts, and a lack of accountability for your early debts (i.e. the "rack up your debts early" strategy is too strong), then I'd play it a lot more. As, I suspect, would a number of other people.

I've given thought to making loans cost $20 instead of $10, and only making N+1 companies available before the 3s come out an option. It would at least make for a greater variation in the game.

As for a Android/IOS/Online AI-driven implementation of 18xx, I'm not holding my breath. The logic behind the VGA PC game, even with its clunky graphics, is pretty advanced stuff. Putting it in place for another 18xx would require a serious amount of work and an AI expert. Just putting together PBEM hosting software is proving tough enough.

Mike.


________________________________
From: "'Jean Michalski' yaho.jean-bwSJHTjVb7Q1+***@public.gmane.org [18xx]" <***@yahoogroups.com>
To: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org
Sent: Sunday, 7 September 2014, 16:40
Subject: RE: [18xx] Introducing 18xx to new players (was 18xx at Strategicon (Gateway 2014))




BTW, 1889 and 18GA are our favourite titles for new players, and we try to get them at ease with those two before they move on to other titles (takes 2-3 games of each).

There are of course exceptions: Cédric’s first game was 1856 and mine was an unfinished 1830 (after 10 hours of play – quite a painful experience)
 What kept us both interested was the absence of luck factors, and the good atmosphere around the table.

The possibility to play 1830 solo on the computer, with the PC’s AI was also very helpful for me. This allowed me to play tens of games (short and sweet), and understand all basic mechanics of the game. I remember keeping track of my scores and trying to fill the Hall of Fame with my name.

I think a good implementation of 18xx on Android and/or IOS would bring hundreds of new players to the community.

My two cents,

Jean

From: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:18xx-***@public.gmane.org]
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 4:52 PM
To: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [18xx] Introducing 18xx to new players (was 18xx at Strategicon (Gateway 2014))

As a not-too-strong player myself, the prospect of a long game (which for me is 6+ hours) where I know I have no chance of doing well takes a lot to gather enthusiasm for. In my case (and I suspect a number of others) I then work on a mini-metagame once I'm out of the running, such as highest revenue, or more usually just not to come last. That works for me, but it certainly won't work for everyone.

A lot of the attraction of 18xx games to non-18xx players is not the 1830 screw-your-opponent-over element. It's the constructive company building and stock trading elements. Nothing puts a player off more than being forced bankrupt every time they play. It is this reason why I would NEVER put 1830 in front of a newbie. NEVER. It is simply too nasty, and if misfortune comes early then the poor victim has the prospect of spending the last 2-3 hours with not a lot to do. Nothing is likely to put a player off more. This is not to say that 1830 is a poor game. Far from it. But there are so many opportunities for experienced players to really put the mockers on that new players really need a primer on what to avoid doing if they want to avoid Trouble. E.g. don't buy that second share in someone else's company unless it's got a permanent train (etc).

The thought that newbies want a full-blown "challenge" when they first play is a mistake. They might think they do, but all that will happen is they get blown away and don't come back. I believe that the increase in interest in 18xx in general is down, in part, to the move to more "gentle" games. So while you may think 18AL is tame, it may just be the only way you can bridge the gap to encourage players to delve more deeply into the 18xx hobby.

I suspect this has a lot to do with the hobby veering away - sometimes quite violently - from the 1830 nastiness in recent years. There simply isn't the audience for it out there, like it or not. There are plenty of other non-18xx games containing that degree of screwage which play in distinctly less time and require an awful lot less brain-power. A more constructive game is what I would normally recommend - alongside the shorter titles of course. To that end the likes of 1861, 1851, 18FL and 18Scan are probably where I'd start. 1861 in particular "feels" constructive, and it's only really the last hour or so where someone doing really badly has little to do. It is noticeable that my own designs (1860/62 and 33) feature different types of screwage which aren't so likely as to destroy a players' position utterly. In this way they're all back-loaded so players have more of a chance of recovering their position after an Unfortunate Turn Of Events.

The other option is to give new(er) players an advantage. This will probably need to be different for each game, For example, you could give newer players extra cash at the start, or a £10 advantage in all bidding, or something to that effect. One option in 1860 is to allow the player to ignore the restrictions on moving trains between companies, or in 1862 to allow players flexibility on pricing intercompany train sales. Getting this right is tricky, but it can help.

I would agree that less experienced players are probably better off avoiding the Sharks if winning is becoming more important than learning. But all too often it can be difficult to meet enough local 18xx players at that level of experience, so the only opportunity to play 18xx games comes at conventions. There the choice is to introduce people to the hobby with an 18xx which is more accessible and constructive and allows new players to get a flavour of the genre, or to just play our old (or new) favourites with all the complication and vindictiveness that can go with these titles, and risk putting them off for life.

I know which option I would go for.

Mike.

_____

From: "'Jean Michalski' yaho.jean-bwSJHTjVb7Q1+***@public.gmane.org [18xx]" <***@yahoogroups.com>
To: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org
Sent: Sunday, 7 September 2014, 12:30
Subject: [18xx] Introducing 18xx to new players (was 18xx at Strategicon (Gateway 2014))

Hi Everyone,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this topic, a recurring one in our little group (Namur, Belgium).

Most people we have trained, even after 2-3 games, are reluctant to play again because they want to win and they feel they stand no chance against experienced players. They are often discouraged to realize they fail to think about the correct parameters to take into account when making decisions. They do take some parameters into account, but these are not the most relevant ones, and they always end up losing to better players who know what the best parameters are at every stage of the game.

It is a bit like chess games (or martial arts) between beginners and advanced players. So my conclusion at this stage is that beginners must play (a lot) between themselves, and eventually they will acquire the skills necessary to have fun at tables with more expert players. Also, the learning curve is quite long with every 18xx title, but you can reuse some of your previous experience when learning each new game.

However, it is very frustrating for beginners and even intermediate players to play 18xx if they are left to themselves: not only are the rules complex and long to master, but there are lots of strategic and tactical decisions to make all along the game. Add the difficulty of calculating revenue, keeping the money separated, etc., and you’ll easily end up with an expert player (master) at the table, which is, I repeat, a mistake: the beginners should play amongst themselves in order to have fun.

So for now I show 18xx like a “school” (Ressha-Do ;-). My participation to conventions is just about this, too. I go and play, of course, but I also observe and learn, in order to improve my game and discover new and better possibilities.

My two cents,

Jean

From: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:18xx-***@public.gmane.org]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 2:54 AM
To: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [18xx] Re: 18xx at Strategicon (Gateway 2014)

Two thoughts:

1.) Tournament play is certainly not ideal for new players, but new players frequently only allocate convention time for such "adventurous/lengthy/complicated" games, which frequently overlaps with the only available 18xx event at a convention being a tournament (or 18C2C/18OE...). Very similar patterns can be found with games like Twilight Imperium, Diplomacy, or any other similarly rules-heavy and time-consuming games. So long as that continues to be the case, the "problem" will continue to exist. Even worse, those players rarely repeat as these events occur completely out of their normal context and they frequently do not follow up on ways of continuing with local groups, so the effort of teaching is completely wasted. As a result, I rarely allow myself to be in games with new players in such circumstances, and prefer to establish relatively frequent local sessions which I announce in certain public sectors (currently Joe's SF Board Game Geeks meetup
is my preferred method).

2.) Playing a game like 18AL does new players a complete disservice. 18AL is so gentle as to not provide any real threat or challenge, instead being an almost pure snowball game - leaving new players wondering why anyone would play 18xx over a typical 60-90 minute Eurogame. I've had extremely low success with that one. My preferred intro titles are 1889 (can't kill yourself on the privates, very rough edge of the 6T breaking or not [and the paranoia it can cause], very simple track/routes/revenue calculations, and some real station screwage possible), 18Neb (privates extremely gentle auction although overly long, only towns at the beginning of the game which grow into cities, total station screwage possibilities in the midgame, route-building to get the E-W bonus, and a not-too-gentle train rush), and probably 1879 will be a new one I'll try soon (no privates, brutal train rush, difficult track decisions, bankruptcy seems extremely likely).

-Eric

I completely agree, Joe.
This is one of my biggest complaints about how games are taught,
especially more complex games like 18xx. It can be really easy to shift
from explaining how things work to playing someone else's position for
them. If I'm going to play someone else's position for them, then why
are they even sitting there? The fastest way to ensure someone never
comes back to the table is to make it irrelevant that they, the person,
are at the table. That just kills the fun for many people.

I agree too. This is why, if I want to teach 18xx to a newby, I pull out
a reasonably short and simple game, like 18AL. Second best are the most
common games like 1830, but 1830 with newbies can easily run 10 hours if
you don't hurry them so much that they don't enjoy playing.

Playing someone else's position for them can not only spoil a game for
the newby but also for everyone else, both because it tends to double the
playing time (so you don't finish) and because the committee-played
position becomes unbeatably strong.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

['Beard, Bruce D' bruce_d_beard-dGIoD64L1/[e-mail] [18xx]]

Mike,

A couple of notions here:

For the last few years I have been running teaching games at GenCon and Origins. I use 1830 because the rules are simple. I also insert myself in the game (unless there are 6 already) to do two things.

1. I prevent long stalls (I want to finish the game in 4 hours--the allotted time slot) by starting new RRs if conservatism sets in.

2. I want to make sure no one goes bankrupt--except me.

When someone gets in trouble I sell them a train--even a permanent train for whatever they have in their company. I manage to go bankrupt myself at about 3.5 hours. That way they all see the dangers of drained treasuries and the mechanics of bankruptcy without having to go through it themselves.

Another way to do it is to double all the payouts (privates and revenue from operations). That makes the game too rich for a bankruptcy. But you will not finish in 4 hours.

I agree, Mike, that either of these things is preferable to letting the new player go bankrupt his or her first game.

Other thoughts: 1862 make be "gentle" in that a bankruptcy will not occur but I can easily image a game where the winner has $30,000 and the last place player has $3,000.

Even 1861, an admittedly gentle game, sometimes has scenarios where the learner merges too early and too high and has 4 shares when the shark has 15.

So for me, the difficulty is not with new players but with "yearlings." There are people who only get to play once or twice a year except when they come to tournaments. I play 100 times a year. I play them in a tournament game.

1. I want to win.

2. I can give them advice but it may change their standing with the other players in the game and that can make other players angry--especially if they think I am manipulating less experienced players for my benefit.

I do not have a good answer for this. It depends on the collective mood or spirit of the table. I also think that some less experienced players like having a veteran at the table for advice and to move the game quicker. Others prefer not to have a veteran because they want a better chance to win.

Having resolved nothing but hoping for enlightenment,

-Bruce




________________________________
From: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org [18xx-***@public.gmane.org]
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 10:52 AM
To: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [18xx] Introducing 18xx to new players (was 18xx at Strategicon (Gateway 2014))



As a not-too-strong player myself, the prospect of a long game (which for me is 6+ hours) where I know I have no chance of doing well takes a lot to gather enthusiasm for. In my case (and I suspect a number of others) I then work on a mini-metagame once I'm out of the running, such as highest revenue, or more usually just not to come last. That works for me, but it certainly won't work for everyone.

A lot of the attraction of 18xx games to non-18xx players is not the 1830 screw-your-opponent-over element. It's the constructive company building and stock trading elements. Nothing puts a player off more than being forced bankrupt every time they play. It is this reason why I would NEVER put 1830 in front of a newbie. NEVER. It is simply too nasty, and if misfortune comes early then the poor victim has the prospect of spending the last 2-3 hours with not a lot to do. Nothing is likely to put a player off more. This is not to say that 1830 is a poor game. Far from it. But there are so many opportunities for experienced players to really put the mockers on that new players really need a primer on what to avoid doing if they want to avoid Trouble. E.g. don't buy that second share in someone else's company unless it's got a permanent train (etc).

The thought that newbies want a full-blown "challenge" when they first play is a mistake. They might think they do, but all that will happen is they get blown away and don't come back. I believe that the increase in interest in 18xx in general is down, in part, to the move to more "gentle" games. So while you may think 18AL is tame, it may just be the only way you can bridge the gap to encourage players to delve more deeply into the 18xx hobby.

I suspect this has a lot to do with the hobby veering away - sometimes quite violently - from the 1830 nastiness in recent years. There simply isn't the audience for it out there, like it or not. There are plenty of other non-18xx games containing that degree of screwage which play in distinctly less time and require an awful lot less brain-power. A more constructive game is what I would normally recommend - alongside the shorter titles of course. To that end the likes of 1861, 1851, 18FL and 18Scan are probably where I'd start. 1861 in particular "feels" constructive, and it's only really the last hour or so where someone doing really badly has little to do. It is noticeable that my own designs (1860/62 and 33) feature different types of screwage which aren't so likely as to destroy a players' position utterly. In this way they're all back-loaded so players have more of a chance of recovering their position after an Unfortunate Turn Of Events.

The other option is to give new(er) players an advantage. This will probably need to be different for each game, For example, you could give newer players extra cash at the start, or a £10 advantage in all bidding, or something to that effect. One option in 1860 is to allow the player to ignore the restrictions on moving trains between companies, or in 1862 to allow players flexibility on pricing intercompany train sales. Getting this right is tricky, but it can help.

I would agree that less experienced players are probably better off avoiding the Sharks if winning is becoming more important than learning. But all too often it can be difficult to meet enough local 18xx players at that level of experience, so the only opportunity to play 18xx games comes at conventions. There the choice is to introduce people to the hobby with an 18xx which is more accessible and constructive and allows new players to get a flavour of the genre, or to just play our old (or new) favourites with all the complication and vindictiveness that can go with these titles, and risk putting them off for life.

I know which option I would go for.

Mike.

________________________________
From: "'Jean Michalski' yaho.jean-bwSJHTjVb7Q1+***@public.gmane.org [18xx]" <***@yahoogroups.com>
To: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org
Sent: Sunday, 7 September 2014, 12:30
Subject: [18xx] Introducing 18xx to new players (was 18xx at Strategicon (Gateway 2014))


Hi Everyone,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this topic, a recurring one in our little group (Namur, Belgium).

Most people we have trained, even after 2-3 games, are reluctant to play again because they want to win and they feel they stand no chance against experienced players. They are often discouraged to realize they fail to think about the correct parameters to take into account when making decisions. They do take some parameters into account, but these are not the most relevant ones, and they always end up losing to better players who know what the best parameters are at every stage of the game.

It is a bit like chess games (or martial arts) between beginners and advanced players. So my conclusion at this stage is that beginners must play (a lot) between themselves, and eventually they will acquire the skills necessary to have fun at tables with more expert players. Also, the learning curve is quite long with every 18xx title, but you can reuse some of your previous experience when learning each new game.

However, it is very frustrating for beginners and even intermediate players to play 18xx if they are left to themselves: not only are the rules complex and long to master, but there are lots of strategic and tactical decisions to make all along the game. Add the difficulty of calculating revenue, keeping the money separated, etc., and you’ll easily end up with an expert player (master) at the table, which is, I repeat, a mistake: the beginners should play amongst themselves in order to have fun.

So for now I show 18xx like a “school” (Ressha-Do ;-). My participation to conventions is just about this, too. I go and play, of course, but I also observe and learn, in order to improve my game and discover new and better possibilities.

My two cents,

Jean

From: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:18xx-***@public.gmane.org]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 2:54 AM
To: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [18xx] Re: 18xx at Strategicon (Gateway 2014)

Two thoughts:

1.) Tournament play is certainly not ideal for new players, but new players frequently only allocate convention time for such "adventurous/lengthy/complicated" games, which frequently overlaps with the only available 18xx event at a convention being a tournament (or 18C2C/18OE...). Very similar patterns can be found with games like Twilight Imperium, Diplomacy, or any other similarly rules-heavy and time-consuming games. So long as that continues to be the case, the "problem" will continue to exist. Even worse, those players rarely repeat as these events occur completely out of their normal context and they frequently do not follow up on ways of continuing with local groups, so the effort of teaching is completely wasted. As a result, I rarely allow myself to be in games with new players in such circumstances, and prefer to establish relatively frequent local sessions which I announce in certain public sectors (currently Joe's SF Board Game Geeks meetup is my preferred method).

2.) Playing a game like 18AL does new players a complete disservice. 18AL is so gentle as to not provide any real threat or challenge, instead being an almost pure snowball game - leaving new players wondering why anyone would play 18xx over a typical 60-90 minute Eurogame. I've had extremely low success with that one. My preferred intro titles are 1889 (can't kill yourself on the privates, very rough edge of the 6T breaking or not [and the paranoia it can cause], very simple track/routes/revenue calculations, and some real station screwage possible), 18Neb (privates extremely gentle auction although overly long, only towns at the beginning of the game which grow into cities, total station screwage possibilities in the midgame, route-building to get the E-W bonus, and a not-too-gentle train rush), and probably 1879 will be a new one I'll try soon (no privates, brutal train rush, difficult track decisions, bankruptcy seems extremely likely).

-Eric

I completely agree, Joe.
This is one of my biggest complaints about how games are taught,
especially more complex games like 18xx. It can be really easy to shift
from explaining how things work to playing someone else's position for
them. If I'm going to play someone else's position for them, then why
are they even sitting there? The fastest way to ensure someone never
comes back to the table is to make it irrelevant that they, the person,
are at the table. That just kills the fun for many people.

I agree too. This is why, if I want to teach 18xx to a newby, I pull out
a reasonably short and simple game, like 18AL. Second best are the most
common games like 1830, but 1830 with newbies can easily run 10 hours if
you don't hurry them so much that they don't enjoy playing.

Playing someone else's position for them can not only spoil a game for
the newby but also for everyone else, both because it tends to double the
playing time (so you don't finish) and because the committee-played
position becomes unbeatably strong.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







------------------------------------

------------------------------------

This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.

[Mike Hutton huttm-/[e-mail] [18xx]]

Your selling someone a train is fine, except that it may well mean that the action changes who wins, which means the other players might object. In controlled circumstances it sounds like a good approach. I would however suggest (along the lines of giving newbies a headstart) that under those circumstances the newbie gets to pay what's in the treasury and no more provided they can stump up half the cash for the next train from treasury + hand. If not, they only have to pay half the train value. That's being really generous, but doesn't adversely affect the way the rest of the game runs. That way they don't get hosed unless they're really asking for it, and everyone else gets to play the game to the end in a "normal" fashion.

I don't think 1830 is that simple to teach. The rules may be more straightforward than some, but there are a lot of gotchas that need to be explained alongside the rules.

In 1862 the rusty grenade which catches the new player in full blast will probably do so with only an hour or so to play. It will likely catch a few other people along the way as well. It's a major reason I truncate the end-game in my designs. That last 2 hours in some games can be interminable if you're dead last and have no hope.

I've done exactly what you described in 1861, and had the company taken off my hands to boot. A simple warning about that timing would have helped, but I knew I was headed for last place before the game started.

Mike.


________________________________
From: "'Beard, Bruce D' bruce_d_beard-dGIoD64L1/Udnm+***@public.gmane.org [18xx]" <***@yahoogroups.com>
To: "18xx-***@public.gmane.org" <18xx-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Sunday, 7 September 2014, 17:15
Subject: RE: [18xx] Introducing 18xx to new players (was 18xx at Strategicon (Gateway 2014))


Mike,

A couple of notions here:

For the last few years I have been running teaching games at GenCon and Origins. I use 1830 because the rules are simple. I also insert myself in the game (unless there are 6 already) to do two things.

1. I prevent long stalls (I want to finish the game in 4 hours--the allotted time slot) by starting new RRs if conservatism sets in.

2. I want to make sure no one goes bankrupt--except me.

When someone gets in trouble I sell them a train--even a permanent train for whatever they have in their company. I manage to go bankrupt myself at about 3.5 hours. That way they all see the dangers of drained treasuries and the mechanics of bankruptcy without having to go through it themselves.

Another way to do it is to double all the payouts (privates and revenue from operations). That makes the game too rich for a bankruptcy. But you will not finish in 4 hours.

I agree, Mike, that either of these things is preferable to letting the new player go bankrupt his or her first game.

Other thoughts: 1862 make be "gentle" in that a bankruptcy will not occur but I can easily image a game where the winner has $30,000 and the last place player has $3,000.

Even 1861, an admittedly gentle game, sometimes has scenarios where the learner merges too early and too high and has 4 shares when the shark has 15.

So for me, the difficulty is not with new players but with "yearlings." There are people who only get to play once or twice a year except when they come to tournaments. I play 100 times a year. I play them in a tournament game.

1. I want to win.

2. I can give them advice but it may change their standing with the other players in the game and that can make other players angry--especially if they think I am manipulating less experienced players for my benefit.

I do not have a good answer for this. It depends on the collective mood or spirit of the table. I also think that some less experienced players like having a veteran at the table for advice and to move the game quicker. Others prefer not to have a veteran because they want a better chance to win.

Having resolved nothing but hoping for enlightenment,

-Bruce




________________________________

From: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org [18xx-***@public.gmane.org]
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 10:52 AM
To: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [18xx] Introducing 18xx to new players (was 18xx at Strategicon (Gateway 2014))



As a not-too-strong player myself, the prospect of a long game (which for me is 6+ hours) where I know I have no chance of doing well takes a lot to gather enthusiasm for. In my case (and I suspect a number of others) I then work on a mini-metagame once I'm out of the running, such as highest revenue, or more usually just not to come last. That works for me, but it certainly won't work for everyone.

A lot of the attraction of 18xx games to non-18xx players is not the 1830 screw-your-opponent-over element. It's the constructive company building and stock trading elements. Nothing puts a player off more than being forced bankrupt every time they play. It is this reason why I would NEVER put 1830 in front of a newbie. NEVER. It is simply too nasty, and if misfortune comes early then the poor victim has the prospect of spending the last 2-3 hours with not a lot to do. Nothing is likely to put a player off more. This is not to say that 1830 is a poor game. Far from it. But there are so many opportunities for experienced players to really put the mockers on that new players really need a primer on what to avoid doing if they want to avoid Trouble. E.g. don't buy that second share in someone else's company unless it's got a permanent train (etc).

The thought that newbies want a full-blown "challenge" when they first play is a mistake. They might think they do, but all that will happen is they get blown away and don't come back. I believe that the increase in interest in 18xx in general is down, in part, to the move to more "gentle" games. So while you may think 18AL is tame, it may just be the only way you can bridge the gap to encourage players to delve more deeply into the 18xx hobby.

I suspect this has a lot to do with the hobby veering away - sometimes quite violently - from the 1830 nastiness in recent years. There simply isn't the audience for it out there, like it or not. There are plenty of other non-18xx games containing that degree of screwage which play in distinctly less time and require an awful lot less brain-power. A more constructive game is what I would normally recommend - alongside the shorter titles of course. To that end the likes of 1861, 1851, 18FL and 18Scan are probably where I'd start. 1861 in particular "feels" constructive, and it's only really the last hour or so where someone doing really badly has little to do. It is noticeable that my own designs (1860/62 and 33) feature different types of screwage which aren't so likely as to destroy a players' position utterly. In this way they're all back-loaded so players have more of a chance of recovering their position after an Unfortunate Turn Of Events.

The other option is to give new(er) players an advantage. This will probably need to be different for each game, For example, you could give newer players extra cash at the start, or a £10 advantage in all bidding, or something to that effect. One option in 1860 is to allow the player to ignore the restrictions on moving trains between companies, or in 1862 to allow players flexibility on pricing intercompany train sales. Getting this right is tricky, but it can help.

I would agree that less experienced players are probably better off avoiding the Sharks if winning is becoming more important than learning. But all too often it can be difficult to meet enough local 18xx players at that level of experience, so the only opportunity to play 18xx games comes at conventions. There the choice is to introduce people to the hobby with an 18xx which is more accessible and constructive and allows new players to get a flavour of the genre, or to just play our old (or new) favourites with all the complication and vindictiveness that can go with these titles, and risk putting them off for life.

I know which option I would go for.

Mike.

________________________________
From: "'Jean Michalski' yaho.jean-bwSJHTjVb7Q1+***@public.gmane.org [18xx]" <***@yahoogroups.com>
To: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org
Sent: Sunday, 7 September 2014, 12:30
Subject: [18xx] Introducing 18xx to new players (was 18xx at Strategicon (Gateway 2014))


Hi Everyone,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this topic, a recurring one in our little group (Namur, Belgium).

Most people we have trained, even after 2-3 games, are reluctant to play again because they want to win and they feel they stand no chance against experienced players. They are often discouraged to realize they fail to think about the correct parameters to take into account when making decisions. They do take some parameters into account, but these are not the most relevant ones, and they always end up losing to better players who know what the best parameters are at every stage of the game.

It is a bit like chess games (or martial arts) between beginners and advanced players. So my conclusion at this stage is that beginners must play (a lot) between themselves, and eventually they will acquire the skills necessary to have fun at tables with more expert players. Also, the learning curve is quite long with every 18xx title, but you can reuse some of your previous experience when learning each new game.

However, it is very frustrating for beginners and even intermediate players to play 18xx if they are left to themselves: not only are the rules complex and long to master, but there are lots of strategic and tactical decisions to make all along the game. Add the difficulty of calculating revenue, keeping the money separated, etc., and you’ll easily end up with an expert player (master) at the table, which is, I repeat, a mistake: the beginners should play amongst themselves in order to have fun.

So for now I show 18xx like a “school” (Ressha-Do ;-). My participation to conventions is just about this, too. I go and play, of course, but I also observe and learn, in order to improve my game and discover new and better possibilities.

My two cents,

Jean

From: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:18xx-***@public.gmane.org]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 2:54 AM
To: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [18xx] Re: 18xx at Strategicon (Gateway 2014)

Two thoughts:

1.) Tournament play is certainly not ideal for new players, but new players frequently only allocate convention time for such "adventurous/lengthy/complicated" games, which frequently overlaps with the only available 18xx event at a convention being a tournament (or 18C2C/18OE...). Very similar patterns can be found with games like Twilight Imperium, Diplomacy, or any other similarly rules-heavy and time-consuming games. So long as that continues to be the case, the "problem" will continue to exist. Even worse, those players rarely repeat as these events occur completely out of their normal context and they frequently do not follow up on ways of continuing with local groups, so the effort of teaching is completely wasted. As a result, I rarely allow myself to be in games with new players in such circumstances, and prefer to establish relatively frequent local sessions which I announce in certain public sectors (currently Joe's SF Board Game Geeks meetup
is my preferred method).

2.) Playing a game like 18AL does new players a complete disservice. 18AL is so gentle as to not provide any real threat or challenge, instead being an almost pure snowball game - leaving new players wondering why anyone would play 18xx over a typical 60-90 minute Eurogame. I've had extremely low success with that one. My preferred intro titles are 1889 (can't kill yourself on the privates, very rough edge of the 6T breaking or not [and the paranoia it can cause], very simple track/routes/revenue calculations, and some real station screwage possible), 18Neb (privates extremely gentle auction although overly long, only towns at the beginning of the game which grow into cities, total station screwage possibilities in the midgame, route-building to get the E-W bonus, and a not-too-gentle train rush), and probably 1879 will be a new one I'll try soon (no privates, brutal train rush, difficult track decisions, bankruptcy seems extremely likely).

-Eric

I completely agree, Joe.
This is one of my biggest complaints about how games are taught,
especially more complex games like 18xx. It can be really easy to shift
from explaining how things work to playing someone else's position for
them. If I'm going to play someone else's position for them, then why
are they even sitting there? The fastest way to ensure someone never
comes back to the table is to make it irrelevant that they, the person,
are at the table. That just kills the fun for many people.

I agree too. This is why, if I want to teach 18xx to a newby, I pull out
a reasonably short and simple game, like 18AL. Second best are the most
common games like 1830, but 1830 with newbies can easily run 10 hours if
you don't hurry them so much that they don't enjoy playing.

Playing someone else's position for them can not only spoil a game for
the newby but also for everyone else, both because it tends to double the
playing time (so you don't finish) and because the committee-played
position becomes unbeatably strong.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







------------------------------------

------------------------------------

This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
------------------------------------

Yahoo Groups Links



https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/

[Jim Knight [e-mail] [18xx]]

An "Unfortunate Turn Of Events" - is that the new Lemony Snicket book or a tarot card perhaps?

Seriously though, I'm in complete agreement with you Mike. We rarely play 1830 and when we do it's not at the same intensity as our colleagues across the Pond if posts are anything to go by.

In my first game of Steam Over Holland I was running two nice companies in synergy completely oblivious to the danger I was in. By the time I woke up to the fact I was a goner I lost one company to the same player who promptly started a train rush which left my remaining company with no trains and no means to buy another. That was a very painful lesson.

I'm constantly being told that 18xx games are economic games, but I find it very difficult to get away from the building side of things. I'm one of those players who just can't find it within themselves to walk away from a company that I've just built up. So I fully understand what you're saying here Mike. I'm slowly improving on that front.

In a recent online All Units game of 1825 it was clear very early in the game I wasn't going to win. So I set myself some goals like not being last and to see if I could get the GWR to score over a £1000 revenue for a single OR by the end of the game. I managed that a couple of times before the bank broke and as a consequence I was only second last!

Sometimes, well nearly all of the time for me, you need to set other goals to keep the interest going as otherwise why would you play. There is nothing worse that still being in the game, ala SOH, having to watch everyone else actually play for another hour or so.

I do win occasionally which, makes it all more enjoyable when it happens.

Jim

Post by Mike Hutton huttm-/E1597aS9LT10XsdtD+***@public.gmane.org [18xx]
________________________________
Sent: Sunday, 7 September 2014, 15:52
Subject: Re: [18xx] Introducing 18xx to new players (was 18xx at Strategicon (Gateway 2014))
 
As a not-too-strong player myself, the prospect of a long game (which for me is 6+ hours) where I know I have no chance of doing well takes a lot to gather enthusiasm for. In my case (and I suspect a number of others) I then work on a mini-metagame once I'm out of the running, such as highest revenue, or more usually just not to come last. That works for me, but it certainly won't work for everyone.
A lot of the attraction of 18xx games to non-18xx players is not the 1830 screw-your-opponent-over element. It's the constructive company building and stock trading elements. Nothing puts a player off more than being forced bankrupt every time they play. It is this reason why I would NEVER put 1830 in front of a newbie. NEVER. It is simply too nasty, and if misfortune comes early then the poor victim has the prospect of spending the last 2-3 hours with not a lot to do. Nothing is likely to put a player off more. This is not to say that 1830 is a poor game. Far from it. But there are so many opportunities for experienced players to really put the mockers on that new players really need a primer on what to avoid doing if they want to avoid Trouble. E.g. don't buy that second share in someone else's company unless it's got a permanent train (etc).
The thought that newbies want a full-blown "challenge" when they first play is a mistake. They might think they do, but all that will happen is they get blown away and don't come back. I believe that the increase in interest in 18xx in general is down, in part, to the move to more "gentle" games. So while you may think 18AL is tame, it may just be the only way you can bridge the gap to encourage players to delve more deeply into the 18xx hobby.
I suspect this has a lot to do with the hobby veering away - sometimes quite violently - from the 1830 nastiness in recent years. There simply isn't the audience for it out there, like it or not. There are plenty of other non-18xx games containing that degree of screwage which play in distinctly less time and require an awful lot less brain-power. A more constructive game is what I would normally recommend - alongside the shorter titles of course. To that end the likes of 1861, 1851, 18FL and 18Scan are probably where I'd start. 1861 in particular "feels" constructive, and it's only really the last hour or so where someone doing really badly has little to do. It is noticeable that my own designs (1860/62 and 33) feature different types of screwage which aren't so likely as to destroy a players' position utterly. In this way they're all back-loaded so players have more of a chance of recovering their position after an Unfortunate Turn Of Events.
The other option is to give new(er) players an advantage. This will probably need to be different for each game, For example, you could give newer players extra cash at the start, or a £10 advantage in all bidding, or something to that effect. One option in 1860 is to allow the player to ignore the restrictions on moving trains between companies, or in 1862 to allow players flexibility on pricing intercompany train sales. Getting this right is tricky, but it can help.
I would agree that less experienced players are probably better off avoiding the Sharks if winning is becoming more important than learning. But all too often it can be difficult to meet enough local 18xx players at that level of experience, so the only opportunity to play 18xx games comes at conventions. There the choice is to introduce people to the hobby with an 18xx which is more accessible and constructive and allows new players to get a flavour of the genre, or to just play our old (or new) favourites with all the complication and vindictiveness that can go with these titles, and risk putting them off for life.
I know which option I would go for.
Mike.

[JC Lawrence [e-mail] [18xx]]

We tend to show other players the games we love. Hey, look at this! Isn't it wonderful?

Mike and Jim like constructive building games. (I'm not sure what Bruce likes other than just playing)

The games I love are combinations between struggling to survive at all and cage matches. Even better if the players end the game with less than they started with. I don't care about building anything, just getting in there and competing and learning, and finding out someone kinda survived, or bits of them survived -- which is good enough.

And so those are the game values that I try and show to new players. See! Isn't it neat? He won because after all the drama and explosions, he can still twitch a bit. Isn't this great? It seems that few new players share those values.

But enough whining.

-- JCL

[Mike Hutton huttm-/[e-mail] [18xx]]

I'm not averse to games which are a struggle. But you need to get to a certain level of familiarity with the genre before you can cope with the vagaries of running companies and dealing in shares AND facing certain (game) death with not much more than a 4 train and a bunch of celery for help.

Mike.


________________________________
From: "JC Lawrence claw-***@public.gmane.org [18xx]" <18xx-***@public.gmane.org>
To: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org
Sent: Sunday, 7 September 2014, 20:17
Subject: Re: [18xx] Introducing 18xx to new players (was 18xx at Strategicon (Gateway 2014))




We tend to show other players the games we love. Hey, look at this! Isn't it wonderful?

Mike and Jim like constructive building games. (I'm not sure what Bruce likes other than just playing)

The games I love are combinations between struggling to survive at all and cage matches. Even better if the players end the game with less than they started with. I don't care about building anything, just getting in there and competing and learning, and finding out someone kinda survived, or bits of them survived -- which is good enough.

And so those are the game values that I try and show to new players. See! Isn't it neat? He won because after all the drama and explosions, he can still twitch a bit. Isn't this great? It seems that few new players share those values.

But enough whining.

-- JCL

[Tim Franklin tim-/[e-mail] [18xx]]

Post by Mike Hutton huttm-/E1597aS9LT10XsdtD+***@public.gmane.org [18xx]
I'm not averse to games which are a struggle. But you need to get to a certain level of familiarity with the genre before you can cope with the vagaries of running companies and dealing in shares AND facing certain (game) death with not much more than a 4 train and a bunch of celery for help.

The celery is going to be the first-player marker for 18Kent / 1833.3?

Regards,
Tim.



------------------------------------
Posted by: Tim Franklin <tim-/***@public.gmane.org>
------------------------------------

This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.

[Christopher Rao [e-mail] [18xx]]

Yes! Exactly. Hence my enfatuation with 1817 - so many ways to die (and so
many ways to recover from almost dying).

6 - player 1817 in particular often feels like a Hunger Games setting. In
a recent game, I survived my shorts only by raising ~$300 via an otherwise
inopportune friendly sale, then came in 4th of 6. I got more fun from that
particular shenanigan than I have winning other XX games.

Post by JC Lawrence claw-***@public.gmane.org [18xx]
We tend to show other players the games we love. Hey, look at this!
Isn't it wonderful?
Mike and Jim like constructive building games. (I'm not sure what Bruce
likes other than just playing)
The games I love are combinations between struggling to survive at all and
cage matches. Even better if the players end the game with less than they
started with. I don't care about building anything, just getting in there
and competing and learning, and finding out someone kinda survived, or bits
of them survived -- which is good enough.
And so those are the game values that I try and show to new players. *See!
Isn't it neat? He won because after all the drama and explosions, he can
still twitch a bit. Isn't this great?* It seems that few new players
share those values.
But enough whining.
-- JCL

[Mike Hutton huttm-/[e-mail] [18xx]]

Maybe, but how many other 18xx games had you played before you got stuck into 1817? I'm guessing it was more than 2.


________________________________
From: "Christopher Rao topher-***@public.gmane.org [18xx]" <***@yahoogroups.com>
To: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org
Sent: Sunday, 7 September 2014, 22:00
Subject: Re: [18xx] Introducing 18xx to new players (was 18xx at Strategicon (Gateway 2014))




Yes! Exactly. Hence my enfatuation with 1817 - so many ways to die (and so many ways to recover from almost dying).
6 - player 1817 in particular often feels like a Hunger Games setting. In a recent game, I survived my shorts only by raising ~$300 via an otherwise inopportune friendly sale, then came in 4th of 6. I got more fun from that particular shenanigan than I have winning other XX games.

Post by JC Lawrence claw-***@public.gmane.org [18xx]
We tend to show other players the games we love. Hey, look at this! Isn't it wonderful?
Mike and Jim like constructive building games. (I'm not sure what Bruce likes other than just playing)
The games I love are combinations between struggling to survive at all and cage matches. Even better if the players end the game with less than they started with. I don't care about building anything, just getting in there and competing and learning, and finding out someone kinda survived, or bits of them survived -- which is good enough.
And so those are the game values that I try and show to new players. See! Isn't it neat? He won because after all the drama and explosions, he can still twitch a bit. Isn't this great? It seems that few new players share those values.
But enough whining.
-- JCL

[JC Lawrence [e-mail] [18xx]]

I started with 1830 and several years of constant losses and bankruptcies before I ever won a game -- and we're fairly sure that was a banking error. While that event was cheering, it was some years after that before I could offer competition. I am glad that my opponents had the patience for my learning curve.

As for 1817, Like Christopher (with whom I've not yet played alas) I like my games of 1817 to end with multiple players being utterly crippled or bankrupting and the few survivors struggling through to see who can eke out the win with their marginally-less-crippled positions while the loan interest rate is still above $50/loan and they're just almost-but-not-quite-dead-yet. They are the more interesting games. (I keep meaning to ask if loan interest can go above $70 -- it would have helped me in a couple games if it could)

Last night's play (of a prototype) featured four company dumps. A lot of shares were sold to buy trains. Bankruptcy constantly hovered. At several points more than two thirds of the entire game had been dumped and was in the market at the end of stock rounds. 12 times in 6 stock rounds a president sold a company down to its presidency (there are only 8 in the game). 4 companies ended the game being held only by their presidencies. We scraped through, only barely surviving. The winner ended up with 4 companies and only two trains, and shuffled trains until the game ended -- and had a portfolio four times larger than the second-place player just 4.5% behind him (me). (And if a treasury had been larger by $3 in OR6.2, more trains would have rusted and he would have lost to me by ~15%) It was great!

-- JCL

Post by Mike Hutton huttm-/E1597aS9LT10XsdtD+***@public.gmane.org [18xx]
Maybe, but how many other 18xx games had you played before you got stuck into 1817? I'm guessing it was more than 2.
Sent: Sunday, 7 September 2014, 22:00
Subject: Re: [18xx] Introducing 18xx to new players (was 18xx at Strategicon (Gateway 2014))
Yes! Exactly. Hence my enfatuation with 1817 - so many ways to die (and so many ways to recover from almost dying).
6 - player 1817 in particular often feels like a Hunger Games setting. In a recent game, I survived my shorts only by raising ~$300 via an otherwise inopportune friendly sale, then came in 4th of 6. I got more fun from that particular shenanigan than I have winning other XX games.
We tend to show other players the games we love. Hey, look at this! Isn't it wonderful?
Mike and Jim like constructive building games. (I'm not sure what Bruce likes other than just playing)
The games I love are combinations between struggling to survive at all and cage matches. Even better if the players end the game with less than they started with. I don't care about building anything, just getting in there and competing and learning, and finding out someone kinda survived, or bits of them survived -- which is good enough.
And so those are the game values that I try and show to new players. See! Isn't it neat? He won because after all the drama and explosions, he can still twitch a bit. Isn't this great? It seems that few new players share those values.
But enough whining.
-- JCL

[Richard Dutton [e-mail] [18xx]]

1817 limits loans to 70. I have seen games lost because a player (I think it was Carver) couldn't take the 71st loan.

Rick


From: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:18xx-***@public.gmane.org]
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 5:59 PM
To: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [18xx] Introducing 18xx to new players (was 18xx at Strategicon (Gateway 2014))



I started with 1830 and several years of constant losses and bankruptcies before I ever won a game -- and we're fairly sure that was a banking error. While that event was cheering, it was some years after that before I could offer competition. I am glad that my opponents had the patience for my learning curve.

As for 1817, Like Christopher (with whom I've not yet played alas) I like my games of 1817 to end with multiple players being utterly crippled or bankrupting and the few survivors struggling through to see who can eke out the win with their marginally-less-crippled positions while the loan interest rate is still above $50/loan and they're just almost-but-not-quite-dead-yet. They are the more interesting games. (I keep meaning to ask if loan interest can go above $70 -- it would have helped me in a couple games if it could)

Last night's play (of a prototype) featured four company dumps. A! lot of shares were sold to buy trains. Bankruptcy constantly hovered. At several points more than two thirds of the entire game had been dumped and was in the market at the end of stock rounds. 12 times in 6 stock rounds a president sold a company down to its presidency (there are only 8 in the game). 4 companies ended the game being held only by their presidencies. We scraped through, only barely surviving. The winner ended up with 4 companies and only two trains, and shuffled trains until the game ended -- and had a portfolio four times larger than the second-place player just 4.5% behind him (me). (And if a treasury had been larger by $3 in OR6.2, more trains would have rusted and he would have lost to me by ~15%) It was great!

-- JCL

On 7 Sep 2014, at 14:15, Mike Hutton huttm-/E1597aS9LT10XsdtD+***@public.gmane.org<mailto:***@yahoo.co.uk> [18xx] <18xx-***@public.gmane.org<mailto:18xx-***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:

Maybe, but how many other 18xx games had you played before you got stuck into 1817? I'm guessing it was more than 2.

________________________________
From: "Christopher Rao topher-***@public.gmane.org<mailto:***@raoandpierce.com> [18xx]" <18xx-***@public.gmane.org<mailto:18xx-***@public.gmane.org>>
To: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org<mailto:18xx-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Sunday, 7 September 2014, 22:00
Subject: Re: [18xx] Introducing 18xx to new players (was 18xx at Strategicon (Gateway 2014))


Yes! Exactly. Hence my enfatuation with 1817 - so many ways to die (and so many ways to recover from almost dying).
6 - player 1817 in particular often feels like a Hunger Games setting. In a recent game, I survived my shorts only by raising ~$300 via an otherwise inopportune friendly sale, then came in 4th of 6. I got more fun from that particular shenanigan than I have winning other XX games.

On Sep 7, 2014 12:17 PM, "JC Lawrence claw-***@public.gmane.org<mailto:claw-***@public.gmane.org> [18xx]" <18xx-***@public.gmane.org<mailto:18xx-***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:

We tend to show other players the games we love. Hey, look at this! Isn't it wonderful?

Mike and Jim like constructive building games. (I'm not sure what Bruce likes other than just playing)

The games I love are combinations between struggling to survive at all and cage matches. Even better if the players end the game with less than they started with. I don't care about building anything, just getting in there and competing and learning, and finding out someone kinda survived, or bits of them survived -- which is good enough.

And so those are the game values that I try and show to new players. See! Isn't it neat? He won because after all the drama and explosions, he can still twitch a bit. Isn't this great? It seems that few new players share those values.

But enough whining.

-- JCL






Richard Dutton, M.D., M.B.A.
Executive Director
Anesthesia Quality Institute
Chief Quality Officer
American Society of Anesthesiologists
520 N. Northwest Hwy
Park Ridge, IL 60068

p: [phone] | e: r.dutton-***@public.gmane.org<mailto:r.dutton-***@public.gmane.org?subject=AQI%20> | http://www.aqihq.org

Connect with AQI on LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/anesthesia-quality-institute?trk=cp_followed_name_anesthesia-quality-institute> and Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/pages/Anesthesia-Quality-Institute-AQI/597462053651028?ref=tn_tnmn>.
Report anesthesia events at www.aqiairs.org<http://www.aqiairs.org/>

[JC Lawrence [e-mail] [18xx]]

1817 limits loans to 70. I have seen games lost because a player (I think it was Carver) couldn’t take the 71st loan.

Yep, been there. Thanks.

-- JCL

[Jim Blight james_m_blight-/[e-mail] [18xx]]

The original 1830 rules have a short paragraph,
"26.0 Optional Introductory Rules". In it you
add in the optional 6-train and no diesels. You
also remove the $500s from the bank, it becomes
$4,500.

The smaller bank makes for a quicker game, better
for the experienced players. The new player has to
deal with the loss of his/her 2-trains and 3-trains.
The 4-trains are permanent.

-Jim B




On Sunday, September 7, 2014 8:35 PM, "JC Lawrence claw-***@public.gmane.org [18xx]" <18xx-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:






On 7 Sep 2014, at 17:32, Richard Dutton r.dutton-***@public.gmane.org [18xx] <***@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

1817 limits loans to 70. I have seen games lost because a player (I think it was Carver) couldn’t take the 71stloan.
Yep, been there. Thanks.

-- JCL

['Beard, Bruce D' bruce_d_beard-dGIoD64L1/[e-mail] [18xx]]

A classic loan max game was a 6-player at Chicago last year with Tim, Craig, Anthony, Rick, Jeff (or maybe Mike--or maybe it was 5 player) and I.

We had 3 consecutive turns were every loan was out. Whoever had the priority took all the remaining loans so that when a company went bankrupt he could bid for the assets.

Surprisingly, only one player went bankrupt.

-Bruce

________________________________
From: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org [18xx-***@public.gmane.org]
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 8:32 PM
To: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: RE: [18xx] Introducing 18xx to new players (was 18xx at Strategicon (Gateway 2014))


1817 limits loans to 70. I have seen games lost because a player (I think it was Carver) couldn’t take the 71st loan.

Rick


From: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:18xx-***@public.gmane.org]
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 5:59 PM
To: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [18xx] Introducing 18xx to new players (was 18xx at Strategicon (Gateway 2014))


I started with 1830 and several years of constant losses and bankruptcies before I ever won a game -- and we're fairly sure that was a banking error. While that event was cheering, it was some years after that before I could offer competition. I am glad that my opponents had the patience for my learning curve.

As for 1817, Like Christopher (with whom I've not yet played alas) I like my games of 1817 to end with multiple players being utterly crippled or bankrupting and the few survivors struggling through to see who can eke out the win with their marginally-less-crippled positions while the loan interest rate is still above $50/loan and they're just almost-but-not-quite-dead-yet. They are the more interesting games. (I keep meaning to ask if loan interest can go above $70 -- it would have helped me in a couple games if it could)

Last night's play (of a prototype) featured four company dumps. A! lot of shares were sold to buy trains. Bankruptcy constantly hovered. At several points more than two thirds of the entire game had been dumped and was in the market at the end of stock rounds. 12 times in 6 stock rounds a president sold a company down to its presidency (there are only 8 in the game). 4 companies ended the game being held only by their presidencies. We scraped through, only barely surviving. The winner ended up with 4 companies and only two trains, and shuffled trains until the game ended -- and had a portfolio four times larger than the second-place player just 4.5% behind him (me). (And if a treasury had been larger by $3 in OR6.2, more trains would have rusted and he would have lost to me by ~15%) It was great!

-- JCL

On 7 Sep 2014, at 14:15, Mike Hutton huttm-/E1597aS9LT10XsdtD+***@public.gmane.org<mailto:***@yahoo.co.uk> [18xx] <18xx-***@public.gmane.org<mailto:18xx-***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:

Maybe, but how many other 18xx games had you played before you got stuck into 1817? I'm guessing it was more than 2.

________________________________
From: "Christopher Rao topher-***@public.gmane.org<mailto:***@raoandpierce.com> [18xx]" <18xx-***@public.gmane.org<mailto:18xx-***@public.gmane.org>>
To: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org<mailto:18xx-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Sunday, 7 September 2014, 22:00
Subject: Re: [18xx] Introducing 18xx to new players (was 18xx at Strategicon (Gateway 2014))


Yes! Exactly. Hence my enfatuation with 1817 - so many ways to die (and so many ways to recover from almost dying).
6 - player 1817 in particular often feels like a Hunger Games setting. In a recent game, I survived my shorts only by raising ~$300 via an otherwise inopportune friendly sale, then came in 4th of 6. I got more fun from that particular shenanigan than I have winning other XX games.

On Sep 7, 2014 12:17 PM, "JC Lawrence claw-***@public.gmane.org<mailto:claw-***@public.gmane.org> [18xx]" <18xx-***@public.gmane.org<mailto:18xx-***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:

We tend to show other players the games we love. Hey, look at this! Isn't it wonderful?

Mike and Jim like constructive building games. (I'm not sure what Bruce likes other than just playing)

The games I love are combinations between struggling to survive at all and cage matches. Even better if the players end the game with less than they started with. I don't care about building anything, just getting in there and competing and learning, and finding out someone kinda survived, or bits of them survived -- which is good enough.

And so those are the game values that I try and show to new players. See! Isn't it neat? He won because after all the drama and explosions, he can still twitch a bit. Isn't this great? It seems that few new players share those values.

But enough whining.

-- JCL





Richard Dutton, M.D., M.B.A.
Executive Director
Anesthesia Quality Institute
Chief Quality Officer
American Society of Anesthesiologists
520 N. Northwest Hwy
Park Ridge, IL 60068

p: [phone] | e: r.dutton-***@public.gmane.org<mailto:r.dutton-***@public.gmane.org?subject=AQI%20> | http://www.aqihq.org

Connect with AQI on LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/anesthesia-quality-institute?trk=cp_followed_name_anesthesia-quality-institute> and Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/pages/Anesthesia-Quality-Institute-AQI/597462053651028?ref=tn_tnmn>.
Report anesthesia events at www.aqiairs.org<http://www.aqiairs.org/>




------------------------------------

------------------------------------

This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.

[JC Lawrence [e-mail] [18xx]]

That is so cheering and enheartening!

-- JCL

Post by 'Beard, Bruce D' bruce_d_beard-dGIoD64L1/Udnm+***@public.gmane.org [18xx]
A classic loan max game was a 6-player at Chicago last year with Tim, Craig, Anthony, Rick, Jeff (or maybe Mike--or maybe it was 5 player) and I.
We had 3 consecutive turns were every loan was out. Whoever had the priority took all the remaining loans so that when a company went bankrupt he could bid for the assets.
Surprisingly, only one player went bankrupt.
-Bruce
________________________________
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 8:32 PM
Subject: RE: [18xx] Introducing 18xx to new players (was 18xx at Strategicon (Gateway 2014))
1817 limits loans to 70. I have seen games lost because a player (I think it was Carver) couldn’t take the 71st loan.
Rick
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: [18xx] Introducing 18xx to new players (was 18xx at Strategicon (Gateway 2014))
I started with 1830 and several years of constant losses and bankruptcies before I ever won a game -- and we're fairly sure that was a banking error. While that event was cheering, it was some years after that before I could offer competition. I am glad that my opponents had the patience for my learning curve.
As for 1817, Like Christopher (with whom I've not yet played alas) I like my games of 1817 to end with multiple players being utterly crippled or bankrupting and the few survivors struggling through to see who can eke out the win with their marginally-less-crippled positions while the loan interest rate is still above $50/loan and they're just almost-but-not-quite-dead-yet. They are the more interesting games. (I keep meaning to ask if loan interest can go above $70 -- it would have helped me in a couple games if it could)
Last night's play (of a prototype) featured four company dumps. A! lot of shares were sold to buy trains. Bankruptcy constantly hovered. At several points more than two thirds of the entire game had been dumped and was in the market at the end of stock rounds. 12 times in 6 stock rounds a president sold a company down to its presidency (there are only 8 in the game). 4 companies ended the game being held only by their presidencies. We scraped through, only barely surviving. The winner ended up with 4 companies and only two trains, and shuffled trains until the game ended -- and had a portfolio four times larger than the second-place player just 4.5% behind him (me). (And if a treasury had been larger by $3 in OR6.2, more trains would have rusted and he would have lost to me by ~15%) It was great!
-- JCL
Maybe, but how many other 18xx games had you played before you got stuck into 1817? I'm guessing it was more than 2.
________________________________
Sent: Sunday, 7 September 2014, 22:00
Subject: Re: [18xx] Introducing 18xx to new players (was 18xx at Strategicon (Gateway 2014))
Yes! Exactly. Hence my enfatuation with 1817 - so many ways to die (and so many ways to recover from almost dying).
6 - player 1817 in particular often feels like a Hunger Games setting. In a recent game, I survived my shorts only by raising ~$300 via an otherwise inopportune friendly sale, then came in 4th of 6. I got more fun from that particular shenanigan than I have winning other XX games.
We tend to show other players the games we love. Hey, look at this! Isn't it wonderful?
Mike and Jim like constructive building games. (I'm not sure what Bruce likes other than just playing)
The games I love are combinations between struggling to survive at all and cage matches. Even better if the players end the game with less than they started with. I don't care about building anything, just getting in there and competing and learning, and finding out someone kinda survived, or bits of them survived -- which is good enough.
And so those are the game values that I try and show to new players. See! Isn't it neat? He won because after all the drama and explosions, he can still twitch a bit. Isn't this great? It seems that few new players share those values.
But enough whining.
-- JCL
Richard Dutton, M.D., M.B.A.
Executive Director
Anesthesia Quality Institute
Chief Quality Officer
American Society of Anesthesiologists
520 N. Northwest Hwy
Park Ridge, IL 60068
Connect with AQI on LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/anesthesia-quality-institute?trk=cp_followed_name_anesthesia-quality-institute> and Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/pages/Anesthesia-Quality-Institute-AQI/597462053651028?ref=tn_tnmn>.
Report anesthesia events at www.aqiairs.org<http://www.aqiairs.org/>
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
------------------------------------
Yahoo Groups Links

------------------------------------

------------------------------------

This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.

[Christopher Rao [e-mail] [18xx]]

Alas, I have never seen loans go higher than $55 or $60. Our group must be
too frugal!

Cheers,
Christopher

Christopher Rama Rao || Rao & Pierce PLLC
206.721.8880 || Fax: [phone]
2411 Fourteenth Avenue South, Seattle, WA 98144
www.raoandpierce.com || www.decouplingblog.com

Post by 'Beard, Bruce D' bruce_d_beard-dGIoD64L1/Udnm+***@public.gmane.org [18xx]
A classic loan max game was a 6-player at Chicago last year with Tim,
Craig, Anthony, Rick, Jeff (or maybe Mike--or maybe it was 5 player) and I.
We had 3 consecutive turns were every loan was out. Whoever had the
priority took all the remaining loans so that when a company went bankrupt
he could bid for the assets.
Surprisingly, only one player went bankrupt.
-Bruce
________________________________
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 8:32 PM
Subject: RE: [18xx] Introducing 18xx to new players (was 18xx at
Strategicon (Gateway 2014))
1817 limits loans to 70. I have seen games lost because a player (I think
it was Carver) couldn’t take the 71st loan.
Rick
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: [18xx] Introducing 18xx to new players (was 18xx at
Strategicon (Gateway 2014))
I started with 1830 and several years of constant losses and bankruptcies
before I ever won a game -- and we're fairly sure that was a banking
error. While that event was cheering, it was some years after that before
I could offer competition. I am glad that my opponents had the patience
for my learning curve.
As for 1817, Like Christopher (with whom I've not yet played alas) I like
my games of 1817 to end with multiple players being utterly crippled or
bankrupting and the few survivors struggling through to see who can eke out
the win with their marginally-less-crippled positions while the loan
interest rate is still above $50/loan and they're just
almost-but-not-quite-dead-yet. They are the more interesting games. (I
keep meaning to ask if loan interest can go above $70 -- it would have
helped me in a couple games if it could)
Last night's play (of a prototype) featured four company dumps. A! lot of
shares were sold to buy trains. Bankruptcy constantly hovered. At several
points more than two thirds of the entire game had been dumped and was in
the market at the end of stock rounds. 12 times in 6 stock rounds a
president sold a company down to its presidency (there are only 8 in the
game). 4 companies ended the game being held only by their presidencies.
We scraped through, only barely surviving. The winner ended up with 4
companies and only two trains, and shuffled trains until the game ended --
and had a portfolio four times larger than the second-place player just
4.5% behind him (me). (And if a treasury had been larger by $3 in OR6.2,
more trains would have rusted and he would have lost to me by ~15%) It was
great!
-- JCL
Maybe, but how many other 18xx games had you played before you got stuck
into 1817? I'm guessing it was more than 2.
________________________________
Sent: Sunday, 7 September 2014, 22:00
Subject: Re: [18xx] Introducing 18xx to new players (was 18xx at
Strategicon (Gateway 2014))
Yes! Exactly. Hence my enfatuation with 1817 - so many ways to die (and so
many ways to recover from almost dying).
6 - player 1817 in particular often feels like a Hunger Games setting. In
a recent game, I survived my shorts only by raising ~$300 via an otherwise
inopportune friendly sale, then came in 4th of 6. I got more fun from that
particular shenanigan than I have winning other XX games.
We tend to show other players the games we love. Hey, look at this!
Isn't it wonderful?
Mike and Jim like constructive building games. (I'm not sure what Bruce
likes other than just playing)
The games I love are combinations between struggling to survive at all and
cage matches. Even better if the players end the game with less than they
started with. I don't care about building anything, just getting in there
and competing and learning, and finding out someone kinda survived, or bits
of them survived -- which is good enough.
And so those are the game values that I try and show to new players.
See! Isn't it neat? He won because after all the drama and explosions, he
can still twitch a bit. Isn't this great? It seems that few new players
share those values.
But enough whining.
-- JCL
Richard Dutton, M.D., M.B.A.
Executive Director
Anesthesia Quality Institute
Chief Quality Officer
American Society of Anesthesiologists
520 N. Northwest Hwy
Park Ridge, IL 60068
| http://www.aqihq.org
Connect with AQI on LinkedIn<
http://www.linkedin.com/company/anesthesia-quality-institute?trk=cp_followed_name_anesthesia-quality-institute>
and Facebook<
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Anesthesia-Quality-Institute-AQI/597462053651028?ref=tn_tnmn

.

Report anesthesia events at www.aqiairs.org<http://www.aqiairs.org/>
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
------------------------------------
Yahoo Groups Links

['Beard, Bruce D' bruce_d_beard-dGIoD64L1/[e-mail] [18xx]]

JC,

I like games that combine operations, portfolio management and train-buying in something close to balance. Of the three, I find operations the easiest to learn and therefore the least interesting. I prefer games where the right tactical option varies depending on what your opponents are doing.

-Bruce

________________________________
From: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org [18xx-***@public.gmane.org]
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 3:17 PM
To: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [18xx] Introducing 18xx to new players (was 18xx at Strategicon (Gateway 2014))



We tend to show other players the games we love. Hey, look at this! Isn't it wonderful?

Mike and Jim like constructive building games. (I'm not sure what Bruce likes other than just playing)

The games I love are combinations between struggling to survive at all and cage matches. Even better if the players end the game with less than they started with. I don't care about building anything, just getting in there and competing and learning, and finding out someone kinda survived, or bits of them survived -- which is good enough.

And so those are the game values that I try and show to new players. See! Isn't it neat? He won because after all the drama and explosions, he can still twitch a bit. Isn't this great? It seems that few new players share those values.

But enough whining.

-- JCL





------------------------------------

------------------------------------

This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.

[JC Lawrence [e-mail] [18xx]]

Post by 'Beard, Bruce D' bruce_d_beard-dGIoD64L1/Udnm+***@public.gmane.org [18xx]
I like games that combine operations, portfolio management and train-buying in something close to balance. Of the three, I find operations the easiest to learn and therefore the least interesting. I prefer games where the right tactical option varies depending on what your opponents are doing.

I've mostly come to ignore operations except as a mechanical function necessary to support everything else. Getting the operations right matters, but only in the same way that getting enough fibre in my diet matters. My real focus is centred somewhere between managing player incentives and managing the game's global economy/financial climate. The responsive creativity you mention is critical to me, whether the details are tactical or game-rewriting strategies. Without it, I'd rather not bother playing.

And while any game in which there is one winner has most of the players frustrated and failing (they didn't win), I prefer games in which frustration and failure are constant familiars. The continuous feedback makes learning easier.

-- JCL

------------------------------------

------------------------------------

This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.

[[e-mail] [18xx]]

There is no one way or preference that can cover all of the newbies. Just like the seasoned players tend to prefer building or economical side, so do the preferences of new players vary. If you have a teaching game of no-holds-barred 1830, you have some completely hooked and wanting to learn all about the strategies while others will not want to see another train in their lifetime. If you start off with 18AL, the first type is likely bored and won't be interested in another 18XX while the second type is interested. For some, seeing a no-luck game to end in their bankruptcy engineered by others is not something that drives them away, but an invitation to learn how to do it to others.

On the type of introductory games, I think that the best type of introduction game depends on what style of 18XXs the groups in general play. Even if you get a builder-type interested in 18XXs, it is of little help if every "real" game played is cutthroat 1817.

Also, I think that the idea of having beginner players just play among themselves is not a very useful one. Even though it might give them a better chance at winning, it will result in general longer games and slower improvement of strategies. And, most importantly, it easily gives unintended message of "you are not good enough to play with us", which is sure to kill any interest in the game far quicker than any string of losses.

Antero

[Christopher Rao [e-mail] [18xx]]

BTW, I'd played a few XX's before getting into 1830 (1870, 1835, 2038,
maybe 18Mex), but it was really 1830 that made me an XX convert.

I've taught 1830 to several new players as well (such as at BGG con), with
fairly good results.

I should say that although I really dig the knife fight element in 30 and
17, I really enjoy several other games (including the online 1870 and 1880
I'm playing now) for their respective strengths.

Cheers,
Christopher

Christopher Rama Rao || Rao & Pierce PLLC
206.721.8880 || Fax: [phone]
2411 Fourteenth Avenue South, Seattle, WA 98144
www.raoandpierce.com || www.decouplingblog.com

Post by akuusi-***@public.gmane.org [18xx]
There is no one way or preference that can cover all of the newbies. Just
like the seasoned players tend to prefer building or economical side, so do
the preferences of new players vary. If you have a teaching game of
no-holds-barred 1830, you have some completely hooked and wanting to learn
all about the strategies while others will not want to see another train in
their lifetime. If you start off with 18AL, the first type is likely bored
and won't be interested in another 18XX while the second type is
interested. For some, seeing a no-luck game to end in their bankruptcy
engineered by others is not something that drives them away, but an
invitation to learn how to do it to others.
On the type of introductory games, I think that the best type of
introduction game depends on what style of 18XXs the groups in general
play. Even if you get a builder-type interested in 18XXs, it is of little
help if every "real" game played is cutthroat 1817.
Also, I think that the idea of having beginner players just play among
themselves is not a very useful one. Even though it might give them a
better chance at winning, it will result in general longer games and slower
improvement of strategies. And, most importantly, it easily gives
unintended message of "you are not good enough to play with us", which is
sure to kill any interest in the game far quicker than any string of losses.
Antero

['Craig Bartell' home-w7/+bAfeBuw6ycP7r0UHjgC/[e-mail] [18xx]]

I'm absolutely positive that "too frugal" is not an accurate description
of your group's 1817 play!

Craig

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [18xx] 1817 to near death
From: "Christopher Rao topher-***@public.gmane.org [18xx]"
<18xx-***@public.gmane.org>
Date: Mon, September 08, 2014 1:19 pm
To: "18xx-***@public.gmane.org" <18xx-***@public.gmane.org>


Alas, I have never seen loans go higher than $55 or $60. Our group must
be too frugal!

Cheers,
Christopher

Christopher Rama Rao || Rao & Pierce PLLC
206.721.8880 || Fax: [phone]
2411 Fourteenth Avenue South, Seattle, WA 98144
www.raoandpierce.com || www.decouplingblog.com

On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 5:24 AM, 'Beard, Bruce D'
bruce_d_beard-dGIoD64L1/Udnm+***@public.gmane.org [18xx] <18xx-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
A classic loan max game was a 6-player at Chicago last year with Tim,
Craig, Anthony, Rick, Jeff (or maybe Mike--or maybe it was 5 player) and
I.

We had 3 consecutive turns were every loan was out. Whoever had the
priority took all the remaining loans so that when a company went
bankrupt he could bid for the assets.

Surprisingly, only one player went bankrupt.

-Bruce

________________________________
From: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org [18xx-***@public.gmane.org]
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 8:32 PM
To: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: RE: [18xx] Introducing 18xx to new players (was 18xx at
Strategicon (Gateway 2014))


1817 limits loans to 70. I have seen games lost because a player (I
think it was Carver) couldn’t take the 71st loan.

Rick


From: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:18xx-***@public.gmane.org]
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 5:59 PM
To: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [18xx] Introducing 18xx to new players (was 18xx at
Strategicon (Gateway 2014))


I started with 1830 and several years of constant losses and
bankruptcies before I ever won a game -- and we're fairly sure that was
a banking error. While that event was cheering, it was some years after
that before I could offer competition. I am glad that my opponents had
the patience for my learning curve.

As for 1817, Like Christopher (with whom I've not yet played alas) I
like my games of 1817 to end with multiple players being utterly
crippled or bankrupting and the few survivors struggling through to see
who can eke out the win with their marginally-less-crippled positions
while the loan interest rate is still above $50/loan and they're just
almost-but-not-quite-dead-yet. They are the more interesting games. (I
keep meaning to ask if loan interest can go above $70 -- it would have
helped me in a couple games if it could)

Last night's play (of a prototype) featured four company dumps. A! lot
of shares were sold to buy trains. Bankruptcy constantly hovered. At
several points more than two thirds of the entire game had been dumped
and was in the market at the end of stock rounds. 12 times in 6 stock
rounds a president sold a company down to its presidency (there are only
8 in the game). 4 companies ended the game being held only by their
presidencies. We scraped through, only barely surviving. The winner
ended up with 4 companies and only two trains, and shuffled trains until
the game ended -- and had a portfolio four times larger than the
second-place player just 4.5% behind him (me). (And if a treasury had
been larger by $3 in OR6.2, more trains would have rusted and he would
have lost to me by ~15%) It was great!

-- JCL

On 7 Sep 2014, at 14:15, Mike Hutton
huttm-/E1597aS9LT10XsdtD+***@public.gmane.org<mailto:huttm-/E1597aS9LT10XsdtD+***@public.gmane.org> [18xx]
<18xx-***@public.gmane.org<mailto:18xx-***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:

Maybe, but how many other 18xx games had you played before you got
stuck into 1817? I'm guessing it was more than 2.

________________________________
From: "Christopher Rao
topher-***@public.gmane.org<mailto:topher-***@public.gmane.org> [18xx]"
<18xx-***@public.gmane.org<mailto:18xx-***@public.gmane.org>>
To: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org<mailto:18xx-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Sunday, 7 September 2014, 22:00
Subject: Re: [18xx] Introducing 18xx to new players (was 18xx at
Strategicon (Gateway 2014))


Yes! Exactly. Hence my enfatuation with 1817 - so many ways to die (and
so many ways to recover from almost dying).
6 - player 1817 in particular often feels like a Hunger Games setting.
In a recent game, I survived my shorts only by raising ~$300 via an
otherwise inopportune friendly sale, then came in 4th of 6. I got more
fun from that particular shenanigan than I have winning other XX games.

On Sep 7, 2014 12:17 PM, "JC Lawrence
claw-***@public.gmane.org<mailto:claw-***@public.gmane.org> [18xx]"
<18xx-***@public.gmane.org<mailto:18xx-***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:

We tend to show other players the games we love. Hey, look at this!
Isn't it wonderful?

Mike and Jim like constructive building games. (I'm not sure what
Bruce likes other than just playing)

The games I love are combinations between struggling to survive at all
and cage matches. Even better if the players end the game with less
than they started with. I don't care about building anything, just
getting in there and competing and learning, and finding out someone
kinda survived, or bits of them survived -- which is good enough.

And so those are the game values that I try and show to new players.
See! Isn't it neat? He won because after all the drama and explosions,
he can still twitch a bit. Isn't this great? It seems that few new
players share those values.

But enough whining.

-- JCL





Richard Dutton, M.D., M.B.A.
Executive Director
Anesthesia Quality Institute
Chief Quality Officer
American Society of Anesthesiologists
520 N. Northwest Hwy
Park Ridge, IL 60068

p: [phone] | e:
r.dutton-***@public.gmane.org<mailto:r.dutton-***@public.gmane.org?subject=AQI%20> |
http://www.aqihq.org

Connect with AQI on
LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/anesthesia-quality-institute?trk=cp_followed_name_anesthesia-quality-institute>
and
Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/pages/Anesthesia-Quality-Institute-AQI/597462053651028?ref=tn_tnmn>.
Report anesthesia events at www.aqiairs.org<http://www.aqiairs.org/>




------------------------------------

------------------------------------

This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
------------------------------------

Yahoo Groups Links











------------------------------------
Posted by: "Craig Bartell" <home-w7/+bAfeBuw6ycP7r0UHjgC/***@public.gmane.org>
------------------------------------

This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.

[steve-yu-/[e-mail] [18xx]]

I am certain that cheap would correctly describe our 18xx group. We spend an inordinate amount of time tryingto convince the bank to pay full face value for shares that would generally be considered worth significantly less than stated value and hence our loans tend not to get above 50 to 55.

As for sucking in new players, I have tried the 18ga and 18al route and mostly players tend to be bored by the lack of shenanigans. I have found 1830 and even 1817 until the first 4 train to be better attractors of new players, but that is mostly because I tend to hang out with and meet people who like to do devious or some would say dastardly things to other players and are less interested in building optimal railroads.

[[e-mail] [18xx]]

OK, I haven't been rigorously reading every post in this thread so I may be repeating something already said.

The Chicago gaming group has, from time to time, introduced new players to 18xx. Most such attempts that I recall were fairly successful. Since, until recently, we played a lot of 1870. That was usually the game that we used for this.

We are a fairly cutthroat group but when including a new player in a game we did one thing differently. Every experienced player freely gave advice [good advice not self serving advice] to the new player. This advice often prompted strategy discussions among the players. The game could take a little longer, but the new player came away with a much better understanding of the game and sometimes even won. Of course, this tender treatment never lasted more than one or two games.

[Mike Hutton huttm-/[e-mail] [18xx]]

The main objection to 1870 as a teaching vehicle is that it's rather long. Its other elements, particularly the more linear progression and defensive mechanisms, make it much more suitable than some other titles, IMHO.

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 9/9/14, rich-***@public.gmane.org [18xx] <18xx-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

Subject: Re: [18xx] Introducing 18xx to new players
To: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org
Date: Tuesday, 9 September, 2014, 13:07


 









OK, I haven't been rigorously reading every
post in this thread so I may be repeating something already
said.

The Chicago gaming
group has, from time to time, introduced new players to
18xx. Most such attempts that I recall were fairly
successful. Since, until recently, we played a lot of 1870.
That was usually the game that we used for this.

We are a fairly cutthroat
group but when including a new player in a game we did one
thing differently. Every experienced player freely gave
advice [good advice not self serving advice] to the new
player. This advice often prompted strategy discussions
among the players. The game could take a little longer, but
the new player came away with a much better understanding of
the game and sometimes even won. Of course, this tender
treatment never lasted more than one or two games.









#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923 --
#yiv4363936923ygrp-mkp {
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px
0;padding:0 10px;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-mkp hr {
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-mkp #yiv4363936923hd {
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-mkp #yiv4363936923ads {
margin-bottom:10px;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-mkp .yiv4363936923ad {
padding:0 0;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-mkp .yiv4363936923ad p {
margin:0;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-mkp .yiv4363936923ad a {
color:#0000ff;text-decoration:none;}
#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-sponsor
#yiv4363936923ygrp-lc {
font-family:Arial;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-sponsor
#yiv4363936923ygrp-lc #yiv4363936923hd {
margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-sponsor
#yiv4363936923ygrp-lc .yiv4363936923ad {
margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923actions {
font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923activity {
background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923activity span {
font-weight:700;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923activity span:first-child {
text-transform:uppercase;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923activity span a {
color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923activity span span {
color:#ff7900;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923activity span
.yiv4363936923underline {
text-decoration:underline;}

#yiv4363936923 .yiv4363936923attach {
clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}

#yiv4363936923 .yiv4363936923attach div a {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv4363936923 .yiv4363936923attach img {
border:none;padding-right:5px;}

#yiv4363936923 .yiv4363936923attach label {
display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}

#yiv4363936923 .yiv4363936923attach label a {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv4363936923 blockquote {
margin:0 0 0 4px;}

#yiv4363936923 .yiv4363936923bold {
font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}

#yiv4363936923 .yiv4363936923bold a {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv4363936923 dd.yiv4363936923last p a {
font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}

#yiv4363936923 dd.yiv4363936923last p span {
margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}

#yiv4363936923 dd.yiv4363936923last p
span.yiv4363936923yshortcuts {
margin-right:0;}

#yiv4363936923 div.yiv4363936923attach-table div div a {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv4363936923 div.yiv4363936923attach-table {
width:400px;}

#yiv4363936923 div.yiv4363936923file-title a, #yiv4363936923
div.yiv4363936923file-title a:active, #yiv4363936923
div.yiv4363936923file-title a:hover, #yiv4363936923
div.yiv4363936923file-title a:visited {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv4363936923 div.yiv4363936923photo-title a,
#yiv4363936923 div.yiv4363936923photo-title a:active,
#yiv4363936923 div.yiv4363936923photo-title a:hover,
#yiv4363936923 div.yiv4363936923photo-title a:visited {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv4363936923 div#yiv4363936923ygrp-mlmsg
#yiv4363936923ygrp-msg p a span.yiv4363936923yshortcuts {
font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal;}

#yiv4363936923 .yiv4363936923green {
color:#628c2a;}

#yiv4363936923 .yiv4363936923MsoNormal {
margin:0 0 0 0;}

#yiv4363936923 o {
font-size:0;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923photos div {
float:left;width:72px;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923photos div div {
border:1px solid
#666666;height:62px;overflow:hidden;width:62px;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923photos div label {
color:#666666;font-size:10px;overflow:hidden;text-align:center;white-space:nowrap;width:64px;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923reco-category {
font-size:77%;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923reco-desc {
font-size:77%;}

#yiv4363936923 .yiv4363936923replbq {
margin:4px;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-actbar div a:first-child {
margin-right:2px;padding-right:5px;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-mlmsg {
font-size:13px;font-family:Arial, helvetica, clean,
sans-serif;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-mlmsg table {
font-size:inherit;font:100%;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-mlmsg select,
#yiv4363936923 input, #yiv4363936923 textarea {
font:99% Arial, Helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-mlmsg pre, #yiv4363936923
code {
font:115% monospace;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-mlmsg * {
line-height:1.22em;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-mlmsg #yiv4363936923logo {
padding-bottom:10px;}


#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-msg p a {
font-family:Verdana;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-msg
p#yiv4363936923attach-count span {
color:#1E66AE;font-weight:700;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-reco
#yiv4363936923reco-head {
color:#ff7900;font-weight:700;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-reco {
margin-bottom:20px;padding:0px;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-sponsor #yiv4363936923ov
li a {
font-size:130%;text-decoration:none;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-sponsor #yiv4363936923ov
li {
font-size:77%;list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-sponsor #yiv4363936923ov
ul {
margin:0;padding:0 0 0 8px;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-text {
font-family:Georgia;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-text p {
margin:0 0 1em 0;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-text tt {
font-size:120%;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-vital ul li:last-child {
border-right:none !important;
}
#yiv4363936923



------------------------------------
Posted by: Mike Hutton <huttm-/E1597aS9LT10XsdtD+***@public.gmane.org>
------------------------------------

This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.

[John David Galt jdg-B7nRaJsaZ71lfy4lhgBH/6/hnoOF5EnK9T/[e-mail] [18xx]]

Post by Mike Hutton huttm-/E1597aS9LT10XsdtD+***@public.gmane.org [18xx]
The main objection to 1870 as a teaching vehicle is that it's rather
long. Its other elements, particularly the more linear progression
and defensive mechanisms, make it much more suitable than some other
titles, IMHO.

Agreed. Taking the 12 trains (and sometimes the 10s) out of 1870 is a
simple change that doesn't change the game much until the very end, but
can knock a couple of hours off it.



------------------------------------
Posted by: John David Galt <jdg-B7nRaJsaZ71lfy4lhgBH/6/hnoOF5EnK9T/***@public.gmane.org>
------------------------------------

This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.

[Mike Hutton huttm-/[e-mail] [18xx]]

I would definitely take out the 10s and provide infinite (16) 8s. The bank probably needs to fall to about $8,000. Either than or make the 10s 8Es.

If I wanted to take out more to simplify the game I suppose the private's special actions and the stock-market ledge would be the next to go. I'd keep the director's ability to price-protect though, but warn that players shouldn't expect to see this in other games.

Mike.

--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 10/9/14, John David Galt jdg-B7nRaJsaZ71lfy4lhgBH/6/hnoOF5EnK9T/***@public.gmane.org [18xx] <***@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: [18xx] Introducing 18xx to new players
To: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org
Date: Wednesday, 10 September, 2014, 5:25


 

Post by Mike Hutton huttm-/E1597aS9LT10XsdtD+***@public.gmane.org [18xx]
The main objection to 1870 as a teaching vehicle is

that it's rather

Post by Mike Hutton huttm-/E1597aS9LT10XsdtD+***@public.gmane.org [18xx]
long. Its other elements, particularly the more linear

progression

Post by Mike Hutton huttm-/E1597aS9LT10XsdtD+***@public.gmane.org [18xx]
and defensive mechanisms, make it much more suitable

than some other

Post by Mike Hutton huttm-/E1597aS9LT10XsdtD+***@public.gmane.org [18xx]
titles, IMHO.

Agreed. Taking the 12 trains (and sometimes the 10s) out of
1870 is a

simple change that doesn't change the game much until
the very end, but

can knock a couple of hours off it.













#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034 --
#yiv0091061034ygrp-mkp {
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px
0;padding:0 10px;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034ygrp-mkp hr {
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034ygrp-mkp #yiv0091061034hd {
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034ygrp-mkp #yiv0091061034ads {
margin-bottom:10px;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034ygrp-mkp .yiv0091061034ad {
padding:0 0;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034ygrp-mkp .yiv0091061034ad p {
margin:0;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034ygrp-mkp .yiv0091061034ad a {
color:#0000ff;text-decoration:none;}
#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034ygrp-sponsor
#yiv0091061034ygrp-lc {
font-family:Arial;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034ygrp-sponsor
#yiv0091061034ygrp-lc #yiv0091061034hd {
margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034ygrp-sponsor
#yiv0091061034ygrp-lc .yiv0091061034ad {
margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034actions {
font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034activity {
background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034activity span {
font-weight:700;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034activity span:first-child {
text-transform:uppercase;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034activity span a {
color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034activity span span {
color:#ff7900;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034activity span
.yiv0091061034underline {
text-decoration:underline;}

#yiv0091061034 .yiv0091061034attach {
clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}

#yiv0091061034 .yiv0091061034attach div a {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv0091061034 .yiv0091061034attach img {
border:none;padding-right:5px;}

#yiv0091061034 .yiv0091061034attach label {
display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}

#yiv0091061034 .yiv0091061034attach label a {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv0091061034 blockquote {
margin:0 0 0 4px;}

#yiv0091061034 .yiv0091061034bold {
font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}

#yiv0091061034 .yiv0091061034bold a {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv0091061034 dd.yiv0091061034last p a {
font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}

#yiv0091061034 dd.yiv0091061034last p span {
margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}

#yiv0091061034 dd.yiv0091061034last p
span.yiv0091061034yshortcuts {
margin-right:0;}

#yiv0091061034 div.yiv0091061034attach-table div div a {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv0091061034 div.yiv0091061034attach-table {
width:400px;}

#yiv0091061034 div.yiv0091061034file-title a, #yiv0091061034
div.yiv0091061034file-title a:active, #yiv0091061034
div.yiv0091061034file-title a:hover, #yiv0091061034
div.yiv0091061034file-title a:visited {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv0091061034 div.yiv0091061034photo-title a,
#yiv0091061034 div.yiv0091061034photo-title a:active,
#yiv0091061034 div.yiv0091061034photo-title a:hover,
#yiv0091061034 div.yiv0091061034photo-title a:visited {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv0091061034 div#yiv0091061034ygrp-mlmsg
#yiv0091061034ygrp-msg p a span.yiv0091061034yshortcuts {
font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal;}

#yiv0091061034 .yiv0091061034green {
color:#628c2a;}

#yiv0091061034 .yiv0091061034MsoNormal {
margin:0 0 0 0;}

#yiv0091061034 o {
font-size:0;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034photos div {
float:left;width:72px;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034photos div div {
border:1px solid
#666666;height:62px;overflow:hidden;width:62px;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034photos div label {
color:#666666;font-size:10px;overflow:hidden;text-align:center;white-space:nowrap;width:64px;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034reco-category {
font-size:77%;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034reco-desc {
font-size:77%;}

#yiv0091061034 .yiv0091061034replbq {
margin:4px;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034ygrp-actbar div a:first-child {
margin-right:2px;padding-right:5px;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034ygrp-mlmsg {
font-size:13px;font-family:Arial, helvetica, clean,
sans-serif;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034ygrp-mlmsg table {
font-size:inherit;font:100%;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034ygrp-mlmsg select,
#yiv0091061034 input, #yiv0091061034 textarea {
font:99% Arial, Helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034ygrp-mlmsg pre, #yiv0091061034
code {
font:115% monospace;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034ygrp-mlmsg * {
line-height:1.22em;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034ygrp-mlmsg #yiv0091061034logo {
padding-bottom:10px;}


#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034ygrp-msg p a {
font-family:Verdana;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034ygrp-msg
p#yiv0091061034attach-count span {
color:#1E66AE;font-weight:700;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034ygrp-reco
#yiv0091061034reco-head {
color:#ff7900;font-weight:700;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034ygrp-reco {
margin-bottom:20px;padding:0px;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034ygrp-sponsor #yiv0091061034ov
li a {
font-size:130%;text-decoration:none;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034ygrp-sponsor #yiv0091061034ov
li {
font-size:77%;list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034ygrp-sponsor #yiv0091061034ov
ul {
margin:0;padding:0 0 0 8px;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034ygrp-text {
font-family:Georgia;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034ygrp-text p {
margin:0 0 1em 0;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034ygrp-text tt {
font-size:120%;}

#yiv0091061034 #yiv0091061034ygrp-vital ul li:last-child {
border-right:none !important;
}
#yiv0091061034



------------------------------------
Posted by: Mike Hutton <huttm-/E1597aS9LT10XsdtD+***@public.gmane.org>
------------------------------------

This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.

[Mike Hutton huttm-/[e-mail] [18xx]]

The main objection to 1870 as a teaching vehicle is that it's rather long. Its other elements, particularly the more linear progression and defensive mechanisms, make it much more suitable than some other titles, IMHO.

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 9/9/14, rich-***@public.gmane.org [18xx] <18xx-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

Subject: Re: [18xx] Introducing 18xx to new players
To: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org
Date: Tuesday, 9 September, 2014, 13:07


 









OK, I haven't been rigorously reading every
post in this thread so I may be repeating something already
said.

The Chicago gaming
group has, from time to time, introduced new players to
18xx. Most such attempts that I recall were fairly
successful. Since, until recently, we played a lot of 1870.
That was usually the game that we used for this.

We are a fairly cutthroat
group but when including a new player in a game we did one
thing differently. Every experienced player freely gave
advice [good advice not self serving advice] to the new
player. This advice often prompted strategy discussions
among the players. The game could take a little longer, but
the new player came away with a much better understanding of
the game and sometimes even won. Of course, this tender
treatment never lasted more than one or two games.









#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923 --
#yiv4363936923ygrp-mkp {
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px
0;padding:0 10px;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-mkp hr {
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-mkp #yiv4363936923hd {
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-mkp #yiv4363936923ads {
margin-bottom:10px;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-mkp .yiv4363936923ad {
padding:0 0;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-mkp .yiv4363936923ad p {
margin:0;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-mkp .yiv4363936923ad a {
color:#0000ff;text-decoration:none;}
#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-sponsor
#yiv4363936923ygrp-lc {
font-family:Arial;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-sponsor
#yiv4363936923ygrp-lc #yiv4363936923hd {
margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-sponsor
#yiv4363936923ygrp-lc .yiv4363936923ad {
margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923actions {
font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923activity {
background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923activity span {
font-weight:700;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923activity span:first-child {
text-transform:uppercase;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923activity span a {
color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923activity span span {
color:#ff7900;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923activity span
.yiv4363936923underline {
text-decoration:underline;}

#yiv4363936923 .yiv4363936923attach {
clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}

#yiv4363936923 .yiv4363936923attach div a {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv4363936923 .yiv4363936923attach img {
border:none;padding-right:5px;}

#yiv4363936923 .yiv4363936923attach label {
display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}

#yiv4363936923 .yiv4363936923attach label a {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv4363936923 blockquote {
margin:0 0 0 4px;}

#yiv4363936923 .yiv4363936923bold {
font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}

#yiv4363936923 .yiv4363936923bold a {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv4363936923 dd.yiv4363936923last p a {
font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}

#yiv4363936923 dd.yiv4363936923last p span {
margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}

#yiv4363936923 dd.yiv4363936923last p
span.yiv4363936923yshortcuts {
margin-right:0;}

#yiv4363936923 div.yiv4363936923attach-table div div a {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv4363936923 div.yiv4363936923attach-table {
width:400px;}

#yiv4363936923 div.yiv4363936923file-title a, #yiv4363936923
div.yiv4363936923file-title a:active, #yiv4363936923
div.yiv4363936923file-title a:hover, #yiv4363936923
div.yiv4363936923file-title a:visited {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv4363936923 div.yiv4363936923photo-title a,
#yiv4363936923 div.yiv4363936923photo-title a:active,
#yiv4363936923 div.yiv4363936923photo-title a:hover,
#yiv4363936923 div.yiv4363936923photo-title a:visited {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv4363936923 div#yiv4363936923ygrp-mlmsg
#yiv4363936923ygrp-msg p a span.yiv4363936923yshortcuts {
font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal;}

#yiv4363936923 .yiv4363936923green {
color:#628c2a;}

#yiv4363936923 .yiv4363936923MsoNormal {
margin:0 0 0 0;}

#yiv4363936923 o {
font-size:0;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923photos div {
float:left;width:72px;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923photos div div {
border:1px solid
#666666;height:62px;overflow:hidden;width:62px;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923photos div label {
color:#666666;font-size:10px;overflow:hidden;text-align:center;white-space:nowrap;width:64px;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923reco-category {
font-size:77%;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923reco-desc {
font-size:77%;}

#yiv4363936923 .yiv4363936923replbq {
margin:4px;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-actbar div a:first-child {
margin-right:2px;padding-right:5px;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-mlmsg {
font-size:13px;font-family:Arial, helvetica, clean,
sans-serif;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-mlmsg table {
font-size:inherit;font:100%;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-mlmsg select,
#yiv4363936923 input, #yiv4363936923 textarea {
font:99% Arial, Helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-mlmsg pre, #yiv4363936923
code {
font:115% monospace;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-mlmsg * {
line-height:1.22em;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-mlmsg #yiv4363936923logo {
padding-bottom:10px;}


#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-msg p a {
font-family:Verdana;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-msg
p#yiv4363936923attach-count span {
color:#1E66AE;font-weight:700;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-reco
#yiv4363936923reco-head {
color:#ff7900;font-weight:700;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-reco {
margin-bottom:20px;padding:0px;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-sponsor #yiv4363936923ov
li a {
font-size:130%;text-decoration:none;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-sponsor #yiv4363936923ov
li {
font-size:77%;list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-sponsor #yiv4363936923ov
ul {
margin:0;padding:0 0 0 8px;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-text {
font-family:Georgia;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-text p {
margin:0 0 1em 0;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-text tt {
font-size:120%;}

#yiv4363936923 #yiv4363936923ygrp-vital ul li:last-child {
border-right:none !important;
}
#yiv4363936923



------------------------------------
Posted by: Mike Hutton <huttm-/E1597aS9LT10XsdtD+***@public.gmane.org>
------------------------------------

This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.