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

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

> >- Tokens are sometimes not bound to a location but
> >to one of two (or even three) cities on one tile.
> >I think we need "City" as a separate object type
> >(also for revenue calculation).
> >Also remember that the values of two cities on one tile
> >are not always equal, see 1841 Venice.
> >Cities can merge, be upgraded, or even disappear (1856).
> 
> A good point, and one I want to think about further. I'm not 
> sure that 
> having a City class adds any value beyond associating Token 
> directly with 
> Tile, as it is the Tile that dictates the number, size and 
> revenue of the 
> cities, towns, etc. Neither does a City class solve the 
> problem of avoiding 
> all relationship migrations during an upgrade (disappearing 
> cities sound 
> like a downgrade!), though maybe that is unavoidable... I will think 
> further.

We also have per-train city properties (does a city/town count for
revenue, and if so, with what factor; does a city/town count against
the train length). 
So in some games we have an n:m relationship between trains and tiles,
so I wonder if we need a CityType class in between.

Whether or not so, we should in any case agree on the nomenclature.

The pedantic version could be
              
            / TokenableRevenuePoint
RevenuePoint
            \ NonTokenableRevenuePoint

but perhaps better

    / City 
Stop 
    \ Town

Erik.