Charles Gilman wrote on Mon, Mar 5, 2007 08:26 AM UTC:
You have miscounted the cells. There are only 91, the same number as in the
three historic hex variants, not 109. In view of this, do you still think
that there are too few pieces for them? What about in the 3-player
variant?
Regarding notation, the secojnd array is 3-player and there are not three
cases of letters to distinguish them. Single letters would be confusing if
I use this method for a wider range of hex variants - rather than my
previous practice of having a ffen diagram for the 2-player array and
leaving readers to work out the 3-player one for themselves! I would be
interested to hear which you think preferable.
Those apart you make some good points. I never said that Viceroys were a
good Knight analogy, but they are a historic one. It has just struck me
that on the Glinsky/McCooey orientation one way to make unbind the piece
would be by adding an extra move directly forward, either a single or a
double step. Which would be better, do you think? Such a piece could be
reduced in number, and the Rooks increased, to two. The names Forerook and
Hindrook were thought up fairly quickly, and if you can improve on them
while retaining the ease of extrapolation I'll happily listen to your
ideas.
You have miscounted the cells. There are only 91, the same number as in the three historic hex variants, not 109. In view of this, do you still think that there are too few pieces for them? What about in the 3-player variant?
Regarding notation, the secojnd array is 3-player and there are not three cases of letters to distinguish them. Single letters would be confusing if I use this method for a wider range of hex variants - rather than my previous practice of having a ffen diagram for the 2-player array and leaving readers to work out the 3-player one for themselves! I would be interested to hear which you think preferable.
Those apart you make some good points. I never said that Viceroys were a good Knight analogy, but they are a historic one. It has just struck me that on the Glinsky/McCooey orientation one way to make unbind the piece would be by adding an extra move directly forward, either a single or a double step. Which would be better, do you think? Such a piece could be reduced in number, and the Rooks increased, to two. The names Forerook and Hindrook were thought up fairly quickly, and if you can improve on them while retaining the ease of extrapolation I'll happily listen to your ideas.