Yesterday, I was prompted by Nate to think about why I prefer Age of Steam to Railroad Tycoon. More importantly, the following is a discussion about why I think that Age of Steam is a better game for all levels of players than Railroad Tycoon. I have now played 5 games of Age of Steam, my hottest game of the moment, and very likely to be one of my all time favorites. I have also played Railroad Tycoon 3 times, but I have no desire to play it again after playing Age of Steam. Although there are many differences between the two games (both major and minor), in my opinion, the most important differences are the introduction of cards to RRT and the altered mechanism by which players issue shares.
In RRT, players can issue shares at any point in the game, and they can issue as many as they want. In AoS, there is a dedicated phase at the start of every turn where players issue shares in turn order and a player can never go above 15 shares. What does this do? This means that at the start of each turn you need to think about how much money you need to spend on turn order, what special action you want in the turn, how much track you want to build, how many goods you suspect that you will be able to transport in that turn, if you will increase the power of your locomotive, and how much you will owe at the end of the turn. And if you get too many of these calculations wrong, you will fall back on the income/VP track. Finally, in AoS, if you ever fall below zero on that track, you go bankrupt and are out of the game. Add the unforgiving turn order auction mechanic into the mix, where the last two players to pass both pay their full bids, and you can see why some people claim that AoS is the harsher of the two games.
I am a bit rustier on the exact details of the RRT system for bidding and turn order selection, but I do know that, since a player can issue shares at any time, they can never go bankrupt. Yet this does allow for a new (or experienced) player to essentially take themselves out of competition by issuing way to many shares, something that can happen in AoS but is mitigated by the player elimination.
Look, player elimination via bankruptcy is unforgiving and if you are playing for the first time or if you are experienced player teaching the game, why would you not allow for a simple house rule that does not allow for bankruptcy. I suggest that, if you are the experienced player teaching the game, you tell the other players that elimination is a possibility and that they can go bankrupt if they bid too much on the auction, spend too much on track, don’t issue enough shares, etc. BUT, in the back of your mind, know that you will allow for a simple house rule if bankruptcy is about to occur. Let that player issue shares, but instead of $5/share, only give them $3/share. Again, this player may or may not be in competition for the remainder of the game, but one of the things I love about this game is simply building track and shipping goods. If you can’t enjoy that basic element, then train games probably aren’t for you anyhow. My second and third games of AoS were with very good players and I did not stand much of a chance of coming in first. But I had a great time. Why? Because I was shipping goods and building a network (and because I made my own goal of successfully managing my shares and not going bankrupt).
Played in this fashion, AoS stops being the unforgiving game of legend (at least among first timers). Believe me; bankruptcy is important in the game. It is essential that the fear of elimination keep you from overbidding or wasting money in the game, but it is not essential that you do this to someone who is new to the game (in my opinion).
In my mind then, the one huge reason that player shun AoS can be fixed very easily if the need arises. But I stated that RRT may actually be more difficult for beginners than AoS. I believe this because of the introduction of action cards and special income/VP cards to RRT. If you know me, you know that I generally dislike games with too many cards. I don’t like them because players who know the deck and distribution of cards will do better than those who do not. Every game of RRT that I have played has required a 10-15 minute discussion about the cards that will appear throughout the game. These cards help to determine what routes may be valuable later in the game, what cities may get extra cubes, and ultimately what some of your future goals should be. As a newcomer, I listened to the cards, but I really didn’t understand their impact to the game or to what my game/goals should be. I was really overwhelmed with the basic mechanics of the game to pay attention to or memorize the cards that would come up later in the game. Because AoS lacks these cards, and because all of the rules and victory conditions in the game are explained up front and remain unchanged throughout the game, I think that it is easier to learn for the first time (even if it is harder to master).
Two more minor details. The set end game condition of AoS is better, in my opinion, since each player knows to what end they are striving to. RRT has end game conditions, but they are not set, which has led to at least one game that I played in where everyone was ready for the game to be over, but it kept dragging on. Thus the “simpler” and “quicker” game ended up taking much longer than my average games of AoS have taken.
And the map for RRT is too big. This problem will be (or has been) fixed with future expansions and editions of the game, but it really is a hindrance to getting the game to the table. AoS maps vary in size, but even the largest maps pale in comparison to the monstrosity that comes packaged with RRT.
And there you have it. In sum, RRT is often described as “AoS light”; a statement that I hardly believe is fair. In fact, if you want an “AoS light,” I would highly recommend Volldampf, a discussion for another time. RRT, in my experience, takes longer to play, is spatially more difficult to play, and is actually more difficult to teach to beginners because of the card mechanic in the game. Finally, although it is unlikely that a new AoS player will beat a table of experienced gamers, it is much more likely that they will be able to in a game of AoS than in a game of RRT, where the new player is probably going to undervalue the special cards that will come up throughout the game.
Case in point, my friend Dan played his second game of AoS at a recent GCOM event, and ended up beating a very good player through skilled play and knowledge of simply the rules of the game. To do this in RRT, you not only need a grasp of the rules but of the cards that will come up in later turns. When Dan and I played RRT against some very good players, they trounced us. They played better, but they also knew how to use the cards and what cards would come up. This advantage is very difficult to mitigate, and forces someone to play the game multiple times to stand on even ground. The AoS system certainly promotes this dedication, but it does not require it. For that reason, among many more, I think that it is a better game for both new players and for experienced players.
No comments:
Post a Comment