jeff@hpcnoe.UUCP (11/14/85)
> After playing a game of Rail Baron last night we decided something needs to > be done about getting nailed with *bad* destinations. One of the features of the game is that you have *bad* destinations. I could see declining one destination or two during the game. But being able to decline any destination would make a boring game. To argue for a different system because of realism is ludicrous. The game itself does not make much sense. Why would riding a railroad be more expensive than what it cost in the first place? Anyway, make the rule changes only based on playability. Keep in mind that changing the rules could adverse affect the "fun" of the game. -- Jeff Wu
jeff@hpcnoe.UUCP (12/16/85)
> If the group you play with has strong >opinions on the subject, such that they will follow their strategy >regardless of what you do, it rates to follow that strategy. Another approach is to disregard the group. Why buy a railroad which does not fit into your plans just because other people are buying in the same area? Let the other people compete, you'll get your choice of railroads in other areas. Of course, if they are competing in an area where you feel is important, then you have to compete. -- Jeff Wu ..!ihnp4!hpfcla!j_wu