Skip to Content
 

Adapting 18XX for solitaire play: Making bold modifications

12 replies [Last post]
larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008

18XX is a series of historical train games focus around finance and company management. I played many different games online lately is solitaire where I play all the players. One thing I would be interested to create is a non-historical version of the game that could be played in solitaire or in 2 player mode. If you never played an 18xx games, the content below might make no sense.

So I decided to use a Wild West theme and used 1846 and 18mag as major source of inspiration. The problem is to make the game interesting solo. I made a couple of bold moves so far that would make an 18XX purist angry. But I am not sure about my choices as many of them have pro and cons. The core game play remains the same: Build tracks, make money. Here is some of the modifications I thought so far, feel free to comment.

* Event deck: The game will be regulated with an event deck that creates various complication on the board that the players needs to deal with. It's also the clock of the game, this is what makes the game change phases. I think this is essential in solo in order to create a form of opposition and uncertainty. It also makes every game unique as not all cards in the pool might be used.

* Variable map: I am not sure about this one yet, but it's possible that many map features are just token on the board that can be reconfigured each game to create randomness. Also, mountains and rivers tokens could be put on the top of tracks to make extra track laying cost persistent through the game. Another idea is to use something like Twilight Imperiums's domain token, where special event to deal with occurs when you exploring.

* No Stock Market: It makes no sense to only hold a portion of your company, so I was thinking that all trains companies are minors like in 18map. I could just split the income between the company and the player and have no decision to pay full, half or no dividend. Missing funds will be supplied as loan by the bank where you pay interest and they need to be refunded. That removes price fluctuation of companies which was an interesting mechanism, and I could have used it as a way to scoring your company performance. But most of the time, players always payed out full as it seemed the most beneficial way to play. That also prevent late game reinvestment, so I added company upgrades in order to hold more trains and get more stations. Else you need to invest in privates or start a new train company with your late game funds.

* Fixed turn order: Since there is only 1 player, sometimes 2, there is no need to have stock rounds, operating rounds, then resolve company in the market order. Now it will be much simpler, a player play his entire turn buy managing private companies, then operating each company in the order he wants. 2 player game works the same, although there might be a way to change first player which I have not figured out yet.

* More private companies: There will be lot of private companies, and new ones will come in during each phase. Instead of an auction or drafting, I'll be using a system like small world to acquire new companies (pay previous corp in line). You can buy max 1 private per turn. Maybe in solo mode, at some point the bank can buy some privates.

* Limited stations space on tiles: Like 1889 Shikoku, most cities would only have 1 station to make blocking easier. 2 station cities would arive late during the 3rd or 4th phases.

* Trains: In order to have 2 families of trains, I was thinking of giving them a speed (nb of hex it can travel) and a capacity (nb of cities it can visit) This would require different trains according to the various circumstance. There could also be special trains sold as private companies like circus trains, ghost trains, etc.

* Using victory points: Originally, I was thinking that the objective would be to make the most money until the event deck is depleted. But the problem with money, is that it can be reinvested and lost. Also late game, there is less investment option, and it creates a snowballing effect. So I was thinking of using 2 currency, money and victory points. Various game features could generate vicory points: Building the network, fulfilling some contracts, making certain runs, paying "dividends"to the player, paying back loans(negative points), etc. If points are separated from money, that ask the player to find a balance between both resources and late game will be more about making points than money. Many games that a split between money and VP (ex: Puerto Rico).

What do you think about any of the modifications so far?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I have seen a similar post of yours on BGG

Can you give some examples of other games?

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
What do you mean, you want

What do you mean, you want other 18XX games examples, or how the mechanics above works in other 18xx games.

The list is huge, many of the differences are explained here, topic by topic, if it could help. It's really well classified.

http://www.fwtwr.com/18xx/rules_difference_list/index.htm

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
I might get more feedback on

I might get more feedback on BGG, so I updated my thread and posted here:

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/3138491/adapting-18xx-solitaire-play-ma...

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
larienna wrote:18XX is a

larienna wrote:
18XX is a series of historical train games focus around finance and company management. I played many different games online lately is solitaire where I play all the players. One thing I would be interested to create is a non-historical version of the game that could be played in solitaire or in 2 player mode. If you never played an 18xx games, the content below might make no sense.

Well, I am not familiar with 18xx games. But if it is a railroad game. I could give my oppinion on certain aspects.

larienna wrote:

I made a couple of bold moves so far that would make an 18XX purist angry.
Oh, I read something similar the other day. People want to play exactly by the rules these days? Well, I am an advocate of people making the rules as they see fit. So, just go for it.

larienna wrote:

* Event deck: The game will be regulated with an event deck that creates various complication on the board that the players needs to deal with. It's also the clock of the game, this is what makes the game change phases. I think this is essential in solo in order to create a form of opposition and uncertainty. It also makes every game unique as not all cards in the pool might be used.
A random order and random set of events is a good thing to most games.
The same goes for the random terrain.

larienna wrote:

* No Stock Market.

This sounds very logical.
Some game mechanics aren't meant for solo play. Unless you play against an AI.

larienna wrote:

* Trains: In order to have 2 families of trains, I was thinking of giving them a speed (nb of hex it can travel) and a capacity (nb of cities it can visit) This would require different trains according to the various circumstance. There could also be special trains sold as private companies like circus trains, ghost trains, etc.
I wonder about this one. I see in many train games that the fastest train is ALWAYS the best train. How would your game differ in this by simply different speeds?

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
@X3M is correct!

larienna wrote:
I made a couple of bold moves so far that would make an 18XX purist angry.

X3M wrote:
Oh, I read something similar the other day. People want to play exactly by the rules these days? Well, I am an advocate of people making the rules as they see fit. So, just go for it.

You read right... We got some HEAT for allow "interpretation" of the rules and allowing players to PLAY what style of play they prefer. For example, nothing is said about HOW to place the "Cards on the playmat". People with good vision will want the cards to see the ships, weapons, crews and tactics they are buying. But from across the table it's EASIER to see the BIG NUMBERS (resource side).

Another thing was peeking at the cards below the TOPMOST card in a pile. Of course this is illegal ... But some players said it was not stated in the rules so it could be permissible to check the NEXT card (for example). But again this is a HOMEMADE rule.

More controversy about what to do during HOUSEKEEPING. We have two quick-rules guides depending on HOW players want to play.

#1: Discard any cards from your hand and if you have less than five (5) cards, refresh your hand to five (5) cards.

#2: Discard any cards from your hand down to five (5) cards in hand and if you have less than five (5) cards, refresh you hand to five (5) cards.

Etc, etc. Like I said @X3M and co. played that you had to somehow PAY for the starship you want to DEPLOY. This of course makes the game harder and longer to play. But that was his understanding of the rules... Nothing wrong with that either.

So yeah... Some gamers want CLEAR RULES and not having to interpret things to their own liking. Others want to be able to say: "See you CAN'T do that... It's written clearly in the rules HERE..." The more freedom the more disarray.

But no worries if you LIKE variability... I was just saying some gamers or Backers wanted clarifications to the rules for TradeWorlds.

Cheers... I'm not commenting about the trains... Although I am reading everything that is shared from this discussion because it is INTERESTING to read... Although I'm not interested in TRAINS. I have Ticket-to-Ride and still have not gotten it to a TABLE YET!

Sincerely.

Note #1: As a clarification... When I said I find this thread interesting and that I was not interested in TRAINS... You'll be like this is a "contradiction". I'm more interested in WHAT YOU are doing with the 18XX games ... Than those games themselves. That is what I meant!

Always like to read what @larienna is up to in terms of designing and rules.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I like the trains of TT

And ehm.... yeah only that game tbh.
And of course, the trains in Factario.

But that would be about it. I never played the railroad tycoons. Because then. It is ONLY trains. I don't like ONLY trains. I want to have some variation in the transports. So....
If you have a good reason for different train speeds. I am all ears. I am all ears for different movement speeds in any game. If they get another weakness while being faster.

Like cargo versus topspeed.
Cargo 2, topspeed 4.
Cargo 3, topspeed 3.
Cargo 4, topspeed 2.

The best would be cargo 3, topspeed 3 here. Since it would be 9.
But a distance of 4 would like to have the first option.
The distance of 6 would like to have the middle option. And a distance of only 2, certainly likes the third option. So.... not sure what you are planning here. But the math behind this post is what interests me.
... and of course how you like to balance this...

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
In the original game (which

In the original game (which you can play for free online by the ways at 18xx.games) each train has a number indicating the number of cities it can visit.

One of the city on the path must have a station from the running company and you sum up the value of each city. For example, a level 3 train running 3 cities of values 50, 20 and 30 will generate 100$

18xx is mainly an economic game. There is no pickup and deliver. The train connection determines how much money your company makes.

As player buys train, the time advances (in my version, it would be the event cards) unlocking access to new trains. They have bigger numbers, but also make older trains disappear. This is the core mechanism shared by most train 18xx games.

In 1846, there are 2 train variations, for example the 3/5 versus the 4. The 3/5 can connect 5 cities, but only pay 3 of them. Other games have other trains like double headed trains that can move backwards. In 1926, trains have a limit of hex they can cross, and some trains can move 1 hex further than the train value.

So I was thinking in using a similar mechanism, where the length of the track matters. If the city is too far, you cannot make the connection unless your train is fast enough. It can be another attribute than distance, I could look further in trains used by other games for other ideas.

Still, there might be some game balance consideration to take into account, because trains with better capacity will score more cities. So there need to be an interest to move further away. Maybe it allows you to make certain connections which could be worth something.

-------------------------------------------

I don't understand why people want to play strictly by the rules when everybody plays Monopoly with custom rules.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I think I see now

My guts tell me that you can change a lot of rules in that game.
So, why not do that?
If people want to play by the rules. Why not make your own version and give it another name?
Keep changing the rules until it can't be recognised anymore.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
The goal is to play 18xx

The goal is to play 18xx solo, so there needs to be some similarities.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I think...

I think you need a proper ai.
Of course through the event decks.
Or a second deck.

Or else it would become too much of a puzzle.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Check this guy out and his approach

larienna wrote:
The goal is to play 18xx solo, so there needs to be some similarities.

See the following BGG user: Morten Monrad Pedersen

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamedesigner/71006/morten-monrad-pedersen

Automa Methodology:

https://boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/37830/automa-approach-i-method-making...

That could be one source of information that MAY help you get some of your own ideas. The "Automa" is a concept and is customizable to each game. @The Professor used this methodology to create the "Aversity AI" in TradeWorlds. While we had a single player scenario (The Derelict), @Joe went one step further to create an actual AI Player using Morten's Automa Approach... He knew both TradeWorlds and had experience with Jamey Stegmaier's Solo Playtesting which he did (BTW) and he adapted what he learned from both into the AI used in "TradeWorlds".

Again some ideas to explore ... And could shed some light on some guiding principles in HOW(?) to adapt a multiplayer game to a Solo Variant.

Sincerely.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
I heard about the solo mode

I heard about the solo mode for Scythe during an interview with the designer. I did not know there was an automata method.

I might take a look at it because I only want to design solitaire playable games from now on.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut