Check out Atomic Chess, our featured variant for November, 2024.


[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Earlier Reverse Order Later
[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Peter Aronson wrote on Tue, Dec 16, 2003 07:31 PM UTC:
I could also make a separate Supremo ZRF if you'd prefer. <p> As for what I meant by in flux, if you look at the last version of the ZRF I sent you, it had a variant called something like 'Supremo with limited Cannon Pawns' which disallowed Cannon Pawns from jumping over pieces when not capturing. As far as I know, you were still considering that change when you got too busy to work on the project.

🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Wed, Dec 17, 2003 03:48 AM UTC:
I can't find any email in which I specifically mentioned that the
Cannon-Pawns should be less powerful, but the limited Cannon Pawns do
better fit my memory of how the Cannon Pawns moved, and the change is one
I may very well have recommended. The Rococo Cannon Pawns can hop over
pieces even without capturing, while the limited Cannon Pawns can't. I
would have favored these limited Cannon Pawns, because they are blockable.
This is the same reason I favored Chinese Chess Knights over Chess Knights
for the Pawn replacements in Cavalier Chess.

I am currently designing some Abstract pieces for Ultima, Rococo, and
Supremo. I still have a few pieces left to do. How about if I send you the
images when they're ready, then you can release an updated ZRF for both
Rococo and Supremo with alternate piece sets.

Peter Aronson wrote on Wed, Dec 17, 2003 05:14 AM UTC:
The comment about Cannon Pawns was in a discussion of revision 1.17 of the ZRF. You said: <p> <i><blockquote> One change I'm thinking of is reducing the power of the Pawns, so that they are merely short-range Leos (I would call then Cubs). Letting them jump only when capturing. At present, they seem a bit too mobile for pieces that can promote. </blockquote></i> <p> I'll wait on the graphics as you suggest.

🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Wed, Dec 17, 2003 05:25 AM UTC:
I've now found the email. When I was looking through my past emails to
you, I had it set to showing me emails by who I sent it to, but these
weren't further sorted in a way that was helpful to me.

Antoine Fourrière wrote on Wed, Dec 17, 2003 05:34 AM UTC:
If I may use the thread to depict my own preferences for a Rococo-like game
(please, one or two more votes to make Rococo eligible for the Game
Courier tournament, it is at least as interesting as Ultima), I would keep
the Cannon Pawns, which are a significant amelioration against the
Immobilizer, also with their non-capturing jump, but on an 81+40-square
board which would weaken them a bit. (It looks too big, but the outer
squares seldom carry more than one or two pieces.) I would retain only one
Long Leaper (the outer squares make two Long-Leapers too strong), and I
would bring back the Coordinator and introduce a new piece.
(I am thinking of the Bureaucrat, which would move as a non-capturing
Queen, but would also be able to turn as a move an enemy adjacent (or
perhaps a Knight's move away) piece into an already captured piece (not a
Pawn). In case it would act on adjacent pieces, either it wouldn't be
able to act on the Immobilizer or the Immobilizer wouldn't be able to
immobilize it, which is why having the Bureaucrat acting at the distance
of a Knight's move might be best.)
I am also thinking of pitting them on a 91+36-square hexagonal board, with
all the major pieces moving as hexagonal Rooks, but there the Cannon Pawns
might promote too easily, so allowing only a non-capturing move on a
side-adjacent piece or a capturing jump should be best.

Roberto Lavieri wrote on Wed, Dec 17, 2003 03:55 PM UTC:
I like the attempt to make the hexagonal Ultima-type game, and the
Bureocrat is a very interesting piece, I like it a lot. It should be
immune to the immobilizer, making the Immobilizer a bit less powerful in
some situations. For the Coordinator, I suggest it can capture an enemy
piece if the piece is on the intersection of the vertical line  that pass
through the Coordinator position with any of the Rook-lines that pass
through the King position. I know you are beginning the work for the
Hex-Ultima-Type game (it seems more close to Hex-Rococo-Type at first
view, let´s see the evolution of the ideas). Any help or suggestions you
need let me know, I´m interested in your project, there is nothing on
hexagonal Ultima-Type games. Surely, other people is also interested.

Tony Quintanilla wrote on Wed, Dec 17, 2003 06:38 PM UTC:
I have not thought much about this, but how about a bishop-type
'diagonal' move that zig-zags along a line at 60-degree angles first one
way then the other? This makes the move continuous, avoiding the gaps that
the Glinski Bishop has.

Roberto Lavieri wrote on Wed, Dec 17, 2003 08:28 PM UTC:
For the Coordinator, it would be best if it captures in Coordination with
the King using both vertical lines, the one that pass by the Coordinator
position, and the one that pass by the King position, and the enemy pieces
in the intersection of one of these lines with the Rook-lines that pass by
the position of the other piece in coordination, are captured. I have
suggested Antoine a pair of other ideas about, but decisions are not easy
at this early stage. Once ready the first BETA ZRF, some tests are needed
for refinements, but accord with his words, it is not expected the ZRF
before the first two month of 2004. I agree with Antoine about the use of
only one Long-Leaper. In a HEX Board, Long-Leapers are very powerful, and
a pair of them looks too much for the game.

🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Thu, Dec 18, 2003 05:07 AM UTC:
You can see the new graphics in my new Ultima preset. But I plan to touch
them up a bit before sending you bitmaps for Zillions.

9 comments displayed

Earlier Reverse Order Later

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.