From: Erik V. <eri...@hc...> - 2005-04-26 19:23:24
|
> 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. |