Re: [Rails-devel] Unofficial game modifications

[Rick W. <wes...@pu...>]

----- Original Message -----
> I have no problem adding two-player variants, but it would be
> preferable if
> some consensus about the parameters could be achieved.

Ah, my Eric's and my email crossed.   I will write up the parameters later tonight and send them to the group.

> If necessary, a comment about the status of such variants could be
> added to
> the game description and/or the <Players> tag.

Yes indeed.

-- Rick


> Erik.
> 
> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > Van: Gmail [mailto:de...@gm...]
> > Verzonden: maandag 14 maart 2011 14:09
> > Aan: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> > CC: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> > Onderwerp: Re: [Rails-devel] Unofficial game modifications
> >
> > I think we already have the 1889 2 player variant built in? I'm all
> > for
> keeping
> > them in, most of these are just simple XML switches which are very
> > easy to
> > add and don't take away from the existing games.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 13 Mar 2011, at 21:31, Rick Westerman <wes...@pu...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >   What should be done in regards to unofficial game modifications.
> > >   In
> > particular I am wondering about modifications to allow 2-player
> > play. My
> > buddy John and myself have been having lots of fun lately doing
> > 2-player
> > 1889, 2-player 18AL, 2-player 1851, etc. But for the latter two I've
> > had
> to add
> > a 2-player option in the XML files via extrapolating starting cash
> > and
> ending
> > certificates. These modifications are "unofficial" since the
> designer/publisher
> > of the game did not create them nor have they been published anyway
> > (as
> > the 1830 Coalfields variant was). On the other hand I think that it
> > would
> be
> > nice to keep the variants within the Rails eco-system. But the rest
> > of you
> > might not agree. Any opinions on this?
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Rick