rails-devel

[Rails-devel] Unofficial game modifications

[Rick W. <wes...@pu...>]

   What should be done in regards to unofficial game modifications.   In particular I am wondering about modifications to allow 2-player play.  My buddy John and myself have been having lots of fun lately doing 2-player 1889, 2-player 18AL, 2-player 1851, etc.  But for the latter two I've had to add a 2-player option in the XML files via extrapolating starting cash and ending certificates.  These modifications are "unofficial" since the designer/publisher of the game did not create them nor have they been published anyway (as the 1830 Coalfields variant was).  On the other hand I think that it would be nice to keep the variants within the Rails eco-system. But the rest of you might not agree. Any opinions on this?


-- 
Rick 

Re: [Rails-devel] Unofficial game modifications

[Gmail <de...@gm...>]

I think we already have the 1889 2 player variant built in? I'm all for keeping them in, most of these are just simple XML switches which are very easy to add and don't take away from the existing games.



On 13 Mar 2011, at 21:31, Rick Westerman <wes...@pu...> wrote:

>   What should be done in regards to unofficial game modifications.   In particular I am wondering about modifications to allow 2-player play.  My buddy John and myself have been having lots of fun lately doing 2-player 1889, 2-player 18AL, 2-player 1851, etc.  But for the latter two I've had to add a 2-player option in the XML files via extrapolating starting cash and ending certificates.  These modifications are "unofficial" since the designer/publisher of the game did not create them nor have they been published anyway (as the 1830 Coalfields variant was).  On the other hand I think that it would be nice to keep the variants within the Rails eco-system. But the rest of you might not agree. Any opinions on this?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Rick 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Colocation vs. Managed Hosting
> A question and answer guide to determining the best fit
> for your organization - today and in the future.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

Re: [Rails-devel] Unofficial game modifications

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

I have no problem adding two-player variants, but it would be preferable if
some consensus about the parameters could be achieved. 
If necessary, a comment about the status of such variants could be added to
the game description and/or the <Players> tag.
Erik.

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Gmail [mailto:de...@gm...]
> Verzonden: maandag 14 maart 2011 14:09
> Aan: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> CC: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> Onderwerp: Re: [Rails-devel] Unofficial game modifications
> 
> I think we already have the 1889 2 player variant built in? I'm all for
keeping
> them in, most of these are just simple XML switches which are very easy to
> add and don't take away from the existing games.
> 
> 
> 
> On 13 Mar 2011, at 21:31, Rick Westerman <wes...@pu...>
> wrote:
> 
> >   What should be done in regards to unofficial game modifications.   In
> particular I am wondering about modifications to allow 2-player play.  My
> buddy John and myself have been having lots of fun lately doing 2-player
> 1889, 2-player 18AL, 2-player 1851, etc.  But for the latter two I've had
to add
> a 2-player option in the XML files via extrapolating starting cash and
ending
> certificates.  These modifications are "unofficial" since the
designer/publisher
> of the game did not create them nor have they been published anyway (as
> the 1830 Coalfields variant was).  On the other hand I think that it would
be
> nice to keep the variants within the Rails eco-system. But the rest of you
> might not agree. Any opinions on this?
> >
> >
> > --
> > Rick
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------
> > Colocation vs. Managed Hosting
> > A question and answer guide to determining the best fit for your
> > organization - today and in the future.
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rails-devel mailing list
> > Rai...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> Colocation vs. Managed Hosting
> A question and answer guide to determining the best fit for your
> organization - today and in the future.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

Re: [Rails-devel] Unofficial game modifications

[Rick W. <wes...@pu...>]

----- Original Message -----
> I have no problem adding two-player variants, but it would be
> preferable if
> some consensus about the parameters could be achieved.

Ah, my Eric's and my email crossed.   I will write up the parameters later tonight and send them to the group.

> If necessary, a comment about the status of such variants could be
> added to
> the game description and/or the <Players> tag.

Yes indeed.

-- Rick


> Erik.
> 
> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > Van: Gmail [mailto:de...@gm...]
> > Verzonden: maandag 14 maart 2011 14:09
> > Aan: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> > CC: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> > Onderwerp: Re: [Rails-devel] Unofficial game modifications
> >
> > I think we already have the 1889 2 player variant built in? I'm all
> > for
> keeping
> > them in, most of these are just simple XML switches which are very
> > easy to
> > add and don't take away from the existing games.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 13 Mar 2011, at 21:31, Rick Westerman <wes...@pu...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >   What should be done in regards to unofficial game modifications.
> > >   In
> > particular I am wondering about modifications to allow 2-player
> > play. My
> > buddy John and myself have been having lots of fun lately doing
> > 2-player
> > 1889, 2-player 18AL, 2-player 1851, etc. But for the latter two I've
> > had
> to add
> > a 2-player option in the XML files via extrapolating starting cash
> > and
> ending
> > certificates. These modifications are "unofficial" since the
> designer/publisher
> > of the game did not create them nor have they been published anyway
> > (as
> > the 1830 Coalfields variant was). On the other hand I think that it
> > would
> be
> > nice to keep the variants within the Rails eco-system. But the rest
> > of you
> > might not agree. Any opinions on this?
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Rick

Re: [Rails-devel] Unofficial game modifications

[Rick W. <wes...@pu...>]

----- Original Message -----
> I think we already have the 1889 2 player variant built in?

    Yes.  But the 1889 rules (my gaming group owns a copy)  explicitly has 2-player starting conditions.  So the author/publisher of the game has supposedly play-tested the starting conditions and put an official "seal of approval" on them.
 
    What I am more concerned about are my own personal modifications to the Rails version of 18AL and 1851 in order to make them 2-player.  These modifications have only be lightly tested and, not being official, may be subject to debate as to their utility.  On the other hand, I hate the idea of have my own personal 'fork' of the rails project for my modifications.

   So is there a good way to handle this?  I agree that the modifications are just "simple XML switches" that have no affect on the official rules so, technically, there are no problems with the modifications.  The problem, if any, is more in the area of policy.

> I'm all
> for keeping them in, most of these are just simple XML switches which
> are very easy to add and don't take away from the existing games.
> 
> 
> 
> On 13 Mar 2011, at 21:31, Rick Westerman <wes...@pu...> wrote:
> 
> >   What should be done in regards to unofficial game modifications.
> >   In particular I am wondering about modifications to allow 2-player
> >   play. My buddy John and myself have been having lots of fun lately
> >   doing 2-player 1889, 2-player 18AL, 2-player 1851, etc. But for
> >   the latter two I've had to add a 2-player option in the XML files
> >   via extrapolating starting cash and ending certificates. These
> >   modifications are "unofficial" since the designer/publisher of the
> >   game did not create them nor have they been published anyway (as
> >   the 1830 Coalfields variant was). On the other hand I think that
> >   it would be nice to keep the variants within the Rails eco-system.
> >   But the rest of you might not agree. Any opinions on this?
> >
> >
> > --
> > Rick
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Colocation vs. Managed Hosting
> > A question and answer guide to determining the best fit
> > for your organization - today and in the future.
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rails-devel mailing list
> > Rai...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Colocation vs. Managed Hosting
> A question and answer guide to determining the best fit
> for your organization - today and in the future.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

-- 
Rick Westerman 
wes...@pu...

Bioinformatics specialist at the Genomics Facility.
Phone: (765) 494-0505           FAX: (765) 496-7255
Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture
625 Agriculture Mall Drive
West Lafayette, IN 47907-2010
Physically located in room S049, WSLR building