18XX: The best games for beginners

There are more games in the 18XX series than years in the 19th century. With so much choice and such a confusing naming convention, it can be difficult for beginners to know which games are best for them.

After introducing dozens of people to the genre, there are four games that stand out as being a good first experience. But none of them are perfect. Each one has its own benefits and drawbacks to keep in mind before bringing them to the table.


Pound for pound, 1830 remains one of the best games in the series. Through a simple ruleset, it captures the aggressive brand of capitalism that drove the development of American railroads. It’s fun, mean and exciting. While not one of my favourites, it’s one of the greatest entries in the franchise and the most influential.

It’s hard to go wrong with 1830. Like all Tresham games, it has an elegant ruleset. It’s deeper and more strategically varied than its variants, even the newer ones. But it also has some newbie traps, like a mispriced item in the initial auction and a company, the New York Central, that might get blocked early on. Much of what gives the game its texture is not found in the rules. This makes for a more interesting game, but also presents a hurdle to newer players.

1830 is best with at least four players and is a bit longer than the alternatives. One of its best features is that having a company pay out consistently is a good strategy. However, this means the game must take four hours rather than the three of its smaller successors. Don’t be afraid to call it early.

1830 should be easy to find. It has been printed by several publishers and is language independent. You can probably find a copy of the new Lookout or the previous Mayfair version for 40 to 60€. There’s even an old PC port with good AI if you don’t mind tinkering with Dosbox.


Essentially 1830 on a smaller map, this Japanese variant boasts 3 player support and a shorter playtime. Both games feature a similar playstyle, with practically identical rules. They even have the same trains! Many games try to reduce 1830 to a smaller size, 1889 is one of the few that manage to do so without losing the appeal of the franchise.

Despite its smaller scope, 1889 remains a rich game. It may be won based on revenue, stock appreciation or managing the train rush. It doesn’t have some of the interesting attributes of 1830, though. The companies are not as different, and the tile set has been toned down. But it’s a good game. If you can’t do 1830, 1889 is the closest replacement.

One aspect I do dislike is that trains get stuck unless players negotiate. Since the train roster is the same as in 1830 but there’s one less company, there simply isn’t enough space to bring the diesels otherwise. While negotiation is my favourite genre, I find it at odds with 18XX. I’ve also found beginners are afraid of taking such a dramatic step, leading to a stall.

1889 was published by DTG, a boutique publisher, but it’s hard to find a copy. Fortunately, it’s also available as a print’n play, which is not difficult to build. Another publisher, Grand Trunk Games, is working on a Kickstarter release with higher production values.

1825 UNITS 1, 2 & 3

What if I told you there’s a 18XX that can be played in two hours, has simpler rules than Brass and requires only two players? 1825, a remake of the first game of the series, is one of the best introductory games and also one of my personal favourites. It belongs to a different branch of the family focused on portfolio management and timing.

Unlike its American sibling, there’s no stock manipulation in 1825. Rather, the focus is on riding the waves of profit, stealing trains from contested companies to boost the ones you are invested in. There’s no bankruptcy and you can dump presidencies onto the stock market. It’s kind enough for new players, but in a way that remains insightful.

1825 is simpler than any other game in the series but takes advantage of every single detail. The route-building is challenging because we must run several trains at once. The stock market is lively and sees action every round. And there’s more embezzlement because there are fewer consequences.

Sadly, copies of 1825 were made by hand by an elderly Francis Tresham. They are hard to find and expensive. Were they given a wider release, I would recommend it as the best introduction to the franchise. But today, it might prove easier to just play 1830.


18Chesapeake was designed with the goal of introducing new players to the franchise. Like 1889, it uses 1830 as a template and translates it into a smaller map. But unlike its Japanese predecessor, it takes specific steps to iron out the edges of the original and provide a smoother experience.

A new mechanism takes a train out every round, keeping them moving even if players fail to do so. The initial auction is less punishing and designed with replayability in mind. And I really like the map, which is more lively and varied than in 1830. These are all good features for a beginner’s game. However, 18Chesapeake is also too nice in ways that don’t help new players.

The main issue is the stock market. It’s very small and companies reach the floor very quickly. This makes for a peaceful game. Most of the time, it’s impossible to trash stocks or change the order in which companies operate. But with less opportunities – and rewards – to do so, newbies don’t learn as much and have a duller experience.

After all, aggressive play is fun. It’s what attracts people to 18XX. People want to tell their own stories of trains rusting before they run and dump trainless companies onto their rivals. What newbies hate is not bankruptcy but moving the same train up and down without anything exciting happening. 18Chesapake is good for learning but I don’t think it’s as engaging as the other games in the series.

18Chesapeake is published by All Aboard Games. At 100$ plus shipping, it’s expensive, even by 18XX standards. The production quality matches the price, but nicer illustrations are less important than a set of poker chips.


Lastly, I want to mention some other titles which are usually recommended to new players but which I don’t believe are great for beginners.

18AL – Another small 1830 variant. Limitations like only being able to buy one train per turn make it less interesting than either 1889 or 18Chesapeake.

18CZ, 1862: Railway Mania in the Eastern Counties – These are complex games, with several kinds of companies, mergers, auctions and the like. 18CZ has beginner scenarios but the game is still fundamentally complex, and I would not recommend it for your first game.

18Lilliput, City of the Big Shoulders – These games are not part of the 18XX series. They use different mechanisms like worker placement and action selection. They are also not simple, City of the Big Shoulders is closer to baroque euros than it is to the elegant designs of Francis Tresham.

1800 – Don’t bother to print this one. It’s not a good learning tool, because it differs from the other games significantly, and it’s a terrible game on its own terms. I regret printing my copy.

1846: The Race for the Midwest1846 simplifies some aspects of the series. There are no towns, no par price, no stock market manipulation. But it’s still more complex than all the games listed above and too different from them. Partial capitalization is a complex mechanic, which most games don’t use and which is hard for beginners to wrap their minds around.


    1. I haven’t played it, sadly. A couple people at my club got into the Kickstarter so chances are I’ll get to it sooner or later.

  1. Pues yo el 18CZ si que lo he utilizado para enseñar a mucha gente y a funcionando genial, lo de las fusiones no lo complica mucho la verdad, tiene unos turnos fijados, es corto y no es muy agresivo en el mercado.

    El 1862, si que lo veo más complicado.

    El 1889 y 18Chesapeake la verdad que tb están bien para iniciar, y sin irte a una partida larga.

    Buen artículo!!!

    1. ¡Me alegro de que te haya gustado!

      Realmente se puede entrar en la serie de muchas formas. Yo de hecho el juego que he usado más para enseñar a jugar a los novatos es el 1870. Pero claro, yo tengo la ventaja de saber jugar, saber utilizar el moderador de Lemmi, haber jugado cientos de partidas a otros juegos, etc. Si tienes apoyo y te explican y pones ganas, realmente no es descabellado, pero creo que antes de utilizar el 18CZ usaría otros. Creo que el 18CZ es uno de esos juegos que atraen a los novatos porque es fácil de encontrar y tiene una producción atractiva y moderna.

  2. Hi Erik! I discovered your blog on reddit yesterday, and I like it a lot! I hope you read comments on older posts like this. Expect more random comments on old posts while I read through your back catalog 😉

    I had played a few 18XX games before, and I mainly bought 18Chesapeake because of the relatively short playing time. I’m very interested in games that can squeeze features of 18XX into a shorter time frame. How does 18Lilliput stack up in that regard, ignoring its (lack of) merits as an 18XX teaching game?

    By the way, there’s an 18Chesapeake variant called “Off the Rails” (formerly known as “After Dark”) that uses a bigger stock market. I haven’t played it yet, but I definitely want to. It’s in beta on 18xx.games.

    Also, I hope you’ll write a post about your favorite 18XX games and why they’re the best at some point!

    1. I do read old posts! Don’t be afraid to post more comments, I would love hearing your thoughts.

      I hadn’t heard about the 18Chesapeake variant, it seems interesting. Thanks for sharin git, if it’s being tested on 18xx.games it can result in something interesting. I wonder if it allows for brown strategies and stuff like that, it could make the game a lot of fun.

      I haven’t played 18Lilliput so I can’t comment. It hasn’t attracted much interest from people who have played other games into the system, though.

      I do want to write reviews about my favourite 18XX games. I’ll probably write about 1870 at some point though I would love to get my hands on more 1825 Units before writing about them. Ah, one can dream!

      Thank you! 🙂

  3. Absolutely agree with the assessment that 1846 is not a good entry point for beginners and it always seems crazy to me that so many people recommend it as one. It touts a couple of “beginner friendly” features, but nobody ever talks about how much more complex and different it is, aside from those. It is *way* harder to take in than most of these other 1830 variants.

    I was about to write here that I think 18Ches: Off the Rails may be the perfect entry point for beginners, but someone above has already beaten me to that! I will add that what I do not like about 18Chesapeake for beginners is that bankruptcy is rare and the game can drag on *really* long with a table full of beginners as a result. Even with the train export feature, it’s not enough to pull the game out of a complete slog sometimes. Off the Rails fixes that by putting all the danger back in the game while still maintaining a simply (for 18xx) rule set that covers all the fundamental bases. Personally, I think this is what 18Chesapeake should have been in the first place.

    Of the “friendly” 18xx games available, I think 18MS is the best one I have tried so far that gives a lot of the basics in a game that is naturally limited in # of ORs that will occur. This means the game will end, no matter what.

    Alternatively, if you can tolerate a few small extra rules, 1882 is also a very tight and well designed 1830 variant that fits in a shorter time frame.

  4. I had a time in my twenties when I played 1830 regularly with the same group. It became so scripted after a few plays, that once I knew before the first round, that I would win the game (barring some very illogical play by other players). It was not the players, it’s just that given logical play the stock part will play out in a certain way. Please do not ask me for details, this was over 20 years ago.

  5. I played my first 18xx game this year, which was 1862. I loved it and didn’t find it particularly complicated. I moved on to try 18chesapeke which in comparison I found dull and boring. Had this been my first introduction I’m not sure I would have bothered to play others.

  6. I don’t know if this will get seen & replied to here, but here I go:

    My hesitancy approaching 18xx games has nothing to do with complexity, brutality, runtime, or economic theme.

    My issue is that these are supposedly games about trains, and yet they seem much more about capitalist “robber baron” fantasies than about actually running trains to deliver goods to different locations. Moreover, labor power is completely invisible in these games: workers for rail construction, engineers & conductors, etc. I.e., it always seems like 18xx could simply be about some other industry, rather than trains, and people would still talk strategy in financial terms, and somewhat nonsensically at that: dumping companies on others or crashing your own & still “winning” seems so utterly fantastical to me.

    I’m not criticizing anyone who enjoys the financial fantasia here, or the business simulation (to the degree that an 18xx game is ever even realistically simulating that). But the total absence of labor or social impacts makes this genre seem very, very abstract to me, so removed from the reality of its setting. And hey…I love trains! So 18xx was the one of the first genres I was curious about, and it’s always seemed so strange to me it’s an entire genre nominally about trains, but not a single one seems to make you feel like you’re in charge of actual trains.

    A counterexample here is Silverton. Another is The City of The Big Shoulders: I know some 18xx fans complain about it, but heck, at least even that game, in spite of its stock-investing, company-dumping, etc. still seems far more social (in that there are workers & goods, etc.) than any 18xx I’ve heard about.

    I’ve been waiting for some other perspective to show me I’m wrong!

    1. I don’t think you are wrong, per se. It’s just that 18XX doesn’t show railroads from the viewpoint of engineering, which, culturally, is the main way we look as railroads. That is, as a new technology that changed the world.

      The 18XX series, however, focuses more on railroads as a bussiness. Because Railroads were, in many ways, the first modern bussinesses. They were the largest companies of their time and would give the stock market the importance it has today. They represent “new money”, unaristocratic, and ushered a way of financial changes and regulations. This is all shown through the framing of the game. Labour and daily operations are simply out of focus, particularly when it comes to the time frame. 1830 covers about 120 years of history, after all.

      While the talk about dumping companies or raiding them may seem gamey, they are a direct reflection of history. Most notably, they are features to represent the cutthroat bussiness practices of American railroads. Raiding your own company by making it buy an overpriced private is a great reflection of the Credit Mobilier scandal, while dumping companies onto other players reflects the raiding of the Erie Railroad. The games are very heavily tied to railroad history, just not the side about building through the Rocky Mountains. You can see this through Tresham’s games. 1825 reflects the British railroadmania, 1830 is about Robber Barons and 1853 is about the Goverment restrictions and challenges of British Imperial India.

      You could translate the mechanics to other industries. In fact, I’m told that Tresham once thought about setting it on air travel. But railroads and their history are heavily tied into both their theme and their mechanics.

      Hope that helps!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *