rails-devel

[Rails-devel] Special tile laying

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

I have committed the first bunch of code to fix problems with laying tiles
using private special properties.
There problems have been reported by John David Galt.

The bugs so far fixed relate to offering, and in some cases even accepting
invalid tile lays by using special properties, such as:
- replacing a yellow tile by another one, e.g. 18AL Lumber Terminal,
- upgrading a yellow tile to a green one, e.g. 1830 F16 (D&H) or B20 (D&H).
The three cases mentioned above now work correctly. I still have to test
other cases in 1835 and 1889.

So far only the game engine has been affected.  The changes include:

1) The already existing but unused option to restrict special tile lays to a
certain colour is now used and enforced.  This applies to 1830 in hex B20
(C&StL).

2) Laying tiles of which the colour is specified explicitly (C&StL) or
implicitly by prescribing  a specific tile (D&H, Lumber Terminal) are now
checked against:
  2a. The colours allowed in the current phase. This has no effect in the
above cases, but it will have effect for the green special upgrade in 1846
(Lake Shore Line).
  2b. The colour of tile(s) already present in any explicitly specified
hexes. See the rules under 3). Blocked hexes are no longer offered (except
in the static help text, unfortunately).  If no hex(es) remain, the special
tile lay will not be offered at all.

3) Any tile to be laid must be either:
  3a. A regular upgrade (blank to yellow, yellow to green etc.), following
normal upgrade rules, or
  3b. An explicitly specified "irregular" upgrade of the old to the new tile
(in TileSet.xml).  I don't know any cases yet where this applies for special
tile lays, but 1856 has regular yellow-to-yellow upgrades, so I think we
must include this case.

4) I have removed the additional inclusion of such special tile lays as
options in the "Special" menu. This was accomplished by a different
mechanism and would not follow the above new rules.
I'm not entirely sure why this menu option had been included, and if it is
really needed.  I'll check my old emails later, but I can think now of two
reasons:
- special tiles lays exist that are permitted outside the normal tile laying
step,
- increasing user-friendliness by adding an alternative procedure, with the
usual "special action" highlight.
In any case, if this feature must be retained, it will have to be provided
by the UI rather than by the game engine, as it was previously.

Erik.

Re: [Rails-devel] Special tile laying

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

Erik:
quick answer on the last issue:
The special menu entry was used to facility the special tile lay of private B
in Rails: Player B is allowed to lay the tile independent of an ownership of 
the company.
So removing that possibility breaks 1889 support and potentially existing game 
files.
Stefan


> 4) I have removed the additional inclusion of such special tile lays as
> options in the "Special" menu. This was accomplished by a different
> mechanism and would not follow the above new rules.
> I'm not entirely sure why this menu option had been included, and if it is
> really needed.  I'll check my old emails later, but I can think now of two
> reasons:
> - special tiles lays exist that are permitted outside the normal tile
> laying step,
> - increasing user-friendliness by adding an alternative procedure, with the
> usual "special action" highlight.
> In any case, if this feature must be retained, it will have to be provided
> by the UI rather than by the game engine, as it was previously.
> 
> Erik.
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --- All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
> contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
> security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
> data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

Re: [Rails-devel] Special tile laying

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

Follow-up to Erik:
Have you pushed the commit already in which you removed the special tile 
option from the Special menu?
I checked my 1889 test games and the tile lay is still available from the 
Special Menu.
Stefan

On Thursday, December 01, 2011 02:47:56 pm Stefan Frey wrote:
> Erik:
> quick answer on the last issue:
> The special menu entry was used to facility the special tile lay of private
> B in Rails: Player B is allowed to lay the tile independent of an
> ownership of the company.
> So removing that possibility breaks 1889 support and potentially existing
> game files.
> Stefan
> 
> > 4) I have removed the additional inclusion of such special tile lays as
> > options in the "Special" menu. This was accomplished by a different
> > mechanism and would not follow the above new rules.
> > I'm not entirely sure why this menu option had been included, and if it
> > is really needed.  I'll check my old emails later, but I can think now
> > of two reasons:
> > - special tiles lays exist that are permitted outside the normal tile
> > laying step,
> > - increasing user-friendliness by adding an alternative procedure, with
> > the usual "special action" highlight.
> > In any case, if this feature must be retained, it will have to be
> > provided by the UI rather than by the game engine, as it was previously.
> > 
> > Erik.
> > 
> > 
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -- --- All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
> > contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
> > security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data
> > and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rails-devel mailing list
> > Rai...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --- All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
> contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
> security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
> data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

Re: [Rails-devel] Special tile laying

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

Stefan,

In OperatingRound, I have excluded SpecialTileLay as a property that causes
the addition of a UseSpecialProperty action (which duplicated the LayTile
action).

However, you have added special code in OperatingRound_1889 to add a
UseSpecialProperty for this specific case, and I have not touched that code.

So my new precautions will not apply to this 1889 case yet, and have not
sorted out how to accomplish that.  Some refactoring will be needed.

Erik.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 1:08 PM
> To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Special tile laying
> 
> Follow-up to Erik:
> Have you pushed the commit already in which you removed the special tile
> option from the Special menu?
> I checked my 1889 test games and the tile lay is still available from the
Special
> Menu.
> Stefan
> 
> On Thursday, December 01, 2011 02:47:56 pm Stefan Frey wrote:
> > Erik:
> > quick answer on the last issue:
> > The special menu entry was used to facility the special tile lay of
> > private B in Rails: Player B is allowed to lay the tile independent of
> > an ownership of the company.
> > So removing that possibility breaks 1889 support and potentially
> > existing game files.
> > Stefan
> >
> > > 4) I have removed the additional inclusion of such special tile lays
> > > as options in the "Special" menu. This was accomplished by a
> > > different mechanism and would not follow the above new rules.
> > > I'm not entirely sure why this menu option had been included, and if
> > > it is really needed.  I'll check my old emails later, but I can
> > > think now of two reasons:
> > > - special tiles lays exist that are permitted outside the normal
> > > tile laying step,
> > > - increasing user-friendliness by adding an alternative procedure,
> > > with the usual "special action" highlight.
> > > In any case, if this feature must be retained, it will have to be
> > > provided by the UI rather than by the game engine, as it was
previously.
> > >
> > > Erik.
> > >
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > -----
> > > -- --- All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
> > > contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
> > > security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
> > > data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
> > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Rails-devel mailing list
> > > Rai...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -----
> > --- All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
> > contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
> > security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
> > data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rails-devel mailing list
> > Rai...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a
> definitive record of customers, application performance, security threats,
> fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of
it. IT
> sense. And common sense.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

Re: [Rails-devel] Special tile laying

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

I have created a new OperatingRound method named validateSpecialTileLay(),
which contains all of the prevalidation code that previously existed in
getSpecialTileLays(). Most of that code was added in my previous commit.

This change enabled me to fix the 1835 cases, in addition to the previous
1830 and 18AL cases.  In OperatingRound_1835 the former rather than the
latter method is now overridden. Some code duplication has been removed as
well this way.

Still to do: 1889, where the situation is even more complex.

Erik.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Vos [mailto:eri...@xs...]
> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 8:44 PM
> To: 'Development list for Rails: an 18xx game'
> Subject: RE: [Rails-devel] Special tile laying
> 
> Stefan,
> 
> In OperatingRound, I have excluded SpecialTileLay as a property that
causes
> the addition of a UseSpecialProperty action (which duplicated the LayTile
> action).
> 
> However, you have added special code in OperatingRound_1889 to add a
> UseSpecialProperty for this specific case, and I have not touched that
code.
> So my new precautions will not apply to this 1889 case yet, and have not
> sorted out how to accomplish that.  Some refactoring will be needed.
> 
> Erik.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> > Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 1:08 PM
> > To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> > Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Special tile laying
> >
> > Follow-up to Erik:
> > Have you pushed the commit already in which you removed the special
> > tile option from the Special menu?
> > I checked my 1889 test games and the tile lay is still available from
> > the Special Menu.
> > Stefan
> >
> > On Thursday, December 01, 2011 02:47:56 pm Stefan Frey wrote:
> > > Erik:
> > > quick answer on the last issue:
> > > The special menu entry was used to facility the special tile lay of
> > > private B in Rails: Player B is allowed to lay the tile independent
> > > of an ownership of the company.
> > > So removing that possibility breaks 1889 support and potentially
> > > existing game files.
> > > Stefan
> > >
> > > > 4) I have removed the additional inclusion of such special tile
> > > > lays as options in the "Special" menu. This was accomplished by a
> > > > different mechanism and would not follow the above new rules.
> > > > I'm not entirely sure why this menu option had been included, and
> > > > if it is really needed.  I'll check my old emails later, but I can
> > > > think now of two reasons:
> > > > - special tiles lays exist that are permitted outside the normal
> > > > tile laying step,
> > > > - increasing user-friendliness by adding an alternative procedure,
> > > > with the usual "special action" highlight.
> > > > In any case, if this feature must be retained, it will have to be
> > > > provided by the UI rather than by the game engine, as it was
> previously.
> > > >
> > > > Erik.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --
> > > > -----
> > > > -- --- All the data continuously generated in your IT
> > > > infrastructure contains a definitive record of customers,
> > > > application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity,
> > > > and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense.
And
> common sense.
> > > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Rails-devel mailing list
> > > > Rai...@li...
> > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > -----
> > > --- All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
> > > contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
> > > security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
> > > data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
> > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Rails-devel mailing list
> > > Rai...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -------- All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
> > contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
> > security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
> > data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rails-devel mailing list
> > Rai...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

Re: [Rails-devel] Special tile laying

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

Erik:
I remember that the 1889 special tile lay had an unresolved issue remaining:
For me it was never exactly clear when the owner of B is allowed to lay the 
port.

Quotation from the rule:
"Player owner may place the port tile on a coastal town (B11, G10, I12, or J9) 
without a tile on it already, outside of the operating rounds of company 
controlled by another player. The player need not control a company or have 
connectivity to the placed tile from one of their companies. This does not 
close the company."

Being a non-native I cannot figure out what "outside of the operating rounds 
of company controlled by another player" means: Taken literally I believe this 
is complicated wording for "inside the operating rounds of (a) company 
controlled by the owner".

This is the current implementation: As long as a company of the owner of B 
operates. the port tile lay can be activated. 

However I was always unsure if this is really correct, as the second sentence 
indicates that the player need not control a company at all: But when is the 
owner of B without any company allowed to lay the tile?
Most likely anytime?

Until now nobody complained, but maybe John Tamplin can help with this issue.

Stefan


On Tuesday, December 06, 2011 10:13:00 pm Erik Vos wrote:
> I have created a new OperatingRound method named validateSpecialTileLay(),
> which contains all of the prevalidation code that previously existed in
> getSpecialTileLays(). Most of that code was added in my previous commit.
> 
> This change enabled me to fix the 1835 cases, in addition to the previous
> 1830 and 18AL cases.  In OperatingRound_1835 the former rather than the
> latter method is now overridden. Some code duplication has been removed as
> well this way.
> 
> Still to do: 1889, where the situation is even more complex.
> 
> Erik.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Erik Vos [mailto:eri...@xs...]
> > Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 8:44 PM
> > To: 'Development list for Rails: an 18xx game'
> > Subject: RE: [Rails-devel] Special tile laying
> > 
> > Stefan,
> > 
> > In OperatingRound, I have excluded SpecialTileLay as a property that
> 
> causes
> 
> > the addition of a UseSpecialProperty action (which duplicated the LayTile
> > action).
> > 
> > However, you have added special code in OperatingRound_1889 to add a
> > UseSpecialProperty for this specific case, and I have not touched that
> 
> code.
> 
> > So my new precautions will not apply to this 1889 case yet, and have not
> > sorted out how to accomplish that.  Some refactoring will be needed.
> > 
> > Erik.
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> > > Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 1:08 PM
> > > To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> > > Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Special tile laying
> > > 
> > > Follow-up to Erik:
> > > Have you pushed the commit already in which you removed the special
> > > tile option from the Special menu?
> > > I checked my 1889 test games and the tile lay is still available from
> > > the Special Menu.
> > > Stefan
> > > 
> > > On Thursday, December 01, 2011 02:47:56 pm Stefan Frey wrote:
> > > > Erik:
> > > > quick answer on the last issue:
> > > > The special menu entry was used to facility the special tile lay of
> > > > private B in Rails: Player B is allowed to lay the tile independent
> > > > of an ownership of the company.
> > > > So removing that possibility breaks 1889 support and potentially
> > > > existing game files.
> > > > Stefan
> > > > 
> > > > > 4) I have removed the additional inclusion of such special tile
> > > > > lays as options in the "Special" menu. This was accomplished by a
> > > > > different mechanism and would not follow the above new rules.
> > > > > I'm not entirely sure why this menu option had been included, and
> > > > > if it is really needed.  I'll check my old emails later, but I can
> > > > > think now of two reasons:
> > > > > - special tiles lays exist that are permitted outside the normal
> > > > > tile laying step,
> > > > > - increasing user-friendliness by adding an alternative procedure,
> > > > > with the usual "special action" highlight.
> > > > > In any case, if this feature must be retained, it will have to be
> > > > > provided by the UI rather than by the game engine, as it was
> > 
> > previously.
> > 
> > > > > Erik.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > --
> > > > > -----
> > > > > -- --- All the data continuously generated in your IT
> > > > > infrastructure contains a definitive record of customers,
> > > > > application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity,
> > > > > and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense.
> 
> And
> 
> > common sense.
> > 
> > > > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Rails-devel mailing list
> > > > > Rai...@li...
> > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> > > > 
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --
> > > > -----
> > > > --- All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
> > > > contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
> > > > security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
> > > > data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
> > > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Rails-devel mailing list
> > > > Rai...@li...
> > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> > > 
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > -------- All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
> > > contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
> > > security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
> > > data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
> > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Rails-devel mailing list
> > > Rai...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --- Cloud Services Checklist: Pricing and Packaging Optimization
> This white paper is intended to serve as a reference, checklist and point
> of discussion for anyone considering optimizing the pricing and packaging
> model of a cloud services business. Read Now!
> http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51491232/
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

Re: [Rails-devel] Special tile laying

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

On 2011-12-07 03:30, Stefan Frey wrote:
> Erik:
> I remember that the 1889 special tile lay had an unresolved issue remaining:
> For me it was never exactly clear when the owner of B is allowed to lay the 
> port.
> 
> Quotation from the rule:
> "Player owner may place the port tile on a coastal town (B11, G10, I12, or J9) 
> without a tile on it already, outside of the operating rounds of company 
> controlled by another player. The player need not control a company or have 
> connectivity to the placed tile from one of their companies. This does not 
> close the company."

As written it sounds as though you can lay it at the beginning or end of any
operating round, or in between the operating turns of any two companies.

Re: [Rails-devel] Special tile laying

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

I have now added the new validations to 1889. Also, the extra private C tile
is now required to be green.

Stefan's procedure for laying the B and C extra tiles has not changed in any
way. The B port tile can only be laid in the tile laying step of any
company, and that is reasonable, as this step is always the first in a
company turn.  If the operating company is not owned by the private B owner,
the Special menu is highlighted, and selecting the relevant option in that
menu acts as a turn request by the B owner.  IMO that's a nice solution.

I don't believe port laying is possible in 1889 stock rounds yet.

Stefan, can you check if this all works?  I don't have any specific test
cases handy, but the existing 1889 JUnit tests are OK.

BTW the 1835-related fixes appear to have broken my three new 1835 JUnit
test cases again.  I'll see if I can fix these, otherwise I'll have to
withdraw or replace these cases.

Erik.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 12:30 PM
> To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Special tile laying
> 
> Erik:
> I remember that the 1889 special tile lay had an unresolved issue
remaining:
> For me it was never exactly clear when the owner of B is allowed to lay
the
> port.
> 
> Quotation from the rule:
> "Player owner may place the port tile on a coastal town (B11, G10, I12, or
J9)
> without a tile on it already, outside of the operating rounds of company
> controlled by another player. The player need not control a company or
have
> connectivity to the placed tile from one of their companies. This does not
> close the company."
> 
> Being a non-native I cannot figure out what "outside of the operating
rounds
> of company controlled by another player" means: Taken literally I believe
this
> is complicated wording for "inside the operating rounds of (a) company
> controlled by the owner".
> 
> This is the current implementation: As long as a company of the owner of B
> operates. the port tile lay can be activated.
> 
> However I was always unsure if this is really correct, as the second
sentence
> indicates that the player need not control a company at all: But when is
the
> owner of B without any company allowed to lay the tile?
> Most likely anytime?
> 
> Until now nobody complained, but maybe John Tamplin can help with this
> issue.
> 
> Stefan
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, December 06, 2011 10:13:00 pm Erik Vos wrote:
> > I have created a new OperatingRound method named
> > validateSpecialTileLay(), which contains all of the prevalidation code
> > that previously existed in getSpecialTileLays(). Most of that code was
> added in my previous commit.
> >
> > This change enabled me to fix the 1835 cases, in addition to the
> > previous
> > 1830 and 18AL cases.  In OperatingRound_1835 the former rather than
> > the latter method is now overridden. Some code duplication has been
> > removed as well this way.
> >
> > Still to do: 1889, where the situation is even more complex.
> >
> > Erik.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Erik Vos [mailto:eri...@xs...]
> > > Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 8:44 PM
> > > To: 'Development list for Rails: an 18xx game'
> > > Subject: RE: [Rails-devel] Special tile laying
> > >
> > > Stefan,
> > >
> > > In OperatingRound, I have excluded SpecialTileLay as a property that
> >
> > causes
> >
> > > the addition of a UseSpecialProperty action (which duplicated the
> > > LayTile action).
> > >
> > > However, you have added special code in OperatingRound_1889 to add a
> > > UseSpecialProperty for this specific case, and I have not touched
> > > that
> >
> > code.
> >
> > > So my new precautions will not apply to this 1889 case yet, and have
> > > not sorted out how to accomplish that.  Some refactoring will be
needed.
> > >
> > > Erik.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> > > > Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 1:08 PM
> > > > To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> > > > Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Special tile laying
> > > >
> > > > Follow-up to Erik:
> > > > Have you pushed the commit already in which you removed the
> > > > special tile option from the Special menu?
> > > > I checked my 1889 test games and the tile lay is still available
> > > > from the Special Menu.
> > > > Stefan
> > > >
> > > > On Thursday, December 01, 2011 02:47:56 pm Stefan Frey wrote:
> > > > > Erik:
> > > > > quick answer on the last issue:
> > > > > The special menu entry was used to facility the special tile lay
> > > > > of private B in Rails: Player B is allowed to lay the tile
> > > > > independent of an ownership of the company.
> > > > > So removing that possibility breaks 1889 support and potentially
> > > > > existing game files.
> > > > > Stefan
> > > > >
> > > > > > 4) I have removed the additional inclusion of such special
> > > > > > tile lays as options in the "Special" menu. This was
> > > > > > accomplished by a different mechanism and would not follow the
> above new rules.
> > > > > > I'm not entirely sure why this menu option had been included,
> > > > > > and if it is really needed.  I'll check my old emails later,
> > > > > > but I can think now of two reasons:
> > > > > > - special tiles lays exist that are permitted outside the
> > > > > > normal tile laying step,
> > > > > > - increasing user-friendliness by adding an alternative
> > > > > > procedure, with the usual "special action" highlight.
> > > > > > In any case, if this feature must be retained, it will have to
> > > > > > be provided by the UI rather than by the game engine, as it
> > > > > > was
> > >
> > > previously.
> > >
> > > > > > Erik.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > ----
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > -----
> > > > > > -- --- All the data continuously generated in your IT
> > > > > > infrastructure contains a definitive record of customers,
> > > > > > application performance, security threats, fraudulent
> > > > > > activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of
it. IT
> sense.
> >
> > And
> >
> > > common sense.
> > >
> > > > > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Rails-devel mailing list
> > > > > > Rai...@li...
> > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> > > > >
> > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > ----
> > > > > --
> > > > > -----
> > > > > --- All the data continuously generated in your IT
> > > > > infrastructure contains a definitive record of customers,
> > > > > application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity,
> > > > > and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense.
And
> common sense.
> > > > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Rails-devel mailing list
> > > > > Rai...@li...
> > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > ----
> > > > -------- All the data continuously generated in your IT
> > > > infrastructure contains a definitive record of customers,
> > > > application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity,
> > > > and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense.
And
> common sense.
> > > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Rails-devel mailing list
> > > > Rai...@li...
> > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -----
> > --- Cloud Services Checklist: Pricing and Packaging Optimization This
> > white paper is intended to serve as a reference, checklist and point
> > of discussion for anyone considering optimizing the pricing and
> > packaging model of a cloud services business. Read Now!
> > http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51491232/
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rails-devel mailing list
> > Rai...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> 
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> Cloud Services Checklist: Pricing and Packaging Optimization This white
paper
> is intended to serve as a reference, checklist and point of discussion for
> anyone considering optimizing the pricing and packaging model of a cloud
> services business. Read Now!
> http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51491232/
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

Re: [Rails-devel] Special tile laying

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

Erik:
thanks for addressing that in 1889.
See comments below.
Stefan

On Thursday, December 08, 2011 10:49:59 am Erik Vos wrote:
> I have now added the new validations to 1889. Also, the extra private C
> tile is now required to be green.

One tiny bit of validation is still missing: If a player (who is not owner of 
the operating company) requests the special tile lay, he is offered to lay 
standard tiles as well and such a lay is not rejected.

> 
> Stefan's procedure for laying the B and C extra tiles has not changed in
> any way. The B port tile can only be laid in the tile laying step of any
> company, and that is reasonable, as this step is always the first in a
> company turn.  If the operating company is not owned by the private B
> owner, the Special menu is highlighted, and selecting the relevant option
> in that menu acts as a turn request by the B owner.  IMO that's a nice
> solution.

A change (to the better) is that your changes allow a port lay even 
for players who own B but it is not their turn.

I like the solution however I would like to address the issue of "interrupting 
actions" more generally. I will write an e-mail on this later today or 
tomorrow.

> 
> I don't believe port laying is possible in 1889 stock rounds yet.
> 
> Stefan, can you check if this all works?  I don't have any specific test
> cases handy, but the existing 1889 JUnit tests are OK.

It works and I will a further test case (where a player without an operating 
company lays the port tile) for the future.

> 
> BTW the 1835-related fixes appear to have broken my three new 1835 JUnit
> test cases again.  I'll see if I can fix these, otherwise I'll have to
> withdraw or replace these cases.
> 
> Erik.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 12:30 PM
> > To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> > Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Special tile laying
> > 
> > Erik:
> > I remember that the 1889 special tile lay had an unresolved issue
> 
> remaining:
> > For me it was never exactly clear when the owner of B is allowed to lay
> 
> the
> 
> > port.
> > 
> > Quotation from the rule:
> > "Player owner may place the port tile on a coastal town (B11, G10, I12,
> > or
> 
> J9)
> 
> > without a tile on it already, outside of the operating rounds of company
> > controlled by another player. The player need not control a company or
> 
> have
> 
> > connectivity to the placed tile from one of their companies. This does
> > not close the company."
> > 
> > Being a non-native I cannot figure out what "outside of the operating
> 
> rounds
> 
> > of company controlled by another player" means: Taken literally I believe
> 
> this
> 
> > is complicated wording for "inside the operating rounds of (a) company
> > controlled by the owner".
> > 
> > This is the current implementation: As long as a company of the owner of
> > B operates. the port tile lay can be activated.
> > 
> > However I was always unsure if this is really correct, as the second
> 
> sentence
> 
> > indicates that the player need not control a company at all: But when is
> 
> the
> 
> > owner of B without any company allowed to lay the tile?
> > Most likely anytime?
> > 
> > Until now nobody complained, but maybe John Tamplin can help with this
> > issue.
> > 
> > Stefan
> > 
> > On Tuesday, December 06, 2011 10:13:00 pm Erik Vos wrote:
> > > I have created a new OperatingRound method named
> > > validateSpecialTileLay(), which contains all of the prevalidation code
> > > that previously existed in getSpecialTileLays(). Most of that code was
> > 
> > added in my previous commit.
> > 
> > > This change enabled me to fix the 1835 cases, in addition to the
> > > previous
> > > 1830 and 18AL cases.  In OperatingRound_1835 the former rather than
> > > the latter method is now overridden. Some code duplication has been
> > > removed as well this way.
> > > 
> > > Still to do: 1889, where the situation is even more complex.
> > > 
> > > Erik.
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Erik Vos [mailto:eri...@xs...]
> > > > Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 8:44 PM
> > > > To: 'Development list for Rails: an 18xx game'
> > > > Subject: RE: [Rails-devel] Special tile laying
> > > > 
> > > > Stefan,
> > > > 
> > > > In OperatingRound, I have excluded SpecialTileLay as a property that
> > > 
> > > causes
> > > 
> > > > the addition of a UseSpecialProperty action (which duplicated the
> > > > LayTile action).
> > > > 
> > > > However, you have added special code in OperatingRound_1889 to add a
> > > > UseSpecialProperty for this specific case, and I have not touched
> > > > that
> > > 
> > > code.
> > > 
> > > > So my new precautions will not apply to this 1889 case yet, and have
> > > > not sorted out how to accomplish that.  Some refactoring will be
> 
> needed.
> 
> > > > Erik.
> > > > 
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> > > > > Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 1:08 PM
> > > > > To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Special tile laying
> > > > > 
> > > > > Follow-up to Erik:
> > > > > Have you pushed the commit already in which you removed the
> > > > > special tile option from the Special menu?
> > > > > I checked my 1889 test games and the tile lay is still available
> > > > > from the Special Menu.
> > > > > Stefan
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Thursday, December 01, 2011 02:47:56 pm Stefan Frey wrote:
> > > > > > Erik:
> > > > > > quick answer on the last issue:
> > > > > > The special menu entry was used to facility the special tile lay
> > > > > > of private B in Rails: Player B is allowed to lay the tile
> > > > > > independent of an ownership of the company.
> > > > > > So removing that possibility breaks 1889 support and potentially
> > > > > > existing game files.
> > > > > > Stefan
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 4) I have removed the additional inclusion of such special
> > > > > > > tile lays as options in the "Special" menu. This was
> > > > > > > accomplished by a different mechanism and would not follow the
> > 
> > above new rules.
> > 
> > > > > > > I'm not entirely sure why this menu option had been included,
> > > > > > > and if it is really needed.  I'll check my old emails later,
> > > > > > > but I can think now of two reasons:
> > > > > > > - special tiles lays exist that are permitted outside the
> > > > > > > normal tile laying step,
> > > > > > > - increasing user-friendliness by adding an alternative
> > > > > > > procedure, with the usual "special action" highlight.
> > > > > > > In any case, if this feature must be retained, it will have to
> > > > > > > be provided by the UI rather than by the game engine, as it
> > > > > > > was
> > > > 
> > > > previously.
> > > > 
> > > > > > > Erik.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > ----
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > -----
> > > > > > > -- --- All the data continuously generated in your IT
> > > > > > > infrastructure contains a definitive record of customers,
> > > > > > > application performance, security threats, fraudulent
> > > > > > > activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of
> 
> it. IT
> 
> > sense.
> > 
> > > And
> > > 
> > > > common sense.
> > > > 
> > > > > > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Rails-devel mailing list
> > > > > > > Rai...@li...
> > > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > ----
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > -----
> > > > > > --- All the data continuously generated in your IT
> > > > > > infrastructure contains a definitive record of customers,
> > > > > > application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity,
> > > > > > and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense.
> 
> And
> 
> > common sense.
> > 
> > > > > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Rails-devel mailing list
> > > > > > Rai...@li...
> > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> > > > > 
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > ----
> > > > > -------- All the data continuously generated in your IT
> > > > > infrastructure contains a definitive record of customers,
> > > > > application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity,
> > > > > and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense.
> 
> And
> 
> > common sense.
> > 
> > > > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Rails-devel mailing list
> > > > > Rai...@li...
> > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> > > 
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > -----
> > > --- Cloud Services Checklist: Pricing and Packaging Optimization This
> > > white paper is intended to serve as a reference, checklist and point
> > > of discussion for anyone considering optimizing the pricing and
> > > packaging model of a cloud services business. Read Now!
> > > http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51491232/
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Rails-devel mailing list
> > > Rai...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> - --
> 
> > Cloud Services Checklist: Pricing and Packaging Optimization This white
> 
> paper
> 
> > is intended to serve as a reference, checklist and point of discussion
> > for anyone considering optimizing the pricing and packaging model of a
> > cloud services business. Read Now!
> > http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51491232/
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rails-devel mailing list
> > Rai...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --- Cloud Services Checklist: Pricing and Packaging Optimization
> This white paper is intended to serve as a reference, checklist and point
> of discussion for anyone considering optimizing the pricing and packaging
> model of a cloud services business. Read Now!
> http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51491232/
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

Re: [Rails-devel] Special tile laying

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

> From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> On Thursday, December 08, 2011 10:49:59 am Erik Vos wrote:
> > I have now added the new validations to 1889. Also, the extra private
> > C tile is now required to be green.
> 
> One tiny bit of validation is still missing: If a player (who is not owner
of the
> operating company) requests the special tile lay, he is offered to lay
standard
> tiles as well and such a lay is not rejected.

That should be fixed now.

Erik.