Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!gatech!seismo!hao!hplabs!sdcrdcf!ucla-cs!rick From: rick@ucla-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.games.board Subject: Rail Baron ... revisited Message-ID: <7527@ucla-cs.ARPA> Date: Sun, 10-Nov-85 17:13:35 EST Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.7527 Posted: Sun Nov 10 17:13:35 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 12-Nov-85 06:26:02 EST Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Lines: 25 <<< not even-6-even-8, not even-6-even-8, ... argh >>> After playing a game of Rail Baron last night we decided something needs to be done about getting nailed with *bad* destinations. They can unfairly shift the game to one player, or make it impossible for some player to do well much less win. There was a suggestion made here some time ago about allowing a person to decline 1 of their first 3 destinations. We will give that one a try next game. We thought about the following: If these were real companies they wouldn't make a long haul run that would cost them a small fortune (eg. Miami without owning the SAL or the ACL). Instead they would pay some penalty and go somewhere else. The first suggestion we had was to allow someone to decline *any* destination, but their next trip would then be 1/2 price (ie. they would lose half the money they should make). And they could continue to decline, and continue halving (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, ...), until they got something they like. The problem with this is that a person with enough money to win would just keep trying to roll his home city as a destination. So we thought that it might work if they could only decline one destination when they were rolling for new destination, and would be stuck with the second one (and half the money). I am uncomfortable with this idea though. Anyone out there got any ideas? -- Rick Gillespie ARPANET: rick@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU UUCP: ...!{cepu|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|ucbvax}!ucla-cs!rick FISHNET: ...!flounder%tetra!rick@ichthys