Menu
▾
▴
Re: [Rails-devel] 1825 half-tiles
|
From: Stefan F. <ste...@we...> - 2011-10-29 14:09:02
|
Erik: from my point of view it is clear, however I have not checked the rules again. Especially as the 1825 rules are ambiguous in many respect anyway and then the 1825 Unit 1 some rules are different (at least in wording) to those of unit 2 and 3. So I would not allow running to Q11 and Q21 even if unit 2 and/or R3 are not present: My main reasoning here is that there are visual clues for both the brown edge without track for Q11/SW and the blue/green sea for Q21. Thus I suggest to add both Q11 and make the edge impassable. I would even consider adding Q21 and make both edges impassable if this looks better on a whole. Stefan On Saturday, October 29, 2011 03:45:37 pm Erik Vos wrote: > Ah yes, of course we could use that. > But the question if we *should* do it has not yet been answered. > > Erik. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...] > > Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2011 2:14 PM > > To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game > > Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] 1825 half-tiles > > > > I was under the impression that the "impassable" attribute actually does > > exactly that. Or is it not possible to use it in the scenario below for a > > different > > > reason? > > Stefan > > > > On Saturday, October 29, 2011 02:07:00 pm Erik Vos wrote: > > > The "existing mechanism" only allows opening hex edges that would > > > otherwise be closed, not the other way around. > > > Of course we can extend (or replace) that mechanism. I'm just trying > > > to find out if this very minor issue (as JDG correctly points out) is > > > really worth it to create an exception for, also in the light of the > > > uncertainty about what the rules (as cited) really say. > > > > > > BTW: Q11 is Crewe, not Wolverton. > > > > > > Erik. > > > > > > > From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...] > > > > > > > > Could you not lay the half tile on Q11 and block the SW side of hex > > > > tile > > > > > > Q11 > > > > > > > using the existing mechanism? > > > > > > > > On Friday, October 28, 2011 10:22:45 pm Erik Vos wrote: > > > > > I'm including these half-tiles into 1825 Unit 1, and it basically > > > > > works. As expected, it turns out, that adding these half-tiles > > > > > makes the existing "open" attributes redundant. This attribute > > > > > achieves the same thing: that track can be laid towards the board > > edge. > > > > > > However, the question arises how to interpret the rule that "Tiles > > > > > may be placed so that a railway terminates against the edge of the > > > > > board or against the side of an incomplete hexag" in some > > > > > specific cases where laying track would not be allowed if the > > > > > adjacent board was actually present. For Unit 1, this refers to > > > > > the Q row hexes, of which only the southernmost corner is just > > > > > visible on the Unit1 game board. If taken literally, the cited > > > > > rule would allow track lays against all edges of the Q row hexes if > > > > Unit2/R3 are absent. > > > > > > > However, if both Unit2 and Kit R3 are present, hex Q11 (Wolverton) > > > > > would be only reachable from the SE, and hex Q21 (The Wash, i.e. > > > > > sea) > > > > > > not > > > > > > > at all. > > > > > > > > > And that is how I had implemented it also for the case that > > > > > Unit2/R3 are absent (I only vaguely remember that we might have > > > > > had some discussion about this issue). > > > > > > > > > > My current preference is to use a half-tile on hex Q11 (to which > > > > > therefore track can be laid from both the SW and SE directions), > > > > > and to omit it on hex Q21 (which therefore cannot be laid any > > > > > track against). To replicate the current behaviour, I would have > > > > > to omit the half-tile from Q11, and keep using the existing 'open' > > > > > attribute instead, so that Q11 can only be laid track against from > > the SE. > > > > > > Any opinions? > > > > > > > > > > Erik. > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > --- Get your Android app more play: Bring it to the BlackBerry > > > PlayBook in minutes. BlackBerry App World™ now supports > > > Android™ Apps for the BlackBerry® PlayBook™. Discover > > > just how easy and simple it is! http://p.sf.net/sfu/android-dev2dev > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Rails-devel mailing list > > > Rai...@li... > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > - -- > > > Get your Android app more play: Bring it to the BlackBerry PlayBook in > > minutes. BlackBerry App World™ now supports Android™ Apps for > > the BlackBerry® PlayBook™. Discover just how easy and simple it > > is! > > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/android-dev2dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Rails-devel mailing list > > Rai...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- Get your Android app more play: Bring it to the BlackBerry PlayBook in > minutes. BlackBerry App World™ now supports Android™ Apps for > the BlackBerry® PlayBook™. Discover just how easy and simple it > is! http://p.sf.net/sfu/android-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > Rails-devel mailing list > Rai...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel |
