[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
The game may be good, but I dislike a bit a powerful Archer, I prefer the weaker 1-Archer. Have you a ZRF available? (it is not necessary it is depured, little bugs can be fixed later, first the tests looking the better setup and calibrating pieces). I can make some tests on it. Have you tried ULTIMATUM (the last version, but the page has not been closed yet) and/or the proposed Rococo variant?. It is not easy give the best thing on this theme, but one can explore and take a look of the diverse ideas, good surprises arise every moment.
Hmm. I share Roberto's doubts about the long range Archer, but playtesting should prove or disprove those. I assume that the Pushme-Pullyu must make at least one capture if it can, or can it decline to capture any pieces?
<p>
I'm unconvinced that making Immobolizer's ignore each other is wise -- they have a tendency to dominate Rococo and Ultima without that weakness.
<p>
As for the name. Rococo is a bit of a pun on Ultima's original name of Baroque -- the Rococo style of architecture, painting and music followed the Baroque style of those things. Unfortunately, the Rococo style was followed by the Neo-Classical style, but a game named Neo-Classical or Neo-Classical Chess might imply something different than you want. I suppose you could call it 'Ornate', which is a modern meaning of both Rococo and Baroque.
<p>
I've recently encountered a new form of capture, in someone's attempted reconstruction of the Hopi board-game (not race game) of Totolopsi: capture by abandonment. It's sort of similar to capture by withdrawal, but different. A piece is captured by abandonment when an opposing piece with that power moves so to leave the captured piece with no opposing pieces adjacent to it. Odd, but it ought to be good for something.
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.
Mike, I played two games against Zillions, and I´m going to continue the tests in the next days. The game looks fine, but I´m still not convinced about the great power of Archer. Well, Shield is a good moderator, but Shield has some disadvantages when the game goes to ends with few pieces, it is difficult avoid drawn games in many instances (is it a disadvantage?, it depends on who is playing). The game play is nice, and really different than in Rococo, tactics are usually more elaborated, it has a very strange beauty. About a name, I suggest something around the Baroque music theme, what about BACH, FUGUE or LARGO-?
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.
FUGUE : Nice and very adequated name!. Armony, power, strange beauty and brilliant complexity.
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.)
10 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.