Monday 18 March 2013

When Wallace is not Enough

Railways of the World had sat in my cupboard since it arrived as a birthday present from my mum. We've played (Big) Joe's copy recently of course, but knowing it was there, unplayed, a world of track and trains waiting to be discovered, meant I kept thinking that perhaps I could play with Stanley one day. And so yesterday afternoon we did. We also roped in Sally and (Little) Joe, who agreed with varying levels of diplomacy and enthusiasm. I set up the Mexico map and attempted to explain the rules - a simplified version, not including cards - and, hoping to avoid getting into bonds, gave each team $30,000 starting money.

Joe fairly quickly lost focus and spent his time doing some reasonably gymnastic wriggling on Sally's lap, calling out random words from a language of his own devising. Sally was dumbfounded by the idea that you could only ship one cube, so for the sake of expediency we said it could be as many cubes as you want, as long as they were the same colour and making the same journey. She also thought it was weird you couldn't build over existing tracks, a criticism I ruefully admitted was fair, but I wasn't going to budge on that rule.

So the Greens (Sally and Joe) immediately built an enormous track down the East Coast, costing them $17,000. Stan and I went small and local, building to Mexico City through the mountains. We were off!



However because of the nature of the game and the players in this particular instance, play proceeded as an elongated explanation of rules, punctuated by Joe deciding that flicking cubes across the room was more entertaining... and I sort of agreed at this point, and the game continued with a large degree of unthematic child wrangling.

As Mexico started to take on a raggedy look and various cubes made their way under the furniture, we decided that Sally would take Joe elsewhere and Stanley would swap sides, taking over their green trains. I realised at this point though I hadn't taken a single bond I didn't have much left to ship, whereas the expensively assembled green tracks (now with added bond) were ripe with unflicked cargo. Stanley at my suggestion upgraded his engine several times and shipped it all. Though he understandably didn't fully comprehend the Wallace-isms of the rules he did get into the track laying and liked finding a way to ship his yellow cargo a full seven links.

Joe occasionally wandered back in to examine to track hexagons, but on the whole it was a more sedate affair, and we ended with 9 empty cities with Stanley well ahead on the track (albeit both of us probably missing points in haphazard scoring). However I still didn't have a single bond - could I edge it as his investing took its toll? - No. When Stan's 11 bonds were counted up, he remained a single point ahead of me.

Stanley (plus Sally and Joe) 54
Sam (plus Stanley) 53

Perhaps I pulled this one out a year or so too early, but Stanley seemed to enjoy it. And when Sally dropped out she made biscuits.


3 comments:

  1. There must be a need for variants of Eurogames for the very small. I was impressed that Stanley liked it, and not surprised it was the route-finding part he enjoyed most.

    I'm also very impressed by your lack of bonds. A complete turnaround after your last cash-happy episode.

    I think Joe's idea of flicking cubes may have something... Ascending Railways, anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  2. There is Kids of Catan . . . but I've no idea if it's any good. Probably not.
    I'm impressed at your ambition Sam! What did Sally mean by building over existing tracks, though - you can build across existing ones using the complex bits. Or did she mean pulling up your own and re-routing them?

    So what's next on the "games to teach the boys" list? You seem to have skipped a couple of stepping stones . . .

    ReplyDelete
  3. D'oh! So you can build over track? That makes sense. I don't know why it hadn't sunk in or what I thought those bits were for. Clearly it's not just little kids who struggle with, er, these complicated rules.

    ReplyDelete