[net.games.board] Railbaron Happening

srt@ucla-cs.UUCP (11/26/85)

We played the other night and had a player (Rick Gillespie) die en route
to his SECOND destination.  A mistake in picking his path on the first
turn meant that he got shut out of the NE, so he decided to buy a
Superchief instead.  This only left him $4000 and his next destination?
Portland, ME, the only city on the board he couldn't afford to reach.

    *chuckle*

Next time we play the rule that allows you to refuse one of your first
three destinations...
                                                -- Scott

cad@cbosgd.UUCP (Chuck A DeGaul) (11/29/85)

It is precisely to eliminate such moronic play as that (buying a
superchief as your first purchase) that the Gods intervene and
cause a Portland, Me. or a Miami destination to show up.  Your
friend should thank all involved that he/she was quickly eliminated
and thus saved the embarassment of having to show their ineptitude
over the course of an entire game.

			---> Chuck A DeGaul <---

srt@ucla-cs.UUCP (12/03/85)

In article <1643@cbosgd.UUCP> cad@cbosgd.UUCP (Chuck A DeGaul) writes:
>It is precisely to eliminate such moronic play as that (buying a
>superchief as your first purchase)...

Not that the moron in question can't defend himself, but I don't agree that
a superchief as first purchase is a moronic strategy.  Consider a four
player game.  You've just arrived at your first destination and now have
$44,000.  The PA and NYC have already been bought.  What are you going to
do?

You can purchase the AT&SF or one of the other big three, but since that
would involve spending $40K, it is no better than buying a superchief.
Probably less wise, since there is little reason to believe that they'll
be bought up soon anyway.

You can buy one of the SE railroads to prevent being shut out there.  However,
there are 3 1/2 good SE rrs (ACL, SAL, SOU and partially the L&N) and the SE
is the least frequently visited region.

You can buy one of the top three (Milwaukee Road, GN, NP), but again, there
is no reason to think you'll be shut out of that area, and you certainly
won't make any money off those rails.

Finally, you can purchase in the center of the board (which is idiotic that
early in the game) or make a defnensive purchase (the B&O).  Neither move
is very appealing.

Buying a superchief, on the other hand, is very appealing.  It raises your
income by 50%.  The only danger is in the first turn, where, if you require
two turns on an alien rail, you'll bankrupt.  Since there are very few
destinations on the board where this can happen (even Portland, ME and Miami
can be reached in one roll), it seems like a good risk.

So, I don't think the purchase is at all moronic.  Perhaps it is just that
players with limited styles can't appreciate flair when it jumps up and
bites them on the superchief.

On a totally different subject, I didn't see the point of the recent
Portland Rules posted to the net.  For the most part these rules seemed to
make some arbitrary changes that don't seem to improve the playability of
the game at all.  The main problem with the game seems to be that a player
can be eliminated by one bad roll early on.  The Portland Rules don't
address this at all.

Instead, there is an alternate destination chart that removes the NE/SE
bias.  Why?  That bias wasn't built into the game whimsically, you know.
Removing it just seems to make the game more vanilla.  Why not simplify
the board to 6 big dots, one to a region, and one railroad connecting them
all?  Or make it a board game like Chutes and Ladders.

Similarly for all the other Portland Rules.  I was not impressed.

                                                -- Scott Turner

braman@dataioDataio.UUCP (Rick Braman) (12/06/85)

> 
> Similarly for all the other Portland Rules.  I was not impressed.
> 
>                                                 -- Scott Turner

Obviously you were not impressed, or else you would have realized they
are called the Seattle Rules.
-- 

Rick Braman
Data I/O Corporation
Redmond, WA

UUCP  uw-beaver!teltone!dataio!braman

franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (12/06/85)

In article <1643@cbosgd.UUCP> cad@cbosgd.UUCP (Chuck A DeGaul) writes:
>... to eliminate such moronic play as that (buying a
>superchief as your first purchase) ...

In a four player game, buying a superchief as your first purchase is
quite reasonable.  In a three player game, it is probably a winning
move.  With five or six, it loses.  The loss of early cash is somewhat
made up for by the additional income from making your runs faster, and
when the railroads are all bought, you have a head start accumulating
capital.

By the way, I now think the earlier argument about whether your second
purchase should be a southwestern railroad, or a southeastern or central
one, missed an essential point.  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.  (I
still think it rates to buy a northeastern railroad first, regardless
of how your opponents play.)

Frank Adams                           ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

srt@ucla-cs.UUCP (12/09/85)

In article <872@dataioDataio.UUCP> braman@dataioDataio.UUCP (Rick Braman) writes:
>> 
>> Similarly for all the other Portland Rules.  I was not impressed.
>> 
>>                                                 -- Scott Turner
>
>Obviously you were not impressed, or else you would have realized they
>are called the Seattle Rules.
>-- 
>
>Rick Braman

Wrong, bucko.  Try re-reading the original posting.  Though labelled the
``Seattle Rules'' they are in actuality a slight variant; hence the moniker
I used.

                                                -- Scott Turner