With this morning's coffee, I reflected on yesterday's game of Preussische Ostbahn and pondered the following question:

I own 1830. Why would I ever need another railroad/stock market game?

Having played P.O., 1835, 1870, 1861 and others, NONE are equal to or better than 1830. Each varient game has a different focus which doesn't translate to a better game.

Let's look at some areas where P.O. and the alternative 18xx games outshine 1830.

Stock manipulation -- Nope.
Route building -- Nope.
Player interaction -- Nope.
Game tension -- Nope.

I understand the time constraints and agressive nature of 1830, but 1830 is king.

All hail the king.

I'm 90% in agreement here. I think 1830 is the best of the 18xx, though I like playing 1835/1861 from time to time to provide a little variance. But that worked more when we played 18xx fairly often. If we only play rarely, 1830 is the way to go.

8% of the 10% difference is that we only play rarely. I bought Wabash Cannonball, Prussian Ostbahn, and Age of Steam because they take far less time to play, which means they might actually see that table. We're all hesitant to commit to 1830 because of the 4-5 hour playing time. We can get 2-3 others played in that amount of time. Again, if 1830 appeared on the table quarterly, I think the appeal of the others would be much less. But they get RR games on the table, even if they're not as good as 1830.

The other 2% is that 1830 has other areas where it does not shine. Don't want scripted openings? Don't like the complete absence of railroad functionality? Don't like the artificial stock market movements? Age of Steam does outshine 1830 on the first two, and Wabash Cannonball and others at least compete on the third. And the 18xx games that introduced half-payouts of dividends are superior in this regard to 1830.

I rate 1830 a 10 on BGG, and would be happy to play it often. But the group seems inclined toward shorter games, so I think it's worthwhile to try Age of Steam and the Winsome games. They won't be as rich as a 4-5 hour game of 1830, but I'm hoping that the best of them will offer most of the fun in half of the time. Whether Prussian Ostbahn, Wabash Cannonball or Age of Steam have met this test is another matter.

Our group just played 1856 for the first time this Friday and we all really enjoyed it. Not having ever played any 18XX games before Friday (and after reading these posts) I am curious as to whether the other games provide enough of a different experience to warrant a purchase sometime down the road.

I think most of us would regard 1830 as the best 18xx game, and 1870 as the worst of those we've played. Given that 1830 is expensive to obtain, I think the next best bet would be to try 1835 or 1861. Others will disagree. 1825 is also readily available, but it is very much a building game and lacks much of the stock trading that makes 1830 so intense. All of the above would certainly be a different experience than 1856.

I have a copy of 1870 that I no longer want. If you want to try it, it's yours. A lot of people seem to enjoy it much more than our group does.

And one last thing on 18xx...poker chips add to the fun.

Jim,

I agree with Mark. I prefer 1853 to 1861, but we really haven't explored 1861's full potential. Additionally, 1853 is easier to acquire and less expensive.

1870 seems to be a lot of effort for little reward.

Another option is either 18GA or 18AL. I believe that both are still available as a free print-and-play game.

Definitely buy poker chips - it improves the experience.

Thanks for the replies! We're scheduled to play 1856 a couple more times in the upcoming weeks, and if the group is still liking the experience (I know at least two of us will) I'll look into picking up one of the above suggestions.

Thanks!

It is certainly true that 1830's game length works against it. It would be nice to have a computer program to handle the bookkeeping since paying dividends, stock trades and railroad purchases account for a good chunk of play time.

I understand the appeal of railroad functionality, in fact 1846 encorporates that feature and as a result has piqued my interest. I would raise the point however, that unique abilities can lead to a scripted gameplay. In Preussische Ostbahn the green railroad must connect to Berlin and Hamburg before collecting dividends and with a limited number of blocks do little else. Anyone playing the initial track build for green will have the same opening move. Likewise the purple railroad with a $5 limitation will always expand in a similar manner. P.O. like Wabash Cannonball uses block limitation to force certain routes game after game. Does 1830 direct gameplay to certain destinations? Yes, but it doesn't limit expansion possibilities with such a heavy hand.

Not having played Age of Steam, I can't comment its merits vs. 1830.

One minor point, I'm not a big fan of half dividends because I think it limits the amount of stock turnover by making it easier to keep marginal railroads. The hard decision to either trash or treasure a railroad is part of the great fun of 1830. It would be easy enough to encorporate half dividends in 1830 and see if game play is improved.

1830 is a beautiful game, with no dice, and with an alluring mix of rationality and cold reason - and unpredictability, based on individual players' decisions and actions.

I will readily confess that I am usually clueless when we belly-up to play 1830. Private companies that produce a bit of income?, or that give a president's share?, or that confer a free tile play at some point down the road?.....no idea what is the best thing to do.

Railroad shares start selling, and the B&O will treat you well, so gimme some of that. Mark is selling locomotives between companies that he controls? Uh ohhh...what does THAT portend? (if he has the marker to go first in the next share round, and you own shares in the rr that just sold it's locomotive - you're screwed! How did it come to this? How did I not see this coming at me like a....freight train)

But hey, I have lots o' cash in front of me - I'm doin' OK...but wait - cash? Cash? I should be buying something. set the par low on a new company? I could float it myself...but it may not get a locomotive if those 3's sell out...set the par higher, but then I need other investers to help float it...but Tom just started that company, so now I'll jump in and be one of HIS investors....

A truly lovely game, which I don't understand...at all!