Thread: [Rails-devel] B&O PC Sale

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

What "property" or tag disallows the B&O from being sold to a company in
1830?

I have no problem letting a company buy the B&O private, if it still lives
when the first 3-train has been bought.

And I have no clue what circumstances could prevent that.

Erik.

Van: Scott Petersen [mailto:sc...@re...] 
Verzonden: zaterdag 26 maart 2011 2:57
Aan: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
Onderwerp: [Rails-devel] B&O PC Sale

What "property" or tag disallows the B&O from being sold to a company in
1830?

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Erik Vos <eri...@xs...> wrote:

> I have no problem letting a company buy the B&O private, if it still lives
> when the first 3-train has been bought.
>

Sorry, let me further explain.  I would like to implement a similar private
company to 1830's B&O that cannot be bought in to a Public Corporation.  Is
there something in the XML that specifies that property?

The UP private in 18Neb behaves this way, for example.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 26, 2011, at 6:31 AM, Scott Petersen <sc...@re...> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Erik Vos <eri...@xs...> wrote:
> I have no problem letting a company buy the B&O private, if it still lives when the first 3-train has been bought.
> 
>  
> Sorry, let me further explain.  I would like to implement a similar private company to 1830's B&O that cannot be bought in to a Public Corporation.  Is there something in the XML that specifies that property? 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to meet the
> growing manageability and security demands of your customers. Businesses
> are taking advantage of Intel(R) vPro (TM) technology - will your software 
> be a part of the solution? Download the Intel(R) Manageability Checker 
> today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmar
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

It's not implemented in Rails, as I have just tested.  

But only now I notice that the rules *do* exclude B&O from being purchasable
by a company. I wasn't aware of that <blush> (it's many years ago that I
actually played 1830).

In any case, we need a bit of XML to specify that exclusion. Many ways to do
that, e.g. <Tradeable toCompany="no"/> (the default being "yes", but only if
allowed per Phase, where the default is "no").

I would formulate the truth table more generically as below, but essentially
it's the same as Scott's:

<Phase>

<Privates>

sellingAllowed

<Company>

<Tradeable>

toCompany

Buyable

No

No 

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Erik

Van: sco...@gm... [mailto:sco...@gm...] Namens
Scott Petersen
Verzonden: zaterdag 26 maart 2011 15:36
Aan: Erik Vos
Onderwerp: Re: [Rails-devel] B&O PC Sale

I think you already know this, but in 1830. all privates can be purchased in
Phase 3 (3-train purchased) except B&O which may never be purchased.  This
is already implemented in Rails, but I don't know where this is specified.

I suppose the truth table would be:

Phase 2

Phase 3+

Not B&O

Not Buyable

Buyable

B&O

Not Buyable

Not Buyable

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Erik Vos <eri...@xs...> wrote:
>
> No, but such a tag or attribute can be added easily.
>
> The main question, however, is how such an attribute would interfere with
the corresponding setting in the <Private> tag under <Phase>.
>
> What is the truth table for private being buyable by a company, given the
settings in <Phase> and in <Company>?
>
>  
>
> Erik.
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Van: sco...@gm... [mailto:sco...@gm...] Namens
Scott Petersen
> Verzonden: zaterdag 26 maart 2011 14:31
> Aan: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> CC: Erik Vos
> Onderwerp: Re: [Rails-devel] B&O PC Sale
>
>  
>
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Erik Vos <eri...@xs...> wrote:
>
> I have no problem letting a company buy the B&O private, if it still lives
when the first 3-train has been bought.
>
>  
>
> Sorry, let me further explain.  I would like to implement a similar
private company to 1830's B&O that cannot be bought in to a Public
Corporation.  Is there something in the XML that specifies that property?

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Erik Vos <eri...@xs...> wrote:

> It’s not implemented in Rails, as I have just tested.
>
> But only now I notice that the rules **do** exclude B&O from being
> purchasable by a company. I wasn’t aware of that <blush> (it’s many years
> ago that I actually played 1830).
>
>
>
> In any case, we need a bit of XML to specify that exclusion. Many ways to
> do that, e.g. <Tradeable toCompany=”no”/> (the default being “yes”, but only
> if allowed per Phase, where the default is “no”).
>
>
>
> I would formulate the truth table more generically as below, but
> essentially it’s the same as Scott’s:
>

Since various games have different limits on the purchase price, I suggest
instead having a maximum price it can be purchased for by a company, and 0
means it can't be purchased.

-- 
John A. Tamplin

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 11:36 AM, John A. Tamplin <ja...@ja...> wrote:

> Since various games have different limits on the purchase price, I suggest
> instead having a maximum price it can be purchased for by a company, and 0
> means it can't be purchased.
>

The variable purchase prices are already well implemented and are changeable
with XML.  I suppose it would work to override it (buy in multiplier is
zero) for certain companies, but it would be even better if it did not  even
show up in the list of privates to buy in.

I like <Tradeable toCompany=”no”/>.

On 2011-03-27, at 0:49 , Scott Petersen wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 11:36 AM, John A. Tamplin <ja...@ja...> wrote:
> Since various games have different limits on the purchase price, I suggest instead having a maximum price it can be purchased for by a company, and 0 means it can't be purchased. 
> 
> The variable purchase prices are already well implemented and are changeable with XML.  I suppose it would work to override it (buy in multiplier is zero) for certain companies, but it would be even better if it did not  even show up in the list of privates to buy in.  

Is there any documentation on this?  I can't find any place in the code that reads the XML for a private company that anything like a buy in multiplier is read or set per private company.

I *can* find this in the PublicCompany class, but if I want to have different multipliers for different private companies (so that, for instance, in 1848 the various privates can be bought in for different ranges of values), this doesn't seem to work.  I can get around this by setting different base prices for the privates, and then writing extra code so that they are sold for some other price in the auction, but this seems not like the best way to proceed.

Bill Rosgen

Basically, anything defined under <CompanyType> can be overridden under any
<Company> implementing that type.
Of course, the catch here is, that the private buying price range is defined
with the (buying) major companies rather than the (sold) private companies.
If we want to add an ability to vary the  buy price ranges per private
company, we must move these parameters to the Private <CompanyType>
definition.
That will also require some code refactoring.

I wasn't aware that games existed having this need, but indeed 1848 does.
It's also not using factors but absolute numbers as limits, so we probably
should also have new "lowerPrice" and "upperPrice" attributes.

I'm willing to pick this up in the near future, but if you want to give it a
try, please go ahead.

Erik

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Bill Rosgen [mailto:ro...@gm...]
> Verzonden: maandag 28 maart 2011 7:14
> Aan: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> CC: John A. Tamplin
> Onderwerp: Re: [Rails-devel] B&O PC Sale
> 
> 
> On 2011-03-27, at 0:49 , Scott Petersen wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 11:36 AM, John A. Tamplin <ja...@ja...> wrote:
> > Since various games have different limits on the purchase price, I
suggest
> instead having a maximum price it can be purchased for by a company, and 0
> means it can't be purchased.
> >
> > The variable purchase prices are already well implemented and are
> changeable with XML.  I suppose it would work to override it (buy in
> multiplier is zero) for certain companies, but it would be even better if
it did
> not  even show up in the list of privates to buy in.
> 
> Is there any documentation on this?  I can't find any place in the code
that
> reads the XML for a private company that anything like a buy in multiplier
is
> read or set per private company.
> 
> I *can* find this in the PublicCompany class, but if I want to have
different
> multipliers for different private companies (so that, for instance, in
1848 the
> various privates can be bought in for different ranges of values), this
doesn't
> seem to work.  I can get around this by setting different base prices for
the
> privates, and then writing extra code so that they are sold for some other
> price in the auction, but this seems not like the best way to proceed.
> 
> Bill Rosgen
> 
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to meet
> the growing manageability and security demands of your customers.
> Businesses are taking advantage of Intel(R) vPro (TM) technology - will
your
> software be a part of the solution? Download the Intel(R) Manageability
> Checker today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmar
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

On further thinking, there are a few more loose ends that we might be able
to tie down this way in in one fell swoop:

1. The so far overlooked 1830 B&O exception.

2. The fact that (at least) in 1830 privates can also be sold to other
players. This has not been implemented at all yet. 
Nobody seems to have missed this feature so far, and it would be a bit of a
problem to fit it into the UI, so I'm not promising that this will be done
anytime soon. But at least we might think about how it could be configured.

The basic solution has already been discussed for B&O: a new <Tradeable> tag
for private companies.
Combining all cases  that we are looking at, we could end up with something
like:

- for 1830 CompanyType Private:
	<Tradeable toCompany="yes" lowerPriceFactor="0.5"
upperPriceFactor="2.0"/>
	<Tradeable toPlayer="yes"/>  <!-- No price limit!-->
- for 1830 Private Company B&O:
	<Tradeable toCompany="no"/>
- for 1848 Private Company P1:
	<Tradeable toCompany="yes" lowerPrice="1" upperPrice="40"/>
Etc.

Erik.

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Erik Vos [mailto:eri...@xs...]
> Verzonden: maandag 28 maart 2011 10:38
> Aan: 'Development list for Rails: an 18xx game'
> Onderwerp: Re: [Rails-devel] B&O PC Sale
> 
> Basically, anything defined under <CompanyType> can be overridden under
> any <Company> implementing that type.
> Of course, the catch here is, that the private buying price range is
defined
> with the (buying) major companies rather than the (sold) private
companies.
> If we want to add an ability to vary the  buy price ranges per private
> company, we must move these parameters to the Private <CompanyType>
> definition.
> That will also require some code refactoring.
> 
> I wasn't aware that games existed having this need, but indeed 1848 does.
> It's also not using factors but absolute numbers as limits, so we probably
> should also have new "lowerPrice" and "upperPrice" attributes.
> 
> I'm willing to pick this up in the near future, but if you want to give it
a try,
> please go ahead.
> 
> Erik
> 

Erik,

I'll have an attempt at implementing this.

I plan to add support for attribues to a new 'Tradeable' tag for:

toCompany
toPlayer
lowerPrice
upperPrice
lowerPriceFactor
upperPriceFactor

The idea is to then add attributes to the PrivateCompany class to store the lower and upper prices (or to compute them from the upperPriceFactor and lowerPriceFactor).

The question is: should I also leave these parameters in the Public <CompanyType>?  Are there any games where different public companies can buy privates for different ranges of values?  I don't want to break one set of games to implement another.

Also, if I make these changes, I'll also go through the XML and move the PriceFactor attributes to the Private <CompanyType>.  Is this going to break savegame compatibility or is it otherwise a bad idea?

Bill

On 2011-03-28, at 16:38 , Erik Vos wrote:

> Basically, anything defined under <CompanyType> can be overridden under any
> <Company> implementing that type.
> Of course, the catch here is, that the private buying price range is defined
> with the (buying) major companies rather than the (sold) private companies.
> If we want to add an ability to vary the  buy price ranges per private
> company, we must move these parameters to the Private <CompanyType>
> definition.
> That will also require some code refactoring.
> 
> I wasn't aware that games existed having this need, but indeed 1848 does.
> It's also not using factors but absolute numbers as limits, so we probably
> should also have new "lowerPrice" and "upperPrice" attributes.
> 
> I'm willing to pick this up in the near future, but if you want to give it a
> try, please go ahead.
> 
> Erik

Bill,

Some answers below.

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Bill Rosgen [mailto:ro...@gm...]
> Verzonden: maandag 28 maart 2011 11:14
> Aan: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> Onderwerp: Re: [Rails-devel] B&O PC Sale
> 
> Erik,
> 
> I'll have an attempt at implementing this.
> 
> I plan to add support for attribues to a new 'Tradeable' tag for:
> 
> toCompany
> toPlayer
> lowerPrice
> upperPrice
> lowerPriceFactor
> upperPriceFactor
> 
> The idea is to then add attributes to the PrivateCompany class to store
the
> lower and upper prices (or to compute them from the upperPriceFactor and
> lowerPriceFactor).
> 
> The question is: should I also leave these parameters in the Public
> <CompanyType>?  

No, I think this should be a complete replacement. Once you have modified
the code that finds the prices to get these from the private rather than the
public company, the old code is redundant and can be removed at some point
(but I suppose that's not urgent).

> Are there any games where different public companies
> can buy privates for different ranges of values?  I don't want to break
one set
> of games to implement another.

I don't think so, but if that would be the case, I believe we could still
catch that with our new XML. Of course, all currently implemented games must
be checked (and later converted).

> Also, if I make these changes, I'll also go through the XML and move the
> PriceFactor attributes to the Private <CompanyType>.  Is this going to
break
> savegame compatibility or is it otherwise a bad idea?

It shouldn't break anything as long as you don't touch the BuyPrivate class,
and I don't see any need to do that. So, yes, the old spec should ultimately
be removed (but leaving it in for a while shouldn't do any harm).

Erik

In regard to this question:

The question is: should I also leave these parameters in the Public
> <CompanyType>?  Are there any games where different public companies can buy
> privates for different ranges of values?  I don't want to break one set of
> games to implement another.

I'm not sure how to answer the question, but I'd call your attention to the
MS and Big 4 in 1846.  These are private companies that lay track, run
trains and pay 50/50 like various other minor companies.  They have a
purchase price and a debt.  For example, the MS has a purchase price of $60
and a debt of $40.  When initially purchased, the player pays $100, receives
the MS charter, places $60 on the charter and puts $40 in the bank.  Later,
the MS private can be sold to a major company for a value between $1 and
$60, at which time its assets are transferred to the major company.

Similarly, in 18West, the Granger companies can be sold to public companies.

So the model needs to accommodate private, minor and public companies in
various permutations.

--
Chris

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Chris Shaffer <chr...@gm...>wrote:

> So the model needs to accommodate private, minor and public companies in
> various permutations.
>

The Independent Railroads in 1846 and Grangers in 18West should be treated
more like operating (lay track/run trains) companies than like private
companies.  Perhaps in order to make things easy to implement in the
auction, there would be a private company that is gives ownership of the
operating company, but then dissolves once the auction is complete. Of
course the 1846 auction is another story...

I think the Tradeability issue can be fixed by making <Tradeable> a Company
property, rather than a PrivateCompany property, so it would apply to all
company types

(in practice, it would only work with companies that only have one 100%
share and no share price).

The current sharp distinction between private and public companies always
raises questions when we start thinking about implementing such games.

But in Rails terminology, in fact the only fundamental difference is that
public companies can lay track and run trains, and privates don't.

By definition, public companies have at least one share. Minors often only
have one 100% share, but it does not necessarily have a price (see the 1835
black minors), and it does not necessarily count against the certificate
limit. That all is already configurable (I think).

If that all is correct, the main required change to implement MS and Big4
would be to make (minor) public companies buyable via the current private
company purchasing mechanism (see my above proposal). The consequences of
such a buy would use the existing "merge" mechanism (to transfer trains,
cash etc.).

Of course, the details of these merge processes may pose problems that need
different approaches (I don't have all details in my mind right now).

Erik.

Van: Chris Shaffer [mailto:chr...@gm...] 
Verzonden: maandag 28 maart 2011 16:12
Aan: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
Onderwerp: Re: [Rails-devel] B&O PC Sale

In regard to this question:

The question is: should I also leave these parameters in the Public
<CompanyType>?  Are there any games where different public companies can buy
privates for different ranges of values?  I don't want to break one set of
games to implement another.

I'm not sure how to answer the question, but I'd call your attention to the
MS and Big 4 in 1846.  These are private companies that lay track, run
trains and pay 50/50 like various other minor companies.  They have a
purchase price and a debt.  For example, the MS has a purchase price of $60
and a debt of $40.  When initially purchased, the player pays $100, receives
the MS charter, places $60 on the charter and puts $40 in the bank.  Later,
the MS private can be sold to a major company for a value between $1 and
$60, at which time its assets are transferred to the major company.

Similarly, in 18West, the Granger companies can be sold to public companies.

So the model needs to accommodate private, minor and public companies in
various permutations. 

--
Chris

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

1817 has tradable public companies that have multiple shares with a stock
price.  I realize, of course, that Rails is a *long* way from supporting
1817.

--
Chris

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Erik Vos <eri...@xs...> wrote:

> I think the Tradeability issue can be fixed by making <Tradeable> a Company
> property, rather than a PrivateCompany property, so it would apply to all
> company types
>
> (in practice, it would only work with companies that only have one 100%
> share and no share price).
>
>
>
> The current sharp distinction between private and public companies always
> raises questions when we start thinking about implementing such games.
>
> But in Rails terminology, in fact the only fundamental difference is that
> public companies can lay track and run trains, and privates don’t.
>
> By definition, public companies have at least one share. Minors often only
> have one 100% share, but it does not necessarily have a price (see the 1835
> black minors), and it does not necessarily count against the certificate
> limit. That all is already configurable (I think).
>
>
>
> If that all is correct, the main required change to implement MS and Big4
> would be to make (minor) public companies buyable via the current private
> company purchasing mechanism (see my above proposal). The consequences of
> such a buy would use the existing “merge” mechanism (to transfer trains,
> cash etc.).
>
>
>
> Of course, the details of these merge processes may pose problems that need
> different approaches (I don’t have all details in my mind right now).
>
>
>
> Erik.
>
>
>
> *Van:* Chris Shaffer [mailto:chr...@gm...]
> *Verzonden:* maandag 28 maart 2011 16:12
>
> *Aan:* Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> *Onderwerp:* Re: [Rails-devel] B&O PC Sale
>
>
>
> In regard to this question:
>
>
>
> The question is: should I also leave these parameters in the Public
> <CompanyType>?  Are there any games where different public companies can buy
> privates for different ranges of values?  I don't want to break one set of
> games to implement another.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure how to answer the question, but I'd call your attention to the
> MS and Big 4 in 1846.  These are private companies that lay track, run
> trains and pay 50/50 like various other minor companies.  They have a
> purchase price and a debt.  For example, the MS has a purchase price of $60
> and a debt of $40.  When initially purchased, the player pays $100, receives
> the MS charter, places $60 on the charter and puts $40 in the bank.  Later,
> the MS private can be sold to a major company for a value between $1 and
> $60, at which time its assets are transferred to the major company.
>
>
>
> Similarly, in 18West, the Granger companies can be sold to public
> companies.
>
>
>
> So the model needs to accommodate private, minor and public companies in
> various permutations.
>
>
>
> --
> Chris
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Create and publish websites with WebMatrix
> Use the most popular FREE web apps or write code yourself;
> WebMatrix provides all the features you need to develop and publish
> your website. http://p.sf.net/sfu/ms-webmatrix-sf
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>
>

Here is a patch to implement <Tradeable> tags.  I've moved all of the code dealing with private buy-in prices into the PrivateCompany class (which required modifying OperatingRound to get the prices from the right place).  I've also updated all of the game XML files that used the old method.  This change should also correctly prevent the B&O from being sold to a company.  I've tested 1830, 18AL, and the 1848 implementation that I am working on, and they all seem to work.

The syntax is as described by Erik:

To specify a standard 1830-style private (in the CompanyType tag):
<Tradeable toCompany="yes" lowerPriceFactor="0.5" upperPriceFactor="2.0"/>

To make a private not tradeable to a company:
<Tradeable toCompany="no"/>

To specify explicit min and max prices:
<Tradeable toCompany="yes" lowerPrice="1" upperPrice="40"/>

To mark a private as sellable to another player (not yet implemented in rails, but the private company can be told about it):
<Tradeable toPlayer="yes"/> 

Prices (or PriceFactors) specified within a tag apply only to the case(s) specified, i.e. it's possible to have two lines that specify different prices for different sale types, i.e.:
<Tradeable toCompany="yes" lowerPriceFactor="0.5" upperPriceFactor="2.0"/>
<Tradeable toPlayer="yes" lowerPrice="1"/>

Any prices not specified are set to a flag PrivateCompanyI.NO_PRICE_LIMIT, which are interpreted by OperatingRound as either 0 for a lowerPrice or the current company treasury for an upperPrice.  I'm not sure that this is the best way to implement this: suggestions are welcome.

Prices can be set using a mix, i.e.
<Tradeable toCompany="yes" lowerPrice="1" upperPriceFactor="2.0"/>
If over-specified, the attributes lowerPrice and upperPrice take precedence.

I can move all of this to the Company class if desired (this should be easy), but to my knowledge no one is currently working on a game that would use this.

(Hopefully the patch is well-formed: I don't have a lot of experience with Eclipse.)

Bill

Thanks!  I have applied the patch and done limited testing with 1830 and
18AL.  Looks fine; also the B&O private is no longer for sale.

I also see that you have left in the old <CanBuyPrivates> tag (although it
is now empty). I had not expected that, but I believe you're right: we need
to be able to restrict the ability to buy privates to certain company types.
I wonder if any games exist where we would need to exclude certain companies
from this inclusion per company type; if so, we should probably somehow
tweak this old tag to allow yes/no.

Well done.

Erik.

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Bill Rosgen [mailto:ro...@gm...]
> Verzonden: dinsdag 29 maart 2011 7:07
> Aan: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> Onderwerp: Re: [Rails-devel] B&O PC Sale
> 
> Here is a patch to implement <Tradeable> tags.  I've moved all of the code
> dealing with private buy-in prices into the PrivateCompany class (which
> required modifying OperatingRound to get the prices from the right place).
> I've also updated all of the game XML files that used the old method.
This
> change should also correctly prevent the B&O from being sold to a company.
> I've tested 1830, 18AL, and the 1848 implementation that I am working on,
> and they all seem to work.
> 
> The syntax is as described by Erik:
> 
> To specify a standard 1830-style private (in the CompanyType tag):
> <Tradeable toCompany="yes" lowerPriceFactor="0.5"
> upperPriceFactor="2.0"/>
> 
> To make a private not tradeable to a company:
> <Tradeable toCompany="no"/>
> 
> To specify explicit min and max prices:
> <Tradeable toCompany="yes" lowerPrice="1" upperPrice="40"/>
> 
> To mark a private as sellable to another player (not yet implemented in
rails,
> but the private company can be told about it):
> <Tradeable toPlayer="yes"/>
> 
> Prices (or PriceFactors) specified within a tag apply only to the case(s)
> specified, i.e. it's possible to have two lines that specify different
prices for
> different sale types, i.e.:
> <Tradeable toCompany="yes" lowerPriceFactor="0.5"
> upperPriceFactor="2.0"/> <Tradeable toPlayer="yes" lowerPrice="1"/>
> 
> Any prices not specified are set to a flag PrivateCompanyI.NO_PRICE_LIMIT,
> which are interpreted by OperatingRound as either 0 for a lowerPrice or
the
> current company treasury for an upperPrice.  I'm not sure that this is the
best
> way to implement this: suggestions are welcome.
> 
> Prices can be set using a mix, i.e.
> <Tradeable toCompany="yes" lowerPrice="1" upperPriceFactor="2.0"/> If
> over-specified, the attributes lowerPrice and upperPrice take precedence.
> 
> I can move all of this to the Company class if desired (this should be
easy),
> but to my knowledge no one is currently working on a game that would use
> this.
> 
> (Hopefully the patch is well-formed: I don't have a lot of experience with
> Eclipse.)
> 
> Bill
> 

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Erik Vos <eri...@xs...> wrote:

> I have no problem letting a company buy the B&O private, if it still lives
> when the first 3-train has been bought.
>

I would, as it is against the rules.

> And I have no clue what circumstances could prevent that.
>

If the B&O isn't floated or if the B&O doesn't have a route and chooses not
to buy a train.

-- 
John A. Tamplin