rails-devel — List for discussion of Rails development

Re: [Rails-devel] Rails-devel Digest, Vol 29, Issue 6

[Håkan K. <sou...@ha...>]

rai...@li... skrev 2010-03-08 21:02:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 13:21:40 +0000
> From: Phil Davies<de...@gm...>
> Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Stockmarket type aka 1825 dev?
> To: "Development list for Rails: an 18xx game"
> <rai...@li...>
> Message-ID:
> <48a...@ma...>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> H?kan,
>
> Welcome :)
>
> I'm also fairly inexperienced with Java but I've been playing around
> adding in 1825 support to rails in my spare time.  None of the
> functionality I've been putting in had been committed to the rails
> project on sourceforge, it's all in my local files and really is a bit
> of a personal learning project I was hoping one day I might get close
> enough to opeational to commit to the main line.
>
> I have a very sketchily working version of 1825 Unit 1 but most of the
> more complex pre-printed tiles are not correct since they aren't in
> the tile database, the map has a massive blank spot from row A down to
> row R since Unit 1 starts row numbering later in the alphabet, and the
> stock rounds don't even remotely work correctly...so I haven't made a
> lot of progress but I'm happy to share what little I have done!
>
> I can't speak for the administrators of the project but I'm sure any
> and all support is fully welcomed!
>
> Phil
Well, the numbering is of course depending on the fact that it's R4 that 
will contain row 'A'...  And I can see that the missing tiles will give 
some headache as well. I expected some tiles to be missing, most notably 
the London tiles so I might have a look at that later.
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 09:36:22 -0800
> From: brett lentz<bre...@gm...>
> Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Stockmarket type aka 1825 dev?
> To: "Development list for Rails: an 18xx game"
> <rai...@li...>
> Message-ID:
> <c69...@ma...>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> 2010/3/8 H?kan K?nig<sou...@ha...>:
>> So, the question I'm trying to ask is: Do you need any help?
> Hi there!
>
> Welcome to the project.  We can always use more help. There's plenty
> to do, both big projects and small tasks.
>
> For at least your first few change sets, just send patches to the
> list. Unified diffs are the preferred format.
>
> This gives us all a chance to comment on your proposed changes, and
> helps you learn what things we care about.
>
> If you'd like to see what's on our to-do lists, have a look through
> the mailing list archives.
>
> ---Brett.
>
Ok, thank you for the nice welcome. I'll look through the to-do lists, 
and see if I can help there, but otherwise I'll see if me and Phil can 
get something useful going on 1825.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 14:27:55 -0500
> From: Jeffrey Brent McBeth<mc...@br...>
> Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Stockmarket type aka 1825 dev?
> To: "Development list for Rails: an 18xx game"
> <rai...@li...>
> Message-ID:<201...@br...>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:36:22AM -0800, brett lentz wrote:
>> 2010/3/8 H?kan K?nig<sou...@ha...>:
>>> So, the question I'm trying to ask is: Do you need any help?
>> Hi there!
>>
>> Welcome to the project.  We can always use more help. There's plenty
>> to do, both big projects and small tasks.
>>
>> For at least your first few change sets, just send patches to the
>> list. Unified diffs are the preferred format.
>>
>> This gives us all a chance to comment on your proposed changes, and
>> helps you learn what things we care about.
> The above paragraph is something I think a lot of people trying to get
> started on open source projects miss.  It is easy to hide your changes
> until they are "ready", but it is really better for you and the project
> to get them seen and rejected a few times, so if/when you are done,
> it'll actually be something that can be accepted into the trunk.
>
> Jeff
>
Thank you. I'll remember that. I'm not used to working in a widespread 
project like this. Either it has been a completely open project where 
all changes are checked in daily to the main trunk, or we've been 
working on private braches which has been kept recent by adding updates 
from the main trunk and then integrated back when they were ready.

B.R.
Håkan

[Rails-devel] bug ID: 2965669 -- 1856: port token should die on 6-train - ID: 2965669

[Aliza P. <ali...@gm...>]

bug ID: 2965669

Details:
Rails 1.1.3 has the CGR inheriting the port token from one of its
predecessors. This is wrong -- unlike the permanent tunnel and bridge
bonuses, the $20 port token dies on the first 6-train.

==================
Great Lakes Shipping Company	Cost: $70 Revenue: $15
At any time during its operating round, the owning public company may place
the port token in any one city adjacent to Lake Erie, Lake Huron, or
Georgian Bay. These cities are marked with an anchor symbol. The port token
raises the value of that city by $20 for only the owning company. Once
placed, the port token may not be moved. This port token, if placed, is
removed when the first type 6 train is purchased. Placement of this token
closes the Great Lakes Shipping Company.
==================

Re: [Rails-devel] Stockmarket type aka 1825 dev?

[Stefan F. <ste...@we...>]

Hi Håkan,
as someone who started working on Rails pretty recently (after a long time of 
passive observer), I can fully understand your choice to join the Rails 
development. I think one cannot underestimate the work done especially by 
Erik (but also all the others involved9 to get the project to a state where 
it is now: One can play real 18xx with Rails without running into problems 
every minute.

As Erik got me into the loop, I feel myself urged to provide you any 
assistance you need to start contributing: Thus if you have any question with 
respect to the code, you can ask me (in addition to the others) anytime. 

I like 1825 and would love to see Rails support for it. But even if the rules 
of 1825 are not complicated, there is a substantial list of changes you have 
to consider, thus it is not the easiest task to start with. My route to 1889 
was to start with the XML files in data, then create the missing tiles and 
finally add code support for the missing rule details.

Some of the discussion with Erik on specific topics (especially regarding 
implementations details) was done off the devel list: As it took me some time 
to familiarize myself with the structure and design of Rails, I could try to 
summarize some basic ideas. So if you (or others) are interested on a short 
overview of the code structure, I am willing to write something down after 
the release of 1.1.4.

And in any case: good luck on the job market.

Stefan


On Monday 08 March 2010 13:17:07 Håkan König wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I had a few questions about rails development in general and 1825 in
> particular. Since I'm new here and the only name I recognize among the
> current developers is Chris 'The Cat' Shaffer I'll start with a small
> introduction before I get to my questions.
>
> My name is Håkan König. I like to play 18xx and boardgames in general,
> something which has taken me to BoardgameGeek under the alias of
> hakko504. Right now I'm working as a consultant with android development
> in JAVA in an assignment about to end any day now. Unless we get a new
> customer, I will get laid off before the end of the month at which point
> I will have a lot of free time, and a need to improve my JAVA knowledge.
> As I've used the Rails app for a while to satisfy my appetite for 18xx I
> thought I'd come and see if you needed any development help here while
> at the same time expanding my knowledge in JAVA. I have downloaded the
> current repository from the CVS and started to look at the code and made
> sure it compiles in Eclipse. And then I came up with the idea of adding
> 1825 support to the app since it's the 18xx I'm mostly familiar with
> which isn't already supported or in development. I started searching in
> the archives and the only thing I could find was a small references to
> 1825, in the thread Stockmarket type where a discussion started about a
> linear stockmarket with multiple jumps. In the future I may also be
> interested in doing 1861 if 1825 turns out to be successful.
>
> So, the question I'm trying to ask is: Do you need any help? I'm
> beginner in JAVA but I have by now close to 10 years of programming
> experience from mostly C & C++, and during the last 6 months I've been
> working with JAVA on android.
> An of course, is there any interest in 1825, and has anything useful
> been done there? I can't find anything in the CVS main trunk, but Phil
> Davies posted here a while ago that he'd been looking at the
> possibility, but no specifics. I have quite a few ides but I'm not sure
> how to implement all of them. I forsee problems with supporting
> different combinations of Units/regionals/Kits (changing maps, available
> tiles, available trains, size of main bank etc.), as well as separate
> banks for players and companies.
>
> Anyway, That's me, and my interest in Rails.
> Håkan
>
> BTW, my main sourceforgeid is hakko504 as well, but that is linked to a
> slightly different emailaddress, without the .rails before the @ sign.
> Don't be confused, as long as it says @hakko.eml.cc it's me ;)

Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 share selling

[Chris S. <chr...@gm...>]

I think Rails should support both interpretations, as clearly there are some
groups playing with the "wrong" interpretation and it is better to support
them than to alienate them.

--
Chris

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.


On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Stefan Frey <ste...@we...> wrote:

> I did some research here and it seems that even the German and English 2nd
> edition rules themselves are conflicting.
> However I belong to a weak minority here.
>
> So I believe that there is no real need to support that. I liked the
> increased
> strategy space, but I can live with out it.
>
> Stefan
>
> Some more results:
> Lemmi's moderator only allows playing according to the interpretation
> inline
> with the English rules.
>
> I compared it with some of the rules that share the same entry in the 18xx
> difference list: "2.7 - Does the stock price drop when stock is sold?"
>
> 1800, 1824, 1835, 1838 Rheinland, 1844, 1848, 1862, 1895, 18Rhl Rhineland,
> 2038:  Yes, 1 row per block.
> (However what exactly a "block" is, is not defined.)
>
> At least the rules of 1824, 1844 and 1848 (all in the domain of Helmut
> Ohley)
> support the English rules interpretation.
>
> For Erik:
> Link to the German "second edition rules" on boardgamegeek:
> http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/26018/1835-spielregeln-pdf
>
> which supports the interpretation that two sell actions are possible in one
> turn with different prices.
> (As I used to play with those guys who edited the second edition not
> surprisingly I thought that this is the correct one).
>
> According to the English translation on boardgamegeek
> http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/30065/1835-rules-in-english
>
> Which gives a nearly identical example to the one in the German edition in
> 2.6.3.3, but replaces the German word "Aktion" by "Turn".
>
> Other paragraphs (see below) define that each "Zug"(turn) in each share
> round
> consists of an unlimited number of sell "Aktionen". Sell actions are
> packages
> of shares of one company and the share price drops one row immediately
> after
> each sell action.
>
>
> On Saturday 06 March 2010 13:52:23 Erik Vos wrote:
> > To avoid misunderstandings here: 1835 includes the "evil" rule, which I
> > think
> > offers an interesting choice: Receive more money or receive less  money
> to
> > trash another players stock.
> >
> > The precise ruless of 1835 are (all references are 2nd edition German
> > rules).
> > * Each sell transaction contains 1-x number of shares of one company.
> > (2.6.3.1)
> > * For each sell transaction the price drops by one row, regardless of the
> > number of shares involved. (2.6.3.3.)
> >
> > 2.6.3.3. also contains the explicit example of two sell transactions in a
> > row
> > to achieve a two-row drop.
> >
> > [EV] I only have the English rules which are numbered differently, but
> the
> > example given there only explicitly mentions two sell transactions in
> > *different* turns. Are the German rules downloadable anywhere?
> >
> > To implement that in Rails my suggestion would be:
> > If the same player initiates a second sell transaction for the same
> company
> > in
> > a single SR turn, then she gets the choice to include that share in the
> > previous transaction (no impact) or to start a new sell transaction
> > (another
> >
> > drop).
> >
> > [EV] Indeed. The whole discussion is about what a "transaction" is, and
> > this would be the easiest way out: let the player define it. I'm still
> not
> > convinced that adding this option is worth the effort (I think it'll take
> > creating a new specialized Dialog class), but if other people are, fine
> > with me.
> >
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >--- Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
> > Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
> > proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
> > See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rails-devel mailing list
> > Rai...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>

Re: [Rails-devel] Stockmarket type aka 1825 dev?

[Jeffrey B. M. <mc...@br...>]

On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:36:22AM -0800, brett lentz wrote:
> 2010/3/8 Håkan König <sou...@ha...>:
> > So, the question I'm trying to ask is: Do you need any help?
> 
> Hi there!
> 
> Welcome to the project.  We can always use more help. There's plenty
> to do, both big projects and small tasks.
> 
> For at least your first few change sets, just send patches to the
> list. Unified diffs are the preferred format.
> 
> This gives us all a chance to comment on your proposed changes, and
> helps you learn what things we care about.

The above paragraph is something I think a lot of people trying to get
started on open source projects miss.  It is easy to hide your changes
until they are "ready", but it is really better for you and the project
to get them seen and rejected a few times, so if/when you are done,
it'll actually be something that can be accepted into the trunk.

Jeff

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over 
 the man who cannot read them."
 -- Mark Twain
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 share selling

[Stefan F. <ste...@we...>]

I did some research here and it seems that even the German and English 2nd 
edition rules themselves are conflicting.
However I belong to a weak minority here.

So I believe that there is no real need to support that. I liked the increased 
strategy space, but I can live with out it.

Stefan

Some more results:
Lemmi's moderator only allows playing according to the interpretation inline 
with the English rules. 

I compared it with some of the rules that share the same entry in the 18xx 
difference list: "2.7 - Does the stock price drop when stock is sold?"

1800, 1824, 1835, 1838 Rheinland, 1844, 1848, 1862, 1895, 18Rhl Rhineland, 
2038:  Yes, 1 row per block.
(However what exactly a "block" is, is not defined.)

At least the rules of 1824, 1844 and 1848 (all in the domain of Helmut Ohley) 
support the English rules interpretation. 

For Erik:
Link to the German "second edition rules" on boardgamegeek:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/26018/1835-spielregeln-pdf

which supports the interpretation that two sell actions are possible in one 
turn with different prices.
(As I used to play with those guys who edited the second edition not 
surprisingly I thought that this is the correct one).

According to the English translation on boardgamegeek
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/30065/1835-rules-in-english

Which gives a nearly identical example to the one in the German edition in 
2.6.3.3, but replaces the German word "Aktion" by "Turn". 

Other paragraphs (see below) define that each "Zug"(turn) in each share round 
consists of an unlimited number of sell "Aktionen". Sell actions are packages 
of shares of one company and the share price drops one row immediately after 
each sell action.


On Saturday 06 March 2010 13:52:23 Erik Vos wrote:
> To avoid misunderstandings here: 1835 includes the "evil" rule, which I
> think
> offers an interesting choice: Receive more money or receive less  money to
> trash another players stock.
>
> The precise ruless of 1835 are (all references are 2nd edition German
> rules).
> * Each sell transaction contains 1-x number of shares of one company.
> (2.6.3.1)
> * For each sell transaction the price drops by one row, regardless of the
> number of shares involved. (2.6.3.3.)
>
> 2.6.3.3. also contains the explicit example of two sell transactions in a
> row
> to achieve a two-row drop.
>
> [EV] I only have the English rules which are numbered differently, but the
> example given there only explicitly mentions two sell transactions in
> *different* turns. Are the German rules downloadable anywhere?
>
> To implement that in Rails my suggestion would be:
> If the same player initiates a second sell transaction for the same company
> in
> a single SR turn, then she gets the choice to include that share in the
> previous transaction (no impact) or to start a new sell transaction
> (another
>
> drop).
>
> [EV] Indeed. The whole discussion is about what a "transaction" is, and
> this would be the easiest way out: let the player define it. I'm still not
> convinced that adding this option is worth the effort (I think it'll take
> creating a new specialized Dialog class), but if other people are, fine
> with me.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--- Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

Re: [Rails-devel] Stockmarket type aka 1825 dev?

[brett l. <bre...@gm...>]

2010/3/8 Håkan König <sou...@ha...>:
> So, the question I'm trying to ask is: Do you need any help?

Hi there!

Welcome to the project.  We can always use more help. There's plenty
to do, both big projects and small tasks.

For at least your first few change sets, just send patches to the
list. Unified diffs are the preferred format.

This gives us all a chance to comment on your proposed changes, and
helps you learn what things we care about.

If you'd like to see what's on our to-do lists, have a look through
the mailing list archives.

---Brett.

Re: [Rails-devel] Stockmarket type aka 1825 dev?

[Phil D. <de...@gm...>]

Håkan,

Welcome :)

I'm also fairly inexperienced with Java but I've been playing around
adding in 1825 support to rails in my spare time.  None of the
functionality I've been putting in had been committed to the rails
project on sourceforge, it's all in my local files and really is a bit
of a personal learning project I was hoping one day I might get close
enough to opeational to commit to the main line.

I have a very sketchily working version of 1825 Unit 1 but most of the
more complex pre-printed tiles are not correct since they aren't in
the tile database, the map has a massive blank spot from row A down to
row R since Unit 1 starts row numbering later in the alphabet, and the
stock rounds don't even remotely work correctly...so I haven't made a
lot of progress but I'm happy to share what little I have done!

I can't speak for the administrators of the project but I'm sure any
and all support is fully welcomed!

Phil

2010/3/8 Håkan König <sou...@ha...>:
> Hi there,
>
> I had a few questions about rails development in general and 1825 in
> particular. Since I'm new here and the only name I recognize among the
> current developers is Chris 'The Cat' Shaffer I'll start with a small
> introduction before I get to my questions.
>
> My name is Håkan König. I like to play 18xx and boardgames in general,
> something which has taken me to BoardgameGeek under the alias of hakko504.
> Right now I'm working as a consultant with android development in JAVA in an
> assignment about to end any day now. Unless we get a new customer, I will
> get laid off before the end of the month at which point I will have a lot of
> free time, and a need to improve my JAVA knowledge. As I've used the Rails
> app for a while to satisfy my appetite for 18xx I thought I'd come and see
> if you needed any development help here while at the same time expanding my
> knowledge in JAVA. I have downloaded the current repository from the CVS and
> started to look at the code and made sure it compiles in Eclipse. And then I
> came up with the idea of adding 1825 support to the app since it's the 18xx
> I'm mostly familiar with which isn't already supported or in development. I
> started searching in the archives and the only thing I could find was a
> small references to 1825, in the thread Stockmarket type where a discussion
> started about a linear stockmarket with multiple jumps. In the future I may
> also be interested in doing 1861 if 1825 turns out to be successful.
>
> So, the question I'm trying to ask is: Do you need any help? I'm beginner in
> JAVA but I have by now close to 10 years of programming experience from
> mostly C & C++, and during the last 6 months I've been working with JAVA on
> android.
> An of course, is there any interest in 1825, and has anything useful been
> done there? I can't find anything in the CVS main trunk, but Phil Davies
> posted here a while ago that he'd been looking at the possibility, but no
> specifics. I have quite a few ides but I'm not sure how to implement all of
> them. I forsee problems with supporting different combinations of
> Units/regionals/Kits (changing maps, available tiles, available trains, size
> of main bank etc.), as well as separate banks for players and companies.
>
> Anyway, That's me, and my interest in Rails.
> Håkan
>
> BTW, my main sourceforgeid is hakko504 as well, but that is linked to a
> slightly different emailaddress, without the .rails before the @ sign. Don't
> be confused, as long as it says @hakko.eml.cc it's me ;)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>
>

Re: [Rails-devel] Stockmarket type aka 1825 dev?

[Håkan K. <sou...@ha...>]

Hi there,

I had a few questions about rails development in general and 1825 in 
particular. Since I'm new here and the only name I recognize among the 
current developers is Chris 'The Cat' Shaffer I'll start with a small 
introduction before I get to my questions.

My name is Håkan König. I like to play 18xx and boardgames in general, 
something which has taken me to BoardgameGeek under the alias of 
hakko504. Right now I'm working as a consultant with android development 
in JAVA in an assignment about to end any day now. Unless we get a new 
customer, I will get laid off before the end of the month at which point 
I will have a lot of free time, and a need to improve my JAVA knowledge. 
As I've used the Rails app for a while to satisfy my appetite for 18xx I 
thought I'd come and see if you needed any development help here while 
at the same time expanding my knowledge in JAVA. I have downloaded the 
current repository from the CVS and started to look at the code and made 
sure it compiles in Eclipse. And then I came up with the idea of adding 
1825 support to the app since it's the 18xx I'm mostly familiar with 
which isn't already supported or in development. I started searching in 
the archives and the only thing I could find was a small references to 
1825, in the thread Stockmarket type where a discussion started about a 
linear stockmarket with multiple jumps. In the future I may also be 
interested in doing 1861 if 1825 turns out to be successful.

So, the question I'm trying to ask is: Do you need any help? I'm 
beginner in JAVA but I have by now close to 10 years of programming 
experience from mostly C & C++, and during the last 6 months I've been 
working with JAVA on android.
An of course, is there any interest in 1825, and has anything useful 
been done there? I can't find anything in the CVS main trunk, but Phil 
Davies posted here a while ago that he'd been looking at the 
possibility, but no specifics. I have quite a few ides but I'm not sure 
how to implement all of them. I forsee problems with supporting 
different combinations of Units/regionals/Kits (changing maps, available 
tiles, available trains, size of main bank etc.), as well as separate 
banks for players and companies.

Anyway, That's me, and my interest in Rails.
Håkan

BTW, my main sourceforgeid is hakko504 as well, but that is linked to a 
slightly different emailaddress, without the .rails before the @ sign. 
Don't be confused, as long as it says @hakko.eml.cc it's me ;)

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.)

Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 share selling

[brett l. <bre...@gm...>]

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 10:22 AM, John David Galt
<jd...@di...> wrote:
>>> There are two distinct use-cases here:
>>>
>>> 1. I sell a share, then realize I meant to sell multiple shares as a
>>> single sale, and so I sell more shares.   Result:  This should be
>>> counted as a single sale, with a single drop in stock value for the
>>> whole sale transaction.
>>
>> You click "undo" and then sell them all as a single transaction.
>
> This seems needlessly cumbersome to me.
>
>> (Alternatively, Rails could generically prohibit selling shares
>> one-at-a-time, since all games I'm aware of that discuss the topic
>> explicitly disallow it.)
>
> The 1830 FAQ by Bruce Shelley, published in The General, specifically
> allows one-at-a-time sales (though in 1830, you would be doing it not
> to reduce the stock's final price, but to receive less money in
> preparation for intentional bankruptcy).  However, not everyone accepts
> the Shelley FAQ, and I can't see any other reason ever to want to do
> one-at-a-time selling anyway, at least in games which follow the 1830
> rule in determining the new share price.
>
> Of course, there are some games that do prohibit it as you say.  1870
> is one.  (Of course in 1870, the stock price doesn't drop until the
> president decides not to price-protect, so the only effect, if it were
> allowed, would be to break up the sale into separate sales, thus
> allowing the president to price-protect some shares but not others of
> the same company on the same turn.)
>


That's exactly the type of play I see in my face-to-face games.

Right or wrong, efficient play or not, there are players who *do* play
like that.


> In 1835 it is not at all clear that one-at-a-time sales are allowed
> during a single stock turn.  The example in paragraph XV.8 (of the 2nd
> edition English rules) has these sales taking place on separate turns,
> thus seeming to imply (although not explicitly saying) that if you want
> the price to fall more than one row, you have to make each sale on a
> separate turn (though they may be turns of a single stock round).
>
>>> Personally, I'm totally okay with saying that the correct way to
>>> execute #1 is to click Undo, and re-do your single sale as intended.
>>> This means that Rails should treat all sales as individual
>>> transactions, and so achieving #2 is as easy as "Sell 1... then Sell
>>> 1.... then Sell 1..."
>
> 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.
>


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.

---Brett.

Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 share selling

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

>> There are two distinct use-cases here:
>>
>> 1. I sell a share, then realize I meant to sell multiple shares as a
>> single sale, and so I sell more shares.   Result:  This should be
>> counted as a single sale, with a single drop in stock value for the
>> whole sale transaction.
> 
> You click "undo" and then sell them all as a single transaction.

This seems needlessly cumbersome to me.

> (Alternatively, Rails could generically prohibit selling shares
> one-at-a-time, since all games I'm aware of that discuss the topic
> explicitly disallow it.)

The 1830 FAQ by Bruce Shelley, published in The General, specifically
allows one-at-a-time sales (though in 1830, you would be doing it not
to reduce the stock's final price, but to receive less money in
preparation for intentional bankruptcy).  However, not everyone accepts
the Shelley FAQ, and I can't see any other reason ever to want to do
one-at-a-time selling anyway, at least in games which follow the 1830
rule in determining the new share price.

Of course, there are some games that do prohibit it as you say.  1870
is one.  (Of course in 1870, the stock price doesn't drop until the
president decides not to price-protect, so the only effect, if it were
allowed, would be to break up the sale into separate sales, thus
allowing the president to price-protect some shares but not others of
the same company on the same turn.)

In 1835 it is not at all clear that one-at-a-time sales are allowed
during a single stock turn.  The example in paragraph XV.8 (of the 2nd
edition English rules) has these sales taking place on separate turns,
thus seeming to imply (although not explicitly saying) that if you want
the price to fall more than one row, you have to make each sale on a
separate turn (though they may be turns of a single stock round).

>> Personally, I'm totally okay with saying that the correct way to
>> execute #1 is to click Undo, and re-do your single sale as intended.
>> This means that Rails should treat all sales as individual
>> transactions, and so achieving #2 is as easy as "Sell 1... then Sell
>> 1.... then Sell 1..."

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.

Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 share selling

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

To avoid misunderstandings here: 1835 includes the "evil" rule, which I
think
offers an interesting choice: Receive more money or receive less  money to 
trash another players stock.

The precise ruless of 1835 are (all references are 2nd edition German
rules).
* Each sell transaction contains 1-x number of shares of one company. 
(2.6.3.1)
* For each sell transaction the price drops by one row, regardless of the 
number of shares involved. (2.6.3.3.)

2.6.3.3. also contains the explicit example of two sell transactions in a
row 
to achieve a two-row drop. 

[EV] I only have the English rules which are numbered differently, but the
example given there only explicitly mentions two sell transactions in
*different* turns. Are the German rules downloadable anywhere?

To implement that in Rails my suggestion would be:
If the same player initiates a second sell transaction for the same company
in 
a single SR turn, then she gets the choice to include that share in the 
previous transaction (no impact) or to start a new sell transaction (another

drop). 

[EV] Indeed. The whole discussion is about what a "transaction" is, and this
would be the easiest way out: let the player define it. I'm still not
convinced that adding this option is worth the effort (I think it'll take
creating a new specialized Dialog class), but if other people are, fine with
me. 

Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 share selling

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

But err... where do the 1830 rules say so? I can't find it.
And the 1830 PC game does the same thing as Rails: keep the selling price
equal until the end of the turn, regardless in what order shares of any
companies are sold.

Eirk. 

-----Original Message-----
From: brett lentz [mailto:bre...@gm...] 
Sent: Saturday 06 March 2010 00:56
To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 share selling

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Aliza Panitz <ali...@gm...> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Dave Mitton <da...@mi...> wrote:
>> errr - 1830 does discuss this, and it does allow you to sell shares
>> (particularly during a forced train purchase!)
>> one at a time, each time at a lower value  (if the token moves - could be
on
>> a shelf)
>
> 1830 is evil. :-)
>
> Other games explicitly prohibit many kinds of evilness found in 1830,
> including this one.
>
> I guess that's something we need to add to the definition of a game.
>
>  - Aliza
>


It's what makes 1830 fun. :-D

Maybe we just need a "cutthroat" mode?

---Brett.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
Rails-devel mailing list
Rai...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 share selling

[Stefan F. <ste...@we...>]

To avoid misunderstandings here: 1835 includes the "evil" rule, which I think
offers an interesting choice: Receive more money or receive less  money to 
trash another players stock.

The precise ruless of 1835 are (all references are 2nd edition German rules).
* Each sell transaction contains 1-x number of shares of one company. 
(2.6.3.1)
* For each sell transaction the price drops by one row, regardless of the 
number of shares involved. (2.6.3.3.)

2.6.3.3. also contains the explicit example of two sell transactions in a row 
to achieve a two-row drop. 

To implement that in Rails my suggestion would be:
If the same player initiates a second sell transaction for the same company in 
a single SR turn, then she gets the choice to include that share in the 
previous transaction (no impact) or to start a new sell transaction (another 
drop). 

Stefan


On Saturday 06 March 2010 00:51:29 Aliza Panitz wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Dave Mitton <da...@mi...> wrote:
> > errr - 1830 does discuss this, and it does allow you to sell shares
> > (particularly during a forced train purchase!)
> > one at a time, each time at a lower value  (if the token moves - could be
> > on a shelf)
>
> 1830 is evil. :-)
>
> Other games explicitly prohibit many kinds of evilness found in 1830,
> including this one.
>
> I guess that's something we need to add to the definition of a game.
>
>  - Aliza
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--- Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 share selling

[brett l. <bre...@gm...>]

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Aliza Panitz <ali...@gm...> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Dave Mitton <da...@mi...> wrote:
>> errr - 1830 does discuss this, and it does allow you to sell shares
>> (particularly during a forced train purchase!)
>> one at a time, each time at a lower value  (if the token moves - could be on
>> a shelf)
>
> 1830 is evil. :-)
>
> Other games explicitly prohibit many kinds of evilness found in 1830,
> including this one.
>
> I guess that's something we need to add to the definition of a game.
>
>  - Aliza
>


It's what makes 1830 fun. :-D

Maybe we just need a "cutthroat" mode?

---Brett.

Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 share selling

[Aliza P. <ali...@gm...>]

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Dave Mitton <da...@mi...> wrote:
> errr - 1830 does discuss this, and it does allow you to sell shares
> (particularly during a forced train purchase!)
> one at a time, each time at a lower value  (if the token moves - could be on
> a shelf)

1830 is evil. :-)

Other games explicitly prohibit many kinds of evilness found in 1830,
including this one.

I guess that's something we need to add to the definition of a game.

 - Aliza

Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 share selling

[Dave M. <da...@mi...>]

<html><HEAD><LINK rel=stylesheet type=text/css href="/webmail/static/deg/css/wysiwyg-3451203449.css" media=all>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18876"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>errr - 1830 does discuss this, and it does allow you to sell shares (particularly during a forced train purchase!)</DIV>
<DIV>one at a time, each time at a lower value&nbsp; (if the token moves - could be on a shelf)</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I second Brett's method.&nbsp; Either you sell them in a group, or you have to execute multiple sales.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Dave.<BR><BR>Mar 5, 2010 04:52:44 PM, <A class=parsedEmail href="mailto:rai...@li..." target=_blank>rai...@li...</A> wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(102,153,204) 3px solid">On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:47 PM, brett lentz &lt;<A class="parsedEmail parsedEmail" href="mailto:bre...@gm..." target=_blank>bre...@gm...</A>&gt; wrote:<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; There are two distinct use-cases here:<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; 1. I sell a share, then realize I meant to sell multiple shares as a<BR>&gt; single sale, and so I sell more shares. &nbsp; Result: &nbsp;This should be<BR>&gt; counted as a single sale, with a single drop in stock value for the<BR>&gt; whole sale transaction.<BR><BR>You click "undo" and then sell them all as a single transaction.<BR><BR>(Alternatively, Rails could generically prohibit selling shares<BR>one-at-a-time, since all games I'm aware of that discuss the topic<BR>explicitly disallow it.)<BR><BR><BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; 2. I deliberately want to trash the stock price of a company by<BR>&gt; selling multiple shares as individual transactions. Result: This<BR>&gt; should be counted as multiple sales transactions, and drop the stock<BR>&gt; value for each sale transaction.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; I'm not sure there's a good code-based way for Rails to distinguish #1<BR>&gt; from #2 without additional information.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Personally, I'm totally okay with saying that the correct way to<BR>&gt; execute #1 is to click Undo, and re-do your single sale as intended.<BR>&gt; This means that Rails should treat all sales as individual<BR>&gt; transactions, and so achieving #2 is as easy as "Sell 1... then Sell<BR>&gt; 1.... then Sell 1..."<BR><BR>Yes.<BR><BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; ---Brett.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></html>

Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 share selling

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

All good and fine, except that precluding multiple sale actions complicates
selling mixtures of shares of different sizes.
If you have, say, 3 5% and 2 10% Prussian shares, a list of all possible
(12) combinations should be offered to allow each possible combination to be
sold in one sell action. 
As it is, no combinations need be included, as any mix can be sold for the
same price in two (or more) actions.

See additional comment below.

Erik.

-----Original Message-----
From: Aliza Panitz [mailto:ali...@gm...] 
Sent: Friday 05 March 2010 22:53
To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 share selling

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:47 PM, brett lentz <bre...@gm...> wrote:
>>
>
> There are two distinct use-cases here:
>
> 1. I sell a share, then realize I meant to sell multiple shares as a
> single sale, and so I sell more shares.   Result:  This should be
> counted as a single sale, with a single drop in stock value for the
> whole sale transaction.

You click "undo" and then sell them all as a single transaction.

(Alternatively, Rails could generically prohibit selling shares
one-at-a-time, since all games I'm aware of that discuss the topic
explicitly disallow it.)

[EV] I suppose you mean: selling one-by-one at *different* prices. But that
is not what we're discussing here, so you're in fact strengthening my point.

> 2. I deliberately want to trash the stock price of a company by
> selling multiple shares as individual transactions. Result: This
> should be counted as multiple sales transactions, and drop the stock
> value for each sale transaction.
>
> I'm not sure there's a good code-based way for Rails to distinguish #1
> from #2 without additional information.
>
> Personally, I'm totally okay with saying that the correct way to
> execute #1 is to click Undo, and re-do your single sale as intended.
> This means that Rails should treat all sales as individual
> transactions, and so achieving #2 is as easy as "Sell 1... then Sell
> 1.... then Sell 1..."

Yes.

>
> ---Brett.
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
Rails-devel mailing list
Rai...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 share selling

[Aliza P. <ali...@gm...>]

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:47 PM, brett lentz <bre...@gm...> wrote:
>>
>
> There are two distinct use-cases here:
>
> 1. I sell a share, then realize I meant to sell multiple shares as a
> single sale, and so I sell more shares.   Result:  This should be
> counted as a single sale, with a single drop in stock value for the
> whole sale transaction.

You click "undo" and then sell them all as a single transaction.

(Alternatively, Rails could generically prohibit selling shares
one-at-a-time, since all games I'm aware of that discuss the topic
explicitly disallow it.)


>
> 2. I deliberately want to trash the stock price of a company by
> selling multiple shares as individual transactions. Result: This
> should be counted as multiple sales transactions, and drop the stock
> value for each sale transaction.
>
> I'm not sure there's a good code-based way for Rails to distinguish #1
> from #2 without additional information.
>
> Personally, I'm totally okay with saying that the correct way to
> execute #1 is to click Undo, and re-do your single sale as intended.
> This means that Rails should treat all sales as individual
> transactions, and so achieving #2 is as easy as "Sell 1... then Sell
> 1.... then Sell 1..."

Yes.

>
> ---Brett.
>

Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 share selling

[brett l. <bre...@gm...>]

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Erik Vos <eri...@xs...> wrote:
>
> Stefan also sent the following bug report to me on 1835:
>
> <quote>
> For each selling transaction the price drops by one row
> <snip/>
> (1) BUG: Only after the first transaction the price drops (sr3)
> (2) BUG: All shares are sold for the price at the beginning or par (sr3)
>
> In each selling transaction any number of shares of one company can be sold
> (2.6.3.1)
> (3) BUG: Cannot sell 10% and 20% in one transaction
> </quote>
>
> I don't think there are bugs here, but interpretations may differ.
>
> Rails always allows selling multiple shares of the same company in the same
> turn at the same price, regardless how many actions it takes. I know the
> 1835 rules can be interpreted as to mean that each single player selling
> action, even within one turn, would move the price down, but I doubt if that
> is correct. The example in the rules refers to multiple sales in *different*
> turns, and the similar 1844 rules state pretty explicitly that this indeed
> would be the correct interpretation.
>
> (3) is therefore not a bug but a simplification. You can sell as many 10%
> and 20% shares (or 5% and 10% Preussische) in one turn at the same price as
> you like and the rules allow.
>
> Other opinions?
>
> Erik.
>

There are two distinct use-cases here:

1. I sell a share, then realize I meant to sell multiple shares as a
single sale, and so I sell more shares.   Result:  This should be
counted as a single sale, with a single drop in stock value for the
whole sale transaction.

2. I deliberately want to trash the stock price of a company by
selling multiple shares as individual transactions. Result: This
should be counted as multiple sales transactions, and drop the stock
value for each sale transaction.

I'm not sure there's a good code-based way for Rails to distinguish #1
from #2 without additional information.

Personally, I'm totally okay with saying that the correct way to
execute #1 is to click Undo, and re-do your single sale as intended.
This means that Rails should treat all sales as individual
transactions, and so achieving #2 is as easy as "Sell 1... then Sell
1.... then Sell 1..."

---Brett.

[Rails-devel] 1835 share selling

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

Stefan also sent the following bug report to me on 1835:

<quote>
For each selling transaction the price drops by one row
<snip/>
(1) BUG: Only after the first transaction the price drops (sr3)
(2) BUG: All shares are sold for the price at the beginning or par (sr3)

In each selling transaction any number of shares of one company can be sold
(2.6.3.1)
(3) BUG: Cannot sell 10% and 20% in one transaction
</quote>

I don't think there are bugs here, but interpretations may differ.

Rails always allows selling multiple shares of the same company in the same
turn at the same price, regardless how many actions it takes. I know the
1835 rules can be interpreted as to mean that each single player selling
action, even within one turn, would move the price down, but I doubt if that
is correct. The example in the rules refers to multiple sales in *different*
turns, and the similar 1844 rules state pretty explicitly that this indeed
would be the correct interpretation.

(3) is therefore not a bug but a simplification. You can sell as many 10%
and 20% shares (or 5% and 10% Preussische) in one turn at the same price as
you like and the rules allow.

Other opinions?

Erik.

[Rails-devel] Changes

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

On popular demand, I have reverted the removal of the full train cost string
in the Game Status window.

Fixed some issues with 1835 (all reported by Stefan Frey):
- PfB extra tile/token lay hex is L6, not J6
- Added many missing tile upgrade options
- Fixed token lay cost calculation. In a misguided attempt to be efficient,
I created a complex algorthm that did not always find the shortest path. The
search is now brute force, and not noticeably slower (although it takes more
memory).

A general fix is that the message "You must buy a train unless you have no
route" is only displayed for companies that must own a train.

Erik.

Re: [Rails-devel] 1835

[Chris S. <chr...@gm...>]

Er, whoops, that should have been "retaining some/all of the information in
the *Game Status* window."

--
Chris

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.


On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Chris Shaffer <chr...@gm...>wrote:

> No, I'm requesting more information.  The change that Phil and I are
> discussing, as announced by Erik at the start of this thread, was to move
> all the train information to the info menu.  We are proposing reversing that
> change and retaining some/all of the information in the Map window.
>
>
> --
> Chris
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 8:34 AM, James Romano <rom...@gm...>wrote:
>
>> Are you requesting that less information be visible?  I'd vote against
>> that.  Why make me go scurrying to unbox my game to remind myself how many
>> T5's there are lower down in the deck?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Chris Shaffer <chr...@gm...>wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe we could have the current and on-deck trains displayed, as they are
>>> on many newer game boards where you can see currently available + top of
>>> stack of bigger trains?  That way, the display would never be more than two
>>> trains, no matter how many types exist in the game.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Phil Davies <de...@gm...> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I appreciate I might be a minority in this but I quite like having the
>>>> single string of train prices, it's a nice 'at a glance' view of
>>>> upcoming costs without having to dive into the info menu.
>>>>
>>>> I imagine games with very long train schedules might look pretty
>>>> horrible with this though...
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>> On 4 March 2010 22:23, Erik Vos <eri...@xs...> wrote:
>>>> > I have fixed the double price to be paid for 1835 Prussian shares.
>>>> > This is the first case where the share price is not tied to the
>>>> smallest
>>>> > share unit (5%), so I had to introduce a new parameter for the number
>>>> of
>>>> > (smallest) shares units where the share price is valid for.
>>>> >
>>>> > I have also extended the Train info to specify price and quantity. The
>>>> long
>>>> > train price string in the GameStatus window has been removed.
>>>> >
>>>> > Erik.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> > Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
>>>> > Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
>>>> > proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
>>>> > See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
>>>> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > Rails-devel mailing list
>>>> > Rai...@li...
>>>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
>>>> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
>>>> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
>>>> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Rails-devel mailing list
>>>> Rai...@li...
>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
>>> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
>>> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
>>> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Rails-devel mailing list
>>> Rai...@li...
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
>> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
>> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
>> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rails-devel mailing list
>> Rai...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>>
>>
>

Re: [Rails-devel] 1835

[Chris S. <chr...@gm...>]

No, I'm requesting more information.  The change that Phil and I are
discussing, as announced by Erik at the start of this thread, was to move
all the train information to the info menu.  We are proposing reversing that
change and retaining some/all of the information in the Map window.

--
Chris

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.


On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 8:34 AM, James Romano <rom...@gm...> wrote:

> Are you requesting that less information be visible?  I'd vote against
> that.  Why make me go scurrying to unbox my game to remind myself how many
> T5's there are lower down in the deck?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Chris Shaffer <chr...@gm...>wrote:
>
>> Maybe we could have the current and on-deck trains displayed, as they are
>> on many newer game boards where you can see currently available + top of
>> stack of bigger trains?  That way, the display would never be more than two
>> trains, no matter how many types exist in the game.
>>
>> --
>> Chris
>>
>> Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Phil Davies <de...@gm...> wrote:
>>
>>> I appreciate I might be a minority in this but I quite like having the
>>> single string of train prices, it's a nice 'at a glance' view of
>>> upcoming costs without having to dive into the info menu.
>>>
>>> I imagine games with very long train schedules might look pretty
>>> horrible with this though...
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>> On 4 March 2010 22:23, Erik Vos <eri...@xs...> wrote:
>>> > I have fixed the double price to be paid for 1835 Prussian shares.
>>> > This is the first case where the share price is not tied to the
>>> smallest
>>> > share unit (5%), so I had to introduce a new parameter for the number
>>> of
>>> > (smallest) shares units where the share price is valid for.
>>> >
>>> > I have also extended the Train info to specify price and quantity. The
>>> long
>>> > train price string in the GameStatus window has been removed.
>>> >
>>> > Erik.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> > Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
>>> > Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
>>> > proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
>>> > See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
>>> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Rails-devel mailing list
>>> > Rai...@li...
>>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
>>> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
>>> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
>>> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Rails-devel mailing list
>>> Rai...@li...
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
>> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
>> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
>> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rails-devel mailing list
>> Rai...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>
>