Single Comment

George, very thanks for your comments and observations. About Achernar, yes, it is in essence a 3-D game, but its presentation is 2-D. It was born inspired on Altair. Altair is more complex, Achernar uses like-Chess pieces and it is not the case with Altair, but the game play seems to be better in Altair. Achernar may be in evolution to a 3-D version (Achernar-3D or Achernar-II ?), particularily I think I´m going to diminish a bit the power of one or two pieces (Bishop is one of them, of course), augment the capabilities of promoted Soldiers (Grand-Soldiers) because some ends are very slow and there is not incentive enough for promotion, and it is very possible that some rules are going to be modified or added specially for dimensional perspective in a better way, I´m going to think on it seriously, trying to offer a good product, if I can do that. Maxima?, well, I have thought a lot in this game, and I don´t think it needs much more revision, it is nice as it is, and many of the possible modifications I have experimentally tried have not been convincent in any way, it is not easy find new improvements without the loss of personality of the game or a loss in the game play quality. Actually, The game play is notoriously balanced, attack and defense are in equilibrium, there is more clarity in the game play than in Ultima, and I have played a few good games in the last times in which I have seen all, from deep positional concepts to beautiful sacrifices. I agree with you in the fact there are one or a couple of rules (or piece movements, as the King) that may seem a bit excentrical, but nothing is out of place, I spent many months designing and testing this game before releasing it, and you must be sure, I was careful in all aspects. Thanks again, I´ll try to use your kind observations on Achernar .(II? 3D?).