RE: [Rails-devel] Re: Suggested object model for core generic framework

[Erik V. <eri...@hc...>]

> >I've split "Company" into "Major" and "Minor" because in 
> some 18xx games, 
> >they are governed by different rules.

I have thought about this for a while, but I'm not sure if
this really is a fundamental distinction. 

The only distinction which is really fundamental is between
companies that lay track, run trains, have a treasury etc,
and companies that don't.

The latter are commonly known as "private companies", 
although some games call them differently, like
"mountain railways" (1854). I would also count the 1841
"concessions" in this category.

The former go under many names: minor/major companies, corporations,
systems, also "mountain railways" (1837), "local" and even "major local"
railways (1854), etc.

Not having seen the object model, I suppose that this is not
the distinction meant by Major and Minor, but that it is a further
subdivision within the train-running group. Using the name "minor" for
"private companies" would be very confusing, as several games
have both (1841, 1844, 1854).

But what is then the distinguishing feature of a Minor company?
Minors come with 1 (1835/37, 18EU), 2 (1854) and 5 (1826, 1841) shares.
Some can convert to major companies (1826), others can merge into
new major companies (1835/37, 18EU, 1841) or new minor companies
(1854: "local" (1-share) to "major local railway" (2-share)). 

IMHO, the only fundamental division is between companies that can be traded
(i.e. shares can be sold: most if not all of the >1-share companies)
and those that can't (most if not all of the 1-share companies).
Perhaps that distinction warrants subclassing, but I'm not sure.

Erik.