Re: [Rails-devel] Initial Round

[John D. G. <jd...@di...>]

Erik Vos wrote:
> 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.

As I see it, not all of these are "rounds" at all.  A round is, or
should be, a sequence of player turns in each of which that player can,
or must, make one or more decisions.

The 1830 start-packet sequence (which I do not call an "auction" because
it does not consist entirely of bids and passes, and because it may
contain single-item auctions) takes place during multiple stock turns,
which may be completed in the first stock round or may span more than
one stock round with operating rounds in between.  (But each single-item
auction, if it happens, is a round.)

Nationalization (as in 1835) is a simple, single action.  (But the
sequence of giving each player in turn the option to merge privates/
minors into the Prussian is a round, and it can happen multiple times.
When this is triggered by the Prussian forming upon the purchase of the
first 4 or first 4+4 train, it is a round within a round.)

The 18EU MCFER and the 1841 Ferdinandea Succession are rounds.

Events such as one company buying a train from another, and mergers in
games like 1841, should not be considered rounds (in my opinion)
because once the phasing player or company has begun the event, the
event contains at most one "turn".  This includes 1841's forced Tuscan
merger.

> 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).

The variety of examples above has convinced me that each game should
be allowed to define its own private kinds of rounds, and that the
game entity should be generic enough to allow for them.

[snip]
> I don't think 1830 is a good example, as all unsold privates are
> auctioned at the same time.

Not even!  There is a specific turn sequence, and the turns within
each auction do not alter the turn sequence in the stock round which
continues after the auction from where it was before that auction.
If you need details of this, consult the 18AL/18GA rules, which
exactly follow the entire 1830 starting-packet procedure.