[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by MichaelNelson
Rococo. A clear, aggressive Ultima variant on a 10x10 ring board. (10x10, Cells: 100) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Some guesses at Rococo piece 'beginner values': Immobilizer=4 Long Leaper=3 Advancer=3 Swapper=2 Cameleon=2 Withdrawer=1 Cannon Pawn=1 Archer=2 Pushme-Pullyu=5 Some scary exotics: LL/PP (can caputure as either or both)=9 Archer/Advancer=6 Cameleon/Swapper=5 Rococo With Different Armies, anyone?
I've been experimenting with a Rococo/Ultima variant of my own. It uses the 8x8 board and the following pieces from Rococo: Long Leaper Swapper Immobilizer King Cannon Pawn The Advancer and Withdrawer are replaced by a single Pushme-Pullyu and an Archer is added. I have also added an FIDE Queen and a new piece: the Shield-any piece adjacent to a friendly Shield is immune form capture (the Shield itself is capturable). I've also made some rule changes. Immobilizers do not immobilize each other. Swappers cannot swap with each other (but can capture by mutual destruction). Only one capture per turn is allowed--the Long Leaper can make only one leap, and a Pushme-Pullyu can't both Advance and Withdraw in the same turn. The Archer is made more powerful. It can rifle-capture orthogonally or diagonally any distance as long as some friendly piece is 1 or 2 (unobstructed) squares away orthogally or diagonally from the target. When the target is 1 or 2 squares away from the Archer, no second piece is needed. An immobilized piece can spot for the Archer, just as an immobilized piece can act as a mount for a Cannon Pawn. I'm experimenting with the best setup and I need a catchy name. Playtesting so far indicated that this is a quite interesting game. Comments?
I will send the current ZRF to Roberto and anyone else interested tonight. Some rules clarifications: 1. A Pushme-Pullyu which withdraws from a piece must capture that piece; it may not capture another piece by advance, it may not move to a square where it would effect a capture by advance. 2. The Shield does not protect pieces from immobilization. 3. A shield does not protect adjacent friendly pieces from swapping, but it does protect against the Swapper's mutual annihilation capture. 4. An immobilzed Shield still protects adjacent friendly pieces form capture. 5. An immobilized Archer may not shoot, though an immobilized piece may spot for the archer. The spotting rule makes a strong Archer but not as strong as an unlimited range archer. Z vs. Z and Z vs. me testing indicate that it is playable. Notice that it gets weaker in the endgame with fewer pieces available to spot for it. This type of archer creates some interesting defensive situations. The attcker's Archer moves in close to pick off some pawns/pieces and the defender's Archer gets in position three squares or so away where it can fire at the attacker (because it has a spot) and the attacker can't fire back. The Long Leaper is weaker than in Ultima with only a single leap and no ring squares to prevent pieces from hiding on the edge. But it has a good abitlity to push pieces to the edge where their mobility is reduced. Playtesting of the Immobilizers don't immobilize each other rule seems to indicate that the immobilizers don't become excessively stronger than in Rococo. What does happen is that Immobilizer play become more fluid and tactical. The stonger Archers make a good counterweight to the stronger Immobilizers--the pieces it is freezing can act as spots for the Archer ot kill it from accross the board! I really love the Shield: while it obviously adds a strong defense, it is quite useful for attack as well by preventing counterattacks. This technique can be particualrly fruitful to support an attack on the Immobilizer.
Roberto, Thank you for your kind comments. With regard to endgames, the Shield is helpful to the weak side but can be beaten. King and Immobilzer vs. King and Shield is a forced win--either the King and Shield get immoilized (loss by stalemate), or the King gets immobilized and the enemy King picks off the Shield--also a loss by stalemate. Against all opposing forces a King and Shield which must stay next to each other are in extreme danger of losing by triple repetiton. The general technique for King and X (where X is a piece that would win vs. a lone King) vs. King and Shield is to set up a positon where the Shield is captured by X and the lone King can't recapture. More analysis and playing experience is needed to see how frequently this can be forced. King, X, and Y vs. King and Shield should pretty much always be a forced win. Of course. 'kill the Shield' combinations will be as much a mainstay of the middlegame as 'kill the Immobilzer' combinations are.
After some internet research, I've chosen Roberto's suggestion of Fugue as the name of the new game. While the fugue as a musical form originated in the Baroque period, it continued through the Rococo period and into the Classical period. Seems fine for a Rococo/Ultima blend. Classical Music's 'holy trinity' (J.S Bach, Mozart, Beethoven) have all used the fugue form.
Had a very pretty Z vs Z game today. WHite had King, Pawn, Archer, nad Shield against King and Long Leaper. King and Pawn huddled toghether on the first rank while the Shield protected the Archer while it hunted down the enemy King.
I will be building the webpage for Fugue over the next few days. The final ZRF is ready if anyone wants it before then. (I'm already sending updates to R. Laveri and M. Howe.)
Fugue 
. Based on Ultima and Rococo this game has pieces that capture in unusual ways.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]As well the the Alfaerie graphics shown, the ZRF also includes Roberto Lavieri's beautiful Galactic graphics, including some piece graphics and a board drawn especially for Fugue--Thanks, Roberto!
Three critieria come to mind to distinguish an Ultima variant from a Chess variant with some Ultima elements (this might also be a useful thing to index): 1. More capturing move types than non-capturing move types. 2. Majority of capturing move types are non-replacement. 3. At least one piece with an important special power (e.g. Immobilizer). #3 is not a strict criteria but is indicative in borderline cases. Chess On A Longer Board . . . is clearly a Chess variant with Ultima elements by these criteria.
Fugue. Based on Ultima and Rococo this game has pieces that capture in unusual ways. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I eliminated the suicide rule because after playtesting it both ways I liked the feel of the game better without it. I feel suicide is less necessary in Fugue (and for that matter Rococo) than in Ultima becase the Cannon Pawn is such an excellent Immobilizer-killer--it can capture the Immobilizer by using an immobilized piece as a mount. The Archer can also pick off an Immobilizer from a distance if there is any open line--the immobilized pieces spot. Another reason for this and also for having Immobilzers immune to each other and Swappers unable to swap with each other is that I wanted to increase the third-thing aspect of Fugue: to intentionally be different from both Ultima and Rococo. Making the Withdrawer immune to the Immobilizer would certainly make it very valuble for its special ability but losing value rapidly after thew enemy Immobilizer is gone, suddenly regaing value if the enemy protes a Pawn to Immobilizer.
Maxima. Maxima is an interesting and exiting variant of Ultima, with new elements that make Maxima more clear and dynamic. (Cells: 76) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]There are two different logically coherent ways of resolving this. I remember a quote from <i>Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess</i>: 'The object of the gamee is to capture the enemy King. The capture is never actually carried out.' This is what checkmate is about. So we have:
1. If checkmate and and occupying both goal sqaures are equal priority win conditions, then you can occupy the second goal square and win even in a checkmated position because the win occurs before the King capture would have, were it carried out. (So under this interpretation, there is no checkmate in this position.)
2. If Checkmate is the primary win condition and occupying the goal squares is a secondary win conditon, then it is illegal to occupy the second goal square when checkmated--the game is over and you have lost. It is also illegal to occupy the second goal square when in check (unless the move coincidentally removes the attack on the King).
Personally I prefer #1, but #2 is easier to program in Zillions.
Fugue. Based on Ultima and Rococo this game has pieces that capture in unusual ways. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The example David gives is indeed potent, but can be beaten by a stronger force even without a Swapper (an if the enemy is weaker, why settle for an unbeatable defense when you should be winning?) The problem will all such formations is that they cannot be maintained--the opponent arranges his moves so that you must either break the formation or lose by triple repetition. David is quite correct that the Swapper is highly valuable in breaking up formations of this type. I fact, I suspect that this factor makes the Swapper considerably more valuable than its Rococo counterpart.
Game Courier Tournament #1. A multi-variant tournament played on Game Courier.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Fergus, I'm not sure if you received my email. My preference is simple: I'd like to play a game of Pocket Mutation, as I invented it. Apart from that, all are good games and I would be happy to be assigned however works out the best for the tournament.
Fugue. Based on Ultima and Rococo this game has pieces that capture in unusual ways. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]George, I have yet to see a game of Fugue where 'one move is as good as another', excluding lost positions of course.
Game Courier Tournament #1. A multi-variant tournament played on Game Courier.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I'm really looking forward to this tournament. Fergus has done a wonderful job organizing it and putting the infrastructure in place.
Fugue. Based on Ultima and Rococo this game has pieces that capture in unusual ways. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]George, You seem to be rather excessively critical of my game, considering that you rated it good and haven't played it. I don't design games by analytical design criteria and am not going to start doing so because you think I should. If you are certain that Fugue is a poor game because it has nine piece types on 64 sqaures, just say so and don't bother playing it or belaboring the point.
George, The Archer as it appears in Fugue is my creation and was not part of a collaboration. The Rococo variant thread discessed the merits or range 1 vs range 1 or 2 vs range 2 only Archers and whether special considerations should apply to attacking the King. No one before me said a word about an Archer that needed a spotter for long shots. I got the idea from artillery rules from some of Avalon Hill's war games, where certain units need a spotter to hit a target at beyong half range or in certain defensive positions. To my knowledge this concept has not been used in a Chess/Ultima variant before--I am open to correction if I err in this assertion.
I'm starting this thread to discuss general ideas of game design and evaluation.<p>
I would start by saying that Mark Thompson's concepts of depth, clarity, drama, and decisiveness are excellent criteria for evaluating a Chess variant. See his <a href='http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/DefiningtheAbstract.shtml'>
<i>Defining the Abstract</i></a> article from The Games Journal (July 2000).<p>
I particularly note that depth and clarity are in a reciprocal relationship, as are drama and decisiveness. A game with infinite depth will have no clarity and a game with perfect clarity will have no depth.<p>
A good game will be balanced at points on these continuua where the players can experience the satisfactions of all four of the crtieria.<p>
I think these the criteria may be sufficent as first-order design criteria. I would be interested in hearing if there are others that should be added to the list, and what second-order design criteria might be useful to implement them.<p>
For example, (IMO) George Duke's beloved <i>Piece Type Density</i> is not a first-order criterion, but is a useful second-order criterion: a high piece type density reduces clarity and increases depth. Whether this is good or bad depends on a game's balance at a lower piece density.
Counting promotion ranks at 1/2 value for piece type density seems reasonable.<p>
<i>Power Density</i> is a relevant concern as well. This could be quantified by the total value of the armies divided by the board size. For example (using beginner's values), FIDE chess has total army strength of 84 (allowing about 3 points for the 'playing value' of each King) on 64 squares. Power density=1.3125; lets replace the Queens with Amazons, the Rooks with Chancellors, the Bishops with Cardinals, and the Knights with Nightriders. I'd guestimate the total army value at 132 for a power density of 2.0625. I suspect that higher power density negatively impacts clarity, perhaps withou a proportionate increase in depth. Higher power densities certainly tend toward shorter games.<p>
The question of game length suggests a third set of paired first-order criteria: strategy vs. tactics.
What would you suggest? If I change the name of my piece to Bowman, won't someone else complain? Will Robert Abbott object because I use an Immobilizer? Thank God FIDE Chess isn't patented so I can use a King and Queen. Different pieces in different games have the same name all the time and no one else asserts violation of patent or copyright. Perhaps this is because other CV inventors are reasonable people, perhaps some are not but realize they have no case. The change you ask for is grossly unreasonable and I will make it if and only if so ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Assuming you could even have such a patent, it would be invalid because of prior art. See <a href='http://www.chessvariants.com/large.dir/dao.html'>here</a> for Jim Aikin's Dragons, Archers, and Oxen which was published on these pages in 1998, for example. I'm also fairly certain he wasn't the first to use a common name like 'Archer' for a CV piece.
Apology accepted--I will feel toward you exactly af if this thread had never been posted.
George is quite correct. While I think I can lay claim to the term 'Power Density', the concept is Ralph Betza's.
It's also possible that some of these numbers have non-linear relationships. For example Hectacomb with Amazons instead of Queens might not be that much different in playablity in spite of the high PD difference (aout 40%)--the PD is huge in either case. Simiarly, assuming an 8x8 board, a game with 100 piece types might be scarely less clear than a game with 50 (clarity approaching zero in both cases), while 10 piece types vs. 5 makes an easily perceptible difference. It is also very possible that numerical criteria are best at comparing games of somewhat similar types, and become more and more 'apples and oranges' as the game types diverge. The latter is why I objected to George comparing PTD in Fugue to PTD in Chess. Compare it to Ultima and Rococo and it doesn't look so bad by this criteria. It is by this measure less clear than Ultima or Roccoco but the difference in not as extreme as the the difference with Chess.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.