Discussion:
A really weird game of 18EU
(too old to reply)
mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
2005-06-19 22:52:45 UTC
Permalink
Today we played 18EU with only 3 players instead of our regular 4, and
it turned into to weirdest game I've seen. Each player founded 2
companies, and didn't want to start any of the last two, because doing
so would mean the stock would go to the left on the stock market, and
there was still more attractive stock availlable. This meant that there
were only 6 companies, and with 5 3-trains, 4 4-trains and 3 5-trains,
nobody was able to buy the first 6-train. Actually nobody wanted to
buy the last 4-train, which seemed to be more poisonous than usual.

But that first 6-train really took a long time. Only when everybody
was approaching the certificate limit and all existing compoanies
were sold out, did I start FS (nobody had started a company in
Italy yet, and #5 and #10 couldn't merge with anyone and disappeared),
but I needed help to float it. Originally one of the other players
was considering helping it float (he had money and room for more shares),
but when Erik decided to buy a share of FS, the other player (Henk)
decided not to. I was out of money, Erik was at the certificate limit,
so FS didn't float, and we continued without 6-trains.

The next SR, the bank had almost broken, and it would certainly break
the first OR after this SR, because FS was last, and the other companies
made way too much money. Originally we decided to quit here, counted,
and it turned out Henk was $250 behind Erik. (I was about $700 behind
Henk.) FS buying the first 6-train would result in the removal of all
3-trains, enabling other companies to buy more trains, leaving one of
Erik's companies without trains. That would change quite a lot, so we
decided to continue playing. FS finally floated (it's still better than
nothing), and Henk dumped share of one of Erik's companies in order to
destroy a bit more of his lead. Since I couldn't sell FS, I sold a share
of another of Erik's companies in order to pick it up, and Erik sold a
share of one of Henk's companies to pick up the share I sold.
The next OR: huge revenues, until finally FS bought the 6-train. Then
Belgium (in the lead) bought the other 6-train, Bayerische (mine)
bought an 8-train, and both Erik's companies were left without any
trains.

Henk won by $500, Erik ended about $50 before me.

Tomorrow I might post a more detailed report and an analysis of who
did what wrong. I don't think things were supposed to happen this way.

I'm also wondering if perhaps companies should be allowed to own more
trains than the limit, but only operate a limited number. That would
prevent these kind of deadlocks.


mcv.


This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
David G.D. Hecht
2005-06-20 00:42:09 UTC
Permalink
I find it beyond belief that no one in this situation was able (or willing)
to do the elementary calculation of who was winning and who was losing
earlier in the game.

Assuming you didn't want to sell shares of your opponents' companies,
whoever owned the worst company should have sold down a sufficient amount of
it to allow them to bring out one of the last companies. With a cert limit
of 20, it's hard to imagine not being able to make room for four certs (five
shares) in your hand: as it is, at least one player is playing short of
limit (3 x 20 = 60, 6 x 9 = 54, ergo, there are six "holes" in peoples'
hands). True, you might give up some good stock, but it would doubtless work
out for you in the long run: as you observe, just one pair of ORs under the
new dispensation (really just one OR) was sufficient to squeeze the final
positions together by roughly $500.

It seems fairly obvious that this was a self-imposed deadlock, not a
structural one. Please do not blame the game. That's just annoying.

----- Original Message -----
From: <mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/***@public.gmane.org>
To: <18xx-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 6:52 PM
Subject: [18xx] A really weird game of 18EU
Post by mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
Today we played 18EU with only 3 players instead of our regular 4, and
it turned into to weirdest game I've seen. Each player founded 2
companies, and didn't want to start any of the last two, because doing
so would mean the stock would go to the left on the stock market, and
there was still more attractive stock availlable. This meant that there
were only 6 companies, and with 5 3-trains, 4 4-trains and 3 5-trains,
nobody was able to buy the first 6-train. Actually nobody wanted to
buy the last 4-train, which seemed to be more poisonous than usual.
But that first 6-train really took a long time. Only when everybody
was approaching the certificate limit and all existing compoanies
were sold out, did I start FS (nobody had started a company in
Italy yet, and #5 and #10 couldn't merge with anyone and disappeared),
but I needed help to float it. Originally one of the other players
was considering helping it float (he had money and room for more shares),
but when Erik decided to buy a share of FS, the other player (Henk)
decided not to. I was out of money, Erik was at the certificate limit,
so FS didn't float, and we continued without 6-trains.
The next SR, the bank had almost broken, and it would certainly break
the first OR after this SR, because FS was last, and the other companies
made way too much money. Originally we decided to quit here, counted,
and it turned out Henk was $250 behind Erik. (I was about $700 behind
Henk.) FS buying the first 6-train would result in the removal of all
3-trains, enabling other companies to buy more trains, leaving one of
Erik's companies without trains. That would change quite a lot, so we
decided to continue playing. FS finally floated (it's still better than
nothing), and Henk dumped share of one of Erik's companies in order to
destroy a bit more of his lead. Since I couldn't sell FS, I sold a share
of another of Erik's companies in order to pick it up, and Erik sold a
share of one of Henk's companies to pick up the share I sold.
The next OR: huge revenues, until finally FS bought the 6-train. Then
Belgium (in the lead) bought the other 6-train, Bayerische (mine)
bought an 8-train, and both Erik's companies were left without any
trains.
Henk won by $500, Erik ended about $50 before me.
Tomorrow I might post a more detailed report and an analysis of who
did what wrong. I don't think things were supposed to happen this way.
I'm also wondering if perhaps companies should be allowed to own more
trains than the limit, but only operate a limited number. That would
prevent these kind of deadlocks.
mcv.
This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links
This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
2005-06-20 09:18:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by David G.D. Hecht
I find it beyond belief that no one in this situation was able (or willing)
to do the elementary calculation of who was winning and who was losing
earlier in the game.
Assuming you didn't want to sell shares of your opponents' companies,
whoever owned the worst company should have sold down a sufficient amount of
it to allow them to bring out one of the last companies.
The problem is that doing so would hurt your own position, so one player
would have to sacrifice himself to help at least one of the others. The
player in the lead was happy with the situation as it was, I was so far
behind that I didn't feel like helping the player in second position to
a victory, and that player felt I was the one who should be doing
something, as the situation as it was, clearly wasn't to my advantage.
But selling shares of a company I'd finally gotten back on its feet
in order to start yet another struggling company just didn't sound very
attractive to me.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
With a cert limit
of 20, it's hard to imagine not being able to make room for four certs (five
The cert limit wasn't the problem. In the end, FS was floated, but other
companies were clearly better. Selling good shares to start a bad company
simply isn't a very good idea.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
True, you might give up some good stock, but it would doubtless work
out for you in the long run: as you observe, just one pair of ORs under the
new dispensation (really just one OR) was sufficient to squeeze the final
positions together by roughly $500.
The difference between me and Henk didn't get much smaller. It was mainly
Erik who hurt. My actions made Henk the winner. There was no way I could
have won.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
It seems fairly obvious that this was a self-imposed deadlock, not a
structural one. Please do not blame the game. That's just annoying.
In 18EU there's a big difference between companies created with minors
with a train, and companies created without a train. The former are
great, and can immediately compete with existing companies. The latter
are usually a lot worse than the other companies. That resulted in
only 6 companies being floated; 1 each in SR1, and one each in SR2.
I was considering floating a third in SR2, but it would start without
a train, and I'd make my problems of getting trains for my companies
even bigger, so I decided not to. Maybe that wasn't the right decision;
I ended up with 2 5-trains, so my problems in getting good trains
clearly weren't that bad.

Erik also had a chance to eliminate one of his 3-trains on the forced
merger round, but failed to do so, which caused both of his companies
to end up with a 3-train and a 4-train, causing his downfall in the
last OR, and also making him less eager to help getting the new trains
out.

I realise this could probably happen in any 18xx game. Whenever very
few companies are started, the existing companies tend to get filled
with trains so they can't buy the later, permanent trains. I've seen
lots of games where everybody is waiting for the only company with
room to buy the train that triggers a new phase. And when that
company is simply not ready to do so, everybody waits.

I've also seen the opposite: lots of companies floated, we race through
the 5- and 6-trains and when the first 8-train is bought, lots of
companies are without a train. I'm not sure how to fix this. It seems
to be a fundamental aspect of all 18xx trains. I was wondering if perhaps
it would help if a company could voluntarily lose a train in order to
buy a new train.

In any case, despite the deadlock, it was a very enjoyable game. Very
different from anything we'd seen before, and that's always good. A
few months ago, it seemed all 18EU games were starting to look alike,
but the last couple of games have proved us very wrong, which is good.


mcv.


This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Akke Monasso
2005-06-20 09:51:26 UTC
Permalink
It seems to be a fundamental aspect of all 18xx [games?]
I was wondering if perhaps it would help if a company could voluntarily lose a
train in order to buy a new train.
That should be a rule in any 18xx, it's mostly newbies that do not
consider the fact that they cannot open the next phase if they buy to
their train limit, but it even happens to experienced players.
The rules as used in most 18xx are counter-intuitive, why should you
not be allowed to scrap your own train if you buy a better one as a
replacement?
--
regards,

Akke


This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
David G.D. Hecht
2005-06-20 12:06:53 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message -----
From: "Akke Monasso" <amonasso-***@public.gmane.org>
To: <18xx-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 5:51 AM
Subject: Re: [18xx] A really weird game of 18EU
Post by Akke Monasso
It seems to be a fundamental aspect of all 18xx [games?]
I was wondering if perhaps it would help if a company could voluntarily lose a
train in order to buy a new train.
That should be a rule in any 18xx, it's mostly newbies that do not
consider the fact that they cannot open the next phase if they buy to
their train limit, but it even happens to experienced players.
The rules as used in most 18xx are counter-intuitive, why should you
not be allowed to scrap your own train if you buy a better one as a
replacement?
Well, you pose an interesting question. As it happens, there *is* an 18xx
game where this sort of thing is legal: 1837. Of course, you must pay to
scrap a train, but nevertheless, it is legal. Since 1837 is played fairly
frequently among the Brits, I'll ask the question: how often is the power to
scrap a train used in 1837?




This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Nick Wedd
2005-06-20 09:44:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by David G.D. Hecht
I find it beyond belief that no one in this situation was able (or willing)
to do the elementary calculation of who was winning and who was losing
earlier in the game.
I agree.

In our group we play, not for first place, but to maximise wealth in
excess of mean wealth. Even so, I can't see this from happening.
Someone has more than his share of 3-trains. Someone else should have
realised it was in his interest to make these rust.

Also - you say that Erik ended up with two trainless companies. If the
other players can make this happen, they should be doing so, and sooner
rather than later.

Nick
--
Nick Wedd nick-***@public.gmane.org


This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
M***@public.gmane.org
2005-06-20 09:56:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Wedd
Also - you say that Erik ended up with two trainless companies. If the
other players can make this happen, they should be doing so, and sooner
rather than later.
Timing is, as usual, everything. If you kill the 4-trains, Erik will be
running 8-trains instead, presumably for considerably more. If you do it too
early, the extra revenue will allow Erik to catch up. If you do it very early, of
course, the cost might make Erik have to give up shares, and that would be a
plus (for everyone else). Do it too late, and a one round train shuffle will
be less unprofitable.

Steve Thomas ***@a...


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



This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
2005-06-20 10:54:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
Post by Nick Wedd
Also - you say that Erik ended up with two trainless companies. If the
other players can make this happen, they should be doing so, and sooner
rather than later.
Timing is, as usual, everything. If you kill the 4-trains, Erik will be
running 8-trains instead, presumably for considerably more. If you do it too
early, the extra revenue will allow Erik to catch up.
That was indeed the problem here. He has an early lead, bought cheap
trains, and had plenty of money to buy better trains as soon as he was
able. The way things turned out was probably the way it hurt him most
(although he almost managed to win with just 3- and 4-trains).
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
If you do it very early, of
course, the cost might make Erik have to give up shares, and that would be a
plus (for everyone else). Do it too late, and a one round train shuffle will
be less unprofitable.
Had FS floated earlier and bought that 6-train, Erik's companies may
have been in the position to buy the first 8-train.

So what should we have done differently? Henk won in the end, so it's
hard to claim he did anything wrong. Sacrificing good shares to float
FS earlier would have cost me more than I would have gained, I think.
Erik made the error of not eliminating a 3-train. Had he done that,
he probably would have won.

I'd been way behind since SR2. I'd created the Kaiserliche from #6 and
#8 in SR1, and Henk merged #11 into it. Erik and Henk had each bought
2 3-trains, and KK couldn't afford a 3- and a 4-train yet (and already
had 3 2-trains anyway), so I had to settle for just a 3.
Since I wanted to turn #4 and #13 into a major in SR2, I had #4 buy the
3-train, hoping I'd be able to buy the first 4-train with the KK.
But Erik shifted some trains around, collecting enough money to buy
the first 4-train, so KK moved left on OR4.

In SR2, I created the Bayerische from #4 and #13, and decided not to
sell KK shares, although doing so would have allowed me to turn #7
into a trainless major. Henk sold his KK shares, sending me even
further down. In retrospect, I should probably have sold KK and
start that third major, but that just felt a bit too risky even for
a risk-seeker like me. It would have made the north even more crowded.
Or I should have shifted more money around sooner, so the KK would have
been able to afford that 4-train.


mcv.


This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
David G.D. Hecht
2005-06-20 12:38:37 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message -----
From: <mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/***@public.gmane.org>
To: <18xx-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 6:54 AM
Subject: Re: [18xx] A really weird game of 18EU
Post by mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
I'd been way behind since SR2. I'd created the Kaiserliche from #6 and
#8 in SR1, and Henk merged #11 into it.
OK, already a small error but a vital one: since (presumably) #6 and #8 were
connected directly in order to allow this, you should probably have declined
the #6 token, thus preventing the #11 from merging into you (I presume that
the #11 came with little or no capital, but with a 2 train).
Post by mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
Erik and Henk had each bought
2 3-trains, and KK couldn't afford a 3- and a 4-train yet (and already
had 3 2-trains anyway), so I had to settle for just a 3.
Since I wanted to turn #4 and #13 into a major in SR2, I had #4 buy the
3-train, hoping I'd be able to buy the first 4-train with the KK.
But Erik shifted some trains around, collecting enough money to buy
the first 4-train, so KK moved left on OR4.
If he even had the possibility of doing this, it was probably not a sensible
move to buy the 3 train away from KK.
Post by mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
In SR2, I created the Bayerische from #4 and #13, and decided not to
sell KK shares, although doing so would have allowed me to turn #7
into a trainless major. Henk sold his KK shares, sending me even
further down. In retrospect, I should probably have sold KK and
Actually, if this truly was the situation, your correct move was to accept
the #11, do exactly as you did, and then dump the KK on Henk. Then *he*
would have been running a company with little capital and 3 x 2 trains, and
it would have been *he* who bore the onus of putting the 2 trains out of
business, not you.
Post by mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
start that third major, but that just felt a bit too risky even for
a risk-seeker like me. It would have made the north even more crowded.
Or I should have shifted more money around sooner, so the KK would have
been able to afford that 4-train.
Or, more likely, have #4 and #13 consolidate their money earlier and have
one of them buy the last 3 train, leaving the first 4 train for the KK. I
presume that #4 ran for ( 20/20 ) in OR-1 and ( 40/40 ) in OR-2, while #13
would have similarly run for ( 20/20 ) in OR-1 and ( 40/40 ) in OR-2. In
OR-3, they can both run again for ( 40/40 ): on its turn, #13 buys away #4's
2 train for all its cash, putting 200 total on #4. If KK now *ducks the last
3*, it allows #4 to buy it at the top of the order: or--if you prefer--it
simply buys it now, and #4 then buys the #3 from KK, which then receives an
additional 200 toward the first 4: the choice of when to buy the last 3 is
obviously contingent on who might buy it otherwise, and who might be in
position to buy the first 4.

One of the curious aspects of the game, which you only really internalize
through experience, is that two minor companies will run for about the same
regardless of how their trains are distributed between them: notably, two
minor companies each with a 2 train don't generally run for much more than
one with 2 x 2 trains and one with no train at all. E.g. in your situation
with #4 and #13, if you put #4's 2 train on #13, the total revenues will
be--at worst--20 less than if it were one apiece ( 80 + 60 vice 2 x 80 ) (if
the #14 allows #13 to connect to it via Augsburg and Stuttgart, it is a
wash: if not, the #13 can still run a second train
Munich-Augsburg-Frankfurt). This gives you the latitude to move trains about
on the minors with near-impunity, and makes it much easier to leverage the 3
trains onto the minors before they ever convert.




This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
2005-06-20 13:36:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
I'd been way behind since SR2. I'd created the Kaiserliche from #6 and
#8 in SR1, and Henk merged #11 into it.
OK, already a small error but a vital one: since (presumably) #6 and #8 were
connected directly in order to allow this, you should probably have declined
the #6 token, thus preventing the #11 from merging into you (I presume that
the #11 came with little or no capital, but with a 2 train).
Perhaps. I'd considered if I should or should not allow #11 to merge,
but I figured that running with 3 2-trains would be nice, so I let
him. I hadn't realised that this would hurt my ability to buy that
4-train. Perhaps I should have let #7 buy one of the trains, that would
have given me room and money for a 3 and a 4-train.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
Erik and Henk had each bought
2 3-trains, and KK couldn't afford a 3- and a 4-train yet (and already
had 3 2-trains anyway), so I had to settle for just a 3.
Since I wanted to turn #4 and #13 into a major in SR2, I had #4 buy the
3-train, hoping I'd be able to buy the first 4-train with the KK.
But Erik shifted some trains around, collecting enough money to buy
the first 4-train, so KK moved left on OR4.
If he even had the possibility of doing this, it was probably not a sensible
move to buy the 3 train away from KK.
But what else should I do? Start a trainless company? That's just as
bad. Not starting a company at all would also have been bad. This
way there was at least the small chance that Erik would not juggle his
trains in order to get that 4-train.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
In SR2, I created the Bayerische from #4 and #13, and decided not to
sell KK shares, although doing so would have allowed me to turn #7
into a trainless major. Henk sold his KK shares, sending me even
further down. In retrospect, I should probably have sold KK and
Actually, if this truly was the situation, your correct move was to accept
the #11, do exactly as you did, and then dump the KK on Henk. Then *he*
would have been running a company with little capital and 3 x 2 trains, and
it would have been *he* who bore the onus of putting the 2 trains out of
business, not you.
Probably, yes, but Henk had the priority deal and he may have sold
his shares on his first turn in the stock round. I'm not entirely sure
about that. But I didn't even consider the possibility. I've gotten
used to 18EU being a much friendlier game than 1830, but that doesn't
always have to be the case. Although perhaps he did sell them on his
first turn, I'm not sure about that.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
start that third major, but that just felt a bit too risky even for
a risk-seeker like me. It would have made the north even more crowded.
Or I should have shifted more money around sooner, so the KK would have
been able to afford that 4-train.
Or, more likely, have #4 and #13 consolidate their money earlier and have
one of them buy the last 3 train, leaving the first 4 train for the KK.
I don't think they could have done this earlier. #4 had just a bit more
than $200 after selling his 2-train to #13, and I'd planned to buy a
3-train with that. Suddenly there was only a 4-train availlable.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
I
presume that #4 ran for ( 20/20 ) in OR-1 and ( 40/40 ) in OR-2, while #13
would have similarly run for ( 20/20 ) in OR-1 and ( 40/40 ) in OR-2. In
OR-3, they can both run again for ( 40/40 ): on its turn, #13 buys away #4's
2 train for all its cash, putting 200 total on #4.
That's what I did.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
If KK now *ducks the last
3*, it allows #4 to buy it at the top of the order: or--if you prefer--it
simply buys it now, and #4 then buys the #3 from KK, which then receives an
I think that's exactly what I did. But Erik beat me to buying that first
4-train.

I think the only thing that could have saved me was the money from #7,
and using my abundance of 2-trains to shift more money around.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
the choice of when to buy the last 3 is
obviously contingent on who might buy it otherwise, and who might be in
position to buy the first 4.
Perhaps if I hadn't bought that 3-train, nobody else would have taken
it, because they each already had 2 of them. In that case I might have
been able to get both the 3 and the first 4. But perhaps they would
have bought the 3 and the 4 anyway, simply to hurt me.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
One of the curious aspects of the game, which you only really internalize
through experience, is that two minor companies will run for about the same
regardless of how their trains are distributed between them: notably, two
minor companies each with a 2 train don't generally run for much more than
one with 2 x 2 trains and one with no train at all.
Almost. You usually miss a few towns. But there have been games where I
sold a train from #6 or #11 to #14 because #14 would make $60 with
the train, while it was making only $50 in its former company.

The problem here is that you need to sell the train to a higher numbered
minor. Otherwise the train misses a turn.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
E.g. in your situation
with #4 and #13, if you put #4's 2 train on #13, the total revenues will
be--at worst--20 less than if it were one apiece ( 80 + 60 vice 2 x 80 ) (if
the #14 allows #13 to connect to it via Augsburg and Stuttgart, it is a
wash: if not, the #13 can still run a second train
Munich-Augsburg-Frankfurt).
#14 was playing entirely in France. I did connect to Frankfurt, and I
did use my 2 2-trains with #13 in order to allow #4 to buy a 3-train.

It just wasn't enough to avoid disaster. Ofcourse in hindsight it's
usually possible to analyse the situation and figure out what went
wrong, but in the middle of the game, it's hard to analyse all possible
options correctly. Especially when other players are waiting for you
(and I used up quite a bit of time already for exactly these kind of
analyses).

No, my biggest error was even earlier. If not the combination of
minors, then certainly starting KK with 60% at $75 instead of 50%
at $90. I hereby retract my claim in an earlier discussion that in
18EU, the early game is about getting the cheap shares. Expensive
is always better.


mcv.


This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
David G.D. Hecht
2005-06-20 14:15:55 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message -----
From: <mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/***@public.gmane.org>
To: <18xx-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 9:36 AM
Subject: Re: [18xx] A really weird game of 18EU
Post by mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
I'd been way behind since SR2. I'd created the Kaiserliche from #6 and
#8 in SR1, and Henk merged #11 into it.
OK, already a small error but a vital one: since (presumably) #6 and #8 were
connected directly in order to allow this, you should probably have declined
the #6 token, thus preventing the #11 from merging into you (I presume that
the #11 came with little or no capital, but with a 2 train).
Perhaps. I'd considered if I should or should not allow #11 to merge,
but I figured that running with 3 2-trains would be nice, so I let
him. I hadn't realised that this would hurt my ability to buy that
4-train. Perhaps I should have let #7 buy one of the trains, that would
have given me room and money for a 3 and a 4-train.
Indeed. I think it sounds like what should have happened.
Post by mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
Erik and Henk had each bought
2 3-trains, and KK couldn't afford a 3- and a 4-train yet (and already
had 3 2-trains anyway), so I had to settle for just a 3.
Since I wanted to turn #4 and #13 into a major in SR2, I had #4 buy the
3-train, hoping I'd be able to buy the first 4-train with the KK.
But Erik shifted some trains around, collecting enough money to buy
the first 4-train, so KK moved left on OR4.
If he even had the possibility of doing this, it was probably not a sensible
move to buy the 3 train away from KK.
But what else should I do? Start a trainless company? That's just as
bad. Not starting a company at all would also have been bad. This
way there was at least the small chance that Erik would not juggle his
trains in order to get that 4-train.
Depends on what your second company started at. You always want to put the
onus of going backward on your trailing company, so if you started your
second company higher then you did the right thing. I just automatically
assumed you started the KK at 100 or perhaps 90.
Post by mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
In SR2, I created the Bayerische from #4 and #13, and decided not to
sell KK shares, although doing so would have allowed me to turn #7
into a trainless major. Henk sold his KK shares, sending me even
further down. In retrospect, I should probably have sold KK and
Actually, if this truly was the situation, your correct move was to accept
the #11, do exactly as you did, and then dump the KK on Henk. Then *he*
would have been running a company with little capital and 3 x 2 trains, and
it would have been *he* who bore the onus of putting the 2 trains out of
business, not you.
Probably, yes, but Henk had the priority deal and he may have sold
his shares on his first turn in the stock round. I'm not entirely sure
about that. But I didn't even consider the possibility. I've gotten
used to 18EU being a much friendlier game than 1830, but that doesn't
always have to be the case. Although perhaps he did sell them on his
first turn, I'm not sure about that.
Indeed. It *is* a much friendlier game than 1830. But "much friendlier"
doesn't mean "completely passive" either: sometimes, when someone puts
themselves in harm's way--especially if they've hurt you in the process--you
need to give them a subtle indication of your displeasure...
Post by mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
start that third major, but that just felt a bit too risky even for
a risk-seeker like me. It would have made the north even more crowded.
Or I should have shifted more money around sooner, so the KK would have
been able to afford that 4-train.
Or, more likely, have #4 and #13 consolidate their money earlier and have
one of them buy the last 3 train, leaving the first 4 train for the KK.
I don't think they could have done this earlier. #4 had just a bit more
than $200 after selling his 2-train to #13, and I'd planned to buy a
3-train with that. Suddenly there was only a 4-train availlable.
From what you have said, your company bought the last 3 train. So it wasn't
"suddenly": that's my point. You can't just consider the running company';s
turn in a vacuum: you have to consider your entire position. As Steve Thomas
often says, when you are considering buying a new train, whether or not the
buying company will be able to run it next OR is generally the least
important consideration.
Post by mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
Post by David G.D. Hecht
I
presume that #4 ran for ( 20/20 ) in OR-1 and ( 40/40 ) in OR-2, while #13
would have similarly run for ( 20/20 ) in OR-1 and ( 40/40 ) in OR-2. In
OR-3, they can both run again for ( 40/40 ): on its turn, #13 buys away #4's
2 train for all its cash, putting 200 total on #4.
That's what I did.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
If KK now *ducks the last
3*, it allows #4 to buy it at the top of the order: or--if you prefer--it
simply buys it now, and #4 then buys the #3 from KK, which then receives an
I think that's exactly what I did. But Erik beat me to buying that first
4-train.
When I wrote this, I assumed that your company was operating high enough in
the order (ending on 122, 110 or at least 100) to make this a plausible
strategy. If you started at 75 then it was unrealistic to expect no other
company to buy the first 4 train before you: if nothing else, you had no _a
priori_ knowledge of what companies would open.
Post by mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
I think the only thing that could have saved me was the money from #7,
and using my abundance of 2-trains to shift more money around.
Sounds like.
Post by mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
Post by David G.D. Hecht
the choice of when to buy the last 3 is
obviously contingent on who might buy it otherwise, and who might be in
position to buy the first 4.
Perhaps if I hadn't bought that 3-train, nobody else would have taken
it, because they each already had 2 of them. In that case I might have
been able to get both the 3 and the first 4. But perhaps they would
have bought the 3 and the 4 anyway, simply to hurt me.
It depends largely on whether they had enough cash on their minors--and the
necessary tempi--to make it happen. A priori, buying two 3 trains would make
them train-tight.

<snip>
Post by mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
No, my biggest error was even earlier. If not the combination of
minors, then certainly starting KK with 60% at $75 instead of 50%
at $90. I hereby retract my claim in an earlier discussion that in
18EU, the early game is about getting the cheap shares. Expensive
is always better.
Timing is everything. And position on the stock chart is a big part of
timing.

Personally I would not open my first company at 75 simply because it's too
tempting for other players to snap up the cheap shares: if that happens, you
might not get 60 percent anyhow. (First turn: you open at 75 and get three
shares; each of the others players buys one. Second turn: each player buys
one share. Third turn: you buy a fifth share, the next player buys a third
share...oops! The stock is now distributed 50-30-20, with a total of 750
capital!)




This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Nicholas Barclay
2005-06-20 14:45:48 UTC
Permalink
--- "David G.D. Hecht" <Barzai-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
Personally I would not open my first company at 75 simply because it's too
tempting for other players to snap up the cheap shares: if that happens, you
might not get 60 percent anyhow. (First turn: you open at 75 and get three
shares; each of the others players buys one. Second turn: each player buys
one share. Third turn: you buy a fifth share, the next player buys a third
share...oops! The stock is now distributed 50-30-20, with a total of 750
capital!)

Then loot it and dump it! Oh, and don't fold in your second minor.




__________________________________
Discover Yahoo!
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html


This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
David G.D. Hecht
2005-06-20 14:49:53 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nicholas Barclay" <nicholasnbarclay-/***@public.gmane.org>
To: <18xx-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: [18xx] A really weird game of 18EU
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Personally I would not open my first company at 75 simply because it's too
tempting for other players to snap up the cheap shares: if that happens, you
might not get 60 percent anyhow. (First turn: you open at 75 and get three
shares; each of the others players buys one. Second turn: each player buys
one share. Third turn: you buy a fifth share, the next player buys a third
share...oops! The stock is now distributed 50-30-20, with a total of 750
capital!)
Then loot it and dump it! Oh, and don't fold in your second minor.
Yep. If you read the entire thread, you'll see I advocated that very thing,
a few posts back...




This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
M***@public.gmane.org
2005-06-20 13:07:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Well, you pose an interesting question. As it happens, there *is* an 18xx
game where this sort of thing is legal: 1837. Of course, you must pay to
scrap a train, but nevertheless, it is legal. Since 1837 is played fairly
frequently among the Brits, I'll ask the question: how often is the power to
scrap a train used in 1837?
Fairly frequently, though less so now then when we started playing. It's
cheaper to have some other company buy the otiose train, and with a little
forethought the additional tempi required can often be made irrelevant, or at least
mostly harmless. Even so, rarely a game goes by without someone doing it at
least once, and having several trains scrapped in a game isn't unusual.

Games with Palace/Pullman cars (18EU, 1848, 1869:TGS) allow their scrapping
to make room for better (or possibly merely different) rolling stock. It's not
quite the same thing, Ps being less general than trains, but it's close.

Steve Thomas ***@a...


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



This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Gavin Cassells
2005-06-20 13:37:37 UTC
Permalink
Found this quote on the web from a review of Spiel '01...

"Francis Tresham was present, representing Tresham Games, with the
latest kits for 1825. A new, Tresham-designed 18xx game is due out
next year. 1831 is set in Ireland with lots of colour. The
long-awaited Revolution (Francis's game of the religious wars in and
around the Netherlands) may well see the light of day next year, as
well. "

I know Revolution is now available. Anyone know anything about this 1831??

Thanks,

Gav


This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Mike Hutton
2005-06-20 14:00:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gavin Cassells
Found this quote on the web from a review of Spiel '01...
"Francis Tresham was present, representing Tresham Games, with the
latest kits for 1825. A new, Tresham-designed 18xx game is due out
next year. 1831 is set in Ireland with lots of colour. The
long-awaited Revolution (Francis's game of the religious wars in and
around the Netherlands) may well see the light of day next year, as
well. "
I know Revolution is now available. Anyone know anything about this 1831??
This 1831 is the one mentioned on the box of 1825. It's been designed
by Dr. Richard Waring, a man I've never met but whom is apparently a
good friend of Francis'. It apparently contains some interested
concepts such as a 1-train (or is it a 0-train?).

It's been on the card for some time, as have a lot of other things.
Now Francis has Revolution and 1825 unit 3 out of the way, we may
actually get to see this. But don't hold your breath. There's at
least one regional kit and two other expansions on the cards for 1825.

Steve and others might have got to see prototypes at some of the
British 'cons. Steve?

Mike.




This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Akke Monasso
2005-06-20 14:05:57 UTC
Permalink
But don't hold your breath. There's at least one regional kit and two other
expansions on the cards for 1825.
and there's 1829 Mainline, which sounds like 'Union Pacific' meets '1825'.
--
regards,

Akke


This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
M***@public.gmane.org
2005-06-20 13:48:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gavin Cassells
Anyone know anything about this 1831??
It's been under playtest for ages, at least a decade. I've never seen it
myself, but I have had occasional reports from playtesters. These have all
ranged from "needs some more work" to "broken".

My personal suspicion is that it will be released (as if with a cry of "Ready
or not, here I come!) during Essen '05, and that it will not be to my taste.
I hope that I am right and wrong respectively.

Steve Thomas ***@a...


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



This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
M***@public.gmane.org
2005-06-20 14:55:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by David G.D. Hecht
The stock is now distributed 50-30-20, with a total of 750
capital!)
Make that 650 (remember to pay for the tokens), less 75 for each minor
folding in, plus those minors' treasuries. That might be as much as 750, but
probably won't be. You'll probably have to withhold in order to fund a proper
train. So this company isn't going to be very profitable even if all goes
reasonably well.

It's just not sound to start companies at low prices in 18EU. If nothing
else, you get less value for the minors you fold in.

Steve Thomas ***@a...


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



This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
M***@public.gmane.org
2005-06-20 15:00:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Akke Monasso
and there's 1829 Mainline, which sounds like 'Union Pacific' meets '1825'.
I'd characterise it as more Linie 1 (aka Streetcar) meets 1829. At least, I
hope that it doesn't come out in dribs and drabs over the next decade or two
like 1825.

Steve Thomas ***@a...


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



This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
M***@public.gmane.org
2005-06-20 15:13:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Hutton
Steve and others might have got to see prototypes at some of the
British 'cons. Steve?
It's ages since I last saw Francis at a convention in this country, and
longer still since I saw him playtest or even demonstrate an 18xx game at a
convention. That's one of the reasons I'm so hazy on details for 1831.

One of the problems for Francis is that his more recent 18xx output hasn't
gone down well with the people who go to the usual UK conventions to play 18xx.
So it's likely that if he playtested one of his designs at, say, ManorCon,
he'd be advised to tear it up and start again. That's not what he wants to
hear. It's possible that the usual 18xx convention crowd genuinely represent too
small a market for him, and that tailoring his designs to this crowd would be
counterproductive. But whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter, he
regards this crowd's opinions as of little merit and prefers to stick with his own
playtest group.

Steve Thomas ***@a...


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



This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Gavin Cassells
2005-06-20 16:19:31 UTC
Permalink
Ok, so you need to bail for a train, and you don't have enough cash,
so you need to sell shares. However, if you sell enough stock in the
company you are bailing it will close (the share price is hovering
over the closed area of the stock market). What happens?

Gav
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
Post by Mike Hutton
Steve and others might have got to see prototypes at some of the
British 'cons. Steve?
It's ages since I last saw Francis at a convention in this country, and
longer still since I saw him playtest or even demonstrate an 18xx game at a
convention. That's one of the reasons I'm so hazy on details for 1831.
One of the problems for Francis is that his more recent 18xx output hasn't
gone down well with the people who go to the usual UK conventions to play 18xx.
So it's likely that if he playtested one of his designs at, say, ManorCon,
he'd be advised to tear it up and start again. That's not what he wants to
hear. It's possible that the usual 18xx convention crowd genuinely represent too
small a market for him, and that tailoring his designs to this crowd would be
counterproductive. But whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter, he
regards this crowd's opinions as of little merit and prefers to stick with his own
playtest group.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
________________________________
Yahoo! Groups Links
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
David G.D. Hecht
2005-06-20 16:31:55 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gavin Cassells" <Gavin-HYLzvqZjTAxWk0Htik3J/***@public.gmane.org>
To: <18xx-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 12:19 PM
Subject: [18xx] An interesting 1870 question...
Post by Gavin Cassells
Ok, so you need to bail for a train, and you don't have enough cash,
so you need to sell shares. However, if you sell enough stock in the
company you are bailing it will close (the share price is hovering
over the closed area of the stock market). What happens?
Once the company closes, your obligation's done.

Someone developed an actual tactic to do this in 1856, sometimes referred to
as the "Kleenex corporation" ("Use once and throw away.") tactic. For
various technical reasons it is somewhat controversial, but none of the
objections need apply if you manipulate things right...




This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Gavin Cassells
2005-06-20 16:51:10 UTC
Permalink
So, the sale of the stock immediately triggers the closure of the
company and consequently you have no need to sell other stock/buy a
train?

Is this a common tactic employed in 1870? Should it be?

Gav
Post by David G.D. Hecht
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 12:19 PM
Subject: [18xx] An interesting 1870 question...
Post by Gavin Cassells
Ok, so you need to bail for a train, and you don't have enough cash,
so you need to sell shares. However, if you sell enough stock in the
company you are bailing it will close (the share price is hovering
over the closed area of the stock market). What happens?
Once the company closes, your obligation's done.
Someone developed an actual tactic to do this in 1856, sometimes referred to
as the "Kleenex corporation" ("Use once and throw away.") tactic. For
various technical reasons it is somewhat controversial, but none of the
objections need apply if you manipulate things right...
This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
________________________________
Yahoo! Groups Links
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
David G.D. Hecht
2005-06-20 16:55:03 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gavin Cassells" <Gavin-HYLzvqZjTAxWk0Htik3J/***@public.gmane.org>
To: <18xx-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: [18xx] An interesting 1870 question...
Post by Gavin Cassells
So, the sale of the stock immediately triggers the closure of the
company and consequently you have no need to sell other stock/buy a
train?
Is this a common tactic employed in 1870? Should it be?
Dunno how common it is. Less so than it could be, I imagine.



This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
John A. Tamplin
2005-06-20 18:38:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gavin Cassells
So, the sale of the stock immediately triggers the closure of the
company and consequently you have no need to sell other stock/buy a
train?
Yes.
Post by Gavin Cassells
Is this a common tactic employed in 1870? Should it be?
I haven't done it in 1870 (mostly since I haven't played 1870 as much as
others), but I have in 1856. It requires careful planning to pull off --
if you can't sell enough to close it (either because you have too much
money or the pool is full) you can get totally screwed, and if the timing
is wrong you will lose too much.

Also, you will be already losing at least two shares at the current market
value, so you have to make sure you get enough value elsewhere to make up
for it. Otherwise, even if you successfully avoid bankruptcy, you aren't
finishing anywhere near first.
--
John A. Tamplin jat-***@public.gmane.org
770/436-5387 HOME 4116 Manson Ave
Smyrna, GA 30082-3723



This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
John David Galt
2005-06-21 22:40:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gavin Cassells
Ok, so you need to bail for a train, and you don't have enough cash,
so you need to sell shares. However, if you sell enough stock in the
company you are bailing it will close (the share price is hovering
over the closed area of the stock market). What happens?
The previous responses to this question appear to be mixing up several
different possible scenarios. So I'll try to answer each one.

1) If the currently operating company's stock price goes leftward into
the Closed box for not paying dividends, the price change happens during
the "pay out or withhold" step of the company's turn, and the company
closes immediately. So it never gets a chance to buy a train, even if
its president wants to.

2) If you are selling shares to finance a forced train purchase, and
you sell enough of a second company that it will go into the Closed box,
you can sell as much as allowed by the 50% limit on shares in the bank
pool and the requirement that someone else own 20% if you sell the
president's certificate. (Those two rules still apply because the
shares do go to the bank pool before the company closes.) The entire
sale takes place before the price token moves (unless you choose to do
it in parts to get a lower price, which is normally only done to cause
an intentional bankruptcy).

The second company's president (if that isn't you) gets to wait until
your company finishes the entire forced purchase before he decides
whether to price-protect his shares, and only after that decision does
the price fall and the second company close (if he doesn't protect).

3) If you are selling shares OF THE OPERATING COMPANY to finance a
forced train purchase, I would be inclined to rule that you are not
allowed to sell so many that it closes, because if you do, you violate
two rules: (a) you have sold more shares during a forced train purchase
than are needed to finance the purchase, and (b) you have given up the
presidency of the operating company. However, ISTR that Bill Dixon has
vetoed this interpretation.

If it is allowed, I would treat it as similar to case #2: you can sell
until you reach the 50% limit in the bank pool, or until the sale would
cause a change of presidency, and no further. But whether or not anyone
else owns 20%, you are definitely stuck with the president's certificate
because of the rule against giving up presidency of the operating
company (which _would_ happen before closure, if the sale were allowed).




This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
David G.D. Hecht
2005-06-21 23:14:36 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message -----
From: "John David Galt" <jdg-B7nRaJsaZ71lfy4lhgBH/6/hnoOF5EnK9T/***@public.gmane.org>
To: <18xx-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: [18xx] An interesting 1870 question...
Post by John David Galt
3) If you are selling shares OF THE OPERATING COMPANY to finance a
forced train purchase, I would be inclined to rule that you are not
allowed to sell so many that it closes, because if you do, you violate
two rules: (a) you have sold more shares during a forced train purchase
than are needed to finance the purchase,
There is no prohibition on this in 1830. Are the 1856 or 1870 rules specific
on this point? Please cite chapter and verse.
Post by John David Galt
and (b) you have given up the presidency of the operating company.
"Given up" is not a term of art under the rules. Please show the exact text
of the exact rule that you believe is violated here.
Post by John David Galt
However, ISTR that Bill Dixon has vetoed this interpretation.
If it is allowed, I would treat it as similar to case #2: you can sell
until you reach the 50% limit in the bank pool, or until the sale would
cause a change of presidency, and no further. But whether or not anyone
else owns 20%, you are definitely stuck with the president's certificate
because of the rule against giving up presidency of the operating
company (which _would_ happen before closure, if the sale were allowed).
The prohibition is not on "giving up" the Presidency: the prohibition is on
*transferring it to another player*.

Unless you can demonstrate that there is a specific prohibition on this,
your argument is merely an opinion, not supported by the text.

Here is a middle case: I need to raise (say) $500. I own six shares in a
company--NOT the phasing company--that is valued at $50, and that is above
the Dead Zone. How many shares of that one may I sell in this process?




This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
John David Galt
2005-06-21 23:48:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by John David Galt
3) If you are selling shares OF THE OPERATING COMPANY to finance a
forced train purchase, I would be inclined to rule that you are not
allowed to sell so many that it closes, because if you do, you violate
two rules: (a) you have sold more shares during a forced train purchase
than are needed to finance the purchase,
There is no prohibition on this in 1830.
It's clearly implied in 1830 by the words "If necessary" in 24.3, and the
fact that the same rule exists in all 18xx games precludes any other view.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Are the 1856 or 1870 rules specific
on this point? Please cite chapter and verse.
I don't have those games.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by John David Galt
and (b) you have given up the presidency of the operating company.
"Given up" is not a term of art under the rules. Please show the exact text
of the exact rule that you believe is violated here.
Bill Dixon quoted it in his reply.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by John David Galt
However, ISTR that Bill Dixon has vetoed this interpretation.
If it is allowed, I would treat it as similar to case #2: you can sell
until you reach the 50% limit in the bank pool, or until the sale would
cause a change of presidency, and no further. But whether or not anyone
else owns 20%, you are definitely stuck with the president's certificate
because of the rule against giving up presidency of the operating
company (which _would_ happen before closure, if the sale were allowed).
The prohibition is not on "giving up" the Presidency: the prohibition is on
*transferring it to another player*.
Nope, it's on a sale that "would cause a change of presidency".
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Unless you can demonstrate that there is a specific prohibition on this,
your argument is merely an opinion, not supported by the text.
This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
John A. Tamplin
2005-06-21 23:52:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by John David Galt
It's clearly implied in 1830 by the words "If necessary" in 24.3, and the
fact that the same rule exists in all 18xx games precludes any other view.
No, that just means you can't sell shares if you have enough cash to
start. When you have to stop selling shares is a different point. It may
be that your interpretation was what was intended, but it certainly
doesn't "preclude any other view".
--
John A. Tamplin jat-***@public.gmane.org
770/436-5387 HOME 4116 Manson Ave
Smyrna, GA 30082-3723


This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
David G.D. Hecht
2005-06-22 01:52:02 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message -----
From: "John A. Tamplin" <jat-***@public.gmane.org>
To: <18xx-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 7:52 PM
Subject: Re: [18xx] An interesting 1870 question...
Post by John A. Tamplin
Post by John David Galt
It's clearly implied in 1830 by the words "If necessary" in 24.3, and the
fact that the same rule exists in all 18xx games precludes any other view.
No, that just means you can't sell shares if you have enough cash to
start. When you have to stop selling shares is a different point. It may
be that your interpretation was what was intended, but it certainly
doesn't "preclude any other view".
Indeed.




This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
David G.D. Hecht
2005-06-22 01:51:42 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message -----
From: "John David Galt" <jdg-B7nRaJsaZ71lfy4lhgBH/6/hnoOF5EnK9T/***@public.gmane.org>
To: <18xx-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: [18xx] An interesting 1870 question...
Post by John David Galt
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by John David Galt
3) If you are selling shares OF THE OPERATING COMPANY to finance a
forced train purchase, I would be inclined to rule that you are not
allowed to sell so many that it closes, because if you do, you violate
two rules: (a) you have sold more shares during a forced train purchase
than are needed to finance the purchase,
There is no prohibition on this in 1830.
It's clearly implied in 1830 by the words "If necessary" in 24.3, and the
fact that the same rule exists in all 18xx games precludes any other view.
Interestingly, I have made the exact same argument as a rules judge, but in
reality the situation is far more ambiguous than you might believe, and
substantial numbers of experienced players disagree.

Furthermore I would point out that computer 1830 doesn't impose this
limitation: while this isn't dispositive, it's certainly suggestive.
Post by John David Galt
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Are the 1856 or 1870 rules specific
on this point? Please cite chapter and verse.
I don't have those games.
Um...then...how can you make this claim for those games, let alone for "all
18xx games" as you have done above? The fact is, you are talking through
your hat.
Post by John David Galt
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by John David Galt
and (b) you have given up the presidency of the operating company.
The prohibition is not on "giving up" the Presidency: the prohibition is on
*transferring it to another player*.
Nope, it's on a sale that "would cause a change of presidency".
Yep...and as I said in an earlier post, if there isn't another player, there
isn't a change of Presidency.





This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
David D. Metheny
2005-06-22 02:22:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by David G.D. Hecht
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: [18xx] An interesting 1870 question...
Post by John David Galt
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by John David Galt
3) If you are selling shares OF THE OPERATING COMPANY to finance a
forced train purchase, I would be inclined to rule that you are not
allowed to sell so many that it closes, because if you do, you violate
two rules: (a) you have sold more shares during a forced train purchase
than are needed to finance the purchase,
There is no prohibition on this in 1830.
It's clearly implied in 1830 by the words "If necessary" in 24.3, and the
fact that the same rule exists in all 18xx games precludes any other view.
Interestingly, I have made the exact same argument as a rules judge, but in
reality the situation is far more ambiguous than you might believe, and
substantial numbers of experienced players disagree.
Furthermore I would point out that computer 1830 doesn't impose this
limitation: while this isn't dispositive, it's certainly suggestive.
Post by John David Galt
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Are the 1856 or 1870 rules specific
on this point? Please cite chapter and verse.
I don't have those games.
In both the 1870 and 1856 rules under "Forced Stock Sales"
"The president may only sell enough shares to make the forced purchase
or payment."
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Um...then...how can you make this claim for those games, let alone for "all
18xx games" as you have done above? The fact is, you are talking through
your hat.
Post by John David Galt
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by John David Galt
and (b) you have given up the presidency of the operating company.
The prohibition is not on "giving up" the Presidency: the
prohibition is
on
*transferring it to another player*.
Nope, it's on a sale that "would cause a change of presidency".
Yep...and as I said in an earlier post, if there isn't another player, there
isn't a change of Presidency.
But if the company goes from having a president to having no president
(because it's closed) isn't that a change in the presidency? To me it
sounds nitpicky but I've been in enough games with rules lawyers that
it can be a point of argument. The rule does not include the word
'player' but does state that sales "may cause changes of presidency in
other companies". You can argue that this includes driving other
companies into the closed section of the stock market.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links
This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
David G.D. Hecht
2005-06-22 02:34:04 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message -----
From: "David D. Metheny" <slippyd-***@public.gmane.org>
To: <18xx-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 10:22 PM
Subject: Re: [18xx] An interesting 1870 question...
Post by David D. Metheny
Post by David G.D. Hecht
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: [18xx] An interesting 1870 question...
Post by John David Galt
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by John David Galt
3) If you are selling shares OF THE OPERATING COMPANY to finance a
forced train purchase, I would be inclined to rule that you are not
allowed to sell so many that it closes, because if you do, you violate
two rules: (a) you have sold more shares during a forced train purchase
than are needed to finance the purchase,
There is no prohibition on this in 1830.
It's clearly implied in 1830 by the words "If necessary" in 24.3, and the
fact that the same rule exists in all 18xx games precludes any other view.
Interestingly, I have made the exact same argument as a rules judge, but in
reality the situation is far more ambiguous than you might believe, and
substantial numbers of experienced players disagree.
Furthermore I would point out that computer 1830 doesn't impose this
limitation: while this isn't dispositive, it's certainly suggestive.
Post by John David Galt
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Are the 1856 or 1870 rules specific
on this point? Please cite chapter and verse.
I don't have those games.
In both the 1870 and 1856 rules under "Forced Stock Sales"
"The president may only sell enough shares to make the forced purchase
or payment."
Fair enough. Irrelevant in any case, since typically the stock in question
is of sufficiently low value that you would be allowed to sell as many
shares as you want, if other rules didn't get in the way.
Post by David D. Metheny
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Yep...and as I said in an earlier post, if there isn't another player, there
isn't a change of Presidency.
But if the company goes from having a president to having no president
(because it's closed) isn't that a change in the presidency? To me it
sounds nitpicky but I've been in enough games with rules lawyers that
it can be a point of argument. The rule does not include the word
'player' but does state that sales "may cause changes of presidency in
other companies". You can argue that this includes driving other
companies into the closed section of the stock market.
Well...you evidently have the rules in front of you, Dave: what's the
definition of a "change in [or of] presidency"? In the games I've
designed--whose rules, BTW, started out with the 1856/1870 rules as a
baseline--a "change in presidency" requires there to be two PLAYERS
involved: one who is the incumbent, and one other who now has more shares
than the incumbent.

If a presidency is *not* transferred to another player, it may be many
things, but not--under these definitions--a "change in presidency".




This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
David D. Metheny
2005-06-22 03:07:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by David G.D. Hecht
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 10:22 PM
Subject: Re: [18xx] An interesting 1870 question...
Post by David D. Metheny
In both the 1870 and 1856 rules under "Forced Stock Sales"
"The president may only sell enough shares to make the forced purchase
or payment."
Fair enough. Irrelevant in any case, since typically the stock in question
is of sufficiently low value that you would be allowed to sell as many
shares as you want, if other rules didn't get in the way.
I agree. Unless you are incredibly good or lucky (hence it's never
happened to me), you'll need to sell other shares in this situation.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by David D. Metheny
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Yep...and as I said in an earlier post, if there isn't another
player,
there
isn't a change of Presidency.
But if the company goes from having a president to having no president
(because it's closed) isn't that a change in the presidency? To me it
sounds nitpicky but I've been in enough games with rules lawyers that
it can be a point of argument. The rule does not include the word
'player' but does state that sales "may cause changes of presidency in
other companies". You can argue that this includes driving other
companies into the closed section of the stock market.
Well...you evidently have the rules in front of you, Dave: what's the
definition of a "change in [or of] presidency"? In the games I've
designed--whose rules, BTW, started out with the 1856/1870 rules as a
baseline--a "change in presidency" requires there to be two PLAYERS
involved: one who is the incumbent, and one other who now has more shares
than the incumbent.
If a presidency is *not* transferred to another player, it may be many
things, but not--under these definitions--a "change in presidency".
Well, you've added a new term - transferred. There is a rules section
"Transfer of Presidency". But there is no section called "Change in
Presidency". Closing a company will cause a change in presidency (from
one to zero) but not cause a transfer of presidency as that is defined
as occurring between players. (After a while I put my hands over my
ears, closed my eyes and started chanting nananana...)

Don't get me wrong. I actually agree with you in this case. I think
that the section on transfer of presidency defines the change of
presidency situation (just an unfortunate change in terminology).
Therefore you can close the company through the stock sales so long as
the other rules regarding 50% in the bank pool, etc. are observed. I
thought I'd point out a terminology issue that I've had pulled on me by
a rules lawyer type.

Anyway, this is an interesting case that I've never seen in a game.
When someone suggested that you take the money from the company
treasury and add it to your own then when you close the company you get
to keep it, I thought that would be a truly Robber Baron move. Too bad
it's not allowed. Now if the game were made by Tyco, you could try to
do it and hope you don't get caught....
Post by David G.D. Hecht
This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links
This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
David G.D. Hecht
2005-06-22 10:56:08 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message -----
From: "David D. Metheny" <slippyd-***@public.gmane.org>
To: <18xx-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 11:07 PM
Subject: Re: [18xx] An interesting 1870 question...
Post by David D. Metheny
Post by David G.D. Hecht
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 10:22 PM
Subject: Re: [18xx] An interesting 1870 question...
Well, you've added a new term - transferred. There is a rules section
"Transfer of Presidency". But there is no section called "Change in
Presidency". Closing a company will cause a change in presidency (from
one to zero) but not cause a transfer of presidency as that is defined
as occurring between players. (After a while I put my hands over my
ears, closed my eyes and started chanting nananana...)
Don't get me wrong. I actually agree with you in this case. I think
that the section on transfer of presidency defines the change of
presidency situation (just an unfortunate change in terminology).
Therefore you can close the company through the stock sales so long as
the other rules regarding 50% in the bank pool, etc. are observed. I
thought I'd point out a terminology issue that I've had pulled on me by
a rules lawyer type.
Anyway, this is an interesting case that I've never seen in a game.
When someone suggested that you take the money from the company
treasury and add it to your own then when you close the company you get
to keep it, I thought that would be a truly Robber Baron move. Too bad
it's not allowed. Now if the game were made by Tyco, you could try to
do it and hope you don't get caught....
The only circumstance I've seen this tried in is in 1856, where it was truly
a tactic of desparation: the idea was to open a company at minimum after a 6
train had been bought (thus in the full-funding phase), sell one share in
the stock round, depressing the price and leaving you with five shares. In
OR-1, you'd use all the company's capital to buy away a 4 train from one of
your companies, which would give the other company a much-needed capital
infusion. After soaking in OR-2 and OR-3 (you might be able to repatriate
the capital you earned in OR-2 if you were diligent about it), you'd end
OR-3 with a 4 train, and poised above the Dead Zone. You'd then sell a
suitable number of shares and voila--no more company.

Bottom line: you'd leverage $650 with $325, then recover most of the $325 in
the subsequent SR anyhow. As I say, a tactic of desparation.




This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
mightyrickempire
2005-06-23 11:10:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by David G.D. Hecht
The only circumstance I've seen this tried in is in 1856, where it was truly
a tactic of desparation: the idea was to open a company at minimum after a 6
train had been bought (thus in the full-funding phase), sell one share in
the stock round, depressing the price and leaving you with five shares. In
OR-1, you'd use all the company's capital to buy away a 4 train from one of
your companies, which would give the other company a much-needed capital
infusion. After soaking in OR-2 and OR-3 (you might be able to repatriate
the capital you earned in OR-2 if you were diligent about it), you'd end
OR-3 with a 4 train, and poised above the Dead Zone. You'd then sell a
suitable number of shares and voila--no more company.
Bottom line: you'd leverage $650 with $325, then recover most of the $325 in
the subsequent SR anyhow. As I say, a tactic of desparation.
Surely thats not much different from floating a dead duck, transferring the money out (and
loans in) and then folding it into the CGR?




This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
David G.D. Hecht
2005-06-23 11:28:05 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message -----
From: "mightyrickempire" <rickcarson-***@public.gmane.org>
To: <18xx-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 7:10 AM
Subject: [18xx] Re: An interesting 1870 question...
Post by mightyrickempire
Post by David G.D. Hecht
The only circumstance I've seen this tried in is in 1856, where it was truly
a tactic of desparation: the idea was to open a company at minimum after a 6
train had been bought (thus in the full-funding phase), sell one share in
the stock round, depressing the price and leaving you with five shares. In
OR-1, you'd use all the company's capital to buy away a 4 train from one of
your companies, which would give the other company a much-needed capital
infusion. After soaking in OR-2 and OR-3 (you might be able to repatriate
the capital you earned in OR-2 if you were diligent about it), you'd end
OR-3 with a 4 train, and poised above the Dead Zone. You'd then sell a
suitable number of shares and voila--no more company.
Bottom line: you'd leverage $650 with $325, then recover most of the $325 in
the subsequent SR anyhow. As I say, a tactic of desparation.
Surely thats not much different from floating a dead duck, transferring the money out (and
loans in) and then folding it into the CGR?
No different at all, but taking place after the CGR merger.




This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
mightyrickempire
2005-06-23 11:08:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by David D. Metheny
Anyway, this is an interesting case that I've never seen in a game.
When someone suggested that you take the money from the company
treasury and add it to your own then when you close the company you get
to keep it, I thought that would be a truly Robber Baron move. Too bad
it's not allowed. Now if the game were made by Tyco, you could try to
do it and hope you don't get caught....
Hmm... co-mingling of funds... see also: 'piercing the corporate veil'
see also: getting stomped into the ground by the IRS

(You could also argue that if it happened late enough in the game the SEC
would take turns with the IRS beating the offending player :)

So I recommend a role-playing exercise: beat the rules lawyer with a
rubber hose to simulate the effect of the IRS, and state clearly that you'll
stop when they do :D




This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
John David Galt
2005-06-24 21:27:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by David D. Metheny
Anyway, this is an interesting case that I've never seen in a game.
When someone suggested that you take the money from the company
treasury and add it to your own then when you close the company you get
to keep it, I thought that would be a truly Robber Baron move. Too bad
it's not allowed. Now if the game were made by Tyco, you could try to
do it and hope you don't get caught....
Just FYI, Tyco International (the company that has been accused of
similar shenanigans) is not the same company as Tyco Toys.




This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
J C Lawrence
2005-06-25 06:38:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by John David Galt
Just FYI, Tyco International (the company that has been accused of
similar shenanigans) is not the same company as Tyco Toys.
Could/would someone describe 18Mex not too briefly?
--
J C Lawrence They said, "You have a blue guitar,
---------(*) You do not play things as they are."
claw-***@public.gmane.org The man replied, "Things as they are
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Are changed upon the blue guitar."





This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
John David Galt
2005-06-25 21:10:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by J C Lawrence
Could/would someone describe 18Mex not too briefly?
18MEX is a medium sized 18xx game set in Mexico, and is reasonably
historically accurate. It has 8 major companies (including the
National, sort of a weaker CGR or SNCF), 3 minor companies and 4
private companies. It is for 3-5 players and takes about 3.5 hours
to play.

The Mexican map has lots of mountain and desert terrain, so building
track is pretty expensive.

The rules, phases, and trains are mostly similar to 18AL. There are
two forced events unique to 18MEX: Phase 3 1/2 (when the fifth of
six 3 trains is purchased) closes the minor companies; and Phase 5
(the first 5 train) causes one other major company to merge into the
National (if possible). Merging is voluntary on the part of the
other company's president.



This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
marktderrick
2005-06-25 22:12:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by J C Lawrence
Could/would someone describe 18Mex not too briefly?
I'll add that I created a preliminary page for 18MEX on boardgamegeek
with some prototype pictures. It can be found at:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/18485

There are a number of 18xx game entries there including other
unpublished 18xx games such as 18IB

Mark





This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

M***@public.gmane.org
2005-06-20 17:13:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gavin Cassells
Ok, so you need to bail for a train, and you don't have enough cash,
so you need to sell shares. However, if you sell enough stock in the
company you are bailing it will close (the share price is hovering
over the closed area of the stock market). What happens?
The rules aren't very clear. The usual line is that doing this is legal: you
start your stock selling by selling shares in the active corporation, and as
soon as it hits the closed zone you're done. You personally end up with no
cash at all (unless the amount you raised by selling enough shares to put the
price exactly in the closed zone is less than the shortfall, in which case you
keep the difference.)

Some people will raise various quibbles, to which there is no very good
answer in the rule book.

1) There is a rule which prohibits a change of presidency in the active
corporation during emergency money raising, and getting rid of the presidency this
way certainly smells somewhat like a change of presidency. Is it?

2) There's a rule which prohibits putting more than 50% of a corporation's
stock in the Open Market. But if the corporation closes, the shares don't end
up in the Open Market. Can you exceed the 50% limit in this case?

I've never seen a company close this way, either in 1856 or 1870. (In fact,
putting a company in the closed zone at all is pretty rare in my experience.)
There is, as David has said, a name for this tactic (Kleenex corporation) so
it must have had some proponents at some time. I suspect it's one of those
tricks which appears very neat but not usually financially rewarding.

Steve Thomas ***@a...


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



This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Nick Wedd
2005-06-20 18:42:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
Post by Gavin Cassells
Ok, so you need to bail for a train, and you don't have enough cash,
so you need to sell shares. However, if you sell enough stock in the
company you are bailing it will close (the share price is hovering
over the closed area of the stock market). What happens?
The rules aren't very clear. The usual line is that doing this is legal: you
start your stock selling by selling shares in the active corporation, and as
soon as it hits the closed zone you're done. You personally end up with no
cash at all (unless the amount you raised by selling enough shares to put the
price exactly in the closed zone is less than the shortfall, in which case you
keep the difference.)
Some people will raise various quibbles, to which there is no very good
answer in the rule book.
1) There is a rule which prohibits a change of presidency in the active
corporation during emergency money raising, and getting rid of the presidency this
way certainly smells somewhat like a change of presidency. Is it?
Of course it is. You used to be the president, and now you aren't -
that is a change of president.
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
2) There's a rule which prohibits putting more than 50% of a corporation's
stock in the Open Market. But if the corporation closes, the shares don't end
up in the Open Market. Can you exceed the 50% limit in this case?
No. You were selling your shares onto the open market, who else did you
think was buying them?
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
I've never seen a company close this way, either in 1856 or 1870. (In fact,
putting a company in the closed zone at all is pretty rare in my experience.)
There is, as David has said, a name for this tactic (Kleenex corporation) so
it must have had some proponents at some time. I suspect it's one of those
tricks which appears very neat but not usually financially rewarding.
I have seen a company get into the closed zone (though in a normal stock
round) in 1856. Moreover it had a 5-train in it as it went down the
toilet, making a delightful clanging sound. All but one of the players
found this most enjoyable.

I doubt that this could happen without Mertonians playing.

Nick
--
Nick Wedd nick-***@public.gmane.org


This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
John A. Tamplin
2005-06-20 19:13:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Wedd
I have seen a company get into the closed zone (though in a normal stock
round) in 1856. Moreover it had a 5-train in it as it went down the
toilet, making a delightful clanging sound. All but one of the players
found this most enjoyable.
I doubt that this could happen without Mertonians playing.
Well, I don't think it takes an inept player but simply one that isn't
considering all the options. In one game I quiely collected a second
share of an opponents railroad that he had kept in the yellow for share
limit purposes, then sold both shares closing it. It didn't have a
permanent train on it, but he had just moved all the money from his other
companies to it to buy one next round (and had withheld to have enough
money to do so, which also put it within range of being closed). As in
your case, this happened to the great amusement of all but one player :).
--
John A. Tamplin jat-***@public.gmane.org
770/436-5387 HOME 4116 Manson Ave
Smyrna, GA 30082-3723



This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
FourTrack
2005-06-20 19:56:16 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Wedd" <nick-***@public.gmane.org>
<snip preamble>
Post by Nick Wedd
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
1) There is a rule which prohibits a change of presidency in the active
corporation during emergency money raising, and getting rid of the presidency this
way certainly smells somewhat like a change of presidency. Is it?
Of course it is. You used to be the president, and now you aren't -
that is a change of president.
Oh, but you are still the President, the company is closed, the share
certificates are worth nothing, but you are still the President. No other
player has taken that role on so you must be.

Cheers for now,

John from Harrow, Middx



This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
David G.D. Hecht
2005-06-20 19:59:36 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Wedd" <nick-***@public.gmane.org>
To: <18xx-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: [18xx] An interesting 1870 question...
Post by Nick Wedd
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
Post by Gavin Cassells
Ok, so you need to bail for a train, and you don't have enough cash,
so you need to sell shares. However, if you sell enough stock in the
company you are bailing it will close (the share price is hovering
over the closed area of the stock market). What happens?
The rules aren't very clear. The usual line is that doing this is legal: you
start your stock selling by selling shares in the active corporation, and as
soon as it hits the closed zone you're done. You personally end up with no
cash at all (unless the amount you raised by selling enough shares to put the
price exactly in the closed zone is less than the shortfall, in which case you
keep the difference.)
Some people will raise various quibbles, to which there is no very good
answer in the rule book.
1) There is a rule which prohibits a change of presidency in the active
corporation during emergency money raising, and getting rid of the presidency this
way certainly smells somewhat like a change of presidency. Is it?
Of course it is. You used to be the president, and now you aren't -
that is a change of president.
Nope. A "Change of Presidency" has two parts: one party losing it, and
another gaining it. Where is the gaining party? "Immortal, invisible, God
only wise,/
In light inaccessible hid from our eyes!"
Post by Nick Wedd
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
2) There's a rule which prohibits putting more than 50% of a corporation's
stock in the Open Market. But if the corporation closes, the shares don't end
up in the Open Market. Can you exceed the 50% limit in this case?
No. You were selling your shares onto the open market, who else did you
think was buying them?
Likewise: shares that are sold into the open market must perforce be placed
there. Shares of a company that goes into the Dead Zone don't: ergo, you are
not exceeding the limit on shares in the Open Market.




This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
John A. Tamplin
2005-06-20 19:07:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
The rules aren't very clear. The usual line is that doing this is
legal: you start your stock selling by selling shares in the active
corporation, and as soon as it hits the closed zone you're done. You
personally end up with no cash at all (unless the amount you raised by
selling enough shares to put the price exactly in the closed zone is
less than the shortfall, in which case you keep the difference.)
Ideally, you wind up losing no money at all and gain the value of all but
two shares, which could in fact be more than is required for the next
train (ie, you didn't have enough to buy the train, you sold enough shares
to be able to do so, and now you have enough money but the company closes
before it gets to buy a train). If you moved all its funds to another
company ahead of time, you could lose as little as two shares of value for
the closed corporation.
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
1) There is a rule which prohibits a change of presidency in the active
corporation during emergency money raising, and getting rid of the presidency this
way certainly smells somewhat like a change of presidency. Is it?
I believe the rules are pretty clear talking about a change of presidency
occuring when another player owns more shares than you. Clearly, that
isn't the case here.
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
2) There's a rule which prohibits putting more than 50% of a corporation's
stock in the Open Market. But if the corporation closes, the shares don't end
up in the Open Market. Can you exceed the 50% limit in this case?
I don't have the 1856/1870 rules in front of me, but the wording from
other games I recall would prevent it, since it basically says you can't
sell any shares if there is already 50% in the pool and you can't sell
more shares than would bring the pool to 50%. So, no I think it would not
be allowed.
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
I've never seen a company close this way, either in 1856 or 1870. (In
fact, putting a company in the closed zone at all is pretty rare in my
experience.) There is, as David has said, a name for this tactic
(Kleenex corporation) so it must have had some proponents at some time.
I suspect it's one of those tricks which appears very neat but not
usually financially rewarding.
I have seen it used for two main reasons -- one to consolidate the assets
on your other companies that can make enough use to offset the losses, and
two to avoid bankruptcy. It can be very hard to arrange the timing and
circumstances for the first use to be profitable, so I think that is why
it isn't known as well. Also, I think once one person sees it others in
that game are more likely to think of ways to take advantage of it in the
future.

A related tactic I have used to equal satisfaction is to use a forced
train purchase to sell stock in a looted railroad that will be dumped on
me in the next stock round -- the look on the player's face when he
realized he had looted a company he was going to be stuck with was
priceless :).
--
John A. Tamplin jat-***@public.gmane.org
770/436-5387 HOME 4116 Manson Ave
Smyrna, GA 30082-3723



This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Marco Rocci
2005-06-20 19:51:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
I've never seen a company close this way, either in 1856 or 1870. (In fact,
putting a company in the closed zone at all is pretty rare in my experience.)
I kinda saved my first game of 1849 this way. I had just
opened my second corp... in the wrong moment. The train rush
destroyed my (inept) position. I juggled the only good train
I had until my new corp went into the closed zone. A bit
better than bankrupcy... but not much so.

Regards,

--
Marco Rocci
MicroEra srl
Turin, Italy


This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Mike Monical
2005-06-20 19:53:11 UTC
Permalink
I believe we have had this discussion before and I think the designer
has some objections to that thought process.

One of my objections (which I think is sufficient) has to do with
timing which I think for 1870 is somewhat documented. I also do not
have my rules handy but as I recall stock prices are not adjusted
until after the turn (stock or OR?) in which the sale took place and
the selling owner (corporation?) has completed thier action (buy
another share, train?). Then the presidents of the shares sold have
to opportunity to price protect. By that time, the president is
either 1) already bankrupt or 2) the owner of a bright and shiney
train which he gets to watch go in the hole with his corporation.

Whichever, since this rarely arised in most games (IMHO), it is
important to make sure the players agree on the precedure before
starting the game. Otherwize you can end up in a rules argument for
which there is no definitive answer.

Mike
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
Post by Gavin Cassells
Ok, so you need to bail for a train, and you don't have enough cash,
so you need to sell shares. However, if you sell enough stock in the
company you are bailing it will close (the share price is hovering
over the closed area of the stock market). What happens?
The rules aren't very clear. The usual line is that doing this is legal: you
start your stock selling by selling shares in the active
corporation, and as
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
soon as it hits the closed zone you're done. You personally end up with no
cash at all (unless the amount you raised by selling enough shares to put the
price exactly in the closed zone is less than the shortfall, in which case you
keep the difference.)
Some people will raise various quibbles, to which there is no very good
answer in the rule book.
1) There is a rule which prohibits a change of presidency in the active
corporation during emergency money raising, and getting rid of the presidency this
way certainly smells somewhat like a change of presidency. Is it?
2) There's a rule which prohibits putting more than 50% of a
corporation's
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
stock in the Open Market. But if the corporation closes, the
shares don't end
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
up in the Open Market. Can you exceed the 50% limit in this case?
I've never seen a company close this way, either in 1856 or 1870.
(In fact,
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
putting a company in the closed zone at all is pretty rare in my experience.)
There is, as David has said, a name for this tactic (Kleenex
corporation) so
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
it must have had some proponents at some time. I suspect it's one of those
tricks which appears very neat but not usually financially
rewarding.
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
W R Dixon
2005-06-20 22:56:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Monical
I believe we have had this discussion before and I think the designer
has some objections to that thought process.
Firstly there must be room in the open market for the shares you are
selling. The five share limit still holds.

Secondly - consider the sequence of events
1) company needs train
2) not enough money so president adds his personal money to
company treasury
3) not enough money so sell shares, adding money received from
share sales to company treasury as you do so.
4) company slips into closed zone taking obligation to buy train
AND all the money in the treasury with it.
5) adjust share limit down.

The end result is, the company has closed, taking with it the obligation
to buy a train. The share limit is dropped. The former president as no
money.

Usually only done in desperation. Sometimes (usually in 1856) done unto you.


Regards
Bill Dixon



This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Keith Thomasson
2005-06-21 14:12:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by W R Dixon
Secondly - consider the sequence of events
1) company needs train
2) not enough money so president adds his personal money to
company treasury
3) not enough money so sell shares, adding money received from
share sales to company treasury as you do so.
4) company slips into closed zone taking obligation to buy
train
AND all the money in the treasury with it.
5) adjust share limit down.
I always read 'sell shares' and 'give money to company' as two separate
actions, although invariably carried out at the same time, as he is
selling shares to raise the necessary capital to then give to the
company. So wouldn't the player sell the shares, take the money for
himself, and find the company had closed when he tried to pass it on?

Keith





This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
John David Galt
2005-06-21 23:09:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by W R Dixon
Firstly there must be room in the open market for the shares you are
selling. The five share limit still holds.
Secondly - consider the sequence of events
1) company needs train
2) not enough money so president adds his personal money to
company treasury
3) not enough money so sell shares, adding money received from
share sales to company treasury as you do so.
4) company slips into closed zone taking obligation to buy train
AND all the money in the treasury with it.
5) adjust share limit down.
The end result is, the company has closed, taking with it the obligation
to buy a train. The share limit is dropped. The former president as no
money.
I think you have the money going the wrong way in steps 2 and 3: the
company treasury is taken into player's personal cash, then he sells
shares, and finally he would (normally) buy the train out of personal
cash. Doing it your way would mean that after buying the train, any
excess money is left in the company rather than the player's hand, and
we know that isn't so.

Therefore I believe that if this sale is allowed, all the proceeds
from it end up in the player's hand.



This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
David G.D. Hecht
2005-06-21 23:23:43 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message -----
From: "John David Galt" <jdg-B7nRaJsaZ71lfy4lhgBH/6/hnoOF5EnK9T/***@public.gmane.org>
To: <18xx-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: [18xx] Re: An interesting 1870 question...
Post by John David Galt
Post by W R Dixon
Firstly there must be room in the open market for the shares you are
selling. The five share limit still holds.
Secondly - consider the sequence of events
1) company needs train
2) not enough money so president adds his personal money to
company treasury
3) not enough money so sell shares, adding money received from
share sales to company treasury as you do so.
4) company slips into closed zone taking obligation to buy train
AND all the money in the treasury with it.
5) adjust share limit down.
The end result is, the company has closed, taking with it the obligation
to buy a train. The share limit is dropped. The former president as no
money.
I think you have the money going the wrong way in steps 2 and 3: the
company treasury is taken into player's personal cash, then he sells
shares, and finally he would (normally) buy the train out of personal
cash. Doing it your way would mean that after buying the train, any
excess money is left in the company rather than the player's hand, and
we know that isn't so.
Therefore I believe that if this sale is allowed, all the proceeds
from it end up in the player's hand.
Merging company and personal money is an informal procedure, which is used
for simplicity and efficiency, with the clear understanding that any excess
will be left to the player. But the money that is actually raised in the
emergency money raising goes to the company's treasury, up to the amount
needed to buy a train.




This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
M***@public.gmane.org
2005-06-20 17:18:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
You personally end up with no
cash at all (unless the amount you raised by selling enough shares to put
the
price exactly in the closed zone is less than the shortfall, in which case
you
keep the difference.)
For less than, read more than, and it might make more sense.

Steve Thomas ***@a...


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



This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Erik Vos
2005-06-20 20:59:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
Actually nobody wanted to
buy the last 4-train, which seemed to be more poisonous than usual.
There were no less that 4 ORs between the first and the last 4-train,
both bought by my SNCF. Of course I should have waited for a 5- or 6-train,
but then we might still be playing.

1844 has a rule, that at the end or each set of ORs the top unsold
train is discarded ("Verkauft im Ausland"). Which makes me consider if it
would be worthwhile to try the same in 18EU throughout the green phase,
probably after adding (some of) the extra optional 3- and 4-trains.
Post by mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
But that first 6-train really took a long time. Only when everybody
was approaching the certificate limit and all existing compoanies
were sold out, did I start FS (nobody had started a company in
Italy yet, and #5 and #10 couldn't merge with anyone and disappeared),
but I needed help to float it. Originally one of the other players
was considering helping it float (he had money and room for
more shares),
but when Erik decided to buy a share of FS, the other player (Henk)
decided not to. I was out of money, Erik was at the certificate limit,
so FS didn't float, and we continued without 6-trains.
The next SR, the bank had almost broken, and it would certainly break
the first OR after this SR, because FS was last, and the
other companies
made way too much money. Originally we decided to quit here, counted,
and it turned out Henk was $250 behind Erik. (I was about $700 behind
Henk.) FS buying the first 6-train would result in the removal of all
3-trains, enabling other companies to buy more trains, leaving one of
Erik's companies without trains. That would change quite a lot, so we
decided to continue playing. FS finally floated (it's still
better than
nothing), and Henk dumped share of one of Erik's companies in order to
destroy a bit more of his lead. Since I couldn't sell FS, I
sold a share
of another of Erik's companies in order to pick it up, and Erik sold a
share of one of Henk's companies to pick up the share I sold.
The next OR: huge revenues, until finally FS bought the 6-train. Then
Belgium (in the lead) bought the other 6-train, Bayerische (mine)
bought an 8-train, and both Erik's companies were left without any
trains.
Henk won by $500, Erik ended about $50 before me.
And that on Father's Day.
Post by mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
Tomorrow I might post a more detailed report and an analysis of who
did what wrong. I don't think things were supposed to happen this way.
(I've read all the follow-ups, and there isn't much I can add....)
Post by mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
I'm also wondering if perhaps companies should be allowed to own more
trains than the limit, but only operate a limited number. That would
prevent these kind of deadlocks.
Or apply a house rule that, under certain conditions, a 3-train may be
dropped for the first 6-train. Just to speed up a deadlocked game.
The condition could be that there are zero, or perhaps one, open spaces
left in the brown phase.

For David: we're not blaming the game, which is our current (and
perhaps all-time) favourite, but somehow the way we play it occasionally
results in stagnations as we had yesterday.

Erik.




This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
David G.D. Hecht
2005-06-20 21:14:33 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik Vos" <erik.vos-8LkvcxCLB6JmR6Xm/***@public.gmane.org>
To: <18xx-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 4:59 PM
Subject: RE: [18xx] A really weird game of 18EU
Post by Erik Vos
1844 has a rule, that at the end or each set of ORs the top unsold
train is discarded ("Verkauft im Ausland"). Which makes me consider if it
would be worthwhile to try the same in 18EU throughout the green phase,
probably after adding (some of) the extra optional 3- and 4-trains.
I like this rule, but it really can only be applied in a limited number of
situations. In fact I make use of it in my new game, 18US.
Post by Erik Vos
Post by mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
I'm also wondering if perhaps companies should be allowed to own more
trains than the limit, but only operate a limited number. That would
prevent these kind of deadlocks.
Or apply a house rule that, under certain conditions, a 3-train may be
dropped for the first 6-train. Just to speed up a deadlocked game.
The condition could be that there are zero, or perhaps one, open spaces
left in the brown phase.
I guess my impatience with this stems from the fact that (1) in virtually
every game, train limits exist and are not terribly hard to understand: they
are pretty much "in-your-face" rules, not exactly subtle, and (2) rules such
as have been proposed that would alleviate train limits take away an
important part of strategy, which includes managing train limits.
Post by Erik Vos
For David: we're not blaming the game, which is our current (and
perhaps all-time) favourite, but somehow the way we play it occasionally
results in stagnations as we had yesterday.
Harrumph! Well, sorry to have been so touchy on the subject. It just came
across as "Well, here are all the things we did to dig ourselves into a
hole: and--once in--we figured, we'd just keep digging and hope to get out
the other side somehow. D*** shovel! It let us down!!!"




This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
2005-06-20 21:43:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by Erik Vos
Post by mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
I'm also wondering if perhaps companies should be allowed to own more
trains than the limit, but only operate a limited number. That would
prevent these kind of deadlocks.
Or apply a house rule that, under certain conditions, a 3-train may be
dropped for the first 6-train. Just to speed up a deadlocked game.
The condition could be that there are zero, or perhaps one, open spaces
left in the brown phase.
I guess my impatience with this stems from the fact that (1) in virtually
every game, train limits exist and are not terribly hard to understand: they
are pretty much "in-your-face" rules, not exactly subtle, and (2) rules such
as have been proposed that would alleviate train limits take away an
important part of strategy, which includes managing train limits.
(2) is the reason why I have some doubts about the rules I've suggested.
I like the train management part. The problem is that the extremes are
rather extreme. When lots of companies have been floated, trains run out
and 3 or 4 companies will end up trainless after the first 8-train is
bought, while with only 6 companies, you can get a deadlock. I think it
should be possible to get a bit more balance, but I admit I don't know
how. In a recent game, we tried adding an extra 5-train, but somehow
that game also got a bit strange. I think we had a near deadlock for
the purchase of the first 6-train. 7 companies had been floated, and
with 5+4+4 trains, that meant a single company controlled when the
3-trains would become obsolete. Whichever way I turn it, I can't find
a train distribution that always gives nice results.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by Erik Vos
For David: we're not blaming the game, which is our current (and
perhaps all-time) favourite, but somehow the way we play it occasionally
results in stagnations as we had yesterday.
Harrumph! Well, sorry to have been so touchy on the subject. It just came
across as "Well, here are all the things we did to dig ourselves into a
hole: and--once in--we figured, we'd just keep digging and hope to get out
the other side somehow. D*** shovel! It let us down!!!"
I thought the fact that I talk about almost no other game here would
have made it clear that 18EU is my favourite 18xx game. But I can get
a bit perfectionistic with things I like.


mcv.


This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
David G.D. Hecht
2005-06-20 22:56:51 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message -----
From: <mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/***@public.gmane.org>
To: <18xx-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: [18xx] A really weird game of 18EU
Post by mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by Erik Vos
Post by mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
I'm also wondering if perhaps companies should be allowed to own more
trains than the limit, but only operate a limited number. That would
prevent these kind of deadlocks.
Or apply a house rule that, under certain conditions, a 3-train may be
dropped for the first 6-train. Just to speed up a deadlocked game.
The condition could be that there are zero, or perhaps one, open spaces
left in the brown phase.
I guess my impatience with this stems from the fact that (1) in virtually
every game, train limits exist and are not terribly hard to understand: they
are pretty much "in-your-face" rules, not exactly subtle, and (2) rules such
as have been proposed that would alleviate train limits take away an
important part of strategy, which includes managing train limits.
(2) is the reason why I have some doubts about the rules I've suggested.
I like the train management part. The problem is that the extremes are
rather extreme. When lots of companies have been floated, trains run out
and 3 or 4 companies will end up trainless after the first 8-train is
bought, while with only 6 companies, you can get a deadlock. I think it
should be possible to get a bit more balance, but I admit I don't know
how. In a recent game, we tried adding an extra 5-train, but somehow
that game also got a bit strange. I think we had a near deadlock for
the purchase of the first 6-train. 7 companies had been floated, and
with 5+4+4 trains, that meant a single company controlled when the
3-trains would become obsolete. Whichever way I turn it, I can't find
a train distribution that always gives nice results.
Federico Vellani once opined--and I'm inclined to agree--that getting the
train mix and progression just right is the hardest aspect of 18xx design.
Post by mcvmcv-qWit8jRvyhVmR6Xm/
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by Erik Vos
For David: we're not blaming the game, which is our current (and
perhaps all-time) favourite, but somehow the way we play it
occasionally
results in stagnations as we had yesterday.
Harrumph! Well, sorry to have been so touchy on the subject. It just came
across as "Well, here are all the things we did to dig ourselves into a
hole: and--once in--we figured, we'd just keep digging and hope to get out
the other side somehow. D*** shovel! It let us down!!!"
I thought the fact that I talk about almost no other game here would
have made it clear that 18EU is my favourite 18xx game. But I can get
a bit perfectionistic with things I like.
That's funny! :-) I once read an almost exactly identical observation by
(the late) Redmond Simonsen (the former physical systems designer at SPI,
and the man who pretty much single-handedly established the modern standard
for physical systems), who used to run the games forum on BIX (a now-defunct
BBS). Simonsen had written a slashing critique of Sid Meier's "Civilization"
(the original, 1990 one!), noting all the things he thought were wrong with
it. Someone else commented that his posting was pretty brutal, didn't he
like the game? Simonsen responded that, yes, he liked the game, in fact it
was one of the best he'd seen come along ever, but that over 90 percent of
what came out was worthless and not even worth critiquing: only the top ten
percent or so was even worth the effort.




This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
M***@public.gmane.org
2005-06-21 01:11:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
1) There is a rule which prohibits a change of presidency in the active
corporation during emergency money raising, and getting rid of the
presidency this
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
way certainly smells somewhat like a change of presidency. Is it?
I believe the rules are pretty clear talking about a change of presidency
occuring when another player owns more shares than you. Clearly, that
isn't the case here.
The normal change of presidency rules ("If any player ever owns a greater
percentage of a company that the current president...") are detailed in a section
headed "transfer of presidency". The rule prohibiting dumping a company
doing emergency money raising is "The sales may not cause a change of presidency
of the company...". Is the alteration of verb, from transfer to change,
significant? Personally, I think not, and I note that the designer concurs, but
there's plenty of room for any rules lawyer worth his salt to start a good
argument.
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
2) There's a rule which prohibits putting more than 50% of a
corporation's
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
stock in the Open Market. But if the corporation closes, the shares don't
end
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
up in the Open Market. Can you exceed the 50% limit in this case?
I don't have the 1856/1870 rules in front of me, but the wording from
other games I recall would prevent it, since it basically says you can't
sell any shares if there is already 50% in the pool and you can't sell
more shares than would bring the pool to 50%. So, no I think it would not
be allowed.
On this one you're partially right. One relevant rule is "No player may sell
shares if the number of certificates to be sold plus the number of
certificates in the open market exceeds five." That doesn't seem to leave any
significant room for wriggling. Unfortunately, the same rule is restated, to slightly
different effect, later: "There may never be more than 50% of the shares of
any company on the open market. Players may not sell shares if by doing so they
would exceed this limit. This holds even if the shares might be price
protected and never reach the open market." Note that there's considerably more
room for argument here. The last clause implies that when shares are sold they
don't go immediately into the open market. (Mind you, if there's anything in
the rules which says precisely when the shares are transferred to the open
market if not at the point of sale, it's hidden beyond my ability to find it.) If
the company closes while the shares are in this peculiar state of limbo, this
version of the rule isn't broken by selling over 50%. When one rule says yea
and another nay, the rules lawyer comes into his own.

(I can foresee Mr Hecht launching into one of his favourite aphorisms: a man
with one watch knows the time, but man with two watches is never sure. A few
years ago my sister went into a cafe in Ireland and, en passant, wondered at
the proprietor why the two wall clocks, both working, displayed radically
differing times. "Sure, and what would be the point in having two clocks if they
both showed the same time?" You really can't make this stuff up.)

Steve Thomas ***@a...


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



This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
John A. Tamplin
2005-06-21 01:24:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
On this one you're partially right. One relevant rule is "No player may
sell shares if the number of certificates to be sold plus the number of
certificates in the open market exceeds five." That doesn't seem to
leave any significant room for wriggling. Unfortunately, the same rule
is restated, to slightly different effect, later: "There may never be
more than 50% of the shares of any company on the open market. Players
may not sell shares if by doing so they would exceed this limit. This
holds even if the shares might be price protected and never reach the
open market." Note that there's considerably more room for argument
here. The last clause implies that when shares are sold they don't go
immediately into the open market. (Mind you, if there's anything in the
rules which says precisely when the shares are transferred to the open
market if not at the point of sale, it's hidden beyond my ability to
find it.) If the company closes while the shares are in this peculiar
state of limbo, this version of the rule isn't broken by selling over
50%. When one rule says yea and another nay, the rules lawyer comes
into his own.
Actually, I don't see that the second reference overrides the earlier one
-- instead it just gives the details of what happens during price
protection. In fact, I would say it makes the case stronger for our
discussion, since it gives an example of where something happens outside
the norm to keep the shares from going into the open market and stating
that the 5 share rule applies even then.
--
John A. Tamplin jat-***@public.gmane.org
770/436-5387 HOME 4116 Manson Ave
Smyrna, GA 30082-3723


This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
David G.D. Hecht
2005-06-21 02:51:51 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message -----
From: <Maisnestce-***@public.gmane.org>
To: <18xx-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 9:11 PM
Subject: Re: [18xx] An interesting 1870 question...
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
(I can foresee Mr Hecht launching into one of his favourite aphorisms: a man
with one watch knows the time, but man with two watches is never sure. A few
years ago my sister went into a cafe in Ireland and, en passant, wondered at
the proprietor why the two wall clocks, both working, displayed radically
differing times. "Sure, and what would be the point in having two clocks if they
both showed the same time?" You really can't make this stuff up.)
Ah, the Irish...gotta love 'em...even when you hate 'em.

I think my favorite is the one about the tourist in Ireland who takes a
wrong turn and, as he's attempting to recover from his error, feels
something pressing into his back: and a breathy voice asks (in a classic
brogue), "Be ye Catholic...or Protestant?" The man quick-wittedly responds,
"Why...I'm a Jew!" There is a great sigh from behind, and then, the breathy
voice again: "Aye...and me the luckiest Arab in all of Ireland!"




This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
M***@public.gmane.org
2005-06-21 01:33:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Monical
I believe we have had this discussion before and I think the designer
has some objections to that thought process.
Yes, and yes.
Post by Mike Monical
One of my objections (which I think is sufficient) has to do with
timing which I think for 1870 is somewhat documented. I also do not
have my rules handy but as I recall stock prices are not adjusted
until after the turn (stock or OR?) in which the sale took place and
the selling owner (corporation?) has completed thier action (buy
another share, train?). Then the presidents of the shares sold have
to opportunity to price protect. By that time, the president is
either 1) already bankrupt or 2) the owner of a bright and shiney
train which he gets to watch go in the hole with his corporation.
The timing of share price protection is given in the context of a normal
stock sale: "Whenever a player sells shares, the player indicates the order in
which the shares are sold. When that player's stock turn is complete..."
Nothing in the forced stock sales section indicates that share price protection
during forced stock sales has different timing, so, if taken literally, it implies
that price protection decisions must wait until at least the next stock round
(which might be several ORs away, and indeed might never happen). This is
patently ridiculous, though probably not too ridiculous for someone to advance
it in earnest. But if not then, when? If it's as soon as the stock selling is
declared to be over, then our hero is safe from the disasters you so
graphically describe.

There's another related timing issue. Suppose a player is in process of
going bankrupt and owns sellable shares in companies of which he is not president.
Can presidents price protect the shares he is selling? I suspect that the
answer ought to be "yes" but I don't think I could justify that position from a
close reading of the rules.
Post by Mike Monical
Whichever, since this rarely arised in most games (IMHO), it is
important to make sure the players agree on the precedure before
starting the game. Otherwize you can end up in a rules argument for
which there is no definitive answer.
As usual, sound advice almost universally ignored.

Steve Thomas ***@a...


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



This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
M***@public.gmane.org
2005-06-21 01:45:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by W R Dixon
The former president as no
money.
Do you really mean that? Suppose the corporation and president have $1099
between them, and the sale of one share (at $10) closes the company. If the
next train costs $1100, the (former) president should presumably have $9 left
over.

Does the company have time to grab a train from the Bank before falling to
oblivion (to a cry of "Fly, you fools!", particularly apposite since we're
having so much trouble with trains)? If so, the incident would transfer a train
into the open market and possibly cause other trains to go rusty.

Steve Thomas ***@a...


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



This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
David G.D. Hecht
2005-06-21 02:53:48 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message -----
From: <Maisnestce-***@public.gmane.org>
To: <18xx-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: [18xx] Re: An interesting 1870 question...
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
Does the company have time to grab a train from the Bank before falling to
oblivion (to a cry of "Fly, you fools!", particularly apposite since we're
having so much trouble with trains)?
You're in rare form tonight, Mr. Steve! :-)




This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
W R Dixon
2005-06-21 06:00:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
The former president has no
money.
Do you really mean that? Suppose the corporation and president have $1099
between them, and the sale of one share (at $10) closes the company. If the
next train costs $1100, the (former) president should presumably have $9 left
over.
I'll give you the nine dollars, but if he is that close, why not sell a
different share and keep the company alive, either to run or loot the
train out of.

Bill Dixon



This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
M***@public.gmane.org
2005-06-21 09:16:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by W R Dixon
I'll give you the nine dollars, but if he is that close, why not sell a
different share and keep the company alive, either to run or loot the
train out of.
Because he has no different share he can sell?

Because he can see that the next company is also locomotively and financially
challenged, and his company is headed for the toilet anyway?

Because he's from Merton?

Steve Thomas ***@a...


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



This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
David G.D. Hecht
2005-06-21 11:56:34 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message -----
From: <Maisnestce-***@public.gmane.org>
To: <18xx-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 5:16 AM
Subject: Re: [18xx] Re: An interesting 1870 question...
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
Because he's from Merton?
As you are now the second person to make this cryptic reference, I'm going
to have to ask you to unpack it. It's clear what is meant contextually, but
inquiring minds want to know...




This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
M***@public.gmane.org
2005-06-21 21:38:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
Because he's from Merton?
As you are now the second person to make this cryptic reference, I'm going
to have to ask you to unpack it. It's clear what is meant contextually, but
inquiring minds want to know...
Merton is one of the colleges of Oxford University (in aeternam floreant).
Some of its alumni play games in general, and 18xx in particular, with Nick
Wedd and his crowd. When they do, some of their moves defy rational explanation,
though if pressed they'll often offer some sort of explanation for their
decisions usually involving guarding against a non-existent threat. (With some of
them, it's not just games: their life more generally is full of
eccentricities.) We all fall short of perfection from time to time, but the Mertonians
seem to be able to do it more consistently.

Steve Thomas ***@a...


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



This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Brett Maddex
2005-06-21 22:17:10 UTC
Permalink
A group in Denver, CO had been playtesting this game, and although many of us are experienced 18xxers (or maybe because we are 18xxes) we do not yet think we have actually correctly played the game! One HUGE thing we find is the, particularly in the 5 player game we have, who has the priority deal in SR2 and SR3, and the order in which the initial companies act if tied at startign share value, is critical to hwo the game developes.

BOth of these are decided at the end of the initial bid round, when players decide the startign value of their company. however, although teh order and timing seem critical, we do not know exactly how players set this intial price? Who sets it first? in OR1, do tied companys act in order of there starign munber (1-6) or in the order that their values was set (as the second company at 90 would then have its token under the first company at 90.

We are hoping this could be cleared up for us! anyone know if we jsut missed this in the rules, or if not, could the author tell us his intent?

Thanks
Brett



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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



This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
David G.D. Hecht
2005-06-21 22:22:55 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brett Maddex" <maddex2003-/***@public.gmane.org>
To: <18xx-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 6:17 PM
Subject: [18xx] A 18US question
Post by Brett Maddex
A group in Denver, CO had been playtesting this game, and although many of
us are experienced 18xxers (or maybe because we are 18xxes) we do not yet
think we have actually correctly played the game! One HUGE thing we find
is the, particularly in the 5 player game we have, who has the priority
deal in SR2 and SR3, and the order in which the initial companies act if
tied at startign share value, is critical to hwo the game developes.
BOth of these are decided at the end of the initial bid round, when
players decide the startign value of their company. however, although teh
order and timing seem critical, we do not know exactly how players set
this intial price? Who sets it first? in OR1, do tied companys act in
order of there starign munber (1-6) or in the order that their values was
set (as the second company at 90 would then have its token under the first
company at 90.
We are hoping this could be cleared up for us! anyone know if we jsut
missed this in the rules, or if not, could the author tell us his intent?
You are not the first to ask. Here is what I wrote in response to this
question earlier:

A perfectly reasonable question, and one which requires a bit of background
to explain. Prior to the current revision of rules, the initial companies
were auctioned off /seriatim/, and thus players established their initial
value at the moment they bought them. In the current incarnation, all the
companies ar acquired essentially simultaneously, so a clarification is
required.

The current (working, unreleased) draft of the rules states:

"When all players have passed (i.e. when each player has an uncontested high
bid on a Concession), each player, in Stock Round order, beginning with the
player who has the Priority Deal card, pays the amount of his bid to the
Bank, takes the Concession he has won, and starts the associated Eastern
Company at any of the yellow Starting Values he can afford with his
remaining cash..."




This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
maddex2003
2005-06-21 22:34:28 UTC
Permalink
Actually I was the one who asked a few days ago, but got a message
that my message required approval, and did not se my first message
reported to the group, nor your responce, although both are viewable
in the message history. I did change from digest to individual
email, and maybe that is why i missed them!

In teh 5 player games, it seems that the western auction is
garunteed to come out in SR 3 (the 5 compains each have 2 trains by
this point, so the 11th train, the last 3, is always discarded even
if the gateways are not all built). This would be true any time the
5th company entered the game in SR2 if you had less than 5 players.
Because stock is so hard to get (most players will have gotten a 3rd
share in SR2, and 2 more in SR4) the 3 players who get the companies
that must pay out the golden spike, which usually happens at the end
of the 3rd set of operating rounds, are so far ahead because of that
payout that noone else can catch them. They are usually at the
stock limit of 8 in SR4, and those who did not start one of these 3
are in some deep trouble.

Is this intended, or is it likely that we are doing something else
wrong?
Post by David G.D. Hecht
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 6:17 PM
Subject: [18xx] A 18US question
Post by Brett Maddex
A group in Denver, CO had been playtesting this game, and
although many of
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by Brett Maddex
us are experienced 18xxers (or maybe because we are 18xxes) we do not yet
think we have actually correctly played the game! One HUGE thing we find
is the, particularly in the 5 player game we have, who has the priority
deal in SR2 and SR3, and the order in which the initial companies act if
tied at startign share value, is critical to hwo the game
developes.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by Brett Maddex
BOth of these are decided at the end of the initial bid round, when
players decide the startign value of their company. however,
although teh
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by Brett Maddex
order and timing seem critical, we do not know exactly how
players set
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by Brett Maddex
this intial price? Who sets it first? in OR1, do tied companys act in
order of there starign munber (1-6) or in the order that their values was
set (as the second company at 90 would then have its token under the first
company at 90.
We are hoping this could be cleared up for us! anyone know if we jsut
missed this in the rules, or if not, could the author tell us his intent?
You are not the first to ask. Here is what I wrote in response to this
A perfectly reasonable question, and one which requires a bit of background
to explain. Prior to the current revision of rules, the initial companies
were auctioned off /seriatim/, and thus players established their initial
value at the moment they bought them. In the current incarnation, all the
companies ar acquired essentially simultaneously, so a
clarification is
Post by David G.D. Hecht
required.
"When all players have passed (i.e. when each player has an
uncontested high
Post by David G.D. Hecht
bid on a Concession), each player, in Stock Round order, beginning with the
player who has the Priority Deal card, pays the amount of his bid to the
Bank, takes the Concession he has won, and starts the associated Eastern
Company at any of the yellow Starting Values he can afford with his
remaining cash..."
This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
David G.D. Hecht
2005-06-21 23:21:50 UTC
Permalink
Well, I confess most of my experience is with four-player games, with some
three-player. I confess I've not seen this sort of problem in the four or
three-player games.

While you are right in your "if...then" statement below, I suggest it isn't
necessarily the case that all companies will have bought two trains by then.
Obviously, that is your experience, and I respect that.

Inasmuch as there are five shares each of the three companies that have a
mandatory Golden Spike, and the presidents can only hold three shares (60%)
of them, there are going to be six shares (two per company) left in the
Pool, which can then be bought out by the other two players. Now everyone
has three shares of a Golden Spike paying company, so I'm not quite sure I
understand the issue.

I should also point out that not all companies are created equal,
notwithstanding Golden Spike payouts.

----- Original Message -----
From: "maddex2003" <maddex2003-/***@public.gmane.org>
To: <18xx-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 6:34 PM
Subject: [18xx] Re: A 18US question
Post by maddex2003
Actually I was the one who asked a few days ago, but got a message
that my message required approval, and did not se my first message
reported to the group, nor your responce, although both are viewable
in the message history. I did change from digest to individual
email, and maybe that is why i missed them!
In teh 5 player games, it seems that the western auction is
garunteed to come out in SR 3 (the 5 compains each have 2 trains by
this point, so the 11th train, the last 3, is always discarded even
if the gateways are not all built). This would be true any time the
5th company entered the game in SR2 if you had less than 5 players.
Because stock is so hard to get (most players will have gotten a 3rd
share in SR2, and 2 more in SR4) the 3 players who get the companies
that must pay out the golden spike, which usually happens at the end
of the 3rd set of operating rounds, are so far ahead because of that
payout that noone else can catch them. They are usually at the
stock limit of 8 in SR4, and those who did not start one of these 3
are in some deep trouble.
Is this intended, or is it likely that we are doing something else
wrong?
Post by David G.D. Hecht
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 6:17 PM
Subject: [18xx] A 18US question
Post by Brett Maddex
A group in Denver, CO had been playtesting this game, and
although many of
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by Brett Maddex
us are experienced 18xxers (or maybe because we are 18xxes) we do
not yet
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by Brett Maddex
think we have actually correctly played the game! One HUGE thing
we find
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by Brett Maddex
is the, particularly in the 5 player game we have, who has the
priority
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by Brett Maddex
deal in SR2 and SR3, and the order in which the initial companies
act if
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by Brett Maddex
tied at startign share value, is critical to hwo the game
developes.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by Brett Maddex
BOth of these are decided at the end of the initial bid round,
when
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by Brett Maddex
players decide the startign value of their company. however,
although teh
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by Brett Maddex
order and timing seem critical, we do not know exactly how
players set
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by Brett Maddex
this intial price? Who sets it first? in OR1, do tied companys
act in
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by Brett Maddex
order of there starign munber (1-6) or in the order that their
values was
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by Brett Maddex
set (as the second company at 90 would then have its token under
the first
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by Brett Maddex
company at 90.
We are hoping this could be cleared up for us! anyone know if we
jsut
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by Brett Maddex
missed this in the rules, or if not, could the author tell us
his intent?
Post by David G.D. Hecht
You are not the first to ask. Here is what I wrote in response to
this
Post by David G.D. Hecht
A perfectly reasonable question, and one which requires a bit of
background
Post by David G.D. Hecht
to explain. Prior to the current revision of rules, the initial
companies
Post by David G.D. Hecht
were auctioned off /seriatim/, and thus players established their
initial
Post by David G.D. Hecht
value at the moment they bought them. In the current incarnation,
all the
Post by David G.D. Hecht
companies ar acquired essentially simultaneously, so a
clarification is
Post by David G.D. Hecht
required.
"When all players have passed (i.e. when each player has an
uncontested high
Post by David G.D. Hecht
bid on a Concession), each player, in Stock Round order, beginning
with the
Post by David G.D. Hecht
player who has the Priority Deal card, pays the amount of his bid
to the
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Bank, takes the Concession he has won, and starts the associated
Eastern
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Company at any of the yellow Starting Values he can afford with his
remaining cash..."
This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links
This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Brett Maddex
2005-06-22 00:03:35 UTC
Permalink
Well, all 5 companys can afford 2 trains, can only buy 2mixed and then 3mixed trains, and have room for 2 trains. IF a company did not buy 2 size 2 trains in the first set of OR, then not buying a size 3 train in the sencond set of ORs is just shooting yourself in teh foot, as you will have very little cash in the 3rd SR to do anything. Although I just realized is almost nobody will have the cash to start a second company on the second operating round, perhaps this is only a problem for five and six player games.

In our experience, and nobody has had enough money to buy more than two pieces of paper in that third stock round. If you bid on and win a Western concession, than the free piece of stock you get with that is likely to be the only other piece of stock aside from the president share, thus those are your two pieces. If you do not win such a concession, it is unlikely that you have the 240 or $270 available to buy three pieces of paper, assuming of course that there are any available at that price (which in our games, there have not been). I think the highest amount of money we have had any player go in to SR3 was about 260, and only one or two players per table have had that much. Inevitably, they we in the Western concessions, as they have enough to did, while having enough left over to set the price high enough (min usually 80, with 90-100 being the most common).

Now, we realized at the end of the last game that we were counting the resource areas against the number of cities a train could visit, and so those companies able to hit the resource areas along the route are obviously more valuable and pay out more than we thought, for those cities able to token the resource areas, perhaps considerably more than we thought. Perhaps playing this way we can all buy the one piece of additional stock we can get in SR2 in such a way that we will have more money in SR3. IT will be a few weeks until I can play test this game again, so I will let you know what we find,


"David G.D. Hecht" <Barzai-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
Well, I confess most of my experience is with four-player games, with some
three-player. I confess I've not seen this sort of problem in the four or
three-player games.

While you are right in your "if...then" statement below, I suggest it isn't
necessarily the case that all companies will have bought two trains by then.
Obviously, that is your experience, and I respect that.

Inasmuch as there are five shares each of the three companies that have a
mandatory Golden Spike, and the presidents can only hold three shares (60%)
of them, there are going to be six shares (two per company) left in the
Pool, which can then be bought out by the other two players. Now everyone
has three shares of a Golden Spike paying company, so I'm not quite sure I
understand the issue.

I should also point out that not all companies are created equal,
notwithstanding Golden Spike payouts.

----- Original Message -----
From: "maddex2003" <maddex2003-/***@public.gmane.org>
To: <18xx-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 6:34 PM
Subject: [18xx] Re: A 18US question
Post by maddex2003
Actually I was the one who asked a few days ago, but got a message
that my message required approval, and did not se my first message
reported to the group, nor your responce, although both are viewable
in the message history. I did change from digest to individual
email, and maybe that is why i missed them!
In teh 5 player games, it seems that the western auction is
garunteed to come out in SR 3 (the 5 compains each have 2 trains by
this point, so the 11th train, the last 3, is always discarded even
if the gateways are not all built). This would be true any time the
5th company entered the game in SR2 if you had less than 5 players.
Because stock is so hard to get (most players will have gotten a 3rd
share in SR2, and 2 more in SR4) the 3 players who get the companies
that must pay out the golden spike, which usually happens at the end
of the 3rd set of operating rounds, are so far ahead because of that
payout that noone else can catch them. They are usually at the
stock limit of 8 in SR4, and those who did not start one of these 3
are in some deep trouble.
Is this intended, or is it likely that we are doing something else
wrong?
Post by David G.D. Hecht
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 6:17 PM
Subject: [18xx] A 18US question
Post by Brett Maddex
A group in Denver, CO had been playtesting this game, and
although many of
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by Brett Maddex
us are experienced 18xxers (or maybe because we are 18xxes) we do
not yet
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by Brett Maddex
think we have actually correctly played the game! One HUGE thing
we find
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by Brett Maddex
is the, particularly in the 5 player game we have, who has the
priority
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by Brett Maddex
deal in SR2 and SR3, and the order in which the initial companies
act if
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by Brett Maddex
tied at startign share value, is critical to hwo the game
developes.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by Brett Maddex
BOth of these are decided at the end of the initial bid round,
when
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by Brett Maddex
players decide the startign value of their company. however,
although teh
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by Brett Maddex
order and timing seem critical, we do not know exactly how
players set
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by Brett Maddex
this intial price? Who sets it first? in OR1, do tied companys
act in
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by Brett Maddex
order of there starign munber (1-6) or in the order that their
values was
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by Brett Maddex
set (as the second company at 90 would then have its token under
the first
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by Brett Maddex
company at 90.
We are hoping this could be cleared up for us! anyone know if we
jsut
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by Brett Maddex
missed this in the rules, or if not, could the author tell us
his intent?
Post by David G.D. Hecht
You are not the first to ask. Here is what I wrote in response to
this
Post by David G.D. Hecht
A perfectly reasonable question, and one which requires a bit of
background
Post by David G.D. Hecht
to explain. Prior to the current revision of rules, the initial
companies
Post by David G.D. Hecht
were auctioned off /seriatim/, and thus players established their
initial
Post by David G.D. Hecht
value at the moment they bought them. In the current incarnation,
all the
Post by David G.D. Hecht
companies ar acquired essentially simultaneously, so a
clarification is
Post by David G.D. Hecht
required.
"When all players have passed (i.e. when each player has an
uncontested high
Post by David G.D. Hecht
bid on a Concession), each player, in Stock Round order, beginning
with the
Post by David G.D. Hecht
player who has the Priority Deal card, pays the amount of his bid
to the
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Bank, takes the Concession he has won, and starts the associated
Eastern
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Company at any of the yellow Starting Values he can afford with his
remaining cash..."
This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links
This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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



This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
David G.D. Hecht
2005-06-22 01:55:51 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brett Maddex" <maddex2003-/***@public.gmane.org>
To: <18xx-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: [18xx] Re: A 18US question
Post by Brett Maddex
Well, all 5 companys can afford 2 trains, can only buy 2mixed and then
3mixed trains, and have room for 2 trains. IF a company did not buy 2
size 2 trains in the first set of OR, then not buying a size 3 train in
the sencond set of ORs is just shooting yourself in teh foot, as you will
have very little cash in the 3rd SR to do anything. Although I just
realized is almost nobody will have the cash to start a second company on
the second operating round, perhaps this is only a problem for five and
six player games.
It's normally possible for a player who got out for a low investment in the
initial SR to open a second company.
Post by Brett Maddex
In our experience, and nobody has had enough money to buy more than two
pieces of paper in that third stock round. If you bid on and win a
Western concession, than the free piece of stock you get with that is
likely to be the only other piece of stock aside from the president share,
thus those are your two pieces. If you do not win such a concession, it
is unlikely that you have the 240 or $270 available to buy three pieces of
paper, assuming of course that there are any available at that price
(which in our games, there have not been). I think the highest amount of
money we have had any player go in to SR3 was about 260, and only one or
two players per table have had that much. Inevitably, they we in the
Western concessions, as they have enough to did, while having enough left
over to set the price high enough (min usually 80, with 90-100 being the
most common).
Hm. Strange. Indeed, my experience is mixed: sometimes players are very
flush, sometimes not.
Post by Brett Maddex
Now, we realized at the end of the last game that we were counting the
resource areas against the number of cities a train could visit, and so
those companies able to hit the resource areas along the route are
obviously more valuable and pay out more than we thought, for those cities
able to token the resource areas, perhaps considerably more than we
thought. Perhaps playing this way we can all buy the one piece of
additional stock we can get in SR2 in such a way that we will have more
money in SR3. IT will be a few weeks until I can play test this game
again, so I will let you know what we find,
Ooops. Um, yeah...it makes a *huge* difference.

Try it again and tell me what you think then.




This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
M***@public.gmane.org
2005-06-22 12:25:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by John A. Tamplin
Post by John David Galt
It's clearly implied in 1830 by the words "If necessary" in 24.3, and the
fact that the same rule exists in all 18xx games precludes any other view.
No, that just means you can't sell shares if you have enough cash to
start. When you have to stop selling shares is a different point. It may
be that your interpretation was what was intended, but it certainly
doesn't "preclude any other view".
The way Francis Tresham interprets this clause is that the player must stop
selling as soon as the shortfall is cleared. However, he allows sales in any
order, so if there's a shortfall of $150 you may sell both a $100 and a $200
share, provided that the latter goes first. I understand that John David would
prohibit selling the cheaper share under these circumstances. Many players
argue that once sales start, you can sell as much as you like, subject to the
usual rules on stock limits; this is the way the PC program works.

David Hecht has used the clause in a very much stronger sense, that stock
sales are only permitted if the player can't arrange a sale from another company,
and that if he has another non-trainless company himself, he must buy across
and if possible set the sale price sufficiently low that stock sales won't
occur. Personally, I view this interpretation as going either too far or not far
enough. If the "if necessary" clause can indeed force a company to sell
assets at certain prices, it shouldn't be limited to companies controlled by the
active player. I think everyone, even David, would agree that this is going
way too far.

My belief is that "if necessary" merely implies "if the president hasn't
enough cash", this continues to hold while the president is selling, and the
clause constrains no other actions. In particular, it's legal to buy a train from
another company at a price, not exceeding face value, which forces stock
sales. Not by coincidence, this is the Tresham interpretation and is the way you'd
most likely be playing at UK conventions. I concede that it's far from being
the only view that is obtainable by a careful reading of the rule book alone.

Steve Thomas ***@a...


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



This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
David G.D. Hecht
2005-06-22 12:47:11 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message -----
From: <Maisnestce-***@public.gmane.org>
To: <18xx-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: [18xx] An interesting 1870 question...
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
David Hecht has used the clause in a very much stronger sense, that stock
sales are only permitted if the player can't arrange a sale from another company,
and that if he has another non-trainless company himself, he must buy across
and if possible set the sale price sufficiently low that stock sales won't
occur. Personally, I view this interpretation as going either too far or not far
enough. If the "if necessary" clause can indeed force a company to sell
assets at certain prices, it shouldn't be limited to companies controlled by the
active player. I think everyone, even David, would agree that this is going
way too far.
Hm. Curious. I don't remember ever making any statement which even faintly
resembles this: what, exactly, am I supposed to have said or done which
leads you to this belief?

My only quarrel with "if necessary" as interpreted by others is when someone
attempted to buy a train across and, in the process, setting a price for the
train that would require him to sell stock: my view being that--in this
instance--"if necessary" limits the buying company to its own cash, since
the other company--being controlled by the same president--is a free agent
and thus is free to set the price as low as $1 (or whatever the game's
minimum is).

My complete position is that if you have the choice of buying from the bank
or pool, or buying across, you have the following choices:

1. Buying the cheapest train from the Bank or Pool, combining Church and
State as required, and selling stock if necessary (there's that phrase
again), up to the point where you have sold as many shares as needed to fund
the new purchase (but allowing you to sell "inefficiently", so long as
selling one fewer shares of any denomination would not raise sufficient
cash), or,

2. Buying across from one of your other companies, up to the cash the buying
company has in its treasury.

There is a special case where the buying company has no cash at all. In this
case, there are two possibilities: the strict interpretaion (IAW the above)
is that you lose Option 2. A more latitudinarian interpretation--which I
freely grant is inconsistent with the above--would allow the President to
use some amount of his cash--up to all of his cash or the face value of the
train being bought, whichever is less--to consummate the buying across.
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
My belief is that "if necessary" merely implies "if the president hasn't
enough cash", this continues to hold while the president is selling, and the
clause constrains no other actions. In particular, it's legal to buy a train from
another company at a price, not exceeding face value, which forces stock
sales. Not by coincidence, this is the Tresham interpretation and is the way you'd
most likely be playing at UK conventions. I concede that it's far from being
the only view that is obtainable by a careful reading of the rule book alone.
Since it seems to be the consensus that a company that needs a train and has
no cash whatsoever in its Treasury must perforce buy from the Bank (or Pool)
using an emergency money raising, I am surprised that you propound this
view.




This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Nick Wedd
2005-06-22 14:54:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
The way Francis Tresham interprets this clause is that the player must stop
selling as soon as the shortfall is cleared. However, he allows sales in any
order, so if there's a shortfall of $150 you may sell both a $100 and a $200
share, provided that the latter goes first.
This would make rather more sense, at least to me, if it said "former"
instead of "latter".

Nick
--
Nick Wedd nick-***@public.gmane.org


This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Jeffrey McBeth
2005-06-22 15:09:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Wedd
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
The way Francis Tresham interprets this clause is that the player must stop
selling as soon as the shortfall is cleared. However, he allows sales in any
order, so if there's a shortfall of $150 you may sell both a $100 and a $200
share, provided that the latter goes first.
This would make rather more sense, at least to me, if it said "former"
instead of "latter".
Agreed

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.




This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
M***@public.gmane.org
2005-06-22 12:26:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by John David Galt
1) If the currently operating company's stock price goes leftward into
the Closed box for not paying dividends, the price change happens during
the "pay out or withhold" step of the company's turn, and the company
closes immediately. So it never gets a chance to buy a train, even if
its president wants to.
Perfectly true, and I think uncontroversial.
Post by John David Galt
2) If you are selling shares to finance a forced train purchase, and
you sell enough of a second company that it will go into the Closed box,
you can sell as much as allowed by the 50% limit on shares in the bank
pool and the requirement that someone else own 20% if you sell the
president's certificate. (Those two rules still apply because the
shares do go to the bank pool before the company closes.) The entire
sale takes place before the price token moves (unless you choose to do
it in parts to get a lower price, which is normally only done to cause
an intentional bankruptcy).
Here we part company. It's clear that shares sold go into the open market
(1870 doesn't have a bank pool), because the rule says "The open market is where
shares sold to the bank are placed". It would be hard to argue that sold
shares aren't placed in the open market at the point of sale, except later we
find "This [the 50% limit] holds even if the shares might be price protected and
never reach the open market". As I posted the other day, this results in one
rule clearly and unambiguously banning sales exceeding the 50% limit, and one
rule which arguably does so too, but neither clearly nor unambiguously. It is
clear that if the shares you are selling include part or all of the
president's certificate, it is necessary first to do a swap with a player holding 20%
or more, and hence there needs to be such a player.

Licence to sell shares "one at a time" seems to be missing in 1870. The
price doesn't fall until affected presidents have had an opportunity to price
protect. If this is done in a stock turn, timing is clear and straightforward.
If done in emergency money raising, the rules appear to state that price
protection occurs after the active president's stock turn is completed. I don't
know of anyone who believes that, but it does mean that timing details in such
cases have to be invented using such things as common sense.
Post by John David Galt
The second company's president (if that isn't you) gets to wait until
your company finishes the entire forced purchase before he decides
whether to price-protect his shares, and only after that decision does
the price fall and the second company close (if he doesn't protect).
"I refer the honourable gentleman to the remarks I made a little time ago."
Post by John David Galt
3) If you are selling shares OF THE OPERATING COMPANY to finance a
forced train purchase, I would be inclined to rule that you are not
allowed to sell so many that it closes, because if you do, you violate
two rules: (a) you have sold more shares during a forced train purchase
than are needed to finance the purchase, and (b) you have given up the
presidency of the operating company. However, ISTR that Bill Dixon has
vetoed this interpretation.
On point (a), you are incorrect. At least, it's possible that such sales
violate the rule on excess sales, but hardly necessary. Since later posters have
raised the issue of just what's allowed in emergency sales, let's turn to the
rules. "The president may only sell enough shares to make the forced
purchase or payment." As usual, it's less clear than it might be, though it does ban
the arguably legal 1830 practice of selling as much as you like once you've
started stock sales. Suppose you have two sellable shares, worth $100 and
$200. If you're over $200 short, you must clearly sell both. If you're about $50
short, the rule "The president decides what to sell, in what order to sell
it, and how to sell the shares." (the last clause appears meaningless) seems to
give licence to sell either share, but not both. However, some have argued
that you must sell the cheaper one. And if you're about $150 short, some have
used this second rule to permit the sale of the $100 share and then the $200
share, while others disagree.

In any event, if you are $10 short, and have a $10 share, it's abundantly
clear that it's legal to sell it under this clause. If the price is only $10,
then it's possible that the sale would put the price into the closed zone to
open up a stannic container of vermicules.

On point (b), matters are much, much murkier. The normal shift of presidency
rules, from one player to another, are detailed, in the 1870 rule book, in a
section headed "transfer of presidency". The ban on dumping the active
corporation during forced stock sales is couched in terms of a "change of
presidency". Some (including the designer) have argued that the shift in terminology is
irrelevant, while others argue, with you, that it is normative.
Post by John David Galt
If it is allowed, I would treat it as similar to case #2: you can sell
until you reach the 50% limit in the bank pool, or until the sale would
cause a change of presidency, and no further. But whether or not anyone
else owns 20%, you are definitely stuck with the president's certificate
because of the rule against giving up presidency of the operating
company (which _would_ happen before closure, if the sale were allowed).
As before.

You may be right, at least in part, but you really need to look at the rules
before being so didactic.

Steve Thomas ***@a...


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



This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Noel Leaver
2005-06-22 12:52:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by David D. Metheny
"The president may only sell enough shares to make the forced
purchase or payment." As usual, it's less clear than it might be, though it
does ban
the arguably legal 1830 practice of selling as much as you like once you've
started stock sales.

That raises another possible interpretation (though not one I would argue in
a game). Suppose you need 150 and have shares worth 100 and 200. Then if you
sell 2 shares at a 100 you have sold more shares than selling 1 at 200 so
this would be illegal.

Noel




This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
M***@public.gmane.org
2005-06-22 13:38:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Hm. Curious. I don't remember ever making any statement which even faintly
resembles this: what, exactly, am I supposed to have said or done which
leads you to this belief?
If nothing else, what you outline below confirms part of it! You have
explicitly said to me, as part of earlier discussions, that a player with one
trainless and another trainful company might be obliged, by the "if necessary"
clause, to transfer a train across if that's the only way to avoid stock sales, and
that this overrides 24.0(4).
Post by David G.D. Hecht
My only quarrel with "if necessary" as interpreted by others is when
someone
attempted to buy a train across and, in the process, setting a price for the
train that would require him to sell stock: my view being that--in this
instance--"if necessary" limits the buying company to its own cash, since
the other company--being controlled by the same president--is a free agent
and thus is free to set the price as low as $1 (or whatever the game's
minimum is).
A lesser point is that "If necessary" only applies when the president can't
make up the price from cash, so if the company and president have between them
large amounts of cash, but the company is relatively poor, the only
constraints on the price are that the price can't exceed face value and (probably, but
we won't go there right now) must be at least $1. But the larger point is that
the other company *is* a free agent, and is thus free to set any price it
chooses, subject to the above constraints, and is free to deny the sale on any
terms. The "if necessary" clause should not, in my opinion, override this.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
My complete position is that if you have the choice of buying from the bank
1. Buying the cheapest train from the Bank or Pool, combining Church and
State as required, and selling stock if necessary (there's that phrase
again), up to the point where you have sold as many shares as needed to fund
the new purchase (but allowing you to sell "inefficiently", so long as
selling one fewer shares of any denomination would not raise sufficient
cash), or,
I'd argue for a less strict definition of selling inefficiently (that you can
sell stock in any order, but must stop as soon as you've raised enough) but
otherwise I concur.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
2. Buying across from one of your other companies, up to the cash the
buying
company has in its treasury.
Here we disagree sharply. There's no licence whatever, as far as I can see,
to limit the purchase price in this way.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
There is a special case where the buying company has no cash at all. In
this
case, there are two possibilities: the strict interpretation (IAW the above)
is that you lose Option 2. A more latitudinarian interpretation--which I
freely grant is inconsistent with the above--would allow the President to
use some amount of his cash--up to all of his cash or the face value of the
train being bought, whichever is less--to consummate the buying across.
If you follow the rules more closely, you'll see that this isn't a special
case at all.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
My belief is that "if necessary" merely implies "if the president hasn't
enough cash", this continues to hold while the president is selling, and
the
clause constrains no other actions. In particular, it's legal to buy a
train from
another company at a price, not exceeding face value, which forces stock
sales. Not by coincidence, this is the Tresham interpretation and is the
way you'd
most likely be playing at UK conventions. I concede that it's far from
being
the only view that is obtainable by a careful reading of the rule book
alone.
Since it seems to be the consensus that a company that needs a train and has
no cash whatsoever in its Treasury must perforce buy from the Bank (or Pool)
using an emergency money raising, I am surprised that you propound this
view.
No, it isn't a consensus. In fact, it's so far from being a consensus that I
don't know of anyone else who holds this view. In 1830, there's nothing
whatever in the rules preventing a president from adding personal cash to help his
trainless company buy across. The rule you outline is widely present in
other games (including 1856 and 1870, and some of yours) but not here. There is a
clause "If a choice of trains is available from the Bank he must choose the
cheapest alternative". I know that FT intended this merely to deny the
availability of more expensive trains from the bank and/or pool, but even taken at
its most literal it can't deny the president the opportunity of buying a train
across for $1, and then only if the bank and/or pool offer a choice of trains.
Apart from this, only if the "if necessary" clause is deemed to override the
free agency of non-active companies can there be any upper constraint lower
than face value.

Steve Thomas ***@a...


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



This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
David G.D. Hecht
2005-06-22 14:18:57 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message -----
From: <Maisnestce-***@public.gmane.org>
To: <18xx-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: [18xx] An interesting 1870 question...
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Hm. Curious. I don't remember ever making any statement which even faintly
resembles this: what, exactly, am I supposed to have said or done which
leads you to this belief?
If nothing else, what you outline below confirms part of it! You have
explicitly said to me, as part of earlier discussions, that a player with one
trainless and another trainful company might be obliged, by the "if necessary"
clause, to transfer a train across if that's the only way to avoid stock sales, and
that this overrides 24.0(4).
I have no recollection of saying any such thing, and--if you read what I
wrote below--I clearly indicate that you always have a choice between buying
from the Bank (or Pool) using an Emergency Money Raising, or buying across:
the only instance in which I indicate your choices are restricted are
precisely those in which you (arguably) *cannot* buy across, by virtue of
having left no money on the trainless company.
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
Post by David G.D. Hecht
My only quarrel with "if necessary" as interpreted by others is when
someone
attempted to buy a train across and, in the process, setting a price for the
train that would require him to sell stock: my view being that--in this
instance--"if necessary" limits the buying company to its own cash, since
the other company--being controlled by the same president--is a free agent
and thus is free to set the price as low as $1 (or whatever the game's
minimum is).
A lesser point is that "If necessary" only applies when the president can't
make up the price from cash, so if the company and president have between them
large amounts of cash, but the company is relatively poor, the only
constraints on the price are that the price can't exceed face value and (probably, but
we won't go there right now) must be at least $1. But the larger point is that
the other company *is* a free agent, and is thus free to set any price it
chooses, subject to the above constraints, and is free to deny the sale on any
terms. The "if necessary" clause should not, in my opinion, override this.
Since it is only a "free agent" in the sense that its actions are (within
broad limits) unconstrained by the rules, I disagree with your view: you may
as well argue that you can force yourself (personally, I mean: not in the
game) by writing out an IOU for a million pounds *to yourself*, and then
refusing to honor it.
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
Post by David G.D. Hecht
My complete position is that if you have the choice of buying from the bank
1. Buying the cheapest train from the Bank or Pool, combining Church and
State as required, and selling stock if necessary (there's that phrase
again), up to the point where you have sold as many shares as needed to fund
the new purchase (but allowing you to sell "inefficiently", so long as
selling one fewer shares of any denomination would not raise sufficient
cash), or,
I'd argue for a less strict definition of selling inefficiently (that you can
sell stock in any order, but must stop as soon as you've raised enough) but
otherwise I concur.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
2. Buying across from one of your other companies, up to the cash the
buying
company has in its treasury.
Here we disagree sharply. There's no licence whatever, as far as I can see,
to limit the purchase price in this way.
"...if necessary".
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
Post by David G.D. Hecht
There is a special case where the buying company has no cash at all. In
this
case, there are two possibilities: the strict interpretation (IAW the above)
is that you lose Option 2. A more latitudinarian interpretation--which I
freely grant is inconsistent with the above--would allow the President to
use some amount of his cash--up to all of his cash or the face value of the
train being bought, whichever is less--to consummate the buying across.
If you follow the rules more closely, you'll see that this isn't a special
case at all.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
My belief is that "if necessary" merely implies "if the president hasn't
enough cash", this continues to hold while the president is selling, and
the
clause constrains no other actions. In particular, it's legal to buy a
train from
another company at a price, not exceeding face value, which forces stock
sales. Not by coincidence, this is the Tresham interpretation and is the
way you'd
most likely be playing at UK conventions. I concede that it's far from
being
the only view that is obtainable by a careful reading of the rule book
alone.
Since it seems to be the consensus that a company that needs a train and has
no cash whatsoever in its Treasury must perforce buy from the Bank (or Pool)
using an emergency money raising, I am surprised that you propound this
view.
No, it isn't a consensus. In fact, it's so far from being a consensus that I
don't know of anyone else who holds this view. In 1830, there's nothing
whatever in the rules preventing a president from adding personal cash to help his
trainless company buy across. The rule you outline is widely present in
other games (including 1856 and 1870, and some of yours) but not here.
There is a
clause "If a choice of trains is available from the Bank he must choose the
cheapest alternative". I know that FT intended this merely to deny the
availability of more expensive trains from the bank and/or pool, but even taken at
its most literal it can't deny the president the opportunity of buying a train
across for $1, and then only if the bank and/or pool offer a choice of trains.
Apart from this, only if the "if necessary" clause is deemed to override the
free agency of non-active companies can there be any upper constraint lower
than face value.
Well, Mr. Steve, I have personally participated in games, in your country,
in which I was told that a total lack of cash on a company that required a
train, meant I had to do an emergency money raising and buy from the Bank.
Indeed, it is because of what I consider to be this aberrational view that
all of my games now includse a proviso that makes this explicit.

What your analysis conveniently ignores, BTW, is that emergency money
raisings are intended to apply to trains bought from the Bank (or Pool,
where required), and not to trains bought across. That is the root of all
our differences: you apparently believe that emergency money raising is
applicable regardless of the source of the train.




This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
M***@public.gmane.org
2005-06-22 20:31:46 UTC
Permalink
David Hecht wrote:


I have no recollection of saying any such thing, and--if you read what I
Post by David G.D. Hecht
wrote below--I clearly indicate that you always have a choice between buying
the only instance in which I indicate your choices are restricted are
precisely those in which you (arguably) *cannot* buy across, by virtue of
having left no money on the trainless company.
I have a clear recollection of you doing so. I was sufficiently surprised at
this idea that I recall further conversation attempting to ensure that there
wasn't a misunderstanding.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
But the larger point is
that
the other company *is* a free agent, and is thus free to set any price it
chooses, subject to the above constraints, and is free to deny the sale on
any
terms. The "if necessary" clause should not, in my opinion, override
this.
Since it is only a "free agent" in the sense that its actions are (within
broad limits) unconstrained by the rules, I disagree with your view: you may
as well argue that you can force yourself (personally, I mean: not in the
game) by writing out an IOU for a million pounds *to yourself*, and then
refusing to honor it.
I'm not sure how your analogy is supposed to apply.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
Post by David G.D. Hecht
2. Buying across from one of your other companies, up to the cash the
buying
company has in its treasury.
Here we disagree sharply. There's no licence whatever, as far as I can
see,
to limit the purchase price in this way.
"...if necessary".
We may be arguing at cross purposes here, so let's have an example. I'm
running, say, NYC, which has $100 in its treasury and no train. I, personally,
have $500. My other company, say B&O, has a 4-train, and I want NYC to buy it
for $300. Please point me at any rule which says I can't. The "if necessary"
clause clearly isn't it.

Clearly, if we had the same situation except that I have no money at all, the
"if necessary" clause might be said to apply, but not in my example.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
No, it isn't a consensus. In fact, it's so far from being a consensus
that I
don't know of anyone else who holds this view. In 1830, there's nothing
whatever in the rules preventing a president from adding personal cash to
help his
trainless company buy across. The rule you outline is widely present in
other games (including 1856 and 1870, and some of yours) but not here.
There is a
clause "If a choice of trains is available from the Bank he must choose
the
cheapest alternative". I know that FT intended this merely to deny the
availability of more expensive trains from the bank and/or pool, but even
taken at
its most literal it can't deny the president the opportunity of buying a
train
across for $1, and then only if the bank and/or pool offer a choice of
trains.
Apart from this, only if the "if necessary" clause is deemed to override
the
free agency of non-active companies can there be any upper constraint
lower
than face value.
Well, Mr. Steve, I have personally participated in games, in your country,
in which I was told that a total lack of cash on a company that required a
train, meant I had to do an emergency money raising and buy from the Bank.
Indeed, it is because of what I consider to be this aberrational view that
all of my games now includse a proviso that makes this explicit.
I have a hard time believing that what you say is true of 1830. Other games,
as I said, apply the rule that if a company has no money at all and must buy
a train, that train must come from the bank, and this might be confusing your
memory. But never, in all my several hundred games of 1830, has anyone
suggested that this is true of 1830.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
What your analysis conveniently ignores, BTW, is that emergency money
raisings are intended to apply to trains bought from the Bank (or Pool,
where required), and not to trains bought across. That is the root of all
our differences: you apparently believe that emergency money raising is
applicable regardless of the source of the train.
In some games, your rule is correct. But consider this, quoted from the 1830
rules. "When a President has to assist a Corporation to buy a train the
following rules apply: ... 2) The president must first attempt to make up any
deficiency from his own cash. However, when adding in his own cash the
president may not pay more than face value if buying a train from another
Corporation." In my view, this completely and utterly refutes your stance.

Steve Thomas ***@a...


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



This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
David G.D. Hecht
2005-06-22 22:00:54 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message -----
From: <Maisnestce-***@public.gmane.org>
To: <18xx-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: [18xx] An interesting 1870 question...
Post by David G.D. Hecht
I have no recollection of saying any such thing, and--if you read what I
Post by David G.D. Hecht
wrote below--I clearly indicate that you always have a choice between buying
the only instance in which I indicate your choices are restricted are
precisely those in which you (arguably) *cannot* buy across, by virtue of
having left no money on the trainless company.
I have a clear recollection of you doing so. I was sufficiently surprised at
this idea that I recall further conversation attempting to ensure that there
wasn't a misunderstanding.
Well, I'd be fascinated to know when you think we had this conversation,
since (1) I've never held the position you attribute to me, and (2) if
someone propounded it to me, I'd reject it out of hand.

Ask yourself this question: why would I have been so outraged at the San
Marino tournament rule requiring a player to juggle trains in lieu of going
bankrupt, if I thought you were required to buy across to begin with?
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
But the larger point is
that
the other company *is* a free agent, and is thus free to set any price it
chooses, subject to the above constraints, and is free to deny the sale on
any
terms. The "if necessary" clause should not, in my opinion, override
this.
Since it is only a "free agent" in the sense that its actions are (within
broad limits) unconstrained by the rules, I disagree with your view: you may
as well argue that you can force yourself (personally, I mean: not in the
game) by writing out an IOU for a million pounds *to yourself*, and then
refusing to honor it.
I'm not sure how your analogy is supposed to apply.
(Patiently) In the most literal sense: you control both ends of the
transaction, therefore there is nothing compulsory about it.

By your reasoning, I can drive myself bankrupt in 1830 by merely "forcing"
myself to pay an unreasonable price in buying a train across. Don't think
so!
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
Post by David G.D. Hecht
2. Buying across from one of your other companies, up to the cash the
buying
company has in its treasury.
Here we disagree sharply. There's no licence whatever, as far as I can
see,
to limit the purchase price in this way.
"...if necessary".
We may be arguing at cross purposes here, so let's have an example. I'm
running, say, NYC, which has $100 in its treasury and no train. I, personally,
have $500. My other company, say B&O, has a 4-train, and I want NYC to buy it
for $300. Please point me at any rule which says I can't. The "if necessary"
clause clearly isn't it.
I don't believe you're allowed to merge company and hand money in this
situation. Period.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Clearly, if we had the same situation except that I have no money at all, the
"if necessary" clause might be said to apply, but not in my example.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
No, it isn't a consensus. In fact, it's so far from being a consensus
that I
don't know of anyone else who holds this view. In 1830, there's nothing
whatever in the rules preventing a president from adding personal cash to
help his
trainless company buy across. The rule you outline is widely present in
other games (including 1856 and 1870, and some of yours) but not here.
There is a
clause "If a choice of trains is available from the Bank he must choose
the
cheapest alternative". I know that FT intended this merely to deny the
availability of more expensive trains from the bank and/or pool, but even
taken at
its most literal it can't deny the president the opportunity of buying a
train
across for $1, and then only if the bank and/or pool offer a choice of
trains.
Apart from this, only if the "if necessary" clause is deemed to override
the
free agency of non-active companies can there be any upper constraint
lower
than face value.
Well, Mr. Steve, I have personally participated in games, in your country,
in which I was told that a total lack of cash on a company that required a
train, meant I had to do an emergency money raising and buy from the Bank.
Indeed, it is because of what I consider to be this aberrational view that
all of my games now includse a proviso that makes this explicit.
I have a hard time believing that what you say is true of 1830. Other games,
as I said, apply the rule that if a company has no money at all and must buy
a train, that train must come from the bank, and this might be confusing your
memory. But never, in all my several hundred games of 1830, has anyone
suggested that this is true of 1830.
I'll concede it may not be true of 1830, inasmuch as I doubt seriously that
I've played any 1830 in UK. But it's certainly been true in other games: and
if people are reasoning by analogy to 1830, that implies that they believe
this is the 1830 rule as well.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by David G.D. Hecht
What your analysis conveniently ignores, BTW, is that emergency money
raisings are intended to apply to trains bought from the Bank (or Pool,
where required), and not to trains bought across. That is the root of all
our differences: you apparently believe that emergency money raising is
applicable regardless of the source of the train.
In some games, your rule is correct. But consider this, quoted from the 1830
rules. "When a President has to assist a Corporation to buy a train the
following rules apply: ... 2) The president must first attempt to make up any
deficiency from his own cash. However, when adding in his own cash the
president may not pay more than face value if buying a train from another
Corporation." In my view, this completely and utterly refutes your stance.
Hm, good point: always a problem when trying to keep half a hundred sets of
rules in your head.

However, I would respectfully point out the following, in that case: the
next paragraph is the one which states, "If necessary the president must
raise further funds by selling stock or private companies..." If we take the
view that there is an implied hierarchy to these actions (which seems
plausible, since there is an explicit hierarchy between (1) and (2)), then
there must perforce be a reason the qualifier about buying across must limit
the president to (1) company capital (as per para. 1) plus (2) cash on hand
(as per para. 2). The "If necessary..." at the beginning of para. 3 thus, in
my estimation, limits the forced sale of stock to a situation where you are
*required* to raise more funds: to wit, when buying a train at a fixed
price, from the Bank.




This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Nick Wedd
2005-06-22 23:07:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by David G.D. Hecht
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: [18xx] An interesting 1870 question...
Post by David G.D. Hecht
I have no recollection of saying any such thing, and--if you read what I
Post by David G.D. Hecht
wrote below--I clearly indicate that you always have a choice between buying
the only instance in which I indicate your choices are restricted are
precisely those in which you (arguably) *cannot* buy across, by virtue of
having left no money on the trainless company.
I have a clear recollection of you doing so. I was sufficiently surprised at
this idea that I recall further conversation attempting to ensure that there
wasn't a misunderstanding.
Well, I'd be fascinated to know when you think we had this conversation,
since (1) I've never held the position you attribute to me, and (2) if
someone propounded it to me, I'd reject it out of hand.
Ask yourself this question: why would I have been so outraged at the San
Marino tournament rule requiring a player to juggle trains in lieu of going
bankrupt, if I thought you were required to buy across to begin with?
I fear I may just be adding to the confusion here -

I had always believed that, in 1830 and many other games, the president
could only contribute his own money when buying a train from the bank. I
doubt I am the only person to have thought this. Steve, however, has
produced evidence that it ain't so in 1830.

David has just said something about being _required_ to buy across. It
is still my understanding that (apart from tournament rules in communist
hills states) you can never be _required_ to buy across. The vendor can
always refuse to sell. And even when a vendor makes a silly offer "you
can have my about-to-rust 3-train for all the money in your treasury",
you can always reject it.

Nick
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
But the larger point is
that
the other company *is* a free agent, and is thus free to set any price it
chooses, subject to the above constraints, and is free to deny the sale on
any
terms. The "if necessary" clause should not, in my opinion, override
this.
Since it is only a "free agent" in the sense that its actions are (within
broad limits) unconstrained by the rules, I disagree with your view: you may
as well argue that you can force yourself (personally, I mean: not in the
game) by writing out an IOU for a million pounds *to yourself*, and then
refusing to honor it.
I'm not sure how your analogy is supposed to apply.
(Patiently) In the most literal sense: you control both ends of the
transaction, therefore there is nothing compulsory about it.
By your reasoning, I can drive myself bankrupt in 1830 by merely "forcing"
myself to pay an unreasonable price in buying a train across. Don't think
so!
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
Post by David G.D. Hecht
2. Buying across from one of your other companies, up to the cash the
buying
company has in its treasury.
Here we disagree sharply. There's no licence whatever, as far as I can
see,
to limit the purchase price in this way.
"...if necessary".
We may be arguing at cross purposes here, so let's have an example. I'm
running, say, NYC, which has $100 in its treasury and no train. I, personally,
have $500. My other company, say B&O, has a 4-train, and I want NYC to buy it
for $300. Please point me at any rule which says I can't. The "if necessary"
clause clearly isn't it.
I don't believe you're allowed to merge company and hand money in this
situation. Period.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Clearly, if we had the same situation except that I have no money at all, the
"if necessary" clause might be said to apply, but not in my example.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
No, it isn't a consensus. In fact, it's so far from being a consensus
that I
don't know of anyone else who holds this view. In 1830, there's nothing
whatever in the rules preventing a president from adding personal cash to
help his
trainless company buy across. The rule you outline is widely present in
other games (including 1856 and 1870, and some of yours) but not here.
There is a
clause "If a choice of trains is available from the Bank he must choose
the
cheapest alternative". I know that FT intended this merely to deny the
availability of more expensive trains from the bank and/or pool, but even
taken at
its most literal it can't deny the president the opportunity of buying a
train
across for $1, and then only if the bank and/or pool offer a choice of
trains.
Apart from this, only if the "if necessary" clause is deemed to override
the
free agency of non-active companies can there be any upper constraint
lower
than face value.
Well, Mr. Steve, I have personally participated in games, in your country,
in which I was told that a total lack of cash on a company that required a
train, meant I had to do an emergency money raising and buy from the Bank.
Indeed, it is because of what I consider to be this aberrational view that
all of my games now includse a proviso that makes this explicit.
I have a hard time believing that what you say is true of 1830. Other games,
as I said, apply the rule that if a company has no money at all and must buy
a train, that train must come from the bank, and this might be confusing your
memory. But never, in all my several hundred games of 1830, has anyone
suggested that this is true of 1830.
I'll concede it may not be true of 1830, inasmuch as I doubt seriously that
I've played any 1830 in UK. But it's certainly been true in other games: and
if people are reasoning by analogy to 1830, that implies that they believe
this is the 1830 rule as well.
Post by David G.D. Hecht
Post by David G.D. Hecht
What your analysis conveniently ignores, BTW, is that emergency money
raisings are intended to apply to trains bought from the Bank (or Pool,
where required), and not to trains bought across. That is the root of all
our differences: you apparently believe that emergency money raising is
applicable regardless of the source of the train.
In some games, your rule is correct. But consider this, quoted from the 1830
rules. "When a President has to assist a Corporation to buy a train the
following rules apply: ... 2) The president must first attempt to make up any
deficiency from his own cash. However, when adding in his own cash the
president may not pay more than face value if buying a train from another
Corporation." In my view, this completely and utterly refutes your stance.
Hm, good point: always a problem when trying to keep half a hundred sets of
rules in your head.
However, I would respectfully point out the following, in that case: the
next paragraph is the one which states, "If necessary the president must
raise further funds by selling stock or private companies..." If we take the
view that there is an implied hierarchy to these actions (which seems
plausible, since there is an explicit hierarchy between (1) and (2)), then
there must perforce be a reason the qualifier about buying across must limit
the president to (1) company capital (as per para. 1) plus (2) cash on hand
(as per para. 2). The "If necessary..." at the beginning of para. 3 thus, in
my estimation, limits the forced sale of stock to a situation where you are
*required* to raise more funds: to wit, when buying a train at a fixed
price, from the Bank.
This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links
--
Nick Wedd nick-***@public.gmane.org


This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
M***@public.gmane.org
2005-06-22 20:33:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Wedd
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
The way Francis Tresham interprets this clause is that the player must stop
selling as soon as the shortfall is cleared. However, he allows sales in
any
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
order, so if there's a shortfall of $150 you may sell both a $100 and a
$200
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
share, provided that the latter goes first.
This would make rather more sense, at least to me, if it said "former"
instead of "latter".
Me too. "For what I say, globally substitute what I mean."

Steve Thomas ***@a...


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



This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
John David Galt
2005-06-22 21:49:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by M***@public.gmane.org
Me too. "For what I say, globally substitute what I mean."
"Oh, boy!" (rubs hands) :D



This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/18xx/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
18xx-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...