Retuning 1853

by Stuart Dagger and Steve Jones

Forward

Between 1988 and 1990 the UK had a commercial magazine devoted to board games. It was called Games International and it was the magazine that alerted British gamers to the excellent games that were, and still are, coming out of Germany, France and the rest. GI was good, very good and too good to last. By the summer of 1990 the publishers had decided that if they were to make money they would have to switch their emphasis to computer games. So they folded GI and relaunched themselves as Strategy Plus. To begin with Strategy Plus still had a section on boardgames, but it shrank fairly rapidly and had disappeared altogether by the time the magazine relocated itself to the States. The article that follows was written for GI just before the change and was published just after it, in issue one of Strategy Plus.

Copyright was never surrendered to the magazine publishers and remains with the authors. Anyone who wishes to take a copy for their own private, non-commercial use may do so. The article may not be republished, either wholly or in part, without our permission.

Comments and questions are welcome. Stuart's e-mail address is,

s.dagger@maths.abdn.ac.uk

Stuart Dagger, July 1994

Retuning 1853

by Stuart Dagger and Steve Jones

The applause with which Francis Tresham's admirers greeted 1853 on its eventual publication last year was less enthusiastic than expected. Yes, it was a good game, but it didn't seem to quite match up to 1829 or 1830. We think there were three reasons for this. The first is that the anticipation period was too long. Those of us who attend hobby conventions had known about the game and been clamouring for its publication for the best part of ten years. It would be hard for any game to live up to the expectation that had built up. The second is that 1853 is deliberately quieter than 1830. We knew this, but when you have become used to a game with clear and manifold opportunities for nastiness, one where you have to dig deeper for the weaponry can seem a little tame. This was an over hasty and superficial reaction, the fault of the critics not the designer. The third is that, in our view at least, the game is not quite in balance. It has some excellent ideas, but when put under pressure in a hard school they don't work quite as well as intended. Perhaps Francis's circle of playtesters contains too many gentlemen and not enough Diplomacy players. It is our aim in this article to suggest how the game can be made more robust without changing the designer's basic intentions.

These intentions, as we see them, are for a game in which companies compete within constraints imposed by a higher authority. In domestic terms it is the challenge of annoying your brother or sister while your parents are in the room. And of getting away with it. We would be opposed to any attempt at altering this basic theme. So the territorial restrictions remain, though we have added a rule which enables the more powerful and successful companies to put some dents in them in the later stages. This is partly to introduce a measure of anxiety at a point when the game might be getting a little quiet and friendly and partly to simulate the fact that in life powerful companies often end up with enough political clout to get rules modified in their favour.

The changes that we have made mostly concern the bidding, which we see as both the game's best idea and biggest source of problems. As things stand it is very easy to put yourself out of contention simply by being outguessed at this stage, and we don't consider it satisfactory that 4-hour games should be lost in the first ten minutes. Francis, of course, was aware of the risks but considered that it was up to the players to negotiate their way round them in an initial diplomacy phase. If you play with gentlefolks this may work well, but in the circles in which we find ourselves there is no guarantee that your partner can be trusted and an absolute certainty that an eavesdropper can't be. The solution we offer opens up the bidding process in a way that enables you to take evasive action if you seem to be either being double-crossed or heading on a collision course with a more advantageously placed rival. At the same time we have taken steps to balance the attractions of the various companies for would-be bidders. At present companies 1 to 4 hold all the advantages: more capital, faster building rates and much easier access to the most highly profitable routes. This is probably historically accurate, but games work better when the decisions to be made are close ones; so we have given the minor companies a boost and made the major ones work a little harder. Our hope is that this will take the ``well, this company is obviously better than that one'' out of the bidding, and thereby give full rein to the bidding mechanism's potential for providing varied starts and hence varied games.

We have also come to the conclusion that, when it comes to determining a winner, the game doesn't entirely live up to its claim to be a railway building game. When you count up at the end, what matters in 1853 is the same as what matters in 1829 and 1830: the number of high-valued shares that you own. The most significant rule in any of these games is the one that limits the number of share certificates that you may hold, and it means that every share that you hold in a company with a low share price is a dent in your winning prospects, even if the shares are paying goodish dividends. The size of the bank means that 1853 has a natural playing length of about 18 to 20 operating rounds. Get out the share price chart and count. A company needs to be in play from the start, and to have a high starting position, if it is to reach those sections where the shares become really valuable. Our solution to this is a rule which enables those companies which are being run well and are paying high dividends relative to their share price to make faster progress up the chart. It increases the rewards for good routes, enables companies to overhaul those which began ahead of them and enables really well run companies to threaten that magic 400 at the end of the chart.

Rule Modifications

The bidding for contracts is taken in stages. The information available by the end of the process will be much as in the original game but you will no longer be bidding blind.

In the first stage all players secretly write down the amount of their bid. Your bid may be for any whole number of pounds, provided this is enough to cover the values of the cities that you will eventually write down. You do not need to decide at this stage just what those cities are going to be. The minimum and maximum numbers of cities for a legal bid remain as in the standard rules. All players then reveal the amount of their bids, and the seating order is determined --- first the player who has made the largest bid, and so on down. Ties are resolved by lot, and the player who has made the largest bid takes the Elephant.
Each player places his or her bid money in an envelope.
Beginning with the Elephant holder, and continuing round, each player starts to write down the cities in their bid and to claim the associated shares. When it is your turn you write down (secretly) the name of one of the cities in your bid and claim (publicly) a share associated with that city. This continues round and round the table until everyone signifies that their bid is complete by passing. When it is your turn you may not pass if either you have not yet contracted for the minimum number of cities or you have not yet contracted for the maximum number of cities and there is at least 40 pounds of your bid money not yet accounted for.
Players now pay for their contracted shares as in the standard game. The rules governing shares that you have contracted for but can not yet afford are unaltered.
The first share buying round now commences, beginning with the player who is first in the seating order.

Directorships are not allocated until the end of the first share buying round. At this point those companies entitled to a director receive one. The person appointed is the one with the most shares in the company; ties are broken in favour of the player who has held shares in the company longest.

The restrictions on the cities you may include in a bid are increased from the present ``not more than two Ganges valley cities including Calcutta'' to the following:

In a bid involving just three cities a player may only include one of Cawnpore, Lucknow, Allahabad, Benares and Patna; and in a bid involving more than three cities a player may not include more than two of the Ganges cities (i.e. the above list plus Calcutta).

The rule which says that you may not sell shares in a company in the round which sees it floated does not apply in the first share buying round; in this round you may sell such shares, but only if they were contracted shares and only if you sell them at the first opportunity after flotation.

In the first operating round of a major company (companies 1 to 4, and possibly also company 5 --- see rule 6) the director of the company must choose one of the following alternatives:

the right to lay two tiles in an operating round does not come into effect until phase two.
the right to lay two tiles in an operating round is gained immediately but must be paid for whenever it is used. If this option is taken, whenever the company lays/promotes two tiles in an operating round it pays the bank at the following rates: company 1 -- 40 pounds, companies 2 and 3 -- 30 pounds, company 4 (and 5, if this is a major) -- 20 pounds.

Company 5 may be either a major or a minor company. Which it is will depend on the Contract Bid of its first director.

If company 5 has a director by the end of the the first share buying round, and if the Contract Bid of its director includes both Ajmer and Bombay, the company is deemed to be a major one, with its second home base in north Bombay. Further, the cost of building the station at Ajmer is reduced to 70 pounds.
In all other circumstances company 5 is a minor one.

Minor companies (6 to 8, and possibly also 5) may buy metre gauge trains of types 2 and 3 one phase before they would normally be due, subject to the following restrictions:

at any one time a company may only have one train whose normal time of availability has not yet arrived.
a train whose normal time of availability has not yet arrived may not be sold to another company.
a prematurely bought train 2M-train costs 350 pounds; a prematurely bought 3M-train costs 550 pounds.

If any of these early trains are bought, the train mix is adjusted as follows:

If the first such train is a 2M-train, add a 2M-train to the bank on the purchase of the first premature train and a 3M-train on the purchase of the second. With each of these additions remove from the bank one of the currently available standard gauge trains, provided this is a 2 or a 3.
If the first such train is a 3M-train, do a similar adjustment, but only for this first purchase: add a 3M-train and, if available, remove a 3-train.

Eight Type-58 broad gauge 10-value station tiles (from your 1830 set) are added to the game. These may be laid under the usual rules governing yellow tiles. They may not be upgraded to 30 pound Green station tiles.

In the 4-player game decrease the number of certificates that need to be sold for a company to float from 6 to 5, and in the 6-player game decrease it from 5 to 4.

The 6-trains become available as soon as the first 5-train is bought. When the first 5-train is brought the territorial restrictions which have applied hitherto are relaxed: companies owning at least one 5-train or 6-train may now promote any tile and buy any station which they can reach from a home base using one of their trains. A company buying or promoting outside its home territory must include the affected tile in one of its routes in the operating round when the change takes place.

A company which pays a dividend which is at least 20% of its current share price advances two positions, rather than one, on the share price chart.

Notes on the Rules Changes

This is the major change. The problems with the existing bidding mechanism stem from the lack of reliable information about other people's intentions and the enforced inflexibility in one's own bid. Our solution is to expand the bidding phase so as to give you more information on which to base your decisions. You do not get to know the cities in other player's contracts but do see which companies they involve. This removes most of the guesswork and gives you greater control over your destiny. By allowing the bond money to be any amount (within limits) we have reduced the chance of ties and thus the need for tie-breaking procedures when determining the seating order. The 40 pound rule is there because we believe there should be a correlation between the size of the bond and the difficulty of getting it back. Without this a player could bid high so as to get a favourable place in the seating order and then contract for the minimum so as to get the money back early: all the advantages with few of the drawbacks.

This is worded as it is in order to inhibit a ``shadowing strategy'' during the bidding. In this, player A bids 20 to 30 pounds more than his rival B. After his first share nomination he copies every nomination by B. At the end of the bidding stage the two players will have the same number of shares in the disputed company. A, being earlier in the order, then takes control as soon as share dealing starts, with nothing that B can do to defend himself. We didn't want an artificial rule outlawing this parasite strategy but we did want it to be much more expensive and difficult to pull off.

This is part of our attempt to rebalance the attractions of the various companies at the bidding stage: it makes it a little bit harder for the directors of companies 1--3 to get their bond money back quickly.

This is to help maintain players' flexibility when making city bids. There are clear instances when one wishes to make a tactical bid for a share in another company, the intention being to swap it during the first share dealing round for a share in the company one wishes to float. However, the existing rules stop you doing this if the company is floated before your turn comes round. Hence this change.

This is another part of the rebalancing. The director of a major company must now decide whether the speediest possible return of the bond money and development of routes is worth the long-term drain on the company finances. We have tried to make it a close decision and one which depends on circumstances.

This was put in to make the BBCI a more attractive company to bid for. Its territory makes it look as though it ought to be a major company and so we have created the conditions under which it can become one. These include reducing the cost of getting it started by halving the cost of building its home base. Bombay as a second home base seemed logical in view of the company's name.

This is the ``boost the minor companies'' part of our rebalancing effort. They are companies which are likely to want to go metric; this enables them to do so in phase one. The increased lifespan of these prematurely bought M-trains is the reason for the extra cost. The various conditions attached to this ``buy early'' privilege are to ensure game balance and to make sure that metre gauge doesn't take over the game. As it is you may well find that you need more metre gauge track than the game supplies. The way to overcome this problem is to buy one or two copies of the expansion kit that Hartland Trefoil offers. Doing this does not distort the game; the rule book itself states that the number of pieces of yellow track supplied was not a design feature, but a question of deciding what ought to be enough.

The tile whose lack one feels when playing 1853 is this one --- the shallow curve, single small station. Its omission is due to a deliberate decision taken when Francis was designing 1829. He didn't want natural track development to result in towns which began the game as wayside halts ending it as major towns (brown or grey stations). Not supplying this tile achieves this. 1853, which is an earlier concept than 1830, inherited the restriction. We agree with the omission in 1829 but don't see the need for it in 1853, where the rule for calculating the length of routes means that one normally wishes to leave small stations as they are, thus avoiding the situation Francis wished to forestall. The most obvious place where the tile is needed is on the exit hex for company 2 from Bombay. Victorian railway engineers were cost conscious men. Having gone to the unavoidable expense of building over one mountain, they wouldn't take careful aim for another when there was a perfectly good flat piece of ground available. Worrying about being cut off at the pass is the right period but the wrong set of Indians. It as not even as though game balance demands that life should be made more difficult for company 2; it already has more terrain costs to meet than its obvious rivals. So we have braved Francis's disapproval and put the tile in. You will need to make them yourself.

1853 has a quiet stock exchange. So player interest demands that everybody should have the option of running a company from the start. In the existing four-player game this is unlikely to happen, and in the six-player game it is impossible; hence this change. Purists should note that Francis does not approve and that in the second edition of the rule book there is an optional rule which raises the ``number of shares needed to float'' level throughout. Decide how your group likes to play the game; there is nothing to stop you accepting our other suggestions while omitting this.

This is an attempt to spice up the later stages of the game by increasing the anxiety felt by directors as to their rival's intentions. It also has the beneficial effect of making the expensive 5- and 6-trains more attractive.

This was put in late in the day, and we have only play-tested it the once. It seemed to achieve what we wanted but should be regarded as still experimental. The first-named author has used a version of it in games of 1829 for some years, and so there, at least, it has proved itself.

The Companies

The EIR remains attractive despite the extra obstacles we have put in its way and the boosts we have given to its rivals. The company has the potential to be one of the most profitable from the start of the game right through to the finish. However, if you are going to bid for it at the start, you will need to construct your bid carefully. GIP can block you out from Delhi for a very long time, and that means that after the obvious Calcutta and Patna commitments you are left scratching round for city number three. If GIP does not float at the start, or if it wishes to be friendly, your problem disappears; otherwise look for an alliance with either BNR or BAR and make either Nagpur or Dacca your third choice. (Remember that passengers can change trains and cross the city at large stations and that you don't have to build the track yourself to fulfil your contract.)

GIP has been improved vis-a-vis the EIR, because of the easing of the terrain problem round Bombay. However, we would not, ourselves, include Bombay in a bid for this company. You will get your money back faster if you stick to northern cities. Delhi is the obvious second, and for the third look to see which other companies look likely to be floated. If the NWR is one, hitch a lift and make Lahore your third city; if not, extend a hand to the BNR and nominate Nagpur. Only in rare circumstances should you make life other than difficult for the EIR. Head for Delhi via Lucknow and Cawnpore, garrison Cawnpore, and when the time comes to promote it to a green station make it a single station. This is natural track development for you and blocks out your rival. If the EIR looks like trying a southern run to Delhi, build towards Nagpur and exploit the fact that in 1853 the green track tiles are more restricted than in 1829 and don't allow cross-overs. The EIR will probably get to Delhi eventually, but you can force it to go via Nagpur. Of course, if he or she is prepared to allow you into Calcutta,.......

The NWR has not been much affected by our changes. The financial penalties on second track lays might hurt a little, but for the rest it can continue to go its own quiet way. It has no early terrain costs to meet and can recover its director's bond money quickly. It has good early growth potential but is likely to fall behind in the middle game when the major cities climb in value and it benefits only from Delhi. Its best chance in this second stage is to build a narrow gauge network though the mountains and use the government subsidies to finance long-term growth. This should mean that the company can pay out virtually every time and so gain in capital growth what it is likely to be losing in dividends.

The BNR has a lot of building to do before it can connect three cities with its own track. This puts many people off bidding for it, as experience has shown that a fast return of one's bond money is important. However, there is no doubt that this is one of the companies likely to be paying big dividends from the middle game onwards. Control of Nagpur means that you have a good chance of being able to set up Calcutta--Bombay and Delhi--Madras runs, and there is no surer way than that of making the shareholders purr. To overcome the initial problem look for an ally with whom to cooperate over the initial bid. The EIR, GIP and BAR are all possibles, with the first of these being the best. An alliance with the EIR and a bid of Nagpur--Calcutta--Patna can result in the return of your bond money at the end of the third operating round.

The BBCI is the company most affected by the changes we have made and is now a very attractive early company, especially if it is floated as a major. You do, however, need to be careful both in the construction of your bid and in the management of your cash flow. There are a lot of early expenses, and it is easy, when nominating cities, to fall into the trap of adding one more than you can comfortably handle. Our recommendation is that you exclude Ahmadabad. A bid of Bombay--Ajmer--Jaipur can see you running two trains, paying good dividends and with your bond money returned by the end of operating round five. The company's central position and guaranteed Bombay--Delhi run assure it of long-term profitability, and if you are lucky enough to find yourself without an early rival in the Delhi region, the company is likely to dominate the game for you.

The MSM, like all the minors, is another gainer from the changes. Your bid will clearly be Madras--Bangalore--Mysore, which will return your bond money at the end of operating round three. A good way to develop the company is then to keep building the metric line from Mysore until the green tiles come in. Then upgrade Bangalore using the 91 tile, put a new company base there and build standard gauge track to Hyderabad. This should enable you to link up with the northern companies and to take advantage of the lines that they will have already built.

With the SIR you can try something similar, but based on a bid of Madras--Trichonopoly--Mysore. It will take an extra operating round for the return of your bond money, and you won't be quite as well placed for the development northwards, but as compensation you have that easily built and very profitable metric line joining up all those small towns in the south.

The BAR is many people's favourite of the minors. You are close to Calcutta, you can play the NWR game of picking up government subsidies for building round the mountains, and you have a good chance of being able to break in to the Ganges valley routes that will have been built by the EIR. Run well this company can be very profitable.

The boost that we have given to the minors makes them competitive as candidates for the company on which to base your bid, and the fact that some of the playtests have resulted in wins for players who have gone for minors at the start and others in wins for players who have gone for majors encourages us to think that we have got the major--minor balance about right. Nonetheless, life is still not easy for the minors in phase one, as the restriction to one prematurely bought M-train slows their growth and limits their dividends. To overcome this it is in their interests to have a fast progression to phase two, something you are not going to get if the early companies are mainly minors.

We have tried our amendments out on several different groups of players and the reaction has been favourable. So, if you are one of the people who found the game as published a bit of a disappointment, give them a try. We have already made several converts; you could be another. We think that they make the game a serious rival for both 1829 and 1830. Finally, a word of thanks for the groups in Aberdeen and North London, at Castlecon and Baycon who helped with the playtesting. Without their ideas and criticisms the package would not have been half as good.

Footnotes

POSTSCRIPT: The above is the original article. When I rang Steve to see if he was willing to make it available in this way he told me about a neater solution than ours to the problem of making metric trains available in phase one. The idea is due to Dave Thorby and it is for a new type of train: the 1M. Steve did not have the full details to hand, but the key points are these:

A 1M-train may run through one large and any number of small stations.

1M-trains become available for sale at the start of phase one.

The total number of 1M and 2-trains available in the game at any one time is seven and the maximum number of 2-trains remains at six. So initially there are six 2-trains and one 1M-train. If a second 1M-train is bought, a 2-train is removed from the stock. And so on.

1M-trains rust at the same time as the 2-trains.

Steve thinks that the cost of a 1M-train is 200. This use of 1M-trains would replace rule (7) from our list.

Stuart Dagger, July 1994