Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 share selling

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

> John David Galt wrote:
>> I disagree.  I'd rather have Rails treat all sales on a single turn as
>> a single sale even if made as separate transactions, possibly with an
>> explicit exception for 1830 (or maybe an override in the moderator menu).
>>
>> This is similar to my issue with the drop-down menus on the CGR-formation
>> window in 1856: the program should behave so as never to induce mistakes,
>> even if it sometimes means not following the rules to the extent of exact
>> pedantic details that no player at the table ever follows anyway.

brett lentz wrote:
> I think your assumption that "no player" follows the exact pedantic
> details of the rules is incorrect.
> 
> The group I tend to play with prefers 1830, 1856, and 1870 exactly
> *because* those pedantic details lend themselves very well to a highly
> cutthroat style of play. Depending on the timing, in 1870, it can
> occasionally be advantageous to do certain manipulations, such as
> selling just enough stock to entice a player to price protect some
> shares, but still selling more shares that he can't price protect in a
> different transaction, which means he won't have money to start a new
> company before you get to start the new company first. This is
> particularly advantageous if that player is to your immediate right,
> so that when he price protects, it immediately becomes your turn
> again.
> 
> While I agree with you that we should try to make it difficult to make
> unintentional mistakes, I think Rails absolutely should try to support
> a basic level of transactional precision when enforcing the rules.
> Anything less would be imposing preconceived notions on how to play
> the game that simply aren't in the rules.

Would you be OK with making both of these behaviors options in the
game-start dialogs?  (Call them "Simplified CGR formation" and
"Allow separate sales in one stock turn" respectively.)