Boardgame News

Musings on… Age of Steam (#24)

Moderated By Tom Vasel
December 19, 2005

Welcome to Musings On..., which is a moderated discussion group in which a bunch of well known, dedicated gamers discuss and debate different games and topics regarding games. In this particular article, we discuss the Martin Wallace game Age of Steam.

- Tom Vasel

Jason Little:

I am not a fan of Age of Steam. Ultimately, I think I plain ol’ dislike the types of decisions required in Age of Steam. Yes, I can see that they are very strategic/tactical decisions, but of a kind I don’t enjoy (such as action selection among various abilities which all pale in comparison to my first choice—ie, taking the “least useless option") or am not good at (the 2+ turns in advance to plan out where you want to build track based on foreseeable shipping paths developing and related guesstimates on opponent plans).

I far prefer games with a sharper focus on the here and now. Or at least where I feel that optimizing my current turn has more impact on the final outcome, rather than planting seeds which may or may not take root several turns later. That’s not to say I dismiss games where you need to keep an eye on the future—Age of Steam just requires more of that than I enjoy. Failing to plan ahead far enough in advance puts you in an unrecoverably bad position.

Further, I do not like games which become a foregone conclusion during gameplay. The foregone conclusion in AoS may be for the losers, and not the winners, but that doesn’t lessen its impact. Especially for a long game like AoS, you can quickly be reduced to the role of a spectator. This seems to happen early and often for at least a handful of players
in each game of Age of Steam.

That alone might not completely kill a game for me if other aspects of the game were engaging (or if it has a shorter playing time). Unfortunately, AoS does not offer me any other compelling qualities. In a game that can last 3-4 hours, being eliminated from contention in the first 30-40 minutes is extremely frustrating and boring.

AoS has also triggered more arguments about Gaming Etiquette and the Social Contract of Gaming (and resulted in more hurt feelings) than any other game I’ve ever played—even more so than Cosmic Encounter or Diplomacy. Being able to ship goods to benefit other people is the issue. The mechanic is pure Kingmaking. It’s so blatantly abusable that its abuse seems reasonable to expect—if not integral to the unforgiving nature of the game. Later in the game, it can prove to be the sole means for a player out of the running to have any appreciable impact on the outcome of the game.

I currently rank Age of Steam 5.5 out of 10 on BoardGameGeek.com. I have little interest in ever playing this game again, but I’ve promised some of my fellow BGGeeks I would give it another chance.

Mike Siggins:

I agree with everything Jason had to say. I think the abilities situation is lame and doesn’t make for interesting choices, I don’t like the fact (in any game) that you can make an error of one penny of spending and be left behind instantly in a long game, and primarily I can’t stand the fact that one of my favourite subjects has been rendered as dry as Amontillado - the game system has evolved to the point where almost all the railway flavour has been wrung out. This is a dynamic, exciting Railway Company we are running, not some exercise in bookkeeping at accountancy college. In that ironical way of life, there is much in AoS that I like, I just don’t care for the way it is presented. Give me AoS without the ongoing kingmaking and the free wheeling qualities of Struggles, and I am back in the game. I currently rate AoS 5/10, and if invited will usually wriggle out (feigning an old war wound). Unlike Jason, I offer no apologies for negativity - this is poor design because part of designing a themed game is to retain the sprit of the subject, not to over design to the point of abstraction.

Rick Young:

Ok, fight’s on! I was a little worried that this would turn out to look like a love-in.

First of all, I love railroad games. Or, at least the idea of a railroading game. A lot of the games I’ve encountered have been games with a railroad theme but little beyond that. TransAmerica is perhaps the most trivial example of what I mean (I have yet to see TransEurope). A step up are the family of so-called “crayon-rail” games (Empire Builder, Euro Rails, Iron Dragon, etc). You are constructing rail-lines and moving cargoes I suppose, but the random nature of the cargo cards makes them long and generally unrewarding experiences for me.

At the other end of the scale are the 18XX series, of which 1830 is the one with which I am most familiar. It has everything I could hope for in a railroad game: track construction, increasing engine technology, running trains, and financial management. However, it turned out that playing 1830 on the computer (one of the few AH PC games that actually worked) was the only way to go, owing to the incredibly fussy nature of the calculations that were continually needed and the mind-bending exercises in trying to picture where the track tile evolutions could lead. I was drawn to Age of Steam from accounts that it fell in between the lesser rail games and the 18XX series, and was being favorably compared to 1829. I had been trying for some time to track down a copy of it, in vain. Then, along came the Second Edition.

It was all I hoped it would be. The game duration is just about right for a decent strategy game (I haven’t been properly Euro-ized yet). Our group can usually get in two games of an evening. It has most of the elements of the 18XX series without the need for a spreadsheet or hand calculator. None of the bits of “business” in this game are particularly original (bidding, player role choices, track construction or train operation); but, as with many of Martin Wallace’s games, the way he strings the bits together hits my sweet spot.

The track construction aspect is simpler than 1830, but just meaty enough to be interesting. Maybe it is the frustrated model rail-roader in me, but I find designing track configurations and figuring ways to link locations through and around your opponents is just plain fun.

I find that the role choices all have their place until you approach the end-game, except for the role of “producer” which is admittedly weak. The option to replace it with the role of “financier” (which allows you to buy back shares issued) is one I would seriously consider. The early going is where you can see some keen bidding for roles as the players all have their eye on their favorite depending on what their priorities and playing styles are. Bidding never gets too carried away however, as the need to issue shares to generate income in the early going acts as a brake. Once the game approaches the final stages, the focus narrows down to one or two key roles which still have some utility (and where the “financier” role would start to become highly prized).

Issuing shares is one of the game’s great “hooks” as an easy source of capital in the early stages when your operating revenues are tiny but represents a liability in the late game, as every share issued effectively cancels one income level increase in terms of victory points.

Having a plan that looks ahead more than simply the current turn is an absolute must. A lot of early games can see one or more players going bankrupt, such is the unforgiving nature of mistakes in both planning and execution. The resulting razor’s edge feeling of the first few turns is another of the game’s delights to me. Just surviving the early going can impart a real feeling of accomplishment. Seeing if you can be the first of the players to “turn the corner” is the essence of the competition and there is little margin for error. That sort of challenge is what I look for in a game.

The random distribution of the goods blocks (on the map and on the goods display), aids in replayability on a fixed map, and forces players to be flexible in planning their opening moves (which in 1830 feel heavily scripted). While the initial distribution is random and the appearance of new blocks is semi-random, it is a type of randomness that I find quite acceptable. The board, once seeded, is the same for everyone and presents everyone with an equal challenge. It is a totally different kind of randomness from the blind card draws that drive the crayon rail series. The emptying of the goods display onto the board to provide new sources of income is semi-predictable and is part of the long-range planning necessary to skilled play.

Finally, a couple of points on winners and losers. Jay’s points are well taken but there are a couple of ways of looking at his observations. Multi-player games often get ripped for being subject to king-making and suffering from the “whack the leader” thing. If any player(s) can haul down the leader and assume the lead it would be criticised for being too full of “hoseage.” If a player gets too far behind in this game, he is in for a long night as there aren’t any magic “go to the head of the line” mechanics in this game. Personally, I prefer that to a game which has some device that propels someone who doesn’t deserve it back in to contention. This game rewards study and repeated play as I believe good games should. The best games will be among those with roughly equivalent experience. Our group has learned it together and we have thoroughly enjoyed doing so, with four or five players feeling about right for group size.

There are few direct ways to attack the leader in this game although there are some indirect ways (more acceptable in my view). One is to “steal” goods cubes. Hence the importance of the “move first” role and back to the bidding tactics. Another is to deliberately move goods through another player’s track to sling-shot him at the leader. Frankly, this is more a reflection on the players than the game. Any game can be deliberately “misplayed” to benefit another player. It happens in tournament play (unfortunately), but seems pointless in friendly play. It doesn’t prove anything and detracts from everyone’s enjoyment of the game. Fortunately, in our group we just don’t see it.

My bottom line on this fine game by Martin Wallace puts it on my top shelf with a solid 8.5.

Mark Jackson:

I’m amazed (and pleased) to see any negative reviews of AoS… it validates my choice not to play it.

That’s right - haven’t played it yet. I had been growing in my willingness to try, if only to get the “You haven’t played AoS yet?!” monkey off my back.

But here’s why I’ve “just said no” to it - I *hated* Volldampf with every fiber of my being. I loved the original design (Lancashire Railways) even though it was - as has been typical for Winsome - just barely above prototype component quality. Lancashire packed the whole shipping mechanism & an awesome “debt spiral” into a 45 minute game. It was vicious - but over quickly. And fun! So I was stoked that Volldampf was Lancashire “plus” with awesome bits.

By the end of Volldampf, I was ready to put the bits in a pile and burn ‘em. All of the work you did (track-laying, shipping) and the careful accumulation of cash was for naught, because some clown who’d played suboptimally had a “magic card” to blow you out of the water in a 2 hour game. And woe be unto to you (and it was) if two clowns
decided to play cards on you.

And then, as if that wasn’t enough, the very thing that Jay & Mike are complaining about in AoS happened - the game was essentially decided by a player who couldn’t win.

That’s it for me. If AoS is more of the same, you guys can go enjoy it yourselves.

Nick Danger:

In regards to hating Volldampf…

Actually, not quite so vehemently. I just disliked it (Volldampf) enough to sell and have since not had any desire to give AoS a first look.

Larry Levy:

Age of Steam is a tremendous game and, in my opinion, Martin Wallace’s best design to date. The addition of track building to the basic Lancashire Railways system adds a tremendous amount of skill and choice. The different roles add just as much to the game and make the auctions much more vital and interesting. The production mechanic is a wonderful compromise between random and deterministic resupply of cities. The whole game just shines with clever ideas and superb development. It’s one of my Top Ten games of all time and figures to stay there for quite a while.

Like Jay, I prefer tactical games to strategic ones, but I also like it when the two are mixed. It’s quite important to be able to look ahead in AoS; I admit I’m not as good at it as I should be, but I find the challenge very engrossing. It lends the game great depth and means you really have to earn your victories.

The game’s unforgiveness doesn’t bother me at all; quite the contrary. I enjoy the challenge of games with tight money and AoS may be their Poster Child. Certainly, it takes a game or two to figure out how to avoid the dreaded Death Spiral, and even experienced gamers can be bitten by it occasionally (usually due to a miscalculation of what other players will do). But with experience, it serves more as a cautionary warning, keeping you from borrowing too heavily. We very rarely have players threatened with bankruptcy in our games any more.

Mark, Volldampf was more of a horizontal redesign, and isn’t really a step on the path from Lancashire to AoS. I think it does some things better than LR and some things worse. Please don’t refrain from trying out AoS because of a poor experience with Volldampf; the two games are quite different.

As for helping other players with your shipments, I think this occurs far less often in AoS than it does in Lancashire (and, to a lesser extent, Volldampf). Building centrally located links in LR that your opponents will HAVE to use is, in many ways, the essence of the
design. Since you can build alternate links between two cities in AoS (as long as there’s room), this aspect is much less important. It does still happen occasionally, although it is usually foreseeable. It has the potential to decide a game, but in practice rarely does. I can think of many more games with more of a Kingmaking issue than AoS.

I’ve been able to play some AoS games in two hours and that would be ideal for me. Usually, it’s hard to keep to that schedule, and 2.5 to 3 hours is more typical. Still, the game is so good that I don’t begrudge the time spent at all.

By the way, I haven’t played any of the expansion maps for the game. I’d be quite willing to try some of them out, but the original is so good--and it hasn’t come close to being “played out” for us--that I’ll be perfectly content to stay with my U.S. map for the foreseeable future.

I rate Age of Steam as a 9 out of 10; one of my all-time favorites, which I’ll ALWAYS happily play. If I extended my ratings to halves that far up the scale, I might give it a 9.5; the game is that good.

Mogan Dontanville:

Mark, I really like Volldampf, and I love Age of Steam, but while the two of them certainly have some similarities (one is clearly based on the other),
I feel that they play quite differently from each other. I’d rather talk about why I like Age of Steam here rather than start a compare and contract essay between AoS and Volldampf, so I’ll make this brief. A number of elements makes Age of Steam play
dramatically different:

The tracks aren’t fixed, so there is freedom to create connections as you see fit.

The future goods are displayed openly, so you can plan your tracks and connections accordingly.

There is an encouraged investment into engines to deliver goods farther over more track, but there it comes a serious cost. You don’t get six free spaces of movement. So you will want to ship on your own track as a first priority, second priority to get any cubes over your tracks so give in and ship on other player’s tracks. Kingmaking is limited; rather this
works more like a fork in chess. Force people into suboptimal moves that help you, by superior play.

There are no “Magic Cards”.

Bidding for turn order isn’t just for the jump on some goods, but for claim on certain roles, this adds a huge level of depth. These roles open the game up to a whole new realm.

Urbanization opens up areas and creates new value in dead areas of the board, and can also be used to screw people out of points from track or abbreviate long runs.

Some resources begin with no value.

Army green is sexier.

Shannon Appelcline:

I have pretty mixed feelings on Age of Steam. I respect it as a game, but at the same time I’ve only played it twice this year (once last night) and I’d rate it a 6/10, because most of the time I honestly don’t want to play it.

The best element of the game is definitely the mixed tactics & strategy which have already been discussed. I enjoy building out my network, seeing it slowly grow. I got a big kick out of my web of track quickly spreading up and down the East coast of Ireland last night. I also enjoy the individual tactics of making a great move or two on your turn. Beyond that Age of Steam scores big points because of its variability. Wallace really did well when he came up with his goods movement system, with the goods laid out differently every game and the towns laid out somewhat differently due to urbanization. It makes each game fresh and exciting.

On the downside, I think Age of Steam is too long. Because of downtime I feel like the per-capita strategy is lower and overall I often feel like I get as much total enjoyable game play out of a 1-1.5 hour game as I do out of Age of Steam at 2-3 hours.

More importantly, for me personally, the analysis requirement is usually way too high. I don’t want to have to figure out how much money I’m going to spend every turn on track and costs (some of which aren’t set yet) before I can even start the round of play.

To a lesser extent the need to plan ahead for goods that may not even show up on the board for several turns makes the decision tree too deep.

Really serious players won’t mind some of these elements, but they still reduce the breadth of Age of Steam’s audience to not include many players, one of which is often me.

Larry Levy:

Shannon, with respect to you saying the analysis requirements are too high for AoS: I know you’re on record as disliking analytical games, so I’m not too surprised at this, but really, estimating your costs for the next turn isn’t rocket science. It’s just simple addition, and maybe an estimate of how some critical path or shipment will work out. When in doubt, just add an extra share; as long as this isn’t a frequent occurrence, it’ll rarely bite you in the butt.

The really difficult analysis is figuring out how the long, end-game deliveries will pan out. That’s the part I’m not so good at!

I think the calculation is a little more complex than simple addition, because you’re figuring out both present and future numbers: what’s my current income (present), what’s it likely to be at the end of the turn (future), what’s my current shares (present), what’s it likely to be at the end of the turn (future), how much do I want to build (future), what’s my present locomotive (present), and what’s it likely to be at the end of the turn (future). In between all of that there’s the potential need to figure out a couple of different scenarios for how good movement will occur during the turn, and how that could affect your present income and/or your need for locomotive size.

So, no it’s not rocket science, but I count seven variables you’re keeping in your head, half of them speculative, with several more getting added on if there’s the opportunity for opponents to mess up your plans for goods via a few different methods.

However I totally agree that the answer is just to add one extra share if you’re not sure. When I played last night, that’s exactly what I did. It’s generally a subpar tactic however. If I issue a share one turn early because I wasn’t sure, that costs me 1 victory point. If I do that 4 or 5 times during the game, I’m down 4 or 5 points, which is a clear margin of victory.

As I’ve said before, my problem with heavy analysis games is that I’m often not willing to do the analysis required to play optimally, nor am I able to let go and play suboptimally by not doing the analysis, which is a catch-22.

Generally I follow that up by saying people who play games *more* or *less* seriously than my weird middle ground will like the game better than I do. With Age of Steam I actually think that only people who play it *more* seriously than I can enjoy it because if you don’t do enough analysis in Age of Steam you can end up in bankruptcy.

In any case, I played both Age of Steam *and* Santiago last night, and I managed to keep myself from doing enough of the math that I had fun, and I racked up two second place finishes.

Morgan Dontanville:

Playing Age of Steam is like trying to date a supermodel. First of all she’s a real witch, she expects you to do all the work and as much as you put into the relationship her attitude is not, “What have you done for me,” but, “What have you done for me, lately?”

She likes to flirt and makes you think that you are getting somewhere, but in your heart you know that you aren’t really making all that much progress, and with one false move you are bounced out of the party. What’s worse is that there are two to five other
people vying for her attention, just as desperate for her love as you are.

She is streamlined and bony. She isn’t, initially, all that attractive, but there is something about her that pulls you into the way she is built. She is no nonsense, but she doesn’t like you a bit.

But she is fun. She gets you excited. She keeps you on your toes. She makes you feel like you are living on the edge. Every time you hang out with her you always have a good story to tell. She is a challenge. She rewards you.

I adore her.

Nick Danger:

You just made my eyebrow raise so high I got a cramp in my forehead.

I’m suing.

Larry Levy:

Morgan, the world of gaming truly would not be the same without your outrageous analogies. I do notice, however, that most of them are about women!

Pierce Ostrander:

Shannon and Larry are dead on… it’s not rocket science but it’s really fun! This calculation and its subsequent success or failure EVERY TURN coupled with the need to be the best optimizers to win are what make AoS such an edge-of-your seat nail-biter. That short-term part added to the long-term visualization and prediction of what the other players are up to (and need) make this game incredibly engaging. I break out in a cold sweat just thinking about it.

Some have complained about the problem of getting knocked out early and having to sit through a 3 hour game. In my view, this is a necessary “evil”. Without the harsh consequences and need for tight management to avoid them, the game would lose a lot of its high-octane crunch. What I hear about this game’s cousin “Railroad Tycoon” leaves me completely cold. It sounds like Age of Steam eviscerated. No auction? No role choices? No edge-of-the-envelop financial danger? No thanks.

Hey, there’s always playing for “not last” to keep you engaged. And for those of you who play games entirely for warm, cuddly, social reasons, why should this matter? ; )

Morgan Dontanville:

The first time I played this game I was in dead last, but I had a blast. My goal was to keep afloat until the end of the game. It was a challenge, and it was one of the most rewarding games I’d ever played. I finished with one point and I was happy as a clam.

Mike Pennisi:

The first time I played Age of Steam was 6 months ago and it was based solely on the fact that a lot of folks I respect liked the game. Railroad themes in a game are as exciting to me as watching the Senate Appropriations Committee on C-Span but I still gave it a try. After my first play I wasn’t even sure what I thought because I was so overwhelmed by the complexities of money management and route development. But I went home and I thought about it as I was falling asleep and then the next day I was still thinking about how to play-- that’s when it hit me that I really liked it. For me, Age of Steam has a special place because it’s only one of four games that have hit me like that (Puerto Rico, Power Grid, and MTG).

Larry Levy:

Wow, Mike, we should form a partnership to play Age of Steam. It sounds like your strengths match my weaknesses and vice versa. We’d be unbeatable, man!

Mike Pennisi:

For me the biggest obstacle to enjoying my first play of AoS was to “unlearn” the concept of efficiency. It seems so intuitive to think that since you are running a business, the shortest distance between two points is the best. It isn’t until the third play or so that my mind truly got a grip on visualizing twisted multi-link routes. Now I have to spend five minutes before my first turn looking at the board and the goods queue to see where the most productive routes on the board are. My usual strategy now is to set up a steadily link-increasing network of deliveries with the six-link deliveries not even on the board yet (Hopefully masking my plan). Accomplishing this expansion is not always approached the same way because it’s not always based on cube layout. Maybe I do need to build in a certain location on my first turn so I try to build first but maybe urbanization of a certain color in a certain place is the key. The important thing to me is not to think much about the current delivery or next turn’s but turns three and on.

The next obstacle in learning this game is the tightness of money. I had no idea how simple it would be to go bankrupt. Bidding effectively is the issue I still struggle with—how much value do I place on my turn order / actions. This is very situational and that’s where the real challenge of the game is.

Now after about 6 plays, I feel comfortable with the game and enjoy the challenges of the expansions. I highly recommend Germany. I still fail to see the value in replenishing goods since it’s a random draw of cubes and then you still have to wait for a die roll to put the cubes out - which means on the first & last turns it’s completely useless (if someone else mentioned this already I’m sorry I missed it and just read this sentence as “I agree with X"). Since this is usually a late game action anyway I don’t see these cubes paying off much. I think if you got to pick the cubes it would be a bit more appealing as a choice.

Larry Levy:

I agree that Production is a little weak and that adding more choice to the process would strengthen it. Maybe letting you draw four cubes and keeping two of them, or letting you have one cube of your choice and one random draw. But I’ve found the role can be quite useful at times, particularly if you have a lucrative portion of the
board sealed off, but the supply of cubes there runs dry. I’ve won a couple of games through judicious use of the Production role. Besides, Wallace has stated several times that he deliberately made the roles unequal, to make the auction more meaningful.

Mike Pennissi:

Taking in this whole game in one or two plays is a difficult challenge for the casual gamer and that’s what I think is the game’s biggest liability. For this reason it’s never going to have a wide appeal but for those of us who enjoy a deep game that needs repeated plays to appreciate Age of Steam is a joy.

Is Age of Steam like dating a supermodel? I suppose. I think playing this game like learning to work on a car, first you are overwhelmed by all of the parts and you get a lot of grease on your clothes and then, after time, you realize that every part is serviceable and logically placed (ok, not on a Honda) and you learn not to make a mess.

Jason Little:

(in regards to the roles being unequal) I’m glad someone mentioned this, as my initial post sorta’ alluded to this, but I wasn’t sure if it was my own personal perception or if there really were overall better role choices than others.

This unequal value would work out wonderfully if everyone had an equal opportunity to participate in the auction in a meaningful way. As it is, having unequal role *ensures* that those with resources to make aggressive bids will always have superior roles available, while those already trailing (ie, with less money to invest in the auction) will
always be resigned to selecting from among intentionally less valuable roles.

Larry Levy:

Jay, I don’t know how your games have played out, but nothing like this happens in our games. First of all, the “winning” player is not necessarily the one with the most money. He may have better chances for future earnings, or a sound track network, or less competition from other players. Having cash is good, because it allows you to accomplish things without borrowing much, but it’s very possible to be cash rich and be locked out of the best ways of spending it.

Second, if it’s essential that you get a good role and/or turn order in a turn, you take an extra share that turn. Usually, you’ll have a good idea of how much is needed in order to win the bid (or at least to place high in the bidding). The cost/benefit of taking on an
extra share vs. doing well in the auction is yet another interesting decision that needs to be made in the game.

Third, there’s the Turn Order role, which allows the player the chance to pass once in the next auction. This almost ALWAYS gives the player a good position in the turn order (second is very common) for no cost. Although this role rarely lasts to the end of the
auction, it usually isn’t among the first few taken, so trailing players in the auction will frequently be able to take advantage of this.

Age of Steam is NOT a “rich get richer” game. In fact, the concept doesn’t even particularly apply. There are times when I absolutely need to go first and other times when I can coast and conserve my money. Having some roles be more powerful than others is exactly analogous to having it be better to go first than last--it gives meaning to the auction.

Jason Little:

This facet ties in with my general dislike of games where the rich get richer at the expense of the poor. It’s a decision which further separates the “haves” and the “have nots” in the game arbitrarily. It punishes a poor move for the rest of the game (by being in a weaker bidding position for the admittedly unequal roles), instead of around the time of the mistake.

QUESTIONS: My dislike of the game has kept me from playing more often, but I’d be interested to hear from frequent players:

1) How long into a “typical” game do you first feel that a certain player is (for all intents and purposes) eliminated from potentially winning?

Larry Levy:

In most games, there is at least one player who looks as if he cannot win by the halfway point of the game or so. However, this can be misleading, since I’ve seen some remarkable comebacks in AoS (players opening up new portions of the board, or taking advantage of some long deliveries near the end of the game). So to really be accurate, I’d say you usually can’t rule anyone out until the penultimate turn. I’d say this is comparable or compares favorably to most eurogames I play; it’s rare that every player has a chance to win up to the end in the games I play.

Jason Little:

2) How many games usually break into two tiers of participants—those with a chance of winning and those with no chance of winning—by the halfway point?

Larry Levy:

Again, because of the potential for comeback wins, I’d say few. Sometimes a player has played poorly or has gambled and lost early on in a game, so they’ll have virtually no chance of winning by the midway point. Now, you did say “no chance”. In most games, you can look at the position at the halfway point and say, “These three guys all have a good chance of winning, while these two are longshots”. But I’ve also seen some of those longshot players come back and win.

Andy Daglish:

Martin, who lives very close, knows that the Production command doesn’t work, but no one has had a better idea. Another thing that didn’t quite work was the Income Reduction rule. The usual Wallace solution is to redo the game. So we move on to Railroad Tycoon, aka Wallace rail game #5.

Railroad Tycoon cleverly simplifies Age of Steam and solves the old problems at the same time. So, Production and its problem are made part of Urbanisation, which itself is connected to variable game end. VP, VP income, “share” income [actually bond income], running goods and the old “income reduction” thingy are bound together more closely, which makes it simple enough that it’s harder to complain about it credibly. Event cards make the game simpler still, as they remove the need for players to come up with original ideas ie. they play as the general manager, not the owner.

All this simplicity means you can’t afford to make a mistake. Simplicity makes the game fragile, and it also removes the excuse for making a mistake in the first place. This is the payback for asking for simplicity plus better game design. Another point of the same sort is that the better you play, and the more blocks delivered, the faster it ends. So no complaints about game length.

A weakness of Railroad Tycoon is turn order. You can bid for this, so if two players wanted an advantage dependent on going first they’d bid within one money of its worth. Clearly this is no good, if for example the benefit is staying in the game. As players rarely bid anyway, simple sequential turn order might be better. Another possible problem is caused by the profitability of different parts of the board, which varies considerably. Owning all of your own routes may not be the way to play, but certain events give bonuses for long fully-owned connections. The barbarian areas lie in the bottom left of the board [small by Eagle standards], either side of a line between Tulsa and New Orleans. The cities here are too small and too far apart for anyone [except a fifth, sixth player?] to ever build between them, and the events offer little encouragement. The golden spike rule which allows off-board links to the West is unlikely to be used unless a player builds the right links around Chicago. Playing in isolation or near-isolation from other players is useful, whereas other players whose networks conflict should trail. A last worry is that the game may not last long enough for the benefit of good play to show. Conversely there is a tendency for the first-past-the-post starting events to benefit the same player early, which allows that player to run away with the game. All this puts more into the realm of chance.

Plenty of scope for redesign!

Larry Levy:

Andy, are you saying that Martin no longer likes the *idea* of a Production role or that he thinks it needs revision? If it’s the latter, I’ve seen numerous variants that make the role less chancy, including the two I mentioned earlier. I’d have to think at least one of them would give Martin the level of control he’s looking for. If he just doesn’t want to include a Production role anymore, that’s different, although it does seem necessary. It isn’t my favorite part of the game (I’d have given the players more choice in the cubes), but I don’t really see it as a problem.

Morgan Dontanville:

People can spout out opinions of Martin Wallace all they want, but I’ve found the production option quite valuable. Last night I played a game where I had depleted all of my isolated cities’ potential resources. I drew two cubes, one that worked with my system, one that didn’t. I of course added the cube that worked into the pipeline and put the cube that didn’t in the front of another player’s pipeline where that cube wouldn’t work.

When we rolled, the spoiler cube was rolled rather than the cube that was needed for the other player, which bought me a little time. If you use this option to mess with other players if it doesn’t work out well for you it can become quite valuable. Certainly it
won’t be my first choice, but as a game develops it may be my second or third.

If I am in a situation where I’m not going to produce anything sometimes replenishment is the best cheapest solution. Especially, if you have other plans that don’t require any of the roles.

One of the reasons that I love Age of Steam is that I feel that the system is solid enough where the lesser choices sometimes become better choices. I find that this adds to the replayability of the game. The expansion maps with minor rule tweaks also add quite a
bit as well.

I think it is silly to say that a winner doesn’t have the advantage in Age of Steam. The Rich do get Richer. If you are in the red and you do nothing you will just get farther and farther behind. If you are in the black the game becomes much less stressful, you know that you are going to be pushed back no matter what you do (income reduction) but you
aren’t issuing as many shares and you feel confident in building more track. My feeling is though, why shouldn’t a game reward good play?

That said, I’m usually not that player. I find that if I am not, I take riskier gambits and try to push my situation to the breaking point. Sometimes it breaks and I get reamed, but sometimes I get myself out of horrible situations by making riskier moves. I just
get a kick out of trying out new things in games, and so far Age of Steam has allowed (if not encouraged) me to discover strategies based on the subtleties in the various interplays of the mechanics. I find fiddling with the system fun and rewarding even in last place.

About leaders in this game, I don’t feel that Age of Steam becomes easy for leaders, just easier. The wider your network becomes, the more people are picking away at “your” goods. It is easy to get worked, and you are put in a situation where you must
use other people’s tracks to keep afloat. When this happens, while you are trying to tread water you are bringing the laggers back into the game. Hence, the last place player suddenly can have their presence felt.

Larry Levy:

I agree with all this. Between the Income Reduction, which is most onerous for the leaders, and the way that the leaders are often targeted by other players, wire-to-wire wins in AoS aren’t particularly easy. Early good play *is* rewarded, but not so much that the rest of the game is a cakewalk.

Jason Little:

Excellent comments, Morgan. Despite my dislike of the game, I have resolved to give Age of Steam another shot since it’s so popular with my gaming buddies.

The sorts of insights and comments offered up by Morgan, Larry and Mike P and the rest of you have me thinking that either I’m trying to approach this too much like other games in my collection (setting myself up for disappointment) or that it could just be the first few games aren’t enough to see subtlety and nuance in this sort of design (which I freely admit happens frequently—with so many games competing for my limited time, I loathe investing several hours/plays just to determine whether or not I’ll like a game the Nth time around).

Shannon Appelcline:

I agree with Morgan; there’s quite a bit of rich-get-richer in this game, and I think it’s one of the game’s clearest overall downsides. And as Jason suggested, I feel like some people are eliminated from winning early, and that the game often does break into two tiers of players. Yes, a game should reward good play, as Morgan also says, but having things cut-and-dried halfway through a 3 hour game is a problem.

Larry Levy:

Oh, there’s no doubt that players who have reached the break-even point are better off than those who are still in the red. It’s also true that if you aren’t doing well in AoS, it’s a “poor get poorer” game (the debt spiral). But I interpreted Jay’s comments as a complaint that in AoS, the player who’s *winning* can maintain his edge through superior resources and that he can control the auction and therefore keep the juiciest roles for himself. That just isn’t the case, at least in my games. The player who is furthest up on the Income Track is *not* necessarily the one who’s winning. And even if he is, there’s lots of other ways for him to spend his money instead of crushing opponents in the auction. Remember, doing well in the auction is very expensive, as the top two bidders have to pay their full bid, instead of half like everyone else. And if you want to maintain your early lead, it’s essential that you keep expanding your track network. Constantly dominating the auction will more than eliminate the income advantage you hold and is usually counter-productive. It’s true that in AoS, like Settlers, you can lose the game early on through poor play. But if you get past the “infant mortality” phase and can keep your head above water (which is almost always the case with experienced players), you should be able to give yourself a shot at winning later on. Like I said earlier, I’ve seen quite a few huge comebacks in this game.

Andy Daglish:

In answer to Larry’s question: Martin knows there is a need for new blocks and also he has said verbally to me there is a problem for the reasons given below. To him this is obvious, and it is equally obvious that he wants the AoS reprint to sell as well as the original run, especially since it’s a high unit cost game. The official excuse of varying the worth of commands to stimulate bidding hardly applies to Production.

The Age of Steam system requires placement of new blocks, as otherwise the game stops.
It’s worth mentioning this requirement is much less pressing in Railroad Tycoon for a number of reasons. Here extra blocks appear anyway, in colourless cities when they are Urbanised to cities with a colour.

The Production rule comprises more than one layer of randomness, and any such rule will produce a reaction in a gamer allergic to bad design.

It is chosen toward game end when the other commands are of no benefit to the player, comprising about 2-3% of total commands chosen.

It can be of great benefit to any of your opponents, and it may be of no benefit to yourself. Again, poor design.

Its worth cannot even be estimated.

I have read lots of attempts at rewriting the Production rule, none were successful and I think this was because they had to fit the new rule into the pre-existing game. Wallace doesn’t have to do this, as unlike us he can get whole new games printed! The crudities of both the Age of Steam score track and the Income Reduction zones on it are handled much more finely in Railroad Tycoon. Good design.

This class of Wallace rail games can be played by borrowing either a lot or a little money. This is a very welcome feature. Martin himself often demonstrates the low-funding strategy, and perhaps it requires more knowledge and skill in the early stages.

When a good designer comes across an insoluble problem, he can eliminate the section of the rules that contains it. Say you have something which is 90% successful and 10% unsuccessful, but you just can’t get to 100% success. If you can eliminate that 10% by throwing away say 30 percentage points of the rest, what will you be left with? A product or game that represents most of your previous success, but to the buyer that is 100% of what he bought. In this case there’s no point worrying about what you discarded.

Morgan Dontanville:

Andy, I don’t get it. I see nothing wrong with production. I like that there is a little chance in the game. I am a fan of perfect information games, but with Age of Steam if production were included, as perfect information, it would be a little overwhelming.

I keep in mind production, sometimes I play the odds, but mostly I’m squeezing what brain juice I can get from the ol’ head turnip as I can, trying to keep all the other plates spinning. I like not having to be overly concerned with the production.

I find that Age of Steam is a beautiful kit. It is obvious that it is so when you look at the variations of a theme that the expansions offer. Recently, The France/Italy track came out and there is the option to draw two and place them on the supply board or draw one and place it on the board. If you really have issue with the original rules, use those rules for your regular game. Or, just use whichever rules you’d like. I feel that the core system itself is quite strong and can withstand manipulations of rules to suit your needs.

As for Shannon, I guess I don’t see things as being absolutely cut-and-dried. My feeling is that there are many games where if everyone is not trying to get first place the game breaks. In fact I would say that 2/3rds of the games out there are balanced for the mindset to reach for first. I’ve certainly played games where a consigned loser decides to go for 2nd and everything went to hell and the system creates bad blood, anger and frustration (Manhattan is the most obvious example of this, oh, how I’ve seen people squeal).

I don’t feel that Age of Steam works the same way. To me AoS exudes more the feeling of Civ where, while everyone wants to get in first, building their empire up is the ultimate goal. There is something special about Civ; you watch your one guy create an empire against all odds. To me, Age of Steam feels the same. You build up your rail empire as the system and fellow players beat the tar out of you and somehow at the end of the game, you accomplished something—you have something to show for it. I love that feeling. The only pure Euro that gives me that is Big City.

To me, I want to be in first place, but if I’m in the back of the pack halfway through the game, I create my own goals as I go. My goals can vary depending on the game:
1. I’m going to do everything in my power not to go bankrupt.
2. I’d like to get into the black.
3. I want to build a fun system to take advantage of the short routes no one wants.
4. I want to bump my engine up and shoot for long trips.
5. I’m gonna get those bastaches.

Andy Daglish:

Morgan, I think playing Railroad Tycoon will change perceptions of the AoS series. I hope the Eagle overproduction in an oversize box doesn’t put players off RT. Its simple, quick and good. I haven’t played the later AoS expansions, and I don’t have the latest. I just opened #2 and # 3 to see if there are any Railroad Tycoon ideas
in there, but it seems there are not.

Larry Levy:

I hope you’re right, Andy, but the comments I’ve heard so far about RT, from people whose opinion I trust, makes me wary. The biggest complaint involves the luck of the cards and the way it can overly influence the outcome of the game. At least one player said the final design was different from the prototype she played, so it’s possible that Eagle has modified Martin’s submission. I don’t have plans on buying RT, but I’ll happily play it if a member of my group picks it up and will do so with an open mind. I hope it’s as good as you say it is.

But no matter how good it turns out to be, I don’t think AoS is in any need of fixing. If RT turns out to be half the game AoS is, it’ll definitely be a game worth playing and another impressive design from Martin.

Morgan Dontanville:

Andy, I would love to hear your opinion of Age of Steam rather than your retelling of Martin Wallace’s opinion of Railroad Tycoon.

Shannon Appelcline:

I agree with Morgan that you can make your own goals in AoS if you’re trailing. However that softens a rich-get-richer problem, it doesn’t alleviate it. But good for AoS that it includes enough creativity and cleverness that you can sometimes have fun even if you can’t win.

More positively, I agree totally with Morgan’s statement about how AoS is a gaming kit, and that there’s room for considerable expansion & change. I was about to say something similar--that the regular release of new boards for AoS is a considerable strength of the system. If I liked AoS more and if I played it regularly I’d definitely own every expansion I could get my hands on, and I’d be slavishly thankful for their production.

Speaking of production, that’s an element on the bad side that I haven’t seen mentioned. I think it’s a real shame that Warfrog keeps putting out boards that have incorrect graphic design on them. There was the bad city in the original edition of the game, and from what I’ve seen one of the supplements (Germany?) is just filled with errors. That’s a really big failing for an otherwise professional design house.

Mike Siggins:

I can see that AoS would fit the gaming kit mould well, but in practice this is a theoretical benefit. It is tough enough to get games on the table in the first place, without getting all the players to agree to a variant. Even a small one. I suppose all groups are different in this regard, but the four I play in are generally firmly against them. Don’t get me wrong, variants are fun, and creative, but with limited application.

Shannon Appelcline:

Which is why it’s nice that AoS comes with pre-packaged variants, ala all the expansions, and so you can just say, “We’re playing ‘Age of Steam: Korea’” today.

Morgan Dontanville:

The original Detroit error, was irritating, but quite easy to figure out and fix. I would say that wrapping the scoring track around at 47 in the original edition is a bit more obnoxious. This is fixed now. The German board mistakes on the other hand are really purely cosmetic.

Even without the “corrections” you wouldn’t have any problem playing the German map as intended. There should be a white circle joining Essen/Dormund and Dusseldorf/Koln, but the rules state that you place your marker between the two cites, so the white circle is superficial and would only be there for clarity (having played La Strada you may mistakenly think that those game’s rules apply here). The color of the outlying cities is based on the cube that is on those spaces, each tile is brown instead of green. Big deal. They have an icon that denotes what they should do.

Germany should be black instead of brown, the brown is so dark that it seems to be grey and therefore passable as black.

My feeling is that Age of Steam isn’t going to appeal to anyone but a gamer, and certainly no one is going to buy the Germany map and AoS without being the type that wouldn’t mind looking up some minor FAQ.

Sure it is nice to have things done correctly, but by now Warfrog releases kind of have a running joke. If there wasn’t at least one error, I would suspect forgery (This said coming from a Warfrog fanatic).

If you want pretty and vapid, buy Ticket to Ride; if you want a game that makes you earn your victory, then there are few games, in my mind, that are going to beat out Age of Steam.

Andy Daglish:

Most Wallace games would benefit from more development and AoS is no exception. AoS and RT follow the same pattern.

AoS comprises some less successful features, among which there are such diverse elements as The Prod’n command, the Income/VP track, the harshness of the five-player, high skill/knowledge requirement, over-long game length with the related problem of maps that were too small, devolvement of the game as goods run out toward game end, the danger of going bankrupt and being eliminated from the game as a result, and also perhaps the inflexibility of bidding for turn order [a Wallace favourite] followed by once-per-turn-per-player commands. There are a number of compulsions in AoS that are either eliminated or relaxed in RT. This development of AoS contains a degree of cleverness
and that’s the best reason for buying any game.

Wallace has several professional desires. One is to be the only designer producing games that reflect what he is, namely half-war gamer and half-German gamer, though I doubt he wargames much anymore. Secondly he wants to replace high profile, commercially successful, critically questionable games of yesteryear with better designs of his own. So Runebound for Talisman, and AoS for 18xx, and new Conquest of the Empire for its faulty predecessor. Now he has done this to his own best product, bringing the benefits of the AoS system to a broader market.

“The luck of the cards” in fact involves those cards with a green circle symbol, and I think there are three of those out of a deck of 50 or so. In some games these bonuses will be necessary for those who have been forced to go for longer routes or bigger trains sooner than they would have liked. The rules suggest not playing with the cards, as they are not necessary.

Morgan Dontanville:

Andy, everything that you consider less successful in Age of Steam I would consider integral to my enjoyment of the game. It sounds to me that you want Age of Steam without the demanding attention that it requires—open spaces, no competition toward roles or goods, a system that is constantly producing, low skill, no danger. Age of Steam without these things would feel like more of an exercise in laying track rather than a game.

I haven’t played Railroad Tycoon, so I have no judgments on it. But you aren’t doing a great job selling it. I keep feeling that I’m reading a press release for Railroad Tycoon when I’m reading your posts. Frankly, I still wish that you would spend more time giving your opinion about Age of Steam. Why don’t you like the challenges of Age of Steam? How do they turn you off from the experience? Do you like game systems that are as brutal as other players? What don’t you specifically like about the mechanics and why? Is there anything you do like about Age of Steam? How have other players reacted when you have played it?

I don’t want this to sound like an attack; I am genuinely interested in what you have to say. I feel that it will be worthwhile; I’d like to hear what you have to contribute. Please, if you could, make it more personal, because I’d like to understand where you are coming from.

Richard Young:

I think the pro’s and con’s of AoS have been pretty thoroughly covered, but I can’t help feeling that some of the con’s have been thrown in out of contrariness rather than conviction (nothing specific to point to, just a feeling).

What hasn’t emerged yet (unless I somehow skipped through it) was a so-called “end-game” problem I’ve only seen references to, but not the specifics of the problem itself. I’ve not seen things break down at the end of any of our games yet, but it could be more playings are required or that our playing styles are such as to not trigger the whatever it is thing at the end.

In our discussion here so far, the criticisms seem more to point to early and mid-game issues such as early bankruptcies, rich get richer, or positions being decided too soon before the game ends. The worst most of those could create would be an anti-climactic end-game environment, not a broken one.

My reference earlier to the proposal I’ve seen regarding the addition of a “Financier” role to allow the buy back of shares could have been in response to a perceived end-game issue. I can see how the option to reduce your “misery” or “unrest” could spice up the end game play but there’s nothing so particularly broken with the current rules that it becomes a vital modification.

The depletion of goods cubes? Our games tend not to see that happen and that’s in games where the Producer role is seldom used to boot. We’ve found that the game ends with a few goods still unmoved on the board and a few still left on the goods display, which we think is pretty good design. We’ve debated making some mods to the Producer role just to jazz it up a bit but it would be minor tinkering at best and we’re pretty sure the motivation to select it would still be down below some of the others. However, most of our games have been four player, so could it be that this problem is one that is more likely to be encountered with more players?

All in all, it strikes me that any tinkering needed was accomplished with the 2nd edition rules, particularly the change to allow the placement of complex track tiles on undeveloped hexes rather than only as upgrades to existing track tiles. The basic rules set seems to have proven to be quite robust, in my view. Is there something I/we have missed here?

Tom Vasel:

There’s no question that Age of Steam is a deeper, “meatier” game than the majority of most Eurogames. There’s going to be people who dislike it simply because it feels unwieldy or overly “heavy” for them. I enjoy the game tremendously, but have to pick and choose the groups with which I play it carefully. Now that Railroad Tycoon has been released, I feel that there are more choices for players and that Mr. Wallace’s system can be utilized to its fullest extent.

Edited by Tom and Laura Vasel,
December 19, 2005
www.thedicetower.com

Posted by Rick Thornquist on Dec 19, 2005 at 07:54 PM in Special Features, Musings on... / 815

Musings on… Age of Steam (#24)

Comments: