Re: [Rails-devel] Players total value (was: Some questions regarding a new release)

SourceForge Headquarters 225 Broadway Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 422-6466

Private companies in 1826 and 18GL grant special powers, which the players
may assign to companies.  They also provide income to the players.  Some of
the companies close when the power is exercised, others are closed at the
start of the brown phase.  The private companies have no value whether open
or closed.  They can never be sold or traded.  I would argue that their
purchase price is not relevant to actual or projected net worth, and they
should always be listed at zero.

On the sale of a T5, two of the minor companies in 18MEX are exchanged for
5% shares of the NdM.  The third is exchanged for a 10% share of the UdY.
 The UdY share is valued at between 60 and 90.  The 5% NdM shares are worth
45 each, because the NdM is always parred at 90.

--
Chris

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Stefan Frey <ste...@we...> wrote:

> Chris:
> could you please help me with some details about the companies in the games
> you mention below? I have not played those so I have no extensive knowledge
> and I admit I am too lazy to look up rules now. Why are the better examples
> for worthless companies than those minors and privates we have in other
> games
> already?
>
> A more general reply:
>
> If you think all of the type B assets are worthless use the still existing
> current value. If you think only some are worthless or you assign a
> different
> value make your own back-of-the envelope calculation.
>
> I have never claimed that my valuation for type B company gives you the
> true
> (fundamental) value of the company.
>
> However I led myself guide from real-world accounting principle.
>
> You could value assets on the balance sheet in several ways, some are put
> down
> below:
>
> 1) Value at termination (liquidation value)
>
> 2) Market price
>
> 3) Purchase price which is actually a historical (market) price if
> available
>
> 4) Model based value
>
> So you prefer the end-of-game value guided by the first principle.
> I prefer using the purchase price for those items which do not have an
> end-of-
> game value, but which are usually not worthless in 18xx (think about the
> minors in 18EU).
>
> Consequently I believe that the on-going player values give a better
> picture
> of the current ranking of players than the end-of-game player value in the
> opening phase of 18EU.
>
> Stefan
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 20, 2011 06:05:24 pm Chris Shaffer wrote:
> > I think that using purchase price is fraught with complications.
> >
> > How will you account for the value of private companies in 1826 and 18GL?
> >  They cannot be sold or redeemed, and always end up with value zero,
> > whether the game ends immediately or at some later date.  By your
> algorithm
> > below, they will be included in the net worth calculation, which I would
> > argue is incorrect.  They have no current value, and will never have
> actual
> > value.
> >
> > I also disagree with this statement.  An example where this is obviously
> > untrue is the minor companies in 18MEX.
> >
> > a) Potential conversions (even automatic) are irrelevant until they
> occur.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Chris
> >
> > Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Stefan Frey <ste...@we...> wrote:
> > > All:
> > > sorry I submitted a version of the mail, which was an older one and was
> > > not fully edited to what it should have been:
> > >
> > > I first considered the question of sure (or almost sure) closure of an
> > > item before game end to be the relevant. But as many already complained
> > > this is ambiguous (in theory nearly all games can end before seeing the
> > > first tile
> > > laid, even without thinking about bankruptcy).
> > >
> > > For sure the on-going value can be configured to be an additional or
> > > optional
> > > replacement of the end-of-game value. It was already on my to-do-list
> to
> > > make
> > > the current end-of-game value.
> > >
> > > Feel free to suggest something better suited.
> > >
> > > Stefan
> > >
> > >
> > > So my fully finished proposal is for an ongoing player value is stated
> > > below:
> > >
> > > A) For items that have a value at game end unequal to zero use that.
> > >
> > > B) For items that have a value at game end equal to zero use the
> > > purchasing cost defined below.
> > >
> > > Purchasing price for type B items:
> > >
> > > 1) The actual price paid to the bank is relevant (e.g after a bidding
> > > process).
> > >
> > > 2) if a bundle is sold the value of all Items of type B purchased from
> > > bundles
> > > are evaluated by deducting first the current value of all type A items
> > > (at the
> > > time of purchase) from the purchase price and then the remaining amount
> > > is distributed equally to all type B items of the bundle.
> > >
> > > Some further remarks:
> > > a) Potential conversions (even automatic) are irrelevant until they
> > > occur.
> > >
> > > b) Items might change their type from B to A without conversion if
> their
> > > game
> > > end value changes from zero to a non-zero value. This has no retrograde
> > > effect
> > > of the value of other items sold in a bundle with the item.
> > >
> > > Remark b) covers the case of the C&A:
> > >
> > > The PRR share bundled with the C&A will be first assigned the
> difference
> > > between the purchase price of the C&A minus the value of the C&A. Later
> > > if a
> > > market price is available then the PRR share is valued by that.
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, December 20, 2011 08:07:14 am Stefan Frey wrote:
> > > > I thought about this, and used some ideas from accounting (however
> > >
> > > adopted
> > >
> > > > to the 18xx environment).
> > > >
> > > > What do you think about the following definition to evaluate items
> for
> > >
> > > the
> > >
> > > > player value displayed in Rails:
> > > >
> > > > B) Items that will close before end for sure will use the purchase
> > > > value.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > For this we should internally however differentiate between game end
> > >
> > > player
> > >
> > > > value and ongoing current player value: This would allow us easily to
> > > > choose by game configuration to display end value or current value.
> > > >
> > > > However I suggest to defer implementation to the Rails 2.0 trunk.
> > > >
> > > > Stefan
> > > >
> > > > On Sunday, December 18, 2011 11:24:54 pm Erik Vos wrote:
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: John David Galt [mailto:jd...@di...]
> > > > > > Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2011 11:00 PM
> > > > > > To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Some questions regarding a new release
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 2011-12-18 08:04, Erik Vos wrote:
> > > > > > > [1835] Net worth calculation seems a little off, I think it's
> > >
> > > getting
> > >
> > > > > > > confused particularly with the Prussian certs.  [Phil Davies
> > > > > > > 17-6-2010]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I noticed this recently, too.  What seems to be happening is that
> > > > > > in both 1835 and 18EU, the minor companies are counted as zero in
> > > > > > net worth.
> > > > >
> > > > > While
> > > > >
> > > > > > this may be correct in the rules, it's a distortion for players
> who
> > > > > > want
> > > > >
> > > > > to use
> > > > >
> > > > > > net worth as a way to predict final positions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I suggest that in 1835, the privates and minors should be counted
> > > > > > as the value of the PR shares they will eventually trade for (77M
> > > > > > per 5% if PR
> > > > >
> > > > > has
> > > > >
> > > > > > not yet formed), while for 18EU, I would just count them all as
> > > > > > $100 each
> > > > >
> > > > > (as
> > > > >
> > > > > > a ballpark estimate).
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmm, if we are going to count privates/minors to their expected
> > > > > future value rather than their official current value, shouldn't we
> > > > > then also count 1830 C&A for $320 rather than $160?
> > > > > I would prefer to stick to the rules, and leave it to the players
> to
> > >
> > > take
> > >
> > > > > note of (or forget about) any expected future gains.
> > > > >
> > > > > Erik.
> > >
> > >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > > > -- --- Learn Windows Azure Live!  Tuesday, Dec 13, 2011
> > > > > Microsoft is holding a special Learn Windows Azure training event
> for
> > > > > developers. It will provide a great way to learn Windows Azure and
> > > > > what it provides. You can attend the event by watching it streamed
> > > > > LIVE online. Learn more at http://p.sf.net/sfu/ms-windowsazure
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Rails-devel mailing list
> > > > > Rai...@li...
> > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> > >
> > >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > >
> > > > --- Write once. Port to many.
> > > > Get the SDK and tools to simplify cross-platform app development.
> > > > Create new or port existing apps to sell to consumers worldwide.
> > > > Explore the Intel AppUpSM program developer opportunity.
> > > > appdeveloper.intel.com/join http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-appdev
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Rails-devel mailing list
> > > > Rai...@li...
> > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> > >
> > >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ----- Write once. Port to many.
> > > Get the SDK and tools to simplify cross-platform app development.
> Create
> > > new or port existing apps to sell to consumers worldwide. Explore the
> > > Intel AppUpSM program developer opportunity.
> appdeveloper.intel.com/join
> > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-appdev
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Rails-devel mailing list
> > > Rai...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Write once. Port to many.
> Get the SDK and tools to simplify cross-platform app development. Create
> new or port existing apps to sell to consumers worldwide. Explore the
> Intel AppUpSM program developer opportunity. appdeveloper.intel.com/join
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-appdev
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>