Irish Gauge

Irish Gauge is a game about developing the train network in Ireland. It is an open information game. It is an investment game, and almost but not really a stock-control game. Players invest in railroad companies and hope to make money as the companies they are invested in do well. You don't own companies. You only own shares in them. It sounds a little like 18XX games, but this is much simpler and abstracted. It reminds me a little of Chicago Express / Wabash Cannonball. 

Five companies are in play, and as part of game setup, the first share of each company is auctioned off to the players. During the game, more shares may be auctioned off. Holding shares of a company means that whenever that company makes money, you'll get some. The earnings are divided among the shareholders based on their holdings. 

One of the things you may do on your turn is to build railroads. You can only do this for a company you are invested in. You place train markers on the board to represent your company's railroad network. You get to spend 3 action points for building railroads. The action points needed to build in a hex depends on the terrain type, whether it is urban, and whether others have built there. You want to connect your companies to towns and cities, because these help them make money. Towns are upgraded to become cities when you place a cube in them. You get to choose the cube colour when you do this. 

There are cubes in three different colours. They represent different goods. You already have 8 cities on the board at the start of the game. Cubes are all placed in a bag. They are drawn from the bag when you want to trigger dividends. The game ends when the bag runs out of cubes. 

When you want to trigger dividends, you blind draw three cubes from the bag. The cube colours determine which companies issue dividends. If a company is connected to at least a city with one of the colours and a town, it will make money, which means the shareholders will make money. So this is a game about setting up your companies to be able to make money, hopefully from all three colours, and then you want to trigger dividends to make lots of money. Auctioning a share means an additional player may get into the company and share its profits. This is normally an act of aggression, when you want to get inside a company to get a share of its profits. If there is only one current shareholder, they are not going to make any more money by buying this new share. They are only preventing others from also making money from this company in future. For other players who want to get it, it is about evaluating whether the money you spend to bid on the share is justifiable. Are you going to make back that money? 

Irish Gauge is a pretty straight-forward game. The actions are simple. However the strategies are not simplistic. In the game we played, there were four of us, and at the start of the game, I was the only player who controlled two companies. In hindsight, that might not have been a good idea. I couldn't grow two companies equally well. 

The game is a tight fight. This is a perfect information game. You can think many steps ahead. You know exactly how your opponents can respond to your move, if they choose to do so. In this sense the game is almost chess-like. The only uncertainty is when dividends are being issued. You don't know which colours will come out. The ultimate winner is the richest player. Issuing dividends is not about you making money, it is about you making more money than others. If your companies are positioned well to make money, you are in no hurry to take the dividend action, because when others do it, it will likely benefit you too, and hopefully more than them. 

Irish Gauge is the kind of game for smart and strategic people. It's serious and skill-driven. I also find it a little dry, maybe because of  how serious it feels to me. There is a little variability in the game setup, but the map will stay the same every time you play. Only the cube colours of the starting cities will differ. 

Hab & Gut (The Rich and the Good)

The Rich and the Good is the English version of Hab & Gut. I’m going to refer to the game as Hab & Gut, not because I’m being pretentious, but because I’ve always heard of it being referred to in the original German name. Also it’s a much shorter name to type. This is a game of commodity price manipulation, insider information and making donations. You are an investor (well, to be totally honest you are a profiteer) making money from stocks, and you are also expected to be a philanthropist. You win by being the richest, but if you do the least charity work, you are removed from contention. So yes you want to make money, but you must also make sure you give away enough of it so as not to be the smallest donor.  This is a tricky balance. 

There are six commodities in the game. The card deck contains cards which cause their values to go up or down. There are more cards which increase the values, so generally the market goes up. Every game only a subset of cards will be played. They are put on racks, and each rack is placed between two players. You can only see the cards on the two racks immediately next to you. You know these cards will be played. You share some information with the neighbour on your left, and some other information with the neighbour on your right. 

There are two stages in every round. In the first stage you buy or sell shares. Shares are limited in quantity and they do run out. In the second stage you manipulate share prices by playing cards. You pick one card each from the two racks next to you. One card is applied in full, but for the other you only apply half the effect. Halving the effect can mean reducing the growth, or cushioning the fall. All the cards on all racks will eventually be played. It is only a matter of time and whether the effect is reduced. 

The game is about buying low and selling high. Information is power. Although you can half the effect of some cards, this is not your most powerful weapon. You can try to guess whether share prices will go up or down based on the actions of your opponents. How players share some common information is interesting. You have a bit more information when you try to analyse what your neighbours are thinking. The donation part of the game is a game of chicken. Giving money away is in direct contradiction of your winning criteria, i.e. money. Yet if you donate the least, you will not even qualify to compete. There is a mid game checkpoint where you can see how much everyone has donated so far. One challenging aspect about the donations is they are made using shares, not cash. That means after you make a donation, the value can change. This adds some unpredictability. Donations also affect the availability of shares in the market. 

Cash flow is very important. You need cash in hand to be able to invest and that is the only way you make more money. Without cash, you cannot grab opportunities. So sometimes you have to sell some shares, even if they have not made you much money yet, if you believe there will be other shares with higher potential. You must watch your opponents closely.  Their actions will give you clues about the insider information they have. 

Hab & Gut has several clever ideas, and they are well implemented in a no-fuss manner. I think that is admirable.

Stephenson's Rocket

Plays: 3Px1.

The Game

Stephenson's Rocket is an older game from Reiner Knizia. It was first published in 1999, and has been out of print for many years. A new edition was released in 2018, and because of that I had the opportunity to try this highly praised game. In the second edition, there were only small changes to the rules. The game components underwent a bigger upgrade.

The train sculptures are nice.

This is the game board. This is a map of England. There are cities (dark brown), towns (light brown) and starting towns (in the colours of the railroad companies). There are 7 railroad companies on the board, and their trains start on their respective starting towns. The upper left section is the city investment chart, which records who has invested in what factories at each city. The lower left section is the share tracks, indicating the shareholding status at each company.

In this game you invest in and manage railroad companies. By holding shares in the companies and by owning train stations, you score points for the achievements of the railroad companies. To develop a company is to move the train and extend its tracks. When one company's train tracks meets those of another, these two companies merge. As the game progresses, the number of companies dwindle, and when there is only one big train network left, the game ends.

On your turn you have two actions, and there are only 3 options to pick from. You may mix and match in any way you like, except you can't develop the same company twice on the same turn. Let's talk about developing a company. What you do is simply move a train one step forward, to one of the three spaces in front of it. It cannot move backwards. On the space the train has just left, you lay a train track, thus extending the railway line. Imagine a snail slithering forward and leaving behind a trail of slime. The train in this photo has moved 3 times. I started on the orange starting town. The first move was towards the northeast. The second move too, and that connected the railroad to Guildford, a city. The third move was towards the north, and this connected the railroad to another city - Reading. That brown building is a train station, built by a player.

Whenever you develop a company, you gain one of its shares. This is how you get yourself a stake in the company. When you move the train, any other shareholder may call for a veto and suggest a different direction to take the company (pun!). A bidding process ensues to determine where the train will go. The bidding is done using shares you hold, and shares are precious. So vetos are not to be taken lightly.

The second type of action is to build a station. In this photo I (white) had built one of my stations. Stations must be built on clear land and must not touch any train when being placed. When this particular station was built, the yellow train was still on its starting town. I had hoped that when this train company was developed, the train would come to my station. Unfortunately things did not work out the way I wanted.

Stations help you score points. Every time a railroad company reaches a new town, scoring is done based on the number of cities, towns and starting towns it is connected to. The player with the most stations in the railroad network scores full points. The player with the second most scores half that. If a company visits many towns, this scoring will be done many times. Also when companies merge, they become more and more lucrative because they will have more and more cities, towns and starting towns.

When being built, a station is at least two steps away from the nearest train. That means you need foresight and forward planning. After you build your station, you need to try to guide the train to it. Else your station is wasted. The need for a train to go or to not go in a certain direction is why the veto mechanism exists. Another important mechanism is the passenger mechanism. If you drive a train to an opponent's station, you earn one passenger. At game end, whoever has the most passengers gains 6VP. Second place gains 3VP. Passengers create an incentive to help your opponents.

Now the third action type - investing in industry. You build a factory in a city by placing one of your cubes onto an empty space on the city investment chart. Each row on the chart represents one city on the board. Each city has three slots. The factories you may build are of four industry types. At game end, each industry is examined. Whoever has the most factories gains 6VP. Second most gains 3VP. There is one condition. If a city is not connected to any railroad, its factories are discarded and do not count. The black cubes on the city investment chart remind you which cities have been connected to railroads.

This is the player board. Those at the top left are the stations. The icons remind you where you can and cannot place stations. Those two in the centre are passengers collected. The lower left section reminds you the scorings to be done in three situations: (1) when a railroad reaches a city, (2) when a railroad reaches a town, and (3) when a railroad company merges with another. The lower right section reminds you of the end game scorings. All these icons look intimidating, but once you understand the rules, they are very handy.

Let talk mergers. There are only 7 companies on the board, and thus at most 6 mergers per game. However these can be critical moments in the game. You must prepare well for them. When a train touches the track of another, it is acquired by the other train company and it ceases to exist. The biggest shareholder scores points based on how many cities, towns and starting towns the company has (before the merger). The second biggest shareholder scores half that. All shareholders then swap their shares for those of the new company, at a 2:1 ratio. The result of the merger is a bigger company with more cities, towns and starting towns. The new company will be more valuable. This is how escalation happens in the game.

I have mentioned several ways of scoring. The most important two are the mergers, which is based on shareholding, and connecting to towns, which is based on station ownership. Other ways of scoring are still important, but they are supplementary.

Understanding the rules doesn't help much in understanding how the game feels when in play. Let's talk about the play.

The Play

I did a 3-player game with Allen and Jeff. The game supports at most 4 players. I was white, Jeff was brown and Allen was blue.

In the early game only three companies were activated, the green company in the west, the dark blue company in the east, and the orange company in the south. At this point our station building was balanced, and trains tended to go to the stations, because of the lure of the passengers.

Jeff (brown) invested more effort in the dark blue company. He developed it more, so he became a clear majority shareholder. The seeds of disaster were sown even at this stage, just that Allen and I hadn't realised the danger.

The dark blue company grew bigger and bigger, becoming unstoppable. At this point the red company had started operations, and had also merged with the dark blue company. Jeff (brown) was in control of the dark blue company and diligently developed it. Allen (blue) and I (white) wanted a piece and jumped in. However this was probably not such a good idea. Although we gained shares, we could not catch up to Jeff, and we only helped grow the company even further, benefiting Jeff. Jeff (brown) not only was the biggest shareholder. He also had the most stations at the dark blue company. Allen (blue) wanted to compete with Jeff in the number of stations. He had now built a station near the dark blue train, hoping to bring the train to his station. The green and orange companies were in an awkward position, being neither here nor there, having fallen far behind the dark blue company.

Allen (blue) had built a station hoping to get it to become part of the orange railroad company. If this happened, all of us would have one station each, and nobody would have any advantage.

At the top left, the dark blue train had veered left and avoided Allen's (blue) station. Now the situation was Jeff (brown) and Allen (blue) both having two stations. The green train was heading towards the tracks of the blue train, so a merger was imminent. There were two white stations (mine) and one blue station (Allen's) in the green company. When the merger happened, Allen would have three stations in the merged company and become the player with the most stations.

The purple company in the northwest, the grey company in the north, and the yellow company in the southeast, were all still dormant.

The green company had now merged with the dark blue company. There was no more green train on the map. Every merger may create a major shift in shareholding positions. If some players hold many shares in the company being acquired, their old shares will be converted to a significant number of shares in the new company. This can shake things up. Since the share conversion rate is 2 to 1, you want to create mergers when your opponents are holding an odd number of shares, because this makes them waste that odd single share.

Whenever a company is acquired, you give it a big red cross in the share tracks section. The prestigious dark blue company was later acquired by another company - the purple company. On paper it was purple gobbling up dark blue, but in practice this was not the case. Jeff (brown) had many shares in the dark blue company. After the 2:1 share conversion, he became the biggest shareholder in the purple company. Same old same old.

The purple company started operations rather late, but it swallowed the four-in-one mega company and became the new giant. The dark blue company had triggered scoring many times when it was in operation, and Jeff was the biggest beneficiary. Allen and I knew it was nigh impossible to catch up. We tried to focus on different areas, competing with Jeff separately and trying to force him to fight two fronts. Not that it helped much. We should not have let things get to this point in the first place. We should have been more alert. In Stephenson's Rocket you need to think ahead and understand the implications of your actions and your opponents' actions. It is thoughtful and deliberate.

Allen (blue) had the most stations in the purple company now (four). I helped make this happen, because I'd rather him gain an advantage than Jeff. Can't have Jeff be number one everywhere, no? If you trace the path of the orange company, you will see it had avoided one of Jeff's stations (brown). Allen and I were desperate not to concede any more advantage to Jeff. We wanted to lose less horribly.

The grey company was now alive. I (white) had set up two stations, with the intention to get them to join the giant company.

Things went according to plan. The purple company was acquired by the grey company, and now I was the biggest station owner in the main train network - five stations.

At the end of the game, only one city had no railroad connections - Brighton on the southern coast. Any factories built there were forfeit. Among the four industries, I (white) won majority in the cloth industry (second column) and the brewery industry (fourth column).

My (white) final score was 42, Allen (blue) 51. Jeff (brown) was already far ahead of us, and still counting!

In this situation, the grey company had become an isolated company. A company being isolated means it can't trigger any merger, nor can it reach any new city, town or starting town. Isolated companies no longer give shares, so you can't fight for share majority anymore. To be more accurate, the game ends not when six companies have been acquired. It ends when six companies have been acquired or have become isolated.

The Thoughts

When I read the rules of Stephenson's Rocket, I thought it felt a lot like Acquire. Competing for shareholding is important, timing the mergers and reaping benefits from them is important. In Stephenson's Rocket there will be at most 6 mergers throughout a game. In Acquire there can be more. Stephenson's Rocket does not feel like a Reiner Knizia game to me. Many of his games are succinct and minimalistic. The ways of scoring are straightforward. The genius lies in the simplicity. Usually you can easily see where the twist is, and you will admire how clever it is. In Stephenson's Rocket, although you only have three options when you perform an action, these actions can have many long-term implications. When you move a train, you may trigger many other actions - the veto, and the various types of scoring. You need to understand the big picture and you need to understand the implications of every small action, and how they affect the strategic landscape. You need to think a little deeper. This is not a game I would recommend to people new to the hobby. Like Tigris and Euphrates, you need to know what you're doing in order to enjoy the game. It's not the kind of game you can muddle through half of, grasping the tactics along the way, and just enjoy the fun ride.

This is an open information game with no randomness. This is actually a little intimidating. Imagine Chess, and Go. They sound serious and unforgiving, and very much skill-based. Stephenson's Rocket is not exactly like those games, but it does share some of their features. How a game develops is solely based on the decisions of the players. There is no luck and no randomness. Skills matter. An experienced player is expected to defeat a novice. It is better to play this game with opponents of a similar skill level. If there is a gap in skill level, you probably should to play with open discussions and analysis to guide the less experienced players. Else they will likely get trounced by the veterans.

Having played Stephenson's Rocket, I feel I understand why it was not as popular as Reiner Knizia's other games of the same period. Games like Ra, Through the Desert and Modern Art had reprints much earlier and much more frequently, and didn't have to wait 19 years. Stephenson's Rocket is not a wide-appeal game like they are. It is not as straightforward, so it is not as immediately rewarding. It is a more deliberate game. Those who have learned to love it truly enjoy it, and that's why there had always been people asking for a reprint.

The green train looks good too. Unfortunately green is a company colour and not a player colour. I always prefer to play with green pieces. White is my second choice.

Imperial

Plays: 6Px1.

After playing The Princes of Machu Picchu at Boardgamecafe.net, I mentioned that I had not tried Mac Gerdts' Imperial. That was almost like blasphemy. Everyone said it is his best game. Thus I soon had an opportunity to play this game, tutored by a legion of sharks.

The Game

There are six major countries on the board - UK is red, France is blue, Germany is grey, Italy is green, Austria-Hungary is yellow and Russia is purple. Any land territory or sea zone beyond the borders of these six countries are up for grabs. Players do not directly control the six major countries. Instead, they invest in them. Each country sells bonds, and players buy bonds. Whoever has invested the most in a country controls the country. If another player surpasses the current controller in amount invested, he becomes the new controller. We had 6 players. Our game started with every player holding bonds of two different countries, and every player being the controller of one country. The board is quite empty at the start of the game. The major countries only have a few factories each. The brown ones produce armies, and the light blue ones naval fleets. In this photo only France (at the time controlled by Jeff) had recruited some mercenaries, getting ready for some early game conquests. Most other nations went for factory construction first.

Those two thick cards on the left are the Italian and German bonds. The numbers in the middle of the cards (4M and 9M) are the prices of the bonds. The numbers at the bottom (2M and 4M) are the dividends you get paid when the country decides to give dividends. The big numbers at the top are victory point multipliers used at game-end. Every country will have a base victory point value at game-end depending on how well it does. The more you have invested in the country, the higher your multiplier. That German flag on the right means I am currently the controller of Germany.

Every round, every major country gets to perform one action, and this is of course decided by the controlling player. The action mechanism is the well-known Mac Gerdts rondel mechanism. Actions are listed on a rondel and every country has a pawn on the rondel. To execute the action you want, you need to advance the pawn to the corresponding action space. If it is within 3 spaces away, advancing is free. Any further than that, you (the player, not the country) need to pay. So there is a form of restriction, and this mechanism also creates a cyclical nature in country actions.

The actions are: build one factory, build armies and fleets, recruit mercenaries, move armies and fleets, tax, and pay dividends. Combat is very straight-forward. No cards, no dice. It's just a one-for-one trade. You kill one of mine, I kill one of yours. Sea battles are optional. If both parties agree, fleets can coexist. That's mainly because fleets also act as transports. Capturing a sea zones or minor country allows you to place a control marker. These markers give you income when you do taxing. You can never place control markers in the homeland of another major country. When you occupy the homeland of another major country, you will temporarily disable any factory you occupy. If you want to, you can spend three units to permanently destroy a factory, but that's rather expensive.

When a country taxes, it receives income based on the number of factories and control markers it has on the board. However during tax time, the country also needs to pay the wages of all soldiers, both the army and the navy. When a country taxes, its reputation improves. When one country hits 25 reputation points, the game ends. The bonds of each country held by players will be worth some victory points at game-end, depending on the country reputation. Cash in hand is also worth victory points. Highest scorer wins.

That track at the bottom is the reputation track. Austria-Hungary (yellow) is now leading.

One other important country action is paying dividends. This is when money flows from country to player. Dividend payouts are done from smallest to largest shareholder. If a country doesn't have enough cash to fully pay its investors, some investors won't get the full amount they are entitled to. In fact the largest shareholder needs to pay the shortage. So if you are controlling a country it doesn't mean you can easily milk it dry disregarding the smaller investors. If you are a majority shareholder, you need to balance between transferring money to your personal coffers and leaving enough money for the country to compete effectively. If the country does poorly, the bonds you hold will be worth fewer VP's at game end.

In the game we played, I started off controlling Germany (grey). My investments were focused on Germany and Italy (green). I invested a little in Austria-Hungary (yellow) and Russia (purple). There was once when I inadvertently became controller of Italy (this photo). I didn't mean to take over. I just thought Heng ran the country quite well and it was good investment.

The Play

There were six of us: Jeff, Heng, Kareem, Ivan, Vence and I. I think only Vence and I were new to the game. The rest were veterans. Throughout most of the game I kept muttering: I still have no idea what I'm doing. I understood the rules. It was the strategy that eluded me. I think the genre of shareholding games is my Achilles' heel. I can appreciate the strategic depth. It is just that when I play, I struggle to separate the welfare of the player and that of the company (or the country). I feel like I have multiple personality disorder. In Imperial you need to remember that victory belongs to the investor and not the country. You are a businessman and not a patriot. As I observed how we played, I found that Vence and I (the newbies) had a hard time putting down our patriotism. She backed UK while I rooted for Germany. Old dogs like Jeff and Ivan toyed France like a golden goose and made a handsome fortune from it. They didn't ruin France. Not at all. Jeff just manipulated France's fortunes deftly so that his profits was maximised. France was his tool. He was not a servant of France. France became quite rich, and both Ivan and Jeff, being the largest shareholders, were laughing all the way to the bank.

You do want "your" country to do well. When you are a majority shareholder, the country's reputation level will significantly affect your end-game score. It is just that you must never forget your ultimate objective is your own wealth, and not the country's standing. I find this quite a challenge (because I suck at these games!). The strategies are subtle and indirect. This is what makes Imperial so delicious.

The game mechanisms are mostly simple. However I was quite amazed at how much the veterans could make out of these basic rules. At first I thought it was rather pointless to invade another major country's homeland, since you couldn't place any control marker and you couldn't make money from it. However, this happened anyway in our game. You can see in this photo that Italy (green) has invaded Austria-Hungary (yellow) and has disabled a naval factory (light blue). Austria-Hungary is now temporarily unable to produce fleets, and because of this Italy has a free rein in the Mediterranean Sea.

There is another example. I had thought it was too expensive to destroy another country's factory. It costs 3 armies. And then this happened in our game too. It turned out to be worthwhile because it set back the victim's expansion significantly. Yet another interesting observation was how some country controllers sent their troops to die just before payday, i.e. the tax action. Dead troops mean you save money. You don't need to pay dead soldiers in this game. Mutual destruction is actually a win-win situation for the shareholders of both the warring countries. This is such a mean game! Send the soldiers to die, and the politicians and businessmen shake hands and congratulate one another.

The round markers are the control markers.

Italy (green) is almost at 25 reputation points. The others are scrambling to catch up as much as possible before the game ends.

What I struggle with is how to tell whether a country is doing well, and whether things are looking up for a country. When you evaluate a country, it should not be based on whether the country will be growing stronger. It should be based on the Return On Investment. An already strong country may not give you much opportunity to make money. A humble country may have plenty of space for growth. Another thing to think about is the intentions of the current controller. If he is mostly done with milking the country, he may not be putting in much more effort to grow the country. Heng's mantra for Imperial is: invest wisely. A country's bonds can be held by multiple players. This creates interesting dynamics and complex relationships between players due to vested interests. Sometimes you collaborate, sometimes you compete.

The Thoughts

Imperial is a game with much strategic depth. It is complex not because of heavy rules or meticulous planning required. It is complex because of the intricate network of vested interests among players. The relationships between players are constantly changing as they grow their investment portfolios. If you are into this kind of shareholding games (e.g. 18XX games), you should try this. I'm rather weak at this type of games, so I still don't fully grasp Imperial. I think it is best with the full complement of players. This is when the network of vested interests is most complex and thus most intriguing. We played using some variants, which injected a little more money, and allowed more flexibility in buying bonds. This made the game more dynamic. Countries changed hands slightly more easily.

Airlines Europe

Plays: 4Px1.

The Game

Airlines Europe is a game about investing in airlines, growing them, and making money from your investments. It is played on a map of Europe, with many cities depicted and many routes betweens, each having some spots that airlines can claim. There are many airline companies, and at the start of the game, each of them only has one starting airport, and their share values are low. During the game, players spend money to expand the airlines' networks by claiming routes, growing outwards from their starting airport. As these airline networks grow, the share value of the airlines also increase, and the payouts will increase too. Players also collect airline shares, and during the three payout rounds, they earn victory points (VP's) based on shareholding majority. Collecting and owning shares is a two-step process. There is an action for taking a share from a common pool (Ticket to Ride style) into your hand, and another action to play shares into your playing area. The shares need to be in play before they are considered being own by you. As the game progresses, you compete in shareholding in the various companies, and yet also cooperate in growing companies which you and some opponents have invested in together.

Shares in hand are not shares owned. You need to play them onto your playing area first. The number on the share card indicates the numbers of shares of that airline.

Front: my share holdings. Middle: The share market always has 5 cards for players to pick from. If you don't want any of them, you can blind draw from the draw deck.

One weird company works differently from others - Abacus. It doesn't have an airport and doesn't claim routes. You have to use an action to trade shares in your hand for Abacus shares. During the three payout rounds, Abacus pays out pre-determined VP's. So this is yet another company which the players compete in, albeit in a slightly different manner.

The game ends after the third payout round.

The Play

BGG says Airlines Europe is best with four, and we had four players - Allen, John, Chee Seng and I. All were new to the game. The game starts with some every player having some shares, which makes the starting positions slightly different. All of us were quite diversified in our investments. Only Chee Seng and John bothered with Abacus. Allen and I only put in token effort to gain 3rd place VP's. Money was very tight, and we often had to take the Take Money action, or Play Card action which also gave money. The Expand Airline action is tricky. For one action you can do one or two expansions. During the game I realised that it is not always better to do two expansions. Whether you do one or two expansions, you only get to take one share. Each expansion costs money, so if you do two expansions, you will soon run out of money and need to take some money-earning action. If you do single expansions, you don't get to expand airlines as quickly, but you will be able to collect more shares because of using fewer money-earning actions. This is an interesting balance.

The game board. Some cities have coloured markers, which are the airline headquarters. When expanding (claiming routes), airlines must start from their headquarters. Allen was the majority shareholder for the blue airline from the start, and he spent much effort growing it. The track around the board is for recording the share value. At this moment green and white were leading.

The orange tile is a bonus tile, which only four companies have. If the orange airline expands its routes to reach London, its share value gets a boost of 6.

This being an investment game, we had to constantly watch the share-holdings of other players, and also the shares available in the common pool. This common pool restricted our options somewhat, and prevented the game from becoming very open. You can't claim any share you want. I think this is good. The game is less absolute and less calculable. There was fighting for majority shareholding within each airline. There was also the mentality of "why don't you do the hard work since you also own shares in the company". Smaller shareholders tried to leech off the efforts of the bigger shareholders. Vested interests were very intertwined so it was very hard to not indirectly help others. The game is about how to help yourself most, how to piggy-back on others' efforts, and how to invest wisely. The payout rounds are semi-random, so you won't know exactly when they will happen. Sometimes you need to gamble a bit and hope they happen at a good time, e.g. right after you wrest majority in some airlines.

VP's were hidden so during the game I didn't have much idea who was leading and who was trailing. By game end, our scores were not far apart. Allen won, I was second, Chee Seng and John had the same score, but John won by tiebreaker - Abacus shares. Before game end I was thinking whether Chee Seng and John would win because they were the only ones taking Abacus seriously, while Allen and I didn't spend much effort. Abacus did pay out well, but I think investing in it was costly for both Chee Seng and John, because they had to fight hard for it, sacrificing shares they could have owned in other airlines. So Abacus is a clever mechanism that spices things up a little.

The Thoughts

Airlines Europe is an investment game, and investment games are generally not my cup of tea. So it didn't do much for me. I think it is well-designed and well-balanced. That is not surprising since this is a refined version of Alan Moon's previous games, e.g. Union Pacific. Airlines Europe, being an investment game, has this aspect of multiple entities (airlines) that multiple players have vested interests in. There is jostling for position in the shareholding. While the airlines compete with each other, the players have to manipulate this competition such that they as the players are the ones benefiting, and not any particular airline(s). After the game, I realised that the payouts are good for 1st and 2nd place shareholders, but drop significantly for 3rd place onwards, so there is incentive to fight for the first two spots within an airline, as opposed to simply diversifying everywhere. The way that we played may not have been the best way.

---

Buy from Noble Knight Games. Status: in stock (at time of this post).

---

18TN

Plays: 5Px1.

Many OTK old-timers are fans of 18XX games, and recently the Weiqi Boardgamers have been very much into it too. I have always been a little reluctant to try this family of games, because stock-holding games have never been quite my thing. I had one painful experience with Greed Incorporated (well, it's probably more my fault than that of the game). Chicago Express is clever but ultimately didn't quite click with me. I enjoyed Gheos well enough, but probably more for the timing aspect and the dramatic changes. The stock-holding aspect is not that big an element. I guess I've always felt uncomfortable about the two layers of play in stock-holding games. You are invested in some entities (train companies, nations, etc), but they are not really yours. You are using them to help you win, and you need to isolate how well players are doing and how well entities are doing. You can't get too attached to the entities, especially in games where ownership is very fluid. I am comfortable with Age of Steam, because you own your own train company. There is no stock-holding element.

The recent flurry of activities triggered me to decide to finally give 18XX a try, at least to satisfy my curiousity of whether I'd like it.

The Game

18TN is a game about the development of train companies in Tennessee. Like all 18XX games, players are investors starting with an amount of money. They start train companies by investing in them. Train companies lay tracks, buy trains, build stations and operate routes to earn money. Earnings can be paid to investors as dividends, or retained for future expansion. This is decided by the president, i.e. the biggest shareholder. During the game shares can be bought and sold, and company presidencies (I am reluctant to use the term "ownerships") can change.

There is a fixed number of train companies that be started, and they have pre-determined starting locations. This makes every 18XX game unique. As more and more advanced trains are bought, older trains become obsolete and must be discarded. So train companies need to be on their toes and need to be prepared to buy new, more advanced trains. Newer trains can run longer routes, thus earning more money. As more advanced trains become available, more advanced track tiles also become available, allowing more routes on the board, giving more space for building stations, and also increasing the income of routes. Stations are used to lock a city for a company, guaranteeing the company access to that city. If a city is fully occupied by stations of other companies, your company will not be able to run a route past that city.

Each train company needs to work hard to expand to earn money for its shareholders. It needs to work hard even to continue to exist. Obsoleted trains can severely set back a company.

From the player's perspective, the end goal is simply to be the richest. This is basically cash on hand plus share value at game end. The game ends when the bank runs out of money. It can also end if one player bankrupts. The player needs to always remember that the ultimate goal is to make money, from dividends, and also from having high share values for the shares being held. Many things impact the share price. It increases whenever the company pays dividends, and decreases whenever the company retains its earnings. If the shares are fully subscribed (i.e. none in the open market and none still with the underwriting bank), the price will go up. If anyone sells shares, the price drops for each share sold (ouch!). The price does not go up when shares are bought though.

The upper part is for marking share prices. Various actions in the game cause the positions of the markers to move. Moving up or right are good (price goes up), and moving down or left are bad. If the share price hits the yellow or green zones, things will be so bad that some restrictions related to share holding will be lifted.

The lower half is just for marking the dividends paid per share. The Open Market section on the right is just for placing shares that have been sold by players to the open market. They are available to be purchased by other players.

The company sheet. I was the largest shareholder of GM&O, so I was the president and I held this company sheet, which meant I was responsible for running the company. Each company has a number of tokens (GM&O had two left at this point) which can be used to build a station in a city. Stations secure the company's access to the city, and also block other companies from running routes past that city, unless they have their own station. At this moment GM&O owned two Level-2 trains. That table on the lower right is a convenient reference for rules that apply for different stages of the game. From left to right: (1) The phase colour indicates what coloured tiles can be placed on the board. The more advanced tiles have more station slots, give more income, have more branches and links, allowing more complex and more profitable networks. (2) Train limit is how many trains a company can own. (3) Train cost. (4) Number of trains of that level in the game. (5) What trains become obsolete.

From a player perspective (as opposed to that of a company), this is what I owned. I had cash, a private company (lower left) which was purchased in the early game, shares certificates in the GM&O company. The marker in the top right is just a start player marker for the next share round. It goes to the earliest player who passed in the previous share round. It is often important to manipulate who holds this marker. It can make a big difference.

There are some tricky manoeuvres in the game. I think in my first game I have been mostly learning from the sharks how not to lose disastrously as opposed to learning how to win. The sharks have been talking about Hot Sun all the time, a codeword for something very bad happening in 18XX games, but none were willing to elaborate further prior to the game. As we played and I witnessed one nasty thing after another happening, I asked, "So this is Hot Sun?", and I kept getting replies like "Not yet", "Not even close". One bad thing is your business partner dumping the shares of your company, sending the share price tumbling. It is a slow uphill battle to increase share price, and a sudden big drop is always painful to watch. But that's not Hot Sun. Another bad thing is trains getting obsoleted and the company not having any trains to operate. The company is forced to purchase a train, and if it doesn't have enough funds, the president must top up from his own wallet. A little unthematic here maybe? Aren't these limited liability companies? But this is still not Hot Sun. Yet another bad thing is one player who owns two companies does some hanky-panky with them, selling soon-obsolete trains from one to the other at high prices, then dumping all his shares in that about-to-be-ruined company, and then forcing you, the second biggest shareholder, to become president. There is a limit to the number of shares that can be sold to the open market, so you can't even sell your shares in order to "disown" the company. Soon, the trains become obsolete, and the company does not have enough funds to buy a new train, and you have to top up from your own bank account. That, ladies and gentlemen, is Hot Sun. I'm just thankful I didn't have to experience it first-hand in my first game.

The Play

We did a 5-player game, Jeff, Henry, Heng, Ang and I, and I was the only newbie to 18XX games. The game took more than 3 hours, excluding rules explanation, and this is an introductory 18XX game suitable for teaching new players. I was quite conservative and didn't game the share-holding aspect much, mostly because I didn't know how to. But I watched others dumping shares to raise cash to start new companies, and I watched how share prices were sent tumbling by mass selling. I mostly focused on one company, GM&O, and played it like it was "my" company (i.e. like how I would play Age of Steam). I did buy some shares of "other's" companies, mostly L&N which appeared safest to me (i.e. Henry the president at the time didn't seem to intend to ruin it - he seemed more trustworthy than the other company presidents), and also some I&C (after I felt more sure Jeff wasn't going to ruin it either). I think in this first game I have been focusing on not losing spectacularly rather than trying to look for efficient ways to earn more money. That's how it is swimming with the sharks.

There was some cooperation in the game, e.g. companies building and upgrading tracks which benefited both. Given that it was a 5-player game, often at least 2 players need to pool money together to get a company started.

And then there was the Hot Sun manoeuvre. It was pulled by Jeff on Ang. I think Heng did warn Ang about it, but at the time Ang was heavily invested in both companies that Jeff was president of. Ang was expecting Jeff to ruin the other one, but since Jeff controlled both companies, he could do whatever hanky-panky he wanted with them. Thus my first sighting of Hot Sun.

Everyone was careful about train obsolesence, and none were hurt too badly (well, except for the Hot Sunned Ang). The train companies had been retaining earnings in preparation for buying those new expensive trains that would soon become available.

Unfortunately I couldn't stay till game end and had to leave about 2:15 hrs into the game. At that time the most advanced trains had appeared and we were entering the game end stage. It was a pity I couldn't witness the end game. The final positions were Jeff, Heng, me, Henry, Ang. So I survived OK I guess. Here's Jeff's perspective of the game (up to game end). You need to scroll down to the middle of the page.

In the early game, two companies were started, GM&O in the south west, and L&N in the north. The starting cities of each company are marked on the board. That little table on the lower right is for marking the par values of the shares, i.e. at what values the shares started.

Two more companies had started, IC in the north west, which was enjoying some tracks already built by GM&O, and TC in the centre, making good use of tracks built by L&N. Green tiles had become available now that we had advanced in technology.

All six companies were operating now. The newest companies, NCSL and SR both started in the south east quadrant. The two initial isolated networks now connected. Brown tiles had become available.

This was the time that I had to leave. NCSL was the company that Jeff Hotsunned Ang with, and its share price was in the green zone. L&N was in the yellow zone, because it had been withholding earnings to prepare for trains becoming obsolete and for having to buy new (and very expensive) trains. The Level-8 in the centre is the most advanced train in this game. Many shares had been sold to the open market at this point.

Ang, Heng, Henry and Jeff. They all take the game quite seriously, including seating order. We drew cards to determine seating order. This reminds me of hardcore Puerto Rico players. But then, did Jeff win because his turn was just after mine (the newbie)? And Ang lost because he was before me? *spooky X-Files music*

I understand the rules now, but am still not familiar with all the strategies, in particular the ways to game with the share holdings, and also generally how to be efficient in making money. Now that I have experienced my first 18XX game, I am definitely keen to explore the system more. The stock holding aspect was not as scary as I had worried about. The company operations part of the game is interesting, but it would not have been able to stand on its own. The stock holding aspect is an integral part of the game.

The Thoughts

I like the game for sure, but I'm not certain yet whether I will love it. This is not a simple game, and some actions have many implications that you need to consider. I like this depth. You need to be constantly on your toes and watch out for dangers. You need to plan ahead. You need to make wise investments that bring the most profit. That means analysing the board and the potentials of the companies. You need to watch your opponents - which companies they are invested in, how their cash flow is. There are times to cooperate, and times to abandon your business partners.

I don't have a strong grasp yet on how to make money efficiently. This is a game that seems easy to lose and hard to win. The game is long compared to typical Eurogames, and I hear the short 18XX games are 3-hour games, and the long ones can take more than 8 hours. I like how there can be dramatic twists in the game, and how you can plan for such big moves. The game is fully open information, so over-analysis can drag the game.