💡📝Larry Smith wrote on Tue, Sep 15, 2009 08:52 PM UTC:
It is easy enough to simply say that a game is somehow 'damaged' or 'incorrect'. It is another to specifically demonstrate these claims.
So far, those who have posted negative comments about this variant have done so without specific examples to demonstrate their positions. And to apparently done so to merely draw attention to their personal variants is very uncool.
To exactly extrapolate XiangQi to the hexagonal field may prove virtually impossible. For various reasons which have been stated further down the thread. The best a developer can hope is a hexagonal game which has the 'flavor' of XiangQi. And, yes, there are a large number of variants which have attempted to do this.
So to expect any hexagonal game of XiangQi to exactly match each and every dynamic of the square field is just silly thinking. Or is it simply forcing a personal viewpoint as an implied standard?
I look forward to anyone who can demonstrate that this particular game is 'flawed'. This should be done with a specific in-game demonstration. To further justify there should be an example of how the player reached, or forced, this supposed 'bad' position.