Game Overview: Iberian Gauge, or Causality, Action, and Reaction

Normally when you learn a game, the first playing or two are practice games in which you learn how the system works, how the consequences of an action roll out, and what the pace of the game is like — then you start playing for real.

I've now played Amabel Holland's Iberian Gauge a half-dozen times on the new edition from Capstone Games, and they all felt like practice games — and when I think about playing again, especially since I still haven't got the game to the table with five players, I'm sure that one will also feel like a practice run.

Part of the issue, I think, is that while I've learned a bit of what to avoid and how the parts interact, the game is essentially an improvisational play in which you are pushed onto a stage with others and told to start doing stuff. Do you want to buy a share of a railroad? Well, not buying any shares is a policy you could adopt, but ending the game with your $40 starting money isn't going to put you in contention for the win, so you probably should buy a share in one of the five railroads...but which one? And if you're the first to buy a share in a particular railroad, what should the starting share price be and where should the railroad start on the game board?

Once everyone passes on buying shares, each player can build one track per share that they own using funds from that railroad's treasury, with shares being built in order from top to bottom of the "share ownership boards", the order of which is the only random element in the set-up of the game. In the image below, you see that the white player can build one purple train, then the red railroad can have up to three trains built in order by the pink, the white, and the pink player, etc.

Halfway through the game...sort of

A railroad receives funds in its treasury in three ways:

• A player buys a share at the current price.
• The railroad receives dividends at the end of a building phase for each of its unpurchased shares.
• Another railroad leases track from that railroad.

Set the share price too low when you start a railroad, and it might not have enough funds in its treasury for all share holders to purchase track. Set the share price too high, and other players might not purchase shares, making you the only one building track — and if you don't connect to an urban location or major city each building phase, then the share price drops one level for each share owned by players, which can be a huge hit to you, although then the share price might be within range for others to purchase.

Not too low and not too high...but what exactly is just right? The answer seems to depend on the number of players in the game as well as what those players want. The intersection of your competing desires drives everything in this game.

Fail to build enough track or any track in the "right" places, and no one will lease from that railroad, denying it funds to ensure future growth. Ideally you can work two or more railroads to fund one another, as the yellow and blue railroads have started to do in the image above. Pass money from one pocket to another, with your hand being able to dip into each pocket to keep making urban and city connections to bump up dividends and share prices.

In this game, red was more train station-building company than track-building company

The difficulty with doing this is that if another player is the majority shareholder in one or both of these railroads, then you're enriching them more than you through these efforts — and if you are the majority shareholder in both of these railroads, then why would anyone else help enrich you over themselves? You need this sweet spot of camaraderie in which ideally you and one or two other players are helping one another, but at some point you know that your interests will diverge and they'll start funneling money to a third railroad or building track to nowhere to waste funds before you can make the connection you need. If you're looking for a game in which you can pee in someone's Cheerios, Iberian Gauge is the game for you!

As I mentioned, all of my games to date on a review copy from Capstone Games have been with three or four players, and it often feels like someone is out of the running by the end of the first two rounds, which collectively consist of two share-buying phases and three track-building phases. Either no one joined that player in buying shares, which left them building on their own with a share price that spirals to the floor, or their railroad ran out of funds to grow in a meaningful way. I have seen instances of someone winning after I thought they were out, but I'm also open to admitting that I incorrectly assessed their position given how often I messed up in assessing my own position.

Like strands of lights on a Christmas tree

Everything is in flux in Iberian Gauge because players can be flaky or their desires change based on whatever the current board position is. You do things because they seem good at the time, and only after the game is over can you say, hmm, I probably made the wrong choice there — yet if you had made a different choice, then others probably would have done different things, too, so who knows what would have happened?

The second half of the game is as long as the first — two share-buying phases and three track-building phases — yet because more shares have been purchased by the second half, each track-building phase takes longer and is more consequential. You can try to negotiate with others to collectively build in the "right" direction, but you're all wearing the same shirt and walking away from one another, so eventually those bonds will rip.

Despite each game feeling like an experiment, the tracks do seem to get built out in similar ways from one game to the next, with the north and the south of the game board being largely ignored. Maybe we haven't discovered a way to meaningfully use those areas yet, or maybe Holland has laid a trap for players, tempting them to do things that will never pay off. Something to experiment with down the road...

The only downside to the game — aside from intermittent feelings of hopelessness and stupidity and frustration — is that this edition doesn't contain enough $1 bills, forcing you to actively make change constantly, which is a distraction, or to use $100 for $1, which is what we've decided to do in the future, given that you don't touch the $100s until the final payout. Well, we don't, but perhaps we're playing poorly compared to what could be done.

For more analogies on what gameplay feels like and to see examples of share buying and track building, check out this overview video: