Some of you may have played with the computer version of Brass that I released about a month and a half ago. ( http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/337292 )

Several people asked for a version that people can play with each other across the internet, so I looked into the idea. I came to the conclusion that rather than program in netplay capabilites to the existing program, it would be simpler and cheaper to just create a new version that runs via a website, using some of the existing code. Simpler because there's a little less to worry about in the area of security, hosting and machine compatibility issues, and cheaper because I already control some webspace that I can use for free and which offers PHP and MySQL functionality.

I'm now in the middle of writing a website that implements games of Brass, so that people can play each other from remote locations (and games will persist when you turn off your computer, so people can play against each other over a period of time, rather than in one sitting, if they want to.)

I do not currently plan on implementing team games. It is possible I might add that later. I am planning on implementing 2-player games, with the rules for 2-player being the rules suggested by Henkka ( http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/257485 ).

What I have had to think about is what happens if a player leaves the game. I do not have any expertise at all in AI, so I am not inclined to attempt to write a computer program to actually play the game at this time. (A friend who used to study computing and had an interest in AI and wants to get back into it has said that he might have a go at writing one at some point.) But people leaving games is unfortunately a problem that has to be contended with in the world of Internet games, so I feel the need to make the system able to cope with the number of players falling over the course of a game.

Obviously, if a game has only two players and one player leaves, then the game ends immediately and the remaining player is the winner. What if there are 3 or 4 players and one leaves? Here are the thoughts I have had on the matter.

The leaving player's tiles and Canal or Rail Links are not removed from the board. Rather, they become "orphan tiles" and "orphan links". They are coloured blue and they remain in their original positions on the board.

Orphan links are, to each remaining player, just like canal or rail links owned by another player. So, they can be used to move cotton and coal. At the end of the Canal Phase, orphan canal links are removed just like owned canal links. Nobody scores points for an orphan link at the end of either Phase. Orphan links cannot be built over - you can never build over a constructed canal or rail link of any kind.

Orphan tiles are somewhat like industry tiles owned by another player. An orphan Coal Mine or Iron Works that has cubes on it retains those cubes. If during the game a player needs to use coal and/or iron to take some action, then the rules for orphan cube sources are the same as for any other source. So for example, if an orphan coal mine is the single closest source of coal, then it is the source of coal you must use. An unflipped orphan Port can be used to sell Cotton (whereupon it flips). An orphan Port can be used to sell Cotton to the Distant Market and it can be used to sell Coal to the Demand Track from a newly constructed Coal Mine. Orphan Cotton Mills and Shipyards have no function, though if they are flipped then they score points as usual for the owners of constructed canal or rail links to their locations. As with orphan links, nobody scores points for flipped orphan tiles at the end of either Phase.

An orphan tile can be built over by any player as though it were his own tile. That is, in order to build over an orphan tile you must be building the same type of tile, and the tile you are building must be of a higher tech level than the tile you want to build over. However, you are permitted to build over an orphan Cotton Mill or Port despite it not belonging to you, and you are allowed to build over an orphan Coal Mine or Iron Works despite the cube scarcity condition not being satisfied and/or despite there being a free industry space in the same location where you could build that type of tile.

At the end of the Canal Phase, all orphan tiles are removed from the board, even if they are Tech Level 2 or higher.

If there are 4 players and one leaves, then according to the rules for 3 player games there should suddenly be two more rounds in the Phase. However if it is Round 7, say, when this happens then it could be massively unbalancing. So it seems clear that extra rounds should be added only if the departing player departs sufficiently early in the Phase. I propose that if it is Round x or earlier when a player departs from a game, then two rounds are added to the current Phase. In the Canal Phase x is equal to 4 and in the Rail Phase it is equal to 3.

In the Rail Phase, then, it is possible that as many as 24 cards will have been played when a player departs, with the extra rounds still required. This corresponds to a 3-player game in which an extra 6 cards have been played. In a 3 player game there are normally 6 cards left over in the Rail Phase, so what will happen is that all 66 cards will be used rather than the usual 60.

In the Canal Phase it is possible that as many as 28 cards will have been played when a player departs, with the extra rounds still required. This corresponds to a 3-player game in which an extra 7 cards have been played. In a 3 player game there are normally 9 cards left over in the Canal Phase, so what will happen is that 64 cards will be used instead of the usual 60.

In each case, the departing player's hand is shuffled and placed at the bottom of the draw deck. It is not shuffled into the draw deck.

If the departing player leaves during the Canal Phase, then of course there are 10 rounds in the Rail Phase as is usual for a 3-player game.

If there are 3 players and one leaves, then the number of rounds in the game (according to Henkka) should not change. However, there are a variety of things that should change in this case.

Firstly, the £1 spaces on the Demand track should disappear. I propose that this is precisely what happens - they disappear, along with any cubes on them. This could mean that they become less depleted than they were by up to 2 cubes, which could be irritating if you planned to construct a Coal Mine or Iron Works and ship cubes off to the Demand Track.

Secondly, the distribution of Distant Market tiles is supposed to change. I do not think this is workable, unless no tiles have been drawn yet. In this case the tiles that should be removed are removed and then the tiles are re-shuffled. If at least one Distant Market tile has already been drawn, then no change is made to the remaining undrawn Distant Market tiles. If it is the Canal Phase, then the correct distribution of Distant Market tiles will be used in the Rail Phase.

Additionally, the distribution of cards is supposed to change. I do not think this can be achieved. But location cards corresponding to locations no longer in the game can be removed from players' hands (including that of the departing player), from the draw deck, and also from the discard pile; cards removed from players' hands are then, of course, replenished from the top of the draw deck. It is possible that this will reduce the draw deck to less than the number of cards needed to complete the game. In this case, first of all the unused cards from the departing player's hand are shuffled and placed at the bottom of the draw deck (they are not shuffled in with the draw deck); if there are still not enough cards then the discard pile is shuffled and placed at the bottom of the draw deck (it is not shuffled in with the draw deck). It should be noted that this procedure could, in the Canal Phase, result in a player luckily shedding cards which would normally be present in his hand as junk (i.e. Birkenhead).

(I should note that the computer program will not model the idea of "removing cards from the deck at the start of the phase", as the rulebook instructs players to do. Rather, there is just a draw deck, from which no cards are removed, and the computer just stops dealing cards at the appropriate time - the result of this is that in a game where no player leaves, the appropriate number of cards are de facto not in the game.)

Lastly, the 2-player variant suggested by Henkka calls for various locations to be removed from the board, and for a Canal Link to exist between Lancaster and Scotland.

On the subject of the canal link to Scotland, this is not realistic in terms of the game's setting but is merely a game-balancing mechanism that works on the abstract level. For this reason, there will be an option when setting up a game to flatly forbid the existence (if a two-player game) or creation (if the number of players falls to 2) of the canal link to Scotland.

Otherwise, it needs to be considered if the number of players drops to 2 what (if any) locations are removed from the board. It seems obviously unfair to remove any location in which a player has already constructed an industry, and similarly since canal and rail links to a location are removed when that location is removed, it seems unfair to remove locations to which a player has constructed a canal or rail link. These considerations, of course, do not apply if the only industry tiles in a location and the only links to a location are the property of the departing player, or indeed a player who had departed earlier in the game.

It also seems slightly unfair to remove locations that are adjacent to locations in which or to which a player has already built, because they might have been planning to expand to that location. Similarly, adding the Canal Link to Scotland when a player has built in or to Lancaster might be too much of a windfall for that player.

I propose the following: The locations removed from the board in Henkka's 2-player variant are divided into 3 groups: the southwest (Birkenhead, Ellesmere Port and Northwich), the southeast (Stockport and Macclesfield) and the northeast (Oldham and Rochdale). When the number of players drops from 3 to 2, after the departing player's tiles are replaced by orphan tiles, each one of these three regions is removed from the game if and only if both of the following statements about it is true: 1. There are no non-orphan tiles either in it or in any location adjacent to it; 2. There are no non-orphan links either to it or to any location adjacent to it. The exception to this is Manchester. The southeast and northeast may disappear even though a non-orphan tile exists in Manchester and/or there is a constructed non-orphan link to Manchester. This is because there are many reasons why someone might build in Manchester.

The Midlands is removed from the game if and only if both the southwest and the southeast are removed. If it is the Canal Phase and the Canal Link to Scotland has not been forbidden in the game rules, then the Canal Link to Scotland appears if and only if both of the following statements are true: 1. There are no non-orphan tiles in Lancaster. 2. The canal link between Preston and Lancaster is either not constructed yet, or an orphan link.

If the game falls to two players during the Canal Phase, then additional locations may be removed from the game at the beginning of the Rail Phase. The same conditions as above apply, and they are of course applied after orphan tiles and Tech Level 1 industry tiles are removed. The cards included in the deck are the usual cards for a 3 or 4 player game with the exception that cards corresponding to locations not in the game are removed from the game. Henkka also suggests that the deck be balanced by reducing the number of certain other cards in the game (e.g. remove one Manchester card). This is done if and only if all three removable regions have in fact been removed.

What are your views on these ideas?