Abbreviating 1817 (was: 1817 to near death)

[Justin Rebelo [e-mail] [18xx]]

I am certain that cheap would correctly describe our 18xx group. We
spend an inordinate amount of time tryingto convince the bank to pay full
face value for shares that would generally be considered worth
significantly less than stated value and hence our loans tend not to get
above 50 to 55.
As for sucking in new players, I have tried the 18ga and 18al route and
mostly players tend to be bored by the lack of shenanigans. I have found
1830 and even 1817 until the first 4 train to be better attractors of new
players, but that is mostly because I tend to hang out with and meet people
who like to do devious or some would say dastardly things to other players
and are less interested in building optimal railroads.

Steve's comment isn't the first time I've heard mention of 1817 being
played to a predetermined, premature end game. The first 4T is mentioned
here, I think I've seen the first 5T bandied about elsewhere.

I own 1817 and am very interested in giving it a try but the obstacle is,
naturally, the time and complexity expected to be encountered in our first
games. Our local group is reaching a point where I think tabling this game
could become a reality (our greenest player now has about a half dozen 18xx
plays and seems to be enjoying the system). I think that the guys would
probably be agreeable to trying this one out in the near future but it
would be almost certain that we will need to play a truncated game.
Unfortunately, a short game is not one of the several variants that 1817
documents in the rules.

For those of you who have a good deal of experience with 1817, have you
done any sort of meaningful comparisons to determine what would make an
ideal short game end-point? Whether this be the 4T, the 5T or some other
trigger. I'm personally OK with playing the game just to explore it and
finishing when we decide that time is exhausted, but I think in general the
players would prefer to be able to see the end game and play for it
properly.

Thanks,
Justin

[Eric Flood [e-mail] [18xx]]

I've played 1817 many times, almost always through the 4Ts, sometimes
through the 7Ts, a handful of times to completion. Keep calm and short
like mad.

-Eric

Post by Justin Rebelo justin.rebelo-***@public.gmane.org [18xx]

I am certain that cheap would correctly describe our 18xx group. We
spend an inordinate amount of time tryingto convince the bank to pay full
face value for shares that would generally be considered worth
significantly less than stated value and hence our loans tend not to get
above 50 to 55.
As for sucking in new players, I have tried the 18ga and 18al route and
mostly players tend to be bored by the lack of shenanigans. I have found
1830 and even 1817 until the first 4 train to be better attractors of new
players, but that is mostly because I tend to hang out with and meet people
who like to do devious or some would say dastardly things to other players
and are less interested in building optimal railroads.

Steve's comment isn't the first time I've heard mention of 1817 being
played to a predetermined, premature end game. The first 4T is mentioned
here, I think I've seen the first 5T bandied about elsewhere.
I own 1817 and am very interested in giving it a try but the obstacle is,
naturally, the time and complexity expected to be encountered in our first
games. Our local group is reaching a point where I think tabling this game
could become a reality (our greenest player now has about a half dozen 18xx
plays and seems to be enjoying the system). I think that the guys would
probably be agreeable to trying this one out in the near future but it
would be almost certain that we will need to play a truncated game.
Unfortunately, a short game is not one of the several variants that 1817
documents in the rules.
For those of you who have a good deal of experience with 1817, have you
done any sort of meaningful comparisons to determine what would make an
ideal short game end-point? Whether this be the 4T, the 5T or some other
trigger. I'm personally OK with playing the game just to explore it and
finishing when we decide that time is exhausted, but I think in general the
players would prefer to be able to see the end game and play for it
properly.
Thanks,
Justin

[J C Lawrence [e-mail] [18xx]]

Post by Justin Rebelo justin.rebelo-***@public.gmane.org [18xx]
Steve's comment isn't the first time I've heard mention of 1817 being
played to a predetermined, premature end game. The first 4T is
mentioned here, I think I've seen the first 5T bandied about elsewhere.

I'm a big proponent of making the first half-dozen to dozen plays of
1817 be up into the the 4Ts, possibly (if there's time) to the 5Ts. A
lot of the system exercises in just that sub-game and much can be learnt
from it.

Post by Justin Rebelo justin.rebelo-***@public.gmane.org [18xx]
Unfortunately, a short game is not one of the several variants that
1817 documents in the rules.

Shrug. No matter. Just tell them that you're going to only play the
first bit of the game so that they can learn the new systems, and play
as above. This should fit modestly well into an evening. (It used to
take us 3.5-4 hours to get up close to the 5Ts and I'd expect similar
from your group) if your group was like the one here, they'll come out
fascinated and you can repeat the exercise again and again and again to
popular acclaim -- which is pretty cool in its own right.

Post by Justin Rebelo justin.rebelo-***@public.gmane.org [18xx]
For those of you who have a good deal of experience with 1817, have
you done any sort of meaningful comparisons to determine what would
make an ideal short game end-point? Whether this be the 4T, the 5T or
some other trigger. I'm personally OK with playing the game just to
explore it and finishing when we decide that time is exhausted, but I
think in general the players would prefer to be able to see the end
game and play for it properly.

Frankly, I wouldn't worry about the end-game. First, it isn't
interesting, and second, the game is usually decided somewhere well
before the nanosecond blink between the 5Ts & 6Ts.

Then, once you're all comfortable with that, just play up until the
winner is incontrovertibly clear, call the game, and restart. (Calling
games early when the winner is clear is an excellent practice) For me
this has always been by the 6Ts. I've never seen a game of 1817 that
was still in question after a 6T had been bought. Or you could play
through to the end, but I find the endgame a relatively dull drag that
adds little.

-- JCL

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

Great points. My group usually prefers a game of 17 to the 6s - sometimes
even the 4s to playing a whole game of something else.

I disagree, however, about the end game not being interesting. I've seen
a few great comebacks in the last 2-3 ORs, and route calculation is much
simpler in 17 than many games so it doesn't drag (in part because most end
- game routes end in an 80).

I also think that it's good to finish at least one game for every 5-8 games
that end early - partly so that you can correctly analyse the player
positions when you call a game early. For example, being able to grow a 5
to a 10 late can sometimes be an under-appreciated way to catch up because
of all the stock appreciation you get.

Regardless, there are so many interesting permutations in the first third
of the game (roughly till the 2s rust) that we find it pretty satisfying.

Post by Justin Rebelo justin.rebelo-***@public.gmane.org [18xx]
Steve's comment isn't the first time I've heard mention of 1817 being
played to a predetermined, premature end game. The first 4T is mentioned
here, I think I've seen the first 5T bandied about elsewhere.
I'm a big proponent of making the first half-dozen to dozen plays of 1817
be up into the the 4Ts, possibly (if there's time) to the 5Ts. A lot of
the system exercises in just that sub-game and much can be learnt from it.
Unfortunately, a short game is not one of the several variants that
1817 documents in the rules.
Shrug. No matter. Just tell them that you're going to only play the
first bit of the game so that they can learn the new systems, and play as
above. This should fit modestly well into an evening. (It used to take us
3.5-4 hours to get up close to the 5Ts and I'd expect similar from your
group) if your group was like the one here, they'll come out fascinated
and you can repeat the exercise again and again and again to popular
acclaim -- which is pretty cool in its own right.
For those of you who have a good deal of experience with 1817, have you
done any sort of meaningful comparisons to determine what would make an
ideal short game end-point? Whether this be the 4T, the 5T or some other
trigger. I'm personally OK with playing the game just to explore it and
finishing when we decide that time is exhausted, but I think in general the
players would prefer to be able to see the end game and play for it
properly.
Frankly, I wouldn't worry about the end-game. First, it isn't
interesting, and second, the game is usually decided somewhere well before
the nanosecond blink between the 5Ts & 6Ts.
Then, once you're all comfortable with that, just play up until the winner
is incontrovertibly clear, call the game, and restart. (Calling games
early when the winner is clear is an excellent practice) For me this has
always been by the 6Ts. I've never seen a game of 1817 that was still in
question after a 6T had been bought. Or you could play through to the end,
but I find the endgame a relatively dull drag that adds little.
-- JCL

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

It is often easy to predict the final standings of an 1817 game by the first 6T.

-Bruce

________________________________
From: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org [18xx-***@public.gmane.org]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 7:13 PM
To: 18xx-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: [18xx] Abbreviating 1817 (was: 1817 to near death)



On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 3:28 PM, steve-yu-/***@public.gmane.org<mailto:steve-yu-/***@public.gmane.org> [18xx] <18xx-***@public.gmane.org<mailto:18xx-***@public.gmane.org>> wrote:

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

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


Steve's comment isn't the first time I've heard mention of 1817 being played to a predetermined, premature end game. The first 4T is mentioned here, I think I've seen the first 5T bandied about elsewhere.

I own 1817 and am very interested in giving it a try but the obstacle is, naturally, the time and complexity expected to be encountered in our first games. Our local group is reaching a point where I think tabling this game could become a reality (our greenest player now has about a half dozen 18xx plays and seems to be enjoying the system). I think that the guys would probably be agreeable to trying this one out in the near future but it would be almost certain that we will need to play a truncated game. Unfortunately, a short game is not one of the several variants that 1817 documents in the rules.

For those of you who have a good deal of experience with 1817, have you done any sort of meaningful comparisons to determine what would make an ideal short game end-point? Whether this be the 4T, the 5T or some other trigger. I'm personally OK with playing the game just to explore it and finishing when we decide that time is exhausted, but I think in general the players would prefer to be able to see the end game and play for it properly.

Thanks,
Justin




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

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

This is a message from the 18xx mailing list.