[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ][ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ][ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]Comments/Ratings for a Single Item Later ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier Hoo Mitregi. Intermediate between Mitregi itself and Dai Mitregi. (12x12, Cells: 144) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]KelvinFox wrote on 2019-03-25 UTCThis looks like a fun variant to play. I am going to test it soon Chris Chradle wrote on 2016-04-06 UTCI think, there should be a white wing on L1. I really like your new layout, but unfortunately, there are a few slips of the pen in it. greetings Chris Charles Gilman wrote on 2007-03-01 UTCI agree that the rotated images are not ideal in that respect. The comment reminds me of my own experience of having to remember that the word 'left' upside down means 'right' and vice versa, as in the 'Look left' and 'Look right' signs. It is always easier to read the upside-down one across the road than the right-way-up one hidden away at my feet! A more ideal depiction would be the smaller images (but still within the normal-sized squares) such as used at http://www.chessvariants.org/historic.dir/tamerlane.html, but I like to keep down use of computer memory and therefore make do with what the ffen diagrams could provide. Were it possible to represent the Shogi array (to use a very familiar example) as for example (rm)(nm)(general/vizir)(vizir/general)k(vizir/general)(general/vizir)(nm) (rm)/1r5b1/(vizirm)(vizirm)(vizirm)(vizirm)(vizirm)(vizirm)(vizirm)(vizirm) (vizirm)/9/9/9/(Vizirm)(Vizirm)(Vizirm)(Vizirm)(Vizirm)(Vizirm)(Vizirm) (Vizirm)(Vizirm)/1B5R1/(Rm)(Nm)(General/Vizir)(Vizir/General)K (Vizir/General)(General/Vizir)(Nm)(Rm), with m standing for miniaturised and / for the latter piece shrunk and superimposed on the former I would jump at using it. Perhaps that may some day be possible. Joe Joyce wrote on 2007-02-26 UTCNot even if you always get white and I tie one pawn behind my back? :-) While I don't consider myself a veteran CVer, I'd probably pass for one to most people, so I can't argue too much with you on learning curves. But I think a good part of that learning curve is avoidable with more user-friendly rules. [For me, that came about when I got people to play my games and they made me give them simple, understandable rules, another reason to suspect little general game play for Hoo Mitregi]. And maybe a different piece set. I know when I see the same symbol used right side up, upside down, sideways and inside-out, it bothers me, mostly because I'm used to reading upside down and sideways, and I more or less automatically 'correct' what I'm seeing to right side up. This can make the diagrams confusing as heck for me. I guess this is my point: the game itself looks simple and nice and should play well - I might reduce the number of ranged pieces, probably replace the forward-onlies with medium range pieces, but that's me, not Charles, and his game looks good, once you understand it. The learning curve is maybe more figuring out what is being said; but now I am criticising another's rules-writing techniques and abilities, and after some stuff I've put up, I shouldn't be saying much. As for some of the other things you've said, I'd like to continue that discussion in another comment. Andy wrote on 2007-02-25 UTCJoe, thanks for offer to play shortrange games, but I regret must decline. Your points are clear and well considered, even I don't agree all of them. I stand by comment that this game has steep learning curve, other than for veteran CV players and designers like you. Don't forget your learning curve less steep than 99% other gamers because you are CV designer yourself. For shortrange pieces, I find balance is better, both short and long in same game. Control of ranks, files, diagonals is such big part of chess strategy. But I have not much experience in games all shortrange, so now I assume your opinion has more weight than mine. And I am not convinced Charles Gilman analyzes games well enough before releasing. He releases too too many games many of them weird boards and weird pieces and too many pieces, he can't give all games full analysis needed to make full playability. If he would release 10% as many games and analyze each one 10 times more he would be good designer. Joe Joyce wrote on 2007-02-25 UTCGood ★★★★Hi, Andy. I, too, am skeptical that this game has ever been played; I seriously doubt it. That's why I didn't rate it in my first comment. Had I, I would have given it a 'good', because until it's played, a game cannot really be judged, and to me it looks like it would range from average to excellent. On play balance: I think Charles is paying great attention - he doesn't overcrowd the board with pieces like so many big games. That alone indicates a lot [or that, like me, he couldn't come up with any more pieces... :-) ] You say: 'Too many piece types and too many short range mean steep learning curve and long slow game with no sharp tactics.' I also agree there are a lot of piece-types, certainly more than I would normally tend to use. But many of the pieces are forward-only versions of the standard pieces. Even his odd pawn is a forward-only ferz. I don't see much learning curve here. Also, I am familiar with shortrange pieces, and I have to say I think you completely mischaracterize them when you say they give a 'long slow game with no sharp tactics.' To demonstrate my position, I would like to offer to play a number of my own games, all shortrange. Specifically, we could play 2 games each of Great Shatranj, Grand Shatranj, Lemurian Shatranj, Atlantean Barroom Shatranj, and Chieftain Chess. In Great Shatranj [8x10], no piece moves more than 2; in Lemurian [8x8] and Chieftain [12x16], no piece moves more than 3; in Grand [10x10] and Atlantean [10x10], none more than 4. Okay, I'm not completely serious and I'm not really trying to put you on the spot, I'm just trying to win a point in this discussion. But I do want to make 2 serious points: that Charles does have a good sense of design, he just needs to make his games available to be played to refine his designs and prove it; and that shortrange pieces can easily be as good as longrange ones. Heck, a CWDA game on a 10x10 with Grand Chess vs Atlantean Barroom pieces would be a slaughter! ;-) Enjoy. Joe ps: if you wanted to, we could play the games anyway... Andy wrote on 2007-02-25 UTCPoor ★I am skeptical that game has been playtested, and also skeptical that pieces have been chosen for play balance purpose. Too many piece types and too many short range mean steep learning curve and long slow game with no sharp tactics. Joe Joyce wrote on 2007-02-24 UTCNice-looking big game with a wide mix of pieces, most of them short range. It looks to be well-balanced, interesting and fun to play. [That was a hint for a preset.] 8 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.