RE: [Rails-devel] Initial Round

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

> 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.

I have been using "round" in a very loose way, rather like an abbreviation
for "a procedure complex enough to warrant implementation in a 
(often game-specific) special class". Sorry for the confusion.
Is "procedure" a better term? Or "process"?

> 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.)

Yes, this more or less precludes the simple setup that Brett and I
worked out last Sunday. 

So we're back at the "start-packet procedure" being a subprocess
of the stock 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 Prussian formation is what I was referring to as "nationalisation"
as a subround (I know 1835 uses the term for a different purpose).
Other examples occur in 1826 (Etat, SNCF), 1856 (CGR).

> 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".  

Right. 

> This includes 1841's forced Tuscan merger.

OK, so in your definition a "round" is something that has "turns".
That makes sense, but I'm not sure if this definition will help us much.
We'll see.
 
> 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.

Yes, we aren't there yet.
 
> [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.

What I meant is: all privates are open for bidding (except the cheapest
one).
Whereas in 18EU, only one private is open for bidding or buying at any
one point in time, except when a player has the turn to select one.
So there, in your definition, we have rounds within turns.

Erik.