Westpark Gamers

Game Reviews & The Evil Gift Horse From Hell

by Moritz Eggert

This time I want to talk about one subject that is brought up many a time, namely the idea that receiving free games as review copies is a bad thing, and that it clouds the judgment of the person reviewing the game.

Now this at first sounds like a reasonable argument – of course one immediately thinks of adages like „don’t look a gift horse in the mouth“ – at least there’s a saying like that in German. If one receives a gift it will make you more favourable to the person giving you the gift, so you won’t be as likely to say negative things about this person. At least in theory. There are whole societies that are based on gift giving – it played a huge role in ancient Chinese Bureaucracy for example, and right now the famous Alan E. Paull with 2 „l“, designer of Tara – Seat of Kings, is actually designing a game about this subject.

When one visits the website of Steve Weeks, who heads the League of Untouchable American Gamers, one is not only greeted by Hooters-style pictures of half-naked ladies dressed in American flags, always a sign of great taste in website design, but also the proud info that this gamer does NOT accept free review copies but instead will always tell… „the truth“ about how a game is.

So are free review copies a bad thing? Do they corrupt the soul; do they make you a worshipper of the big Euro monster that threatens to destroy the soul of America, the good old-fashioned proud American game?

First of all we should note one important thing: a review copy is NOT a present. It is a neutral transaction between two parties. The first party is a publisher who wants exposure for his game by giving it to someone who is considered some kind of voice in the gaming world. Some people grow into this role by doing a lot of reviews like Tom Vasel or Greg Schloesser, which is – as everybody can imagine – a lot of work. You don’t simply declare yourself to be a Greg Schloesser, you become a Greg Schloesser by continuously working hard on being vocal about your opinions of games, by spending a lot of time not gaming but DESCRIBING gaming, which is – as everybody can imagine – not as good as actually gaming itself.

Now I personally also do get a kick out of writing an experimental review here and there, but I actually would rather play the games themselves than reviewing them. It’s an unthankful task, but somebody has to do it. One does it out of a certain responsibility, and that is mainly twofold – you want to share your love for certain games that you find cool and that you want others to love as well. And you want to warn others from games which don’t succeed that much or which are downright bad. Both are pretty altruistic motives, especially as we are talking about a hobby here, not a profession.

I get a lot of review copies at Essen, and you know what? I don’t do a little jig every time I get a game like this. I don’t go „wow, how great, another game, what a wonderful present“. I don’t go home and put the review copy proudly in my collection, full of love for the person who gave it to me. No, I actually feel a big burden with each free review copy, because each review copy means for me one simple thing: work. At our next Westpark-Gamers session we won’t play Yspahan for example, but we will instead look at our pile of review copies and say „ok, what games do we have to review next“. And the only responsibility I personally feel when writing about a review copy is that it has to be a thorough and detailed review, but I don’t feel it has to be a good review.

When I look back at the reviews of the Westpark Gamers about 20 -30 percent of them are of review copy games. But these reviews have exactly the same distribution of good and bad reviews as the reviews of non-review copies games. In fact we often had trouble with small publishers whose games we didn’t like that much, for example Henning Poehl and his game „Popeln“ (which translates to boogering). He was very unhappy with the negative review we did, but we didn’t falter in our opinion. We never, ever even once had trouble with experienced publishers, because they know exactly that a reviewer who simply loves every game, who always gushes about how great they are, is simply not a respected game reviewer, and actually LESS interesting than the critical reviewer who speaks his mind. What the experienced publishers are interested in is simply publicity itself. They want that people talk about their games.

Now let’s move to something that has been ignored so far in this discussion: The analogy to OTHER fields of life. And you know what? The people who complain about free review copies should simply look how it’s handled in absolutely EVERY other profession, be it artistic or industrial. What we have here is the concept of a sample. What does the factory do that wants to convince a contractor of the quality of their work? They will send some free samples, then the contractor will decide if he wants to collaborate or not. It’s common practice. You do that as a consumer even. Very often you will be presented with free samples of new toothpaste, a new snack, or a new chocolate bar. Does it make you a drooling slave that from now on will be full of undying love for the company who gave you that sample? I believe not, what is happening here is that the company informs you of their product, and you either like it or not. That’s all.

As many of you know I work in the field of music. There is also a job called reviewer or critic there, as is the case generally in the arts, theatre, literature, whatever. These reviewers work for newspapers that send them to the various concerts and performances. And you know what? These guys always get in for free, they don’t pay a cent. When they enter a theatre they will be presented with what we call press tickets, they get a free program, a good seat, all so they can judge the performance and write about it in their newspaper. Wow, you might think, now they are all slaves to the theatre because they’re so HAPPY to get in for free. But when you read theatre, concert reviews – do you have the feeling they’re always good? In Germany it is extremely rare, that a concert review will be gushingly positive, in fact I would say that 80 percent of the reviews are VERY critical and many of them are nastily negative. But the theatre will invariably invite the same guy who wrote negatively about them to their next performance, because they don’t want robots who write what they want, no, they simply want the publicity itself, and they know that a good review by an independent, critical reviewer is worth so much more than empty praise.

Look at film reviews in the US: All reviewers are invited to FREE press screenings, they get pre-cuts of the new films sent on DVD, and they get invited to banquets, to exclusive interviews. It is common practice. But does that make them positively gushing slaves of the film industry? Rather not – just go to RottenTomatoes.com and look at the average film review – they are extremely critical of practically everything. But these guys got in… for free… wow!

So please, dear League of Untouchable American Gamers: Don’t live in a dream world, just look at reality for a change. And you will see that the concept of a reviewer being thoroughly corrupted by free admission, by free games etc. simply does not happen. Because the more critical a reviewer is, the more interesting he actually becomes, not the other way round. A praise by a known nitpicker is worth so much more than the praise of somebody who likes everything. That’s the way it works, folks, look at reality and learn from it.

„Castle of Magic“ – Die Gegendarstellung

Aaron nannte Castle of Magic auf der Newsseite „umstritten“. Präziser wäre „von Walter gehasst, vom Rest geliebt„. Dies lehrt ein Blick auf die Bewertungsseite.

Castle of Magic hat zwei Aspekte, die einem manch anderes, ansonsten gutes Spiel verleiden. Erstens ist Kingmakerei weitgehend unmöglich – okay, zugegebenermaßen nicht völlig, aber sie spielte bislang bei keinem Spiel auch nur ansatzweise eine Rolle. Zweitens bleibt das Spiel für alle Beteiligten bis zum Schluss spannend. Wer gut vorgebaut hat, mag vielleicht mit 40-70% Chance gewinnen, doch selbst wer am schlechtesten steht, behält eine dünne Chance auf den Sieg. Bei Spielchen à la 1830 kommt es durchaus vor, dass man nach zwei, drei Stunden nur noch mitspielt, um den anderen beim Spiel zuzusehen.

Castle of Magic Expansion

Das Spielkonzept ist originell und nicht ein zigter Aufguss altbekannter Mechanismen. Trotz all seiner Komplexität und sogar trotz des Diplomatie-Elements spielt sich Castle of Magic zügig und ist (inklusive Regelerklärung) in weniger als drei Stunden machbar.

Woher also Walters Ranküne? Er glaubt, der ganze Rest der Westpark Gamers ließe sich von diesem Spiel hereinlegen (ich benutz’ mal besser mein eigenes, G-rated wording). Ich denke, dass er auch seine Spaß an Castle of Magic haben wird und sich nicht mehr hintergangen fühlt, sobald er die Taktik des Spiels verinnerlicht hat.

Bleiben wir des Beispiels wegen direkt bei seinen Skandala:

Skandalon 1: Identitäten

Für die allermeisten Charakter sieht die Eigenschaftskarte ungefähr wie folgt aus: Bei einem der drei Reiche (sagen wir A) gilt: Viele Punkte für Kontrolle, viel Schaden bei Verfluchung. Bei einem anderen (unser B) gibt es wenige bis keine Punkte (bzw. Negativpunkte) für Kontrolle oder Verfluchung, beim dritten (C) ist das Verhältnis umgekehrt (Strafe für den Besitz, Bonus für die Verfluchung).

Das Idealziel ist also, in dieser Grundform, die Kontrolle über Reich A mit Verfluchungsmöglichkeit (die man dann auf C anwendet). Nicht schlecht wäre auch das Absterben des Inhabers von C samt Verfluchung – wenn man A kontrolliert, wäre das sogar noch besser. Und selbst wenn ein „Verbündeter“ A kontrolliert, kann das immer noch zum Sieg reichen.

Walter hat Recht, dass die Ziele nicht klar kalkulierbar sind. Aber das ist ein wesentlicher Teil des Witzes des Spiels. Man versucht halt vorerst, die Gegenstände korrekt den Reichen zuzuordnen, dann den richtigen Gegenstand (den für Reich A) an sich zu bringen, schließlich Bell, Book, Candle auf’s richtige Ritual zu setzten und fertig. Leider klappt das nicht immer so einfach, denn es spielen auch noch andere Leute mit. Dementsprechend flexibel muss die Strategie sein: Nächster Punkt.

Skandalon 2: Secrets

Walter beschwert sich darüber, dass die sauer erkämpfte Information, ich wolle Sorrell nicht zerstören, wertlos sei. Mitnichten!

Sorrell ist eines der drei Länder, und zwar nach meiner obigen Kategorisierung das Land C, das Land, für dessen Verfluchung Walter Punkte kriegt. Stellen wir uns mal folgendes Endspiel vor: Angenommen, ich habe einen der drei Gegenstände (sagen wir, das Amulett) unter meiner festen Kontrolle, und Bell, Book, Candle wäre so eingestellt, dass der Besitzer des Amuletts ein beliebiges Land verfluchen darf. Dann müsste Walter mit aller Macht mir entgegenarbeiten (durch Verstellen von Bell, Book, Candle und durch hinauszögern des Rituals), denn Sorrell werde ich nicht verfluchen: Irgendetwas anderes bringt mir die Punkte, und mit 50% Chance ist es sein Marus (und zu 100%, wenn mein Gegenstand nicht Marus entspricht).

Jede Information ist Gold wert, sofern man die Mechanismen verinnerlicht hat.

Skandalon 3: Informationsaustausch

Was versüßt einem mehr die Woche, als einem Verbündeten bei Diplomacy von hinten den Todesstoß zu geben? Als einem armen Opfer bei Junta anzubieten, man würde für ihn auf all diese roten Gebäude aufpassen, während er in die Offensive gehen kann?

Unter dem Wort „Spiel“ subsumiert man sehr unterschiedliche Tätigkeiten. Dazu gehört das Büffeln über Taktiken, der blinde Zufall des Glücks (und die weit weniger blinde Abwägung stochastischer Chancen) und schließlich die Kommunikation. Es gibt Spieler, die einen dieser Bereiche gegenüber den anderen privilegieren. Walter scheint z. B. die Diplomatie nicht zu mögen. Ich bin in meinem Element, wenn ich gleich einem Basarhändler um Informationen feilschen kann. Wenn man dies, Walters Vorschlag gemäß, durch einen Austausch der Charakterkarten ersetzt, dann müsste man eigentlich gar nicht vor die Tür gehen.

Um beim Beispiel des letzten Spiels zu bleiben: Ich war zweimal in Diplomatie verwickelt. Einmal hab’ ich Aaron herauszitiert, weil der alle Königreich-Gegenstand-Beziehungen kannte, ich dagegen reihenweise Ritualausgänge in Erfahrung gebracht hatte. Ehrlich tauschten wir alle Informationen und profitierten beide gewaltig. Das klappte deswegen, weil ich gut aufgepasst hatte und wusste, dass Aaron meine Daten dringend braucht und er genau das hatte, was mir fehlt.

Später ging Moritz mit mir heraus. „Du bist doch auch Lord?!“ „Ja!“ „Und du bist doch auch Beast?!“ „Ja!“ „Und du willst doch auch, dass niemand stirbt und der Fluch aufgehoben wird“ – [Nein. Ich wollte alle sterben sehen, und der Fluch war mir egal. Aber ich antwortete tapfer:] „Ja, klar!“. Im Nu hatte ich herausgefunden, welches Land für Moritz das A-Land war. Er wusste nicht, wo sich das Ritualergebnis „Inhaber von Land A darf beliebiges anderes Land verfluchen“ verbarg. Ich gab ihm die Nummer fünf (was in Wirklichkeit mein Lieblingsergebnis war: alle sterben und Fluch über dem ganzen Land). Leider hat der ganze Anschlag nicht geklappt, weil er mir später auf die Schliche kam, woran ich aber selbst schuld war – dumm.

Wow! Es soll ein Nachteil dieses Spiels sein, dass solche diplomatischen Finten möglich sind? Walter beschwert sich, dass Leute nicht mit der ganzen Information herausrücken könnten – kann passieren, wenn man nicht genug eigenen Stoff bieten kann. Deswegen nahm ich Aaron, weil er beide vitale Interessen aneinander hatten. Walter beschwert sich, dass man belogen werden kann – das passiert, wenn man einfach nicht genug über den anderen weiß und dann den Chip ausgibt. Walter beschwert sich, dass sich Leute nicht an Vereinbarungen halten müssen. Naja, das ist dann vermutlich auch ein Nachteil von Diplomacy, und von Junta, und und und … Leute halten sich dann an Vereinbarungen, wenn sie selbst auch davon profitieren, und das ist genau der Witz von Castle of Magic, dass solche Konstellationen möglich sind. („Du willst auch nicht, dass Sorrell verflucht wird, und das geht mir genauso. Zufälligerweise weiß ich, dass Ergebnis Nr. 6 Sorrell verflucht, und ich weiß, dass du das nie angeschaut hast. Also tu was mit Bell, Book, Candle, bevor es zu spät ist.“)

Skandalon 4: Das Ritual

Für Bell, Book, Candle gibt es jeweils zwei Möglichkeiten, sodass es insgesamt zwei hoch drei, mithin acht verschiedene Ausgänge geben kann. Jeder der Spieler kann an Bell, Book, Candle zerren, sodass dies Walter insgesamt unsteuerbar und völlig chaotisch erscheint.

Auch das stimmt nicht. Wenn das Spiel in die entscheidende Phase gegangen ist, ist relativ klar, wer die drei Gegenstände am Ende haben wird. Es ist also der Zeitpunkt gekommen, wo man sich eine weitgehend stimmige Liste der Prioritäten machen kann. Also: Bei Ergebnis 3 gewinne ich sicher, bei Ergebnis 4 mit etwas Glück, bei Ergebnis 6 und 1 erlebe ich den Supergau und das war’s.

Man kuckt sich halt dann die Bell, Book, Candle–Positionen dieser Ergebnisse an und hat dann bald ein Muster – also etwa: 3 und 4 haben das offene Buch gemeinsam, also mach ich das auf alle Fälle auf. Weitere Dinge spielen da hinein. Vielleicht hat ein Spieler eine gewaltige Zahl an Punkten auf die Kerze gesammelt und hat die zuverlässig ausgeblasen mit drei oder vier Bewegungen. Na gut, dann lass ich halt das Ergebnis 3 sausen (das klappt ohnehin nicht mehr) und arbeite mit aller Energie an der Verwirklichung von 4 usw.

Das Spiel wird nur dann chaotisch-unregulierbar, wenn man die anderen Spieler aus dem Auge verliert. Wenn ich stur versuche, meine Idealkombination umzusetzen, werde ich das nach aller Voraussicht nicht schaffen, denn dies ist kaum die Idealkombination der anderen Mitspieler. Besser man sieht sich um und guckt, was machbar ist und was nicht. Da es keinem besser geht, ist es durchaus wahrscheinlich, dass die Endkombination niemandes Idealkombination ist. Wenn es aber wenigstens die zweit- oder drittbeste nach den eigenen Voraussetzungen ist, dann reicht das immer noch für den Spielgewinn (was Hans und ich beim letzten Mal erfuhren, die wir mit je 1000 Punkten gewannen – die anderen hatten in der Schlusskombination Negativpunkte).

Als Walter das Ritual auslöste, kannte er seine Folgen nicht. Kingmakerei war dies nicht: Die eingestellte Kombination ging ja nicht auf Walter zurück, sondern war die Folge des Herumzerrens der anderen, sie war, wie gesagt, für niemanden ideal. Ein kluger Spielzug war das sicher auch nicht, denn Walter wurde damit Vorletzter. Andrea war wenig glücklich damit, denn für sie war diese Kombination der Supergau und der letzte Platz. Sie wäre auch ansonsten nur mit größter Mühe an Hans und mir vorbeigekommen, sodass Walter den Spielausgang (jedenfalls auf den vorderen Plätzen) letztlich nicht verdreht hat.

Ich sagte am Anfang, dass gezieltes Kingmakern bei Castle of Magic nicht so leicht ist. Ich meinte damit, dass man kaum bestimmten Spielern etwas auswischen kann. Das sollte aber nicht heißen, dass man das Spiel durch untaktisches Verhalten nicht reichlich verdrehen und sabotieren kann.

Link zu Moritz‘ Antwort auf Walters Standpunkt.

„Castle of Magic“ und die Verarschung

Ich liebe strategische Spiele. Das muß vorweggeschickt werden. Ich liebe aber auch generell Spielen als Freizeitzeitkultur und ich genieße unseren Spielkreis „Westpark-Gamers“. Hier haben sich meine Spielambitionen schon erheblich gewandelt. Fantacy und Adventure-Games sind für mich heute nicht mehr der saure Apfel, in den ich halt auch mal beißen muß. Moritz hat für eine behutsame Umstellung der Ernährung gesorgt. Heute finde ich diese Kost manchmal sogar spannend und unterhaltend. Aber nicht immer.

Castle of Magic Nehmen wir „Caste of Magic“. Nach Moritz „funktioniert diese Mischung aus ‚Cluedo‚ und ‚Talisman‚ sehr gut“. Der Spiele-Kritiker Ray Mulford schreibt, „it is a really fun game. I’m glad to have it in my collection.“ Ich teile diese Euphorien nicht. Ganz im Gegenteil. Ich fühle mich verarscht.

Ich mag keine Spiele, bei denen es einzig und allein darauf ankommt, durch hundertfaches Ausprobieren dahinter zu kommen, welche eine Irrgarten-Szenerie sich ein Autorengehirn ausgedacht hat. Das bezog sich jetzt auf Indianer Jones. Ich mag keine Spiele, bei denen allein Fortuna’s Liebling gewinnt. Das gilt jetzt für Lotto und Roulette. Ich mag auch nicht unbedingt Spiele, bei denen sich zwei Intelligenzbestien mit gefletschten Zähnen gegenübersitzen, bis einer bei der kleinsten Unaufmerksamkeit den anderen auffrißt. Schachspieler, verzeiht mir! Ich mag Spiele, die eine Spielrunde mit einer gehörigen Portion Interaction miteinander und gegeneinander spielt, bei denen Geschick, Psychologie, Kooperation und Konfrontation meine Gewinnchancen heben, und bei denen ich zu jeder Zeit meiner Maxime nachgehen kann, „to have a plan“.

Zurück zu „Caste of Magic“. Wenn das Spiel aufgebaut ist und ich meine Spieleridentität zugeteilt bekommen habe, dann fängt erst einmal die große Ritual-Rechnerei an. Heute bin ich Seballa und würde 10000 Punkte verlieren (tödlich), wenn Marus verflucht wird, dagegen gewinne ich 2000 Punkte, wenn Sorrell verflucht wird. Bilanzieren wir also die möglichen Rituale-Ergebnisse:

Ritual-Ergebnis 1 „Fluch generell aufgehoben“, ganz klar, das ist gut, weil es einen Verlust von 8000 Punkten verhindert. Ritual-Ergebnis 2 „Der Besitzer der Krone muß eine Stadt seiner Wahl verfluchen“. Was bedeutet das für mich? Wer am Ende die Krone besitzt, könnte mir durch seine willkürliche Entscheidung, Marus oder eine andere Stadt zu verfluchen, 10000 Punkte kosten oder 2000 Punkte einbringen. Wie kann ich seine Entscheidung voraussehen? Zunächst einmal gar nicht! Am besten ist es wohl, ich bemühe mich selber darum, die Krone in meinen Besitz zu bringen. Es gibt aber insgesamt nur 3 Objekte, um die sich 6 Mitspieler bewerben. Nur jeder zweite wird am Ende überhaupt ein Objekt besitzen. Ob für mich dabei die Krone herausspringt? Da muß ich schon kämpfen. Kämpfen heißt in diesem Spiel aber ausschließlich: Eine ganze Serie von guten Würfel-Würfen hinzulegen. Hoffentlich hat ein anderer Mitspieler nicht genauso viel Interessen an der Krone. Und dabei mehr Glück beim Würfeln.

Gott-sei-Dank gibt es noch andere Techniken, das Kronenproblem zu lösen. Falls im Laufe des Spieles erkennbar wird, daß Fortuna die Krone für einen anderen vorgesehen hat, dann könnte ich versuchen, das Ritual-Ergebnis 2 zu verhindern. Immerhin ist die A-priori-Chance dafür 87,5 %, sollte also fast von alleine gehen. Zur Sicherheit muß ich nur noch herausfinden, unter welcher Kombination von Bell-Book-Candle das Ritual-Ergebnis 2 verborgen ist. Doch dazu später.

Ja selbst wenn ich die Position von Ritual-Ergebnis 2 „deduktiv“ (d.h. durch systematisches Gutes-Würfeln und durch zufälliges Aufdecken des richtigen Plättchens) erfahren habe und dieses Ergebnis als Endstand nicht verhindern kann, so könnte ich durch konsequentes Einsetzen von Secret-Abfragen noch versuchen herauszufinden, ob der Besitzer der Krone mein geliebtes Marus überhaupt verfluchen will, oder nicht doch lieber eine andere Stadt. Mit Glück und Zufall erfahre ich das vielleicht. Vielleicht auch nicht. Am Endergebnis und dessen Tragweite ändert das natürlich nichts. Ich wüßte lediglich bereits ein paar Runden vor Schluß, ob ich verlieren werde oder irgendwo im Mittelfeld landen werde. Auch dafür lohnt es sich zu kämpfen, d.h. gut zu würfeln, gell Moritz?

Ach wir sind ja erst bei Ritual-Ergebnis 2. Bei Ergebnis 3 bzw. 4 stehe ich vor dem gleichen Dilemma, nur geht es hier um Amulett und Szepter anstelle der Krone. Gleiche Überlegungen, gleiche Wahrscheinlichkeiten. Ganz schön kybernetisch.

Das Ritual-Ergebnis 5 ist jetzt kontraproduktiv zum Besitzen von Objekten. Hier stirbt der Besitzer der Krone und sein Land wird verflucht. Es geht für mich also gar nicht allein darum, die Krone zu erwerben; ich muß auch noch dafür sorgen, daß am Ende nicht das Ritual-Ergebnis 5 erzielt wird. Sterben kann ich mir nicht leisten, daß ist genauso tödlich wie der Fluch über Marus. Sollte ich besser den Besitz der Krone erst gar nicht anstreben?

Für die möglichen Besitzer von Amulett und Szepter tritt die gleiche Katastrophe bei den Ritual-Ergebnissen 6 und 7 ein. Es heißt also für alle Spieler höllisch aufpassen, welches Objekt man erwirbt (freiwillig) oder loswird (unfreiwillig), welche Interessen die Spieler mit Objekten verfolgen oder nicht und welches Ritual-Ergebnis am Ende erzielt werden kann. Nur bei Ritual-Ergebnis 8 „Fluch generell beibehalten“ sehe ich wieder Land: das kostet mich (Seballa) 8000 Punkte. Muß unbedingt vermieden werden, denn damit hätte ich die Medaillenränge verpaßt.

Was bedeutet das für meinen aktuellen Spielplan? Ritual-Ergebnis 1 ist besser als Ritual-Ergebnis 8, die übrigen 6 Resultate sind nicht kalkulierbar. Sie können gut sein oder schlecht sein, je nachdem welcher Spieler welches Objekt erworben hat und für welche Verfluchung sich der Ergebnis-Objekt-Träger entscheiden mag. Nichts genaues weiß man nicht.

Doch bis hierher ist das ganze nur ein Bruchteil meiner Seballa-Bilanz, das war nur die Spalte mit den beiden Zahlen für die Fluch-Auswirkung. Auf meiner Seballa-Karte stehen noch weitere 11 Zahlen mit Soll- und Haben-Punkten für verschiedene mögliche End-Fakten. Es läuft auf eine abzählbare Addition von endlichen Zahlen mit unbekanntem Vorzeichen und unbekannter Wahrscheinlichkeit hinaus. Ich kann sie alle nicht unter einen Hut bringen.

Hier konstatiere ich hier die Verarschung Nummer 1: „Identitäten-Bilanzierung“: In einem hundertprozentig zufallsgesteuerten Spiel investieren die Spieler gleich zu Beginn eine Menge Zeit und Rechenleistung, um die Effekte von unbekannten Besitzverhältnissen und nicht bewertbaren Ritual-Ergebnissen zu bilanzieren. Die Menge der benötigten arithmetischen und stochastischen Fähigkeiten steht in keinem Verhältnis zu dem simplem Würfel, mit dem man sich anschließend auf dem Spielbrett bewegt und der als einziges Kriterium den Spielablauf steuert.

Ich kann natürlich versuchen, klüger zu werden. Ich kann durch systematischen Einsatz des Spielmittels „Secret“ versuchen, die Identitäten, Eigenschaften und Vorlieben meiner Mitspieler aufzudecken. Lieber Gott, gibt mir eine Fünf, damit ich auf das Spielfeld Secret komme und irgendeines von Peters Geheimnisse abfragen kann.

Gott muß mir keine Fünf schenken. Jedes andere Würfelergebnis hat natürlich auch seine Bedeutung. In diesem Spiel darf man grundsätzlich nichts erbetteln. Demütig hinnehmen, was uns geschenkt wird. Wie im richtigen Leben. Irgendein Würfelergebnis wird uns immer geschenkt und jeder Wurf ist zu irgendetwas gut. Der Mensch denkt.

Ich habe die Fünf bekommen, und darf von Peter ein Geheimnis lüften. Ich mische den Kartenstoß mit den Geheimnissen und überreiche es Peter. Er gibt mir die erste auf ihn zutreffende Karten zurück. Ich erfahre, daß Peter kein Interesse hat, Sorrell zu verfluchen. Was weiß ich jetzt von ihm? Nichts darüber, ob er mein geliebtes Marus zerstören will und mir damit einen Platz auf dem Siegertreppchen verwehrt. Nichts darüber, ob er ein Serf ist, dessen Städte-Besitz mir Pluspunkte einbringt. Nicht ob und auf welche Stadt er ein Auge geworfen hat, nicht ob er sterben oder überleben will. Nur ob er gut ist oder schlecht, das weiß ich. Aber das wußte ich bereits vor dem Spiel.

Es ist ja noch schlimmer. Falls ich wieder mal einen Super-Wurf habe und nochmals die Gelegenheit habe, von Peter ein Geheimnis abzuringen. Dann darf ich wieder die Geheimniskarten mischen und Peter muß mir wieder ein Geheimnis offenbaren. Wenn’s der Zufall will, dann zieht Peter wieder die gleiche Geheimniskarte und ich erfahre zum zweiten Male, daß er Sorrell nicht verfluchen will. So geheimnisvoll ist Peter schließlich doch nicht.

Verarschung Nummer 2: „Secrets“ Es kann doch nicht sein, daß ich nach einer Reihe von mühevollen Zufallswürfen endlich auf einem Secret-Feld lande, wo ich von einem meiner 5 Mitspieler ein hochbrisantes Geheimnis erfahren darf, und er mir dann zufallsgesteuert eine Information rüberschiebt, die mich bestenfalls nicht dümmer macht, als ich ohnehin schon bin. Much ado about nothing.

Eine absolut notwendige Verbesserung wäre hier in meinen Augen, daß ich bei Secrets eine beliebige Geheimniskarte heraussuchen kann und damit einen Mitspieler fragen darf, ob die darauf beschriebene Eigenschaft auf ihn zutrifft oder nicht.

Das Spiel hat auch ein paar logisch konstruierte und durchschaubare Mechanismen. Wenn ich per Zufallswurf auf einem Feld lande, wo schon jemand ist, dann kann ich versuchen, von ihm einen beliebigen Objektpunkt abzuknöpfen. Ich muß nur im anschließenden Kampf-Würfeln besser würfeln als er. Die A-priori-Wahrscheinlichkeit dafür ist 42 %. Immerhin bekomme ich nichts abgezogen, wenn ich schlechter würfele als mein Gegenüber. Meine Sieg-Chancen kann ich sogar noch erhöhen, wenn ich im Laufe des Spieles gezielt beim Objekt der Begierde meinen Spell-Level angehoben habe. An diesem Konstrukt kann ich nichts aussetzen.

Leider hat hier Hans zu meiner Verarschung (außer Konkurrenz) beigetragen. Er war – wie der Zufall es wollte – das erste Opfer meines ersten Raubzuges. Er jammerte ganz furchtbar und lamentierte, wie unüberlegt es doch von mir wäre, gerade ihm, meinen durch die Spielblutsverwandtschaft (human – Lord) doch potentiell engsten Verbündeten, einen Krone-Punkt abzuknöpfen. Mir brach es schon fast das Herz. Am Ende stellt es sich heraus, daß er von seiner Spieleridentität her doch gar kein Interesse an irgendwelchen Objekten besaß, und daß nicht einmal die menschliche Verwandtschaft uns verbunden hatte: Er hätte davon profitiert, daß wir alle sterben. „But Hans is an honourable man.“ Dafür gebe ich meinem Kopf. Ich habe mich nach dem Spiel noch einmal explizit von seiner Redlichkeit überzeugt.

Ganz so redlich ist Peter nicht. Das Spiel erlaubt jedem Spieler, einmal zu einem beliebigen Zeitpunkt, einen anderen Mitspieler ins Chambre Séparé zu bitten, um mit ihm beliebige bis dahin gesammelte Informationen auszutauschen. Über Ritual-Positionen, über Identitäten und Geheimnisse, über Gewinnpunkte und gemeinsame Zielstrategien. Jeder darf es nur genau einmal.

Das ist im ganzen Spiel ein Abwägen und Lavieren um die Informationen, die man sich selber erwirbt und die man gegebenenfalls von einem anderen Spieler zu erfahren gedenkt. Es gilt den Spieler herauszufinden, dessen Wissen die (bekannte) geringste Redundanz mit meinem Wissen aufweist, und der in seinen Spielzielen die (vermutlich) größte Kongruenz mit meinen aufweist, so daß wir Absprachen über Zugprioritäten treffen können. Je früher ich diesen Informationsaustausch nutze, desto weniger Informationen sind es, die ausgetauscht werden können; desto effizienter sind aber mögliche Strategie-Absprachen. Und umgekehrt. Richtig ausgewogen.

Erst arbeitet jeder konsequent und konzentriert auf den Punkt hin, wo er seine einmaligen Gelegenheit des Gedankenaustausches mit einen Spieler seiner Wahl in die Wirklichkeit umsetzen will, dann kann nach der Spielregel folgendes passieren:

  1. Der auserwählte Mitspieler will nicht und schlägt die Verabredung einfach aus. Spielzug weg – Information nicht da. Da hätte ich mir wohl einen anderen Mitspieler aussuchen müssen!
  2. Der auserwählte Mitspieler verrät mir nur die Hälfte dessen, was mich so brennend interessiert. Vielleicht sogar erst, nachdem ich meinerseits mein gesamtes eigenes Wissen offenbart habe. Das war dann zwar undiplomatisch von mir, mindert aber nicht den Verlust.
  3. Der auserwählte Mitspieler belügt mich nach Strich und Faden. Niemand kann vom anderen verlangen, daß er den Wahrheitsbeweis für seine Information mitliefert. Es ist alles Vertrauenssache. Bei unserem Spiel hat hier Peter den Moritz betrogen. Dumm gelaufen. Über Peter’s Redlichkeit läßt sich halt nicht streiten.
  4. Der auserwählte Mitspieler hält sich im späteren Verlauf nicht an die ausgemachte gemeinsame Strategie. Aber das ist ja schon normal.

Diese Effekte werte ich von der Spielregeln her als eine ganze Reihe von Schwächen, die ich insgesamt zusammenfassen möchte zur Verarschung Nummer 3 : „Informationsaustausch“ : Es kann doch nicht sein, daß ich mich hier im Schweiße meines Angesichtes um etwas Transparenz bemühe und dann – abhängig von den gegenläufigen Ambitionen meines Mitspielers – als begossener Pudel nach Hause geschickt werde.

Als Mindest-Ergebnis dieses Spielzuges erwarte ich, daß mir der auserwählte Mitspieler seine Identitätskarte aushändigen muß. Selbst die Herausgabe des Wissens um die Ritual-Positionen sollte noch Pflicht werden. Damit könnte man die Endphase des Spiels beschleunigen und die Zufallsergebnisse beim Spielausgang etwas mildern.

Ja der Spielausgang. Am Ritual hänget, zum Ritual dränget doch alles, ach wir Armen! Haben wir hier genügend Positionen aufgedeckt und alles in Erfahrung gebracht, was uns zuträglich ist? Hoffentlich. Wir brauchen auf jeden Fall Gewißheit über die Ritual-Positionen, deren Ergebnis für uns tödlich ist. Wieviel Zufall braucht der Mensch dazu? Angenommen, ich habe meinen Ritual-Level auf 3 hochwürfelt. Dann wäre jedes zweite Würfeln, ein Ritual aufzudecken, erfolgreich. Bei 8 Ritualen wäre die Wahrscheinlichkeit, mit 8 Würfen alles erledigt zu haben, etwa 4 Promille. Bei 9 Würfen ist sie schon über 1 Prozent. Und so geht das weiter. In einer endlichen Zeit sollte doch irgendwann jeder alles wissen. Denkste! Rein rechnerisch kann es sein, daß einer unendlich lange würfelt, ohne alle Rituale gelüftet zu haben.

Dabei laufen die realen Erfolgsquoten für die einzelnen Spieler immer weiter auseinander. Das „Gesetz der großen Zahl“ besagt nämlich nicht, daß bei einer Kette von Zufallsereignissen die Ergebnisse aller Mitspieler immer enger beieinander liegen werden. Im Gegenteil, es gesagt, daß die absoluten Differenzen immer größer werden. Konkret bedeutet das für unser Spiel, daß zufallsbedingt die Menge des Ritual-Wissen der einzelne Spieler immer stärker auseinanderklafft. Während die einen schon alles erwürfelt haben und sich auf die Endposition einschießen, krebsen die anderen noch mit einem Bruchteil des benötigten Wissens herum und werden von jedem weiteren Wurf frustriert. Nein, das ist keine Verarschung, das ist nur purer Zufall. Aber vielleicht versteht jetzt einer von Euch, warum ich für dieses Spielprinzip nur 3 Wertungspunkte vergebe.

Als ich mit meinem letzten Zug willentlich aber den Regeln gerecht das Spielende herbeigeführt hatte, kannte ich 6 Rituale und hatte mich auch schon vergeblich um vollständige Aufklärung beim 7 (und logisch letzten) Ritual bemüht. Alle kritischen Rituale waren bereits in meinem Repertoire und die Ritual-Position stand auf einem akzeptablen Feld. Hinterher hat sich Andrea über mich beklagt, weil ich auch ohne Vollwissen das Spiel beendet hatte. Das, liebe Andrea, grenzt schon an Verarschung (außer Konkurrenz).

Natürlich war es enttäuschend für Dich, von dem einzigen möglichen Ereignis, das für Dich tödlich war, getroffen zu werden. Glaubst Du, das war ein unverdientes Pech? Die Summe des Pechs ist konstant. Irgendeinen hätte es immer treffen müssen. Ohne daß er dafür kann. Allein deshalb, weil die Mehrheit der anderen zufällig dieses End-Ergebnis eingestellt haben. Diesmal warst es halt du. Mehr liegt in diesem Spiel nicht drin.

Du bestreitest hier den Zufall? Wenn Du niemals genau weißt, in welche Richtung die anderen ziehen wollen, wenn jeder nur äußerst begrenzte Möglichkeiten hat, die Erfolgswahrscheinlichkeiten für seine Aktionen zu erhöhen, wenn die günstigen und ungünstigen Felder nicht wie in einer lieblichen Landschaft weich ineinander übergehen, sondern wie bei schroffen Felsen und Schluchten unmittelbar nebeneinander liegen, wenn es vom Würfel abhängt, ob einer überhaupt ein ritual-relevantes Objektfeld betritt und wenn dann weiterhin der Würfel entscheidet, ob einer den Objektlevel auch tatsächlich verschieben darf oder nicht, dann ist das End-Ergebnis genausowenig beeinflußbar wie eine Kugel im Gauss’schen Nagelbrett. Wenn mir hier seine Illusionen als Strategie verkaufen will, der möchte mich doch wohl auf den Arm nehmen. Ich verzichte auf die Formulierung des Verarschungsaxioms Nummer 4.

Wie wird überhaupt die Ritual-Position bestimmt? Ich brauche es den Lesern, die bis hierher gefolgt sind, nicht zu erklären. Es ist ein spannender Kampf aller gegen alle und – in meinen Augen – das bemerkenswerteste Element des Spieles. Moritz hat vollkommen recht, wenn er es hier als „spannend, unterhaltsam und aufregend“ empfindet. Aber das gilt nur für diese Phase. Und ob eine solche Phase überhaupt stattfindet (und nicht zwei Spieler den Reibach bereits unter sich verteilen, während die anderen vier noch im Halbdunkel herumwürfeln), ist zufallsabhängig und keineswegs garantiert. Für diesen komplexen und langwierigen Spielaufbau viel zu unsicher.

Zum Vergleich möchte ich hier Barrikade / Malefiz entgegenhalten. Dort ist der Endkampf um das Ziel zwischen den zufällig oder gewollt entstandenen Seilschaften und deren internes Machtgerangel vergleichbar spannend, aber spielimmanent, logisch entwickelt und langdauernd. Mit vielen zusätzlichen Einflußmöglichkeiten und Überraschungseffekten. Und nicht mit so viel überflüssigem Hokuspokus. Doch ich will nicht abschweifen.

Bei „Castle of Magic“ tritt das Spielende ein, wenn insgesamt 5 mal ein bestimmtes Spielfeld betreten wird. Vom gleichen oder von verschiedenen Spielern. Vor mir waren Aaron und Hans bereits 4 mal auf dem bewußten Feld. Ich war der fünfte und habe somit den Sudden Death ausgelöst. Nicht gerade emotionsgeladen und euphorisch, aber die Ritual-Position schien erfolgversprechend zu sein. Mindestens drei Augenpaare richten sich schweigend und vorwurfsvoll auf mich. Wie bei Roald Dahls „Küsschen, Küsschen“ das Auge der präparierten Gehirnmasse auf die rauchende Ex-Ehefrau. „Hat er uns jetzt bösartig den Spaß verdorben?“ Diese Situation, liebe Freunde, ist auch eine Art Verarschung. I rest my case.

Peters Antwort auf diese Darstellung

Moritz‘ Antwort auf diese Darstellung

GI-Interview with Wolfgang Kramer

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

THE GI INTERVIEW

Wolfgang Kramer

There can be few more commercially successful games designers in the world today than Wolfgang Kramer. His Auf Achse alone has sold over half a million to date, while others such as Nikki Lauder’s Formel Eins, and Wildlife Adventure remain firm favourites with games players of all ages and preferences. Wolfgang took time out at the recent Essen Games to discuss how he puts it all together.

When did you first become interested in games?

It started when I was a child. My grandma used to play with me; she always used to let me win, so I developed quite a positive feeling about games. When I reached my teens I started buying all the games I could find, though this was in the fifties so there wasn’t really much around, just variations of Monopoly and Scrabble. I then started to change some of the games I bought. My friends preferred the ’new‘ versions and suggested I make some games of my own. At that time I didn’t think I was able to, though the idea stayed with me. A few years later I started to study commercial science. In my free time I started to develop ideas for my first game. I’ve always liked race games, but I didn’t want one where you just roll the die and move, so I had to develop a new movement system. I wrote down about twenty possibilities.

Was this how Tempo was born?

Yes, but not straight away, though Tempo was my first published game, in 1974 I think. Tempo was an abstract game using a card based movement system. It took me about a year to refine it to the state where it could be published.

A few years later I modified it and it became Formel Eins. The motor racing theme is not so important. The system is adaptable to virtually any form of racing.

I remember you telling me once that your design approach is system first, theme later.

Yes, that’s mostly true, though in the case of Wildlife Adventure the theme came first.

What about Auf Achse?

Again the theme came first, because this was a promotional game originally, which was specially commissioned by a road haulage company.

What is your favourite out of all the games you have designed?

I like Around The World in Eighty Days a lot, and Formel Eins. Although it has sold very well, Auf Achse is not really one of my favourites, likewise Undercover (Heimlich & Co) though they are my games so I stand behind them (laughs).

What have you got coming out next year (’90)?

One of my old games, Coup, is being published by F X Schmid this year with a new theme: it will be called Holiday. There will be a card game from Ravensburger, which I co-authored, called Cash, and also Terra Indium, an abstract game which I did for Kosmos.

The press verdict on this year’s (’89) releases was not good. The feeling was that the games were getting too simple.

Yes, I understand what you mean. Ravensburger, MB, Parker, they all want simple games. I think Ravensburger are changing, though. They want to do one or two games with a higher level which will not be so commercial.

Do you play other people’s games?

Oh yes. I like Sid Sackson’s games very much, and Alex Randolph’s. When I’m not playing or working on my own games, I teach games.

How’s that?

There is a school in my town which, like most schools, teaches lots of subjects. I am the games teacher for four evenings a year, anyway.

Do you mean teaching people to design games?

No, how to play games.

What sort of games do you use as an example?

Quite a variety, really. Hol’s Der GeierCafe InternationalPlaybossHare and Tortoise.

What kind of age group do you teach?

Just adults. I’m also in a local games clubs where we play all the new games.

You seem very thorough and professional in your approach.

Yes, it’s very important for me to see what is happening in the market, and also how the public react. I come here to Essen, I go to the Nürnberg Fair. I must know what companies are publishing, and also what the trend for the future is. Also I like to try and understand why certain games get published and others don’t. I visit shops and talk to the people who sell games. In the bigger shops I organise promotional visits. I explain my own games to the customers. Some shops have special ‚games days‘ where they have special teachers to explain the games to the public. Like with my visits, there is no money involved but they are valuable promotional exercises.

There seems to be a strong games culture in Germany.

Yes, but only in the last three or four years. In the seventies there was really nothing.

How important was Essen in this evolution?

There were several factors. The ‚Game of the Year‘ was an important step. Also, people have more spare time now. TV too has produced a big counter reaction. Watching television is now considered very passive. With games, people come together and interact. The press picked up on this and now devote quite a lot of space to writing about games.

What are your favourite games, apart from your own?

I like to play AcquireHare and TortoiseFocusSharkAmazing Labyrinth, chess too. I played 1830 just recently – quite complex but very, very good. I play all sorts of games.

And long may you continue to do so.

Wolfgang Kramer was talking to Brian Walker.

A Bed of Steel

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:

„2“ train – $ 80
„3“ train – $180
„5“ train – $450
H16 token – $ 40
total – $750

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)

Birth of A Dynasty

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.

Blood Royale box

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

Blood Royale

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)

Civilization 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 re

latively 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)

1830 – Sharp Practices

by Steve Jones

1830 is a game for two to six players, designed by Francis Tresham and published by Avalon Hill. Like its classic predecessor 1829 (Hartland Trefoil), 1830 is a railroad business game.

For those familiar with 1829, there are two major differences in 1830. The first is the locale: whereas 1829 covers the Railroad Era in 19th century Britain, 1830 covers the growth of the railroads in the north-eastern United States and south-eastern Canada from the early part of the 19th century to the present day. The second difference is one of emphasis. 1829 concentrates more on the mechanics of running the railroad companies for high profits and less on manipulating the stock market. In contrast, 1830 concentrates more on manipulating share prices and less on running the railroad companies; indeed, the opportunities for swindle and sharp practices are many and various for the unscrupulous investor. It is not an easy game to play. While its mechanics are fairly straightforward, there are many elements involved during play, and the interplay between them is both complex and subtle. If one were searching for an appropriate single sentence to describe 1830, it would be „This is a sharp game for sharp players“.

PORTFOLIOS

The game consists of a sturdy fold-up board of which about one-half depicts the north-eastern United States and part of south-eastern Canada. This map has superimposed upon it a grid of 4cm hexagonal spaces; hexagonal railroad track tiles are placed in these spaces during the course of play, and a railroad network is gradually built up. Around the edge of the map are marked-out spaces for the Stock Market (where the current corporation stock prices are indicated), the

Bank Pool (for sold stock and trains), the initial stock offerings, the Par Stock Price list, the trains on offer, and various explanatory tables.

The object of the game is to make money; when the game ends, the player with the most money wins. The players achieve this by buying and selling stock in an attempt to build up a stock portfolio with a high revenue and profit potential. The value of the stock certificates in an individual portfolio is determined by two things: the revenue per certificate, and the current Stock Market price per certificate. The six private railroads pay a fixed revenue, and are not quoted on the Stock Market; they have poor long term prospects, but have considerable short term value, of which more anon. The eight railroad corporations, on the other hand, have both variable revenue and Stock Market prices. There are many subtle undercurrents associated with the valuation of the available stock certificates, which become more apparent with experience.

OPERATING ROUNDS

There are no player turns as such in the game. Instead, play proceeds in a sequence of stock rounds and operating rounds until either the Bank runs out of money or a bankruptcy occurs.

In the stock rounds, the players buy and sell stock certificates; there is one certificate per private railroad, and nine certificates per corporation (one president’s certificate worth two shares, and eight single share certificates).

In the operating rounds, the private railroads earn revenue for their owners, and the president (or the largest stock holder) of each corporation performs its operations. These consist of laying a track tile, buying corporation tokens (or garrisons, as they are popularly called), conning train services (and thereby earning revenue), buying (and sometimes selling) trains, and choosing whether or not to pay a dividend to the stockholders. This last decision affects the stock price of the corporation’s stock: the price rises upon payment of dividends, and falls otherwise.

A corporation earns revenue if it has at least one train and one route between two or more cities (the revenue earned is equal to the sum of the city values of the city stops on the route); this route must include at least one city occupied by the corporation’s token.

The number of operating rounds between stock rounds depends upon whether the game is in Stage One, Two or Three, and is equal to the current stage number at the end of each stock round. The game starts in Stage One, and proceeds to Stages Two and Three respectively when the first type 3 and type 5 trains are purchased by any corporation.

CORPORATIONS

To those readers who have played 1829, this is all familiar stuff. However, five major rules changes were introduced into 1830 which have touches of genius and fumed what would have been a good game into a great game. The first rule change is that the eight corporations can be floated at any time, and in any order. Furthermore, the player who buys the presidency certificate gets to set the par value of the shares; the allowable par values lie between $67 and $100.

The second rule change concerns the corporation garrisons. In both 1829 and 1830, garrisons enable corporations to diversify their routes. A garrison in 1829 prevents rival corporations from using the station. However, a garrison in 1830 only prevents rival corporations from passing through the station; they can still run services to the station. This difference introduces a whole new dimension to the planning of routes in 1830. Basically, short routes are relatively secure, and it is the longer routes which are in danger of being chopped.

The third rule change is connected to the dividend payments. Dividends are also paid to shares in the Bank Pool, with the payments being made into the corporation’s treasury. This implies that there are times when the corporation president will feel less pressure to plough back in order to increase its treasury. This rule can be particularly helpful to the weaker companies. There are subtle implications to this rule which will become more obvious after several playings.

The fourth rule change concerns the purchasing of trains by corporations: if a corporation has a route and no trains, it must buy one. If it has not got sufficient funds in its treasury, the president must make up the shortfall out of his own resources. This requirement can easily break a player’s financial resources, and will give any aspiring corporation president nightmares in the later stages of the game. These nightmares are partly due to the technological obsolescence built into the trains, and partly due to the fact that there is no official receiver, as in 1829.

TRAINS

There are six classes of trains available in the game: types 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and the diesels. The type N trains run between N consecutive city stops along a specified route; the diesel is unique in that there is no upper limit to the number of stops along its specified route. Initially, there are only type 2 trains available. Each successive class becomes available when the previous class runs out. The catch is that when the first type 4 is sold, the type 2 Trains are removed from the game. The type 3 trains are removed when the first type 6 is sold, and the type 4 trains are removed when the first diesel is sold.

Consequently, a corporation might look healthy, with several trains and good revenue earnings, only to find itself foundering with no trains when another corporation buys a new type of train that has just become available. And if you should be so unfortunate as to find yourself running a corporation possessing no trains, you cannot just sell out. To sell out of a corporation, there must be another player with at least two shares to whom the presidency can be passed; unfortunately, this ‚easy‘ route out is not always available. Clearly, these corporations are not limited liability companies! The good player will be aware of this, and should plan his long term strategy accordingly.

This awareness should include becoming thoroughly familiar with what happens when each new type of train comes into play, and the implications of this on long term strategy. The solution of the problems associated with this unlimited liability rule tends to dominate play in the middle and end game. Particularly critical periods requiring great care and attention occur when there is one type 3 left, and when only one type 4 remains; the former event signals the imminent demise of the type 2 trains, and the latter event signals the imminence of Stage 3 and the consequent maneuvering which occurs when the players attempt to secure the limited number of permanent trains in the end game.

STOCK MARKET

The fifth rule change affects the Stock Market and its operation, which is where the game is won and lost, so it is well to discuss the Stock Market in some detail. The Stock Market, unlike the linear track found in 1829, is a two dimensional matrix of stock price slots printed on the game board. Low prices are found in the bottom left hand comer, and high prices are found in the top right hand comer. Within it both vertical and horizontal movements representing stock price changes are possible; the price increases if the movement is vertically upwards or a horizontal shift to the right, and decreases if the movement is vertically downwards or a horizontal shift to the left. The change in price associated with each movement is variable, with relatively high changes occurring at the extreme ends, and relatively small ones in the middle.

Vertical share price movement takes place during the stock rounds. Every time a player sells a share, the price marker of that corporation moves down one slot. At the end of each stock round, the share price of every fully subscribed corporation moves up one slot. Horizontal movement takes place during each operating round. When the president of a corporation declares a dividend, the share price marker of that corporation shifts one slot to the right; if he/she ploughs the money back into the company, the share price marker shifts one slot to the left.

FINANCIAL KILLING

The positions of the corporations on the Stock Market also serve one very important function: they determine the order of play in each operating round, from highest to lowest. This use of the Stock Market to determine the order of play in the operating rounds is of particularly vital importance in the middle game just before the first type 5 train comes out. The good player will deliberately buy and sell specific stock in an attempt to manipulate the order of play to his advantage; if he gets it right, he can ensure that corporations in which he has a good holding will be in the best positions to acquire the limited number of types 5 and 6 trains available.

Another important feature associated with the Stock Market is the priority deal: the possessor of this gets the first option to buy and sell in the next stock round. This can be very important, particularly when a player president has asset stripped his corporation and has somebody to dump it on. It is also important early on when the first corporations to be floated have increased their market values by a healthy amount. The player who can ditch his shares first has a double advantage: he will make a financial killing at the expense of his fellow shareholders by selling out just before the share price crashes, and he can choose which corporation to float next.

There are many other subtle features associated with the Stock Market, but there is no room to include them all in this article; players new to the game should look upon it as a challenge to pick them up in as few playings of the game as possible.

STRATEGY

Now that you have an idea of how the game is played, how do you develop a winning strategy? One of the beauties of 1830 is that there is no single winning strategy as such. The closest thing to one is to gain control of two corporations, but the hitch is that they both need to be good, strong corporations; if you achieve that, you will be well on the way to winning. However, there are plenty of things that your opponents can do to upset your plans. Another useful strategy is gaining control of a corporation with a potentially good diesel route, and get a diesel train into it; if you can achieve this without excessive expenditure, you could be on to a winner.

One of the tricks to playing 1830 is anticipating problems before they arise and taking the appropriate evasive actions; equally useful is knowing what to do to limit the damage if you find yourself in trouble. The most useful overall advice is to be flexible, and ruthless. Don’t form any fond attachment to your corporations. Many players invite disaster because they let themselves become emotionally attached to the corporations) they founded. They should be viewed as a means to an end, and nothing more. If you have a corporation that is headed for the rocks and you have a chance to get out, do so. Don’t stay around because you think you can rescue it; leave that dubious distinction to someone else.

There are a number of useful rules of thumb to be aware of in general play. Always be aware of who is sitting where, and take the appropriate action. For instance, don’t buy more than one share of any corporation whose president is sitting to your immediate right unless it has a ’safe‘ train, and even then, think hard about it. The reason for this is that, in a later stock round, your chances of getting rid of the excess ‚dangerous‘ shares before he dumps the corporation on you are virtually non-existent. Contrariwise, it is much ’safer‘ to purchase more than one share in a corporation if its president is sitting to your immediate left. In this case, he can only dump the corporation on you if you let him have the priority deal.

Another useful dictum is to avoid being excessively ‚greedy‘. The number of times are legion when players have bought that extra second share on the expectation of a quick short-term profit, only to find the corporation dumped on them later, the risk is usually not worth it.

DIVIDENDS

On the question of declaring dividends, the best policy is almost invariably to declare. This applies even in the case where your corporation has a vulnerable train and a low treasury. The reason is that declarations will generally increase the values of your portfolio, and this will improve your chances of weathering a bankruptcy crisis. In addition, if your corporation is that weak, it will probably have shares in the Bank Pool, in which case the treasury will increase in value even when you declare; this reduces the pressing need to plough back. The only time in which it is cost effective to plough back is when this will gain your corporation an additional train in the end game, or will ensure that it obtains a ’safe‘ train. For example, you may have a type 5 train, and a plough-back will give you enough money in the treasury to purchase a type 6 train; if your corporation has the routes on which to run both trains, it can be a winning move. Equally, a plough-back which gives you enough money to trade in a type 4 train for a diesel is always worth doing.

One other general consideration worth mentioning is to try to build up as large a portfolio as possible; if you have more shares than anyone else, your chances of winning are that much better. One way of achieving this is to get one of your corporations into the yellow, orange or brown sections of the Stock Market where its shares do not count towards the share limit for each player; if you do manage to achieve this, you will have to keep the extra Shares in the yellow at least, and that is as good an excuse to go for a diesel train as any.

The good player will also become thoroughly familiar with the different types of track tiles available, and the attacking and defensive options associated with upgrades. In particular, get to know the different types of station tiles and how they can be placed to build up highly profitable routes.

One tactic with which you should become familiar is the laying of certain strategically important tiles in order to deny another player their use. Included in this category are the yellow type #57 and the green type #59 station tiles. There are only four of the former and two of the latter in the game. They are particularly important when corporations are attempting to build their first routes; removing these tiles from play can delay that first route and cripple the affected corporation.

THE PRIVATES

Following on from the general considerations discussed above, I shall continue the discussion of game strategy by considering the six private railroads and the eight corporations, and finish up with some observations about the beginning, middle and end games.

Although the private railroads have a limited lifetime, they are vital because of their potential to provide a large influx of cash to the players later on in the game. This potential exists because of the rule which allows the players to sell the private railroads to the corporations for between half and double their face value; the only exception to this is the B&O private. This rule effectively allows the president of a corporation to embezzle funds from the corporation’s treasury.

If he times his move correctly, a player can strip the corporation of its cash and dump it on another player possessing at least two shares in it; often, when this ploy is pulled off, the corporation possesses plenty of trains which are in danger of being made obsolete in the near future. In addition to throwing a potentially disastrous problem into someone else’s lap, the large infusion into the player’s cash reserves puts him in a good position to float another corporation which will be in a better position to obtain the new trains.

Let us now consider the six private companies in ascending order of price.

Schuylkill Valley Railroad & Navigation Co.

The Schuylkill Valley Railroad & Navigation Co. is a bit of a joke. Its low face value and revenue make it of little value to anyone. Even its location in a mountain hex (G15) to the west of New York possesses little strategic value apart from being an obstacle. Its one asset is a relatively high revenue for little outlet in the early stages. Don’t break your neck in the lush to pick it up.

Champlain & St. Lawrence Railway

The Champlain & St Lawrence Railway is a slightly better prospect. Its main asset arises after it has been sold to a corporation: the owning corporation can then lay two tiles in one turn, its normal lay and one in the C&StL hex located at B20. This can be of particular value to the CanPac in its efforts to break through to the lucrative routes near New York; but it should be pointed out that this is a long shot, and if it is to be played at all, it should be early.

Delaware & Hudson Railroad

The Delaware & Hudson Railroad is starting to hit the big money. In addition to its trade in value being as high as $140, it has a potentially high strategic value in its location near to New York in hex F16. The owning corporation can lay a station tile and garrison in F16 even if this does not connect into its network. This gives corporations like the C & O, the Erie, and the CanPac the potential to set up lucrative routes to New York. This one should be watched.

Mohawk & Hudson Railroad

The Mohawk and Hudson has a potential double value. In addition to its relatively high revenue of $20 and trade in value of up to $220, it can be traded at any time for a NYC certificate. This last capability means that even if you never get the chance to use it to asset-strip a corporation, you will never lose its capital value since it can be traded in for an NYC share at any time before the first type 5 train is brought in. But don’t hold on to it too long, particularly if the NYC comes out fairly early on.

Camden & Amboy Railroad

The Camden & Amboy Railroad is a potential gold mine. Worth up to $320 cash in an asset-strip, it also has attached to it a free Penn certificate. This latter feature makes it easier to float the Penn early on, and makes an asset-strip even more likely. Even if you don’t get to use it to asset-strip a corporation, its location in H18 is potentially valuable in the struggle to control the approaches to south New York. Its high potential value will mean that there will be a lot of competition in the rush to acquire it; whoever gets it should be made to pay well above the asking price for it.

Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad is a bit of a mixture. On the plus side is its high revenue of $30 and the automatic acquisition of the B&O corporation presidency. On the negative side is the fact that it automatically closes down when the B&O corporation buys its first train. Therefore, it is not as valuable as the Camden & Amboy, and as such, it is rarely worth paying more than $S over the odds to purchase it. The most critical decision which the purchaser has to make is the par value of the B&O corporation. In most cases, it is best to set it to the maximum possible value of $100; this value ensures that the capital loss from the relatively fast disappearance of the B&O private is a minimum. The par value should only be set at a lower value if you have a partner who is willing to help buy out all the shares in the first stock round, thereby ensuring that the price rises steadily in the early stock rounds; even then the decision is marginal, and better terms might need to be set.

The eight railroad corporations are not all equal; some have better potential than others.

Pennsylvania Railroad

The Pennsylvania Railroad (PRR) is potentially one of the best long term corporations, partly because of its relatively close starting position near New York, and partly because of its five tokens. The latter also implies that the PRR is a good corporation to put a diesel train into, if only because all those tokens give it the capability to defend the long routes which a diesel requires to be cost effective.

The PRR is usually one of the first corporations to be floated, because only five shares need to be bought instead of the usual six; the sixth share is already owned by the owner of the C&A. The one drawback of the PRR is its low revenue growth rate; even with two trains in it, it rarely gets above $6 a share early on.

New York Central Railroad

The New York Central (NYC) is potentially the best long term corporation, better even than the PRR. This is because its home base has a better revenue and track switching potential than the PRR’s. However, it also suffers from poor initial revenue growth rates, and because of this it rarely comes out early on. It usually comes out in the middle period of the game. Like the PRR, it has excellent potential as a diesel corporation, particularly if it can get through to south New York via G 17, and into the PRR network. However, its one weakness is that it needs a yellow type #57 tile to build its home base; therefore, any prospective president should make sure that there are plenty of these about when he floats the corporation.

Canadian Pacific Railroad

The Canadian Pacific (CPR) has a poor long-term potential despite its five tokens. Its starting position in Canada is isolated by river and mountain barriers from the lucrative routes in the centre of the board If we add to this the relatively poor revenue growth rate, it is not difficult to conclude that it is probably a lame duck corporation. The only chance it can have to become a good long term prospect is either through early access to New York via a garrison in the D&H hex in F16, or through outside help in route building.

Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

The Baltimore & Ohio Corporation (B&O) is another potential diesel corporation. This is particularly so if it gets

staved early, and gets to H16 before the PRR; in this case, the world is its oyster. Even if it cannot break out of its comer to become a diesel corporation, it still has a good potential to be one of the strongest of the medium corporations. But its president must be prepared to make things happen. And there is no harm done if it is not floated early in the game; just sit back and rake in the revenue from the B&O private. Another advantage associated with a late flotation is that the par value of $100 ensures that there is plenty of cash in its treasury with which to buy a good Train.

Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad

The Chesapeake & Ohio (C&O) is another good medium corporation with an outside chance of gaining good diesel routes. It has excellent revenue growth potential because of its close proximity to Chicago. Consequently, it is a popular choice for flotation in the first stock round Its one drawback is its relative isolation at the western edge of the board This can be partly overcome by its early flotation, which can give it the time to build up its routes.

Erie Railroad

The Erie (‚Erie‘) is one of the poorer corporations. It should never be floated early on because its home base can never be built until Stage 2; the only legal tile that can be placed in E11 is a green type #59 tile. Great care should also be exercised in laying its home base tile and token; it is dangerous to locate its home base on the north-west edge of E11 facing D10 because there are only two green type #59 tiles in the game, and if the second one goes into H18, the Erie will be crippled until Stage 3. These disadvantages usually lead to the Erie being one of the last corporations to be floated. It is strongest as the second corporation in a player’s portfolio.

New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad

The New York, New Haven & Hartford (NYNH) is an excellent New York based corporation which possesses good revenue growth potential. While it is not common to see it floated early on, it can do well when it is. The one drawback to the corporation is its three tokens; this low number of tokens means that it is a poor choice to put a diesel train into. As one player observed, ‚If the Hartford had an extra token it would be a cracking company!‘

Boston & Maine Railroad

The Boston & Maine (B&M) is a corporation with mixed potential. If it is floated early on, it can do very well. It suffers from two drawbacks. The first is its geographical isolation from the bulk of the map by the Appalachian mountains and the river in F22. The second is its three tokens, which give it very little route flexibility. It is therefore hardly surprising to see it usually doing well only when it is floated early on. If it is one of the last to be floated, it will need friends if it is to do better than moderately well.

There is no ideal strategy to be pursued at the beginning of the game apart from being flexible. The one thing to keep in mind is that it is not vital to buy a presidency and float a corporation in the first stock round. However, if you are going to do so, the vital figure to keep in mind is $402; this is the amount of cash you need to float a corporation on your own. The only exception is the PRR for which you need only $335 in order to float it by yourself, because of the free share that goes with the C&A private. If you do have this amount available after all the private railroads have been sold, well and good; pick the corporation you want and get going. If you don’t have the cash, you will need to strike a deal with another player in order to get his help to float a corporation The one thing to keep in mind when striking such a deal is not to be dogmatic. Certainly, try to strike the best deal that you can, but remember that the other guy should be offered something to entice him into the deal in the first place. And when you make such a deal, stick to it; as a general policy, it is counter-productive to welsh on agreed deals.

The only other thing to keep in mind in the first stock round is to make sure that the other players don’t get their private railroads too cheaply. This applies particularly in the case of the C&A; it is criminal to let a player get this for $165. A useful rule of thumb to keep in mind is whether the price reduces the player’s cash reserves to less than $402, or in the case of the bidder for the C&A, to less than $335.

It is difficult to pinpoint exactly when the beginning game ends, and the middle game starts. Probably the best definition is when the second set of corporations is floated. Generally speaking, the players who are floating these corporations are doing so out of their own resources, and so it is probably a good bet that they are doing well. If a player is floating his second corporation, it is invariably a sign that he is doing very well indeed, and the other players should be thinking of ways of tripping him up. There are many ways of doing this, but the most common means involves hitting his share prices, and attempting to remove from circulation specific tiles which he may require.

Once into the middle game, you should be devoting all your efforts to ensuring that your corporation gets at least one of those valuable type 5 trains. This will usually involve keeping a close watch on the share price trends on the Stock Market, and attempting to predict which corporation is likely to be able to buy the first type 5 train. This includes taking whatever steps are required to manipulate the share prices so that the trends go the way you want them to go. The trick then is to ensure that your corporation buys the first type 5 train, or failing that, has its operating round immediately afterwards. In the former instance, you should be trying to ensure that your closest rivals do not get the good trains.

The middle game usually ends and the end game begins when the first type 5 train is brought. This usually triggers a mad rush for the type 5 and type 6 trains, and more often than not the game settles down to an uneasy period during which someone is usually saving up for a diesel train. If your corporations are ’safe‘ with their type 5 or type 6 train, and your prospects for a diesel are poor, you should be thinking about closing up the game, and making sure that any diesel routes are not very lucrative. On the other hand, if you are saving up for a diesel, you should be building, or have already built, your diesel route, and be taking whatever steps are required to protect it. The question of going for a diesel can be critical, especially since it will usually cost you something to get it. If you think you are already in front, it is probably not worth going for it. On the other hand, if you are coming second it is certainly worthwhile going for it; the only consideration that you might need to take into account is whether there will be enough time left once you have the diesel for its extra revenue to wear down the lead. The only other reason to go for a diesel is to force a bankruptcy, and in the ensuing share price chaos, to come out in front.

In conclusion, 1830 is an excellent business game which requires considerable thought and quickness of mind, and provides endless hours of enjoyment. I’ll leave you with a final recommendation: do not play with the optional extra type 6 train; that version is for wimps!

(This article was originally published in „Games International“, issue #9 (September 1989) and is reproduced here with the permission of the author)

Die Macher – Strategy Seminar

by Brian Walker

As anyone who has played with me will tell you (all too loudly), I’m not the world’s greatest games player. Nevertheless, there are a few games I’ve managed to delude myself into thinking that I play well. One of these is Die Macher, a game based on the German elections, and arguably one of the most sophisticated, in terms of game mechanics, on the market. For the increasing number of owners of this game I would like to share some of the pearls of wisdom I acquired on the hustings. Obviously it’s impossible to suggest a definitive strategy in a game of such changing fortunes, so I’ll suffice by concentrating on opening moves and the first election.

Preliminaries

Never get rid of your junior ministersThe first thing you have to do is to jettison two members of your shadow cabinet. This is one of the easier decisions to make in the game. Generally I discard the Fraktionsführer and the Partieboss on the basis that the junior ministers perform many of the same actions at cheaper cost. The Kanzler I always like to keep for that +3 popularity. Expensive, sure, but worth the dough in a crisis. Never get rid of your junior ministers. They offer tremendous value for money.

The next step is to cast your freebies, starting with the votes. This is normally a pretty tough choice, especially if you are going first. Ideally, you want to find a region where you have at least two matching choices. But things are usually not that simple so stay cool, and be patient. Above all try to avoid getting in a fight with an opponent at this stage, wasting your valuable resources to possibly finish second in an election is not a sound strategy. If you do go first and there is no obvious choice as to where to place your first five votes, split them up between the four regions and wait to see what your opponents do. By the time you get round to placing your media disc and campaign days, you should have a clearer picture of the region where you want to mount a serious campaign. Once this has been determined, plough all your resources into that region and get ready to kick ass. But remember; fifty votes is the maximum you can obtain, so don’t waste cash trying to get more.

Brighton, Brighton

Generally I like to keep my resources as long as possible until I see which way the game is swinging, but this is not always possible with the conferences. If two of your opponents are already agreed on a particular program then get in quick and hold a special conference (cost: 500), grabbing the last remaining program card for that issue while doing so, thus avoiding becoming an early victim of a three party squeeze (there are only three policies of each type). Likewise, if there are two policies your opponents are agreed upon, then hold a major conference (cost: 700). The only other justification for making this move would be that it would enable me to change my program in such a way as to win the first election, thereby getting an instant return on my investment.

If you have the cash to play them don’t hang on to your conference markers for too long, especially the cheap ones. Always try to use them to obtain party bases rather than change programs. Remember, this way they earn you money after every election.

Smear Those Reds

Time to send in the crooksTime to send in the crooks. At this stage you can’t really afford too much. In an area where I think I have a chance of winning and getting control of the media, I’ll probably send in the Außenminister to boost my popularity. Without media control this is a risky move as some sneak could bang you down by getting hold of an unfavourable opinion poll.

If one of your opponents looks like he is running away with the first election then send in the Generalsekretär to launch a smear campaign. He probably won’t have enough dough left to buy an opinion poll. Watch the smug grin on his face disappear. A dirty trick, I agree, but then that’s politics. It’s probably unwise to make this play though against those tiresome vindictive types that one so often comes across.

Always try to get the debate marker onto one of your policies. This will give your vote total a substantial boost and at little cost if you send in one of your junior ministers.

Remember The SDP

If you can force a coalition and win an election on somebody else’s coattails, great. Let them pay the bills. This is another reason for holding a major conference in phase 1 (change two programs to match theirs), but only do this if they already have a coalition card face up in the region. Also, make sure you have a media disc in the region, otherwise your victory will be a hollow one.

Murdoch Mania

Media discs are undoubtedly one of your most important resources, so use them sparingly. Again, try not to get locked in a media war early on when your reserves are slender. Better to relinquish power to an opponent than waste cash trying to create a stalemate. Your day will come. It’s always worth playing a disc into one of the lower regions especially if you are trying to win the first election. At the start of the game the floating opinion pool is pretty small, so even if you have the power to change things, chances are the opinion you seek is not available. However, if you have media control in one of the lower regions you may be able to switch opinions. Even going as far as to replace a positive agreement with one you violently disagree with, simply to make the former available for the election currently taking place (this tactic applies throughout the game).

Campaign Trail

The campaign days represent the best value for money in the game. Always place as many as you can afford though save some cash for the opinion polls. In the early elections don’t fanny around. Stick them in a region you’re serious about, but always put at least one in the current election, more if you have the dough as the votes they represent will give you an instant cash return.

Swingorama

Stick the boot inYes, it’s opinion poll time. Of course it’s nice to have lots but you don’t have the cash so bid carefully. Do not bid in an area where you have media control if your popularity is up, or if you can reach 50 votes any other way, at least in the early stages. Save your money for a region where you can be hurt. If you should obtain a poll that is unfavourable to your own prospects then try to hammer the leader in that region. Stick the boot in, drop his popularity and raise that of a no-hoper. Only employ this tactic if it does real damage. Otherwise you’ll be catching vindictive fall-out for nothing.

The Hustings Hustle

To convert, or not to convert. That should be the question. As a rule of thumb I’d say yes when your popularity is up, and no when it is down. An exception to the former is when you want to go last in a turn, perhaps say, in the shadow cabinet phase when you want to kick somebody’s media disc out without fear of instant revenge. If your popularity is only at par, it’s worth converting if that will give you an overall majority, and equally to stop one of your opponents obtaining the same.

If your popularity is down always convert at least one as fractions are rounded up.

Flick Flack

Bribes are trickyBribes are tricky things, as any politician will tell you. When you see one of your opponents coining in the cash after an election victory while you’re on your uppers, the temptation to visit Herr Flick for an illegal donation is indeed great but must be resisted unless the situation is really desperate.

The potential loss of party bases could be disastrous in the long term. Visit the bank if you must and hit the manager for a plain brown envelope. If you’re okay for cash just sit back and collect the 500 risk free, or simply do nothing.

General Tactics

When you contest an election pull out all the stops and aim to hit at least 50 votes. Being a runner-up is nowhere, so be a winner. As someone once said of life in America: ‚Son, there are no second acts.‘

Always stay in tune with what is happening in Bonn. Agreements count as a big modifier at the end. Check in advance who is likely to win the election and what opinions he is likely to place in Bonn. If he’s going to place two that look likely to stay there, then hold a major conference and grab them from the program deck, if available.

Don’t underestimate the power of votes. In an election game this may sound strange, but some players get so carried away with modifiers they forget about the nitty gritty.

Try to get your media discs in early on the last election. Experience has shown that this can often be the decider.

The above advice carries no guarantee of success, but follow it and you should be there at the finish. If not, then take consolation in the words of a losing American senator on the stump: ‚The people have spoken, the bastards.‘

(This article was originally published in „Games International“, issue #5 (May 1989) and is reproduced here with the permission of the author)

Britannia

Graham Staplehurst gives one man’s angle on a popular historical game that is already regarded as a classic.

Britannia

Britannia is a game for three to five players (but four is the most suitable) designed by Lewis Pulsipher. It is based on the known history of Britain between 45AD and 1085AD, but enables the players, together with a little help from the luck of the dice, to recreate that history in their own manner.

Lew Pulsipher is well known for his scholarly devotion to history and, though an American, evidently knows a good deal more about the origin of the ‚English‘ and other people of Britain than most people who live here (like me!). However, I’ll leave the purely historical aspect of Britannia for now and describe the game in a little more detail.

The game consists of a board depicting the island of Britain (including the Hebrides and Orkneys) divided into 37 areas and surrounded by six seas. Lurking off the board are the lands of Gaul, Scandinavia and Erin. Initially, the island is peaceful, with a scattering of British Celtic tribes portrayed in confederations such as the Belgae, the Welsh and the Brigantes. Suddenly, from Gaul, comes the fleet bearing four Roman legions with their auxiliaries on the command of Emperor Claudius. Fifteen units land on the southern shores of Britain…

The Destiny Of An Island

This is just the first of many invasions inflicted upon Britannia by successive nations. Some are massive and sudden, like the Romans and Danes; some are slow and insidious like the Irish. All affect the game to a greater or lesser degree as existing inhabitants attempt to stave off the invaders or channel their lust for territory in another direction. For this is a game of territory, and the trick of winning is holding just enough to achieve your individual objectives. Stretch too far and you’re vulnerable – pile your units up and watch them die from lack of supplies.

Each player controls four nations, a nation being a more or less coherent group of people with a unified aim. The Belgae, for example (a quarter of the Blue faction), represent the Celts of lowland England: the Trinovantes, Catuvellauni, Dobunni and Iceni among others. The game notes delineate the aims of the nation in strict terms, awarding victory points for achieving different aims. The Belgae must hold areas after the fourth turn to score points, and also get points for destroying either Roman armies as they advance north or Roman forts left behind. Meanwhile the Roman nation (the first of the Purples, appropriately enough) gets points for invading all English, Welsh and southern Scottish areas and for holding on to its forts, so the Belgae do well to make it through the first turn in games I’ve played. Thus Blue is set against Purple and command of territory crucial, for no matter how many battles you win, if you haven’t held enough areas, you won’t win the game.

This aspect of the victory criteria is essential for balance and to ensure that players must mix outright warfare with judicious diplomacy. The Brigantes, Welsh and Picts can all choose to submit to the Romans rather than be wiped out, safe in the knowledge that the collapse of Rome will call all the legions home after Turn Five, leaving behind only the weakened civil population to defend against the waves of Germanic invaders.

In addition to the simple equation of areas held = support and victory points, there are two other basic rules. The first is that only one nation can occupy an area: if another enters they must fight until one withdraws or is eliminated – even if the units belong to different nations of the same player. The second is the way that combat is dealt with. Each side rolls one die for each army present and kills an opposing army on a 5 or 6 – modified for terrain and special ‚enhanced‘ armies such as cavalry and Roman legions.

Thus far the game is simple – so what makes it exciting? The re-creation of the history of the land we live in is a lively subject and one which continues to enthrall me after many games. It’s the eternal ‚What if?‘ historians like to ask: what if Harold was defeated at Stamford Bridge or won at Hastings? What if Arthur drove back the Saxons for good? What if the Great Army of the Danes pressed its attacks on Wessex? All these points are elegantly handled in the game through three mechanics (none of which detract from its essential simplicity). There are the specially designed victory objectives mentioned earlier; there are leaders to gather great armies and enhance their fighting power; and there are special rules for particular situations.

The victory point objectives can be great motivators. Take the Welsh, for example. They score 8 points for holding all of Wales (and this includes Devon and Cornwall) in Turn Seven; they can also score a massive 6 points for taking York at any point in the next two turns. Consequently, the Welsh always make a big effort to sack York and end up dividing the Angles. But then what do they do with their army in York – send it home to defend against menacing Irish and Saxon armies, or maintain it as a field army to keep the nations in England from getting overly powerful? And how should the Angles plan – to defend York heavily and deny the Welsh the points, at the risk of losing perhaps 30%-40% of their population, or concentrate elsewhere and let the Welsh take it easily?

Leaders can be very useful. Allowing nations to stack up armies for invasions, giving 50% extra movement and adding one to the die roll in battle, they are scattered thinly for the most part and must be used carefully, particularly by smaller nations. King Arthur, for example, will lead the Romano-British against the Saxons, Angles and Jutes, gaining points for every enemy killed. But if he leaves himself exposed and gets killed, the victor wins 3 points for themselves. At the end of the game, 5 points are at stake between Harold, William and Harald Hardrada the Norwegian for being King of England.

Finally there are the additional rules. These cover everything from raids, when armies can attack and then return safely from whence they came, to the election of Bretwalda or overlord of England before the strong Kings arose. Trying to remember all the rules, together with all your own victory point objectives, and your opponents‘, and thinking ahead to where the next invader is going to appear all make for a game where you’re never really sure what’s going to happen next.

An Anvil Of Blood And Terror

So, now you have an idea of how the game is played, let us progress to your first game. How do you win? I hope that the general maxim given above will be a start, but there are four different factions in the game all requiring a slightly different approach. Here are some hints which might just help you do a bit better.

THE PURPLE FACTION
  • Romans
  • Romano-British
  • Scots
  • Dubliners
  • Norwegians

The Romans have perhaps more decisions to make than any other nation in the game. They get the most points-per-area for penetrating to the heart of Albion (that’s Scotland, except the Scots haven’t got there yet) but this will generally mean they have to by-pass Wales and it can also leave them with too few defenses down south. Despite the fact that Romans move further each turn than other armies, their mobility is not unlimited and to get additional points when the legions withdraw the Roman player must protect southern England, Cheshire and York.

If you plan on going north, you must reach York in the first turn while eliminating as many Belgae as possible. Try to take out the Brigantes in March and Cheshire as well, and defend the western flank against an early Welsh raid. Don’t despair if you lose two or three armies early on through others‘ lucky die rolls. An alternative strategy is to go for Welsh submission, since getting all of Wales will net you 3 points anyway – more than risking going against the Highlands in Scotland. Welsh mountains are a good defensive base for the Romano-British to take over.

If you go north, this should weaken the Picts and assist your Scots somewhat, especially if you can wear the Brigantes down to a token presence. It sometimes pays to make a deal with the Welsh regarding the latter. The Scots‘ invasion with King Fergus must push the Picts back after their raiding. Skye is the hinge of Scotland since it borders both western seas, but Dalriada remains the centre of the kingdom. If the Scots look doomed through ill luck, use them to try to eliminate the Brigantes completely.

The second two Purple factions can also help each other. The Dubliners‘ big advantage is moving after the Norsemen, so they stand every chance of getting both York and Cumbria on their big invasion turn. It is often advantageous for both Scots and Dubliners to bide time at sea when small numbers of invaders are introduced, landing them only in the major invasion. Obviously, empty spaces are often worth taking to get a foothold and start to build population.

After their invasion, the Dubliners should attack Angles and Danes in the area to weaken the north for Harald’s forces, and aim to retreat into Lindsey and Pennines. They can emerge in the last turn to retake York and Cumbria while keeping out of Harald’s way when he needs to score points. The Angles are a problem since they will try to eliminate or weaken Harald at any cost, in order to assist Duke William’s chances of becoming King.

The Norwegians should be able to score most of their initial invasion points with Dubliner help. Try to push well south on the first stage of the invasion so that Harald can retreat further north and stay out of others‘ reach. His only real hope for King is that Harold and William kill each other, but a small force in North Mercia sometimes has a chance of catching one or other off guard.

Avoiding putting more than one man in areas the Dubliners want; there’s a good chance he’ll be able to retreat out. However, the areas are worth holding to get reinforcements. If you do plan to let the Dubliners take York, remember the reinforcements can’t land south of it, so ensure your armies aren’t concentrated in the north.

THE BLUE FACTION
  • Belgae
  • Picts
  • Angles
  • Normans

The Blue faction is hard to play well, but don’t despair! It can win, and does so more often than you might imagine. It starts by watching the Belgae being annihilated by merciless waves of Roman invaders. All you can do is pray to roll some sixes and slow the Romans down. Always retreat immediately you get the opportunity, preferably to hiland (Downlands or Lindsey). Then attack any undefended fort or, failing that and if you are caught in open terrain, forts with single armies. Always attack the forts of greatest worth to the Roman, even if this leaves you in a worse defensive position (as the Belgae, you couldn’t have a worse defensive position). Just go for kill points.

The Picts however should do everything possible to survive as widely spread as possible. Don’t retreat from Dunedin until you have to and build in the north, ready to squeeze the Caledonians before they start to double up their armies in areas. Don’t hold back against the Caledonians if you can put three or preferably four onto one. Turns Four and Five are especially useful and you can often eliminate the Caledonians by sending in every single piece to raid and leaving just one behind. The Picts and Angles can often help each other across Dunedin/Lothian/Strathclyde. If the Picts do get control of the islands, remember to garrison them later against the Norsemen. Do remember, it’s better to stay alive and make a deal with the Brigantes or Scots than to be reduced down to a miserable couple of units; and also ensure you get the most points in the last turn.

The Angles have a hard time. Lacking a leader with which to invade, their only advantage is moving last, and even this means they tend to have their breeding cut down by others, especially Saxons. However, it is still possible to score lots of points and survive, despite being assailed by Romano-British, Welsh, Saxons, Irish, Danes, Dubliners and Norwegians. Try to hold the balance of power in England and deprive the Saxons of Bretwalda and Kingship as often as possible. Strike at weak Saxon points to deprive him of victory points as well, for example Essex in Turn Seven. Take any hiland areas as soon as you get the chance and don’t risk big attacks except perhaps to take out Arthur with an army or two -that’s four or five points‘ worth.

Finally, the Angles have a good points-per-area score late in the game, so they are worth preserving rather than throwing away. They can also help Duke William (the traitors!).

The Normans get the chance to move and act last of all in the game. Be prepared to face Saxons, Danes, perhaps even some Welsh or Irish in the west, all intent on murder. It is absolutely essential to get maximum points from the first invasion turn and to protect William, for reinforcements will be worthless without him alive. The best points come from an east-side attack but except in very unusual circumstances you should always endeavour to kill Harold as soon as you land. Don’t bother to spread out after Turn 15; stay compact and harder to attack. Encourage everyone else to harry the Norwegians! Mix your cavalry and ordinary armies to give the latter best protection and leave William behind at least one rank of defenders.

THE RED FACTION
  • Brigantes
  • Irish
  • Saxons
  • Norsemen

The Red faction is big, bad and thoroughly mean. At least, that’s my unbiased opinion. To be honest, any of the factions can be played as ’spoilers‘ to some extent; it’s just that often the Red faction seem to be better at it than others.

As enduring as the Picts (with luck) are the Brigantes. By the time the Roman reaches the Brigantes‘ real heartland of Galloway and Strathclyde, he should be struggling a bit, and the Red player should certainly encourage the Roman to go for the big points in Dunedin, Alban and Dalriada.

If necessary, submit to the Romans. Fighting it out is usually not worth it: although you gain perhaps 6 points for luckily killing a couple of armies, it would be much better to preserve your integrity and pick up more points later on. Try to submit with maximum population (6 armies in three areas) and remember that you move after the Roman so when he counts Limes on Turn Five, you can try to vacate point-scoring areas. With five or six armies, you should be able to hold the heartland and progress from there, especially with the early leaders. Do any deal to stay alive and help the Saxons and Norsemen later: Saxons by voting for them in Bretwalda elections; Norsemen by clearing Cumbria.

The Irish have a hard time of it. As suggested for the Scots and Dubliners, don’t always land armies the turn they arrive at sea. Wait until you have a couple to be more use, unless you want to risk the odd Roman fort in Avalon or Hwicce, for example, or occupy an empty area. With a few armies on the board and the Welsh busy elsewhere, a useful attack is one focusing on Devon then Cornwall. Although harder to penetrate, they also offer better long-term security and will be hard for the Welsh to retake. Even better, it could well distract the Welsh from attacking Norsemen or Saxons elsewhere, and strengthen your faction as a whole. An alternative Irish kingdom to aim for stretches from Cumbria to Gwynedd; again this is quite hard for the Welsh to attack, however it is more vulnerable to later attacks from Danes and Dubliners.

The Saxons are quite simply the biggest nation (potentially) on the board. Only the Danes with 18 armies approach the Saxon total of 20, and the Danes are unlikely to grow like the Saxons do. The initial Saxon advantage is the early invasion against a relatively empty southern England, with Hengist as leader. This should enable you, with luck, to score a good few points killing Romano-British as well as wiping out the Jutes (this is highly recommended). Then spread out and maintain a few two-army stacks in the midlands, gradually swelling in size -you should quickly get two, then three builds a turn – and taking out Angles in the Midlands and East Anglia, pushing back stray Welsh and even making room for the odd Irishman if it scores more points. Use boats to catch the Angles off guard. If Hengist is unopposed in landing, an early foray to secure Devon is also useful, but follow up in Cornwall sooner rather than later. With Irish and Brigante help, the Red faction should make the Saxons Bretwalda and King more often than not. Once you gain momentum, you will roll on until the Danes strike. The answer is to secure your back (the West) so that you can fall back in good order and keep punching back in any weak spot. Tell the Danes if they weaken you too much, it’ll be a walkover for William later. Do deals on non-aggression to get Bretwalda votes. Most of all, bulk up your front line to make it sufficiently unattractive to attackers, even if you don’t want to attack anywhere yourself.

At the end of the game comes the hardest part – defending against Duke William and Harald. With any luck, the Angles and Danes should be Harald’s main opponents and may well prevent him from reaching Harold. Keep Harold as well defended as possible, such as with the maximum four armies in hiland, and scatter troops around to give you the best chance of survival and a retributive strike against the Norman invaders.

The Norsemen present a task of flowing where it is easiest. The initial strike must be against Hebrides and Orkneys and holding them in Turn 13 for the best points opportunity. If you can end up with the ideal of two or three armies in Hebrides after Turn 12, these can join with the fresh invaders next turn to go for Skye and a solid base for reaching all of Britain’s west coast; otherwise get points in Cumbria and annoy the Welsh or Dubliners, whoever looks the stronger. Don’t be too worried about getting every last half point for visiting – the Norse are one example of where the armies are best used preventing others from reaching juicy objectives, such as the Picts on the last turn with their three 3-point areas.

THE BLACK FACTION
  • Welsh
  • Caledonians
  • Jutes
  • Danes

At first glimpse, you might be forgiven for thinking you’d been dealt a dud hand. The Caledonians can only get six armies on the board and stand fair to be wiped out by Picts and Norsemen, but this seems an easy life compared with the Jutes‘ five armies and not even hilands to defend them.

The Caledonians have little to do except sit there and try to resist the inevitable. Just try to exist; honey the Pict with kind words and hope you get a build soon. As for the Jutes, their best chance for points lie in destroying Roman forts and stealing Kent on Turn Four. If Kent is defended by a Roman army and fort, go for any open Roman fort you can reach and raid it, then try for another on Turn Five with all units. If possible, delay landing the final Jute until after Hengist’s invasion; that way you might just get Kent or somewhere adjacent on Turn Seven. Remember, if you land in a coastal space you can probably reach Kent by boats later, so stay out of the way of the Saxons.

The Welsh are more complicated and offer a good possibility for long term strategy. As with the Brigantes, submission to the Romans is, in the final analysis, better than being smashed to (practically) nothing. Don’t let that stop you taking any chance to raid Cheshire, York or Essex, should the chance arise: by building your first armies in Powys and Clwyd this is often easy to accomplish. When the Romans withdraw, Romano-British forays may leave areas to York open. Seize these early (especially Pennines) to make it easier to get your 6 points in Turn Eight or Nine.

Your main opponents are the Red faction, so ruthlessly quash any Irish settlers and take the opportunity to nibble at the Saxon kingdom and slow its expansion. Devon and Gwent are worth defending. In the mid game, occupying one or two English areas can make all the difference in Bretwalda elections. However, the main concentration must be on maintaining the integrity of Welsh territory and reaping maximum victory points every three turns.

Finally, the Danes also call for careful consideration. In the initial raid, look for open areas you won’t have to fight over and be careful to preserve maximum numbers of units for the Turn 12 invasion. Raid Angles or Saxons depending on who holds the stronger hand and then follow this up with a good invasion (at least 16 points worth). Try to end the invasion concentrated either north or south of York – if north, aim to eliminate the Angles entirely – so that you can hold a sensible kingdom.

Use the Welsh to soften opponents and take the odd area so the Danes get a chance to be King, but don’t let them get in the way of scoring points during the invasion. Later hang on as well as possible and press the advantage wherever you can. You should make deals with the Saxons and Angles if necessary at the end of the game in order to stand off the Normans and Norwegians wherever possible.

Step Back Into Those Dark Ages

One of the attractions of Britannia is that it does not exactly simulate the history of Britain. After all, this would be very tedious and unrewarding, and we would all know who was going to win. (Actually, portraying history with the game is impossible in places – for example, Harold cannot defeat Harald Hardrada at Stamford Bridge (in York) and then reach William in Sussex next turn.) However, the game must of necessity simplify things somewhat and leave out some rather interesting bits of British history.

Generally speaking, the only units in the game are armies, and only armies are deemed to control areas. There are no civil populations to hold an area peaceably (although a leader can control an area on his own) and thus every part of the realm must be garrisoned – and this is not an accurate reflection of the settlement of Britain other than in Roman and late Saxon times. Additionally, it means that the Normans, with their relatively small band of men, cannot win control of the land by placing a few men in command over a subject population.

Additionally, a dimension of historical realism is lost by the amalgamation of many peoples into different nations. The many tribes constituting the Belgae, for example, were belligerent towards each other – often more than the Romans, and some actively submitted to the Romans (whom they knew from Julius Caesar’s invasion and withdrawal ninety years earlier) and attacked their ‚fellows‘. The Welsh were related Celtic tribes: Ordovices, Silures and Deceangli for example, who were led by the fleeing Belgae leader and hero Caractacus (or Caradoc) in defiance of the Romans.

Throughout the rest of history, nations were split by internal strife on a regular basis as successions were disputed and lesser nobles tried to seize power. There were also rebellions by peoples who had been subjugated and effectively ‚wiped out‘ but who nevertheless regained a national identity and rose up. The first example of this was Boudicca and the Iceni who had been semi-Romanised; they took up arms when greedy administrators raped their lands and daughters and drove a path of destruction to Colchester, St Albans and beyond before being utterly defeated by Suetonius.

There are a few historical inaccuracies which are easy to correct. Two of these concern the provision of boats – a very useful commodity in the game. I would certainly allow the Saxons boats under Alfred, who was the constructor of the first English navy (one might even think about rules for naval combat).

I would also give boats to the Norwegians in Turn 16, enabling them to land forces further south than York. Turn 16 could be further enlivened by the addition of a Danish leader King Swein (also with boats and a few boatloads of troops) who raided the east coast of Britain and, assisted by Hereward the Wake, laid up in the Wash during 1070-1. I am also tempted to add other leaders, such as Caractacus, Boudicca, Hereward, other Welsh and Scottish princes down to Macbeth and so on, but this side of the game is more dangerous to tamper with, as one might upset the game’s innate balance.

There are some nations I feel have been treated a little harshly – the Jutes for instance, unable ever to score any points except for areas in the south-east of England when, given the opportunity, they might have settled in any convenient spot and survived with a greater cultural identity. I believe there is also room for more rules covering submission, a Scottish King and so on.

The Wider World

Britannia is a good game, destined to become a popular favourite with boardgamers and wargamers alike. However, as a games designer, I’m not content to let it stop there, and neither are other busy inventors I know.

Already existing as a prototype are Britannia variants covering the whole of Europe, from Persia to Britain (a six player, 36-faction game taking about 12 hours to play) and also a Middle-earth variant of my own design. This latter has some 20 factions and a rather longer time span than Britannia – it starts with the war of the Elves and Sauron in the Second Age and ends with the War of the Ring over 5000 years later!

In addition I have devised some alternative historical scenarios to add to the original game. These start with the Huns under Attila reversing their defeat by the Franks at Chalons and sending a raid against England. The Huns are followed by a possible resurgence in Roman fortunes, then later by Arabs spurred on by victories in France and Magyars raiding beyond their battles in the Low Countries. Finally there are ex-Danish Vikings who can choose either to settle in France and become the Normans, or land early in England – but this will indubitably let in the Franks, now French, under Philip I…

I also have plans for introducing some fantasy elements to the game, with Merlin, giants, dragons, faeries, goblins and all the other traditions rife across so many parts of the country that to leave them out would do serious injustice to the tale of Britain that Britannia tries to tell. But in the meantime, I hope you enjoy playing Britannia, one of the best new games for a long time. There are thrills enough in just getting to grips with a game where hidden danger or success can be revealed with every new turn, every surprise move, and every roll of the dice.

A Final Note

The first edition rules published by Gibsons were atrocious. Most of the ambiguities were cleared up in the second edition, though there are still some anomalies.

A copy of the second edition rules can be obtained by sending an SAE to Gibsons. Avalon Hill, who licensed the game from Gibsons for the American market, corrected all the errors in their set of rules.

If you’re using the second edition rules you may find some eventualities which are not covered, or which seem confusing. As with any game, these are not difficult to come to agreement over after careful assessment of all applicable rules. There are some suggestions in this article which may seem contrary to the rules, and the latter should be always be taken as relevant to your games, until or unless you agree otherwise. Unfortunately, the author cannot let well alone and will always tamper with things…

(This article was originally published in „Games International“, issue #5 and is reproduced here with the permission of Brian Walker, the former GI editor)