Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
5 Posts

1830: The Coalfields» Forums » Rules

Subject: Rails/Coalfields Polls rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Dan Huffman
United States
Arlington
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Figure I'll put the polls first. The will close March 31, 2015. If you care why I'm posting them, you can continue reading below:

Poll: 1830 Coalfields Variants
Pretty simple. How often do you play Coalfields variants?
When you play 1830, which of these versions would you prefer to play?
  Never Less than 25% of the my 1830 games Less than 50% of the my 1830 games Less than 75% of the my 1830 games More than 75% of the my 1830 games Vote Count
1830 Vanilla 0.0% (0) 5.9% (1) 5.9% (1) 17.6% (3) 70.6% (12) 17
1830 Reading 37.5% (6) 50.0% (8) 0.0% (0) 6.2% (1) 6.2% (1) 16
1830 Coalfields 35.3% (6) 47.1% (8) 5.9% (1) 5.9% (1) 5.9% (1) 17
1830 Coalfields and Reading 33.3% (5) 53.3% (8) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 13.3% (2) 15
Total Voters 17
This poll is now closed.   17 answers
Poll created by huffman123
Closes: Tue Mar 31, 2015 6:00 am


I was unable to fix the typo in the above poll.modest

Poll
Rails has a limitation that the stock is sold in a set order. The Presidency is sold first, then the next certificate, etc. The general feeling from BGG 18XX community is that the non-Presidentical 20% Norfolk & Western certificate can be bought ANY time that a purchaser wants to buy it. So, if you are following the President and only have $67, you don't have to pass, you can buy a 10% share and the next guy could buy the 20% share for $134 (in this example). The question is, if the Rails folks could make one of the shares for the N&W a 20% share, and they can't program the "buy it anytime" requirement, which share would you want the 20% certificate to be? (Note: The 4th share location would float the company. The 6th share location would be the first legal position that would be available after one person floats the company by himself.)
The Norfolk & Western non-Presidential 20% share should be located:
  Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Vote Count
All shares should be 10% 50.0% (5) 20.0% (2) 10.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 20.0% (2) 10
As the 2nd Share 22.2% (2) 0.0% (0) 11.1% (1) 0.0% (0) 66.7% (6) 9
As the 4th Share 33.3% (3) 22.2% (2) 22.2% (2) 11.1% (1) 11.1% (1) 9
As the 6th Share 33.3% (3) 22.2% (2) 22.2% (2) 11.1% (1) 11.1% (1) 9
As the Last Share 33.3% (3) 22.2% (2) 22.2% (2) 11.1% (1) 11.1% (1) 9
Total Voters 10
This poll is now closed.   10 answers
Poll created by huffman123
Closes: Tue Mar 31, 2015 6:00 am


The second Poll is pretty clear on my intentions. I don't mean to put the Rails programmers on the spot, so it they object to these polls or feel the polls are inappropriate, you'll see them deleted in the near future.

** I am trying to influence the Rails programmers, but per the desire of the community. If no one plays Coalfields or most people don't like the extra 20% share for N&W anyway, then they should know that as well. :-)

Our gaming group was pondering what to do about the N&W extra 20% Share. Steven Frey posted this in response:

stefan.frey wrote:
Some update on the future Rails Implementation:

The rules as in the files section here on BGG state, that the original rule of Alan Moon did not define exactly how to treat the additional 20% certificate for N&W. The suggestion in the file on BGG is that the 20% certificate is available in parallel to all the other 10% certificates during IPO.

This however is different to how Rails currently handles the IPO stack (offering shares in the order of the stack) and so this cannot be replicated with the current code base of Rails. Most likely this is the reason why the N&W was not setup with 2 20% certificates in Rails.

Given that this is a variant of a variant of 1830 this will be postponed until there is another game that has a similar rule for the IPO.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
In the early days I thought the Coalfieds and Reading variants were variously interesting and clever for the changes they made to the base system. However the more I played them and analysed their exact scope and effect of those changes, plus the additional work I did for the 1830+ variant in the Mayfair printing, the more I came to view those variants as under-developed and generally weak-verging-on-pointless (ditto 1830+ FWIW).

As for the limits of Rails: if Rails cannot implement a game as specified by its rules, then that is a bug in Rails and the correct response is to either fix that bug or to simply not pretend to implement that variant at all.

As for un-ordered non-uniform share distributions: that's not even unique to 1830 Coalfields. Admittedly Rails does not claim to implement those other games.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Huffman
United States
Arlington
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ah, I am still in the "Isn't it cool to have a 30% Presidency" and "extra 20% share". :-)

Regarding, you comment about Rails, that is pretty much what they have decided. I think that the maps were easy to add, as was Reading. Yes, you are correct about the N&W. I didn't realize there were other 18XX games out there. So once they tackle one of those, the N&W will also be address, I assume.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stefan Frey
Germany
Frankfurt
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
A quick reply, as my words have caused the thread to exist.

Open-source software projects usually do not work well with polls. Much better is personal involvement: If anyone volunteers to add the required code, Rails will support two share categories to choose from the IPO.

The coding should not that difficult, as it is possible from the Pool already.

However for two-share class companies usually there are a few cases, that are usually not (well) defined. Out of my head (from 1835) there are:

* Swap the President share with 20% cert: Whose choice (president or 20% cert owner) if 20% cert owner has two additional 10% shares.

* Consider the following share distribution
Player A: President, Player B: 20% Cert, Player C: 2*10% shares, Player D: 2*10% shares, Player E: 2*10% shares
President wants to sell only 10% to the pool. Is it allowed or not? Who gains the presidency?

* Share price depression after sale of 20% certificate: One or two boxes?

However I suggest to continue the discussion on rails development or users mailing lists.

To clearclaw: What are the existing 18xx with unordered two-class share IPOs?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Huffman
United States
Arlington
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
stefan.frey wrote:
A quick reply, as my words have caused the thread to exist.

Open-source software projects usually do not work well with polls. Much better is personal involvement: If anyone volunteers to add the required code, Rails will support two share categories to choose from the IPO.

The coding should not that difficult, as it is possible from the Pool already.

However for two-share class companies usually there are a few cases, that are usually not (well) defined. Out of my head (from 1835) there are:

* Swap the President share with 20% cert: Whose choice (president or 20% cert owner) if 20% cert owner has two additional 10% shares.

* Consider the following share distribution
Player A: President, Player B: 20% Cert, Player C: 2*10% shares, Player D: 2*10% shares, Player E: 2*10% shares
President wants to sell only 10% to the pool. Is it allowed or not? Who gains the presidency?

* Share price depression after sale of 20% certificate: One or two boxes?

However I suggest to continue the discussion on rails development or users mailing lists.

To clearclaw: What are the existing 18xx with unordered two-class share IPOs?


Ahhh, so I thought the issue was that there wasn't much consensus, so I figured I'd try to see if the stalkers had opinions one way or the other. What is evident to me, at least so far, is that not many people play the expansions to begin with. And those that do, don't have strong opinions. So I think your original comments were spot on regarding where the 18XX community and the "correct" interpretation of the rules.

I understand your issues with the Presidency and I should have asked before I posted these polls. Sorry about that! Fortunately for me, there hasn't been a storm of people filling it out! :-p

I have my own answers to your questions, but I realize that I am totally the guy eating popcorn, telling the dude on the TV how that last maneuver should have been made! LOL Well, the microwave just went off, so I should get my second bag. Hopefully there's still a can of beer in the fridge so I have something to clear my throat just before the next time I have to give you advice!


I'll close with a question that I will go look elsewhere for the answer, but give you a chance to tell others.....How do we donate to you Rails developers? I think it is the least I can do, seeing the pot I stirred. :-)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.