As I can see it, destination rule in different 18xx games (also 56, 26 at least) is a way to assure that railroads are developed as possible according to their...
... back ... I would refer you to message 3163 from December 3, 2000 in the archive for some good ones. I have played a couple of them and liked them for a...
... ISTM that if you eliminate the destination runs, you're pretty much playing 1830. Nothing wrong with that, it just isn't 1870. Stock redemption and price...
In a message dated 03/09/03 01:48:08 GMT Daylight Time, ... I suspect this reflects an over-pessimistic world-view. The first part may well be largely true,...
... I don't see how that would speed up the game, especially if you don't reduce the bank. Speeding up the game wouild be better accomplished by removing one...
... I still do not quite understand why it takes certain groups so long to play 1870. We can play it in 5-6 hours, routinely. Less if we look at the postions...
You don't need to remove the trains. Try 'pushing' them instead. In our games it is rare for the 2s to operate more than two or three times. The purchase of...
... Maybe for your group. In ours, all the companies have long since been started and everyone is at share limit. This is another reason that no one ever...
... That is probably because you are all playing 1830 on an 1870 map. The certificate limit is very suggestive of the proper strategy. There should be at...
On page 6 the rules say "..a single certificate can represent 5%, 10%, or 20% ownership." On page 25 the rules say "If more than ten CGR certificates are...
In message <bj66eo+1d8s@eGroups.com>, Roberto Ullfig <robo99@...> writes ... I think they are both correct. If ten or fewer CGR certificates are...
Nick Wedd
nick@...
Sep 4, 2003 8:52 am
8742
... work) to ... (Or, ... don't ... them ... and ... why ... the ... problems. ... I actually do reissue stock in 1870 and find it useful. since there is...
(Sorry for my Engish, I am french) When I palyed 1830 I made a mistake : the coporate could by only one train per turn. The start is more long nobody want to...
... An alternative that does not have the "poisoned 2" effect so much is that a company cannot buy 2 trains of the same type, but can buy say a 2 and a 3. Noel...
Hi all. These last two days I had to attend a training course in Hamburg. I posted a message on this list a week ago to call for players in that area. Volker...
... The fact that unsold shares pay the treasury is a huge factor in 1870. ... Because it would enable the player who starts the most profitable early company...
I agree the Moderator speeds things up, but I don't like using it. I like the paper in my hands and I can also easily tell who owns what at a glance around...
... Which you always do if it's worth it. The way things are now, the advantage still exists but requires negotiation (which is a bug, not a feature, in any...
... Huh? In my games, people go out of their way to avoid giving an opponent an abundance of shares in a single corporation. We wait until they don't have the...
If negotiation is a bug, then most games are flawed or is it the negotiators? If you don't like negotiating I suggest you don't do it, but you might find...
... the ... Assume ... the ... might ... company ... probably been ... stressed. If ... you decide ... buy a ... this company, and ... the game ... probably...
... Leaving aside the open-ended vagary of "worth it", there are oodles of reasons not to price-protect: 1. PPing would prevent you from opening a new company....
... Reasons to toss out shares even when you know they'll be covered: 1. You own 30% of a another's front-runner, and by selling one share to the president...
... Wrong. Early dominating negotiations can be made to gain a 50% winning probability because neither of the two players knows whether he will be first or...
... A total shut-out of the other player may be possible in a 3-player game, but it's probably not possible in a 4+ player; hence a negotiation between two...
