Menu
▾
▴
rails-devel
|
From: Aliza P. <ali...@gm...> - 2009-12-28 16:13:56
|
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Erik Vos <eri...@xs...> wrote: > [...] > > Train buying is never enforced (that was a recent change), but > in my interpretation of the rules, the CGR would be required > to exchange the 4-train in this case. But indeed the rules are > silent on this matter. > A question in the 18xx Yahoo group might get you a more > authoritive answer. > A question on the Yahoo 18xx mailing list would split the group into two factions, each loudly insisting the other was wrong. :-) FWIW, Dirk Clemens' 18xx moderator enforces train-buying rules, but does not force the CGR to upgrade a 4 to a Diesel. I'm in a PBEM where we decided to go with whatever Rails enforced, but it looks like Rails is also silent on the matter. ;-) (That's why I was playing this particular test game -- I wanted to see what Rails did once the CGR had accumulated $750 to go with the 4-train. It appears that I also needed to play through until the CGR had $1100.) If I manage to built the new code I will run a test game through -- I've never managed to get to the CGR operation yet. Does Rails enforce the rule about "the CGRs token does not move normally until it has a permanent train"? - Aliza |
|
From: Erik V. <eri...@xs...> - 2009-12-28 16:21:07
|
Does Rails enforce the rule about "the CGRs token does not move normally until it has a permanent train"? It should. |
|
From: John D. G. <jd...@di...> - 2009-12-28 21:20:42
|
Aliza Panitz wrote:
> A question on the Yahoo 18xx mailing list would split the group into
> two factions, each loudly insisting the other was wrong. :-)
Depends on the question. We all agree on some things, and if a
question DOES produce two factions then it's likely the program ought
to give users a choice.
> FWIW, Dirk Clemens' 18xx moderator enforces train-buying rules, but
> does not force the CGR to upgrade a 4 to a Diesel.
This brings up the broader question of the rules language that, as
Dirk believes, requires as follows: CGR *must* acquire a permanent
train ASAP, and cannot pay out or change share price in any way until
it has done so.
In my reading of the rules, *all* the requirements in the preceding
sentence are part of the paragraph about what happens when the CGR
borrows a Diesel, and apply only then. (Meaning that a CGR which owns
only 4-trains is free to operate normally in all respects; but if CGR
forms with no trains, or it forms with only 4-trains and they die
before it ever owns a permanent train, *only then* it must borrow a
diesel, withhold, and not change price until it buys a permanent
train.)
At any rate, 1.1.1 does not yet enforce these requirements. But if
they are ever implemented, I want the option to have them only apply
when I believe they're supposed to.
* * *
Other noteworthy behaviors I found when trying out 1856 last night:
1. If I use the options menu to view the map during a stock round,
it still contains text directing the company that ran last to buy a
train or hit Done (even though all action buttons are grayed out).
2. I like the use of separate arrows in the red map areas. (Earlier
playings of 18AL and 1830 had them looking like "dits" with tracks
that connected to each other.)
3. There are places where "hovering" over the map with the mouse
does not tell you how much a space pays (Goderich for one).
4. Adding a "bonus" column to the company table in the map window,
and showing $10 if it has a bridge or tunnel token, is not helpful
because it doesn't say which is which. I'd write "Br" or "Tu" there.
(And purchases of these tokens are still mis-described as if the money
were going to the company it's actually coming from.)
5. The CGR formation is unfriendly and wrong.
a) Before asking for any player's decision, the program should force
all companies that have at least $100 and any loans to repay what
loans they can from treasury. This is immediate and compulsory.
(It does do this for each company before asking the question for
that company, but that's too late because it makes some companies
look like they could convert when they can't, when the player is
making his decision for earlier companies.)
b) There shouldn't be ANY dialogs asking "Select number of loans of
[company] to repay". The decision for each company is all or
nothing, and each player should be presented with the decisions
for all his companies at once (in one dialog).
c) During those "rescue?" dialogs, the players' cash amounts in the
Game Status window are squeezed horizontally so they can't be
read (example: $1... instead of $1445), and it's impossible to
fix it by resizing the window because the dialog is modal.
d) After the first decision is made, change the Loans column on the
Game Status window to show "MERGE" for companies that will merge.
e) When four companies whose current prices were 65, 65, 75, and 100
merged in, the program made CGR's value 200 (and that actually
meant $200 per 5% share). It's supposed to be the average of the
predecessor companies, but not less than 100, so in this example
it should have been 100, not 200.
f) Those companies had two 5 trains and a 4 train. CGR was not given
the option of keeping the 4 train, it was discarded with no prompt.
g) The table of companies in map window is not updated afterward to
show that some companies have disappeared.
h) The table of companies in Game Status window continues to list the
merged companies for the rest of the game, with their final prices
and the number of loans when they died. They should no longer be
listed at all (nor should any company that went to the Closed box).
i) In subsequent rounds, CGR is shown as having TWO $10 bonuses (and
thus takes two lines in the table in the map window) because two
predecessor companies had tunnel tokens. CGR should inherit only
up to one of each type of token (tunnel and bridge); duplicates
should go back to the bank and become available for sale (if
played as finite); and in any case, the table should expand
horizontally, not vertically, if it must expand at all.
6. The program allows CGR to buy 4-trains after it forms. It can't.
|
|
From: Erik V. <eri...@xs...> - 2009-12-29 11:40:00
|
> FWIW, Dirk Clemens' 18xx moderator enforces train-buying rules, but > does not force the CGR to upgrade a 4 to a Diesel. This brings up the broader question of the rules language that, as Dirk believes, requires as follows: CGR *must* acquire a permanent train ASAP, and cannot pay out or change share price in any way until it has done so. In my reading of the rules, *all* the requirements in the preceding sentence are part of the paragraph about what happens when the CGR borrows a Diesel, and apply only then. (Meaning that a CGR which owns only 4-trains is free to operate normally in all respects; but if CGR forms with no trains, or it forms with only 4-trains and they die before it ever owns a permanent train, *only then* it must borrow a diesel, withhold, and not change price until it buys a permanent train.) Assuming that there is no debate on the following: a. the CGR cannot borrow a Diesel if it owns a 4-train, b. the CGR price does not change until it has a permanent train, then I think the only remaining questions are c. whether the CGR must withhold if it doesn't yet have a permanent train, and d. whether it *must* exchange the 4-train for a Diesel as soon as it has the money. I'm pretty sure that Rails says "yes" to c and (currently) "no" to d, but in the latter case only because it never enforces train buying now. My personal opinion is that both questions should be answered with "yes", but if people want options, it's probably no big deal to add these. At any rate, 1.1.1 does not yet enforce these requirements. But if they are ever implemented, I want the option to have them only apply when I believe they're supposed to. * * * Other noteworthy behaviors I found when trying out 1856 last night: 1. If I use the options menu to view the map during a stock round, it still contains text directing the company that ran last to buy a train or hit Done (even though all action buttons are grayed out). Yes, it annoys me too, but so far not enough to do anything about it. Perhaps you have given the final push now... 2. I like the use of separate arrows in the red map areas. (Earlier playings of 18AL and 1830 had them looking like "dits" with tracks that connected to each other.) This is a recent change, that applies to all games. 3. There are places where "hovering" over the map with the mouse does not tell you how much a space pays (Goderich for one). I'm only aware of Goderich (and the equivalent 18EU Hamburg). It's because the city does not show and is not included in the descriptive XML, which makes the program fail to understand that there is a revenue point. Should be easy to fix. Are you aware of any other cases? 4. Adding a "bonus" column to the company table in the map window, and showing $10 if it has a bridge or tunnel token, is not helpful because it doesn't say which is which. I'd write "Br" or "Tu" there. (And purchases of these tokens are still mis-described as if the money were going to the company it's actually coming from.) "Br" and "Tu" have in fact already been added. 5. The CGR formation is unfriendly and wrong. a) Before asking for any player's decision, the program should force all companies that have at least $100 and any loans to repay what loans they can from treasury. This is immediate and compulsory. (It does do this for each company before asking the question for that company, but that's too late because it makes some companies look like they could convert when they can't, when the player is making his decision for earlier companies.) The program literally follows the rules here. b) There shouldn't be ANY dialogs asking "Select number of loans of [company] to repay". The decision for each company is all or nothing, and each player should be presented with the decisions for all his companies at once (in one dialog). The rules do not say or imply anything like "all or nothing". This aspect has been discussed beforehand in this list, and the outcome was that the user should be given all legal options, including partial repayment, however stupid that would be. However, I can see your point from a usability POV. The only real deviation from the rules is that each player now does not get a choice in which sequence company repayments will be handled; the program is imposing that sequence. So I can agree with the "in one dialog" part of your request - which, unfortunately, may not be so easy to do. c) During those "rescue?" dialogs, the players' cash amounts in the Game Status window are squeezed horizontally so they can't be read (example: $1... instead of $1445), and it's impossible to fix it by resizing the window because the dialog is modal. I'll look at that. d) After the first decision is made, change the Loans column on the Game Status window to show "MERGE" for companies that will merge. Good idea, but it will require some structural changes that make it not as easy to do as it might seem. e) When four companies whose current prices were 65, 65, 75, and 100 merged in, the program made CGR's value 200 (and that actually meant $200 per 5% share). It's supposed to be the average of the predecessor companies, but not less than 100, so in this example it should have been 100, not 200. That surprises me; I have only seen reasonable results so far. Perhaps you have hit on a boundary condition. Do you have saved file that shows it? f) Those companies had two 5 trains and a 4 train. CGR was not given the option of keeping the 4 train, it was discarded with no prompt. This has been fixed in the meantime. g) The table of companies in map window is not updated afterward to show that some companies have disappeared. That never happens during an OR. I have toyed with it, but found that the bookkeeping of whose turn it is after CGR formation was tricky enough without such a reorganization. Perhaps later. h) The table of companies in Game Status window continues to list the merged companies for the rest of the game, with their final prices and the number of loans when they died. They should no longer be listed at all (nor should any company that went to the Closed box). The Game Status window is never cleaned up now. Even the 15 minors in 18EU remain visible long after these have closed. One day it will be fixed, I guess. i) In subsequent rounds, CGR is shown as having TWO $10 bonuses (and thus takes two lines in the table in the map window) because two predecessor companies had tunnel tokens. CGR should inherit only up to one of each type of token (tunnel and bridge); duplicates should go back to the bank and become available for sale (if played as finite); and in any case, the table should expand horizontally, not vertically, if it must expand at all. That has been fixed now, except for the expansion aspect, where I'm undecided which is best. 6. The program allows CGR to buy 4-trains after it forms. It can't. If that is so, it's a bug. I don't yet have test cases where CGR has less than three trains after formation - can you send me one? Erik. |
|
From: Chris S. <chr...@gm...> - 2009-12-29 14:36:49
|
> then I think the only remaining questions are
> c. whether the CGR must withhold if it doesn't yet have a permanent train,
> and
> d. whether it *must* exchange the 4-train for a Diesel as soon as it has
> the
> money.
> I'm pretty sure that Rails says "yes" to c and (currently) "no" to d,
> but in the latter case only because it never enforces train buying now.
>
> My personal opinion is that both questions should be answered with "yes",
> but if people want options, it's probably no big deal to add these.
>
Yes, options are good, as I have played with people who thought the answer
to both questions was no.
> 1. If I use the options menu to view the map during a stock round,
> it still contains text directing the company that ran last to buy a
> train or hit Done (even though all action buttons are grayed out).
>
> Yes, it annoys me too, but so far not enough to do anything about it.
> Perhaps you have given the final push now...
>
I submitted a feature request for this.
In regard to the discussion of the order of the CGR formation actions, I
suspect the best solution would be to provide more information to the
players about which companies might merge, which have already merged, etc.
Perhaps a completely separate summary window screen would work? I have no
idea how difficult that would be to provide.
g) The table of companies in map window is not updated afterward
> to
> show that some companies have disappeared.
>
> That never happens during an OR. I have toyed with it, but found that the
> bookkeeping of whose turn it is after CGR formation was tricky enough
> without such a reorganization. Perhaps later.
> h) The table of companies in Game Status window continues to
> list the
> merged companies for the rest of the game, with their final
> prices
> and the number of loans when they died. They should no
> longer be
> listed at all (nor should any company that went to the Closed
> box).
>
> The Game Status window is never cleaned up now. Even the 15 minors
> in 18EU remain visible long after these have closed.
> One day it will be fixed, I guess.
>
I submitted a feature request for these.
> --
Chris
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
|
|
From: John D. G. <jd...@di...> - 2009-12-29 20:12:19
Attachments:
1856_20091228_0319.rails
|
Erik Vos wrote: > > FWIW, Dirk Clemens' 18xx moderator enforces train-buying rules, > but > > does not force the CGR to upgrade a 4 to a Diesel. > > This brings up the broader question of the rules language that, as > Dirk believes, requires as follows: CGR *must* acquire a permanent > train ASAP, and cannot pay out or change share price in any way > until > it has done so. > > In my reading of the rules, *all* the requirements in the preceding > sentence are part of the paragraph about what happens when the CGR > borrows a Diesel, and apply only then. (Meaning that a CGR which > owns > only 4-trains is free to operate normally in all respects; but if > CGR > forms with no trains, or it forms with only 4-trains and they die > before it ever owns a permanent train, *only then* it must borrow a > diesel, withhold, and not change price until it buys a permanent > train.) > > Assuming that there is no debate on the following: > a. the CGR cannot borrow a Diesel if it owns a 4-train, > b. the CGR price does not change until it has a permanent train, I disagree with b. > then I think the only remaining questions are > c. whether the CGR must withhold if it doesn't yet have a permanent train, > and > d. whether it *must* exchange the 4-train for a Diesel as soon as it has the > money. > I'm pretty sure that Rails says "yes" to c and (currently) "no" to d, > but in the latter case only because it never enforces train buying now. > > My personal opinion is that both questions should be answered with "yes", > but if people want options, it's probably no big deal to add these. > > At any rate, 1.1.1 does not yet enforce these requirements. But if > they are ever implemented, I want the option to have them only apply > when I believe they're supposed to. > > * * * > > Other noteworthy behaviors I found when trying out 1856 last night: > > 1. If I use the options menu to view the map during a stock round, > it still contains text directing the company that ran last to buy a > train or hit Done (even though all action buttons are grayed out). > > Yes, it annoys me too, but so far not enough to do anything about it. > Perhaps you have given the final push now... > > 2. I like the use of separate arrows in the red map areas. > (Earlier > playings of 18AL and 1830 had them looking like "dits" with tracks > that connected to each other.) > > This is a recent change, that applies to all games. > > 3. There are places where "hovering" over the map with the mouse > does not tell you how much a space pays (Goderich for one). > > I'm only aware of Goderich (and the equivalent 18EU Hamburg). > It's because the city does not show and is not included in the descriptive > XML, > which makes the program fail to understand that there is a revenue point. > Should be easy to fix. > Are you aware of any other cases? Not yet. > 4. Adding a "bonus" column to the company table in the map window, > and showing $10 if it has a bridge or tunnel token, is not helpful > because it doesn't say which is which. I'd write "Br" or "Tu" > there. > (And purchases of these tokens are still mis-described as if the > money > were going to the company it's actually coming from.) > > "Br" and "Tu" have in fact already been added. > > 5. The CGR formation is unfriendly and wrong. > a) Before asking for any player's decision, the program should > force > all companies that have at least $100 and any loans to repay > what > loans they can from treasury. This is immediate and > compulsory. > (It does do this for each company before asking the question > for > that company, but that's too late because it makes some > companies > look like they could convert when they can't, when the player > is > making his decision for earlier companies.) > > The program literally follows the rules here. > > b) There shouldn't be ANY dialogs asking "Select number of loans > of > [company] to repay". The decision for each company is all or > nothing, and each player should be presented with the > decisions > for all his companies at once (in one dialog). > > The rules do not say or imply anything like "all or nothing". > This aspect has been discussed beforehand in this list, and the > outcome was that the user should be given all legal options, > including partial repayment, however stupid that would be. > However, I can see your point from a usability POV. > > The only real deviation from the rules is that each player now does not > get a choice in which sequence company repayments will be handled; > the program is imposing that sequence. So I can agree with the > "in one dialog" part of your request - which, unfortunately, > may not be so easy to do. > > c) During those "rescue?" dialogs, the players' cash amounts in > the > Game Status window are squeezed horizontally so they can't be > read (example: $1... instead of $1445), and it's impossible > to > fix it by resizing the window because the dialog is modal. > > I'll look at that. (c) makes (b) worse. The player may not know whether he can rescue both companies A and B until after he's decided about A and it's too late. > d) After the first decision is made, change the Loans column on > the > Game Status window to show "MERGE" for companies that will > merge. > > Good idea, but it will require some structural changes that make it > not as easy to do as it might seem. > > e) When four companies whose current prices were 65, 65, 75, and > 100 > merged in, the program made CGR's value 200 (and that > actually > meant $200 per 5% share). It's supposed to be the average of > the > predecessor companies, but not less than 100, so in this > example > it should have been 100, not 200. > > That surprises me; I have only seen reasonable results so far. > Perhaps you have hit on a boundary condition. > Do you have saved file that shows it? Attached. > f) Those companies had two 5 trains and a 4 train. CGR was not > given > the option of keeping the 4 train, it was discarded with no > prompt. > > This has been fixed in the meantime. > > g) The table of companies in map window is not updated afterward > to > show that some companies have disappeared. > > That never happens during an OR. I have toyed with it, but found that the > bookkeeping of whose turn it is after CGR formation was tricky enough > without such a reorganization. Perhaps later. > > h) The table of companies in Game Status window continues to > list the > merged companies for the rest of the game, with their final > prices > and the number of loans when they died. They should no > longer be > listed at all (nor should any company that went to the Closed > box). > > The Game Status window is never cleaned up now. Even the 15 minors > in 18EU remain visible long after these have closed. > One day it will be fixed, I guess. > > i) In subsequent rounds, CGR is shown as having TWO $10 bonuses > (and > thus takes two lines in the table in the map window) because > two > predecessor companies had tunnel tokens. CGR should inherit > only > up to one of each type of token (tunnel and bridge); > duplicates > should go back to the bank and become available for sale (if > played as finite); and in any case, the table should expand > horizontally, not vertically, if it must expand at all. > > That has been fixed now, except for the expansion aspect, where I'm > undecided which is best. Perhaps they should not be listed at all. That also goes for token locations (the whole map window got *much* wider when CGR formed and dropped 7 tokens on the board, it was quite annoying). > 6. The program allows CGR to buy 4-trains after it forms. It > can't. > > If that is so, it's a bug. I don't yet have test cases where CGR > has less than three trains after formation - can you send me one? The same save file has that situation. Indeed, I later wanted to buy a 6-train with CGR but it was grayed out: I meant to add to this list "7. CGR's train limit should be 3", because I suspect the program is imposing a limit of 2. This was with the 1.1.1 release; I haven't gotten to where I can build development code yet, but I hope to soon. |
|
From: Chris S. <chr...@gm...> - 2009-12-29 20:42:30
|
> > > Assuming that there is no debate on the following: > > a. the CGR cannot borrow a Diesel if it owns a 4-train, > > b. the CGR price does not change until it has a permanent train, > > I disagree with b. > Oh, right, b should be an option too. I played once where the CGR stock price was only frozen if it was running a borrowed train. Seems a reasonable interpretation of the rules to me. -- Chris |
|
From: Erik V. <eri...@xs...> - 2009-12-30 22:11:08
|
c) During those "rescue?" dialogs, the players' cash amounts in the
Game Status window are squeezed horizontally so they can't be
read (example: $1... instead of $1445), and it's impossible to
fix it by resizing the window because the dialog is modal.
Fixed.
|
|
From: Erik V. <eri...@xs...> - 2010-01-01 16:43:18
|
h) The table of companies in Game Status window continues to list the
merged companies for the rest of the game, with their final prices
and the number of loans when they died. They should no longer be
listed at all (nor should any company that went to the Closed box).
The company row in GameStatus is now immediately made invisible if a company
is closed.
If there is any interest for, it would be easy to add a menu item to
show/hide rows of closed companies.
Erik.
|
|
From: brett l. <wak...@gm...> - 2009-12-29 16:53:04
|
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Erik Vos <eri...@xs...> wrote: > b) There shouldn't be ANY dialogs asking "Select number of loans > of > [company] to repay". The decision for each company is all or > nothing, and each player should be presented with the > decisions > for all his companies at once (in one dialog). > > The rules do not say or imply anything like "all or nothing". > This aspect has been discussed beforehand in this list, and the > outcome was that the user should be given all legal options, > including partial repayment, however stupid that would be. > However, I can see your point from a usability POV. > > The only real deviation from the rules is that each player now does not > get a choice in which sequence company repayments will be handled; > the program is imposing that sequence. So I can agree with the > "in one dialog" part of your request - which, unfortunately, > may not be so easy to do. > > Erik. I disagree on this point. The player is acting on behalf of the company. Otherwise, the loans are not the player's to repay. The player's responsibility to repay the loans only exists insofar as that player is president of the company that possesses the loans. If I own companies A and B, and A has some number of loans, they can only be repaid during company A's turn, not during company B's turn. It is not legal to repay loans outside of the owing company's turn. So, in this case, what rails does is correct. However, that's not to say that the manner in which it's presented to the user is ideal. There's always room for tuning the UI to make it easier to work with. ---Brett. |
|
From: Aliza P. <ali...@gm...> - 2009-12-29 17:26:54
|
The CGR formation decisions are done by players, not companies, in player order rather than by company order, and the rules specifically state that the player may handle their companies in any order they choose. Since players can't sell shares to help finance this, there's no real benefit to allowing them to choose order among their companies, but letting them see the big picture would be useful, especially for hotseat play. (I'll also mention that it was rather disconcerting to have the map hide itself during the CGR formation dialog. While players should have already made the save/toss decision for each company beforehand, some might want to consult the map to see a company's potential.) - Aliza |
|
From: John D. G. <jd...@di...> - 2009-12-29 20:15:42
|
>> John David Galt wrote: >>> b) There shouldn't be ANY dialogs asking "Select number of loans >>> of [company] to repay". The decision for each company is all or >>> nothing, and each player should be presented with the decisions >>> for all his companies at once (in one dialog). > Erik Vos wrote: >> The rules do not say or imply anything like "all or nothing". >> This aspect has been discussed beforehand in this list, and the >> outcome was that the user should be given all legal options, >> including partial repayment, however stupid that would be. >> However, I can see your point from a usability POV. >> >> The only real deviation from the rules is that each player now does not >> get a choice in which sequence company repayments will be handled; >> the program is imposing that sequence. So I can agree with the >> "in one dialog" part of your request - which, unfortunately, >> may not be so easy to do. brett lentz wrote: > I disagree on this point. > > The player is acting on behalf of the company. Otherwise, the loans > are not the player's to repay. The player's responsibility to repay > the loans only exists insofar as that player is president of the > company that possesses the loans. > > If I own companies A and B, and A has some number of loans, they can > only be repaid during company A's turn, not during company B's turn. > It is not legal to repay loans outside of the owing company's turn. > > So, in this case, what rails does is correct. I don't buy it. I believe this special "repayment round" has player turns, not company turns. |
|
From: brett l. <wak...@gm...> - 2009-12-29 20:32:20
|
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:16 PM, John David Galt <jd...@di...> wrote: >>> John David Galt wrote: >>>> b) There shouldn't be ANY dialogs asking "Select number of loans >>>> of [company] to repay". The decision for each company is all or >>>> nothing, and each player should be presented with the decisions >>>> for all his companies at once (in one dialog). > >> Erik Vos wrote: >>> The rules do not say or imply anything like "all or nothing". >>> This aspect has been discussed beforehand in this list, and the >>> outcome was that the user should be given all legal options, >>> including partial repayment, however stupid that would be. >>> However, I can see your point from a usability POV. >>> >>> The only real deviation from the rules is that each player now does not >>> get a choice in which sequence company repayments will be handled; >>> the program is imposing that sequence. So I can agree with the >>> "in one dialog" part of your request - which, unfortunately, >>> may not be so easy to do. > > brett lentz wrote: >> I disagree on this point. >> >> The player is acting on behalf of the company. Otherwise, the loans >> are not the player's to repay. The player's responsibility to repay >> the loans only exists insofar as that player is president of the >> company that possesses the loans. >> >> If I own companies A and B, and A has some number of loans, they can >> only be repaid during company A's turn, not during company B's turn. >> It is not legal to repay loans outside of the owing company's turn. >> >> So, in this case, what rails does is correct. > > I don't buy it. I believe this special "repayment round" has player > turns, not company turns. > Ah ha. I see where I was confused. You're talking about loan repayment during CGR formation, not loan repayment in general. My mistake. Yeah, in that case, I do agree... Loan repayment during CGR formation goes player-by-player, not company-by-company. It's a special case. I suspect we need two types of loan repayment classes. One for normal play (during the course of a company's turn during an OR), and one for government-run company formation (which happens outside the normal OR turn sequence). ---Brett. |
|
From: Erik V. <eri...@xs...> - 2009-12-29 20:51:58
|
Here I disagree. The third paragraph on page 24 of the rules is very clear on this point: "Until the CGR has a permanent train ... its token on the stock market is not adjusted from its starting position for any reason..." _____ From: Chris Shaffer [mailto:chr...@gm...] Sent: Tuesday 29 December 2009 21:42 To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] 1856 CGR Diesel upgrades > Assuming that there is no debate on the following: > a. the CGR cannot borrow a Diesel if it owns a 4-train, > b. the CGR price does not change until it has a permanent train, I disagree with b. Oh, right, b should be an option too. I played once where the CGR stock price was only frozen if it was running a borrowed train. Seems a reasonable interpretation of the rules to me. -- Chris |
|
From: Chris S. <chr...@gm...> - 2009-12-29 20:58:56
|
Oh. Guess I'm wrong then. Sorry for any confusion. -- Chris Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Erik Vos <eri...@xs...> wrote: > Here I disagree. > The third paragraph on page 24 of the rules is very clear on this point: > "Until the CGR has a permanent train ... its token on the stock market is > not adjusted from its starting position for any reason..." > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Chris Shaffer [mailto:chr...@gm...] > *Sent:* Tuesday 29 December 2009 21:42 > *To:* Development list for Rails: an 18xx game > *Subject:* Re: [Rails-devel] 1856 CGR Diesel upgrades > > > Assuming that there is no debate on the following: >> > a. the CGR cannot borrow a Diesel if it owns a 4-train, >> > b. the CGR price does not change until it has a permanent train, >> >> I disagree with b. >> > > Oh, right, b should be an option too. I played once where the CGR stock > price was only frozen if it was running a borrowed train. Seems a > reasonable interpretation of the rules to me. > > -- > Chris > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community > Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support > A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and > easy > Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers > http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > Rails-devel mailing list > Rai...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel > > |
|
From: Erik V. <eri...@xs...> - 2009-12-30 20:08:33
|
6. The program allows CGR to buy 4-trains after it forms. It can't.
If that is so, it's a bug. I don't yet have test cases where CGR
has less than three trains after formation - can you send me one?
I have added code to prevent CGR from buying 4-trains.
But I don't have a working test case yet, so I can't confirm that it works.
(I'll also mention that it was rather disconcerting to have the map
hide itself during the CGR formation dialog. While players should
have already made the save/toss decision for each company beforehand,
some might want to consult the map to see a company's potential.)
The map now remains visible, but it still cannot be raised because
the dialogs are modal. I'll see if it's doable to create nonmodal
dialogs (unfortunately this is not a matter of just switching
a toggle; it requires custom dialogs to be written).
I have tried to make the token exchange popup (which is already
a custom JDialog) nonmodal, but I can't get it working, despite
trying to follow some examples found via Google. If anyone can
show me a non-modal JDialog subclass that works, I'd be grateful.
The map now is set on top of other windows during the token
exchange dialog, so the it can be viewed, but not scrolled.
Erik.
|
|
From: Erik V. <eri...@xs...> - 2010-01-03 20:36:19
|
h) The table of companies in Game Status window continues to list the
merged companies for the rest of the game, with their final prices
and the number of loans when they died. They should no longer be
listed at all (nor should any company that went to the Closed box).
The company row in GameStatus is now immediately made invisible if a
company is closed.
If there is any interest for, it would be easy to add a menu item to
show/hide rows of closed companies.
This now also applies to the OR/Map window.
Erik.
|
×
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