Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Stations. Missing description (9x5, Cells: 61) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

John Smith wrote on Fri, Nov 14, 2008 01:19 AM UTC:

Although I do not know how powerful the Dreadnaught is, I think it would be more aesthetically pleasing if you had two, the second positioned in front of the first and the Fighter moved forward one space.

💡📝Larry Smith wrote on Fri, Nov 14, 2008 06:44 AM UTC:

The Dreadnaught is extremely powerful. With only one vulnerable point and extremely difficult to block. Putting two on the field would be overkill.

💡📝Larry Smith wrote on Fri, Nov 14, 2008 10:23 AM UTC:

I have also sent an updated implementation to Zillions, so they will have the 2001 version until Saturday. For those who wish to examine the differences, feel free to download while it's available.

Anonymous wrote on Fri, Nov 14, 2008 03:27 PM UTC:Good ★★★★

Just making sure.

Charles Gilman wrote on Wed, Nov 19, 2008 07:38 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

These pieces are a fine example of combining two ideas - rotatability and part-symmetric orthogonal hex pieces. I am going to have to give some of my own pages links to this page.

John Smith wrote on Wed, Nov 19, 2008 03:34 PM UTC:Good ★★★★

This game is remarkably similar to my own Complete Permutation Hexagonal Chess.

💡📝Larry Smith wrote on Wed, Nov 19, 2008 06:18 PM UTC:

John, I really can't see the similarities at all. Except for the hexagonal cells.

Besides, your game uses dice, drops, simulataneous movement and mutators. And a rather odd hexagonal field. Seems to be more differences than similarites.

You might want to reconsider the wording in this last post.

Anonymous wrote on Wed, Sep 15, 2010 06:07 AM UTC:

It looks like Gabriel Maura's (not Daniel Macdonald's) Omega chess.

Anonymous wrote on Wed, Sep 15, 2010 09:49 PM UTC:

Reminds me a lot more of Omnigon