Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
"If your opponent cannot do anything active, then don't rush the position; instead you should let him sit there, suffer, and beg you for a draw" (Jeremy Silman)
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Hi everyone,
I wanted to announce on this forum the birth of my new boardgame Shuuro, which essentially is a mix of wargaming and chess.
Please do have a look at the game here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/38764 and you can read/download the rules here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/41702
Looking forward to hear your thoughts!
Thanks
Alessio
http://www.linkedin.com/in/alessiocavatore
Thanks for the post and welcome to the forum. I happened to do an edit on your posts to get the links to become active. On the post or add comment there are a bunch of buttons. If you highlight a URL link and click the link button (looks blue on my computer), you can then make the hyperlink active.
I am of the personal belief that people who work on chess variants need to come together and work on developing standards, so that one variant can be mixed with another one. This way, people who are into chess variants can buy different equipment and play it. The fact your games does provide both the barriers and the 12x12 board would be of interest in people who read the chessvariant website, for example. What I find though, is often game designers of chess variants like to lock their game up to prevent this. Due to a lack of coordination, the end result is that the sets don't work together.
A reason why I believe this is important is that, and it is a focus of IAGO, is there need for the world to be more interested in abstract strategy games, including chess variants. By getting these seen as "cool", you increase the market and can produce more stuff for it. By having people be able to have different equipment work together, then what you have would be able to be used by a larger community. All and parts can be used at different times.
For those not familiar with Shuuro, I will comment on the cool features here:
1. The board is 12x12. This is important for people who want to do variants. 12x12 boards are hard to come by.
2. There are cube barriers included in the game. The way the rules are knights can jump on top of them, but no other piece can. This increases the value of knights on a larger board.
3. Dice are used to randomize board lay out and determine who starts.
4. The pieces are in blue and red. I know it will be asked "Why no black and white?" but think about it. The game gives you more pieces if you want to be able to play variants with more than 2 players.
Anyhow, thank you for the message Alessio. I hope my reasons for interest in the game fit your intentions, and desires.
The game sounds great Allessio, but I want to know why the use of dice to decide the position of the cubes and the hidden info regarding the choice of army? Could the game be played without the use of hidden info and chance? In other words, could the game be an abstract strategy game?
I am hoping enough people come together to find the right position for acceptance in regards to what is in and out of IAGO. There is definitely a core spot for the pure abstract strategy games. But, take SHUURO for example. If it isn't an abstract strategy game, if you have the randomized set up with board positions (Chess960 has this also, even more so), and people have hidden info in buying their armies, then what is it? Do we want to give IAGO enough clout that it can span off other terms like: "Strategic abstract games" and "Abstract games with strategy"?
Thanks to both Rich and David for their positive remarks on Shuuro. It's very encouraging!
To answer David's questions, the dice are used to decide the position of the cubes so that every game is different and presents a unique challenge. This also balances out the values of the pieces and makes well-rounded armies more appealing as opposed to super-specialised armies (like all Knights, or all bishops, and so on).
The hidden choice of the armies is a necessity, really. If we were both picking armies at the same time, how could we decide when to stop and who stops changing their army first?
I don't think you could select the armies without the hidden info. You could devise a system to place the plinths rather than rolling for their position, but that could get very repetitive very quickly. You can however reduce the impact of the dice by playing the 'serious stuff' variant (see http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/41702 ).
And in the end, remember that Shuuro tries to be one step closer to a real battle than normal chess. In other words, you don't know exactly what forces you're going to face when you prepare for battle, and the terrain varies and might interfere with your tactics big time. Think Waterloo, for example: the two armies were made of very different proportions of troops, and the terrain had a profound effect (Hougoumont, the ridges in front of the British squares...).
Oh, and I won't enter into a discussion on the definition of 'abstract game' as I'm too much of a newbie on this forum... maybe one day!
:-p
cavatore, PLEASE enter the discussion for what is or is not an abstract strategy game (what is under the scope of IAGO) when you are comfortable. We need large numbers to discuss to hit the center.
cavatore, one way to handle the players selecting their armies at the same time is to have players alternate turns, purchasing a single unit. You can roll to see who purchases first.
Gentlemen, a suggestion or two. For plinth placement, allow the opponents to place all 4 plinths in each player's 2 quadrants, then allow the player to adjust each of the 4 plinths 1 king move. Do not allow the opponent to place a plinth along an edge square of any quadrant.
To speed up the initial setup, allow the players to alternate purchase of blocks of pieces, that may all be set down together in a specific configuration, or placed anywhere on the player's side of the board. I've found the block useful in my designs/investigations of military/chess variants. The blocks could be of different sizes and values, and you could make single pieces available for leftover purchasing points.
How about this for the plinth placement for tournament play? You can roll for it, but the players play BOTH sides of the boards with pieces.
If you are going to have players place the plinths, I would award points for what PART of the board they are put on. If a spot is more favorable, then it costs more, less favorable, it costs less. Anyhow, I am just throwing this out there. I personally don't like designers of games to be forced too far away from their designs.
Ah, guys, my first name's Alessio. Cavatore is my surname, even though it sounds a lot like the first name 'Salvatore'. So, what I'm trying to say is: please do call me Alessio! ;-)
I understand where you're trying to go with your suggestions, but I prefer to leave the position of the plinths to fate. I am afraid that using one of the methods proposed, the players would soon find out an optimal position of the plinths and as a result every game would end up a lot more similar... or the same!
I think the fact than the players do not know what the board is going to be like keeps them honest when they select their armies. In other words a little bit or randomness at the beginning helps against optimisation. Chess is very optimised, to the point that openings are codified in books and books of chess theory. Shuuro wants to be different in the sense that, much liek real war, there is only so much you can plan, but then all hell breaks lose after contact with the enemy. A good general is one that has a sound plan, but also has the flexibility to adapt to the changing situation!
Alessio, I just posted a lengthy response but the computor said no and I lost it all. In brief, your explanation for the use of chance and hidden info makes sense in the context of your objectives. Pure or not, I think Shuuro is intriguing and worth purchasing and playing before passing judgment. I'll give my two cents worth when I've had a chance to play it. Good luck!
Richard, again I responded in detail but the gist was that I support an expansionist and inclusive agenda for IAGO. I would rather see IAGO support good games rather than good definitions.
Thank you for keeping this thread going everyone.
I know another concern people had is purity here regarding it being an abstract strategy game or not. No luck, perfect information, 2 players only. May I suggest another option for set up with the game? How about using a pie rule. One player sets up the barriers and then the other player decides which side of the board to play. I am less interest in trying to rip to shreds this game with minutia. What I believe does matter is TOURNAMENT play maximize the measuring of skill of players, and reduces the luck factor. We should avoid situations where players can blame bad luck for their loss. Of course we need to be flexible.
I think also, we need to keep in mind what IAGO is trying to do, that is promote abstract strategy games. This means upping the "coolness" factor of abstractness and strategy, and games that are abstract strategy in nature.
I like the idea of the game. It keeps the familiar pieces, cuts down the range of the "infinite sliders" - the queen, rook, and bishop - and thus augments the knight a bit, which it needs on a large board with all those sliders. It does need to be played to be evaluated.
Gentlemen, the "official IAGO tournament" setups can be a series of predetermined boards chosen randomly. The boards may be "effectively symmetrical", so that you do not need 2 games for fairness. Ditto with the pieces, even. We could set up a handful of different armies, with a few build pieces left over to "customize". Purchase those few pieces alternately, white first.
There is absolutely no need to otherwise mess with the current rules, unless we find a flaw.
Alessio, have you gotten registered at CV.org yet? I forwarded your email to the site owner, but I didn't see your name show up yet.
I believe two games, playing both sides, should still be implemented. Don't know if, even in a symmetric set up, that two sides would be seen as favoring one side or another. I do believe, above all, the focus is on having as fair of a measure of skill as possible.
I also believe there is room for Shuuro to be combined with other variants. I believe Plunder Chess with Shuuro would be a potentially interesting combo. Capture a knight, and you gain the ability to jump up on a plinth.
Discussions on all this belong in the IAGO Standards Committee. The objective for the Tour is to work out standards for doing tournaments, combining games, etc...
Mixing up Shuuro with other games/variants is intriguing, but I think that in this 'first phase' of the game's life, its infancy so to speak, we first need to teach it to walk on its own two legs (can you tell I've recently become a dad?). By this, I mean, I'd like to first see Shuuro played for the game it is. Maybe I speak with the pride of the designer...
Once the game is established, we will certainly have some fun with it... we have a couple of wacky expansion in the pipeline...
Anyway, going back to a tournament format, we were thinking giving a set time, with ches clocks, to include deployment of the pieces. How much time do you think makes a good, fast paced game of Shuuro? Of course I understand you'll need to play a few games of Shuuro before you can answer this question... ;-)
I am of the belief that chess variants are going to need to develop a pool of players who play them eventually professionally. This will give games a chance to get exposure as set players show them off. In this also, to make chess variants viable, is to have it so that people get comfortable and enjoy seeing chess changed up among the players.
1 to 17 of 17