Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
In my Rose Chess XII, I used a three wheeled War Machine graphic for a piece that either moves one square orthogonally or jumps three squares orthogonally. The name and graphic might also be suitable for your 1-2-3 square leaper, the Custodian. There will always be some overlap in piece names here, in fact War Machine is more commonly used for a Wazir+Dabbabah combination.
Worth a look is Peter S. Hatch's Fantasy Grand Chess, including the Druid Army, with twenty different (mostly short range) units. There is no duplication, even for the pawn-equivalent units. One of these pieces, the Stag, is identical to my War Machine (which Greg Strong calls a Scout).
Here's an interactive diagram using the Alfaerie piece set and using the three wheeled war machine icon for the Custodian. Thanks for the tip!
To be honest though, I still somewhat prefer the Greenwade icon set for this game, I think the two kinds of bishops are easier to distinguish. I'm planning on making a Game Courier preset for this game though, and then I'll provide both options.
Edit: This interactive diagram comment was updated with the updated rules and starting position for the game.
Big changes to this game.
I changed the moves of the Kjempe and Custodian to give them a more realistic ability to participate in an attack. They are now both supposedly worth as much as a rook.
I also changed the initial position to avoid the bishops-pointing-at-rooks problem.
It seems the game has become a bit sharper with these changes, but hopefully not too much.
A. M. DeWitt wrote on Thu, Nov 28, 2024 05:22 PM UTC:It is definitely easy to get into. It inherits all the core rules from Chess while adding something new. Good work with this one.
The only thing I am on the fence about is the woodlander's move, which makes it more of a defensive piece. I think a Knight + vertical-only Rook (forward and backward) would be a much better combination here, and would also make it resemble Chu Shogi's Flying Stag while also being distinct from it.
Having too many defensive pieces will make a game quite drawish. Ideally, at least a majority, if not all, piece types in a game like this should be able to participate in an attack, especially in larger games. Chu Shogi solves this by having a broad promotion zone and making every piece except King, Lion, and Queen promotable, albeit to specific types.
I thought about your advice. I don't think the game is drawish as is, due to a big board with more possibilities compared to Chess, and quickpawns being comparatively easy to promote. I don't have any statistics to back this up, though.
But having more pieces realistically able to participate in an attack is fun, and I just changed the moves of the Kjempe and Custodian for this very reason.
Your suggestion for the Woodlander (Knight + vertical rook) would make it another 5+ value piece (actually a bit stronger according to the diagram's evaluation), which I think the players would often save for the endgame (which admittedly would be great fun), instead of coming to use in the midgame, when I think knight-y moves make the most sense on a large board. So I'm currently looking into some alternatives which would make the woodlander a more offense-oriented piece, but still keep it in the 4-value range where it is supposedly exchangable for a Bishop or an Avian: NsW, NvW, NfR ("lancer"), NfR3, etc. Another option on the table is to make the Woodlander promotable. This will take a while for me to playtest and come to some conclusions.
A. M. DeWitt wrote on Tue, Dec 3, 2024 12:36 AM UTC in reply to Martin Nilsson from Fri Nov 29 04:22 PM:Well, as is, it's a well-designed game for sure, and worthy of approval.
I'd agree that the Quickpawn is easier to promote due to having more movement options than the standard Chess Pawn, but I think board size affects game length more so than decisiveness, which is more a function of.how powerful the army is compared to the royal piece (usually the King).
8 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
Did the following writeup to further explain my design thinking for this game:
Problem: Large variants easily become too complex for (average) human players to handle skillfully, and too sharp. Having too many strong pieces while keeping the standard king increases the probability of an early check mate.
Solution: Keep the standard pieces, but apart from that, introduce only short and medium distance pieces into the game. This will generate some localized situations of lower complexity.
Problem: Having only a single chain of pawns in a large variant decreases the density of pawns compared to standard chess. The pieces proper will easily stomp through the pawns' defence line. But having partial or whole double pawn chains makes it tedious to develop pieces, among other things.
Solution: Introduce a few Shields into the game, which kind of serve as a mobile pawn replacement.
Problem: Long leapers feel at home on a large board, serving a similar function as the Knight on 8x8, but they can have too powerful forking ability behind the opponent's pawn chain, especially in the early opening.
Solution: Move the pawn chain up to the fourth rank. Make the third rank consist mostly of empty space.
Problem: On a big board, shorter range pieces can easily become stranded in irrelevant areas of the board during the endgame. A stranded Kjempe could in practice be worth much less than 5 pawns.
Solution: This is actually somewhat of a feature. It will be a strategic element of the game to try to predict where the action will be, and move short range pieces there in time. Just make sure that the opening is sufficiently dull that all pieces have time to come into play.
Problem: What does a large variant bring, other than more of the same?
Solution: Make sure the new pieces contrast each other and the old ones, and that pieces can threaten each other assymetrically (either through different movement patterns, or by a defended weaker piece attacking a stronger defended one). Allow for a larger number of quasi-equal exchanges than standard chess, leading to various kinds of assymetric endgames.
Problem: Bishops are pointing at the rooks in the initial position.
Currently no solution: Yes, this is a problem which limits the opening possibilities a bit. At least fortunately the third pawn from the edge is triple defended... At one point I had the Kjempes starting at d3 and i3 to obscure the bishops, but I found this led to more kludginess in the opening.