Menu
▾
▴
rails-devel
|
From: Justin R. <jus...@gm...> - 2011-02-17 20:39:28
|
I found in 1.4.1 during an 1889 game that I was unable to upgrade a tile that seems like a perfectly legal upgrade. It was either a tile #28 or #29 which should upgrade to a #39 but this was not offered as an option. I imagine this is a really simple thing for developers to verify, but if you need a save file, I can provide one. |
|
From: Stefan F. <jk...@gm...> - 2011-02-17 21:05:18
|
Hello Justin, Am 17.02.2011 21:39, schrieb Justin Rebelo: > I found in 1.4.1 during an 1889 game that I was unable to upgrade > a tile that seems like a perfectly legal upgrade. It was either a > tile #28 or #29 which should upgrade to a #39 but this was not > offered as an option. I imagine this is a really simple thing for > developers to verify, but if you need a save file, I can provide > one. Are you sure that the problem is not Rule 6.2 "Upgrading Tiles"? ".... at least one new track on the new tile must form part of a legal route of the company ...." There is only one new track part going from 28/29 to 39. If you are coming from the "united" part of the track, the new track isn't automatically part of a legal route for the building company. Hoping to not have added confusion, ciao stefan |
|
From: Justin R. <jus...@gm...> - 2011-02-17 21:55:39
|
Oh, I actually had assumed that rails wasn't enforcing those types of rules in any game. I will have a look and see if that's it. On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Stefan Filonardi <jk...@gm...> wrote: > Hello Justin, > > Am 17.02.2011 21:39, schrieb Justin Rebelo: >> I found in 1.4.1 during an 1889 game that I was unable to upgrade >> a tile that seems like a perfectly legal upgrade. It was either a >> tile #28 or #29 which should upgrade to a #39 but this was not >> offered as an option. I imagine this is a really simple thing for >> developers to verify, but if you need a save file, I can provide >> one. > > Are you sure that the problem is not Rule 6.2 "Upgrading Tiles"? > ".... at least one new track on the new tile must form part of a > legal route of the company ...." > > There is only one new track part going from 28/29 to 39. > > If you are coming from the "united" part of the track, the new track > isn't automatically part of a legal route for the building company. > > Hoping to not have added confusion, > ciao stefan > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: > Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. > Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. > Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb > _______________________________________________ > Rails-devel mailing list > Rai...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel > |
|
From: Justin R. <jus...@gm...> - 2011-02-17 21:57:57
Attachments:
1889_20110217_2156_F5.rails
|
Stefan, if you load this up you should find that hex F5 demonstrates the bug. On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Justin Rebelo <jus...@gm...> wrote: > Oh, I actually had assumed that rails wasn't enforcing those types of > rules in any game. I will have a look and see if that's it. > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Stefan Filonardi <jk...@gm...> wrote: >> Hello Justin, >> >> Am 17.02.2011 21:39, schrieb Justin Rebelo: >>> I found in 1.4.1 during an 1889 game that I was unable to upgrade >>> a tile that seems like a perfectly legal upgrade. It was either a >>> tile #28 or #29 which should upgrade to a #39 but this was not >>> offered as an option. I imagine this is a really simple thing for >>> developers to verify, but if you need a save file, I can provide >>> one. >> >> Are you sure that the problem is not Rule 6.2 "Upgrading Tiles"? >> ".... at least one new track on the new tile must form part of a >> legal route of the company ...." >> >> There is only one new track part going from 28/29 to 39. >> >> If you are coming from the "united" part of the track, the new track >> isn't automatically part of a legal route for the building company. >> >> Hoping to not have added confusion, >> ciao stefan >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: >> Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. >> Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. >> Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb >> _______________________________________________ >> Rails-devel mailing list >> Rai...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel >> > |
|
From: Stefan F. <jk...@gm...> - 2011-02-17 22:42:53
|
Hello Justin, Am 17.02.2011 22:57, schrieb Justin Rebelo: > Stefan, if you load this up you should find that hex F5 > demonstrates the bug. I am surely not an authoritative source on rails or 18xx, so with a grain of salt: Yes I think it is a bug. If you go on the tile #29 on F5 (or any other #28/29 on the map), you will see that there is not the option to upgrade to #39. The same error can be found in the Tile Manifest in the rules. ciao stefan PS And I have no idea if the program does check the permissive/semi-permissive/restrictive thing. |
|
From: Erik V. <eri...@xs...> - 2011-02-17 22:43:53
|
The upgrade chart in my copy of the 1889 rules (version 1.0c) doesn't specify #39 as a valid upgrade for #28 and #29. Is that an error? Erik. > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Justin Rebelo [mailto:jus...@gm...] > Verzonden: donderdag 17 februari 2011 22:58 > Aan: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game > Onderwerp: Re: [Rails-devel] Possible 1889 tile promotion bug > > Stefan, if you load this up you should find that hex F5 demonstrates the bug. > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Justin Rebelo <jus...@gm...> > wrote: > > Oh, I actually had assumed that rails wasn't enforcing those types of > > rules in any game. I will have a look and see if that's it. > > > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Stefan Filonardi <jk...@gm...> wrote: > >> Hello Justin, > >> > >> Am 17.02.2011 21:39, schrieb Justin Rebelo: > >>> I found in 1.4.1 during an 1889 game that I was unable to upgrade a > >>> tile that seems like a perfectly legal upgrade. It was either a tile > >>> #28 or #29 which should upgrade to a #39 but this was not offered as > >>> an option. I imagine this is a really simple thing for developers to > >>> verify, but if you need a save file, I can provide one. > >> > >> Are you sure that the problem is not Rule 6.2 "Upgrading Tiles"? > >> ".... at least one new track on the new tile must form part of a > >> legal route of the company ...." > >> > >> There is only one new track part going from 28/29 to 39. > >> > >> If you are coming from the "united" part of the track, the new track > >> isn't automatically part of a legal route for the building company. > >> > >> Hoping to not have added confusion, > >> ciao stefan > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> --------- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) > >> Parallel Studio XE: > >> Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. > >> Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. > >> Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. > >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Rails-devel mailing list > >> Rai...@li... > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel > >> > > |
|
From: Stefan F. <jk...@gm...> - 2011-02-17 23:04:28
|
Hello, Am 17.02.2011 23:43, schrieb Erik Vos: > The upgrade chart in my copy of the 1889 rules (version 1.0c) doesn't > specify #39 as a valid upgrade for #28 and #29. Is that an error? I would say yes but haven't read the whole rules to see if there is an unlikely exception, and no upgrade path leads to #39 in the tile manifest (Rules, v1.0c dated 12 July 2006): http://www.18xx.net/tiles/e028.htm http://www.18xx.net/tiles/e029.htm ciao stefan PS According to a post on BGG: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/508098/errata-tile-upgrade-sheet "... John Tamplin has produced a corrected tile upgrade sheet that will presumably be included in his future printings of the game. (I'll leave the official last word on the subject to him, if he desires.)" Posted Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:48 pm |
|
From: Erik V. <eri...@xs...> - 2011-02-18 20:56:34
|
> According to a post on BGG: > http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/508098/errata-tile-upgrade-sheet > > "... John Tamplin has produced a corrected tile upgrade sheet that will > presumably be included in his future printings of the game. > (I'll leave the official last word on the subject to him, if he desires.)" > Posted Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:48 pm I cannot find that corrected sheet, but I understand that the upgrade from #57 to #205 and #206 is also missing. Any other omissions? |
|
From: John A. T. <ja...@ja...> - 2011-02-17 23:19:53
|
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Erik Vos <eri...@xs...> wrote: > The upgrade chart in my copy of the 1889 rules (version 1.0c) doesn't > specify #39 as a valid upgrade for #28 and #29. Is that an error? > Yes. -- John A. Tamplin |
|
From: Erik V. <eri...@xs...> - 2011-02-17 22:56:33
|
OK, I have fixed that omission. Erik. Van: John A. Tamplin [mailto:ja...@ja...] Verzonden: donderdag 17 februari 2011 23:50 Aan: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game CC: Erik Vos Onderwerp: Re: [Rails-devel] Possible 1889 tile promotion bug On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Erik Vos <eri...@xs...> wrote: The upgrade chart in my copy of the 1889 rules (version 1.0c) doesn't specify #39 as a valid upgrade for #28 and #29. Is that an error? Yes. -- John A. Tamplin |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X