Re: [Rails-devel] 1830 Reading

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

Sorry, I said 18AL but I meant 1851.

 

One possible application could be to regulate access to 18AL Birmingham,
which springs to life in a certain game phase, but I believe that case has
already been covered.  

If it would help, initializing Birmingham with 'runTo="no"' could reflect
this city's early non-existence. 

 

Erik.

 

 

Van: Erik Vos [mailto:eri...@xs...] 
Verzonden: donderdag 28 april 2011 20:43
Aan: 'Development list for Rails: an 18xx game'
Onderwerp: Re: [Rails-devel] 1830 Reading

 

> Van: Scott Petersen [mailto:sc...@re...]

> Is runThrough a better term than driveThrough?  Or maybe "drive" has a
special definition in the code that I am not aware of.

 

Yes, runThroughStation sounds a lot better to me.

 

> Van: Chris Shaffer [mailto:chr...@gm...]

> Related to this, you might want driveToStation="tokenOnly" to support
18Scan and perhaps others.  In 18Scan, you are not allowed to score a red
offboard city unless you have a token in it.

 

That would be 'runToStation' then.  Agreed, and, as others have pointed out,
it applies to several games.

 

> Van: John A. Tamplin [mailto:ja...@ja...] 
> You should also consider similar mechanisms in other games:

>   18GL ferry - requires ownership of the ferry private, or pay its owner
each round used

>   1832/1850 coal fields - may not trace a route to or through (even for
track laying) the coal fields without ownership of a coal token 

 

> Van: Scott Petersen [mailto:sc...@re...] 

> Yes, and the currently implemented 1830 Coalfields variant is somewhat
hard to play because it assumes that all companies have coal access rights.
By the late game when the big runs are kicking in, lots of companies have a
route to the coalfields, so the route calculation is incorrect for those
that do not have the rights. 

 

These cases are different, although parts of the underlying mechanism would
probably be similar.  

 

Erik.