I don't see how addition of a Bull's Eye would solve any problem in Conquer, and Vice Versa
Bull's eye does not solve any problems in classical chess either, but complements the way of playing.
My approach is the following:
I see the way of playing classical chess and the way of playing Conquer as equivalent: Classical chess is about weakening the fighting force by capturing pieces. Conquer is about the opposite, strengthening the fighting force by conquering. In both 'equal' cases, the bull's eye supports the gameplay and complements the game. In this respect I see two independent variants, namely 'Classical Chess & Bull's eye' and 'Conquer & Bull's eye' - the former only called 'Bull's eye' for short.
If you can follow the approach you will see that I am not interested in exploding the number of variants in a combinatory way.
Bull's eye does not solve any problems in classical chess either, but complements the way of playing.
My approach is the following:
I see the way of playing classical chess and the way of playing Conquer as equivalent: Classical chess is about weakening the fighting force by capturing pieces. Conquer is about the opposite, strengthening the fighting force by conquering. In both 'equal' cases, the bull's eye supports the gameplay and complements the game. In this respect I see two independent variants, namely 'Classical Chess & Bull's eye' and 'Conquer & Bull's eye' - the former only called 'Bull's eye' for short.
If you can follow the approach you will see that I am not interested in exploding the number of variants in a combinatory way.