Musings on… Acquire and Union Pacific (#28)

Edited By David Fair
February 25, 2006

Larry Levy:

The idea that Union Pacific is a direct descendant of Acquire has been around for some time. In fact, it was originally said of UP’s predecessor, Airlines. But the idea has been pretty widespread since the game’s appearance back in 1990. As a matter of fact, it had become such common wisdom that when I did research on Airlines before buying it back in the late nineties, I found mention of this “fact� in three of the reviews of Moon’s game. I’m aware that Moon himself has freely admitted that Acquire was an inspiration for his game (although it’s been a while since he’s mentioned this-- maybe he regrets the impression it’s given). However, no game is created in a vacuum and probably every new game can be said to be “based� upon one or more existing games. To me, the important thing in comparing games is not the starting point, but the end product--that is, do two games have a similar play and feel. And to me, Union Pacific doesn’t play or feel anything like Acquire.

I think there’s a number of reasons for this. In both UP and Acquire, players play items to build up different companies and gain interest in those companies by acquiring shares of stock. But in Acquire, each item (the tiles) can only be placed on a single space. Consequently, in each hand, the choice of play is limited since several tiles will be unplayable and a few others will be pointless or counter-productive. In UP, though, each item (the flight cards) can usually be placed in quite a few places on any given turn. This greatly alters the strategy and feel of the game.

The acquisition of the stock is also different in the two games. In Acquire, you can buy a limited amount of stock on every turn, as long as you have the money. Choosing between different companies can be tough, but as long as your cash holds out, you’re almost always going to pick up three shares of some type. Ownership of companies usually comes down to a race in which the founder has a head start. In UP, however, playing stock represents an entire turn. The decision isn’t usually which stock to play but rather whether to expand or to play stock. And the stock to be played has to be drawn from the display when it becomes available. Again, a very different style and feel between the two games.

There are quite a few other distinctions. The basic dynamic in Acquire is the merging of two hotel chains; there is no comparable element in the Moon design. This gives the two games an enormously different feel; in fact, there are quite a few other games (like Stephenson’s Rocket and Rheinlander) that are also called Acquire “clones� simply because they feature mergers. Another difference is that the scoring in UP is through the Wertung cards. This means that the players constantly feel the pressure to get their stock down before scoring occurs, even though they’d rather wait a turn to expand the lines and gather more stock. These push- your-luck decisions are a central component of UP, but they have no counterpart in Acquire. Finally, cash flow is critical in Acquire. Frequently, you need to arrange an early merger to give you the money to continue your stock purchases. There is nothing like that in UP.

I’ve always felt that a disservice is being done to Alan Moon when the two games are so frequently compared. I also feel that it’s misleading. I’m only mildly fond of Acquire and one of the reasons it took me so long to originally buy Airlines was because I kept reading about it being derived from the Sackson game. But I’m very fond of both Airlines and UP (in fact, Airlines was my “gateway� game into German designs). I’d just be happier if UP was allowed to stand on its own as a great game, without the stigma of being somehow derivative.

Ted Cheatham:

I concur with Larry. Acquire and UP do not at all feel the same.  UP is more a derivative of Alan’s other games; Get the Goods and Airlines. I can feel some similarities there but not with Acquire.

Jason Little:

I had neither heard the comparisons between Union Pacific and Acquire, nor do I see any gameplay similarities… Inspired by? Sure, I can see that… Descendant of? I don’t see it. The gameplay, decisions and experience seem very different.

I never enjoyed Acquire, feeling that the tile draws limited my decision making, and that failing to get in on the first or second merger (which could be completely beyond your control) could easily doom you for the game.

The placement options and diverse number of train stocks, track types and the Union Pacific Stock Option helps me feel more in control of my standing in games of Union Pacific. While it’s not a perfect degree of control, it’s far more control than I feel I have in Acquire.

I’m not a big fan of Acquire, despite realizing its significance in the annals of game history and design. But I do enjoy the occasional game of Union Pacific, that’s for sure.

Morgan Dontanville:

I too am going to have to don my toga and vote with the consensus. I get the inspirations from Sackson, but I’m going to have to say that to me UP just doesn’t play much like Acquire. Clearly it draws from the aforementioned game, but it also draws from the drafting mechanism of Venture, as well (which comes from Summit, if memory serves).
I do have to say that I am biased in that I prefer to play Acquire stocks down. Because of this, the entire feel of Acquire changes dramatically and takes a significant sidestep to playing the game with the face up stocks. I find that this minor change to Acquire increases my enjoyment 10 fold, so much so that once I’d played the game this way, I’ve never wanted to go back. So, in all honesty, I’m comparing UP to the face down Acquire. Perhaps, if I played open stocks I would more easily compare the two.

Regardless, both are stellar games and deserve to be in every household.

Tom Vasel:

I can’t point my finger to any specific thing in either game, but Union Pacific feels a lot like Acquire to me - to the point where I rate them almost identically. If you strip away the cool map and beautiful trappings of UP, it seems to be merely a remake of Acquire.  Both games have differences, to be sure, but it would seem that if one likes one - they will automatically like the other. (Although Jay seems to go against that assumption.)
As to stocks - I think it’s better to play with them hidden, myself. It adds a bit of uncertainty to the game, and makes revealing them, when a company is bought out, much more exciting. Compare that to face-up holdings, in which there’s no tension - as everyone already knows who has the most shares of each company. I won’t even use face-up holdings to teach players - it’s much more interesting with them hidden.

Larry Levy:

Let me stand in solidarity with my soul brother Jay. I rate Acquire as a weak 6 (I once rated it a 5). UP, on the other hand, is a solid 8. I also find I agree point by point with every thing Jay says about Acquire; he literally took the words out of my mouth.
I assume you don’t want to start an open vs. closed holdings discussion, Tom. I’ll be happy to relate my feelings on the subject, but it could easily take over the site and it HAS been done several hundred times before.

Mark Jackson:

Larry & Jay are NOT the oddballs in this discussion… Acquire is, granted, the granddaddy of all modern stock games. But, much like my grandfather before he passed away, you don’t want to let him drive.  UP is a significantly better game - more control, less capricious (yes, even with the scoring cards), and with interesting moments of board play.

Tom Vasel:

Okay, I stand corrected. Yet I still feel that Acquire may yet be the better game. I like Union Pacific a little more - and the theme is simply great. But those scoring cards happening in too close of proximity to one another can be greatly annoying. Acquire feels like a more elegant game - and doesn’t feel so desperate at times - you can buy shares on every turn, not just some of them.

I still like Union Pacific more - but why not let Acquire drive every once in a while?

Jason Little:

As an aside, I’m shocked to see someone else share my rather pedestrian feelings about such a well-loved game! For all the games I really do love and endorse, I am less than impressed with many popular titles… It’s nice to know that it’s not necessarily all in my head.

Musings On… is a roundhouse forum discussion on games and topics related to gaming. if you are interested in participating in future discussions, please email David Fair at dafair followed by the at sign and gmail.com.

© 2006 Rick Thornquist

---

Comments:

You must register with BGN in order to comment. Registration is free!

No comments yet.

< Back Home