Gaming buddy just received 18OE for £10.
I’m going to play it with them (someday) dammit
4 Likes
The game seems to have gone a bit quiet, if there an issue or something I can do to move things along let me know.
1 Like
The issue is that I have been having a very full-on couple of weeks at work 
I should be able to speed up a bit now though. Apologies for the lack of communication.
3 Likes
@lalunaverde @EnterTheWyvern (and the rest of you are also welcome to chime in, of course)
I was chatting with @Acacia about 18xx and he asked a very interesting question: what’s a good introduction to the softer, gentler side of 18xx? And/or, what’s a good introduction to non-1830-derivatives (1829 and/or 1835 descendants, perhaps)
In my experience, the “run good companies” games tend to have lots of extra features. And while there are some I’ve played that are not that crazy, I’m curious how people feel about those as introductions to 18xx in general.
1889 is a very well-documented entrypoint into the 1830 side of the family tree. What’s a good introductory “run good companies” game?
–
2 Likes
Depends on the person’s taste. If they like the efficiency type games like Lehman’s RFTG, 1846: Race to the Midwest is the best. It is unlike other 18xx where it’s difficult for one to jump from 1846 to others, but it’s simpler(?).
I might put 18GB or 1862: East Anglia, which are easier to learn than 1860: Isle of Wight. 1825-style lacks the liabilities involved with owning companies - and that has its own pros and cons. But the best part of that is that newbies aren’t getting sucker punched when their trains are gone and have to pay from their own pocket.
I guess 1861: Russian Empire or 18NewEngland would be nice too. Those are “short”, but '46 and '62 I find to be shorter
Take note. Between Full Cap or Incremental, the latter is the most intuitive to understand, form my point of view. The company gets money you spent, when you buy IPO shares. It’s easier to understand than you buy 6 shares and et viola! The company gets 10x of the par value!
3 Likes
How different in feel are these going to be from 1889, where many people recommend you start?
1 Like
I think 1830 and its clones (1889, 18Chesapeake, etc) can be very polarizing as an introduction to the sub-genre. 1830 is mean. There are countless forum posts where people bought the game and played it with a bunch of people who had also never played before – and they almost always complain that the game lasts forever; that’s because 1830 can only be played (essentially) if you are scratching and clawing your way to victory. An 1830 win is like an omelet: you broke some eggs on your path to victory. Except, you probably broke all the eggs, even the ones you didn’t need for your omelet; and then when the other players went to make their omelets, they found all of the eggs smashed on the floor as you raced off in the other direction cackling with glee.
To some degree, 18Chesapeake was designed to address those numerous BGG forum posts; it has a mechanism built-in to prevent the game from lasting forever when played by new-comers.
1889’s design doesn’t quite have the same effectiveness as 18Ches because it can actually get stuck in a weird game-state where one person will slowly win if the other players don’t actively stop it. This is an interesting hitch in 1889’s design, along with the smaller but more interesting map, that, I think, earns it its reputation as a good entrypoint (despite it’s “flaws”, the aforementioned degenerate game-state)
But, at the end of the day, these games are mean and are best played cutthroatly.
These other corners of the 18xx sub-genre don’t have to be as brutal. I don’t think there’s a 18Carebear out there where we’re all friends all the time. So all of these games have plenty of places to throw an elbow (and you don’t even have to wait for the ref to be looking the other way; all’ss fair in corporate greed)
1846 is a good entrypoint, if you ask me, because, for one thing, it doesn’t start with one of the most confused auction mechanisms most people have ever encountered. 1830 and many other 18xx games start with a “waterfall auction”. 1846 just starts with a card-draft, a-la Sushi Go or 7 Wonders.
Waterfall Auction?
It also is “Incremental Capitalization” vs “Full Capitalization”, which Mr Verde mentions is probably more intuitive.
The map in 1846 is bigger and less competitive, except for a few key cities.
So what’s the problem with recommending 1846 to beginners? Because, as Mr Verde also mentions, you’ll be learning 1846, not “18xx”. Translating your 1846 into other 18xx games will be spotty and may be more confusing.
That said, some people may only need one 18xx game and if you start with 1846, you certainly could just stay there, Racing for the Midwest in perpetuity.
If I were going to have a single 18xx game, it might be 1862 because it has lots of different levers to pull and a random board setup that makes each game unique. Also, it has a solo mode.
2 Likes
I do plan to have one 18xx to rule them all. 1846, 1889, or 1862? Who knows at this point. I’m avoiding 1846 because it’s “not” 18xx but if it is good and close enough maybe that’s good and close enough?
1 Like
The good news is that all 3 of those are playable on 18xx.games 
Also available on Tabletop Simulator (which I prefer, but requires more dedicated time and energy)
3 Likes
Yeah. I can’t rec anything other than play these games and see which ones you prefer. It’s like someone asking me to recommend a Heavy Euro as their one true faith.
2 Likes
So let’s focus this. I’d like to have ONE 18xx, as I’m interested in the bimodal strategy (map + market), flexibility, a game with trapdoors and hidden doors, and general openness. This would be more of a corner of the collection, so I’d like one best or representative game that I can go deep on, as opposed to, say, Knizia tile-layers where I’m fine with seven because I appreciate all the subtleties and differences in approach.
By now I’m looking at 1846 and 1889.
I would value:
- (Comparatively) shorter play time - if I have 5-6 hours I’m likely to gravitate toward Dune or TwImp or SidCon (advantage Shikoku?)
- Archetype of the genre (Shikoku?)
- Teachability (1846?) - I’m likely to be dragging at least one person to the table
- Ability to take ahold (not necessarily master, but achieve comfort) of the game in 1-3 games as opposed to 5-10 (1846?)
- Noting that Shikoku is pretty and $90, while 1846 is GMT and $57
Also, if I already have Irish & Iberian Gauge, Chicago Express, and Indonesia is it possible I already have what I need (given the above) for train & stock games, and economic backstabbery? Separately, does the presence of Chicago Express as an 18xx tangent push me away from 1846, as ChiEx is enough of a stepping stool to get to the purer stuff?
3 Likes
I have much more tolerance for the gentler run good companies games than @lalunaverde. I don’t mind losing slowly while tinkering about with tracks and trying out stuff with shares. I already said in the other thread 1889 was the first I played but that’s not strictly true. I started 1846 and stopped around 3 trains as there were too many rules queries. Determined to play them I then bought Poseidon and 18Lilliput then by the time of pandemic lock downs 1889 was my first full game online and my second one was same title with @pillbox on TTS.
1889 is a fine start, the biggest hurdle I think is the dreaded owning 2 shares in a company at the wrong time. That is most likely the single saltiest point but trashing share value with sales requires accepting that’s the game and some ability to enjoy those moments even when happening to you. The run good companies games have those moments too though, see my report on 18NewEngland past time and getting greedy with 2 shares costing me the game.
A slightly out there suggestion is 18West does not get the Verde seal of approval but I love it. Cool companies, no weird auction and destination cities so new players have something to achieve even if it’s not victory. Also follows more closely to 18xx standards than 1846
3 Likes
One big thing of what I would say to 18Cheese is longevity. I found that there’s not much in here - in relative to other 1830-style. It’s basically 1830 with training wheels. So not exactly the One Game to Rule Them All title
4 Likes
Would fully agree with this. Similar to how @pillbox said about 1830, 1889 and 18Ches being too many. However 18Ches was the easy one for me to move on. Ultimately the rough elbows taken off from 30 shrinks the strategic and experimental space. If I were to keep just one it would be 89.
3 Likes
I found 1889 easier to learn. Less corner cases, no route bonuses and shares are in less states. However the difficulty of 46 rules in comparison is mitigated by the opening draft. So much more accessible for strategy to the noob and less swingy for ruined game states.
3 Likes
Seeing how they’re really cheap at 365 games
1848: Australia or 1880: China
3 Likes
I’m 90% through the rules for Shikoku. Will send out an 18xx.games invite to this crew.
Operating round makes a lot of sense. Stock ostensibly makes sense but there’s a long lists of qualifications and provisos and I know there’s all sorts of things under the hood that I’m not anticipating there.
A lot of fiddly rules like the locomotive limit and how it interacts with rusting and purchasing and advancing through ages. I imagine everything has a purpose…
2 Likes
1 Like
Is now the time to talk about how the previous 1888 editions of Shikoku were probably pretty good, but I have high hopes for this 1889th version?
2 Likes
Yeah that’s a lot of Shikokus
2 Likes