@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.

Show thread

@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. .

Show thread

@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.

Show thread

@18xx Played 1839 today with the new train roster (see image -- note: ROI formula is weird due to rules stuff).

Revenues & train lifespans were fairly close to the model (eg green in OR2.1 but light brown in OR4.1 instead of OR3.2 -- so not off by much) -- which was maybe overly flattering to my 'leet game modelling skillz. Woo.

I wonder what happens with Builder/Growth players who solidly play for rank/position vs binary win/lose (both things I don't do)?

@18xx Other notions (mine, mostly in reaction to Bruce's):

  • Pays a function of the number of shares in the Bank Pool (maybe just one specific company, maybe some ability to change which company, or maybe all shares in the pool).

  • Pays a function of the number of companies with a stock price over $X or under $Y (possibly scaled by game phase). Get the game to race to the bottom (or a booming game economy) and it pays through the nose...

Show thread

@18xx An idea from Bruce Murphy on Twittter:

What about a private that paid based on the performance of a company but only on the shares you did not own.

Show thread

@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?

Show thread

@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 One of the questions is the advantage of this over hashtags (eg ) -- a way of selectively bypassing blocks by using gup.pe as a relay? But enough of the off-topic.

Show thread
Tabletop Social

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