@18xx Musing: The nice thing about 1830-style privates is that their value is mostly dependent on the other players. In this, special-power privates are less interesting in that their values are more dependent on their owner's execution than combative interaction.

@18xx Design questions:

a) What are other meaningfully different types of privates?

b) How can their effective valuations be made a function more of opponent's play than personal execution?

@18xx Mostly orthogonal to the who-controls-the-valuation dimension are privates that impose a clock on the game.

1871 for instance has the Union Bank which expresses a very simple concept: If the game goes slowly, the Union Bank owner wins every time (they can hold ever more shares than the paper limit). Only if the game goes (too) quickly does the Union Bank player lose.


@18xx The "problem" with the Union Bank per se is that it is a relatively uninteresting position to play.

In 1839 I am trying a partial relative: a private that pays $20 more than it did last OR (starting at $0), so the longer the game goes, the more and more and more it pays (commonly it is paying well over $100/OR by the time it closes), a similar but not as guaranteed a game-win clock, but also perhaps also a little more interesting to play. .

@18xx Privates that map to late game trains operate in a similar space. The classic example of course is the Eva from 1844 (a private that is nothing but a (non-permanent) 5-train, no revenue, nothing, just a train that you can give a company in that phase). If the game is very fast up until that phase, or that phase has a pause, then the Eva is amazing. But if the game gets there slowly...then the Eva is not so good.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Tabletop Social

We are an inclusive Mastodon community for everything tabletop (and more).