Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Invasion. A military inspired Chess variant played on an 84-squares board. (10x10, Cells: 84) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

TW wrote on Tue, May 7, 2002 02:15 AM UTC:Good ★★★★

I wanted something in between Poor and Good here actually. I like the game
and the movement but I would have liked a bigger board. This feels more
like a tabletop wargame then a chessvariant but I guess that it's a
chessvariant in the aspect that pieces have preset moves on a squared board
(something not all chessvariants follow even ;)
I watched Zillions play this game for a while and realised that the
powerful strategies behind a great played game is way above normal chess.
It is a bit complicated for my mind and a bit defensive for my taste.
Still, the idea is wonderful and I would love to see it come back with a
bigger board variant *smile* This is a game I want to have at the table at
home to play with my friends rather then playing it over the net or with
the computer. Adding two more players would also increase the fun level
since tactics would increase and you could help eachother out, if rules
allowed it....I'm now changing from poor to good actually *smile*

jlc wrote on Thu, May 23, 2002 07:38 PM UTC:

As the inventor of Invasion, I'm warmly thanking this anonymous reader for
his comments.
He wants a bigger board. Why not, good idea ! This game was designed for
the 84-square contest. I've just seen that this contest is frozen and my
game unlisted ! Tough award ! 
So, it might be the time to get free and think about a bigger board, dear
reader. Check it out in future here or on www.chez.com/cazaux/ Cheers

Tomas Forsman wrote on Mon, May 27, 2002 05:56 PM UTC:

I never meant to be anonymous *smile* the TW just popped there out of habit
(nickname being TomWolf).
The game will reapear as soon as the contest is back up so I wouldn't take
it away from here. Designing a bigger variant of it would still be
interesting though and I would love to play it.
As I said in the previous comment. The tactics needed are powerful and it's
not an easy game to play. Creating a bigger board would allow for more
choices of tactics, open up for mistakes and for suprices. As it is now a
human doesn't have much chanse against a computer.
I will look out for a bigger version but don't take it away from the
competition.

Tomas

TomWolf wrote on Tue, May 28, 2002 12:12 AM UTC:

I just thought of another way to improve this game. It's just a thought
however and I haven't tested it. What if you devide the 16 squares in the
middle into four like;
AB
CD
And move A one step up, B one step to the right, C one to the left and D
one step down.
I'm not sure yet but I think that would increase the possible ways to take
and thus making it more playable. I'm not totally sure about this yet
though.
I think that this would also create a center ground to fight over, wich
could further improve on the game.
If not changing the game, perhaps introduce it as a game variant?

Regards
Tomas Forsman

David Short wrote on Wed, Dec 11, 2002 12:00 AM UTC:Good ★★★★

This game has some potential. It shows originality and creativity. The rules are not overly complicated. My only gripe is that it is too dis-similar from traditional chess variants and familiar pieces but that is just my preference for CVs with more traditional chess-like pieces. All in all though i wanted to say nice job. I don't have time to volunteer my services as a judge for the contest but I will give positive feedback on all games in the contest I hope get favorable responses.

John Lawson wrote on Sun, Jan 12, 2003 08:15 PM UTC:

I've been playing the ZRF to familiarize myself with the rules. I've noticed that the bomb is only 'turned on' when a Flag occupies one of the free red corners, and is 'turned off' agin when the Flag no longer occupies that square, whether it is captured or leaves voluntarily. The written rules are ambiguous on this point, and I want to be sure this is what you intended.

Jean-Louis Cazaux wrote on Wed, Jan 15, 2003 06:09 PM UTC:

This is an answer to John Lawson by the author of Invasion Chess.
Firstly, I'm happy you've tried that game. I apologize for the rules are
somewhat ambiguous.
I've tried to make them as short as possible, hoping that playing with the
zrf would enlight the shaden areas.
It is exactly what happened here. Effectively the Bomb is ON only when the
Flag is present on the square. 
It is really the spirit of the game : if you're able to put your Flag on
the corner, you've got the right to bomb your enemy.
But, if you wait and, if in the meantime your flag goes away (or is
taken), too bad, you lose your opportunity. I think that's more real.

John Lawson wrote on Wed, Jan 15, 2003 06:36 PM UTC:

Thank you. I think it is better this way, too.

Ben Good wrote on Tue, Mar 4, 2003 04:17 AM UTC:

>>I've tried to make them as short as possible, hoping that playing with the zrf would enlight the shaden areas. <P> i feel i should point out that this is bad practice for writing rules for cv.com or anywhere else. readers are not necessarily going to have zillions, and even if they do, when reading the rules they are not going to assume that the zrf will necessarily clarify ambiguities for them.

Timurthelenk wrote on Tue, Mar 4, 2003 06:16 PM UTC:

OK OK, I apologize, please forgive me. Dont' be too severe, what I just
meant, is that Zillions could help to resolve doubts, just because
Zillions is a fantastic tool that many of us have already. But, no,
Zillions is not compulsory.
Please judge the game not the quality of the rules. I'll correct that
detail soon.

💡📝Jean-Louis Cazaux wrote on Tue, Mar 4, 2003 06:26 PM UTC:

essai

Antoine Fourrière wrote on Thu, Nov 20, 2003 08:38 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

I find this game really enticing, and was surprised it didn't get a prize in the recent 84-square contest. The Flag-ignited Bomb is a great idea (although I have chosen another mechanism to launch the Bomb in my own Chess on a Larger Board with not-so-few Pieces Dropped) and the Tank is also a very good piece. As is usually the case with baroque capture, Zillions is a weak opponent, and I would like to try Invasion on the Game Courier. Would you mind if I made a preset for it?

George Duke wrote on Fri, Mar 4, 2005 11:53 PM UTC:

'GHI,LargeCV': This is a mature war game, military-themed reminiscent of Yurgelevich's 1933 Chess-Battle(128 squares)among others. The implementation itself is even more similar to 1937 Novo Chess in having terrain. Invasion's 16-square sea is never traversed at all(it exists so to come out 84 squares), whereas Novo's Water and Railroad squares serve both for barrier and transit. Also, Novo's General and General Staff are an even more interacting but comparable pair to Invasion's Headquarters and Flags. Both the H. and Flags figure in alternative win conditions, ordinary checkmate by capture of H. or else placement of Flag where other Headquarters began. That is like mediaeval Gala too in that reaching goal square(s) a certain way wins. Seven piece-types manageable; 'Commando' and 'Paratrooper' borrow the earlier (1999)Divergent Chess' differing modes of moving and capturing. 'Trooper' has been described as quadra-pawn in other CVs(Centennial Chess). 'Bomb', when turned on, is placed anywhere and removes itself and all adjacent, like Rococo's Swapper self-destructs at option with one enemy chosen adjacent.

💡📝Jean-Louis Cazaux wrote on Sun, Mar 6, 2005 07:48 AM UTC:

It is murmured that in OrthoChess, the Queen borrows characters from the Bishop and from the Rook. And it's played over a plain 8x8, like Shatranj was earlier.

John Smith wrote on Sat, Oct 4, 2008 03:19 PM UTC:Good ★★★★

The Paratrooper is unclear: can it jump over pieces with its flying move? Where does the Trooper promote: anywhere the opponent's pieces start, or just the grey box? Why can't it shoot, like the Commando or Paratrooper? Not being able to destroy an HQ with a Bomb doesn't make sense, other than to make it a longer game. All in all, this is a good, with the uniqueness of the pieces, and the unique way of making the board 84 squares.

Best regards,
John

💡📝Jean-Louis Cazaux wrote on Sat, Oct 4, 2008 07:33 PM UTC:

Answers to previous comments:
1)'The Paratrooper is unclear: can it jump over pieces with its flying move?'
'Fly' is 'Fly'. The Paratrooper flies overs everything, so including over pieces. Otherwise, it wouldn't fly, it would slide.
2)'Where does the Trooper promote: anywhere the opponent's pieces start, or just the grey box?' 
The Grey box. That's the reason the box is greyed. 
However, the difference of interpretation wouldn't change the game a lot
3)'Why can't it shoot, like the Commando or Paratrooper? '
Because I decided so! I'm the inventor, yes or no? :=)
Beyond this, it is better to have a low range common piece. Imagine someone asking why the Pawn in orthochess is not sliding like the Rook, the Bishop or the Queen. Same here.
4)'Not being able to destroy an HQ with a Bomb doesn't make sense, other than to make it a longer game'
'Sense' is not the same for all on this planet. In all CV I know with 'Bombs', the Bomb never take the Royal piece. I think it is better, so the bomb is used tactically to wound the opposite camp. If the Bomb would seize the HQ, it would mean that bringing a Flag on the red corner is a mate. Not at all what I designed. 
A last word about sense: in a war, I'm find a lot of sense if HQ manage to be protected from any kind of bomb.

John Smith wrote on Sat, Oct 4, 2008 10:40 PM UTC:

What I meant to ask was: 'Are the Bombs really necessary?' Don't they make for a less strategic game, as the Commandos and Paratroopers do to a lesser extent?

17 comments displayed

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.