Messing around with graphic design Pt. 3 Trains

Continuing with this graphic design series, I’d like to take some time today to talk about trains.

As mentioned previously, the first couple questions I like to ask when looking at a component is “What is it trying to do? And how are players going to interact with it?” So let’s apply those questions to train cards.

What are trains trying to do? Trains are assets that will be owned by companies and will be used to generate revenue. When bought, trains can trigger phase changes. Trains can also be “rusted” as a result of a phase change.

How are players going to interact with them? Players are generally looking at trains in two places: the “train yard” and in companies. Players are counting trains to see how close the game is to a phase change. Players are planning around the cost of the upcoming trains and are watching to see who can afford the upcoming trains. Players are looking at the quantity and the types of trains their companies own to assess their potential revenue. Players are looking around the table at other companies to see what trains each company owns and the implications a phase change like rusting or a changing train limit.

Counting trains: Similar to shares, it seems like counting trains is a large part of a player’s interaction with them. Being able to see across the table to check the pulse of where trains are and how many there are is important. And because counting trains is important, I would argue being able to splay trains effectively is equally important. As described before, splaying cards preserves the most important information while minimizing table presence. In this way, what type and how many of each train should be easy to identify when train cards are splayed. It’s no wonder that there is a general convention to put the train’s name in large font in the upper-left hand corner such that it can easily be splayed top-down or left-to-right.

If you read MAWGD2, I made the point that when counting from afar, details blend together and the primary characteristic that helps a player differentiate objects from one another is color. If a train has a unique color, similar to how companies have unique colors, that would certainly make it easier to count from across the table. Then instead of having a “4-train” you could just as easily refer to it as the “red-train”. This of course has a trade off, because there is something else that trains are important for: phase changes.

Phase changes and train colors: In 18xx, the mechanism that causes phase changes is the first purchase of a train from a higher rank; this creates a strong association between trains and phases. There are also 4 standard colors for track tiles (yellow, green, brown, gray) which become available at the beginning of specific phases of the game. As a result, it has been a common practice to color the phases and trains in accordance with the tiles that are available. While we could assign each of the trains their own unique color to make them easier to count, visually linking the train/phase color to the color of available tiles has proven to be a very helpful reminder.

JC Lawrence’s 1828 had an interesting innovation to help count trains and track phases. Instead of saying that the train/phase colors corresponded to available tiles, each train/phase had a unique color and only some of those “unlocked” new tiles (i.e. the green train would unlock green tiles, while the blue train does not unlock any new tiles). This is a very clever solution as it makes a clearer distinction between phases and visual distinction between trains. JC even removed the name of the train for rusting information and replaced it with color since the two are synonymous and color is easier to identify from afar.

However, one small issue with this approach is that because there is no longer a direct link between tile colors and all phase colors, there is slightly more onus on the players to remember what tiles are available which contradicts the original convention of matching train/phase colors to tile colors. Knowing green tiles are the highest upgrades through all the green trains is just slightly easier to remember than saying green tiles are the highest upgrades through green and blue trains (for me at least).

This is not a knock on 1828’s design choice and I think the game is better for it due to how important each phase change is. But for 1861/1867, I think it is better to have the trains/phases match tile colors for a more visually consistent experience, even if trains may be slightly harder to tell apart as a result.

And while there isn’t a unique color differentiating a 3-train from a 4-train, I think the train colors actually have another important meaning besides just what tiles they make available, and that is if a train is permanent or not.

Train Rusting: How many cities a train can run to may not be as important as how many times a train will actually get to run. Rusting weighs into how valuable it is to invest into a train. In 1830, you will almost certainly run a single 2-train more times than you will run three 2-trains; those extra 2-trains just brought the 4-train that much closer to rust them! Rusting is so crucial in 1830-style games it is often said they are about finding a way to afford your “Permanent” train.

Given how critical rusting is, one would think that this information would be clearly visible at all times… in the train yard, on a company charter, even when splayed. Yet, after scouring all kinds of train designs, it seems that many designs do not do a good job of highlighting rusting information and I found zero (!!!) train designs that kept rusting information visible when cards were splayed.

Players have solutioned around this by following a rule of thumb: yellow and green trains will rust, brown and gray trains will not. I believe they rely on the color of the train and their previous experience of when they expect a train to rust because the information isn’t presented as clearly as it could be.

Take 1849 for example, I regularly see players caught off guard when they discover the 6H-trains rust on the 10H-trains as opposed to the 12H-trains. They make assumptions based on what they expect to see based on the color and rank of the train. This is partially to blame on habit, but I believe if rusting information were more clearly visible at all times, this would help train 😉players to rely on written rusting information rather than play by expectation.

As an aside, why do trains need to be labeled as “Permanent”? If it does not say it rusts, isn’t that already implied? Perhaps this is just accepted because that’s what players are used to seeing, but I don’t see this label as providing any functional difference whether it is there or not.

Buying trains: The last behavior I want to talk about is purchasing trains. For the most part, a train’s printed price is only relevant when it is in the train yard or the bank pool. Players are checking to see which companies can afford trains and once those trains have been purchased out of the train yard, the price can largely be ignored. It’s good to have a clear price that can be seen by all players at the table, but this information is fine to cover up on the charter or when the train cards are being splayed.

Train card layout: So given these uses, how should information be organized on a train card? Trains should be relatively easy to count even when splayed, their colors should match the available tiles of the phases they trigger, rusting information should be visible at all times, and the price should be clear but is okay to be hidden after purchase.

There are also of course aesthetic details like the model name or a train image that are part of the layout, but unless these are informational in some way or obstruct other important features, they can be ignored for assessing usability.

Let’s take a look at some presentations and see what they got right or could have done better.

Mayfair’s 1830: The illustrations on these cards are decent, but the rest of the card misses many points of usability. No rusting information. No phase information. The prices are actually a little obstructed by the decorations around them if I’m being picky. The large number in the corner is the only real positive I’m seeing besides the illustrations.

18OE: This is a pretty interesting take on how to present a train. The charters in this game are vertical, so the trains were made to be vertical as well. Train name is in the corner for easy splaying and coloring the area around the train name as opposed to the name itself makes it stand out very clearly. A great choice for a game that has such a large table presence it gets you dizzy. Price is also very clear… everything looking great so far… but what’s this? The overall dark/brown aesthetic of the trains has also been applied to the rusting information as well. It’s a dark oval with brown text on top, making it the hardest text to read on the train, and effectively turning it into a dark blob if you aren’t carefully inspecting it. These trains do a great job in most respects, but I would have liked to see perhaps a lighter font or not such a dark color for oval around it.

DTG style: Ah, good old DTG trains. These trains have more or less been the definition of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Large and easily splayed train names, use of phase colors, rusting information with the color of the rusting train, easy to read numbers, and usually a nice train illustration to boot. These bad boys are generally considered to be the best way of presenting train information. My only real usability qualm is that rusting information is not visible when cards are splayed. There is a case that these could have a more interesting aesthetic, but that’s only because these have already hit their usability marks.

“Carthaginian” style: Karim “Carthaginian” Chakroun seems to get a lot of flak for his track tiles and very little praise for the innovations he brought to the genre. Before Karim’s redesigns, we mostly saw trains presented in the DTG style. Don’t get me wrong, DTG trains are great, but it was pretty interesting to see Karim come up with a different design that was a solid way of presenting a train. Large and easily splayed train name, a giant band across the bottom to show phase color, a dark oval to contain the train price, clear rusting information, and even phase effects on the backs of the trains. We’ve seen this style of trains picked up across other 18xx designs because of how clearly the information is presented.

1861/1867 train design: So where does that leave the trains for 1861/1867? What is a good way to incorporate the elements listed above, but also give the trains a great aesthetic?

Karim and I played with lots of possibilities. One thing I knew from the get go was that I wanted the color of the train illustrations to match the phase color. I didn’t want the illustration to just be aesthetic, but also contribute to usability. You can see some of the possibilities we experimented with below:

What we ultimately decided on was that ensuring rusting information was visible when cards were splayed. From there, it was more of looking at the aesthetics of the cards themselves to see what we liked and what we felt made the information stand out as much as it needed to, but without crowding the card either.

Here is what we eventually decided on for the train layout. This is not final art, but is close to what you should expect for 1861/1867.

I think the next thing I’ll be writing about is probably tiles. Maybe… stay tuned!