You are right that I have deviated from the phase names in the rules.
The reason is, that I needed the extra '4+4' phase to trigger the related
Prussian formation step. There might have been other ways, but this was by
far the easiest way to achieve that.
In hindsight, that extra phase might as well have been called '3+' or '3½'
(not sure if the ½ character would survive CVS; the 1889 ¥ didn't and had to
be replaced).
Should the 1835 phases be renamed?
Erik.
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Davies [mailto:de...@gm...]
Sent: Friday 28 May 2010 13:01
To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
Subject: [Rails-devel] 1835 phases
Erik,
The 1835 phases are named after the train that caused the phase
change, rather than in sequential order. The rulebook I have for 1835
(admittedly a scanned English translation!) does name the phases in
order (game starts in phase 1, phase 2 happens on purchase of the
first 3).
Just thought I'd raise the point for discussion over which would be
preferred. Personally, I much prefer naming the phase after the
train, however, there is an argument for supporting what the rulebook
says (as has been done for 1856).
Is the original rulebook different?
Phil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
_______________________________________________
Rails-devel mailing list
Rai...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
|
