rails-devel

Re: [Rails-devel] [Rails-commits] rails/ui

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

See below (and there is also a question for Stefan Frey at the bottom).

>I have fixed current player highlighting in the StatusWindow. I have not changed the player order (which I understand is what you >really want), because that is not so easy to do.  I may work on that later.
> 
In the meantime i played around a bit on my own, the UI-Code is based on some "static" behaviour regarding player ordering that might not be true all the time.

[EV] In the Game status window, the bits to handle changes player ordering already existed (playerIndex, getCurrentPlayer() and highlightCurrentPlayer()), but unfortunately I had forgotten to use these...   
I'm not sure to what extent StartRoundWindow is currently prepared for different player orders.  Certainly it can (or could??) handle the reverse bidding sequences in the  1835 Snake and Clemens Variants.

>I also will look at the StartRoundWindow later. One aspect I want to think about is if it’s right to sell the privates and the investors >in the same StartRound, or that that round can better be split.
> 
Might be an Idea to have two Startpacket being handled consecutivly, would need to check the code and of course rewrite the existing behaviour once again :)(groan)

[EV] The main question is: is it easier to make StartRoundWindow cope with a changed player order *in the middle of a round*, or splitting the round?  Perhaps the former, but I haven't yet been able to dig into that issue.

Two questions that always arise in such cases are:
1.  Does "it" (in this case: multiple start rounds) also occur in other games? 1844 is very complex, but not sure if we would need multiple start rounds in that game.  Then we have 18US, where a second "start round" occurs later in the game.  I don't think we need to look at 1837 (however complex its start procedure is - it's much alike 1835). I'm not aware of other games where consecutive initial start rounds could apply, but I haven't been closely following the newest developments.
2. If so, is it worthwhile to create generic code for it? Probably not.

Here is a follow-up question for *Stefan Frey*:
In your perceived Round.xml, do you plan to include XML to configure the StartRound/SR/OR sequence (1/2/3 ORs per SR, etc.)? That's an idea that Brett and I have discussed many years ago, but I never got to writing code for it.  If you do, it might become simple to declare two consecutive StartRounds, and Martin's problem would be easier to solve.

Otherwise, the simplest solution might be to create a 1880-specific version of StartRoundWindow to handle this issue (a changed player order in the middle of a round).

Erik.

Re: [Rails-devel] [Rails-commits] rails/ui

[<Dr....@t-...>]

Hi Erik, 

	thanks for your reply and the thoughts you put into this. 

	One major problem cropped up though that i overlooked. 

	You cant reload (at least i couldnt) savefiles of 1880 after the
playerorientation had changed. This will need some effort i am afraid.


	StartroundWindow suffers also from a redirection, i will try to model
it after StatusWindow and find out if thats a viable approach to
handle differing player seatings. 

	[EV] The main question is: is it easier to make StartRoundWindow cope
 with a changed player order *in the middle of a round*, or splitting
the  round?  Perhaps the former, but I haven't yet been able to dig
into  that issue. 

	In the aspect of the save game problematic it might be easier to do
the latter, but again this is just a first impression/thought. 

	[EV] 1.  Does "it" (in this case: multiple start rounds) also occur
in other games? 

	Off hand:  1853, 18FL, 18US (Bidding or Contracting), Player Order
based on outcome, 1880

	Change of Player order in or after starting round: 1880, 1824,
1844(?), 1835 (CLemens Variant) 

	Maybe others i dont remember or havent played yet :) 

	StartRoundWindow_1880 might be the easiest way i agree, but for the
Savegame-Problematic. 

Regards, 

	Martin

	  Von: "Erik Vos" <eri...@xs...>
 An: <Dr....@t-...>, <ste...@we...>
 Cc: "Development list for Rails: an 18xx game"
<rai...@li...>
 Betreff: Re: [Rails-devel] [Rails-commits] rails/ui
 Datum: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:16:58 +0200

 See below (and there is also a question for Stefan Frey at the
bottom).

 >I have fixed current player highlighting in the StatusWindow. I have
not changed the player order (which I understand is what you >really
want), because that is not so easy to do.  I may work on that later.
 > 
 In the meantime i played around a bit on my own, the UI-Code is based
on some "static" behaviour regarding player ordering that might not be
true all the time.

 [EV] In the Game status window, the bits to handle changes player
ordering already existed (playerIndex, getCurrentPlayer() and
highlightCurrentPlayer()), but unfortunately I had forgotten to use
these...   
 I'm not sure to what extent StartRoundWindow is currently prepared
for different player orders.  Certainly it can (or could??) handle the
reverse bidding sequences in the  1835 Snake and Clemens Variants.

 >I also will look at the StartRoundWindow later. One aspect I want to
think about is if it’s right to sell the privates and the investors
>in the same StartRound, or that that round can better be split.
 > 
 Might be an Idea to have two Startpacket being handled consecutivly,
would need to check the code and of course rewrite the existing
behaviour once again :)(groan)

 [EV] The main question is: is it easier to make StartRoundWindow cope
with a changed player order *in the middle of a round*, or splitting
the round?  Perhaps the former, but I haven't yet been able to dig
into that issue.

 Two questions that always arise in such cases are:
 1.  Does "it" (in this case: multiple start rounds) also occur in
other games? 1844 is very complex, but not sure if we would need
multiple start rounds in that game.  Then we have 18US, where a second
"start round" occurs later in the game.  I don't think we need to look
at 1837 (however complex its start procedure is - it's much alike
1835). I'm not aware of other games where consecutive initial start
rounds could apply, but I haven't been closely following the newest
developments.
 2. If so, is it worthwhile to create generic code for it? Probably
not.

 Here is a follow-up question for *Stefan Frey*:
 In your perceived Round.xml, do you plan to include XML to configure
the StartRound/SR/OR sequence (1/2/3 ORs per SR, etc.)? That's an idea
that Brett and I have discussed many years ago, but I never got to
writing code for it.  If you do, it might become simple to declare two
consecutive StartRounds, and Martin's problem would be easier to
solve.

 Otherwise, the simplest solution might be to create a 1880-specific
version of StartRoundWindow to handle this issue (a changed player
order in the middle of a round).

 Erik.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 uberSVN's rich system and user administration capabilities and model 
 configuration take the hassle out of deploying and managing
Subversion and 
 the tools developers use with it. Learn more about uberSVN and get a
free 
 download at:  http://p.sf.net/sfu/wandisco-dev2dev
 _______________________________________________
 Rails-devel mailing list
 Rai...@li...
 https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

Re: [Rails-devel] [Rails-commits] rails/ui

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

Erik & Martin,
yes the sequence of rounds will be configurable.
StartRound and ShareRound are both PlayerRound(s). They differ by the allowed 
activities.

It will also be possible to assign strategies to control the ordering of 
acting entities (players or companies).

I expect it will be simpler to implement a game like 1880 in the new branch, 
however it will take some time to have at least something to work with. From 
my experience to implement revenue calculation, I believe 2-3 months are a 
realistic estimate.

Stefan


> 
> Here is a follow-up question for *Stefan Frey*:
> In your perceived Round.xml, do you plan to include XML to configure the
> StartRound/SR/OR sequence (1/2/3 ORs per SR, etc.)? That's an idea that
> Brett and I have discussed many years ago, but I never got to writing code
> for it.  If you do, it might become simple to declare two consecutive
> StartRounds, and Martin's problem would be easier to solve.
> 
> Otherwise, the simplest solution might be to create a 1880-specific version
> of StartRoundWindow to handle this issue (a changed player order in the
> middle of a round).
> 
> Erik.