[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
This looks really neat, and if I ever have any free time again, I'm going to play around with it some.
<p>
I do wonder why you eliminated the suicide rule, though.
<p>
Apparently, while in music Rococo was followed by Classical, in art and architecture it was followed by Neo-Classical. Confusing.
<p><hr><p>
I can see why you replaced the Withdrawer, it being so comparitively weak (and even weaker without the ring board). I wonder if making the Withdrawer immune to the Immobilizer would increase its value significantly? It'd be horribly irregular, though.
I eliminated the suicide rule because after playtesting it both ways I liked the feel of the game better without it. I feel suicide is less necessary in Fugue (and for that matter Rococo) than in Ultima becase the Cannon Pawn is such an excellent Immobilizer-killer--it can capture the Immobilizer by using an immobilized piece as a mount. The Archer can also pick off an Immobilizer from a distance if there is any open line--the immobilized pieces spot. Another reason for this and also for having Immobilzers immune to each other and Swappers unable to swap with each other is that I wanted to increase the third-thing aspect of Fugue: to intentionally be different from both Ultima and Rococo. Making the Withdrawer immune to the Immobilizer would certainly make it very valuble for its special ability but losing value rapidly after thew enemy Immobilizer is gone, suddenly regaing value if the enemy protes a Pawn to Immobilizer.
It's interesting to note that the Swapper is critical in this game -- without it, a player could form a perfect defensive position (using only 3 pawns, 1 immobilizer, 1 shield, 1 queen, and of course a king).
<p>Anyone care to take a stab at what one of the perfect defensive positions would look like? My solution is posted in this comment, but you'll have to 'view source' to see it.
<!--
<pre>
| . . . .
| p k i .
| . s p .
| . q p .
+--------
</pre>
-->
The example David gives is indeed potent, but can be beaten by a stronger force even without a Swapper (an if the enemy is weaker, why settle for an unbeatable defense when you should be winning?) The problem will all such formations is that they cannot be maintained--the opponent arranges his moves so that you must either break the formation or lose by triple repetition. David is quite correct that the Swapper is highly valuable in breaking up formations of this type. I fact, I suspect that this factor makes the Swapper considerably more valuable than its Rococo counterpart.
You're right Mike, I forgot to take into account the triple repetition rule. :( But other than that, it is (as far as I can see) a perfect defense, even against a stronger force. I can see the wisdom of having the triple repetition be a loss instead of a draw. Well, anyway, I really do like this game -- the limited archer which requires a spotter works really well and the pieces in general interact well with each other. I especially like that the immobilizer has been weakened by having more pieces which are effective against it.
5 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.