B&O Gamebox Refugee Game

Started by egg_salad, August 29, 2016, 06:12:14 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rstites25

Little known fact:  Ron Swanson is an 18XX shark.

egg_salad

Quote from: binkman on September 19, 2016, 07:54:39 PM
Of 1830 and 1889, I'd prefer 1889, because, if nothing else, I prefer vassal.

Rails is actually pretty nice.  I love the route calculation automation.  Routes can be tricky at the end.  But I am ok with VASSAL.  Break out the spreadsheets!
A)bort, R)etry, I)nfluence with large hammer

l'amour

I'm happy with 89. Sad to lose Woodall.

l'amour

Quote from: rstites25 on September 19, 2016, 12:28:59 PM


My math comes out a bit different than Chris'...not sure why. Doesn't look like it changes the standings, though.

I only checked mine, but that comes out differently because I had 2 B&O and you only counted 1. Doesn't make much difference but there are the type of games where you have to count everything!

rstites25

Quote from: egg_salad on September 19, 2016, 11:28:05 PM
Quote from: binkman on September 19, 2016, 07:54:39 PM
Of 1830 and 1889, I'd prefer 1889, because, if nothing else, I prefer vassal.

Rails is actually pretty nice.  I love the route calculation automation.  Routes can be tricky at the end.  But I am ok with VASSAL.  Break out the spreadsheets!

Plus it has rules enforcement, which might make for a smoother game.

Woodall

I changed my mind. I'm in for 1830 on Rails. Not sure 1889 plays well with 5?

rstites25

Quote from: jwoodall04 on September 20, 2016, 09:58:54 AM
I changed my mind. I'm in for 1830 on Rails. Not sure 1889 plays well with 5?

Clearclaw rates it as follows at the various player counts:

Overall Rating: 8.5
Rating with 3 Players: 7 (8.5 if teaching)
Rating with 4 Players: 8.5
Rating with 5 Players: 7.5

And 1830:

Overall rating: 9
Rating with 2 players: 5
Rating with 3 players: 7
Rating with 4 players: 8.5 (not sure why this isn't 9)
Rating with 5 players: 8.5 (not sure why this isn't 9)
Rating with 6 players: 9

The potential problem with 1889 is that the train mix is such that when you jump from 5's to 6's (I think), that it's likely only two companies will have a slot open to buy the train. If they don't have the money to buy a 6 (to kill the 3's) then the game may drag on unnecessarily.

I would vote for 1830. I think the worst that might happen is that someone goes bankrupt. But that's probably preferable to the game dragging on.

I did read on the 1889 forums that there are some questions about how good Rails rules enforcement is. So we'll probably still have to keep an eye on it. But I think it does a generally good idea. I haven't been able to find the 1889 rules online. The AH 1830 rules are here (They are supposed to be far superior to the Mayfair reprint).

Woodall

Would appreciate a copy of the rules by e-mail if you don't mind. I can't access BGG.


Woodall


l'amour

1830 is fine with me. I'll need to read the rules too.

binkman


Woodall

So... Vassal vs. Rails

What are we gaining or losing playing on one or the other?

rstites25

I'm not sure what the advantage of VASSAL would be. Both allow for PBEM play and we'd be posting a logfile for each.

Rails has rules enforcement, but isn't perfect. (For example, in the 1889 module at least, it highlights hexes you can legally place a token in, but you can actually select any hex with a city and put a token there). Rails also tabulates and tracks all stock prices, cash transfers, etc. This includes paying dividends. So no hassle of trying to calculate payouts for multiple people. My hunch is that the rules enforcement is only lacking in some edge cases, but will generally get things right. In my limited experience playing around with Rails solo, it's probably superior to VASSAL for 18XX.

binkman