![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dmazePlayed 1835 on Sunday after the big ET meeting. This proved to be as foolish as it initially sounded (I don't get President's Day off); we started around 4:30 and finished around 2 (AM, yes). It turned out to be a very close game (I was third by under 20 points, at just under 6400; first was 6700). Which isn't bad for not actually having a strategy.
1835 is a lot more scripted than its cousins, at least outwardly. But in practice people who have played 1830 more than a couple of times all play it the same way. Still, at a couple of points in the game, there are no options -- if you want to buy any stock at all, you must start a specific company, or pass. It's different enough from 1830 to be interesting.
There are two very interesting differences. 1835 has "minor companies": they own and operate trains just like "real" companies, but they always pay half their revenues to their (single) owner and keep half, and they're not compelled to own a train. This has the advantage, such as it is, of letting everyone play the "drive trains around" game even if they're just spectating in the stock market, and of generally accelerating rail-building. 1835 also doesn't have diesel (infinite-distance) trains; instead, it has "n+n" trains that can traverse some number of major cities and an additional number of towns.
Strategy-wise, I think some people clearly overvalue the very large trains. I've seen this in 1830, too. If buying a diesel train costs you a turn of revenue and two spots on the stock chart, that's a fair bit of money you need to make up, and if it's very late in the game I tend to believe that operating consistently for 200-250 plus share price gain is better than sacrificing everything to get one or two turns at 600. YMMV.
When I've recovered from this enough (probably, both "have a long weekend" and "am in Massachusetts") I want to play 1856 again. Somewhat less scripted, has the very exciting Canadian National mechanic (because 11 tokens really does let you rule the world). Maybe people will take advantage of the opportunity to leverage yourself into the ground. Very slightly easier to end the game by bankruptcy.
1835 is a lot more scripted than its cousins, at least outwardly. But in practice people who have played 1830 more than a couple of times all play it the same way. Still, at a couple of points in the game, there are no options -- if you want to buy any stock at all, you must start a specific company, or pass. It's different enough from 1830 to be interesting.
There are two very interesting differences. 1835 has "minor companies": they own and operate trains just like "real" companies, but they always pay half their revenues to their (single) owner and keep half, and they're not compelled to own a train. This has the advantage, such as it is, of letting everyone play the "drive trains around" game even if they're just spectating in the stock market, and of generally accelerating rail-building. 1835 also doesn't have diesel (infinite-distance) trains; instead, it has "n+n" trains that can traverse some number of major cities and an additional number of towns.
Strategy-wise, I think some people clearly overvalue the very large trains. I've seen this in 1830, too. If buying a diesel train costs you a turn of revenue and two spots on the stock chart, that's a fair bit of money you need to make up, and if it's very late in the game I tend to believe that operating consistently for 200-250 plus share price gain is better than sacrificing everything to get one or two turns at 600. YMMV.
When I've recovered from this enough (probably, both "have a long weekend" and "am in Massachusetts") I want to play 1856 again. Somewhat less scripted, has the very exciting Canadian National mechanic (because 11 tokens really does let you rule the world). Maybe people will take advantage of the opportunity to leverage yourself into the ground. Very slightly easier to end the game by bankruptcy.
