First of all, I do not own the game. A groupmate wanted to buy a game but I was skeptical after reading the design notes. But it was too late after all so now the game is on the table. Alright could not complain if there was not my money..
There were a few changes but some are very notable:
1. offboard pass through and the toronto buypass.
2. the map.
3. new train exporting schedule
4. 3+ and 4+ trains
5. pullmans
6. ripple effect to shorts.
Private companies and subsidies are two minor changes we do not mind. Like 1822, it only shakes things up and it does not change the course towards the goal much. Just that most would have a different starting point to make the game slightly more interesting.
Loan returning changes are not a big issue either. But we are ok with either ways. Somehow restricting returns to the next turn only allow richer companies to jump more. That probably will not limit any comeback from those falling behind since it might be too late already.
[b]Offboard pass through and the Toronto bypass.[/b]
There comes the first issue. Having easier runs everywhere on the map differently make stations wroth way less than in 1817. And those forced station buys during conversions i.e. SEOs and floats are now way more expensive than in 1817. Your dead companies will not worth that much, and stations laying is not that much of a problem and decision in 18USA. Since there are literally good places everywhere and you only place station in or around those richer cities.
[b]The map[/b]
While we agree the map is a big issue in 1817 resulting in similar plays and that changes are necessary, I am not sure if 18USA is the changes that is good enough.
In the 17 map, early plays are limited by the mountain range from the east to south. And with little cities around Pittsburgh, that generally divides the map into three parts: the rich and expensive east coast, Detroit-Cleveland, and the rivers. Somehow we call the river zones "the fishes", a reason that the bridges look like fishes more, but later it seems like that starting in zone is particularly harder to have good results. So we generally avoided it resulting in half price for those fishes privates, and that still wasn't quite enough. Anyway, the starts in the 1817 looked staler and staler to us. While it definitely looked like group-think, we generally stick to the three big areas (or minus the fishes) with one Pittsburgh player and the start generally becomes not interesting.
In USA, the map now looks a lot less restricted, but that seems like compound to the effect that stations are not worth as much than in 1817. At least back in 1817 that would take some effort and cash to go through the ranges to build a bypass leading to NYC. Now that was not quite needed, as there are high payout red places and metros all around. And building a bypass is definitely less of a hassle than in 17 with those immediately green city airborne and instant upgrade to brown. On the surface it means, it is easier for those falling behind to catch up, but it does mean those leading could leap off even faster. The combined result is ambiguous to be good or bad.
But definitely tracks are a bit too easy to lay now.
[b]New train export schedule, 3T+ and 4T+[/b]
This is the part I dislike. While I believe that trains should be pushed forward by player's will, this could be easily fixed by going back to the 1817 schedule. For the record, our group never have the issue of poisonous 3T but only the last poisonous 4T or sometimes 2 poisonous 4T. But one can always deduce someone's fault for not buying that penultimate 4T. And we generally agree the last 4T is toxic so no one would buy it unless one is losing so bad he is forcing a faster end or a comeback play.
The design of 3T+ and 4T+ is somewhat problematic. While on the surface it seems to resolve the old toxic train problem, now our new toxic train is the train before 4T+. 3T+ also creates another problem that it is possible that they are better than the first 4T since 3T+ guarantees another run which could be well into 6T. With one less stop but one more guaranteed run, they seem to be better than 4T.
And then now the last 3T becomes [i]the[/i] toxic train, which we used to blitz all the way through the 3T set without a problem except one or two export.
Since now there isn't a toxic 4T to hold on for one more set of OR and/or all the 3T are exported altogether, the 2T and 3T now becomes generally way more expensive than what they were in 1817.
There is now a strange hill in the yield curve in the place of 3T+, and cases are there that the 4T+ could be better than the first 5T, since it would generate more money than a pullman and run an extra time after 8T. And the trough of the toxic 4T is just pushed forward with a lesser climb but still there.
6T7T8T are harder to run in 1817. But since there are now more bypasses and of board locations, less stations is required and they are now generally better and way easier to be run.
[b]Pullmans[/b]
The purpose of addition of pullmans it not known. Perhaps it is there to alleviate the effect of that two permanent trains could be easier run in USA than 17. But I am not sure adding a auto-push-that-button option when a second train cannot be yet financed is necessary or not. Though definitely it is not an interesting decision to be made during gameplay to me since everyone is buying that whenever there is a space. And oh if you cannot afford it you are well done anyway.
[b]Ripple effect to shorts[/b]
Shorts could be played around in 1817. In later games, it could be reduced to merely a money borrowing option. Since there is not quite a lot of reports that aggressive shorts having good results, I would believe that it wasn't group think. And because there are cases that if an early successful short is made obviously it is game there.
At least I am so far unsuccessful to produce a scenario to go all the way through 3T to 6T within 1 sets of 2 ORs.
But just because it wasn't very viable in 1817, does not automatically mean that artificial made short timings are an interesting addition. Now you could prepare to short and counter-short everyone in that 3T exporting turn. That said, shorts are slightly harder to assess since stations could stop less trains, map is more open, and there are less terrain to stop tracks. Is that an interesting change? I am not sure.
And that now there is a 1.5 step jump in 1817 scale instead of a deadweight loss..
Are these changes interesting? I am not quite sure either. Shorts is an very interesting and potential addition to the 18xx family. But it seems more refinement is still needed.
It is a bit of pity that Davis' version is still not there. Local gameplays are mostly inconclusive until we reached a point the general 18xx population could have a stress test on the traditional 1817. And yes, board18 is not enough for such major scale.
Side note: i am not interested in submitting this as a review and be "(peer-)reviewed". but since there is no way i can revoke that 'submission', so let it be. i will 'delete' that review later.
No comments:
Post a Comment