g.f.m.pub 0001
pd. 2019-06-15

re: //Mini Rails//

attrition.

//Mini Rails//, a game designed by Mark Gerrits, is a game which is full of attrition. delicious, delicious attrition.

see, i've never been big on mean games. my brain is not wired to think of destroying what other people are building. games with cards that let you fling sand in the eyes of your hapless opponents don't have much of an appeal to me. games that are __purely__ an ocular sand-flinging festival are outright trash.

yet, despite my aversion to this direct antagonism, i can't help but be madly in love with //Mini Rails//. it is most definitely not a nice game. it is one of the most diabolical and passive-aggressive games i can think of. it's a cinema-perfect knife fight in every game. so, why is this different than direct conflict between players? a lot of it comes down to the execution.

//Mini Rails// has no hidden information between players beyond what the players are planning to do. all stocks, relative scoring, and track markers are clearly laid out for all to see. it is also relatively simply to track how many track discs of each color remain in the bag. so, with a bit of understanding of the game, a player will start grasping how actions taken have consequences.

take, for instance, the first round of the game. the first player will also be the last player, and in a 4-to-5-player game, this leaves a lot of room for the game state to change (as if a single move on its own wouldn't have earth-shattering effects!). if there are multiple discs of a company color, a player is not likely to cover up negative spaces with that color, because it opens up the doors for others to jump ahead of them in terms of potential. so, this would effectively be _worse_ than missing an action... it's taking an action to rocket yourself to the bottom.

what might be a good route to take to avoid benefitting others? one option might be to look for a company with only one disc available in the round. if this disc happens to be early in the turn order, the odds are good that a player can then jump into the second round early to send their share upward. however, if this unique disc would put the player late in turn order, it might not be worthwhile unless they know they'll be able to jump ahead a different way. if too many opponent actions will happen before the player gets their go in the second round, opponents may send the player's stock into the ground, leaving themselves set up for the relative advantage if they then acquire a stock.

two themes emerge from the previous two paragraphs: early turn order is good, and playing turns in quick succession is good. the first of these makes sense. going early is good, as that is when the variety of discs is at its peak. as good as early turns are, though, they can only get a player so far. having turns in quick succession offers potential for crafty maneuvers, such as tanking a stock before buying it immediately, providing a quick relative advantage. this also works in reverse, by buying a stock and then immediately increasing its value.

hold on just a moment, though.

recall that there is one more disc on the selection board than there are player pawns. that means something will be left over, and that something means a company will be guaranteed to only get positive points at game end. anything that is not safe at game end will score only negative points. so, while playing early has its merits, it is not everything. the player who plays last in a round chooses which company remains safe, which provides a lot of potential for mayhem. in particular, a player who leaves both of their actions until near the end of the round wields an absurd amount of control on who gets screwed and who comes out ahead.

now, of course, it is possible for the preceding players to preempt any real choice on the part of the player wielding this proverbial hammer (to steal a word from //Heavy Cardboard//). if there are three or more discs of a single company color, they could theoretically all be left behind for a person who takes both of their turns at the end of the round. however, this situation would be extremely unlikely, as it would guarantee the following would happen: - the hammer players gets a share in a company - that company is guaranteed to be safe - the player gets to further manipulate the company, driving their newly-acquired stock upward.

naturally, parts of this can be mitigated, but it requires a few things be lined up right, and is likely only to be mitigable by one player at the table. the most apparent way to prevent someone from doing this is for someone else to have a relative advantage in regards to stock of the company that cannot be eliminated as part of the hammer player's actions. this could also be accomplished if another player grabs another share of the company to ensure that they also gain whatever the hammer player may gain. note that this could sway the hammer player into sending the stock downward before they grab a share.

that vaguely segues into one last bit of information in regards to strategy. unlike the other parts of this article, it does not relate to any specific timing or method of play. further, it can be applied to most games with player interaction. here it is, in short: __play defensively__. at no point in a game of //Mini Rails// is it wise for a player to perform an action which leaves an opportunity for an opponent to easily and __effectively__ negate the gains from that action. if a player can send a stock up, that's great, but if this provides access for opponents to crash the stock through the floor in a hurry, it might be an unwise stock to chase. also be aware of the potential to unwittingly give players a good reason to tear stocks down. if all players minus one are holding a particular stock, the remaining player has every reason in the world to crater the stock.

so, what is the final say on how to strategize in //Mini Rails//? it's really quite tough to say, and every game will play out radically different. however, keeping the above points in mind, a player will be able to keep an eye on immediate movement opportunities for the various companies and how other players may capitalize on them. playing defensively is rarely to never a bad idea in //Mini Rails//, but it is important to look at the opposing side of all of the tactics listed above. when an opportunity to be aggressive with low risk arises, it is generally better to be the player who seizes the opportunity. the best opportunities in this game do not repeat themselves within a single play.

refs:
//Mini Rails// on BoardGameGeek: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/225818/mini-rails

//jon c.//
^D