Enter Your Reply

One area that I think needs some exploration is the multi-move turn. In the
games I'm aware of, the extra moves are just sort of tacked onto the game
with no real attempt at rationale. Some games you move 2 pieces/turn, some
more, some depend on what your opponent did; sometimes the same piece can
move more than once, and capture, in other games if a capture is made, no
other move can be... Anyhow, no real attempt has been made to explain why
one rule or rule set was chosen over another. Being as conservative and
traditional in my outlook and design philosophy as I am, I felt the need
to change that, at least for me. So, in Chieftain, I changed 1 king to 4
leaders, and you *still* get as many moves per turn as you have leaders
left. Still? Well, chess has 1 leader with unlimited command control range
- you lose that leader, you don't get to make any more moves, game over.
But only 1 supreme leader, controlling pieces anywhere on the board,
mostly unlimited-range pieces, and a rather small world, only 8x8, to play
on - this FIDE chess is a very modern game reflective of the world we find
ourselves in today. Chieftain goes way back, when small bands of people
grouped together in tribes, and there was no 1 leader of all the people
for every circumstance. Commands were issued over shouting distance, and
to individuals. 
The superlarge I'm contemplating will fall in between these 2 extremes.
The 'high king' will be, like the FIDE king, checkmateable for victory
purposes and have unlimited command control range for any 1 piece per
turn. There will also be 2 more lower levels of leader, generals and
captains. These will command different numbers and strengths/types of
pieces, with command control ranges that would be roughly 5 and 10. I'd
also throw in a marshall, with the same command powers as the king. These
powers would include the ability to activate at least 1 local piece, as
well as the 1 unlimited-range activation.