Philip D. Wilson wrote on Tue, Mar 21, 2006 08:56 PM UTC:Good ★★★★
This looks very much like something I started developing in 1990-1991, but never felt I had finished. Apparently I was beat to the punch.
The approach to the Knights is the same, except that I intended to rename the 2nd & 3rd Knights to make them more readily distinguished from the traditional Cheval.
We came to the same conclusion on Pawns: that the best way to handle it is to keep the move purely straight forward, but let them attack in any of 8 directions, as this is dependent on opportunity.
The approach to layout is pretty close to what I've been thinking, but I'm leery of putting a piece with a full Bishop move in a corner.
Personally, I have reservations about the RookBishop, BishopMace, & RookMace. Do we really need a bunch of combined-move pieces? I'd rather have more Bishops, Rooks, & 'Maces' in those lines, or add one more kind of piece to take those 12 spots.
The approach to the Knights is the same, except that I intended to rename the 2nd & 3rd Knights to make them more readily distinguished from the traditional Cheval.
We came to the same conclusion on Pawns: that the best way to handle it is to keep the move purely straight forward, but let them attack in any of 8 directions, as this is dependent on opportunity.
The approach to layout is pretty close to what I've been thinking, but I'm leery of putting a piece with a full Bishop move in a corner.
Personally, I have reservations about the RookBishop, BishopMace, & RookMace. Do we really need a bunch of combined-move pieces? I'd rather have more Bishops, Rooks, & 'Maces' in those lines, or add one more kind of piece to take those 12 spots.
But yeah, this looks really familiar.