A Ride On The 1830 Express

By Edward Fahrmeier

Here’s the pitch – 1830 is a great railroad game. It isn’t really similar to any other game (except 1829, its English cousin); it is well-designed and it has many interesting features. It is one of the best games around for four to six players in which opportunities to win are present throughout much of the game, even for players who make mistakes in the early stages of the game. Experience and skill allow good players to recognize and seize opportunities that aren’t always available in the beginning. 1830 is also one of the best multi-player games in that “ganging up” on the leader to prevent a win is relatively difficult to engineer. And solid alliances with other players aren’t usually necessary to enjoy the game.

There are alliances between players or between corporations, and there are some economic struggles; but because of the interlocking character of ownership of the corporations, it is seldom possible to make moves that benefit only one player at the expense of all the rest. More typically, the long term benefits and costs to each player of each move are difficult to predict in such a complicated economic environment. The first-time player, however, is at a disadvantage among experienced players simply because the “old hands” have an improved sense of recognizing the opportunities. Chance is involved only in the determination of the arrangement of players for the share dealing phases of the game. (An experienced player might have some advantage in being placed to deal immediately after a novice, who is more likely to buy and sell the wrong stocks; likewise, a novice player is disadvantaged by dealing immediately after an experienced player since fewer “good deals” will be available.)

This game has a nice “feel” to it. Careful planning and analysis pay off, yet there is enough variety spawned by the various players’ actions to present continuous interesting challenge. Each player is likely to have very different ideas about which actions are in his own best interest. The fewer the players, the more sedate the game. With only four players, each player has much , ore control over his own fate than in a five-player game. A six-player game is particularly tricky in that each has so little money and control, yet is immediately faced with difficult decisions. Games with fewer players are recommended for introducing novices to this classic railroad game.

As to the finer points of play, I have some specific suggestions in the following areas: the private companies, the special characteristics of each corporation, general strategies for running corporations, understanding some of the critical limits built into the game, and various thoughts on schemes, swindles and scams. With this as an introduction, even the novice player can become a “rail baron” after a few games. And enjoy himself immensely in the process.

The Private Companies

In general, the private companies are good investments; but they must be unloaded before they lose their worth or become liabilities because of certificate-holding limits. The face value of these companies are approximately correct in games with four or fewer players, but in five- or six-player games there are other factors to consider. Simply stated, purchasers of the three most expensive private companies are more at the mercy of other players with excess cash (due to their not buying these expensive items). A player buying the Camden & Amboy for, say, $200 has only $200 left to buy shares in the first round, and some other player is likely to gain the presidency of the Pennsylvania. Setting a par value of $67 per share is obviously going to hurt the C&A holder as compared to setting par at $90. Similarly, while a high par value of the Baltimore & Ohio shares will protect one’s initial investment, other players can turn to cheaper stocks leaving the B&O president with just a private company.

Looking at each private company, we’ll start with the Schuykill Valley (SVRR). Buy at $25 or less, particularly if the purchase results in an opportunity to get another private company you want immediately and at a relatively low price. The revenue for the SVR isn’t bad, but better companies are available via the bid system. The other inexpensive private railroad, the Champlain & St. Lawrence (C&St.L) has adequate revenue also, but there are better investments unless you want to control the Canadian Pacific.

The Delaware & Hudson (D&H) can be critical because of its control of the station marker in the D&H hex. The Chesapeake & Ohio needs this station to get into New York City early in the game and the New York, New Haven & Hartford (NYNH&H) needs this station to head west. The Pennsylvania, Canadian Pacific or B&O could also make use of this hex to place a station marker; corporations with the most station markers have the most to gain by placing a $100 station in such a good location for only the price of the D&H and the $120 for placing a tile in the mountains. This is definitely a fun company to have, and its worth is more than its face value.

The Mohawk & Hudson is a good investment at face value, but the hex it commands isn’t very valuable to any corporation except the New York Central. Since it has to be exchanged for the NYC share rather than sold to a corporation, its resale is limited to individual players. I don’t think it is worth a premium price.

The Camden & Amboy (C&A) is a great investment at face value since even a par value of $67 for the Pennsylvania results in $25 a turn on a $93 investment. As a result, the C&A is often sold for a premium in a bidding war. However, as I have noted, a high purchase price for the C&A can result in embarrassment for the C&A owner. The resale value for the C&A is generally quite good and the corporation that gains control of the C&A-usually the PA or the B&O-can place the tile to its advantage in reaching New York City. Like the D&H, the C&A gives its owner some valuable options.

As a private company, I think the Baltimore & Ohio (B&O) has relatively little to recommend it. The $30 it earns each turn won’t make up for the retardation of early growth and the possibility that the Pennsylvania will make the corporate life of the B&O cramped. Eventually, other players will make the B&O float as a corporation and the private company will end. Of course, buying the B&O private company is the only way to get the president’s certificate, but the par has to be high enough to protect one’s initial investment. A player has to want the B&O corporation to buy this company, but I don’t think a good player should pay much over face value for the company.

The private companies usually get distributed evenly among the players, but it is possible for a player to either be heavily invested in private companies or to be cut out completely. Heavy investment in private companies usually gives control of the early starting corporation railroads to others. Good cash flow leads to some fine chances to start a corporation in Turns 4 or 5 because one is likely to have more ready cash than the other players, but liquidation of the few corporate shares one has will probably be necessary to make any big move. Unloading the C&A at this time to a corporation is also a great way to get cash.
In contrast, players buying no private corporations have the best chance to control the corporation of their choice. Since cash flow will generally be low at first, these players will have to either sit tight on long term investments or plan massive share liquidations to raise cash for further major moves. Since such major moves should only be made if the first corporation is in horrible financial trouble, timing must be perfect for such a move to succeed. Let’s look at the corporations now for a better understanding of what can go wrong.

The Corporations

The Pennsylvania (PA) is disadvantaged by low revenues in the early stages of the game, but it typically is the dominant railroad in the game. It almost always gets started in the first turn. The PA has sufficient station markers, and two of them should be played in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia quickly. The PA should get into New York City and Chicago, and it should be able to use big engine power at the end of the game. Both a “5” and a “6” are ideal, but a diesel usually can be profitable. The PA can usually make an “alliance” with either the C&O or the B&O for purposes of route enhancement. Its own interests should be carefully protected by its president, however.

The New York Central (NYC) is very disadvantaged at the beginning of the game. It has the worst available routes on the board until the “3” engines are in play, and thus it is poor choice for a first railroad. This corporation has to make its way into territories of other railroads to do well. The best possibilities are around Buffalo and Toronto or Chicago since simple blocks will keep the NYC out of Philadelphia and its environs. Local cooperation is usually necessary to exploit any area of the board. There are possibilities, but this railroad is difficult to play well.

The Canadian Pacific (CP) is a nice little isolated railroad-deadly dull to own and run. It is well suited for the lean-engined, steady-dividend, highstock-value strategy to be discussed later. The corporation can also be run in the manner of an expansion-minded NYC, particularly if it buys the D&H. This play fills the New York area with hostile railroads and makes life difficult for all.

The Baltimore & Ohio (B&O) can have a very cramped game unless it breaks into the PA territory early. An early grab of Philadelphia is a joy and should be attempted if the B&O has a chance. The B&O has to defend itself against a PA-C&O alliance by getting a station marker on the “H” tier or above. Shares are usually good investments if the corporation is going to be started immediately, but I find the price for becoming president a bit steep.

The Chesapeake & Ohio (C&O) is the great tracklaying railroad. It has good revenues early in the game, but like the PA, it always seems to need more engines, more money, or both. Running the C&O is a roller coaster ride. Investors will typically dump the stock after five or six turns to buy other stocks in anticipation of the C&O stock value decline due to frequent withholding of dividends in Turns 6 through 11. Of course, this corporation can be run leanly, but the C&O is a diesel-type of railroad and, as a result, timing of the purchase of new equipment is very critical. The best time to save is when revenues are high.

The Erie: does your spine tingle when you hear the word? It should – beware the Erie. It’s a lot safer to be president of the Erie than to invest in it, particularly if the president of it also controls another company. If the Erie starts late in the game with a par of $100, you can be sure that a diesel is going to be bought and that diesel will be sold to another company with smarter investors. The Erie is a nice second or third railroad to control; its success depends on the friendly assistance of other corporations.

The New York, New Haven & Hartford (NYNH&H) is another nice local railroad. With a little luck it can place its station marker in a nearby spot like the D&H or the NYC hex and set up a tidy “5” engine run into New York City (south) or Boston. There are even good breakout possibilities to the west, but saving for a diesel with this railroad doesn’t usually make much sense. The tile placements to the northeast and west of New York City are critical for the future of this railroad. Try to keep the NYC president from making trouble, and you’ll likely do well enough with it.

The Boston & Maine (B&M) is another nice railroad, but its breakout potential is even less than that of the NYNH&H. In addition, mountain crossings are usually necessary. It is a fine second railroad to run, particularly when the NYC or NYNH&H is the other corporation controlled.

If I can’t get my favorites, I’ll take the best of what is left available; being president of several railroads is what the game is about. At the beginning of the game there is usually only enough capital to start three or four railroads. If the president’s share in one of the more lucrative corporations isn’t available, it makes sense to buy single shares rather than buy the president’s share of another corporation if there isn’t enough capital to get yours started anyway. Investor confidence is an important element in 1830, as the experienced players are likely to get better financial backing.

Corporate Strategy

The design of 1830 is such that carefully and competitively run corporations have the: highest stock values at the end of the game. For such corporations, dividends might be lower on a particular turn than far more grandiose corporations, but the dividends are steadier than those for corporations that save to invest in big engines and long lines. Let’s look at the economies.

Suppose corporations “A”, “B” and “C” have identical stock value of $126 on the highest row of the Stock Market Chart. Each has enough money to buy a “5” train. Corporation A buys the “5” and operates it for dividend distribution of $25 per share until the end of the game in, say, ten turns. Each share would then be worth $350, plus the $250 per share paid out for dividends. Corporation B saves two turns and, by then (as if by magic), a diesel is available and he has a “4” train to trade; he buys the first diesel. His revenue is, say, $50 a turn for eight turns, but his shares are worth only $250 each on the market. There are some important “ifs” in this calculation, but the return per share in this scheme is $650 – a small gain over Corporation A (which had $600 per share value at the end). Corporation C meanwhile buys a “5” engine, and saves for four turns to buy a diesel as well. Once the “5” and the diesel are at work, the dividends are $75 per share, but only for six turns. The total dividends are $450; including the share value of $180 makes for a total per share return of $630. If the game goes on longer than ten turns from the hypothetical point suggested, the corporations equipped with diesels are favored, but a shorter game tends to favor the conservative corporation (A).

1830 is so finely tuned as to make the decision of whether to save for diesels a very important one. Factors in this decision are whether the game will last long enough to make the diesel worthwhile, and whether the high revenue routes will still be available for it. The revenue estimates in the above calculations are by no means certain, and poor timing of saving and of purchasing new engines can lead to great disaster. Railroads that often can use a diesel profitably are the NYC, C&O, PA and B&O. The others are usually limited by territory, track or station markers.

No one strategy is perfect, but the conservative approach has a good chance to win if the quality of the player’s stock portfolio is high. On the other hand, a more opportunistic player who gains control of two or three corporations (possibly even a corporation with very low share values so he can exceed the certificate limits) often can win with proper management of his trains and lines.

One of the most difficult aspects of the game for novices lies in anticipating the changing conditions of the game. These changes simulate gradual modernization and increased complexity. The game is divided into phases in accord with the complexity of the tiles and the quality of the engines for sale. For me, there are three distinct stages of the game, which I’ll refer to simply as the opening, the middle and the finishing stages.

The opening stage includes the initial stock purchasing and initial tile laying operations of the game. Engines are plentiful and cheap (the “2”, “3” and “4” types); dividends are small but regular; and private capital is reinvested to buy more stock. The game looks simple at this point and of rather low complexity. Heavy investment in trains usually results in higher dividends, but a railroad often becomes cash poor if this is done.

The real challenge of 1830 lies in the middle stage of the game. It is marked by increasing scarcity of engines and high prices for the “5” and “6” trains now available. Often there is much action in the stock market as players jockey to improve their overall positions. Players often will sell shares of stock of corporations with high value and relatively little cash return in order to start new corporations, while holding on to corporations with good runs. The number of turns a corporation must save in order to purchase a new engine is critical for its eventual value, and presidents who start to accumulate too late sometimes have to dip into their own private capital. Games are won or lost at this stage; the absence of an engine almost always spells disaster for a corporation and the player who controls it. The purchase of the two “6” trains and the first diesel are likely to be made by the corporations run by players with a little good luck (sequence of turns is important) and a lot of accurate planning. These purchases inevitably squeeze all the remaining corporations.

The finishing stage of the game begins after the first diesel is sold. Successful companies are now fully equipped and merely laying a few more tiles, while the “also-rans” are still scurrying to amass capital to buy diesels. Since there are only three “5” trains and two “6” trains, the purchase of a diesel or two is inevitable, and only the first player to do so will get a cheap one. Seldom do diesel purchases made after the first turn in which they become available pay off, but players often have no other choice.

Another critical area, although less serious than that of engine purchase, is that of tile placement. Some blocking maneuvers with the non-station green and brown tiles are available to clever players who want to limit access to particular areas. Close study of the tiles available before it is the corporation’s turn to move is sometimes warranted. More obvious is the proper play of station tiles. Promoting tiles in the 57 to 14, or the 15 to 63, sequence in ones’ own routes results in a small but important edge in revenues and access. Placing the right tile of the 64 to 68 set on the Camden hex can be very significant for the PA and B&O, for example. The Erie and Toronto hexes can be exploited well or poorly (tile 67 is particularly appropriate for Toronto). Last but not least, the 1, 2, 55, 56 and 59 tiles are of tremendous importance in the development of the New York City area. A thoughtful player will spend some time analyzing the possible placements with an eye toward eventual route building.

Another critical area of play is that of station marker placement. Most corporations have enough markers (with the exception of the B&M and the NYNH&H). I have seldom seen the PA, NYC, CP or Erie use all their station markers, while the B&O and C&O often need all of theirs. I must admit I prefer “open” games with restrained usage of station markers; this leads to big, productive diesel runs for my trains. But some games will inevitably see “station wars” commence as players place stations to block the access of other corporations to their lines.

A final critical topic is that of certificate limits. The certificate limits are, of course, lower as the number of players increases towards the maximum. A six-player game is usually very challenging as one must work with fewer resources. One “legal” (i.e., not breaking the game rules) way to gain an advantage is to hold as many president’s certificates as possible, thereby increasing the actual number of .shares held. A person with two or three president’s certificates becomes a favorite to win on shares alone, so other players must strive to prevent any player from running three railroads simultaneously. The other “legal” way to increase the number of shares held is to buy shares currently in the yellow and brown areas of the Stock Market Chart. How to succeed at this brings us to our next topic.

The Schemes, Scams and Swindles of Scoundrels

(This information is intended for honest players who need to know how to protect themselves from those who shouldn’t be allowed to play with gentlemen and ladies. Honest.)

Players running only a single railroad can usually be trusted not to ruin their own chances by mismanaging operations on purpose (although sometimes a little advice is necessary to prevent shooting off toes; that’s the role of other interested stockholders in a corporation). But players running two or more corporations can never be trusted. The most obvious ploy is to run one railroad to help another at its own expense. Sometimes irate minority shareholders can do something about it. However, the more subtle operator may need to be turned out also. If a player holds six shares in one corporation and three in another, watch for signs that the second corporation is withholding dividends to buy an engine while the first always pays dividends. A switch is in the offing. The second corporation will buy a new engine, but it will be quickly bought by the first corporation at a reduced price. The second will then simply keep on saving or will be dumped onto the market. The best defense against this is to wrest control of the second corporation away from its evil president before the switch is made. This usually requires the good guys to hatch a takeover bid; convince the other shareholders that you are indeed the deserving new president.

A second version of this scam is to gain control of one company deep into the brown or yellow areas of the Stock Market Chart. These stock shares aren’t worth much, but often there are possibilities for these low valued corporations in buying engines for rich sisters or themselves. Values are kept low so that shares don’t have to be sold to meet limits but there is no harm in timing dividend payments so that the stocks don’t emerge from the yellow area until just after the last stock buying round. A partial defense against this scheme is not to buy minority shares of corporations without engines or shares of corporations which are obviously going to be abused. A second defense is to gang up on these corporations to minimize revenues by blocking routes.

A third version of such a scheme is a true swindle. This is to start a railroad like the Erie relatively late in the game; set share value at $100; and then convince everybody to buy a share or two, but not enough to take away the presidency. Three shares (the president’s certificate plus another share) are usually enough to pull this one off. If the Erie does float, the $1000 (with an added $100 of personal money) buys a new diesel for a small investment of private capital. The diesel is transferred at once; no track is ever laid. And no other engine is ever bought. With a little luck, the villain will even get to unload his three shares for $76 each. The best defense here is not to invest; the second is to build a line into Buffalo so that the Erie has a run and must buy an engine. A lot of cooperation may be needed to accomplish this task for an unwilling president.

The scheme of selling shares to lower stock values usually has the effect of reducing the options of the remaining players holding that stock to sell and then buy something else. However, this usually doesn’t affect the long term value of the stock a great deal, and can actually assist the long term investor to pick up these shares cheap. If the seller has a better deal available elsewhere, the selling must be done; but such trading should be evaluated in terms of long term gain for oneself rather than temporary pain to others.

Final Thoughts for Successful Play

Winning 1830 depends a lot on careful planning and taking advantage of opportunities when they occur. Resorting to the worst swindles may result in a victory in a particular game, but since each of us usually plays with the same few players repeatedly, reputations develop. There is a considerable advantage to any player who can get others to invest in the corporations he controls, particularly in the initial share dealing round. Later diversions of corporate funds should be on the conservative side so as to be dismissed as merely good business sense. Always remember that the free enterprise system that made America great is being simulated in your dining room.

(this article first appeared in issue #6 volume #26 of Avalon Hill’s “GENERAL”)

ON A COLD AND GREY NOVEMBER DAY

When I visited London in November 1988 one of my usual evening strolls led me to “Just Games” a small games shop just off Regent Street. I had visited them before and knew that I would find a wide range of imported boardgames, in particular those from the United States.

This time my attention was drawn to something completely different: a magazine called “Games International“, which not only appeared to be produced very professionally but also carried an interesting combination of articles about foreign and German games. At the time I was not aware that German games were known in Britain at all.

Hence, I bought a copy and spent the rest of the evening in my hotel room, reading what appeared to be the first issue of a very different games magazine. I was so intrigued by the mag that I filled in the subscription form that very night and sent it off the next day.

At that time, I already subscribed to one of the most popular German game journals “Pöppelrevue”, which covered the German boardgame market pretty well. But much to my surprise GI provided me with a new view about the games I thought I knew pretty well. On the one hand there was none of the rather dry style of writing I was used to from Pöppelrevue. Many articles had this humorous kind of “straight from the heart” style elegantly spiced with the odd pun, which made reading them not only interesting but fun. On the other hand, the mag contained details about strategies and variants, which were completely new to me.

THE BRIGHT SIDE OF THE MOON

The type of games covered and their rating made me feel sort of “at home”. The first issue had favourable reviews about “Kremlin“, “6-Tage Rennen” and “McMulti” – games we liked and played a lot at the time. In addition, GI #1 included a strategy article about “Schoko&Co.“, something of a size and depth I never seen before in a German games magazine. Taking a note of the author provided some clue, as Alan R. Moon was known to me as a writer for Avalon Hill’s house magazine “General“. Besides the fact that the “General” was quite expensive in Germany it also was pretty hard to find. So seeing that GI managed to get one of their authors on the payroll convinced me that GI was the right mag for me.

Talking about Alan R. Moon: he was introduced as GI’s “American Desk” and Brian Walker, GI’s editor, wrote a rather strange (in my eyes) staff profile about him. It commenced with providing a photo of an empty suit of armour as “Alan R. Moon” – something which later proved to be some kind of a GI policy: “Never provide a photo of any of the staff”. To my knowledge, this policy has been broken only once when issue #4 carried a photo showing Brian “Schoko & Co.” Walker together with Steve Jackson and Ian Livingstone. Unless, of course, this was some kind of an inside joke.

Other now well-known names of the gaming hobby contributed regularly to GI: Derek Carver (“Blood Royal“, “Showbiz“), Stuart Dagger (“Counter”), Phil Orbanes (“Infinity“), David Parlett (“Hare and Tortoise“), David Pritchard (“Games and Puzzles”) and Mike Siggins (“Counter”) to name just a few.

The structure of GI’s content was based on game categories: general games, abstract games, war games and role-playing games besides “standard” columns like an editorial (“Up Front”), travel reports and reader letters (“Rebound”). I cannot remember a mag where I enjoyed the editorial as much as Brian Walker’s “Up Front”. Besides being informative the tongue-in-cheek humour sometimes was hilarious. The way Brian dealt with the uproar about Metal Magic’s ad (with the “orcs with the dorks” photo) in his “Members not allowed” column was simply fantastic.

GAMES PEOPLE PLAY

German games were covered regularly, not only by reviews but also providing in depth strategy articles. “Die Macher“, “Schoko &Co.” and other games were covered together with excellent strategy advice or variants. GI later decided to import German games to make them available in the UK via national mail order. Good for the German games industry but also a clear indication of the condition the British game market was in at the time.

The competition amongst the game mags in the UK must have been fierce as shown by the problems “Games Monthly” went through in 1989 and the quarrel between GI and “Games Review Monthly” in late 1989. Luckily, GI had decided early to not only address the UK market but to make the mag available in the US and Germany as well. Nevertheless, in 1989 GI had to realize that boardgaming was getting competition from a different direction altogether: computer games. So during what must have been a sort of self finding break the September issue of GI was skipped and appeared as Sep/Oct issue (#9) in October 1989 – containing the first articles on computer games. Consequently, the cover photo showed “Millennium 2.2” to clearly demonstrate the change.

CYBER HOUSE RULES

At the time I was just getting into computer games myself so this change was rather welcomed. In the summer 1990 I decided to buy my first PC – at a ridiculously high price compared to today’s standards – mainly because of Brian Walkers and Bruce Shelley’s coverage of the computer game “Railroad Tycoon” in GI issue #16 in July 1990 – take that as an example of the press influencing decisions.

While GI was still covering both boardgames and computer games a principle change in marketing strategy became visible when the August and September 1990 issues of GI were skipped and the mag’s October issue appeared under the new name “Strategy Plus” issue #1 with a clear focus on computer games. It took however another 9 months until Brian Walker decided to convert “Strategy Plus” into a computer games only magazine – issue #10 of SP was the last one with a boardgame section.

More changes followed course: from issue #18 SP was no longer printed in the UK but in the States, probably due to Brian Walker’s moving house to the United States. But things didn’t work out the way Brian had intended and hoped (see the interview below) and in the end the August 1993 issue (#33) of SP was the last with him as the editor. Following this SP dwindled into irrelevance – at least from my perspective.

NET ACT

So why do I write this article? GI was an excellent boardgaming mag which I liked very much and the demise of which I deplored a lot. So this is supposed to be a homage about the magazine. But there is more than just that. In the meantime the same has happened to another excellent boardgaming publication I had subscribed: “Pöppelrevue”. This indicates to me that the market for such publications is rather small probably because only die-hard boardgamers will spend money for game reviews, news and strategy articles. While the Internet was not around in the late 80’s it may well present an additional threat to printed boardgame magazines today. Reviews, session reports, strategies, variants and other articles are readily available on the Net – for free. And sites like ours may well expedite the end of printed game magazines. And what shall I read in bed when that happens?

 

TALKS WITH MR. WALKS

The following interview with Brian Walker, the former editor of Games International and Strategy Plus, was conducted via email in late December 2003.

WPG: Games International was launched in 1988. What was your main purpose to publish a magazine targeted at the serious gamer?

BW: My aim was to attract anyone with an interest in boardgames, serious or not.

WPG: You visited the “North Shore Gaming Club” in the U.S twice in 1988. Did these visits play a role in your decision to create GI?

BW: No, these visits were just for fun.

WPG: One of the unique selling points of GI was the focus on German style games. Wasn’t this a kind of risky marketing approach?

BW: I never really had a ‘marketing approach’. German games seemed to me to be the best around at that time so I gave them some coverage. It was very exciting on a personal level to discover these games, so I figured that if they excited me then they would the reader.

WPG: You made it possible to mail-order German games through the GI’s office. Do you regard yourself successful in bringing German games to Britain?

BW: This was a reader service; I don’t think ‘success’ is the right term. I’m happy that German games are now relatively widespread but it would be ludicrous for one person to take credit for this.

WPG: The second issue of GI appeared with over a month late. Were the GI launch date and the intended monthly issues kind of a false start, especially when considering that the next issues were published without a date on the cover?

BW: The conditions under which the first few issues were produced were really chaotic – I went through three production editors in the first three months. Paul Mason then joined up in that capacity and steadied the ship. I don’t think the ‘false start’ had any effect long term.

WPG: In issue #4 you mentioned that GI will be using Games Monthly’s distribution channels and that GM subscribers would receive 2 GI issues for free. What is the story behind that?

BW: Steve Nicholls of Games Monthly, didn’t want to continue publishing his mag, but also didn’t want to leave his subscribers high and dry. We met up and arranged what was a mutually beneficial deal. In the case of GI that meant using GM’s newsstand distributor that enabled us to have a bigger print run. In the event, we didn’t sell that many more copies.

WPG: Right from the start you covered American games through Alan R. Moon as your “American Desk”. Had it been your initial intention to market GI in Britain and the States?

BW: Alan Moon makes an excellent desk, but my intention was to market the mag to any country that would stock it. The US game shops did not take very many and US newsstands were out of the question. Most Americans at that time didn’t even realise that Germany had a games industry, so the content and the general tenor of the mag would have made no sense to them, as indeed it made no sense to many British readers.

WPG: GI not only was available in British game shops, also major stores in the United States carried it. Did you sell more copies in the States than in Britain?

BW: No, because it was available on some newsstands here as well as in game shops.

WPG: How successful was GI commercially?

BW: Not at all.

WPG: Can you share the size of the print run and number of subscribers GI had in 1989?

BW: I think we printed around 8000 and sold around 2000. We had in the region of 400 subscribers.

WPG: The September/October 1989 issue of GI had a new section “Computer Games”. Was GI running out of review material for boardgames?

BW: We never ran out of material for boardgames but we were always running out of cash.

WPG: After 16 issues of GI the name was changed to “Strategy Plus”, giving even more room to computer games. Why did you change the name of the magazine?

BW: It was part of a transition to computer games, as the realisation that a boardgames mag in the UK could never make money. On a personal level I also wanted to be part of a successful industry – this is not the description I would use for boardgames industry in the UK.

WPG: Issue 10 of Strategy Plus was the last to cover boardgames. Judging by the excellent articles about boardgames GI & SP had you must have had a lot of complaints from boardgamers. Right?

BW: Remarkably few. There were a few moans from predictable quarters but readers seemed very understanding about the difficulties the magazine faced. There were very few requests for the subscription refunds that I offered.

WPG: SP’s issue 33 (Aug. ’93) was the last one with you as the editor. What was the reason for you to leave SP?

BW: This was a terrible period for me. I was living in Vermont and loathing every minute of it. I discovered that my US partner was ripping off the mag by transferring profits to his other company. So there I was, finally producing a successful magazine in every sense and all he could do was steal. I even had to take him to court just to get the shares that I’d been promised. I managed to win an out-of-court settlement, part of the agreement of which was that I would never talk about any of this.

WPG: Let’s take a look at the media for boardgaming related review and information. Compared to 15 years ago we now see a lot of Internet sites, which publish game reviews on a regular basis. As all of these contents are provided for free, doesn’t this render printed game magazines obsolete?

BW: All magazines face a similar problem, if it can be called thus. A site like boardgamegeek is fantastic and provides a resource for the hobby that no print mag can compete with. However, a good editor will ensure that a magazine competes in areas that websites cannot reach. Had the internet been as prominent in GI’s days as it is now, I believed it would have helped the mag. I would have seen it as a friend, and not as competition. The real problem is that the market for a boardgames magazine is very limited, internet or not.

WPG: It appears that only recently you returned to boardgaming. Can you tell us something about your games related work in the last ten years?

BW: I’m afraid I joined the dark side and worked for a couple of computer game companies. I produced Championship Manager 2 and Stars! I co-designed and produced International Cricket Captain. These are all games that I’m proud to be associated with.

WPG: What do you think of the boardgames scene now.

BW: I think it’s wonderful, much better then when I was involved in it (surely a coincidence!). There are a lot of very good games and not just from Germany. I like what Bruno Faidutti is doing in France, and Martin Wallace in the UK. Best of all, it’s great to see Alan Moon getting the success he richly deserves. Any industry out of which the ‘desk’ can make a living has got to have something going for it.

WPG: Any boardgaming plans for the future?

BW: I’m working on a book on boardgames and am currently talking to publishers, but I’m not overly optimistic about getting a deal. I’m also trying to persuade some of the more serious newspapers here (in the UK) to give me a weekly column.

WPG: Any additional remarks you would like to add?

BW: As a postscript, I’d like to thanks any contributors to GI who may be reading this for their contributions in making the mag what it was, for better or worse. I just wish it was still around.

WPG: Brian, we’d like to thank you very much for the interview and wish you all the best for the future. We do hope to see more on boardgames from you soon. (Brian can be reached at Mr.walks@btopenworld.com)

 

This interview was carried out end of August 2004.

Let me commence this discourse with a confession: Whenever someone proposes to play a Risk-like game, I try to alter the proposal or I try to avoid that particular gaming session. I don’t like Risk-like games, and in my eyes they are closer to a waste of time than to an enjoyable game.

Before I shall try to expound my harsh words, I want to deliver a precise definition of what I call Risk-like game. A Risk-like game has its players control territorial entities on the board; players conquer regions from other players; the more regions a player controls, the better; to obtain additional strength, players need to conquer additional territory; to win the game, players need to meet certain goals which are either linked directly to territorial possessions or are made easier obtainable by territorial possessions (e. g., “occupy 18 regions with 2 armies each” or “exterminate the black armies”).

All basic risk-like games, no matter whether they are called Risk, Quest for the Dragon Lords, Mare Nostrum, Attack!, you-name-it, share some common vices:

1. The more a player conquers, the more powerful he grows. Thus he gets a double reward: More power within the game mechanics as well as more victory points (or other progress) towards the final victory. Conversely, if lose ground early, better forget that gaming evening.
2. Risk-like games necessitate a ganging-up-on-the-leader approach of gaming. In fact, if the leader reaches a critical mass, he wins. Therefore, the others simply have to attack together if they want to keep their own winning chances. Now, our gang of bloodhounds will quickly catch and overthrow the leader, but then, alas, there’s a new leader. This cycle recommences twice, three times, four times, and then the game is over. Someone was lucky enough to be leader at the right time. This is rarely predictable. Besides, not always do players react that rational (see 3, 4 and 5).
3. Gaming behavior is often too predictable. There are players on whose backstab you can count. I think I have never played Risk-like games without seeing one particular player betraying his supposed allies. There are other players of low aggression for whom the golden rule of gaming – winning isn’t everything – it’s the only thing – doesn’t apply. They never backstab even if they should while their allies are on their way to building up the critical mass. Woe on you if you aren’t that ally.
4. Grudges often have decisive effects. So the game might be decided because player A refuses to ally with player B against player C because player B took away a region from player A earlier. So player C wins. But is A to blame? In fact, otherwise B might have won. If I were player A, I would surely prefer to see player C win. If another person were player A, s/he might ally with B in order to keep C down; even this would mean certain victory for B. These players argue “that’s the strategy of Risk-like games, and that’s it”. I can only recommend one thing: If you are in a player B situation, be sure not to have wronged a player of my kind as player A.
5. Another issue might be peculiar to our WPG group since I haven’t encountered it elsewhere, at least not that vehemently. Risk-like games tend to envenom the atmosphere. Every player has his own specific policy to make the others do what is needed for him. I love to set player C on player D by expounding amiably all the treasures to be gathered by such a simple coup. Player D might object, as will surely another player who opposes setting up as a matter of principle. This makes Risk-like games unplayable in my opinion because then there is hardly anything left you can influence except very basic gaming mechanisms. Besides, what shall I do if player E is bound to win because player F doesn’t sense the danger if I am not allowed to warn (or influence, as you wish) player F? Another player’s way of playing Risk-like games is whining, whining, whining. Well, as far as I am personally concerned, I enjoy that. I share Jengis Khan’s sentiment that there’s nothing like the whining of your crushed enemies. But I dislike indeed if other, rather faint-hearted players avoid attacking that player for reasons of playing atmosphere.

To sum up: Risk-like games are problematic for intrinsic reasons. If you do know your fellow gamers and their probable reactions quite well, it’s worse. Sessions get outright boring. Risk-like games differ in the kind of resources players are supposed to conquer, in the way combats are resolved and in the goal to reach. But this is not enough to be enjoyable, at least not in my opinion. And perhaps the worst thing: Risk-like games tend to fill up a whole gaming session.

I don’t know of too many successful attempts to overcome the deficiencies of Risk-like games. Those I do know however belong to my all-time favorites.

There are first of the all the Britannia-like games. Britannia-like games have players to control peoples of different strength, different objectives, and different interests. The one player gains most of his victory points early in the game, the other one late. Every player shares common interests and common conflicts with any other player. If a player is especially successful with a certain people, this is of course helpful for winning the game. But there isn’t yet a definite decision. His powerful people will whither and fall, and we’ll see how he’ll do with the next one. Britannia-like games need extremely thorough playtesting because players should obviously have fair chances of winning. After 50+ games of Britannia, I can say that except for purple, chances are equal (at least there’s not much deviation for purple – this player can be very sure not to be last and will probably be second). Maharaja is a mere catastrophe. If I ever had bought this one, I would sue the company. I’ve played Hispania twice, and it looks quite well-balanced. I haven’t played Rus yet.

Britannia-like games reshuffle the deck (or recast the dice, whichever metaphor you prefer) every once in a while with the arrival of new peoples. This eliminates issues 1 and 3. You cannot win the game with one successful people, and alliances don’t last long enough for the sure backstab. Issue 2, ganging up on the leader, isn’t an issue either because normally you don’t quite know who’s leading (well, in Britannia, I would know because I know how many victory points at any given time is more than a fair share, but this knowledge cost me dozens of gaming sessions). Even issue 4 is somewhat alleviated. Players don’t stay neighbors all game long. There are several turns in which wounds have time to heal, and when a major aggression (aka Major Invasion) takes place, old enemies might find themselves fighting back against the new common threat.

There’s another, entirely different way of making a game of territorial conquest enjoyable. This is Empires of the Ancient World, a masterpiece of game design by Martin Wallace.

Empires of the Ancient World at first looks much more similar to a basic Risk-like game. No different peoples, no objective cards, same victory point conditions for everyone. Players like me find themselves quickly conquering and conquering. Alas, you will quickly notice that the more you conquer, the more onerous it gets. Well, you get victory points for the countries you conquer. You even get a very small reward in playing force. But ultimately, you have just much longer frontiers to guard with upset barbarian tribes (err fellow players) beyond. The more you entangle yourself in reinforcing the army, the more you will fall behind economically. In fact, you not only score by conquest but also by placing trade cubes. The trading cubes are not entirely separate from the conquest mechanism, but quite so. Brave conquerors will soon realize that other players simply score more with some trade and some conquest than by simply rushing with their armies to the end of the world. But as soon as you start to improve your trading position, your military conquests are bound to crumble.

I have once played Empires of the Ancient World with four other players. In the middle of the game, I had reduced two of them to one region each. Both of them found their way into the game again. I think I finished third, and one of my victims ranked second.

Empires of the Ancient World elegantly solves issue 1. This solves at the same time more or less issue 2, because leading is difficult per se, no need for ganging up accordingly. Issue 3 isn’t that much present either because peaceful characters can have their way and trade, thus avoiding conflict without toppling the game balance. In other words: If you have a non-aggressive player in Risk, this is bliss for his neighbors. S/he’s no threat; s/he is as good as non-present. In Empires of the Ancient World, our shy friend will trade, and successful trade is one way to win the game. So our non-aggressive friend is indeed a danger, perhaps not military but certainly economically and therefore in terms of victory points. So you have to cope with him, in one way or another. You can’t simply concentrate on the others.

Now, what about issue 4? There was this player who was reduced to one region at the middle of the game and ranked second at the end. This is unthinkable in a basic Risk-like game, and that’s why unceasingly pursuing the player who robbed you of all chances of victory is comprehensible, yes indeed sensible (for reasons of deterrence). In Empires of the Ancient World however it is worthwhile to forget about past grudges since you keep your chance of winning; better concentrate on ranking first in the end. This solves issue 4 if the players are cool-blooded and not that much emotional.

Neither Britannia-like games nor Empires of the Ancient World solve issue 5. I therefore discourage playing them or any other Risk-related game with players whose playing behavior you cannot accept or who object to your playing behavior.

Günther Rosenbaum

Mäxchen  und Bluff(von Richard Borg, FX Schmid, 1993)/Liars Dice(MB, 1974) sind bekannte Würfelspiele. Mäxchen habe ich schon als Jugendlicher gespielt und Bluff/Liar´s Dice ist auch heute an geselligen Spieleabenden immer wieder auf dem Tisch.

In der amerikanischen mathematischen Literatur findet man auch Analysen des Spieles Liar´s Dice – aber Vorsicht – hier ist das bei uns unter dem Namen Mäxchen (oder Meier) bekannte Spiel gemeint. Literatur über Bluff habe ich nicht gefunden.

In unseren Spielrunden kommt immer wieder mal die Diskussion hoch, welches denn nun die beste Strategie im Endspiel bei Bluff wäre und der eine oder andere behauptet dann auch mal inbrünstig, dieses oder jenes Verhalten wäre das optimale!

Den (mathematischen) Beweis schuldig geblieben sind bisher jedoch alle – und auch eine plausible, einfache Strategie hat bisher noch keiner angegeben!

Gerade wegen dieser angeregten Diskussionen stellt sich dem ingefleischten Spielefreak da natürlich die Frage nach einer optimalen Strategie für diese Spiele. Diese ist leider nicht so einfach zu finden – die Theorie bestätigt uns hier allerdings zumindest die Existenz einer solchen (gemischten) optimalen Strategie für 2 Personen.

Daher betrachten wir hier zuerst mal eine vereinfachte Version des Spieles Mäxchen – Mini-Mäxchen für 2 Personen:

Es wird mit einem Würfel gespielt. Spieler 1 würfelt verdeckt, sagt eine Würfelzahl an und behauptet, dass er mindestens diese Zahl gewürfelt hat.

1. a) Spieler 2 kann dieses anzweifeln – in diesem Fall wird aufgedeckt und falls die behauptete Zahl größer als die gewürfelte Zahl ist gewinnt Spieler 2 ansonsten Spieler 1.
2. b) Spieler 2 kann diese Behauptung auch glauben – dann muss er erneut Würfeln und einen höheren Wert behaupten. Spieler 1 kann dann wieder glauben oder anzweifeln, u.s.w.

Dieses Spiel sieht sehr einfach aus – trotzdem ist die optimale Strategie nicht trivial.

Zu beachten ist hierbei, dass das Spiel ja das Zufallselement „Würfel“ beinhaltet – wir können (im Allgemeinen) also keine Strategie angeben mit der wir immer gewinnen. Stattdessen suchen wir eine Strategie, bei welcher wir bei häufiger Wiederholung des Spieles möglichst oft gewinnen!

Zuerst betrachten wir folgende (nicht optimale, aber einfache) Strategie:

Spieler 1: Sagt in der ersten Runde immer die Wahrheit und zweifelt bei einer Folgerunde immer an.

Spieler 2: Glaubt die Behauptung von Spieler 1 immer (außer die 6) und versucht besser zu würfeln.

Analyse:

Was ist die optimale Gegenstrategie für Spieler 2?

Da Spieler 1 immer die Wahrheit sagt, braucht Spieler2&xnbsp; also nie anzuzweifeln; da Spieler 1 in der zweiten Runde immer anzweifelt/aufdeckt, ist die Gewinnwahrscheinlichkeit für Spieler 2: {Spieler1 sagt 1 und Spieler 2 würfelt 2..6} + {Spieler 1 sagt 2 und Spieler 2 würfelt 3..6} + … = 1/6 * {5/6 + 4/6 + 3/6 + 2/6 + 1/6 + 0} = 15/36 .

Spieler 1 hat also eine Gewinnwahrscheinlichkeit von mindestens 21/36!

Was ist nun die optimale Gegenstrategie für Spieler 1?

Da Spieler 2 ja immer alles glaubt (außer die 6), ist es für Spieler 1 natürlich das Beste, die Chancen für das Nachwürfeln des Spielers 2 zu minimieren – er behauptet also bei 1..5 immer, mindestens eine 5 gewürfelt zu haben. Spieler 2 kann nun mit 1/6 Wahrscheinlichkeit noch eine 6 würfeln und gewinnen. Spieler 1 gewinnt also mit Wahrscheinlichkeit von höchstens 1/6 * (5 * 5/6 +1) = 31/36!

Ergebnis:

Wir sehen, die Strategie von Spieler 2 ist die optimale Gegenstrategie zu Spieler 1 aber nicht umgekehrt! Die beiden Strategien stehen also nicht im gegenseitigen Gleichgewicht zueinander – sie sind also nicht optimal!

Nun zur optimalen Strategie:

Spieler 1 gewinnt mit Wahrscheinlichkeit 41/60 (=Wert des Spieles).

Strategie Spieler 1:

Wurf 1 -> er behauptet 3 bzw. 4 bzw. 5 mit den Wahrscheinlichkeiten 3/10, 5/10, 2/10.

(d.h. bei 1 lügt er immer!)

Wurf 2 -> er behauptet 2 bzw. 3 mit den Wahrscheinlichkeiten 3/10, 7/10

Wurf 3, 4, 5, 6 -> er sagt die Wahrheit

In der zweiten Runde zweifelt Spieler 1 alles an!

Strategie Spieler 2:

Vorgabe 1 oder 2 ->  immer glauben und nachwürfeln

Vorgabe 3  -> mit 1/3 Wahrscheinlichkeit anzweifeln, sonst glauben

Vorgabe 4-> mit 1/2 Wahrscheinlichkeit anzweifeln, sonst glauben

Vorgabe 5 -> mit 3/5 Wahrscheinlichkeit anzweifeln, sonst glauben

Vorgabe 6 -> immer anzweifeln

Falls Spieler 2 glaubt und nachwürfelt, so sagt er dann die nachgewürfelte Zahl an, sofern diese genügend hoch ist. Andernfalls erhöht er das Gebot des Vorgängers um 1.

In einer zweiten Runde zweifelt Spieler 2 alles an!

Beweis:

1) Wir nehmen jetzt an, Spieler 1 nutzt die angegebene Strategie und wir suchen jetzt die optimale Gegenstrategie.

1. a)Wenn Spieler 2 die 6 hört, dann hat Spieler1 auch die 6 und Spieler 2 verliert beim zweifeln.
2. b)Spieler 2 hört als Ansage die 5. Die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass Spieler 1 wirklich die 5 hat ist P(Spieler1 hat 5 | Spieler 1 sagt 5)
   = P(Spieler 1 hat 5 und sagt 5)/P(Spieler 1 sagt 5)
   = (1/6 ) / (1/6 + 1/6 * 2/10)
   = (1/6) / (1/5)
   = 5/6
   Wenn Spieler 2 anzweifelt, so gewinnt er also mit Wahrscheinlichkeit 1/6;
   glaubt Spieler 2 das Gebot von 5, so kann er noch mit Wahrscheinlichkeit 1/6 eine 6 nachwürfeln und gewinnen. Beide Wahlmöglichkeiten sind für Spieler 2 gleich schlecht – dieses Prinzip der „Indifferenz“ zwischen den sinnvollen Wahlmöglichkeiten ist charakteristisch für optimale Strategien!
3. c)Spieler 2 hört als Ansage die 4. Die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass Spieler 1 wirklich die 4 hat ist
   P(Spieler1 hat 4 | Spieler 1 sagt 4)
   = P(Spieler 1 hat 4 und sagt 4)/P(Spieler 1 sagt 4)
   = (1/6) / ( 1/6 + 1/6 * ½) = (1/6) / (1/4)
   = 2/3
   Wenn Spieler 2 anzweifelt, so gewinnt er also mit Wahrscheinlichkeit 1/3;
   glaubt Spieler 2 das Gebot von 4, so kann er noch mit Wahrscheinlichkeit 1/3 eine 5 oder 6 nachwürfeln und gewinnen – denn Spieler 1 wird auf jeden Fall anzweifeln und ein Bluffen wird also nicht wirken.
4. d)Spieler 2 hört als Ansage die 3. Die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass Spieler 1 wirklich die 3 hat ist
   P(Spieler1 hat 3 | Spieler 1 sagt 3)
   = P(Spieler 1 hat 3 und sagt 3)/P(Spieler 1 sagt 3)
   = (1/6) / ( 1/6 + 1/6 * 3/10 + 1/6 * 7/10) = (1/6) / (1/3)
   = 1/2
   Wenn Spieler 2 anzweifelt, so gewinnt er also mit Wahrscheinlichkeit 1/2;
   glaubt Spieler 2 das Gebot von 3, so kann er noch mit Wahrscheinlichkeit 1/2 eine 4, 5 oder 6 nachwürfeln und gewinnen.
5. e)Spieler 2 hört als Ansage die 2. Spieler 1 sagt also die Wahrheit, Spieler 2 glaubt und würfelt mit Wahrscheinlichkeit 2/3 etwas Besseres.
6. f)Die Ansage 1 wird von Spieler 1 nie angesagt.
7. g)Was ist nun die Gewinnwahrscheinlichkeit von Spieler 1 bei optimaler Gegenstrategie von Spieler 2?
   Hört Spieler 2 eine Ansage von 3 bis 6 von Spieler 1, so können wir annehmen, dass Spieler 2 anzweifelt, da er ja gleich hohe Gewinnwahrscheinlichkeiten beim Zweifeln und Glauben hat. Spieler 1 gewinnt also, wenn er 3 .. 6 sagt und nicht gelogen hat.
   Dies ist genau dann der Fall, wenn er 3, 4, 5 oder 6 gewürfelt hat (Wahrscheinlichkeit 2/3).
   Zusätzlich ist noch der Fall zu betrachten, dass Spieler 1 eine 2 würfelt (1/6) und auch eine 2 ansagt (3/10) und dann noch Spieler 2 nichts besseres würfelt (1/3).
   Also ist die Gewinnwahrscheinlichkeit für Spieler 1 mindestens
   = 2/3 + 1/6 * 3/10 * 1/3 = 2/3 + 1/60 = 41/60 !!

2) Als zweites nehmen wir jetzt an, Spieler 2 nutzt die angegebene Strategie und wir suchen jetzt die optimale Gegenstrategie von Spieler 1. (D.h. wir suchen die maximale Gewinnwahrscheinlichkeit von Spieler 1.)

2. a)Nehmen wir an, Spieler 1 wirft eine 1 oder 2.
   Blufft er und sagt eine 3, 4 oder 5 an, so gewinnt er, wenn Spieler 2 dies glaubt und nichts besseres würfelt, also mit Wahrscheinlichkeiten
   (bei 3): 2/3 * ½ = 1/3
   (bei 4): ½ * 2/3 = 1/3
   (bei 5): 2/5 * 5/6 = 1/3
   Bei einer Ansage von 6 würde er sofort verlieren und auch eine Ansage von 1 ist mit einer Gewinnwahrscheinlichkeit von 1/6 für Spieler 1 nicht sinnvoll.
   Was geschieht jetzt noch bei einer Ansage von 2?
   Spieler 2 glaubt diese und würfelt nach – womit Spieler 1 wiederum mit Wahrscheinlichkeit 1/3 gewinnt.
   Auch hier ist also wieder das Prinzip der Indifferenz zu beobachten!
   Spieler 1 gewinnt hierbei also bestenfalls mit Wahrscheinlichkeit 1/3.
3. b)Nehmen wir an, Spieler 1 wirft eine 3.
   – Würde er mit einer 1 oder 2 bluffen, so gewinnt er nur mit 1/6 oder 1/3 Wahrscheinlichkeit.
   – Sagt er die Wahrheit – also die 3 – an, so gewinnt er, falls Spieler 2 anzweifelt oder wenn Spieler 2 glaubt und nichts Besseres würfelt.
   Er gewinnt also mit Wahrscheinlichkeit 1/3 + 2/3 * ½ = 2/3.
   – Blufft er mit 4, so gewinnt er nur, wenn Spieler 2 dieses glaubt und nichts besseres würfelt; also mit Wahrscheinlichkeit ½ * 2/3 = 1/3
   – Blufft er mit 5 so gewinnt er mit Wahrscheinlichkeit 2/5 * 5/6 = 1/3
   – Blufft er mit 6, so verliert er immer.
   Also: Die beste Strategie ist hier, die Wahrheit zu sagen mit einer Gewinnwahrscheinlichkeit 2/3!!
4. c)Nehmen wir an, Spieler 1 wirft eine 4.
   Wie unter b) sieht man wieder, dass man auch jetzt am besten die Wahrheit sagt mit einer Gewinnwahrscheinlichkeit von ½ + ½ * 2/3 = 5/6
5. d)Nehmen wir an, Spieler 1 wirft eine 5.
   Wie unter b) sieht man wieder, dass man auch jetzt am besten die Wahrheit sagt mit einer Gewinnwahrscheinlichkeit von 3/5 + 2/5 * 5/6 = 14/15
6. e)Wirft Spieler1 eine 6, so gewinnt er sicher wenn er diese auch ansagt.
7. f)Mit welcher Wahrscheinlichkeit kann Spieler 1 also höchstens gewinnen bei der vorgegebenen Strategie von Spieler 2?
   Wie oben berechnet erhalten wir
   1/6 * ( 1/3 + 1/3 + 2/3 + 5/6 + 14/15 + 1)
   = 1/6 * (10/30 + 10/30 + 20/30 + 25/30 + 28/30 + 30/30)
   = 1/6 * (123/30)
   = 123/180 = 41/60

3) Die beiden beschriebenen Strategien für Spieler 1 und 2 sind also optimal im Sinne des Minimax Theorems der Spieltheorie und der Spielwert des Spieles beträgt 41/60.
Spieler 1 gewinnt also bei Anwendung der vorgegebenen Strategie mit einer Wahrscheinlichkeit von mindestens 41/60 und Spieler 2 verliert höchstens mit einer Wahrscheinlichkeit von 41/60 bei Anwendung seiner optimalen Strategie!

Nachdem wir oben gesehen haben, dass selbst das sehr einfache Minimäxchen schon eine komplizierte optimale Strategie besitzt, betrachten wir nun das Spiel Bluff/Liar´s Dice und versuchen uns der optimalen Strategie des Endspieles bei Bluff (2 Personen mit je einem Würfel) langsam zu nähern…

Daher betrachten wir hier zuerst mal eine vereinfachte Version des Spieles Bluff –

Micro-Bluff/Micro Liars Dice für 2 Personen:

Es wird mit je&xnbsp; einem Würfel pro Spieler gespielt. Beide Spieler würfeln verdeckt, Spieler 1&xnbsp;&xnbsp; sagt eine Würfelzahl und eine Häufigkeit an&xnbsp; und behauptet, dass beide Spieler gemeinsam diese Zahl in mindestens dieser Häufigkeit gewürfelt haben.

1. a) Spieler 2 kann dieses anzweifeln – in diesem Fall wird aufgedeckt und falls die Behauptung falsch war gewinnt Spieler 2 ansonsten Spieler 1.
2. b) Spieler 2 kann diese Behauptung auch glauben und das Gebot erhöhen – dann muss er(ohne erneutes Würfeln) eine höhere Würfelzahl bei gleicher Häufigkeit oder eine beliebige Würfelzahl mit höherer Häufigkeit behaupten. Spieler 1 kann dann wieder glauben oder anzweifeln, u.s.w.
3. c) Falls auf dem Würfel auch ein Stern vorhanden ist, gilt dieser als höchste Zahl und als Joker für jede andere Zahl. Die Ordnung der Gebote ist dann so, dass direkt vor 2k Einsen das Gebot von k Sternen einzuordnen ist.

Nano Liars Dice (I):

Mit Würfel W6 und den Geboten 1<2<3<4<5<6 , also ohne Pasch und ohne Stern!

Optimale Strategie(für Nano Liars Dice (I)):

Spieler 1 gewinnt mit Wahrscheinlichkeit 7/12&xnbsp; (=Wert des Spieles).

Strategie Spieler 1:

Spieler 1 sagt immer die gewürfelte Zahl an, also die Wahrheit.

In 2-ter Runde immer anzweifeln!

Strategie Spieler 2:

Ist der eigene Wurf von Spieler 2 höher als die Ansage von Spieler 1,&xnbsp; dann erhöht er auf die gewürfelte Zahl;&xnbsp; ansonsten zweifelt er an.

In 2-ter Runde immer anzweifeln!

Analyse/Beweis:

1. a)Wir nehmen jetzt an, Spieler 1 nutzt die angegebene Strategie und wir suchen jetzt die optimale Gegenstrategie. (zu beachten ist hier, dass Spieler 1 ja in der zweiten Runde immer anzweifelt).
2. b)Wenn Spieler 2 die 6 hört, dann hat Spieler1 auch die 6 und Spieler 2 verliert beim Zweifeln.
3. c)Spieler 2 hört als Ansage ein x mit x=1,2,3,4 oder 5. Spieler 1 sagt immer die Wahrheit und zweifelt in der 2-ten Runde. Anzweifeln macht also keinen Sinn und Bluffen auch nicht. Also gewinnt Spieler 2 genau dann, wenn er besser als die Ansage von Spieler 1 gewürfelt hat und dieses dann ansagt!
   Bei einer Ansage von x gewinnt Spieler 2 also mit Wahrscheinlichkeit (6-x)/6, wohingegen Spieler 1 mit Wahrscheinlichkeit x/6 gewinnt.
4. d)Was ist nun die Gewinnwahrscheinlichkeit von Spieler 1 bei optimaler Gegenstrategie von Spieler 2?
   (Spieler 2 hört 6&xnbsp; + Spieler 2 hört 5 und verliert + Spieler 2 hört 4 und verliert + ….)
   P(Spieler 1 gewinnt) = 1/6 * (1 + 5/6 + 4/6 + 3/6 + 2/6 + 1/6) = 21/36 = 7/12 .

2) Als zweites nehmen wir jetzt an, Spieler 2 nutzt die angegebene Strategie und wir suchen jetzt die optimale Gegenstrategie von Spieler 1. (D.h. wir suchen die maximale Gewinnwahrscheinlichkeit von Spieler 1.) Beachte: Spieler 2 zweifelt in der 2-ten Runde immer an!

1. a)Spieler 1 kann hier prinzipiell auch bluffen. Nehmen wir an, Spieler 1 blufft mit einer Ansage y < x , wenn er x gewürfelt hat.
   => Spieler 2 habe a gewürfelt; nach seiner Strategie gilt:
   (I)&xnbsp;&xnbsp;&xnbsp;&xnbsp; a < y&xnbsp; , Spieler 2 zweifelt . Spieler 1 verliert (außer, wenn a = y)
   (II)&xnbsp;&xnbsp; y < a < x , Spieler 2 glaubt und behauptet a. Spieler 1 erhöht auf x und gewinnt.
   (III) a > x , Spieler 2 glaubt und behauptet a. Spieler 1 verliert.
   Hätte Spieler 1 nicht geblufft und gleich x behauptet, so hätte er im Fall (I) immer gewonnen, im Fall (II) genauso gewonnen und im Fall (III) noch bei a = x gewonnen.
   In allen Fällen wäre er also ohne Bluff („tiefstapeln“) besser gewesen !
   Da wir die optimale Gegenstrategie für Spieler 1 suchen, brauchen wir also den Fall, dass wir eine kleinere Zahl ansagen als wir gewürfelt haben, nicht mehr zu betrachten!
2. b)Wir nehmen an, Spieler 1 hat x gewürfelt und y > x angesagt. Spieler 2 hat a gewürfelt.
   Ist a = y (Wahrscheinlichkeit 1/6), so gewinnt Spieler 1.
   Ist a < y (Wahrscheinlichkeit (y-1)/6 ), so gewinnt Spieler 1, falls er nicht gelogen hat.(Falls er gelogen hat, also y > x, so würde ein Bluff mit y+1 sofort erkannt werden, da Spieler 2 in der zweiten Runde ja immer anzweifelt. Hier benötigen wir Aussage a), denn bei y < x wäre eine Erhöhung auf x möglich).
   Ist a > y, so gewinnt Spieler 2, da ja Spieler 1 wegen y > x nicht mehr ohne zu bluffen erhöhen kann!
   Mit P(a | b) = P(a und b) / P(b) erhalten wir also:
   P(Spieler 1 gewinnt) =
   = P(Spieler 1 sagt 1) * ( 1/6 ) +
   + P(Spieler 1 sagt 2) * ( 1/6 + (2-1)/6 *P(Spieler 1 hat 2 | Spieler 1 sagt 2) )
   +…+ P(Spieler 1 sagt 6) * (1/6 + (6-1)/6 * P(Spieler 1 hat 6 | Spieler 1 sagt 6) )
   = 1/6 * ( P(Spieler 1 sagt 1) + …+ P(Spieler 1 sagt 6) ) +
   + 1/6 * P(Spieler 1 hat 2 und sagt 2) + 2/6 * P(Spieler 1 hat 3 und sagt 3)+
   + … + 5/6 * P(Spieler 1 hat 6 und sagt 6)
   = 1/6 * ( 1 ) + 1/6 * P(Spieler 1 hat 2 und sagt 2) +
   + 2/6 * P(Spieler 1 hat 3 und sagt 3) +…+ 5/6 * P(Spieler 1 hat 6 und sagt 6)

Nun ist&xnbsp; P(Spieler 1 hat y und sagt y) < P(Spieler 1 hat y) = 1/6.
Damit erhalten wir
P(Spieler 1 gewinnt) <
< 1/6 + 1/6 * 1/6 + 2/6 * 1/6 + … + 5/6 * 1/6
= 1/36 * (1 +2 +3 + 4 +5 + 6) = 7/12.
Die optimale Gegenstrategie von Spieler 1 gewinnt also mit einer Wahrscheinlichkeit von höchstens 7/12; wenn Spieler 1 bei einem Wurf von 2 bis 6 immer die Wahrheit sagt, so erreicht er diese 7/12 auch!

3) Die beiden beschriebenen Strategien für Spieler 1 und 2 sind also wieder optimal im Sinne des Minimax Theorems der Spieltheorie und der Spielwert des Spieles beträgt 7/12!

Bemerkung:
Der Spielwert des Spieles ist 7/12 und eindeutig; die optimalen Strategien sind im Allgemeinen nicht eindeutig!
Z.B. kann Spieler 1 im obigen Beispiel beim Wurf einer 1 auch jeden anderen Wert ansagen;
oder auch mit Wahrscheinlichkeiten 0,7 und 0,3 die Werte 3 und 4 ansagen . Seine Gewinnwahrscheinlichkeit bleibt weiterhin 7/12 bei optimalem Gegenspiel von Spieler 2!
Spieler 2 kann seine Strategie noch dahingehend verbessern, dass er auf nicht optimales Spiel seines Gegners reagiert – z.B. im Fall, dass er genau die Ansage seines Gegners auch gewürfelt hat (und damit beim Zweifeln automatisch verliert), kann er bluffen, die Ansage erhöhen und hoffen, dass sein Gegner nicht anzweifelt !

Nano Liars Dice (II):

Mit Würfel Wn und den Geboten 1<2< … < n-1 < n , also mit einem n-seitigen Würfel und ohne Pasch und ohne Stern!

Optimale Strategie(für Nano Liars Dice (II)):

Spieler 1 gewinnt mit Wahrscheinlichkeit ½ + 1/(2n) (=Wert des Spieles).

Strategie Spieler 1:

Spieler 1 sagt immer die gewürfelte Zahl an, also die Wahrheit.

In 2-ter Runde immer anzweifeln!

Strategie Spieler 2:

Ist der eigene Wurf von Spieler 2 höher als die Ansage von Spieler 1,&xnbsp; dann erhöht er auf die gewürfelte Zahl; ansonsten zweifelt er an.

In 2-ter Runde immer anzweifeln! 

Beweis:

Der Beweis ist identisch zu Nano Liars Dice (I).

Der Spielwert berechnet sich aus

(1/n^{2) *} (n + (n-1) + … + 1) =

= (1/n^{2) *} (n + 1) * (n/2)

= (1/n^{2) *} (n²/2&xnbsp; + n/2)

= ½ + 1/(2n)

Bemerkung:

Würde man noch den „Stern“ zulassen, als höchste Zahl – aber auch als Joker, so ändert sich die Strategie nicht. Würfelt jemand den Stern, so würde man diesen sofort ansagen und gewinnen.

Nano Liars Dice (III):

Mit Würfel W6 und den Geboten 1<2<3<4<5<6<11<22<33<44<55<66, also mit Pasch aber ohne Stern!

Wie ändern sich nun die Strategien der Spieler?

Hier ein paar Vorüberlegungen:

Kann Spieler 1 schon einen Pasch vorhersagen in seiner ersten Runde?

Wenn Spieler 1 eine 1 gewürfelt hat, dann könnte er 11 (Pasch 1) ansagen (und sich damit seine Gewinnwahrscheinlichkeit von 1/6 nach einer geworfenen 1 bewahren) – aber in allen anderen Fällen würde er sich seine Gewinnwahrscheinlichkeit ja auf 1/6 reduzieren!

Das Einführen des Pasches ist also wohl ein Vorteil für Spieler 2.

Allenfalls, wenn Spieler 1 in der ersten Runde „tiefstapelt“, könnte er in der zweiten Runde sinnvoller weise auf einen Pasch erhöhen.

Wie reagiert man, wenn der Gegner einen Pasch angesagt hat?

Wenn die Ansage falsch ist, so kann man ruhig anzweifeln – wenn die Ansage richtig ist, so kann man sowieso nicht mehr erhöhen und damit auch gleich anzweifeln.

Also: Ein vom Gegner angesagter Pasch sollte sofort angezweifelt werden.

Beispiel:

Spieler 1 sagt 6 an.

5. a)Spieler 2 würfelt a zwischen 1 und 5.
   Er kann Anzweifeln oder Pasch a ansagen. Will er aber bei Pasch a gewinnen, so müsste Spieler 1 auch ein a<6 gewürfelt haben und hätte somit bei der Ansage von 6 auch gelogen. Damit sollte Spieler 2 also direkt anzweifeln
6. b)Spieler 2 würfelt auch eine 6.
   Wenn er Anzweifelt, so hätte er verloren. Also kann er genauso gut gleich Pasch 6 ansagen und gewinnt, falls Spieler 1 nicht gelogen hat.

Korrekturen, Anregungen und insbesondere weiterführende Vermutungen und Lösungen werden gerne entgegengenommen!

Literatur:

 Ferguson, Thomas. S.: Game Theory. Class notes for Math 167, Fall 2000

Models for the game of Liar´s dice.
Stochastic games and related topics. In honor of Prof. L. S. Shapley, Proc. Workshop, Chicago/IL (USA) 1987, Theory Decis. Libr., Ser. C 7, 15-28 (1991).

The tactics of liar dice.
R. Stat. Soc.,Ser.C 38, No.3, 507-516 (1989). [ISSN 0035-9254]

Ponssard, Jean-Pierre; Sorin, Sylvain: Optimal behavior strategies in 0-sum games with almost perfect information.
Math. Oper. Res. 7, 14-31 (1982). [ISSN 0364-765X]

About random elements in games

It’s been a number of times that our group entered into a discussion about the amount of luck that is involved in a particular game and whether an element of luck is good or bad for a game. Our recent experience with “Roaring 20’s” triggered me to write this article. First of all I want to take a look at the various kinds of “luck” that may have an influence of the outcome of the game.

An often used element of luck introduced in games by the designers is that of rolling dice. Here, the designer explicitly decided that some kind of non-deterministic element will enrich the game. Very often this concept is implemented in order to reflect real life situations where the probabilities of events are not 1 (i.e. 100%). Good examples are role-playing games or military simulations.

In other games dice rolling is used as a main feature of the game. Good examples here are “Can’t Stop” or “Liars Dice/Bluff“. In these games dice suit the purpose to introduce a kind of uncertainty in order to create challenges and suspense in the game.

Dice in these games introduce a probabilistic factor which can be calculated using straight forward math. For any given game situation all players are able to calculate their chances of a “good” roll. Since we are dealing with probability rather than certainty there is of course a risk involved: it’s either good or bad luck what you rolled…

The concept of probabilities can be implemented in as simple a way as flipping a coin: there’s a 50% chance that it will show your choice. A small extension can make this mechanism far more interesting and challenging: “Rock, Paper, Scissors”. The probability of success still is 50% in a single throw but the whole thing provides a lot more suspense than just flipping a coin. First of all both players have to select between three rather than two choices. And then there is the additional possibility for an extended game: by throwing several times (say 10) and counting victory points for every throw players are tricked into believing that there may be some strategy that can be applied for improving one’s overall chances. By the way, a nice site with lots of details on RPS is http://www.worldrps.com/. Games like “Can’t Stop” and “Liars Dice/Bluff” have brought the concept of probabilities to near perfection by adding psychological effects like greed (Can’t Stop) or bluff (Liars Dice) into the designs.

Another very common element for adding probabilities to a game design is a deck of cards. Cards provide game designers with unlimited possibilities for their designs. Considering a deck of say 52 different cards the probability of drawing a particular card is now also dependent on the cards known to be in play. In addition, players usually have a hand of more than one card providing them with a choice of which card to play. Probabilities still can and must be calculated, but the calculation is somewhat more complex than it is for dice.

Be it cards or dice, there are games which simply are fun to play although players are not or not fully in control of their chances to win. In my opinion these games all have single characteristics: they are very well balanced and they provide a “feeling of being in control”. “6 nimmt/Take 6” for cards and “Can’t Stop” for dice are perfect examples. Unbalanced games usually have a very uneven distribution of winning combinations, i.e. there are cards/dice rolls which lead to certain victory or defeat. Situations like this make players feel that they are being played by the game rather than that they play the game, since their fate is completely dependent on that “lucky draw/roll”. A good example of an unbalanced deck of cards in a game is “Roaring 20’s”, which we reviewed recently.

Then there is a completely different set of luck elements that can be present in a game. A name for this set could be “player interactions” and the most important elements of the set are: seating order and start player, players’ gaming experience and skills and last but not least players’ diplomacy skills (like bluffing, negotiating, whining).

All of these elements add the possibility of introducing random effects into the game which are in many cases hard to predict and often not easily taken care of.

Seating order and start player usually is determined randomly either by the gaming group themselves or by some means the game designer has defined. The mere fact that there is some randomness involved in determining both does not mean that seating order or start player position introduces any kind of luck element on their own. But in combination with the other two elements of the set does seating order pose a great potential for randomness of the game result in any game with more than two players.

To clarify the point let’s look at an example. Assume the game group plays a four player game and the player sitting behind you is a novice to the game. In this scenario any blunder made by the novice most like will be to the benefit of the player seated behind him rather then to you, simply because two other players will have the chance to react to the blunder before it’s your turn again. So the random (luck) element in this situation is whether or not the player you are leading is going to make a blunder and whether or not the two players leading you will be able to exploit it. This situation is what Walter quite rightly termed the “chaos element” in a game. There is no way to determine the exact probability of a blunder. And even if there would be it is not really advisable to take the possibility of blunders into consideration as undoubtedly you will not play to your best ability. If you do and the blunder is not made your turns are suboptimal just as well as if you don’t and the blunder occurs. This leaves you with a 50% chance of a suboptimal turn while the two players leading you have a 100% chance to exploit the blunder.

I dare to say that most gaming groups are inhomogeneous in terms of skill and experience regarding a particular game and therefore this situation will arise often enough to need seriously consideration by game designers because it is almost impossible to devise a sound strategy for it.

A second source of randomness due to player interactions is diplomacy in its widest definition. If and when a player decides to whine about a bad move or position just to convince other players to play less offensive towards him is totally beyond the control of the other players – just as well as the results of this on one’s own position in the game. Threats, bluffs or “gentlemen agreements” raised by a player against others cannot be planned for either and they just as well generate a random, chaotic element in a game.

In my opinion good games (designers) will take these factors into account when designing a game and in fact the introduction of clear rules regarding player interactions is a prerequisite to make sure that the game is played as intended. On top of this, game designers often will deliberately introduce random event in there designs to lessen the random effects of player interactions.

In conclusion let me summarize:

• There is a random (luck) element inherent in any game: player interaction.
• In multiplayer games player interaction can result in chaotic game scenarios.
• Random (luck) elements incorporated in the game (like dice, cards, etc.) are in themselves not bad for devising a winning strategy as long as the probabilities are clearand the effects balanced.
• Random (luck) elements can help to alleviate possible adverse effects of player interaction.

Games Workshop founders Steve Jackson & Ian Livingstone talk to chief snoop Brian Walker

‘No sooner do I move to Spain for a bit of peace and quiet than I start receiving unsolicited mail’ – Ian Livingstone upon receiving the first issue of GI.

A few weeks later, however, Ian had relented sufficiently to invite me out to his alleged tax haven for a few days, ostensibly to talk about Games Workshop past, present and future. Ian also hinted that were I to bring out a few of the games reviewed in this very magazine and more importantly, explain how to play them (he hates reading rulebooks), then my presence would be doubly welcome.

And so, never being one to refuse the opportunity of an expense account holiday in the winter sun, the flight was booked with the sort of haste that might be described as indecent.

BLOCK MANIA

Three weeks later it’s touchdown time at Murcia airport. Loaded up with games, Tee Shirts, and enough sun tan lotion to create a major oil slick, I prepare myself for a few days of sol y sombra.

Brrrr. The locals said it couldn’t happen. The ex-pats were already reconsidering their ‘place in the sun’. For the first time in 25 years there was a hailstorm, which left a white sheen on the surrounding countryside entirely inappropriate both to the adjacent Mediterranean, and my attire.

Murcia is in the south east of Spain about 100km from Alicante. The style of the place can be best summed up by the disparaging phrase used by Madrilenos when your presence is no longer required: Vete a Murcia (go to Murcia).

Nevertheless, the city is a veritable metropolis to the residents of the La Manga club, located some 40km to the south. This ex-pat paradise is the unlikely setting for the new abode of Ian Livingstone and Steve Jackson, founders of Games Workshop, the company that everybody loves to hate, and in terms of complementary talents, the best double act since Morecambe and Wise.

Ian meets me at the airport in one of those funny white sports cars with a luggage rack sticking out of the back. Like everybody in Spain except the Spaniards he looks disgustingly healthy. He’s definitely not only here for the beer, or the golf, or the tennis, or even the sailing.

Before we can get down to the nitty gritty it’s back to the brave new Legoworld that is La Manga, and the club Ian and Steve now call home.

ROGUE SNOOPER

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, least of all a happy-go-lucky tax exile. ‘So just who are you running away from?’ I demand to know. ‘The Inland Revenue I presume, Mr Livingstone?’ ‘Tax was a consideration, but not the main reason,’ he admits, politely refraining from crowning me with a bowl of paella. ‘Basically we’d worked our balls off since 1975 and needed a break. Steve is involved with writing the scenarios for F.I.S.T. (Fantasy Interactive Scenarios by Telephone) while I’m enjoying the fruits of my labour, I suppose you could say.’

One of these fruits is golf, for which opportunities abound on the adjacent course. One of the highlights of my stay was watching Ian getting rubbished by his tutor Vincente Ballesteros (Steve’s brother): ‘Why don’t you hit the ball… I can do nothing with you, nothing,’ complains the not so smarter brother.

When he’s not worrying about his handicap, or his weight, Ian, surprise, surprise, has taken to designing games.

Indeed, my arrival coincided with the birth of a little beauty, the details of which shall remain secret. Suffice to say that it contains no spiky bits and will not therefore be published by you-know-who. Ian is quick to distinguish between his own personal taste and what makes commercial sense for Workshop.

If asked, he prefers to play strategy boardgames of the type at which the Germans are so adept, and it is at this market his new effort is aimed.

APOCALYPSE

Doubly ironic though, that Ian’s increased activity in this area coincided with Workshops decision not to reprint their own boardgames. This was simply commercial reality, he explains. ‘They didn’t sell enough compared to the other lines that we are doing, though for most companies the sales would have been very respectable. We employ nearly three hundred people so we are not talking about a hobby. As we grow, so do our (sales) expectations.’

In the past few years Workshop has received enough static to jam Radio Free Europe and then some. How come, Ian? ‘It’s the British way. Build somebody up and then knock them down. It’s a national pastime,’ he laments. I mention the case of a fanzine which received a letter from Workshop’s solicitors threatening all sorts of nasty things, following publication of some fairly innocuous gossip. ‘Good,’ was his first reaction, but on consideration he admits it was probably using a warhammer to crack a nut. ‘Someone at head office probably read it and blew a fuse,’ he says. ‘I can understand that. I just get so sick of the knocking. What have we done that is so awful? We were the first to import and distribute all the role playing systems which you now see. The first to organise a major games show, and the first games company to own their own retail outlets. Without us much of the British hobby would not exist. And yet, there is this kind of death wish on us. People wanting us to fail. And what wouldhappen then? Three hundred people thrown out of work and the decimation of the hobby which we have built up. Is this what they want?’

Leaving aside consumer disgruntlement, I point out that a lot of retailers feel threatened by Workshop: They had the chance to grow with us so how can they complain? We used to ring up for an order and they’d say “Well, we’ll take one and see how it goes.” Six weeks later we might get another order. We just couldn’t cope with that attitude so we opened up our own shops. Ask yourself, how come our shops can now prosper selling only Workshop product? If we hadn’t moved in that direction then we’d still be in Shepherds Bush sending an order every six weeks.’

Another episode which tarnished Workshops image somewhat was the Chaos Marauders/Ogallala scandal. The similarity of the former to the German original was used by many fanzines as a stick with which to smack the Workshop bottom. Even the respected German magazine Die Pöppel Revue took up the case. Ian declines to comment in detail as he was not personally involved with the decision to publish, and is not familiar enough with the Workshop game to throw any light on the subject. I tell him in my humble opinion that it is the same game, though the original designer doesn’t give a flying one about the kafuffle. ‘If it is the same game, then its possible a mistake was made,’ he acknowledges. ‘It’s not our policy to rip people off.’

Whatever one thinks about their games the quality of the artwork cannot be denied. Where did that come from? ‘Right from the start we had a policy of using the best artists. Many of these are now working for us full time. I’ve always felt the look of a game was so important. When I open up a game I want it to say “Play me.” It’s so obvious really, and yet something many companies still ignore.’

IS THERE A STEVE JACKSON IN THE HOUSE?

Right next door in fact, but just how many Steve Jacksons are there in the games business, Steve Jackson? ‘I think there were five at one time but now it’s down to two. At Games Day I used to get people coming up to me asking forCar Wars autographs, while the other (Texas) Steve used to get kids asking him to autograph Workshop games.’

Steve Jackson (left), Ian Livingstone (right) and Schoko & Co (centre)

Unlike the Luddite Livingstone, this Steve Jackson is heavily into the new technology, especially video. Part of his extra curricular activities include the making of a spoof soap on life at La Manga. And if I tell you that one scene features Ian propositioning the local masseuse, you’ll get the general drift.

Most of his time though has been spent writing the scenarios for F.I.S.T. – the dial-a-rolegame. How did that come about, Steve, a wrong number or what? ‘I was approached by Computer Dial, who do things like the Russell Grant astrology line, to write a scenario initially, but its gone way beyond that. I’ve been getting involved in the sound mixing and sampling.

‘I’ve now finished the second scenario and am well into the third. It’s really been an incredible success, at one point they were getting 7 000 calls a day. Unfortunately it’s not really taken off in the States because of the cost. They have to pay a lot more for the lines from the phone company than they do fromBT.

The thought of any phone company being more expensive than BT short circuits my logic bank, so we change the subject.

Steve’s taste in games is pretty much the same as Ian’s except for his liking ofmega games like 1829 which Ian is known to describe as ‘brainache’, though the same evening sees him plough manfully through a five hour session of Die Macher before succumbing to stomach ache. Despite the ‘desert island’ nature of the locale they’ve had no problem finding opponents. Their recent converts include the local tennis pro and the manager of the adjacent hotel. Steve even formed a local Subbuteo league!

Ian confesses to having ‘no idea’ what the future holds. For the moment he is content to concentrate on golf and sailing, and to enjoy the life that his labour has earned him. Like Steve though, he has no intention of hanging around in history.

As with many successful businessmen they seem to have the unerring knack of being able to tap into the commercial current of the times at will. Despite their success they still view the games business as fun and appear to have lost not one iota of either their enthusiasm for games, or life hi general.

Even as I pack my bags, the directors of the company that started on a whim in a West London backroom thirteen years ago, are getting kitted out in their Zorro outfits for the fiesta in neighbouring Cartagena.

From Shepherds Bush to sunny Spain. What a long, long, trip it’s been.

Adios amigos, y muchas gracias.

(This article was originally published in “Games International”, issue #4 (April 1989) and is reproduced here with the permission of Brian Walker, the former editor of GI)

A discussion with Mike Lasher led to these possible rule variants in addition to those described on page 18 of the rule book.

Shorter Games

To shorten the game start the game with an additional 50 to 100 EU.

Military Occupation

In order to strengthen a Territory’s military defense after an Aggression Scenario the victorious player immediately after the takeover may transfer NS units from domestic Territories of the
attacking color group to the new Territory. However, the new Territory may not be developed even if sufficient R-units exist (reminder: development of Territories takes place during the Options Phase).

Precision Move

To provide more control over the advance of the Governor a player may chose to make up any difference between movement points rolled and desired movement points by paying CR points.
Exchange rate is 1 CR point for each movement point.

Business Propositions

In order to prevent voluntary or involuntary king-making situations especially in games with inexperienced players some restrictions regarding business propositions in the Options Phase can
be introduced:
(a) The proposing player may only exchange one Territory per opposing player per turn.
(b) Territories are exchanged one for one, i.e. Territories may only be exchanged for other Territories at a 1:1 rate.
(c) Resources may be exchanged between two players on a 1:1, 1:2 or 2:1 basis only.
(d) Ops or Influence cards as well as POW NIAs may be used in any trade as an incentive for the other player. Mission cards cannot be bartered.
(e) Any card(s) exchanged must not be disclosed to the other player before the trade is completed.
(f) CR points must not be used in any business proposition.

Calling Off War

Before the Engagement of an Aggression Scenario commences a player may start a negotiation in order to try and convince the opponent to call of war. This can include the payment of bribes in
the form of R-units, CR-points, money or Territory’s Title cards. Any R-units exchanged must be placed in the receiving player’s PS.

Strategy in 1830

By Alan Applebaum

The 1830 game system is one of the finest multiplayer systems around. As Edward Fahrmeier noted in his article “All Aboard” (Vol. 23, No. 6 of The GENERAL), it is possible for players to recover from a bad start; yet it is difficult to “gang-up” on the leader and reduce the game to a wild scramble with an arbitrary winner. Moreover, it is as close to a game of pure skill as a multi-player game can get, especially if all the players are competent so that their actions are reasonably predictable. Careful long-term planning is usually rewarded, while errors are mercilessly punished. Best of all, unlike CIVILIZATION or DIPLOMACY, the game is self-balancing because the cleverly-designed private company auction forces players to pay more for the most desirable private companies. Avalon Hill is to be congratulated for improving the already excellent 1829 (1830’s forerunner) system by increasing player interaction while simultaneously reducing playing time to a comfortable evening.

“Alliances” can be useful in 1830, but diplomacy should not play a major role. Because play is sequential rather than simultaneous, one member of an alliance will usually have an opportunity to betray another without fear of retaliation. Furthermore, most alliances typically benefit one member much more than the other, and that inequality will be fairly obvious. For these reasons, alliances are generally not a large factor in the strategy, beyond the point of two players tacitly or explicitly cooperating to develop a particular section of the mapboard.

Like Mr. Fahrmeier, I too think the game divided into three phases; but I define each of them slightly differently. The “opening” is the time before the sale of the first “4” train; the primary features of this phase are the development of the players’ stock portfolios and the struggle for control of the most desirable railroad corporations. In the second phase (or “middle” game), the primary focus is on the second stage of corporation start-ups and the acquisition of “permanent” trains. (I include the “4” train purchases here since the decision whether to purchase a “4” train usually determines when a railroad will acquire a permanent train and what kind it will get.) This second is the phase in which several railroads will be running for capital rather than for dividends, and one or more players may face bankruptcy. In the end game, which begins when all railroads have a permanent train, players turn their attention to maximizing their railroads’ runs while impeding opponents by selling stock in their railroads, placing tokens to block routes, or looting and dumping jointly owned corporations. Many games are so close that one corporation’s gain or loss of one row or column on the stock chart can determine the winner.

In this article, I will discuss each phase of the game separately. In the course of the discussion I will try to review and comment on the ideas expressed by Messers. Shelley and Fahrmeier in their articles in the 1830 feature issue of The GENERAL.

The Opening

The first task facing the players is to bid for the private companies. In general, I agree with the comments of both Fahrmeier and Shelley. The Baltimore & Ohio (B&O) provides the presidency of a good railroad corporation, but because it does not generate recurring revenue and may not be sold to a railroad corporation, it is not worth much more than its face value. The Camden & Amboy (C&A) is unquestionably the most valued private company in relation to its base price, often selling for more than $200. The fewer the players in the game, the more the C&A is worth, for in a three- or four-player game purchase of the C&A will not prevent its owner from becoming president of a corporation in the first stock round. I generally don’t show much interest in the other private companies, but will buy any of them at face value. The Delaware & Hudson (D&H) is probably worth a bit more than its face value of $70, but our experience has been that most attempts to use its special power of “teleportation” to hex F16 end in failure (more on this later). I believe Mr. Fahrmeier is incorrect in stating that the Mohawk & Hudson (M&H) cannot be sold to a corporation; the option to exchange it for a share of New York Central (NYC) or sell it to a corporation makes it worth more than $110, but it is still a poor cousin of the C&A. While I am no fan of the Canadian Pacific (CP) in general, it is poor strategy to run this railroad early in the game without possession of the Champlain & St. Lawrence (C&StL).

In a game of fewer than six players, therefore, if not buying the C&A, a player should not spend so much on the private companies that he cannot start a corporation on the first round. This means you need $402 , or $335 if you can start the Pennsylvania Railroad (PRR) because of the free share which accompanies the C&A. In a five-player game, you may buy a private company if you are sure that you will have enough cash by the third stock round to start a company.

These calculations may seem cumbersome at first, but are necessary for good play of 1830; if at any point in the game you find yourself or your railroad just a few dollars short of taking an important action, you are in trouble and it’s probably your fault. The only time this type of analysis really fails is if someone unexpectedly sells shares ahead of you that you were planning to dump, thus lowering the price. (This brings me to rules beef #1: I think all player and railroad holdings should be public. Since all transactions are public, keeping cash holdings secret simply rewards the players with better memories and slows down the game by requiring players to recap long sequences to figure out how much money a player or a corporation may have. Public disclosure also allows the players to catch each other if they – accidentally, of course – make an error in a transaction with the bank. With full disclosure, analysis and psychology, rather than memory, become the paramount virtues – a benefit, in my view.)

In conclusion, the only private company worth getting really excited about owning is the C&A; the others should not fetch more than $10 above face value. Buying a private company also affects the turn order, of course, and can cost you the chance to start the corporation of your choice.

After all the private companies have been sold, the next decision facing a player is whether or not to attempt to become president of a railroad. When we first began playing 1830, only two or three corporations would “float” (begin operating) on the first stock round. When the presidents of those first two or three consistently won most of the games, we realized that it is usually better to start a poorly capitalized railroad than none at all. There are several reasons for this.

Becoming a minority stockholder in someone else’s corporation benefits the president a lot more than it does you. You help drive the stock market token upward on the chart (if all shares are in player’s hands); you reduce the number of shares the president must buy to float the railroad; and you give the president the option of dumping the railroad whenever the priority card is favorably placed for him. Even if you sell your minority petition after three or four operating rounds, the president doesn’t greatly mind. You have temporarily driven the stock price down, but this is offset by the creation of bank pool shares which can be used to increase the railroad’s treasury without running for capital. Alternatively, the president (or other players) may purchase the shares from the bank pool at a discount which is unavailable to you (since you cannot sell and buy the same type of shares in the same stock round).

Another major reason to start your own company rather than help someone else do so is that it gives you an opportunity to sell your private companies. Typically, the players who do well in a game have sold their private companies into their own corporations at a handsome profit and then managed to rescue the corporation they “looted” by various stratagems we will discuss later. Those who play an “honest game”, operating their railroads to maximize the railroad’s success rather than their own, will find themselves falling behind, especially in games with fewer than five players.

Third, starting a railroad in the first stock round reduces the number of non-productive operating rounds for you. If you invest in a minority position in a corporation at the beginning of the game, the shares will not produce revenue on the first operating round simply because the railroad does not have a train. If, a few stock rounds later, you sell your minority holding and start your own company, you will not get revenue from your six new shares on the next OR for the same reason. You would have been better off starting a railroad of your own at the beginning, even at a lower price. Even if you must capitalize an extra time in the middle game because of the low railroad treasury, you are still better off than if you had started with minority positions planning to begin your own railroad later.

Finally, starting a railroad early gives you a head start on track development, as well as rightward movement of your corporation’s token on the stuck chart. Early in the game, the revenue generated by a share of stock is more important than its share price, so a $76 or $71 railroad is as good as a $100 one. In some ways, it is better, because a lower starting price enables you to invest in more shares of stock as well as allowing you to profit from upward and rightward movement on the stock chart. It is hardly ever worth waiting an extra stock round simply to start your first railroad at a higher price.

The only time it is really attractive to be a minority shareholder early in the game is if all the outstanding shares will be bought so that the token will moved up a row on the stock chart each round. If you sell at the right moment, you will have a handsome profit since the shares will have appreciated significantly in price in addition to generating revenue each operating round. If you miss-guess the president’s intentions, however, you may be trapped in a no-win situation. He will either begin running for capital, shutting off your income and driving the stock price lower, or will loot the railroad and dump it onto you.

Buying the presidency without enough money to float the railroad is even worse than taking a minority position. It is true that some other players may not be able to start a railroad of their own and will have to buy a minority position in some railroad. If you can’t buy enough shares to float alone, you are at their mercy. If they invest in a different railroad, you are stuck with dead shares. Probably one president will be bailed out in this situation – usually the B&O because of its high potential early revenue – but a second hardly ever will be (except in a six-player game perhaps). Once one non-president buys a minority position, later-playing non-presidents will tend to buy the same stock to benefit from the row rise on the stock chart and to avoid helping any other corporations float. If you buy only the president’s certificate and then wait to see what the other players will do before committing yourself further, you won’t be as badly burned if no one helps you out. But you may lose the chance to buy all the shares you want. Moreover, you will end up buying stock after everyone else is done and thus place the priority deal card to your immediate left, ensuring that you will buy last in the next stock round. In summary, unless starting the B&O (or there are no “live” shares to buy), don’t even consider starting a railroad with insufficient funds to float it unless the other players have previously shown a tendency toward generosity. The only exception, of course, is in a six-player game, where no railroad other than the PRR can be started by a single player in any case.

Once you decide to start a railroad, you must choose which one to start. The predominant view among my circle of players is that the PRR is far and away the best choice for an early start. The PRR/C&A combination is extremely powerful; players who hold these seem to win more than their share of our games (unless the C&A auction soared far over the $200 level). Even if the PRR and C&A are in different hands, we find that the C&A is quickly sold by its owner into another corporation so he can start a second new corporation early. If this does happen, hex H18 is freed quickly and the PRR runs for excellent revenue. Even if H18 is tied up, the PRR and B&O presidents can cooperate to generate fairly good runs between H16 and Baltimore. Only the very first PRR dividend (usually $3 per share) will be substandard.

Not only does the PRR have excellent access to the lucrative Baltimore-New York corridor, but it is unique among the companies in that: 1) it only requires the President to purchase five shares to begin operation; and 2) it does not need to build any bridges or tunnels to achieve an optimal run with a “5” or “6” train. This means that it needs to run for capital fewer times than other railroads, and can so be started at a lower price, enabling its owner to invest in more shares of stock. In fact, it is not unrealistic to construct a budget for the PRR that requires no capitalization at all:

Thus the PRR can be started as low as $76 per share (an initial investment of only $380 for the president) and still have an excellent chance to become the highest-valued stock by the end of the game. If the B&O is started early and its president cooperates (as is in his interest to do), the PRR can expect to run for up to $200 with a “2” and “3” train in the early game (I15-H14-H16 and I15-I17-H16-H18) and eventually have a permanent run for a “5” train of $270 (New York-H18-H16-H10-Chicago).

Of course, this is the ideal scenario. It requires that the C&A owner and the B&O president do not go out of their way to impede the PRR’s development, and that the PRR gets an opportunity to buy a “5” train. Nonetheless, the prospect of ending the game with six shares worth $350 each and generating $27 each per operating round usually makes the PRR the first choice for being floated. An added incentive, of course, is that the PRR has four station tokens.

The best other early-start railroad is the B&O. As owner of the B&O private company, I always start with the B&O if possible, even at a low price. While the B&O is generally required to construct bridges (J14 and I17), the huge revenue it can generate early in the game gives its president a big boost. This high revenue is necessary for the B&O president to keep pace with other players who will sell their private companies to their own railroads. Fortunately, the B&O has by far the best potential runs of any corporation during the early operating rounds. A sample development will show this: on the first operating round, the B&O plays J14 and buys three “2” trains. On the second round, if green tiles are available, it upgrades J14, builds a station there and runs for $170; if green tiles are not yet available, it plays a straight track in I17, builds a station in J14 and runs for $140. This latter course burns an alarming $440 from the treasury, but one or two runs for capital at $250 or so (after a “3” train has been bought at the earliest opportunity) will restore the treasury to within purchase price of a permanent train. The B&O tends to dominate the game if other players buy into it during the opening stage; if they don’t, and bring out the “4” trains early starting their own railroads – thus killing the “2” trains – the B&O is still an above-average investment.

Some players prefer to keep the B&O railroad dormant and collect their $30 private company revenue each round, but that appears to be a losing decision. The following chart shows an ordinary sequence, with the consequences for Player A who starts the B&O railroad at first opportunity and for Player B who doesn’t. The figures refer to the accumulated cash generated by the private company or the two shares of B&O stock that it brings.

 

Operating Round	Player A	Player B
1	$30	$30
2(run for $140)	$ 58	$ 60
3 (run for $210)	$100	$ 90
4 (run for $250)	$150	$120

Even if the “3” trains are delayed or if the “2” trains disappear after the fourth operating round (and the B&O’s run reduced to $110 or $120), the amount of cash generated by the two active shares in Player A’s hand will not fall far below that generated by an active B&O private company. Add in Player A’s increasing stock value, the benefits of corporation ownership, and the head start the B&O will get in track development, and the clear advantage lies with Player A’s strategy. The player starting the B&O late will likely find himself shut out of H16 (and probably New York as well); the B&O will have lost its geographical advantage. On the other hand, allowing another player to take control of the B&O sacrifices the value of the presidency for which you have paid a premium. The fact that two expensive shares of stock are tied up far outweighs the short-term revenue gain (if any) provided by the private company.

The only variation of the “B&O Delay” which appears viable is to pass during the first stock round, until either all other players have spent all their money or someone has bought B&O stock or started the Chesapeake & Ohio (C&O). If neither of the latter two events occur, it is reasonably safe to delay floating the B&O because your control of the B&O corporation and hex H16 are not immediately threatened. Another factor to consider is whether you expect the PRR president to work with or against the B&O. If the PRR president wants to be nasty and the B&O should be delayed three or four operating rounds before starting, the B&O may be permanently prevented from getting a decent run. On the other hand, a cooperative PRR president can do much of the B&O’s early track development for you.

After the PRR and the B&O, the next “tier” of starting railroads consists of the abovementioned C&O, and the New York, New Haven and Hartford (NYNH). The Erie is out of the question, of course.

The New York Central (NYC) runs too poorly with “2” trains and yellow tiles only; the Boston & Maine (B&M) is just a poor cousin of the NYNH; and the Canadian Pacific (CPR) has too little potential.

The C&O is a railroad full of promise. Unfortunately, it rarely delivers on that promise. Like the PRR, it has no immediate need to waste money on bridges or tunnels; but unlike the PRR, it will always be shut out of the Baltimore-New York corridor unless the B&O is not started early. I have seen very few games in which H16 was not occupied by a PRR and B&O token at the earliest possible opportunity. Moreover, the C&O has one less token than the PRR.

There are at least three basic strategies which can be employed by the C&O president. If the B&O is not started early, the obvious choice is to sprint for hex H16. This option includes buying only one “2” train and playing tiles on G7, H8 and H10. Unfortunately, even if the B&O is started a round or two late, you can still lose this race. The decision to follow this path depends upon how committed you think the B&O president is to keeping the corporation dormant. Even if the race to H16 is lost, playing tile #2 on G7 prevents its use on G17 (where it has unique value in developing highly profitable runs for the B&O, PRR, NYNH and/or NYC).

The C&O’s second strategy is the high-spending, high early-revenue course similar to that suggested for the B&O above. Build a sharp curve in G5 toward F4 during the first operating round. Then build a bridge in F4 and buy a second train during the next operating round. On the third and fourth, build two F4-Chicago runs by upgrading F4 with tile #15 (when available), placing a token in F4 and building a sharp curve in E3. On the fourth operating round, if the green tiles are available, you will be running for at least $170 with a “2” and a “3” train. On the next round, you can play another sharp curve in G3 and boost the run to $240 if you have two “2s” and a “3”. Unfortunately, this is pretty slow development in comparison with others, and costs $420 from the treasury. It is unlikely that the other players will allow you to run for $200+ more than once before buying a “4” train and spoiling your fun. Your long-term development prospects are now fairly poor as you will never reach the East Coast; expect to survive with a permanent run of $230 or less. Your permanent run can be slightly improved by developing E5, but this costs an additional $80 and damages your short-term prospects as you will probably wish to play tile #14 rather than #15 on hex F4 to reach E5 (reducing your access to Chicago).

The third feasible strategy for C&O is that of the “D&H teleportation”. On operating round #1, play a tile in G7 so that, should green tiles be available on the next round, you can play at F16 and still have a run. On the first operating round possible, buy the D&H with the C&O and spend $120 to place a tile at F16. The tile can be pointed either EW or NW-SE. Eventually you hope to establish a “4” train run of New York-F18-F16-G17-New York (worth $210) or a “5” train run extending to H18 (worth $260). This is a very nice set up, but takes a long time to establish; other nearby railroads may interfere with your plans, and your runs will be poor until New York is upgraded. If you are forced to do this yourself, you will have spent $495 (at least – $80 + $180 + $35 minimum + $80 + $120). If you also decide to buy a “4” train, you will get some great runs but will likely use them for capital since, even if you started the C&O at $100 per share, you will have but $215 left in its treasury. If you opt not to buy the “4”, then you will have gained little from the D&H play. Your “3” train could run for $130 from Cleveland to Chicago, the same as F16-G17-New York when fully developed. But you can manage a “5” train run of $250 out west at less expense (Chicago-E5-F4-H4-Gulf). The play in hex F16 does help the NYNH and NYC however, so if you own one of those corporations or expect to, you may have more to gain than this.

The NYNH president also has several viable options. The short-term strategy is to build toward Boston and purchase two “2” trains and a “3” train, placing a token in F22 and quickly running New York-F20, F21-F22 and F22-F24-Boston (for $140 with yellow tiles or $200 for green). This will involve a bridge on F22 ($80), bridge in New York ($80), token in F22 ($40), two “2” trains ($160) and a “3” train ($180) – or about $540. Your best “3” run will probably be New York-F20-F22 for $100, so to stay within one round of a “5” train you must start the railroad at $90 per share. The permanent NYNH run will likely be confined to New York – Boston ($190 when fully developed), so a “5” train is all you can use. One advantage of this is that your play in hex F20 seriously impairs the development of the NYC, especially if all the sharp curves are in play so that it cannot establish a run with only two tile lays.

A longer-term strategy for the NYNH is to play tile #69 toward Albany, eventually hoping to cooperate with the NYC and establish a coast-to-coast route. Your hope is that the NYC president will pick up the tab for upgrading New York, while the NYNH plays its station in E19 or perhaps F16. The NYNH thus lays out only $300 for a “2” train, a “3” train and a token in Albany in the early going, and can afford a “4” later with a view towards acquiring a diesel. The best version of this strategy is for the NYNH president to acquire the NYC also, of course, but this will usually demand bankrupting the NYNH by selling it private companies. Otherwise, another player will surely grab the NYC first as it will have a head start on track development.

The NYC itself is an endless source of fascination in our gaming group. Its four tokens and proximity to New York make it extremely attractive as a long-term investment, but it tends to run very poorly early in the game. Its initial run is only $30, and it cannot conveniently run a second train until several green tiles have been played. When the “3” trains are available, it is the overwhelming favorite among players starting a railroad at that time, and is devastating to control in combination with one of its neighbors.

Obviously, the Erie cannot be started at the beginning of the game because it cannot even build track in its home hex until the green tiles are in play. When the green tiles do appear, prospects will be limited because there are only two “OO” tiles in the game (one of which invariably appears on H18 at the first opportunity). Thus, early development for the Erie consists only of a gentle curve into Rochester and a connection to Albany, for a lackluster run of $90. This railroad is therefore viable only as a second corporation, probably for the owner of a nearby line such as the NYC which can aid its progress. The Erie’s sole advantage is its ability to monopolize the high-scoring cities in the Buffalo-Toronto area (because the OO upgrade tiles allow a single token to block passage through the hex). Thus, once the brown tiles are available, the Erie becomes pretty reasonable – especially if nearby track has been also developed.

The B&M has all the disadvantages of the NYNH, with none of the advantages. It is not guaranteed passage through New York, so it will often have to expend its only token there. Unless a tunnel is cut in D22, the B&M cannot reach Albany early enough to avoid being blocked there. If tile #56 is played on F20 and/or the NYNH plays its token in E19, the B&M’s dim prospects become dismal.

Many players feel the CP an attractive railroad to start at the beginning of the game. As a potential D&H “teleporter”, it is superior to the C&O simply because it has more tokens and its initial run between B16 and A19 is worth $60. If a player can contrive to hold both the C&StL and the D&H, the CP becomes very attractive; but this is extremely difficult to do because they are sold consecutively on the first stock round.

With the C&StL alone, the CP can run well in the early going: on operating round #1, place a sharp curve in B18 connecting A17 and buy two “2” trains; on #2, play B16 and put a token there, running the trains for $90, and buy a “3” train if available; on #3 (assuming the green tiles are available), buy the C&StL, play a sharp curve in B20 or upgrade B16 and run for $160; in the fourth round, upgrade B18 with tile #18 and run for $190. Unfortunately, this is probably your last run with the “2” trains, and now you will run for only $80 with a “3”. You have spent some $480 to reach this point. Thus, unless the CP started at $90 or $100 a share, you are more than one turn of capitalization away from a “5” train and will run many rounds with your “3” train. A “4”, even if you could afford it, is wasted because you don’t have the rail net to take full advantage of two trains. The only decent prospects for track development lie towards Toronto; but building there costs money and the Erie president will certainly thank you just before buying a token to freeze out the CP. Other than the Erie, no other railroad is likely to help the CP’s track development much once Albany is occupied.

Building the CP towards Albany, however, is even more futile. It requires the laying of at least two bridges (because the C&StL tile cannot be played right away), so you need to play B18 toward A16 to guarantee a run on the CP’s second operating round. The chance of reaching Albany before two of the three other nearby railroads occupy it with tokens is slight. In my view, then, the best early alternative for the CP (and the only one with a chance for profitable success) is the F16 play with the D&H. It is far better not to start the CP until the green tiles are sure to be available, however. Otherwise, you will be forced to spend $80 extra to establish a run through B18 in addition to your “2” train costs and the $120 for F16.

In summary, the CP is only the sixth-best railroad to start early in the game (bettering only the isolated B&M and the Erie). Late in the game, it proves even worse, since it is the only railroad on the map likely to gain no benefit whatsoever from track construction by the others. In our games, the CP is often either the last railroad started-or it is never begun at all.

Now that you have some idea of which railroad to start, what do you do with the rest of your money? If you have played the first stock round correctly, you shouldn’t have much left. It almost always pays to start your railroad at the highest price you can afford, planning to extract any extra cash it has by selling your private companies to it. By the third or fourth operating rounds, however, you should be ready to decide whether to start a second corporation or invest in an already existing line. Starting a second railroad is usually preferable, unless all the remaining corporations have very poor prospects because of unfavorable track construction by early existing lines. The second railroad not only allows you to hold an extra share within your limit of certificates, but also to cooperate with your primary railroad in track construction and station building. And, most importantly, a second one allows you to control the timing of your train purchases and to distribute cash efficiently between the two. It also avoids the necessity to invest in another player’s railroad (which may be looted and dumped upon you) in order to reach your certificate limit.

Ideally your second railroad should be started at $100 per share. This is not so much because it needs more cash to operate (it actually needs less, especially if the “4” trains are already available); rather the extra cash is needed to transfer to your older corporation so it doesn’t have to run for capital as much. Too, a high-priced second railroad has a fighting chance to reach the “high-rent” section of the stock chart, while a low-priced one doesn’t.

In many cases, unfortunately, the player seeking to start a second railroad cannot conveniently raise $600 alone, and must give up on it or start it at a lower share-price. If the older railroad has enough money to get a permanent train with but one capitalization round, the second can be started at a low price because no cash needs to be shifted. In most cases, however, the second round of railroad starts will involve those players who have sold private companies to their first for large amounts; such first companies usually need some help at this stage. Paradoxically, if your first railroad is in really terrible shape, you can raise the cash to start your second by selling all but the president’s certificate. No one else will want to take on the railway from you if it is broke. On the next turn of operating rounds, the railroad may get cash from the shares in the bank pool without being forced to run for capital. If, by selling your shares, you now have enough money to start a second company at $100 per share, you should be able to bail out the first if necessary.

If a really attractive railroad company is available to be started, you don’t have enough money to “float” it until the next stock round, and you think another player yet to purchase during this stock round will grab it, you could buy the president’s share only (or even one additional share) and set the price at $67. Other players will realize that if they take control from you, you are quite liable to sell your two or three shares and drive the market token down two or three rows on the chart making it a rather unattractive investment. The two or three shares are deadwood in your hand, of course. You have to weigh carefully whether you have more profitable short-term purchases and whether you are willing to run the railroad at $67 per share later. This is one of the few situations where it is quite proper to buy shares that are not certain to be “live” during the next operating round. Unless it’s a six-player game, I would assume that no one will throw me a lifeline if I should purchase only four or five shares of a new company.

In the event that you are unable or unwilling to become president of a second railroad, you will usually have a choice of a number in which to become the second-leading shareholder. The obvious considerations are the track development potential of the railroad, the state of its treasury, the skill of its president, and the state of other railroads owned by that president. The most attractive minority position is one in a railroad with good potential, lots of money, run by a capable player who has no other railroads and no unsold private companies. Other things being equal, I tend to choose one owned by the player nearest my immediate left. This has two advantages. First, the president cannot loot the railroad and stick you with the presidency unless he has the priority card himself. Second, if he has fewer than five shares, you may get a chance to take the railroad away from him if the other outstanding shares are sold piecemeal by the other players, allowing you to pick them up before the president can.

Keep in mind that owning more than one share of any railroad that you are not president of is always a risky proposition if the president has a way of looting it. If the person does loot it and makes you the president, he might not win – but you definitely won’t! Controlling your share or more than your share of corporations removes this risk for the entire game. In a six-player game, you can survive nicely with one railroad as you can own six shares of it and one share of six others, for a total of 11 certificates (your limit). In a five-player game, the winner will almost always come from among the two or three who have two railroads. In a four-player game, you can do quite well as president of only two corporations if you hold six shares of each and can obtain one share of each of the six others (for a total of l6 certificates). With three players, the player with only two railroads is usually the loser (unless both are very good).

One factor which will color your strategy is the tendency of the other players towards what I call a “fast” or a “slow” game. A “fast” game is one in which four or five railroads are started early and the train inventory is run through quickly; in a “slow” game, the “3” trains may not emerge for five or six rounds. In a fast game, the “2” trains will not last long, so it is unwise to invest in too many of them. Except for the B&O (and possibly the C&O), no railroad can profitably use three “2” trains. Several railroads in a fast game will require their presidents to bail them out from cash in hand, so it doesn’t pay to use a long-term strategy. A bankruptcy is fairly likely, especially in a five- or six-player game.

[Rules beef #2 (my only serious one): the rules covering bankruptcy are terrible! If a bankruptcy occurs, the winner is the richest player at that moment. All long-term planning is useless; the result of the hours spent playing is completely arbitrary. Why not just put all the bankrupt player’s stock (including his presidencies) into the bank pool and send him home early? I have seen games in which one player intentionally saves another from bankruptcy simply because the first was not winning at the time, even though the aid given would not otherwise have been in his best interest. I have even played in games in which players doing poorly were unsporting enough to intentionally bankrupt themselves, so spoiling the game for everyone. This rule requires some revision in future editions.]

In looking at a “fast” game, the basic principle is to go against the grain – do the opposite of what most of the other players are doing. If you expect a fast game, you should play conservatively to protect your railroads from having their trains stripped away before the treasury is rebuilt. You aim to force others to deplete their capital by buying short-lived, temporary trains.

On the other hand, in a “slow” game, in which players are reluctant to buy multiple trains and/or start new railroads, you should play aggressively, buying multiple “2” and “3” trains, running for dividends every chance and building an early cash lead. If your railroads reach a precarious strait, you should have ample warning if the others decide to bring about your downfall by suddenly speeding through the train deck and killing your “3” trains since not many competing railroads will be in play. If the game develops slowly enough, you may not even mind paying for a permanent train out of pocket; you will be more than compensated by your early cash and high stock prices.

Always buy that “3” train at the first opportunity. A railroad without a “3” train will lose a run when the “4” trains appear (unless you were lucky enough to buy the first “4”). As the “3” trains last through the next seven to 11 bought, they get a lot of use. Don’t buy two “3” trains, however, unless you can definitely sell one to a second railroad, or you expect a very slow game. Once a “5” is bought, the limit on trains is two and you cannot buy a “5” or “6” yourself until the first “6” train is bought by some other player (thus killing your “3” trains and forcing you to lose a run).

Although it seems counter to one’s instincts, it is better to capitalize on your large early runs (the operating round or two immediately preceding the disappearance of the “2” trains) rather than your small ones later. It is important to run for capital as infrequently as possible to avoid damaging the stock price, since each capitalization costs you two columns on the stock chart. Do capitalize for $200 or more, unless the extra dividends in your hand would enable you to start an additional railroad on the next round which would otherwise be started by a competitor. If, on the other hand, you are but one ”3″ run away from having $450 in the company treasury, you can afford to wait and capitalize on the smaller “3” later when the “5” trains are available. And be careful not to capitalize if this will shift the operating order so that you lose any opportunity to run with your “2” trains! If you have a choice, try to capitalize at the last possible moment. This not only enables you to invest your dividends earlier, but also maintains your position in the operating order, possibly gaining you that extra run with your “2” or “3” trains before they disappear.

As in real life, it is better in 1830 to have money sooner than later, because you can immediately reinvest early cash and make some additional profits. Therefore, it is almost always good policy to spend company treasury money early rather than later for bridges, tunnels, trains and tokens to improve your run – even if this seriously depletes the reserves. Later you can start a second railroad at a high price and bail out the first if you have accumulated enough cash in your hand to do so. There are a limited number of good railroads to own, and a one-round delay in accumulating the required cash to start one will often be fatal – so get there as quickly as you can. Once you have captured control of the railroads you want, you can ease up on the accelerator and save for some permanent trains.

Looting and then dumping a railroad early in the game is not as clever an idea as it may seem, unless most of the railroad’s treasury ends up in the looter’s hands. This is usually done by selling private companies to the railroad in question for the maximum amount possible and buying trains, bridges, and such to completely empty its treasury, then taking advantage of the favorable position of the priority card to sell enough shares into the bank pool to make another player the president. However, not only does this fail to benefit the looter substantially, but it really doesn’t injure the new president particularly either.

The looter will generate enough cash to start one or even two new railroads at a high price. Unfortunately for him, however, at least one of those will be very undesirable (possibly both). The railroads with the best potential (including, perhaps, the one just looted) will already be owned by others. Secondly, the new railroad(s) will start back in the red rectangle of the stock chart, making them unlikely to reach a high stock price by the end of the game. Third, the looter’s new railroad(s) will not run on the next operating round (because they have no train), costing the looter a turn of revenue. Finally, single shares of the looted railroad may be picked up at a bargain price by other players.

If the looted railroad is in really terrible shape, the new president will have some anxious moments, but will usually be able to recover before having to pay substantial amounts out of his own pocket. The game mechanisms provide for this in several respects. The looted railroad can collect revenue, not only from the private companies now owned, but also from any shares of its stock which remain in the bank pool during the operating rounds. Thus it can rebuild its treasury without running for capital, and its stock price will recover quickly. Other players besides the new president may be reluctant to buy the shares out of the bank, fearing that this would force the new president to capitalize. And the looted railroad may be able to sell its surplus trains to another railroad owned by the new president, thus benefiting both. And, if it retains those “extra” trains it bought, it will run for high revenue (at least temporarily). The new president will eventually be grateful to you for acquisition of a railroad with a good stock price and well-developed track. Alternatively, he may turn the railroad into a “feeder line”, driving its stock price into the colored zone of the chart.

Note that in criticizing this “loot and dump” tactic, I refer to the plunder of a player’s only railroad early in the game. Looting a second railroad corporation in the middle or late stage is much more profitable for the perpetrator and more damaging to the victim.

Another destructive tactic is “churning” – the buying and selling of large numbers of shares in railroads owned by others in order to lower the stock price. If two or three players cooperate, they can lower the stock market token to the very bottom of the chart. It is even more effective if one additional player remains uninvolved to buy up the now-cheap shares so that the railroad will not get any benefit from having shares in the bank pool. If done fairly (that is, equally to everyone), this tactic will not have much effect on the game except to reduce the importance of the early starting railroads. Our local group tends to avoid this tactic as it is time-consuming, and either unimportant or unfair in the long run. In a cut-throat game, however, it can be very effective when the victim cannot retaliate.

The Middle Game

After six or seven railroad corporations have been “floated”, the most critical phase of the game begins. Players strive to reach their share limit at a time when many of them will be short of cash because they hold many shares in railroads running for capital. Railroad presidents jockey for position to insure that their railroads can smoothly acquire a permanent train. Crucial tiles and tokens will be placed, determining which railroads will have profitable runs and which will not. In short, the game is usually won or lost in the middle game.

Near the start of this stage, the question of railroad ownership will be pretty much settled (unless a “loot and dump” entrepreneur arises). The cash-rich players will try to acquire at least two railroads, and possibly even three. Those with more railroads will, however, find that their shares have a lower average price than the holdings of other players, and they may be in danger of paying out of their pocket for a permanent train. If one railroad is deemed so inferior that no one will start it, only 63 certificates will be available; so some players may not be able to reach their certificate limit in a four-, five- or six-player game.

Four strategic questions face players in the middle game: 1) start a second railroad or invest in established ones; 2) run for capital or dividends; 3) buy a “4” train; 4) aim for a “5” or “6” train, or a diesel? We’ve touched upon the first question in the discussion above. The last three are intimately connected, as the following discussion will show.

In general, one should not run for capital for any of the following purposes: to get a better permanent train, to build a bridge or tunnel, to place a token, to buy a second permanent train (unless it’s for a second railroad you own), to move the stock token leftward into the yellow zone. Capitalizing costs you a lot of money. If your stock is one of the higher-priced ones, the two columns you lose may cost you $5O per share at the end of the game; added to the lost dividends, that’s $400 to $500 lost per operating round if you hold six shares. Even worse, the immediate dividends you forego may prevent you from buying stock on the next round, adding to that loss. On the other hand, do capitalize when your run is at least $200 and there is no other way to obtain a permanent train without spending at least $300 from your own cash reserve.

Experience shows that you should almost always buy the first permanent train available; saving for a diesel is rarely a good investment. As Mr. Fahrmeier indicated in his article, the game will usually last only six – nine operating rounds after the first diesel purchase. For example, if the diesel allows your railroad to run for $400 while a “5” train would run for $230, you gain $17 per share per operating round if you own a diesel. If you have six shares, your gain is therefore $102 per round. After seven rounds, you have gained $714. Therefore, if you capitalized more than once to get the diesel rather than the “5” train, you were a loser – because the two extra capitalizations have cost you $800-$1000. Moreover, unless you have the opportunity to buy the first diesel, you will have no trains after another railroad buys one and so will lose an additional run. Note also that other players may cut down your eventual big diesel run by placing tokens, reducing your ability to recover your investment.

In deciding whether or not to go for a diesel train, you should consider the fact that in order to get a diesel, you need to buy a “4” train. Without a “4”, you will have no trains after the first “6” is bought-so you will have to buy the remaining “6” train. If the second “6” is gone, you will be forced to buy a diesel (with a lot of your own money). “4” trains cost $300 and have a notoriously short life span. Many a “4” train has not provided its railroad with a single dollar of revenue, as a diesel is bought before the railroad runs again! Moreover, many railroads do not get much benefit out of the “4” train: with only green tiles in play, the rail net is too limited to allow both their “3” and “4” trains to run fully. Worst of all, owning a “3” and a “4” will put your corporation at its limit for trains as soon as a “5” is bought. Therefore, unless you happen to have $450 in your treasury and have a chance to run at the exact moment the first “5” train is available, your railroad cannot get a “5” without help from a second railroad. In fact, it will probably not get a “6” either, since only one “6” (at most) will be left in the bank when your “3” disappears, leaving room for the second train. With both a “3” and a “4”, your timing must be perfect to get a “5” or a “6” train. Thus, if you buy a “4” train, you are committed to buying a diesel unless a second railroad can help by buying the permanent train and selling it to the first railroad. Unless you are the first corporation to build your treasury to $800 with a “4” train, you must either run for capital an unacceptable number of times or pay a substantial amount out of pocket (after losing a run to boot).

As a consequence of these grim facts, you should buy a “4” train only in certain specific situations. If other owners are profiting more than you from the operation of “2” trains, buying a “4” will put them out of business. If it is the first train a railroad is buying, then, assuming you have any choice at all, you can afford a “4” because the railroad will still have enough money for at least a “5” (unless it started at less than $76 a share). If it is a “slow” game and you envision that there will be a long delay before a “5” train is bought, buy it quickly, enabling you to get four or five runs with your “4”. If you have enough cash in the railroad fund and good enough track to ensure you reach $800 first, invest in a “4”. And if you have two railroads, one of them will need a “4” since it is unlikely that you will be able to get a “5” or “6” with each of your railroads. Remember that your railroad can be the first to accumulate $800 in its treasury and still not be able to trade the “4” for a diesel if no “6” has yet been bought before it is your turn, leaving you with no train. If the second “6” is gone, you will not only lose a run (getting no revenue and losing another two columns on the stock chart), but will also have to pony up $300 in spite of your “conservative” play. Never buy the last remaining “4” train (we dub it the “Poisoned Four”) unless the railroad can also buy a “5” or your second railroad runs soon after and will be able to buy one or two “5” trains. If you do decide to buy a “4”, at least buy it at first opportunity; nothing is worse than dithering and finally buying one when it will only run once before vanishing.

Of course, even if you don’t buy a “4”, you can still come to grief if all the “5” and “6” trains disappear before you have a chance to purchase any. The $450 (or $630) you saved in the corporation coffers so carefully will leave you to dish out $470 to $650 from your pocket for a diesel. It would seem, then, that whichever route you take is risky, and that you have little control over what kind of train you get and how much you pay for it out of personal funds. This is quite true … if you own only one railroad.

With two railroads under control, the situation is a lot more stable and predictable. Naturally, each railroad has one “3” train by this time (not two – you don’t want to be prevented from buying a “5” by the train limit and then lose a run when the first “6” is bought). One of your railroads (not both) buys a “4” train at first opportunity. Now you have the desired flexibility. You can shift the money and the open slot for a train around to your best advantage, positioning yourself to get a “5” or “6” with one railroad and a “6” or “D” with the other. If, on top of this, you can get the diesel without losing a run and get it to the railroad with the better route, you are probably a game winner. Don’t try to switch permanent trains after both are bought, however; this is very expensive.

This phase of the game can involve some tricky maneuvering. Players will often spend the stock round preceding the critical set of operating rounds attempting to manipulate the stock prices of the various railroads so their own will be able to buy a “5” and avoid the “Poisoned Four”. One of the best situations is to start a railroad for $90 or $100 per share at a time when it can purchase two “5” trains on its first operating round. This solves the problem of a permanent train for both its owner’s corporations (since one of the “5” trains can be sold to the older for a nominal sum). Starting the new railroad just to buy the “Poisoned Four” can also be a good move, so long as one or both your other railroads will be positioned to buy a “5”. Losing revenue by capitalizing several times is not good, but losing a run entirely because you have no train is even worse. If you get through this phase of the game without losing a run or paying out of your pocket, you will almost certainly be a contender (even if your railroads have poor runs).

Occasionally, however, it can be a good tactic to purposely deprive one of your railroads of all its trains. Suppose the situation is this: you own two railroads, one of which has a “4” train or better (the “good” railroad) and one which has only a “3”. The railroad with the “3” cannot accumulate enough money in its treasury to buy a “5” even if it runs for capital once, but you know that it will run first when a “5” or “6” is available. You can help this railroad by having the good one buy the “3” from it on its turn. Then, when the bad railroad runs, it can buy the permanent train with the help of your personal funds. This avoids having the poor railroad capitalize, and then either capitalize again or be trainless during the following operating round. You gain two columns on the stock chart at the cost of the $50 or $100 you would have raised for the railroad by capitalizing with the “3” train – usually a good bargain.

My local group has discovered an extremely cruel but effective tactic to punish poorly-run railroads (and, by the way, prevent the tactic just discussed). The perpetrator owns a railroad with a “3” and a “4”, and this railroad now has the opportunity to buy the first “5” train. It does so, and now must turn a train in to the bank to meet the new train limit. Instead of turning in the “3” (as one would ordinarily expect), it turns in the “4”! The victim’s railroad has only a “3” and not enough in the treasury to buy a “4”, “5” or “6”. After the first “6” is bought, the victim’s railroad has no train. Even if the second “6” is available, the victim’s railroad may not buy it; instead it must buy the least expensive train available-namely, that “4” the perpetrator turned in to the bank. The next time around, the first diesel has almost certainly been bought, so the victim is trainless again.

In conclusion, your goal in the middle game is to acquire permanent trains for all your corporations without losing runs for lack of trains, or paying heavily out of pocket, or running for capital multiple times. Achieving these goals will usually involve owning at least two railroads (unless you are willing to trust to fate). You must always plan to acquire a “5” or “6” train with at least one of your railroads. Do not feel unhappy if you wind up with no diesels; they fail to pay off as often as not. In but one specific situation is it wise to capitalize an extra round to grab a diesel: your railroad has only a “4” train, one “6” remains in the bank, the railroad has between $630 and $799 in its treasury and would have over $800 if you run for capital on the current operating round. Now you face a simple decision between running for dividends and buying a “6”, or capitalizing and buying a diesel. Normally it would be worth the effort to capitalize and buy a diesel, especially if it slows other players who need their “4” trains. This situation is an exception, however. In the majority of cases, one should accept the cheapest permanent train available.

The End Game

The last stage begins when all active railroad corporations have a permanent train. In the end game, play focuses on tile and token play on the board rather than on stock transactions. Typically, all players will have reached their stock certificate limit around the beginning of this phase. Stock transactions are now focused upon damaging the value of competitors’ portfolios and acquiring shares of such companies as may be in the colored zones on the chart. If a railroad remains inactive, at least one player will be faced with a decision as to whether to float it.

Several decisions arise in the end game: Should a railroad with a permanent train but empty treasury run for capital in order to obtain funds for bridges, tunnels or tokens? Should a player sell shares of a competitor’s railroad to lower its value? Should a railroad token be placed so as to damage another’s run? Should a railroad be looted and dumped? At this stage in the game, each player’s reactions can be predicted with such a fair degree of certainty that one can calculate whether any of the above actions will gain or lose ground. Unfortunately, it will often take more time to perform these calculations than the other players will permit you, so some general guidelines are in order.

It is rarely profitable to run for capital in the end game. If one is certain that by building a particular tunnel or bridge the railroad can improve its run substantially (at least by $15 per share), it may be worth considering. The lower the railroad’s stock price, the less costly it is to capitalize (because the two lost columns make less of a difference to the price when the token is near the left or bottom of the chart). Remember also that if a really big profit is in the offing, other players may conspire to deprive you of the tiles you need to complete your projected run.

The question of whether to attempt to reduce a competitor’s stock price by selling your shares usually arises on the very last stock round of the game. While it is extremely time-consuming to attempt to calculate precisely whether the game will end after the ensuing three operating rounds, a rule of thumb is that in the late game $30 per operating round will be removed from the bank for each share of stock in play. If all 80 shares are in play, about $7200 will be removed from the bank on three operating rounds. In rare circumstances, someone will be able to delay the end of the game by building unnecessary bridges and tunnels (or even by going to the extreme of purchasing an extra diesel). But selling shares in other companies should be directed at the players you believe are doing the best, since selling any high-priced stock will cost you money. You must be sure it will hurt your competitor more than it hurts you. If you can sell only one share, and the stock is already at the top of the chart, your move is futile since someone else will simply buy the share causing the token to rise back to its original row.

The question of token placement is more one of psychology than tactics. It is pretty easy to determine whether a token play hurts or helps you. But if you plan on playing with the same group again in the future, you might consider that a surprisingly large number of gamers view aggressive token play as bordering on the unethical. I personally prefer a “cut-throat” type of game in which each player is committed to furthering his own self interest by harming the positions of others, but some disagree with me. If you think that the player you damage by your placement of a token will take seven-fold revenge in future games, that is a factor to consider.

The end game presents the classic loot-and-dump opportunity described by Mr. Fahrmeier. The situation is such that during an operating round, you own two railroads, each with a permanent train. The railroad with the lower stock price has at least $1 remaining in its treasury. The priority card is located so that on the next stock round, you will play before a player to whom you can pass control of your more expensive railroad. On the third operating round of the current set, your cheap railroad buys the permanent train from the other, leaving that railroad with a depleted treasury and no train. On the subsequent stock round, you sell enough shares of the expensive railroad to transfer the presidency to your victim. He will have to come up with almost the full $1100 for a new diesel on the following operating round. This play costs you some profits, but you can make some or all of it back in dividends because your remaining railroad now has two permanent trains. If there is other stock left to buy, your total income per round may actually increase. And you are now protected from the same ploy by someone else because you have an “extra” permanent train should a railroad be dumped on you.

This tactic is so effective, in fact, that the threat of it tends to dominate play in the later stages of our games. Players will maneuver to avoid owning two or more shares of another railroad unless that president is to their immediate left (so the minority holder cannot be victimized). The best antidote, of course, is to be president of enough railroads that you can complete your portfolio without owning more than one share of any other.

Players occasionally find it profitable to operate what has been called a “feeder line” – a railroad with very low stock price which capitalizes often so that its market value remains in the colored zone of the stock chart. The advantages of this are that the shares do not count against their owner’s certificate limit and that the extra treasury money accumulated can be used to assist the track development of his other nearby railroads or place tokens so as to injure close competitors. In order for this situation to be profitable, however, other players must have contributed to driving down the stock price. It is a losing strategy to capitalize a railroad five or six times simply to drive down the stock. What you gain by creating larger runs, you lose in early revenue and in stock appreciation of the feeder line. Too, the ability to exceed your share limit only benefits you for the one or two operating rounds out of three that you can run for dividends. And, by the time you get the feeder line’s price into the yellow zone, there may well be other worthwhile shares to buy. Thus, I believe one can be pushed into a successful feeder-line strategy by the actions of others, but cannot set out to create such an opportunity; it’s simply too costly.

Conclusion

1830 is one of a very small number of multi-player games which are almost pure tests of skill. Unlike DIPLOMACY and its brethren, however, 1830 is unique in that one’s fate is somewhat less dependent upon the actions of other players if one so chooses. The game lends itself so well to analysis, in fact, that it suffers from the same problem as chess unless a time limit is set, the game can drag on far too long to be enjoyable. I think the game is best enjoyed if each player is practiced enough so that only three or four important decisions will require extensive thought and calculation. Our local gaming group plays a very sophisticated game, but usually completes a match (no bankruptcies) in three to four hours. This is a comfortable evening’s entertainment.

This article is intended to provide the beginner with some examples of the issues he must think about when making these crucial decisions. Profound hex-by-hex, dollar-by-dollar analysis of a large number of specific situations is beyond my scope, but I will be glad to respond to future discussion or criticism of the points raised here in future issues of The GENERAL.

(this article first appeared in issue #6 volume #26 of Avalon Hill’s “GENERAL”. It is reproduced here with the permission of the author)

DESIGNER’S NOTES

Birth of a dynasty

Derek Carver explains the design of his game of competing dynasties, published by Games Workshop as Blood Royale.

Ideas for new games present themselves in a variety of ways. Sometimes, though rarely, as complete games, sometimes as a system devised, perhaps, with playing cards or counters, around which a theme is subsequently developed, and sometimes as a scenario which has the potential of being made the subject of a good game.

If Blood Royal (in common with many people, I prefer to drop that final mysterious ‘E’) came into any of the categories it was the third one.

In my earlier game – Warrior Knights -I was enthusiastic about the idea of games during the course of which the players ‘assembled’ and used their skills to vote on issues which would greatly affect subsequent play. Although such an idea had great appeal for me it wasn’t sufficient for a game in itself and a much wider game had to be developed around this core concept. Much the same thing happened in Blood Royal.

Unlike many gamers, I would not call myself a history buff, but I do enjoy reading history, and I had also been an avid watcher of the TV series The Plantagenets, having visited many of the locations as a result of my fascination with this period. The history of the Middle Ages illustrates that not everything was achieved purely by conquest (although military might was a great bargaining factor in one’s favour). Prolonged campaigning was not easy. There was considerable diplomacy, often sealed by a marriage contract. Here, I felt, was the substance for a game. I wanted to make a game where each player was a monarch who would produce children, marry them off to the family’s advantage, secure trade routes and wage war. Each player was Henry II, if you like.

SURVIVAL CHANCES

From the start I decided the only realistic way forward would be to include an element of role-playing in the game. I therefore gave each ‘character’ a character sheet in the true role-playing tradition. The die-rolls recorded on this sheet determined 1) how healthy the character was, 2) how strong in battle or diplomatic cunning, and 3) how attractive to the populace. The first was an indication of survival chances – especially important to the women who, it was hoped, would produce a number of children, hopefully some strong males. The second is self explanatory, women being able to confer their qualities on their husbands. The third quality reflected the character’s general popularity. A popular king could roam Europe with less fear of rebellion breaking out at home and an attractive princess was always to be hope for.

This all meant that the characters in the game also had to die from time to time so instead of being only Henry n, the English player, for example, would have to represent the more abstract concept of the entire dynasty, and this gave the game its original name – Dynasties. Thus, the game differed from normal role-playing in that instead of players being their character they would in this game control many characters, all different.

Each player starts the game with a king, a queen, and two children, all of specified age. Dice rolls are made to determine the sex of each child and rolls are also made to determine the three characteristics of each member of the family. Each is given a character sheet recording year of birth and so on, and the players also have to choose their dynastic name and names for each of the characters. This meant that from the start the game was peopled by seemingly real and quite different characters (‘different’ because of their individual qualities). The only unreal thing about it is that at the start each player controls families all of the same age, but this situation doesn’t last for long.

FEWER CHILDREN

Play is in five year segments, starting with 1300. A survival die roll has to be made for each character every five years. Their survival chances vary, of course, according to age, childbirth, and fitness (the original die roll 1) mentioned above).

One of the many changes that took place during the early days was the reduction in the number of small children that were around. Originally more children were born, but quite a few died before they reached the age of 15, which is the age they are of any interest to us in terms of the game. So in order not to make die rolls and fill out character sheets for children that didn’t survive to 15 the system was adjusted. Fewer children were born, but those that were born were guaranteed to survive to 15. We ended up with the same number of young adults but saved a lot of time and paper in the process.

So this was the core idea. The early problem was what to do with the idea. We couldn’t sit around the entire evening manipulating these royal families; we had to do something with them.

The first problem was that history did not have a four to six player game in mind, each with more or less equal chances. While England hasn’t changed much geographically speaking, the rest of Europe has, and there was no Germany and no Italy as such. Unlike Warrior Knights where I felt the correct answer was to create a fictitious country, with Blood Royal I knew I could only maintain the historical ‘feel’ I was aiming for if I set my game firmly in medieval Europe, so I had to create Kingdoms of Germany and Italy, and also give each country in the game the same number of provinces. This doesn’t seem to have bothered people as much as I thought it would (although I don’t know what German and Italian players think about it!). But even with my cavalier attitude to history and geography there was no way in which I could
easily bring in a sixth power, so I restricted the game to a maximum of five.

So – I had already departed from history, but the general feeling in the game was all right.

THRASH AND BASH

What next? I didn’t want it to be a thrash and bash wargame. I decided I wanted it to be centred on the securing of trade and trade routes plus income from taxes. The latter was pretty simple – I allowed players to collect taxes from each province they owned with the option of double taxing. The latter increased the chances of the highly taxed provinces going into rebellion – a calculated risk, in other words, which is a concept that always appeals to me and about which more anon.

For the trading I hit upon an idea which I must confess to being rather pleased with and which could, in itself, have been the core idea for another game. Wanting it kept simple, I devised a system of three basic commodities (what they are called is unimportant – let’s call them A B and C). Each country had to acquire these commodities and transport them to their capital to be ‘cashed in’. But they could cash them in only in sets of three (ABC). In the full five player game there are only three of each type around the board, which means there are not enough for each player to have a set each time. Also no single country produces one of each (they might produce two As and a C, for example). This means that in order to secure the missing item(s) players had either to trade, secure them by contract (about which more later), or capture the province in which a desired ‘missing’ item is produced.

Additionally there are around the board two somewhat more luxurious commodities – two Ds and one E. If, instead of trading in a set of just ABC, you can acquire ABC and D you get much more for them, and if to this you add the true luxury item E you get considerably more. On their own the Ds and the E are worth nothing; they have to supplement the basic set. These commodities are placed on the board in their producing province at the beginning of each five year period unless there is a specific occurrence that prevents this.

ROYAL FAMILY

This trading aspect of the game hasn’t changed since the early days. It worked well and provided the framework I needed. We now had a royal family that had to ensure its own continuation and it needed to obtain commodities. It also needed income. If it had some strong royal males plus a strong army it could go out and capture the producing provinces by force. In the same way it could wage combat in order to secure its trade routes. If necessary a country could build a string of castles. A castle means it doesn’t matter what happens to the province in which it is located: goods can still be transported through that otherwise enemy province, the castle ensuring safe passage for troops and trade goods. But warfare was an uncertain business. Kings especially could not normally safely leave their capital to indulge in prolonged foreign wars. If they were generally popular and were doing well it was easier but if they were not too high in the popularity stakes and also weren’t being too successful in their campaigning there was always the possibility of domestic unrest looming over them. And if they don’t at once rush back to quell it rebellion had a nasty habit of spreading.

So securing what they want by other means became important and here another major aspect of the game comes into play – the royal marriage. For each player it is essential to ensure the continuation of his dynasty. If he doesn’t do so control could go to another player who can trace his monarch’s ancestry back.

Also an unmarried king cannot produce princes to lead his armies. So wives are in demand – especially beautiful and healthy ones. (Even so, there are a lot of desperate marriages between pretty nasty boys and somewhat sickly girls, I might add!) Most marriages also seal a ‘Marriage Contract’ and if, for example, you are seeking a girl to marry the King’s eldest son you can put your demands pretty high, because the player controlling the potential future queen’s family stands to gain quite a bit financially when she ascends the throne. These all-important contracts can concern non-aggression, military support, money, trade rights, trade routes, land, or a mixture of the lot. They have to be carefully worded because their terms become binding for as long as both parties to the marriage survive. Players are not allowed to break the terms of a marriage contract: they would have to arrange the death of one of the parties first.

QUILL TO PARCHMENT

So crucial is the clever negotiation of these contracts that they presented one of the early problems in the game. A new player could be totally at the mercy of an old hand who easily tied him up into a contract that he subsequently came to realise he could well have done without. (France is always best played by such a persuasive player.) This is why a change was made so that at the start of the game the children are too young to be married at once. This at least gives an inexperienced player time to see what it’s all about before he puts quill to parchment.

One of the features of the game is that during each five year turn each player has to announce to the rest of the players what has happened to his dynasty – who has died, who has been born and the description of a child, and so on. The death of a king or queen is, of course, a major event and the records are searched to establish the next in line in those rare cases where it is not immediately obvious. It is even possible for a player’s kingdom to pass to another player who has the only direct heir, but this is rare. Legitimate claimants to the throne can be passed over, but from then on they provide a nuisance factor in the game that other players can exploit.

There were a few other aspects that were slowly modified during the early days (or years) but that was the game in essence.

As it stood it presented one important problem as I saw it, although it wasn’t one that seemed to worry many of the groups that came to know it and made copies. To obtain the full feeling of this continuing and developing dynasty it was essentially an ongoing game. During the course of a three hour game the most one could expect is that the king or queen (or both) might die and the next in line ascend the throne but it wouldn’t go much farther than that. The true essence of the game, though, was the continuation of the family and its ramifications as it married into other dynasties and produced children. This meant that it either had to be played for a long time or it was best played as an ongoing game by the same group (the winner each session being the player who had best improved on his starting position). This is the way it was often played. Chronicles were kept and huge family trees maintained. It has been turned into a play by mail game in Austria and there they publish the appropriate dynastic announcements with proper obituaries on the death of an important Royal Personage. This is what the whole
thing is about.

HISTORICAL EVENTS

So this was how the game stood when Games Workshop came on the scene. They had recently done an excellent job with my Warrior Knights and I was happy to let them have Dynasties as it was then called. They knew the game and were attracted to the idea of incorporating role-playing features into a traditional boardgame.

The first thing they decided to change was the name. They were rather frightened to use Dynasties because of the popular TV series. At the first meeting I tossed in Blood Royal as an alternative title, which was finally adopted but with an additional ‘E’. I have noticed that continental players, obviously disliking the mixture of languages, refuse to acknowledge this final E.

Unfortunately we then started to run into a bit of trouble and our good relations took a temporary downturn. Warrior Knights had been published precisely as I invented it. Well, that is not 100% correct – a few changes were made to assist production but not only were they all made by me or with my approval, but I also felt they were improvements. The GW developer for Warrior Knights was Albie Fiore, who had also worked on my Dr Who (one of GW’s first boardgames) and he subsequently worked on my Whirlwind (FASA). By this time he had left Games Workshop and the in house developer of Blood Royal was somebody different, and he wanted to expand the game and introduce more historical events. Although my contract allowed me to veto any changes to the original I had respect for the enthusiasm and undoubted abilities of the developer, even though I feared the additions would lengthen an already long game. But the big problem was that in the main the proposed additions (and they were all ‘additions’ as opposed to changes) were not the sort of rules I would have invented. Not that they were bad in themselves, they simply reflected the sort of game the developer would have invented and not the sort of game I like.

Let me give an example to illustrate the different approaches. Games Workshop wanted to introduce a series of historical events in the form of chance cards. These were to be events that often affected (usually adversely) one player. Of course, they were not as crude as ‘Go to Jail’, but you know what I mean. They also mirrored historical events. While I was not totally against the idea of these events I wanted them to have considerably more interest and add to the fun of the game. I also wanted them to be different from the sort of thing people are used to. My feelings are that historical events happen because a certain regime either takes a certain action (one out of a number of possibilities) at a certain time, or decides to take no action at all. If at a particular moment a contrary decision had been made the course of history would have been changed in some way. What we see as history, therefore, is the result of one decision out of a number of possible decisions taken at the time and in my game we were living in the time.

INTELLIGENCE REPORT

So, to get back to the game, I suggested that firstly, we should try to restrict events so that they affect all players, and secondly, that the event should be in the form of an intelligence report listing what could happen in, say, two to three turns:
i) if no action was taken,
ii) the chances of averting this occurrence if more money was directed into the area (money that might be in short supply),
iii) the chances of suppressing the event by stationing troops in the area, and so on. The ‘chances’ would be expressed in terms of die roll odds.

After all, these are the sort of questions a ruler would have to ask at the time and he would decide on the action to take in the light of the replies, the odds of success, and the effect on his exchequer, stability, and so on. So in game terms it would mean that the player would do what he thought most expedient and possible and he would have to await the outcome. At the same time other players who have no love for him (and no contract preventing intervention) could, possibly, lessen his chances of success by taking certain actions themselves.
The developer saw my point but sadly our minds didn’t run along the same lines. Certain modifications were made, but generally speaking I thought the event cards at the end of the day didn’t really reflect the original thinking I was aiming for. I preferred to offer the game as I invented it and leave it to enthusiasts to extend it as they wished as a result of play and the preferences of their own group.

As it was clear that we were thinking quite differently and time was being consumed it was finally agreed to publish the game in my basic form with the new rules being included as ‘Optionals’ to be used or discarded by the purchaser as he or she wished. In this way I was able to give Game Workshop carte blanche with these additions, without further reference back to me. It is pertinent to add at this stage that it is rare for publishers to agree to allow an inventor to veto any changes. He normally has no control whatsoever over the product that finally arrives on the shelves, which might be quite unlike his original. An amazing situation when you come to think about it.

FOREIGN PRINCES

The solution reached was quite satisfactory. As far as the production was concerned they made a truly superb job of it. I must admit that I took exception to the box cover, which didn’t reflect the feel of the game at all, and it was rather sad that GW scored an own goal by deciding to suggest names for foreign princes and princesses – presumably for the benefit of players whose knowledge was limited in this regard- and getting them wrong! But these are peripherals. No inventor could be anything but delighted with the quality of the product offered, right down to such often overlooked details as the magnificent presentation of the rules, which excellently carried through the historical feel of the game. These are the qualities that show Games Workshop at their best, and they deserve every compliment.

In its basic form Blood Royal presents a system that is ideal for building on and I know a number of groups have developed additional rules bringing in the power of the Church, rules that have qualities that appeal to their particular group and have stood the test of playing over a period, being slowly refined in the process. This is excellent and what I hoped would happen.

While one must be pleased in one respect, it is also a pity that Blood Royal appeared just before GW made the decision to turn exclusively to the fantasy games with which they are normally associated and which (as a result of their White Dwarf readership) had been far more profitable for them than their ventures into non-fantasy and comic strip themes. Having made this decision it reflects greatly to their credit that they pushed ahead with Blood Royal in the quality that they did, it being no small investment.

(This article was originally published in “Games International”, issue #13 and is reproduced here with the permission of Brian Walker, the former GI editor)

Strategy Seminar

Steve Jones dons his toga and provides a comprehensive guide to the great game of aspiring cultures.

CIVILIZING INFLUENCES

In purely abstract game terms, Civilization is a steeplechase race game; I shall elaborate upon this theme as the article develops. Looked at in this light, the game may seem quite ordinary. What elevates it to a classic is a combination of two things: the subject matter (or the ‘chrome’ aspect of the game), and the wonderfully balanced and rich structure of the rules. The latter moulds the game into one with elevated player interaction in ways which are complex, subtle and shifting, and yet are always under the players’ collective control. In my opinion, Civilization is quite simply the best multi-player board game ever invented.

The subject matter of the game is an attractive and evocative one. It concerns the growth and development of the ancient civilisations around the shores of the Mediterranean Sea, and in the Middle East.

Each player starts off in control of a nomadic Stone Age tribe which then proceeds to develop a highly advanced classical civilisation over the course of millennia. The object of the game could not be simpler: it is to gain a state of overall advancement, involving cultural, economic and political factors, faster than anyone else. Although this makes the game into a race, it is vitally important to realise that it is one conducted on several different levels.

It is also important to realise that it is a game which megalomaniacs always lose. War is available as an instrument of policy, but the game is so structured as to make it into a blunt and relatively inefficient one. The more efficient means available to combat your opponents are, to a greater or lesser extent, subtle, hidden, indirect, sophisticated, and ‘civilised’.

THE KNOWN WORLD

The game consists of a map board, an Archaeological Succession Table (AST),
eleven sets of trade cards, sixteen sets of civilization cards and seven sets (nine in
the Avalon Hill version) of faction counters. The map board consists of three leaves
(West, Central and East) depicting a region stretching from Sardinia in the west to the
head of the Persian Gulf in the east, and from the upper Nile Valley in the south to the
southern Ukraine in the north. Hartland have recently released an expansion kit
containing a fourth leaf (WXB) which extends the map westwards to take in Iberia.

The map is divided into land and sea zones in much the same way as Diplomacy
and Risk. The sea zones are subdivided into two types: coastal and open. The land
zones each have a population carrying capacity indicated by a number. Some of the land
zones also contain natural city sites. The map features, in addition, four flood plains
and three volcanoes; there is a fifth flood plain on the WXB extension leaf.

The faction counters each consist of fifty six tokens, nine cities and four ships. One
token is used as a marker on the AST, and the remainder may be used to represent either
population on the board or money in the player’s treasury. Depending upon the number
of players in the game, the players are limited to a specific number of tokens each. This
last is a deliberate design feature in the game. The main problem that the players
continually face is one of limited resources. The subdivision of the each player’s
finite number of tokens among population on the board, money in his/her treasury, and
his/her stock (tokens currently not in play) is a brilliant design mechanism for creating
this shortage.

During the course of the game, there is a constant flow of tokens between a
player’s stock on one hand, and the board and his/her treasury on the other.
Furthermore, this flow is more or less under the player’s control. Nevertheless,
players will find themselves facing problems, and occasionally windfalls, depending upon
where their tokens are currently located. There are many subtle aspects to the management
of the token flow, and players should acquaint themselves with these.

COMMODITIES

There are seventy four trade cards in the game. Of these, sixty six represent
eleven commodities which have values from one to nine. The remaining eight cards
represent calamities (more commonly known as disasters), and these all have value zero.
The commodity cards are initially stacked, face downwards, in nine decks, each deck
corresponding to the value of the commodities in it, and the calamity card of the
appropriate type is placed at the bottom of each deck except the first.

The eleven commodities are Ochre, Hides, Papyrus, Iron, Salt, Grain, Cloth, Bronze,
Spice, Gems and Gold; the first two have value one, the second two have value two, and
the remaining seven have the values ranging from three to nine in order. When more than
one card of a given commodity is held the net value of the collection is greatly
increased. The formula for finding the total value of several cards of the same commodity
is to multiply the square of the number of cards held by the commodity value; for
example, five grain are worth (5×5) x 4 = 100.

During the course of the game, each player takes the top card from each trade deck for
each city he/she has, and uses these to construct packages for trade with the other
players. Through trade, the aim is to increase the net value of the commodities held in
hand, and to use these to purchase civilization cards. The trade system is one of barter
involving trade cards alone. Any number of trade deals may be made between the players,
two at a time. In each trade deal, each player must offer at least three trade cards,
correctly quote the total value of the package and correctly give the commodity of one of
them; outside of these restrictions, anything can be said about the package. This last is
important because trading does carry risks: some of the disaster cards can be passed on
in a trade deal.

DISASTERS

The eight disasters are Volcano/Earthquake, Famine, Civil War, Flood, Epidemic, Civil
Disorder, Iconoclasm & Heresy, and Piracy. The first four are so-called red-backed
disasters and affect the players who pick them up. The last four, on the other hand, are
so-called black-backed disasters and can be passed on to another player through a trade
deal; the disaster then affects that player!

As the names suggest, it does not help your aspiring civilisation to be affected by
one of these disasters. Players will find it essential to acquaint themselves with the
effects of the disasters, how to lessen their effect, how to direct them at their
opponents, and how to reduce the chances of receiving one. In practice, it is impossible
to avoid disasters completely. This is because an individual disaster does not affect
only the player who received the card; that player may also, depending upon the exact
nature of the disaster, ‘distribute’ its effects among the other players! This is
just another one of the wonderful balancing mechanisms in the game.

If trade cards constitute the major currency in Civilization, civilization cards must
be considered to be the raison d’etre of the game, and the focus of all
actions. There are seventy two civilization cards representing sixteen different aspects
of civilisation. They are divided into four colour groups representing broad areas of
human knowledge/endeavour. Most cards are members of only one group, but some are members
of two. The groups are Arts (blue), Crafts (orange), Sciences (green) and Civics (red).
The sixteen card types are Mysticism, Cloth Making, Pottery, Drama & Poetry, Music,
Architecture, Astronomy, Metalworking, Agriculture, Coinage, Literacy, Engineering,
Medicine, Law, Democracy, and Philosophy. They each have a value of between 30 and 240;
the purchase price is equal to the card value but, in practice, it may be decreased by
cards already held.

Each type also has an effect on play, usually by modifying some aspect of the normal
rules. They are obtainable by exchanging trade cards and treasury of at least the same
value. They can be relatively costly, and there may be a shortage of the various types
depending upon the number of players in the game. If the latter is the case, you will
find yourself competing with your opponents for a very limited resource, particularly so
in the case of the more expensive cards. This has a considerable effect upon long term
strategy, of which more anon.

RACE TRACK

The AST is the race track of the steeplechase alluded to earlier on. It is essentially
a non-linear timeline consisting of fifteen time steps, plus start and finish
positions, and covering the period from 8000 BC to 250 BC. The non-linear nature of the
timeline is evident from the fact that the first time step covers a period of three
thousand years while the last step covers less than one hundred years. The timeline is
further subdivided into nine independent tracks, each associated with a starting area on
the map board and named after the various ancient civilisations and/or regions. These
are, in the order ‘down’ the table: Africa, Italy, Illyria, Thrace, Crete, Asia,
Assyria, Babylon and Egypt.

The WXB map leaf adds an extra track for Iberia and a modified African track which is
only used if the WXB leaf is in play; in addition, Italy is not used when the WXB
leaf is in play. Each track is divided into five numbered epochs identified as New Stone
Age, Early Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, and Late Iron Age. Furthermore,
the epochs are not of the same length on the different tracks; this can have an enormous
effect on the choice of strategy of the different countries.

At the end of every turn, the AST tokens are usually moved forward one step; therefore
the game is at least 16 turns long. However, entry to a new epoch requires the fulfilment
of a minimum condition which depends upon the new epoch. The second epoch requires two
cities, the third requires civilization cards representing three groups, the fourth
requires seven civilization cards, and the fifth requires civilization cards totalling at
least 1000 points. Once in the fifth epoch, the player needs a stated value on the AST to
move forward; this time the value of treasury and trade cards may be included in the
total. In addition, in any epoch except the first, the token is moved backwards if a
player has no cities! It should now be clear why the game can be likened to a
steeplechase. Nearly every decision which a player makes during the course of a game
should be geared towards keeping that token moving on the AST. One of the things which
make the game into a classic is the fact that some of your actions can also be directed
to affect the movement of your opponents’ tokens along the AST.

ORDER OF PLAY

Each game turn is subdivided into thirteen separate phases. These are Taxation and
Revolts, Population Expansion, Census, Ship Construction, Movement, Conflict, City
Building, Trade Card Acquisition, Trade, Civilization Card Acquisition, Calamity
Resolution, Excess Trade Card Surrender, and AST Movement. In many of these phases, the
order of play will often change from turn to turn, and it is vital to become thoroughly
familiar with all the ramifications of this. This variable order of play is a
self-balancing mechanism that has been deliberately built into the game’s structure.
It is well worth briefly discussing the eight cases in each game turn where an order of
play is important.

Taxation

In the Taxation phase, any players who have insufficient tokens in their stocks to pay
the taxation on their cities will lose to a revolt those cities which cannot pay. The
cities in revolt go over to the player with the most tokens in his/her stock after taxes
have been paid. The order in which revolts occur is in AST order, and if two players both
have the same maximum number of tokens in their stocks, the recipient is decided in AST
order.

Thus revolts generally occur to empires which have grown too big in some
uncontrollable manner, and the recipient of cities in revolt is invariably the smallest
empire on the board. However, it should be noted that revolts are, by and large, fairly
rare, and usually result from player incompetence. The one exception is that a revolt can
be engineered if the player concerned was nominated in a civil war in the previous rum,
and this resulted in him/her having too many cities and too few tokens in stock!

Ship construction

In the Ship Construction phase, players should build and/or maintain ships in AST
order. In practice, players tend to do this simultaneously as the rule is not explicit,
but is implied by Rule [62] on page 16 of the rule book. However, players further down
the AST are perfectly within their rights to insist upon strict AST order being observed.
There are occasions when a player’s decision of whether or not to build or maintain
ships will critically depend upon what other players have decided. If those players are
higher up the AST, just watch what they do and make your decision accordingly.

Movement

In the Movement phase, movement is sequential in the order of the largest to the
smallest populations, with ties being resolved in AST order. Since combat occurs more or
less simultaneously, it is a disadvantage (except in the early turns) to move first, and
the player moving last can possess an enormous strategic advantage. This is probably the
single most important balancing mechanism in the game. In practice, it makes it virtually
impossible to eliminate players, and gives small empires a defensive edge over their
larger neighbours.

Conflict

In the Conflict phase, the order of play is only important if a token shortage is
possible. Then, a player under attack may insist upon resolving first all conflicts
involving only tokens, before dealing with those involving tokens attacking cities.

This is particularly important because conflicts between tokens and cities require the
defending cities to convert into at least six tokens; if there are insufficient tokens in
the player’s treasury, the city will surrender. The rule governing the surrender
of cities implies that the best time to attack another player’s cities is when he/she
has few or no tokens in his/her stock, and then, the attack should be a limited one
directed only at cities.

City building

In the City Building phase, play is in AST order. As with ship construction, city
building is not simultaneous, and a player is perfectly entitled to insist upon players
higher up the AST making their decisions first, as to whether to build any more cities.
The reasons for insisting on this are subtle.

First, it should be pointed out that the rules do not compel a player to build a city
if the conditions for city construction are satisfied; the players have a choice as to
whether or not to add to their city numbers. The reason for the players having this
choice is to enable them to manipulate the order of play in the Trade Card Acquisition
phase so as, on the one hand, to maximise the number of trade cards they acquire, and on
the other, to avoid disasters. Only the very best players will be constantly aware of
this stratagem during the hurly-burly of play.

Trade card acquisition

In the Trade Card Acquisition phase, the order of play is from the smallest to the
largest (in terms of cities), with ties being resolved (yes, you guessed it) in AST
order. This is yet another of the wonderful subtleties of the game. It is deliberately
designed to ensure that the largest empires pick up their trade cards last and, in so
doing, increases the chances that they will end up getting fewer cards than their smaller
neighbours.

There is no point in having more cities than anyone else if this results in you
gaining fewer trade cards than anyone else simply because the trade decks were depleted
prior to your turn to pick up! The good players will be aware of this, and will carefully
adjust the size of their empires according to what the other players are doing.

When it comes time to exchange trade cards for civilization cards, the order of play
is in reverse AST order. This is the only instance in the game where this occurs. All
things being equal, the players at the bottom of the AST normally have a higher chance of
finding some of the trade card decks depleted when they pick up their cards. To offset
this, they are given the first opportunity to purchase the relatively rare civilization
cards.

Calamity resolution

In the Calamity Resolution phase, the order of play goes in ascending order of the
disaster number. This can be important for players affected by more than one disaster,
since it can mitigate the effect of the later disasters. For instance, if a player has
picked up both the Famine and Flood cards, he could lose tokens on his/her flood plain to
the famine and end up avoiding the flood completely.

STRATEGY

Now that you have some idea of how the game is played, and how its many components
interact with each other, how do you develop a winning strategy? One aspect of this game is that there is no one, single winning strategy.
There is, however, a winning approach to how the game should be played, which consists of
six maxims.

The first maxim is to achieve the maximum population growth in the first five or six
turns without affecting your progress on the AST. This involves delaying building your
first cities as long as possible, and spreading out to occupy as much territory as is
possible without becoming involved in fruitless border disputes. If you delay building
your first city until the fifth turn, you can have six cities by the sixth turn. In
contrast, building two cities in the fourth turn leaves you so short of population that
you will have only three cities in the sixth turn; this will leave you short of trade
cards in the early trading sessions.

The second maxim is to aim to have a medium number of cities throughout most of the
second to the fifth epochs; the ideal number is six or seven, depending upon
circumstances. Sticking to this should, on average, maximise the number of trade cards
picked up every turn. It should also make it easier to manipulate your place in the order
of play so as to avoid the worse disasters.

The third maxim is to maintain a healthy distribution of
your tokens between the stock, treasury and map, and to avoid where possible having too
many tokens in one of these three locations. This should ensure that you are in the best
position to avoid the problems associated with over-population and inflation. There are
four ways of controlling your token distribution: deliberately killing off population on
the board by over-stacking, maintaining four ships on the board, partly paying for
civilization cards with treasury tokens, and purchasing the Coinage card as soon as
practically possible.

The fourth maxim is to offer mutually profitable trade deals wherever possible. It is
not a good idea to squeeze the last drop out of a trade deal. It is also good policy to
be truthful about your trade packages (except, of course, when you are attempting to pass
on a disaster card). If you follow this maxim consistently, players will tend to want to
deal with you in the future because they will know they are going to get a square
deal.

The fifth maxim concerns the ideal policy on how to distribute disasters should you be
unfortunate enough to get landed with one. In the early stages up until the end of the
Bronze Age, the best policy is to distribute disasters evenly amongst the other players.
Even so, there are occasions when somebody will be particularly deserving of the maximum
permissible dose, and that is perfectly acceptable should it occur. However, later on,
from about the start of the Iron Age onwards, disasters should be directed exclusively at
the leaders wherever possible in an attempt to slow down, or even stop, their progress on
the AST.

The sixth, and final, maxim is to maintain a low profile on the map, and a high one in
the trading sessions. In particular, don’t make unnecessary waves such as launching
unprovoked attacks on your neighbours. If you have to attack somebody, make sure it is
for a good reason, and immediately apologise, explaining your reasons for the attack.
And, above all, maintain a flexible approach in your actions at all times.

CALAMITIES

Following on from the general considerations discussed above, I shall continue the
discussion of game strategy by considering the eight disasters and the ten starting
positions, and finish up with some observations about trading and the best mixes of
civilization cards to aim for.

As observed earlier in this article, the disasters are subdivided into two blocks,
those which affect the player who picked the card up, and those which affect the
player to whom the card was passed in a trade deal. The former consists of
Volcano/Earthquake, Famine, Civil War and Flood, while the latter consists of Epidemic,
Civil Disorder, Iconoclasm & Heresy and Piracy. Before we discuss each of them in
turn, an important point should be made concerning the black-backed disasters in general.
If you pick one up, and decide to pass it on to another player in a trade deal, the
victim should be chosen carefully. By the time these cards turn up, it should be fairly
obvious who is doing well and who is doing badly. Under no circumstances should one be
passed on to the players who are doing relatively badly. These disaster cards are potent
weapons to be aimed only at the leaders. They are the most active traders in the game,
and they always want valuable cards. As soon as it becomes obvious during a trade session
what commodity one of the leaders is after, make up a trade package consisting of that
commodity and the disaster card and offer it him. And you should make sure the disaster
is well disguised, throwing in another relatively high value commodity if necessary.

Volcano/Earthquake is the least damaging of all the disasters. There are only three volcano sites on the map: Vesuvius and Etna in Italy, and
Santorini in the Aegean Sea. If any of your tokens or cities are on one of these volcano
sites, the volcano erupts and all units are lost. If you do not occupy a volcano site,
one of your cities is struck by an earthquake and is reduced instead; this involves
replacing the city with a number of tokens equal to the carrying capacity of the
area.

The best means of mitigating the effect of this disaster depends upon whether you have
a volcano or an earthquake. If it is a volcano, place population tokens only in the
volcano sites. Although all the volcano sites are natural city locations, it is not a
good idea to set up a city in one of them because it relatively difficult to rebuild it.
If, on the other hand, it is an earthquake, it is best to choose a city located in a high
population carrying capacity area since this makes it easier to rebuild. The only
exception to this is if you have a city on a 3-site, and reduction will lead to a token
shortage in your stock and taxation problems in the next turn. If you have a city located
adjacent to another player’s city, you have the option of reducing that player’s
city as well; whether you do so will depend upon the game position at that time, and it
is best to follow a flexible policy on this. You might even be able to force some favour
out of that player in exchange for not doing it!

Famine is a mixed disaster. Although it forces you to lose nine units (cities
counting as five units equivalent), you can force other players to lose up to twenty
units, with a maximum of eleven from any one player. For this reason, it is one of the
‘best’ of the game-balancing disasters. The effect of the disaster can be
mitigated if you possess Pottery and at least one grain; in this case, for every grain
card held, you reduce the number of units lost by four. This is obviously the perfect
defence against famine, but it does have the double drawback that Pottery is one of the
cheapest civilization cards available and it ties up grain cards which might be better
used either in obtaining better trade deals or in purchasing another civilization
card.

Civil War is one of the most potentially crippling of the disasters. If
you have picked it up, you choose a nominee from among the other players. You and your
nominee then divide your civilisation into two parts; you choose one, and your nominee
gets the other! Usually, one of the parts must contain thirty five units (with cities
again counting as five units equivalent), provided you do not hold Philosophy and/or
Democracy. If you hold Philosophy, your nominee must be the player with the least number
of tokens in his/her stock, (this might be you!) and fifteen units secede to the nominee.
If you hold Democracy (and not Philosophy), one of the two parts must contain forty five
units.

The one certain way to avoid the effects of Civil War is to keep your civilisation to
thirty five units or less (or forty five if you hold Democracy). Another method is to
maintain a mental count of the number of grain cards in the grain deck, and thereby know
when the Civil War card will turn up. Then, by manipulating the number of cities you own,
it is possible to avoid picking the card up.

If, despite all your efforts, you do pick up Civil War,
there are two ways to mitigate its effect. If you have a very big civilisation, choose as
your nominee a player with an equally big civilisation. Careful calculation may ensure
that the nominee will lose most of the seceding units by revolt because of token and city
shortage, and you might get them back provided you have the most tokens in your
stock.

The second way is to choose as your nominee the player with the weakest position and
make him an offer. This will usually involve the nominee choosing those units whose loss
is least damaging to your overall position. Whatever way, Civil War is always vicious; do
everything you can to avoid it.

Flood is the last of the red-backed disasters, and the easiest to absorb. If you have
no flood plain in your civilisation, the only damage is missing out on picking up a
valuable cloth card. If you do have a flood plain, the best policy is to keep it lightly
populated, avoid building cities in it unless the site is elevated above the plain, and
get Engineering as quickly as possible.

If you have been counting the cloth cards, and suspect that you will pick up
flood, it might be worthwhile moving some tokens into someone else’s flood
plain; that player’s units will be affected by the disaster as well!

Epidemic is the first of the black-backed disasters. The recipient loses sixteen
units, and these losses must be taken with no area being completely depopulated; thus, a
city is replaced by one token and counts as a loss of four. The recipient may then spread
the epidemic among the other players, forcing them to lose up to twenty five units, with
no more than ten from any one player. However, the player who passed on the Epidemic card
is immune to this spread of the epidemic; the lack of side-effects makes this disaster a
good one to pass on. The effect of an epidemic can be mitigated to some effect if you
hold Medicine. Should the card be traded to you, you can at least affect your rivals for
the lead. Consequently, the Epidemic is probably the least terrifying of the tradable
disasters.

The effect of the Civil Disorder disaster increases with the civilisation
size. Provided the recipient has more than four cities, and does not hold Law or
Democracy, the excess are reduced. If the recipient holds Law, only cities in excess of
five are reduced, and if he/she holds Democracy, cities in excess of six are reduced.
Civil Disorder is a good card to trade to one of the leaders for two reasons. The first
is that the leaders usually have a large number of cities, and this disaster can chop
them down in size considerably. The second is that the recipient is the only player to
suffer, and the player who traded it suffers no side-effects apart from the victim’s
wrath.

Iconoclasm & Heresy is a terrible disaster, particularly for players who do not
hold Law or Philosophy. In this case, the recipient loses four cities by reduction.
Unlike Civil Disorder, he/she may also order the reduction of two cities owned by the
other players, including the player who traded the card! If the recipient holds Law, only
three cities are reduced, and if he/she holds Philosophy, only two cities are reduced.
Similar decreases apply to the recipient’s counterattack. However, the one to watch
out for is the combination of Civil Disorder with Iconoclasm & Heresy. This can be a
killer for anyone without Law: the former reduces the recipient to four cities, and the
latter knocks these out! This, in turn, forces the recipient backwards on the AST; this
combination should be exclusively aimed at the leader if at all possible.

Piracy is potentially the worse disaster of all. The recipient loses one coastal city
for every ship owned by the player who traded the card. Consequently, the recipient could
lose up to four cities. If this should happen, the effect is worse than Iconoclasm &
Heresy since, in that case, the cities are only reduced, whereas piracy removes the city
completely, and leaves nothing behind. An obvious motto comes immediately to mind: be
wary of ‘Greeks bearing gifts’ – especially in ships!

STARTING POSITIONS

The ten starting positions are not all equal; the ones with better potential usually have a combination of excellent terrain to expand into and a
relatively easy track on the AST. I shall now consider them in AST order.

Africa

Africa has one of the easiest tracks on the AST, as well as a low end-game target
total of 1200 points. Its position at the head of the AST also makes it relatively easy
to avoid disasters, but is a disadvantage when purchasing civilization cards. This
implies that you must look ahead when planning what to purchase.

The AST advantages are offset by Africa’s poor lebensraum, and this is made more
critical by the location of the natural city sites in the best population areas. Africa
should therefore build at least one of the famous ‘desert’ cities (twelve tokens
converted into a city in one of its 1-areas), claim as much of north Africa as possible,
and should be prepared to go to war over Sicily. Agriculture is an essential acquisition
given the lack of breathing room. These problems are reduced by the WXB leaf, and this
has been offset by the larger end-game target of 1300 points.

Iberia

Iberia has a relatively easy track on the AST, and a low end- game target of 1200
points. This is offset by a lack of natural city sites, one of which is in a flood plain.
Although Italy is not in play when the WXB leaf is used, most of the Italian peninsula
will have been claimed by the time you get there. Build a couple of ‘desert’
cities in Iberia, and try to get Agriculture.

Italy

Italy is one of the blue chip starting positions, possessing an easy track on the AST,
plenty of natural city sites, and a medium end-game target of 1300 points. Aim to occupy
all of the Italian peninsula, and the Balkan coast as far south as Corfu. It really is
too easy playing Italy and the other players should be aware of it.

Illyria

Illyria is a very difficult starting position. (‘What should I do in
Illyria?’) This is because its two neighbours Italy and Thrace have easier AST tracks
and consequently tend to be chosen first. If this happens there is nowhere to expand
into, and the position should not be chosen. However, if the WXB leaf is in use, Illyria
effectively takes up Italy’s position in the standard game. Its slightly more
difficult AST track and maximum end-game target of 1400 points balances this part of the
map out nicely. You can now have a viable game with it.

Thrace

Thrace has an AST track of about the same degree of difficulty as Italy’s.
However, it suffers from a lack of natural city sites, and the Danube Delta flood plain.
Consequently, it should insist upon a frontier with Italy located as far west as
possible, and a frontier with Asia/Assyria as far east in southern Ukraine as possible.
It would also be an advantage to acquire Agriculture.

Crete

Crete’s central starting location is a relatively difficult one, offset partly by
its low end-game target of 1200. Although there is no shortage of city sites in Greece
and Asia Minor, there is a lack of breathing space. This is accentuated by the necessity
to build ships to get off the island of Crete in the early stages. Once these ships have
been built, Crete always moves last in the race to occupy as much land as possible before
the first bout of city building. Consequently, you should concentrate upon creating a
constantly mobile population, and the acquisition of both Agriculture and Astronomy are
essential.

Asia

Asia has a relatively difficult AST track, which is not helped by the high end-game
target of 1400. It also tends to be crowded out by Assyria. Consequently, it is advisable
to choose Asia only if Babylon has not been chosen; in this case, Asia and Assyria have
plenty of room to expand into. If Assyria and Babylon have already been chosen, avoid
Asia like the plague.

Assyria

Assyria is another blue chip starting position to rank along side Italy. However, its
slightly harder AST track and higher end-game target of 1400 make it more of a challenge
to play. You should aim to expand into Asia Minor and to the Med coast at Antioch,
working out sensible frontiers with Crete and Babylon. If Asia is in play in place of
Babylon, it is probably best to let Asia have Asia Minor, and take over the normal Baby
Ionian position yourself. However, allowing Asia through into the Babylonian position is
equally viable.

Babylon

Babylon has an excellent area to expand into on the map, despite the huge Euphrates
flood plain. However, its AST track is extremely difficult because of the early first
barrier. Against good players, the best policy is probably to go for maximum city
expansion in the early stage and take a deliberate stop for one turn at the first
barrier. You will then have to attempt to ensure that all the other players make at least
one stop later in the game. If Egypt is also in the game, and follows the same policy, it
is advisable to cooperate closely with him/her on this. Apart from this, it is advisable
to avoid building more than one low lying city on the flood plain unless it is absolutely
necessary.

Egypt

Egypt has a similar problem to Babylon, and should follow a similar policy. It is
essential to expand into Palestine and claim as many of the city sites there as possible.
It is also advisable to agree to a sensible frontier with Africa and thereby avoid
trouble on that side. And whatever you do, avoid building cities in the Nile Delta if at
all possible.

TRADING

In the trading sessions, your primary aim should be to build up a set of trade cards
with a value as large as possible. This generally means concentrating on one commodity at
a time, and trying to corner the market in that commodity. The best commodities to
concentrate upon are Salt, Grain, Cloth, Bronze and Spice. The first four commodities
tend to be used as short change to fill up a trade package, but if you manage to make up
a full set they complement your hand very nicely. Although Gems and Gold can make up
substantial sets, there are not many of them, and the number of players with eight or
nine cities is usually low. Even if you do not have nine cities, it is useful to convert
eighteen tokens in your treasury whenever possible. It gains you a useful card to trade
with players who do have nine cities, and helps relieve your inflation problems. It is
also a good idea to offer trade packages of four or more cards every now and then; this
may make it easier to conceal a disaster card in the deal if that opportunity arises.

CARDS

There is no ideal set of civilization cards to collect. If
somebody maintained that such a set existed, the maximum limit of eleven cards per player
would make things very tight in the five, six and seven player games. However, some
general guidelines can be given. Any winning set must contain at least two of the three
civic cards Law, Philosophy and Democracy, and preferably all three. The easiest way to
acquire Law is to pick up Literacy and Architecture first; together, they knock forty
points off the price of Law. Philosophy can purchase very cheaply if you also acquire
Music and the five science cards: Mysticism, Astronomy, Coinage, Medicine, and
Engineering; this reduces the price of Philosophy to seventy. The purchase price of
Democracy can be reduced to one hundred and ten with the additional purchase of the four
craft cards Pottery, Cloth Making, Metal Working and Agriculture.

The order in which you purchase your cards should be partly decided by two criteria.
The first is to buy them in the sequence which makes the entire set you aim to collect as
cheap as possible. The second criterion should be based on whether the purchase advances
you past all barriers on the AST in the shortest number of turns. The problem here is
that getting past one barrier ‘easily’ may create problems at the next barrier.
The most critical example of this dilemma is evidenced by a decision to purchase lots of
cheap cards in order to obtain the seven cards required to pass the third barrier; this
may make it extremely difficult to acquire an additional four cards with the values
required to push your net total to the one thousand points required to pass the fourth
barrier. However, it is sometimes not possible to stick to these criteria. This is
usually caused by buying pressure on specific cards.

The trickiest decision to be made is usually connected with the order in which the
cards belonging to a particular colour group are bought. The natural order is to buy from
cheapest to dearest, largely because this makes it easier to pass the early barriers.
However, it can be advantageous to buy some of the expensive ones first in order to
create a shortage in them. This is a particularly important consideration in the five,
six and seven player games.

The mix of civilization cards to aim for is also critically determined by the number
of players in the game. If the number is four or less, there is no card shortage, and it
is generally best to aim for the high value cards unless this causes problems during the
approaches to the barriers on the AST. With larger numbers of players, it is worthwhile
going for some of the cheaper cards if only to ease your passage along the AST. However,
you must make sure, firstly, that you pick up a substantial proportion of the highest
value cards, and secondly, that your main rivals miss out on more of them.

In conclusion, Civilization is an excellent multi-player game for those who
like long games which require considerable thought, concentration and decision making. As
a final point, I’ll leave you with a recommendation not to use the Avalon Hill
expansion set. The additional trade cards mean that the disasters are less frequent, and
this upsets the entire play balance of the game.

Civilization is a game for two to seven players; designed by Francis Tresham
and originally published by Hartland Trefoil; it is now also marketed under licence by
Avalon Hill and Gibsons Games. Players should be aware of which set they are playing
with: there are slight differences, principally in the sequence of play, between the
Hartland rules and the Avalon Hill rules.

(This article was originally published in “Games
International”, issue #12 (January 1990) and is reproduced here with the permission of Brian Walker, the former editor of GI)