i am a chess fan, though inexperienced in the sense that most of the games i
have played are amateur games against other amateurs like myself. I learned
from my father who was more interested in positioning and strategy than i was
at the time, rushing in and taking pieces, as i was.
Over time i learned to appreciate what he was trying to do. One time he said
'Could you imagine winning a game without taking a single piece?' I thought
it very elaborate at the time, but now think it would be elegant.
Anyway, regarding unit-less 4X war games, or piece-less chess, i have had
several ideas, revolving around the idea of blindfold chess, and some of my
own weird variations, none of which may be anything special, but they are
thoughts that i think might be interesting.
What if each square on the map had one of 8 possible values, and a color.
Lets say the player is blue, and the 7 other npc players are various colors
from green, gray, red, orange, yellow, brown and black. Each player starting
with 16 spaces, exactly like say traditional chess players having 16 spaces
for their men at the start of a game. But in this game, at least the one on a
map, or a 4X version of a map, there can be multiple players, not just the
face to face of a traditional chessboard, which can of course not only
complicate things, but maybe make them really interesting as well.
Maybe it would look something like a Chinese Checkers board?
But to continue, the values of each square are inherent, but not solid until
a single specific value is chosen by the player, solidifying the state of
that space.
Question: should open space between the players 'spaces' be considered
changeable as well? If so then the immediate space around a players spaces
can quickly give that player an advantage, depending on how much space a
player can take before they meet another players spaces.
Or if not, then the open spaces remain clear and do not give a player an
advantage, except perhaps to act as a buffer between players in places where
that open space remains.
The possible values are: forward, backward, side left, side right, right top
diagonal, left top diagonal, left back diagonal, right back diagonal.
Forward attacks and leads into the new space whether it is already occupied
or not. (unless blocked, or redirected)
Backward retreats and moves away from contentious or embattled spaces.
(unless blocked or redirected)
side left is used as a block and can be undone only with a countering side
right from another player. (can be stacked)
side right is used as a block and can be undone only with a countering side
left from another player.(can be stacked)
Each of the diagonal values re-directs an incoming piece (friendly or not, so
it can be used to some advantage by the main player) either to the left or
right at the 'top' of the re-directing space, or at the 'back' of the re-
directing space. So in effect in front or behind. The difference of course is
if we have other spaces that are in attacking positions in those areas, or if
those areas are open and vacant spaces where the other player will need to
re-orient themselves before re-attacking or defending, or whatever.
Or if we use them ourselves, if those areas are closely surrounded with assisting
spaces that can help protect or defend, or open and allow the space to
effectively not be lost.
In my theoretical chess without pieces or even really the 'normal' movement
of traditional pieces it means keeping track of what is an attack, or
weakness, how many spaces have i advanced, or lost, and what can i block from
the other side or redirect, and what can i advance from my side.
If this were played on a normal 64 square board, then it might be a lot of
fun, counting spaces and writing down the values and calculating where the
double blocks are, where are the thin areas that i can double my forward
moves and punch through, and where do i need to re-direct incoming attacks
from other players to keep my spaces in my color.
Anyway, i have named it 8-point chess or piece-less chess, which is really
probably not fair, since i don't use the traditional moves, although if i
did, and used them in their traditional placements and tried to keep a mental
or written picture of where the pieces were and what was around them, (in
effect a normal Blindfold game) it would make my little exercise in forward,
back, etc values rather simple. (except for the fact that 8-point can be
played against any number of opposing players.) But i changed them to those
values because it was much easier to keep in my head what each one had the
potential of being until i made a choice of what it was, and once chosen,
then i had to commit to memory what that value was and where it was.
Or perhaps if i called it simply 8 point, or maybe Nobles (a title for pieces that can be of any state).
Not only my choices of course, but the other player or players as well.
on paper or on a board would be fun, (is that the word?
) to keep track of.
The object of course, whether its the 64 square board, or the open space map
of a 4X war game, is to have all the spaces turned to your color. It also
does it without using units.
In the same way, perhaps as the game Risk generically changes units into
blocks and has them represent just power, instead of specific kinds of units.
Anyway, just an idea that i wanted to mention and see what people thought.
Not just if it would work with a 4x game, and if it would be desirable, but
whether or not anyone would love to have a go at a Play by email game of 8-
point? Or in a thread on the forum if that is alright with Chris and company
Thanks for listening,
Sincerely,
-Teal
p.s. oh, just a quick addition of thoughts on blocks that i forgot to include.
blocks can be doubled by the player, so that they have to be 'unblocked'
using double unblocks by the opposing player.
double forwards can overcome double blocks, but only triple and quadruple,
etc... forwards can overcome triple, quad, etc... blocks on the map.
Retreats preserve a spaces state, whether inherent or solid. Retreats can
move back through 'occupied' spaces, because they do not change the state of
those spaces, but forwards cannot move 'through' a solid space but must
address that space first. (because forward moves are seen as attacking and
space taking)
Redirects affect both player and opponent moving spaces, so can be used to
advantage or disadvantage.
All states can be stacked, such as two forwards to overcome a single block,
or a double block to stop a single forward. etc...
I can't think of any others, but i am sure there will be something that will
come to me later.
take care,
-t
p.s.s. Ooops, i forgot the part about moving, haha, well... that means, or
should mean, a state change, yes? one of the spaces that i have solidified
into a particular state, i now change to something else, one of the other
states, so my blocks can, or one of my blocks can become a forward strike, or
a top right re-direct. Or whatever of the 8 states that i want to use.
Question: Or does this make things too chaotic?
Maybe it should be that once solidified the spaces remain in that state. And
that only the forward spaces remain forward spaces and able to attack or take
new space? This would change the game alot. But perhaps make it more
manageable? Or is the possibility of any space changing states bring more
excitement?
Maybe we can call it 'Classical' and 'Open', with classical being closed and
immutable states and open being changeable.
Wait!! how am i supposed to
'change' the other players spaces if they are immutable? Cancel that, maybe i
have to go with a 'changeable' state for the spaces. We just have to be
careful, considering what other players spaces around us are doing.
Wait!! Sorry for this, i should do my thinking and then write it down, it is
less messy that way, but maybe Classical and Open can work, and the 'forward'
spaces are the ones that do the change states, not only on the other players
spaces, but on the players own spaces as well, converting blocks or re-
directs to forwards. Or changing areas where a forward is located and a block
would be more desirable, then have the states able to change, of course by
the players choice.
Question: What if only 'adjacent' states can effect other spaces? Meaning i
can't change a space to anything once it has been chosen, but i can change it
to the same state as an adjacent space? Maybe a limit like this make the
chaos a tiny bit more manageable? Or is any state change on any space
anywhere more exciting?
Which now means keeping track of changing state values as well... haha, oh
my, spreadsheet madness, or joy whatever!
-t
p.s.s.s. Just had a thought about making a 9th state, which would be the
Ruler state, so it could apply to men or women players equally. But the idea
is that at least one of the spaces initially held by the player has to be the
Ruler. And like in Chess, this space has to be defended against all threats,
though i will have to sit down and think if there might be 'threat' states
like in normal chess, a 'Mate' situation, or if that is best left alone.
Originally i had thought there would be no pivotal space at all, and the way
to win, would be of course to take all of an opponents spaces converting them
to your own color.
But using a 'Ruler' designated space gives some of the elegance of chess back
into this idea of piece-less chess.
Second thought, of course,
what if the Ruler space could be re-
designated across the map, anywhere? it would make for easy outs, unless of
course the other player, or players had such a pin on the main player that it
didn't matter if the Ruler re-designated or not.
Should we change the name to 9 point? Or disregard that idea completely? Or put it in
as a modifiable rule?
Hmmm....
p.s.s.s.s. Just another thought, but if we do have a player, or opponent
able to take 'open' space, adding that area to their color and control, then
it might allow, if we use the 'Ruler' as well... to effectively isolate all
the spaces, or take, or dominate other players spaces to allow a 'win the
game without losing a space' condition. Perhaps unlikely or even extremely
rare. But still, a nice and elegant idea.
Maybe it could be compared to
a diplomatic win, or an influence win, in a normal 4X game?
p.s.s.s.s.s. 9-point notation:
und = undefined (the natural inherent/un-solid state of a space)
F = Forward value, a striking, taking value used to take other spaces
B = Back, is a retreat value, that can move 'through' spaces as it does not
take or attack those spaces. Retreats only move in the direction of the
players home direction and can not be used to move into opponent occupied
spaces.
LB = Left Block, can be stacked however many times as wished, has to be
countered by the same number of counters to allow passage.
RB = Right Block, can be stacked however many times as wished, etc...
LTR = Left Top Redirect, can be stacked as many times as wished.
LBR = Left Back Redirect, can be stacked...
RTR = Right Top Redirect, can be stacked...
RBR = Right Back Redirect, can be stacked...
R = Ruler value is in essence the King piece from a normal chess game that
has to be guarded throughout the game. In 9-point it means having a re-
designatable piece that allows more room than a normal game of chess, however
it does mean the opponent having to either block in, or position for a attack
of a forward piece that can not be blocked or redirected.
Notation should follow a space designation, then a movement designation, such
as:
F-f = Forward designated space moves forward 1 space.
All moves are 1 space unless special rules later designated more than 1, but
for now, one seems sufficient.
F-LB = Forward designated space changes to a left block state. These can be
stacked of course allowing for multiple 'layers' of protection, or power if
using multiple Forwards behind one another.
A typical opening may look like this, since even with two or more players the
state of a space is not necessary until moved, or changed.
B-F und und und und und und und (here the B means color,in this case Blue)
und und und und und und und und
o (here the o means an open space unoccupied
o by a players space)
o
o
BL-F und und und und und und und (here the BL means the color Black)
und und und und und und und und
For the purposes of a 'standard' game, lets assume that 4 open spaces are
needed between every player. (the same as in standard chess between players)
Ok, i think we've got enough to actually start a game and see if it will
work. I think i will start a thread, *if that is OK, and see if i can play a
game out.
Question: Is it 10-point if we have an undefined state, such as in the open
space, before it is chosen?
Note: Forwards overcome Blocks (if doubled, etc...)
Blocks stop Forwards (if doubled, etc...)
Redirects redirect unless countered in the same way as a block?
Or do we make redirects un-counterable?
the reason i mention this is it occurred to me that some games would end in a
win, by dominating and taking spaces on the map or board. Other games would
be won by isolating the 'Ruler' space. And some games would be draws. If the
forward spaces accomplish the attacking necessary for dominating and taking
spaces to win a game by domination, and a game won by isolation is using
blocks or redirects to isolate a space, or the Ruler space in particular,
then that is a 'diplomatic' win. But other games would be draws, perhaps by
concentrating on redirects and block that instead of isolating for a
diplomatic win, could effectively keep the opponent at bay, by maneuvering
opposing spaces away from the players spaces?
this seems reasonable on the face of it, but i haven't attempted a full game
yet, so i am unsure, and a test would be the best way to tell if such a
proposition would work.
Note 2: I have been thinking of Forwards, which seem to be the only way of
moving a space, with the Blocks and Redirects acting in place, but not
advancing. Which should mean the only way to advance is to change a space to
a Forward and advance them, taking the new space (where appropriate).
It also brings up the question of does a Forward only take what is directly
in front of it? Like a pawn advancing? Or does a forward have side and
diagonal attacking powers as well?
If we give Forwards these powers, is it too much?
If we limit Forwards to just taking 'those spaces directly in front of them'
then that may be more strategic, though it may also make for long involved
sequences of moves where the player moves spaces 'directions' in order to get
at spaces where they are not directly in front of them. Sounds a little
redicules just saying it, but i'm not sure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-point Summary and Decisions on First Play Game -
* Ten-point will involve an undefined state, forward, retreat, left block, right
block, top right redirect, top left redirect, back right redirect, back left
redirect, and ruler states for spaces.
* Open space will be takeable by any player.
* Taken spaces are converted to players color spaces.
* Space states are fluid and may be changed from any particular state to
another state per 'turn' by the player.
* Taking spaces, Isolating spaces and Draws are all possible for each player so
long as their 'Ruler' space is still in play.
//
