RE: [Rails-devel] Initial Round

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

> Erik Vos wrote:
> > We have three round types: 
> > - initial round (buying privates),
> > - stock round,
> > - operation round.
> > (for now leaving aside specialties like the 18EU 
> > "Minor Company Final Exchange Round").
> 
> For most 18xx games, the initial auction (or starting packet 
> purchases) is
> not a separate kind of round, but happens during the first 
> stock round;
> and in fact, most games allow an operating round to occur 
> with some of the
> "starting packet" still unsold.  This will create several 
> problems if the
> initial round is a separate type of round:
> 
> *  You need to determine whether the next round is an 
> operating round or a
> stock round.
> 
> *  If the next round is an operating round, then after it you have to
> determine whether to go to another initial round or a stock round.

No big deal: just two flags. I agree, that from a structural point of 
view it looks better to classify auctions as subrounds of the stock round,
as well as nationalisations, the 18EU final exchange round, and
the 1841 4-train events can be seen subrounds of the operating round.

I was mainly concerned about how the code that builds the UI will
know that it has to prepare for an Auction. It looked easier to have it
start an auction right away, rather than let it start a Stock Round, 
which then needs to tell the UI "no, we'll have an Auction first."
But we may end up like this anyway, so your approach may be right
(see my other post, in which I adhere to your approach).

Brett, do you have a vision on the UI interfacing aspect?
 
> On the other hand, if the game starts with secretly written 
> bids (as 1841
> or 1853) these objections don't arise, and you do need a 
> separate initial
> round.

This is generally the case if the start packet must be sold out
in the initial round, for instance also in 18EU. 
But I would consider that just a boolean condition, rather than
that it would lead to a separate type of (sub)round. 
It is not even a separate variable, as the "mandatory completion" 
of this type of round directly follows from the procedure it embodies.

So I'd say: if some auctions go inside a SR, then all of them.
 
> So I say, yes, go ahead and define these three types of 
> rounds; but don't
> do anything in the "initial round" of games like 1830 or 1835 
> except to
> assign the seating order.  Instead, 1830 and 1835 
> start-packet turns take
> place in a stock round, and a global variable (perhaps 
> game_phase) should
> determine what actions are allowed during a stock-round turn.

I spoke about "buying privates", but many games sell minor companies
in the initial round, so "start packet" is the correct term indeed.
 
> For games like 1830 or 18EU, you'll want a fourth round type, > an
"auction
> round", to handle the auction of a particular private/minor.  
> This can be
> nested within a stock round, or you can start a new stock 
> round after it;
> but in either case the auction round doesn't move the 
> Priority Deal.  (I
> prefer the nested model because it makes the rounds in the 
> program agree
> with those in the rule book.)

I don't think 1830 is a good example, as all unsold privates are
auctioned at the same time. But indeed in 18EU each minor is
auctioned separately, so, following your hierarchical approach, 
we might call that a sub-subround.

Erik.