Chicago 1875: City of the Big Shoulders

Chicago 1875: City of the Big Shoulders arrived with the reputation of a compact monster: an economic game carrying 18XX tension without pretending to be about trains. The first play was already a pleasant one, and it produced the most useful sign of quality: the discussion about choices and strategy continued well after the table had been cleared. There was, however, an early concern that a few elements might be too strong and that the system’s balance needed examining.

Its core is the handling of companies and factories, with managers becoming especially consequential when those factories operate. The sequence matters: operate the first manned factory, take the benefit due to its manager, then move on until every factory has been considered. That procedure is less innocent than it first appears in the rules, because the manager providing two resources is materially stronger than an initial reading suggests.

The interesting decision is whether an apparently strong choice remains strong within the full economic ecosystem. With all 15 companies available, tiles that had looked close to broken acquired counterweights in the variety of company options. This is recognisably 18XX logic in different work clothes: a choice is not assessed in isolation, but by how it survives a wider field of corporate possibilities and everyone’s calculations.

There is no meaningful catch-up mechanism. One miscalculation can remove you from the race, and that is not an accident of the design but one of its central properties. After enough plays, an experienced group may also find the final round increasingly procedural, as happens in a number of 18XX games.

For anyone who enjoys economic games, Chicago 1875: City of the Big Shoulders is a must-buy.

Updated session

The second play, with minor rules errors corrected and all 15 companies included, plainly improved the initial impression. The balance was noticeably better, and the early fears about excessively powerful tiles receded. Its intolerance for mistakes remained exactly the same; it simply read as deliberate severity rather than a crack in the system.