As someone who has played a few Chu shogi games lately I can safely say than many moves are not as loaded as in other games- like early generals pushes. That is something actually to my knowledge computers still don't properly acknowledge as they treat most moves roughly the same :)!
I don't think there is a comfortable way to make a larger game as long. We should just accept this and move one. Larger board and more pieces just mean more moves. You can make workarounds, but they are just that workarounds :)! They create more trouble than they solve, usually at least. Sure I could miss something. But from an Occam's razor point of view until proven otherwise longer games stay. I see lower down you agree with this assessment. As a comparison my apothecaries are a bit over 80 moves on average (2-3 more Apothecary 2 as it's pieces are weaker). So not exactly 100 but towards there. I did not count actually checkmating turns though. Som techniques are long and Fairy Max is good but not an expert probably (I was using 2 minutes for 30 moves anyway).
On the more games matter this is not exactly the issue I wanted to tackle. I think Fergus (if you see this Fergus) said somewhere (I don't remember when or where) about chess variants evolving in the ways of biological natural selection. There could be one winner but I find this unlikely. More, maybe even 4-5 with a number of players of the same order of magnitude is possible. As remember when you increase the board you also increase the number of possibilities. That comes as a personal preference also as I don't see "the most natural pieces" as the only ones to tackle the game. But this is the foundation (I should have probably insisted on it more earlier). I just think we should consider more games rather than just finding a perfect fit, which could very well never come .
As someone who has played a few Chu shogi games lately I can safely say than many moves are not as loaded as in other games- like early generals pushes. That is something actually to my knowledge computers still don't properly acknowledge as they treat most moves roughly the same :)!
I don't think there is a comfortable way to make a larger game as long. We should just accept this and move one. Larger board and more pieces just mean more moves. You can make workarounds, but they are just that workarounds :)! They create more trouble than they solve, usually at least. Sure I could miss something. But from an Occam's razor point of view until proven otherwise longer games stay. I see lower down you agree with this assessment. As a comparison my apothecaries are a bit over 80 moves on average (2-3 more Apothecary 2 as it's pieces are weaker). So not exactly 100 but towards there. I did not count actually checkmating turns though. Som techniques are long and Fairy Max is good but not an expert probably (I was using 2 minutes for 30 moves anyway).
On the more games matter this is not exactly the issue I wanted to tackle. I think Fergus (if you see this Fergus) said somewhere (I don't remember when or where) about chess variants evolving in the ways of biological natural selection. There could be one winner but I find this unlikely. More, maybe even 4-5 with a number of players of the same order of magnitude is possible. As remember when you increase the board you also increase the number of possibilities. That comes as a personal preference also as I don't see "the most natural pieces" as the only ones to tackle the game. But this is the foundation (I should have probably insisted on it more earlier). I just think we should consider more games rather than just finding a perfect fit, which could very well never come .