Game Design Thoughts - Map sizes

I continue to toy around with my 18CO design. Spurred on a bit by finding an almost complete copy of 18GM in the basement of the other house. Components aren't really an issue with this one but the rules were. Much like 1869 there were a number of fairly innovative concepts built into what we referred to as the Aurora Rules and there was no way I would be able to remember what they heck we had done from memory. It will take some time but I can now get those rules from the original printing back into a computer file.

Fair warning, I do consider the following to be copyrighted material.

I have been working with a gentleman to create a custom map that will be the background for the game itself, if it gets that far. What you see below is the current iteration of that map, definitely not the final version. What I have been struggling with is how big the board should actually be. I have come up with three iterations; the 12 hex, the 15 hex and the 19 hex versions. These "measurements" refer to the number of hexes in the east/west hex rows.

This is the 12 hex map. This map means that the tile count would be relatively low. Its about the size of the 1830 map from Avalon Hill. My feelings at the moment is that it fails to capture the vastness of the state and would create some fairly serious funnels in the routes which would keep the replay value relatively low.

This is the 15 hex map. It doesn't sound like a huge addition but from a tile count perspective its a pretty big change. Its going to fall into the mid-to upper side of board sizes but it really helps spread things out and increase the number of possible routes as well as the allowing more towns/cities to be represented.

This is the 19 hex map. It seems absolutely huge. The tile count is going to go way up and from a printing perspective is probably going to create issues. It really shows off the vastness of the state and provides a lot of route options.

At present I'm leaning towards the 15 hex map as the best size to work with. I'll probably make prints of all three just to get a feel for game play.

Game Design Thoughts - Reference Material...Again

I have found that lately I have moved away from the majority of the reference books that I thought I would need for this little project. My initial thoughts were that books on specific railroads would be the most useful. In fact most of those books don't really include the kind of information that I'm looking for in regards to actually building track through the Colorado Rockies.

While books like the "Denver, South Park & Pacific Railroad" by M.C. Poor are full of detail and pictures and can be quite dense they often skip over the parts I'm most interested in which at this point is which passes did they survey and how did they determine what might be possible and what was not? I know that finances often played a large part in that determination. In theory you should be able to get a train over almost any pass if you have the money to do it. A nice theory which definitely does not define even begin to reflect reality.

My next reference foray is from a slightly different direction, mostly accidental googling. I found some references specific to mountain passes in Colorado that, at least the description say, include historical notations including if the pass was surveyed by a railroad. That's the theory part I'll know when the next deluge of books hits.

The best book so far is "Colorado's Mountain Railroads" by Robert A. Le Massena (Sundance Publications Ltd 1984). It includes a synopsis of just about every railroad that was built in Colorado, including timelines for each of them (some are quite short). It has helped bring about a fuller picture of the interactions when between the various railroads and how ownership of a railroad could have significant impact on other multiple lines. A few examples of this are the formation of the railroads like the Union Pacific, Denver & Gulf and the Denver, Leadville & Gunnison. Both of these were created by small Colorado railroads that were controlled by the Union Pacific Railroad and both of these were still controlled by the UP, until the UP went into receivership in 1893 at which point these were railroad conglomerate were appointed to different receivers and then were later bought and consolidated as the Colorado & Southern RR which was not longer under UP control. Initially the C&S was an independent line until it was purchased by the CB&Q in 1908 although it continued to operate as the C&S until 1982.

Or another interesting fact. The Denver & Rio Grande Railway was only part of the system envisioned by General Palmer. He also owned the Denver & Rio Grande Western which started building from Salt Lake City to the Colorado border. While both were controlled by Palmer, at least initially, they were two separate corporate entities. And to add further confusion to the mix the Rio Grande Western was also controlled by Palmer but was yet another corporate entity distinct from the first two, although eventually all three would be merged together. The are a myriad of reasons for why things were done this way but in the end it all comes down to finances and they very much robbed Peter to pay Paul to get there.

So while I wait for better information on mountain passes I'm trying to work my way through the labyrinth of financial shenanigans that could take place in the game!

Game Design Thoughts - Mountain Passes revisited

Warning this rambles more than a little bit

While I still feel that ignoring  mountain passes, even in an 18xx game, shouldn't be done. Yet I can't ignore how restrictive that makes the board. Will a restrictive board, from the viewpoint of laying track tiles, be fun to play on? Will there be a reasonable replay value?

I have read all of the comments I can find about the CO 18xx (Rock & Stocks) and I'm not sure that it even came up as a design element, although 3 tunnel companies were originally included in the early drafts and were eventually eliminated because no one used them. The question that comes to mind is that board may not be restrictive enough, especially when you see the amount of track that is seems to be laid in northwestern Colorado. Where is the compromise point?

Let's take a look at just a small area of the map and you can see how much is going in this portion of the board. I did expect this area to be more or less the center of the action since it includes Denver.

A little description. The multi point starts represent the passes. My first thought is that they should be located on the hex sides, so Tennessee pass needs to be moved a little bit. The red line, more or less, represents the continental divide, which is what most passes cross or tunnel through.

The big problem hex is the Golden hex. The area actually includes three major towns; Golden, Blackhawk/Central City and Boulder and four passes, one of which I haven't included (yet?); Rollins Pass, Loveland Pass, Argentine Pass and the missing pass is Berthoud. Of these four passes only Rollins pass was actually built over. Geographically all of this fits in one hex. The reality, on the ground so to speak, is that three of the passes can only be reached through Clear Creek Canyon which the Colorado Central (along with a couple of others) built through going west as far as Silver Plume (a little farther than that but close enough). Rollins pass was reach through South Boulder Canyon (kind of, sort of) between Golden and Boulder on the front range. Loveland, Argentine and Berthoud passes all would need tunnels built (long ones) to keep the grades at reasonable levels. Rollins Pass was actually crossed without a tunnel but that trackage was considered temporary while the Moffat Tunnel was being built (The tunnel construction started in 1923 and was completed in 1927, and the first train passed through in February 1928. It is the highest railroad tunnel in the US at 9,200 feet and still 2800 feet beneath the surface and 6 miles long). Even if the hex is reduced to two passes its going to require a special tile to represent the difficulty

Let's take the hex apart:

1) The first difficulty, three towns occupy the hex at the current map scale. I think Boulder can be safely eliminated, it was never on a major railroad route. Boulder sits in a rather steep valley at the base of the foothills making it difficult to serve by rail. Golden must be there even though its right next to the Denver hex, at the very least from an historical context and if the Colorado Central is used as one of the railroad charters then this would be its home hex. Blackhawk and Central City are strictly gold mining and can be represented as a resource providing revenue. It might need a custom tile.

2) The second difficulty, mountain passes. In the ground scale four passes could potentially occupy this hex with only three sides to work with; Loveland, Argentine, Berthoud and Rollins. Loveland Pass and Argentine Pass, if built, would to the west eventually into the same valley leading down to Dillon (they would roughly meet at Keystone Resort). Berthoud and Rollins pass take you north to Steamboat Springs. Rollins Pass is the only one that could be crossed without a tunnel (although that added 27 additional miles to the mainline, along with all the problems associated with trying to cross mountain passes in the winter). I think I could, in theory shift Argentine pass to an adjacent hex from looking at a map. But it still leaves the problem that Berthoud and Rollins would both need to use the same hex side.

3) The third difficulty revolves around trackage rights. For the moment lets just ignore the hex difficulties, and look at those. In most 18xx games track is really controlled via stations at cities and if you can trace a legal route to it you can use any track on the board as long as it connects to at least one of your station tokens. That rule should still hold true for the Colorado board, the difference is you need to determine who can use a pass and how to mark it. For example If the D&RG builds over La Veta pass (which is down south) then only the D&RG can cross it. However the D&RG should be able allowed to award trackage rights to other companies (either subsidiaries that it owns or those companies owned by other players). At the moment I'm thinking that every pass should have its own tile and every company should have an additional set of "control" tokens, to go along with their station tokens, they would be used to signify which company owns the pass crossing. But then the dilemma is how to show which companies have "trackage" rights over that pass.

Another situation, relatively common in Colorado history is two railroads banding together to form a railroad specifically to build through a particularly difficult stretch of terrain. The railroads would share trackage rights and, almost inevitably, one of the parties would buy out the other, usually when the partner when bankrupt). The more I think about it the more I like the idea of trackage rights if I can come up with a simple mechanism to reflect it. I could envision a game where the need to build track gets as cut throat as the financial side of the game. 

Ideas are still swirling.

Game Design Thoughts - Financial Shenanigans

If you are an 18XX player, especially 1830 and its variants, then you are aware of how volatile the financial part of the game can be. Between stock market manipulations and train rushes money can quickly run right through your hands in these games. And while Colin and I added even more, potential, madness to that in 1869 it doesn't begin to approach reality.

I'm still trying to figure out a good point in time for my version of 18CO to start, right now I'm focusing on 1870 or there about. I know for sure the Denver & Rio Grande Railway will be in the game and likely one of the public companies. I started jotting down notes about what was going on at the time. After a little light reading I don't even know how to go about recreating the kind of financial manipulations that were going on. Here are some quick notes that I took in about 15 minutes this morning:

1870     Articles of Incorporation filed in Colorado

1871    First Spike

1878    Loses the race to Raton Pass to the ATSF, both companies are in dire financial straits at this time. In an effort to stave off the creditors Palmer leases the D&RG to the ATSF. ATSF goes into a rate war with the UP which is controlled, at that time, by Jay Gould.

1879 Palmer files to break the lease of the ATSF due to poor management (true, ATSF is basically plundering the D&RG in the fight with Gould and the UP). The D&RG goes into receivership and Gould starts buying up stock to take control.

1880 In a deal brokered by Gould the D&RG cannot build south of Trinidad or Espanola NM. The ATSF cannot build into Denver or Leadville.

1882 the D&RGW (note that at this time the D&RGW and the D&RG are not the same railroad, Palmer created the D&RGW to build the Utah side of the empire that he envisioned) leased to the D&RG

1883 the D&RGW completes a through line to Salt Lake City, Palmer resigns from the D&RG but remains president of the D&RGW

1884 the D&RG goes into receivership again, trackage right agreement with the Denver, South Park & Pacific terminated since it has its own line to Leadville now.

1886 still under receivership the D&RG Railway is sold and reorganized as the D&RG Railroad, lease with the D&RGW is terminated

1890 D&RG completes standard gauging to Grand Junction via Tennessee Pass.

And these notes only are highlights and I didn't really get into depth with the financial maneuvering, like leasing your line to your biggest competitor, or Gould coming in and buying up stock to take control.

And I completely skipped the fight for the Royal Gorge, the ATSF used proxy railroads to build that line but the D&RG won the fight for the rights to the canon and acquired the ATSF proxy railroads. Pretty much makes the biggest 1830 shark look like a newbie at the game.

Game Design Thoughts - Research and Books

I think the best part of doing the researching is acquiring the necessary research material. In this case I have acquired a number of "new" books. An 18XX game based on a more historical basis appeals to me more than one that is just another variant of 1830 or 1829. While I'm duly impressed with 18CO; Rocks and Stocks it lacks the elements that I'm looking for. The best way to help define those elements and then decide whether those elements are to restrictive takes some research which means scouring the internet (almost worthless for this subject, but not entirely) and finding some good books.

Thankfully I already had some of books to help get the project underway:

Tracking Ghost Railroads in Colorado by Robert Ormes (8th printing), Century One Press, Colorado Springs CO, 1980

Denver, South Park & Pacific by M.C. Poor, World Press, Denver CO, 1949 (limited edition #336/1000)

The Switzerland Trail of America by Forest Crossen, Robinson Press, Ft Collins Co, 1992 (softback), 2nd Edition

The DSP&P was probably the largest narrow gauge system after the D&RG and its history is fascinating. Its a dense book though coming in 493 pages including some maps (which are getting more and more fragile). If you are fan of Colorado Railroad history this is a cornerstone book and while its a limited edition its not really hard to come by if you are willing to spend some money. Mine, unfortunately doesn't have the dust jacket and I would like to acquire a copy that does.

The Switzerland Trail covers the history of the two railroads that headed west from Boulder CO (not at the same time). The Greeley Salt Lake & Pacific and later the Colorado & Northwestern. Its a good example of the trials and tribulations of many of the smaller mountain railroads that were built to tap the mineral wealth of the Rockies.

Tracking Ghost Railroads is an excellent guide to the physical locations of the railroads along with how to get there. I recommend a good 4WD vehicle if you plan on doing that you can drive on a lot of the old grades that way (the accessible ones anyway).

The new acquisitions are:

Railroads of Colorado; Your Guide to Colorado's Historic Trains and Railway Sites by Claude Wiatrowski, Farcountry Press, Helena MT, 2012

Colorado's Historic Mountain Passes by Larry Rynearson & Rick Jones, Western Reflections Publishing Co, Lake City CO, 1975

Colorado's Mountain Railroads by Robert A LaMassena, Sundance Publications, Denver CO, 1984

Rio Grande...To the Pacific by Robert A LaMassena, Sundance Publications, Denver CO, 1974, 2nd Edition

Colorado Central Railroad; Golden, Central City, Georgetown by Dan Abbott, Della A. McCoy and Robert W McLeod, Sundance Publications, Denver CO, 2007

The Midland Route; A Colorado Midland Guide and Data Book by Edward M. "Mel" McFarland, Pruitt Publishing Co, Boulder CO, 1980

The first two really came up bust for me, not nearly the kind of information I was looking for its hard when you have to buy them site unseen. The rest will form a solid core for the library. There will be more books on the D&RG the Rio Grand to the Pacific is a bit more focused on the Utah lines but does cover the split and recombination of the D&RG with the D&RGW.

The Colorado Central is an iconic railroad that was heavily involved in the early days of Colorado Railroading. More along the lines of the Switzerland Trail, it had big ambitions and always seemed to fall short due to money and circumstances. It would eventually become a part of the Colorado & Southern RR.

The Midland is fascinating, another railroad that struggled financially for its entire existence it was the first railroad to build standard gauge rails into the mountains and its system was quite extensive.

So far though, I think my best acquisition is the Colorado Railroad Map by Linn Westcott for Kalmbach Publishing from 1943. Shows all the railroads, the abandonments and topography. Its 78 years old and in amazing shape and I managed to get it for $20. Best buy so far.

With all of this I'm starting to refine the map and try and work through what railroads should be included, and how they will fit together. At the moment I'm considering keeping the number of public companies low supported by a lot of minor companies and maybe even more than your usual number of privates. I'm also sure that everything will not be available during the opening rounds so I'm considering an "event" deck similar to what Colin and I used in 1869. Events aren't random but are driving by the purchase of trains. Will see how it pans out.

The prize in the box, well eBay. I have been looking for this for a while. I have found reproductions available online but they don't include the information on the back of the map and they tend to be expensive, as do original copies like this one.

This is why the back of the map is as important as the front, a complete (yet to be determined) list of all the railroads in Colorado.

And the front. I knew that Linn Westcott was big in the model railroading world for a long time I had no idea he was a cartographer as well.

And perhaps the most interesting find, from the internet, is this:

National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form

A: Name of Multiple Property Listing - Railroads in Colorado 1858 - 1948

B: Associated Historic Contexts - The Historical and Technological Evolution of Colorado's Railroads 1858-1948

Prepared by Clayton B Fraser, Principal and Jennifer H Strand, Research Historian

Fraserdesign, 31 August 1997

This little gem helps tie everything together, almost 300 pages of information, it helps break Colorado railroading into distinct phases which is quite helpful when designing an 18XX game of any kind.

Game Design Thoughts - The Map - First "Workable" Iteration

 

Here is the first iteration of the map that is approaching something that is at least workable. I'm sure there will be a lot of modifications to come. This one has a new image behind it and I'm pleased that I was able to pretty much remove the geological map I found and replace it with this relief map with almost no alteration. Just size it to fit. The added bonus with the relief map is I get enough of New Mexico to include Raton Pass and the southern bits of the D&RG route through northern NM and southern CO.

I like this image because it only includes the geographic features, no cities, no roads to deal with, just pure Colorado countryside. Each of the circles represents a town/city that may or may not be included. Red circles are included in other games (such as Rails through the Rockies and Tracks to Telluride) that I didn't think to include and I'm still unsure about including. Blue circles are towns/cities that I felt were important for historical railroad reasons, and green circles are common in all the games I looked at.

I know there are way to many cities on the board and probably at least half of them will have to come off. But one thing it does help identify is interesting geographic locations within the scale of the map. Two of the more interesting areas have three fairly important towns, from a railroad and/or revenue perspective all within the same hex. Lets start with the Denver area:

There are a lot of towns in this area that are geographically very close but fall into the "you can't get there from here" category. For instance to take the railroad from Denver to Dillon you would have to go south and come up through Fairplay to Breckenridge and then to Dillon.  There is a pass that would shorten that route; Loveland pass (because I don't think Argentine Pass is a viable route). I think that the route over the pass from the east is surmountable with a reasonable grade, but I'm fairly certain that the you couldn't get tracks down the western side. Its one of the areas that I'm trying to find old survey maps on, with little luck I might add. 

In addition you see two red circles in this area; South Park and Dillon. Just to be clear, there is no town or city in Colorado named South Park. There is an outdoor museum where a lot of historical buildings have been relocated to called South Park, but not an actual settlement by that name. Obviously that one will be removed. I believe that Dillon was only served by a spur so its likely going to be removed as well, even if I find a viable route north from that point, its just to close to Breckenridge which was more important from a railroad perspective.

Another interesting point is the hex containing; Golden, Boulder & Blackhawk. During the period the three only connected through Golden. Boulder was important, relatively speaking, because it was the gateway to Boulder canyon which had rich deposits of gold, silver and tungsten (which was important to the war effort in WWI). There was a railroad (the Colorado & Northwestern) that served the area and Boulder was the eastward terminus. Boulder was not part of any major routes north/south or east/west, Golden was important as the gateway up Clear Creek to the rich mining districts in Blackhawk/Central City and Georgetown/Silver Plume and a possible route across the Continental Divide. Not sure how I'll handle this hex, reduce it to one city or maybe keep two, something to mull about in my head for a bit.

Another interesting area is down in southwest Colorado in the Durango/Silverton area.

Silverton, Ouray and Telluride all exist in the same hex. But geographically you cannot go directly from one to another (well you can by car now, there is a highway between Ouray and Silverton but to get to Telluride you would have to take Black Bear Road from Red Mountain Pass, google that and you can see why they say 4WD only. You can still only get to Lake City through Montrose). In fact three little railroads would spiral out of Silverton, but only to serve the mines. In addition you can't really go from Lake City to Ouray or Silverton by rail either (I had a lengthy argument with another game designer that said from an engineering basis you could get a railroad up and over any terrain, which is certainly not true and even if you could would the financial outlay be balanced out by the potential income). Durango is the key here. There are rails through the Animas canon that will get your from Silverton to Durango but to get to Telluride you would then have to go through Dolores and Rico. From Telluride to Ouray you would have to go out of the hex again and come back through the adjacent side and Lake City is reached by a branch from an entirely different direction (I'm thinking through either Montrose or Gunnison, depends on which direction you are coming from). In theory you could put all three towns there and use a special tile to represent what's going on.

In the end some progress is being made. I probably should get back to the pass question before I start removing towns though.

This was the sign that was at the top of Red Mountain Pass. The sign was stolen so often the authorities stopped replacing it.

Game Design Thoughts - Working the Map

This is the original logo that Colin and I devised for our line of 18XX games. We had grand plans!

There comes a time when you just have to buckle down and put something on paper, or in this case on the screen. For experimental purposes I'm doing this in Visio, not the greatest platform for this kind of thing but I'm very familiar with it and it will do the job, although ultimately not in a format really fit for publication, if I ever get that far.

One thing that makes the map process a little easier is the fact that Colorado is a rectangle with perfectly straight boundaries. None of the borders with the neighboring states following geographic features, like rivers, as a lot of state boundaries do. Colorado is the 8th largest state in the United States, the northern border follows the 41st line of Latitude and the 37th line of Latitude on the south. The eastern border is, basically, the 102nd line of Longitude and the western 109th line of Longitude (+/- a bit). The state measures 380 miles from east to west and 280 miles from north to south.

I decided that the easiest way to approach this was to decide on a scale for the 1 1/2" hex overlay, and I arbitrarily started with 25 miles, flat side to flat side. With that value set (the value "r" in the formula for hexagonal calculations) I could figure out how many, approximately, hexes I needed for the east-west dimension. The final result was 14 1/2 hexes. The north south is always more difficult to determine since you are measuring point to point, but you need to  consider the hex overlap so just dividing by 28.87 would get me in the ballpark. I ended up with 12 rows of hex running north-south which gives a rectangle that looks about right.

There are four major rivers that flow out of Colorado's Rocky Mountains; the South Platte, The Arkansas, the Rio Grande and the Colorado (originally named the Grand River important to know if you are looking at old maps). For now I'm ignoring the rivers, the reality is that only the Colorado River is a true obstacle, the others tend to only be obstacles during the spring run off. They will definitely be features on the map when (if?) I get that far with this little project. Then I need to add the cities, not something I was looking forward to.

To start I took the latitude & longitude for Denver and measured about where I would expect it to fall on the map, but didn't want to go through that process for all the towns and cities that might be needed. To make the process a little easier I found a geological map of Colorado from 1913. It solved the problem, it included towns and cities but didn't really show roads which tend to obscure details. It did, however, include the rail lines that existed in 1913 so I could see which towns I could consider including. What you find, which I think I knew in the back of my mind, is a north-south corridor of major cities along the front range and a concentration  of towns in areas of heavy mining or agriculture. 

This exercise allowed me rethink the towns I was thinking of including, some just didn't exist in 1913 or were to small to even be included. Some towns that I didn't think of including are important from a rail service standpoint and others are so clustered together that I will have to adjust their location or exclude them altogether, decisions, decisions. Back to the map. I downloaded a high resolution copy from the library and inserted as a picture into the Visio file I built. Using the picture as a background image I placed the hex grid over it and adjusted the size of the image to fit the borders I had determined. It actually worked really well, the proof being that Denver ended up almost exactly where I expected it to. I then used the map to pinpoint the towns/cities I wanted and within a couple of hours I had the beginnings of a useful map.

With the railroads printed on the geological map I think I can pinpoint the passes that were actually used, although they are not named on the map. I know most of them already its just a matter of translation. The hard part will be determining passes that were surveyed and could have been used and passes that were surveyed and were not viable routes. For instance Berthoud Pass was surveyed but not used, it would have required a 3.5 mile long tunnel to be a viable route, however Rollins pass (known as Boulder Pass at the time) was dismissed as a viable route in 1864 but construction began to in 1903 (and completed in 1904) to get over this "insurmountable" pass, while a 6 mile long tunnel (the famed Moffat tunnel) was built (construction on the tunnel didn't begin until 1920 and the first train rolled through in 1928). Things to ponder.

With thoughts of republishing 1869 I have fully transcribed the rules back into a word document. Now I need to start rebuilding the board. I just need the right software, something that would be equally useful the Colorado game.

Game Design Thoughts - Researching where the research is

 

I continue to work my way through what I consider to be one of the main features of any game, 18XX or otherwise, that features railroads in Colorado; mountain passes. I acquired a book last week, "Great Surveys of the American West" by Richard Bartlett, and while the focus was, indeed, on railroad surveys it was more on the surveys developed for the transcontinental railroad rather than the surveys for the railroads that would build into the Colorado Rockies. It is still an interesting book just not quite what I was looking for.

Another "book", more of a pamphlet really, provided quite a bit of useful information, but it would have been a lot more useful if it had included the map that had accompanied the original survey. The rather long winded title is "Union Pacific: Report of F.M. Case, of Surveys of Cache La Pondre & South Platte Routes and other Mountain Paeese in Colorado". And I intentionally left the misspellings in the title. Pondre should be Poudre (in Colorado we pronounce that as pooh-der) and Paeese should be Passes. Fortunately those errors were introduced by the printer that reproduced the report and you can find it all correctly spelled on the internet. Its quite a fascinating little document and it shows the difficulty in researching some subjects. For instance one of the passes explored (actually not explored) is Boulder Pass. On a modern map you are unlikely to find "Boulder Pass", with a little digging you will find Boulder Grand Pass in Rocky Mountain National Park but that's not the Boulder Pass in the report. The Boulder Pass mentioned in the report is what we now call Rollins Pass. Rollins pass was on the route used by the Denver & Salt Lake Railway before the Moffat Tunnel opened in 1927. The pass has had a number of names since its discovery including; South Boulder Pass, Boulder Pass and Corona Pass (I don't know which one is first, and Corona Pass seemed to be a later attempt to rename it from Rollins). I was verify the actual pass  from the USGS publication "Historic Trail Map of the Denver 1° x 2° Quadrangle, Central Colorado" by Glenn R Scott. There are a number of these historic trail map publications by Scott and I have most of them in PDF but I would love to get my hands on the physical publications (of course, no longer in print). Which brings me back to the map. There was a least one map that went with the F.M. Case survey report and perhaps two. Getting my hands on that map would help me determine if there is a viable railroad route into North Park from the Fort Collins area as he actually redlines potential railroad routes that may be worth surveying.

As I have mentioned before, in these game design ramblings, I do feel that the use of mountain passes and the restriction it causes in building viable routes is very important if you are going to capture the feel of railroading in Colorado. One of the things that bothers me with Ryan Driskel's "18CO, Rock & Stock" is how much track gets laid in northwestern Colorado and how little is laid in southwestern Colorado based on the in-game progress pictures that I  have seen posted. Granted I'm restricted to what has been posted, but like a lot of 18XX games there are patterns that tend to be very consistent. To be fair I have not played Ryan's version yet so I don't have first has hand experience with his game at this point. I am viewing  it from the lens of how the railroads developed in Colorado and development in the northwest was very light and it occurred very late in the Colorado's development. I back this up from a document I found written for the United States Department of the Interior National Park Service titled "Railroads in Colorado 1858-1948. There is a sequence of maps in this document that shows the development of the rail network in Colorado.

1870 Map
All maps are screen shots from the Department of Interior Document and originally appear in the Encyclopedia of Western Railroad History by Donald B. Robertson

1875 Map

1880 Map

1885 Map
Finally a connection to the west, but not a true transcontinental route as it connects Grand Junction with Denver via the Denver & Rio Grande and then to points east over the larger railroads like the Union Pacific.

1890 Map

1910 Map
This is the first map that we see activity in the northwestern portion of the state. The Denver & Salt Lake Railroad opens in 1902 and crosses Rollins pass in 1903 to finally break into northwestern Colorado looking for a more direct route to Salt Lake City. It never advances beyond Craig 

1915 Map
This is pretty close to a "finished" version of the rail network in Colorado. After this there are mostly realignments, mergers and major abandonments.

This sequence of maps reveals a couple of things; the development of the rail network was primarily north to south in the early years, then expanding east to west to create a secondary transcontinental route which would eventually hook back up with the Union Pacific in Utah. The mining industry was the big driver for the railroads, first for silver (central Colorado), then for gold (central and southwest Colorado) and later for coal (northwest Colorado). The question becomes how to really drive an 18XX game to achieve something that is both somewhat historical and fun to play. And those are only the first elements that need to be dealt with. I'm still thinking that the map needs to come first and then the rest can follow.

 

Game Design Thoughts - 18xx Games - Thoughts on a Colorado board design

In most of the 18xx games that I have played terrain is not usually an issue. There will be a number of mountain hexes that will require some payment of funds and the occasional open ground tile that has a price associated with it (I'm guessing some type of terrain that needs more grading, cuts, fills and/or bridges). For example, the original 1830 board has 11 hexes with mountains and 8 hexes with water obstacles that require payment to lay the initial tile on the hex out of a total of 75 hexes where tiles can be placed. That's about 25% of the board with features that require the corporation to pay for the initial tile placement. After a tile has been placed upgrades to green and russet tiles are free.

On the original version mountains are represented by the triangles and the water ways by the dark blue.

The ratio of tiles requiring a payment as opposed to those that are free is going to reverse for an 18xx game set in Colorado. Without really pulling out a map I'm guessing that 75% would require payment and 25% would be free. The question then becomes how do you handle the mountain passes or should I just ignore their presence. There is certainly going to be a certain number of hexes that are completely impassible, which created a "pass" rush, as the major players competed for the best passes to get across the mountains. I think I could safely ignore some of the lower passes like Raton and Monument Hill and those would just be represented as a charge to place the tile. And maybe that's all that really needs to be done. Maybe a note on the map to indicate elevation and that would be it.

It does mean that the railroads are going to be more strapped for cash than in other 18xx games which makes the concept of the refurbished trains all that more appealing.

Game Design Thoughts - 18xx Games - Thoughts on Trains

Avalon Hills' 1830
The original box

The original 1830 board

I am a board game fan of long standing and my favorite genre are railroad games (well and Clue) of just about any type. Of those I would say that the Empire Builder series and the 18xx series are my favorites followed closely by the Ticket to Ride series. The first of the 18xx games was 1829 which I think was first published in 1974 by Francis Tresham. There would eventually be two versions 1829; the southern board and the northern board. I did not get involved with this style of game until 1830 was published by Avalon Hill in 1986, also designed by Tresham but heavily influenced by American players and while 1829 and 1930 share some common characteristics, 1830 has a more cut-throat feel to it in the stock market design. My first wife's father, Colin Barnhorst, was one of the early 1829 players in the US and always had a keen interest in the changes made by Tresham (I think there were 7 small expansions to 1829 eventually). Eventually this interest would move to game design and in 1996 worked on our own 18xx designs; 1869 The Golden Spike, 18GM Gamemaker and a version of Japan (which seems to have disappeared into the depths of Colin's computer). We self published the first two titles and Japan was never published, even the copy we were playing seems to have disappeared.

The basic concepts of players "floating" companies and operating those companies to generate the most wealth at the end of the game is pretty basic amongst the entire genre. There are other common concepts.  Once "floated" Companies buy and "run" trains. Those trains run routes which are created by placing track tiles between cities allowing the trains to run the routes built between the company's stations and those cities. A player can then choose to either pay dividends to players that own stock in the company (and thereby increase the share value) or hold the revenue and put it in the company's treasury (and thereby decreasing the share value).

Companies need money to buy trains, pay for the placement of station tokens and sometimes to pay to lay a track tile (usually in a mountainous area). The company's initial funding comes from stock sales when 60% of a company's stock has been purchased then the company has floated and the money used to buy the shares goes into the company's treasury as its starting capital. Trains are the driving force behind creating revenues for companies and players. A company without at least one train cannot generate revenue which will drop the value of the company's stock value as well as the player's wealth. If a company does not have a train it must purchase one, at least, from its own treasury. If it does not have enough money to purchase a train then the owner (i.e. the controlling player) must add his own money to the treasury until a train can be purchased. Forcing a player to use their own funds to buy a train is a pretty standard tactic either to reduce the player's wealth or even to force a bankruptcy which in 1830, and in most of 18xx games, ends the game and the players total up their wealth to determine the winner.

In their most basic form trains have two characteristics; the number of stations they can run to and the cost to purchase. In some 18xx versions the later trains are sometimes marked as permanent, the "rusting of older trains is another pretty standard concept of the genre. The smallest train and the only one available at the beginning of the game is the "2" train. The 2 indicates that the train can run to two stations, one of which must have a station marker from its company on it. Simply add up the value of the run and decide to hold or pay dividends. If the company pays dividends each players receives 10% for each share of stock that they own. If the company holds it then the full amount is paid into its treasury. In 1830 there are 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, (I'm looking at the most current printing of 1830 by Lookout Games, in which 7s are included for the expanded version but are not used in the "classic" version of the game so for our purposes there are no 7 trains) and "U" trains. The "U" train is a diesel and has unlimited range. There are a couple of restrictions; as stated a train's route must begin from a tile that holds one of the company's station markers, it cannot use the same track twice (i.e. if you have two trains they may share the station marker but they cannot use the same route) and it while its end point can be a station with another company's station marker it cannot pass through that station (it will be the end point of that train's run). The cost to buy it is simply printed on the card, whether it is a permanent train or not is sometimes printed there but there is always a chart that show when a train "rusts" out. 

In 1830 the first permanent train is the 5, however, a player can not just decide to buy a "5" train. All of the trains before it must be purchase first. This is a another basic concept. All of the 2s must be purchased before the first 3 train can be purchased.. All the 3 trains must be purchased before the first 4 train is available. Upon the purchase of the first 4 train all of the 2 trains are obsolete or "rusted" out and are removed from the game. There are lot of consequences about to ensue when that 4 is purchased as some companies may suddenly be without a train. A player, and hence companies they control, needs be in a position to acquire a permanent train or in a position to "dump" a cash strapped railroad with no trains on someone else (which leads us back to the stock market and all of the manipulation that can happen there). This "run" on trains in 1830 can be devastating if a player is not prepared for it and it can happen quite quickly. There are other 18xx games where this train run is more manageable.

That was a pretty quick introduction some of the basic 18xx concepts. The one I'm beginning to question is the concept of "rusting" or obsoleting trains. Is it really necessary to "rust" trains to drive the game forward? Over the last month or so I have been dabbling on a concept for an 18xx game based on Colorado, I'm not sure there is a gamer there yet but the research I have done has stirred up the train question in my mind.

The cover from the Mayfair Games edition of 1830. Note the 18XX label in the lower right hand corner

The components to the Mayfair 1830 edition. The calculator is not included, or really even necessary.

An 1830 game in progress.

Let's look at a little historical research around the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad to see if there is any real historical validity, at least for a Colorado game, to the rusting train concept. Again rusting is the concept of trains going obsolete. Let's see what the D&RG thinks about that concept. The information here is just for the standard gauge portion of the line.

The D&RG started in 1881 and initially laid rails south from Denver towards Colorado City (which if I remember correctly also helped finance the D&RG), only to stop short of that destination and build its own town of Colorado Springs (something that would become a pretty standard tactic for General Palmer and the D&RG). In the beginning it is equipped with 4-6-0 Ten Wheelers and it continued to purchase Ten Wheelers through 1908 (27 year time period). The original batch is removed or scrapped in 1906, but the rest remain in service until 1924 and some of the last Ten Wheelers purchased last until 1948 (either on the D&RG or sold off to other railroads). So what might start as a 2 train in 1881 continues in service for 60+ years. Let's also keep in mind that the D&RG would move completely to diesel locomotives in 1956 at which point it scraps or sells off all of its steam locomotives.

In concepts of service that means the two trains would operate when the 3 train comes into service (in this case let's say that is the 2-6-0 Mogul), in 1891 and most of which were scrapped or sold off in 1924. Our first 4 train would be the 2-8-0 Consolidation which first comes into service in 1888 some of which would last until 1956. With the basic idea being that the advent of the first 4 train should remove the 2 trains, pretty much gets tossed out the window with that bit of fact. Technically, at least in 1830, the first player to purchase a diesel locomotive can trade in a "4" train for a reduced price.

The first 5 train would most likely be the 2-8-2 Mikado first introduced in 1912 and staying until 1956, when they are removed from service with the advent of dieselization. That hardly makes them a permanent train in that respect. There are a couple of choices for a 6 train, either the 4-8-2 Mountain or the big 2-8-8-2 Chesapeake. The issue here is that the Chesapeake proceeded the Mountain class by 9 years. The first Chesapeakes began operations in 1913 and the first Mountains in 1922. And again both of these were out of service in 1956 with the switch to diesels. From an historical timeline our 4-6-0 "2" train lasts through the introduction of every other numbered train not truly being obsolete or "rusted" in the same way that they are treated in the game.

Research is still in the beginning stages at this point, I don't know how the other major (or minor) railroads will compare when I look at their steam locomotive rosters and when they dieselized their locomotive fleets. This could show that the D&RG (later the DRG&W) is an anomaly rather than the rule.

When we designed 1869 Colin and I introduced the concept of refurbished trains. As a steam locomotive went through its useful life cycle it did go through near continuous upgrades to extend its lifespan. There is little doubt that locomotives purchase in 1887 and lasting through to 1924 had to go through some kind of improvement to be worth operating for a 36 year period. In 1869 if you had a "2" train and the first "3" train has been purchased then all the "2" trains could be refurbished or upgraded to a "3R" train for half the price of a regular 3. A train could only be refurbished or upgraded once. We also allowed the upgrade of "3" trains to "4R" trains. By extension, and based on what the D&RG did, almost all or at least most trains could be upgraded to their "R" equivalent, with the possible exception of 6s and 7s. I think this would reduce the impact of trains rusting, making train "runs" less volatile. But would it move the game forward fast enough or just drag it out? These are already long games, is it worth possibly making it longer for any real added value?

The research will continue. Some of the other concepts for an 18xx game based on Colorado would be mountain passes and, of course, narrow gauge track. I'm not sure if there are any 18xx games out there that deal specifically with mountain passes but there are at least three that utilize the concept of narrow gauge track (or tiles in our case). So more muses to come.