The Chess Variant Forum

To speed up development you could have an 'Air Lift' piece, which moves as a Queen jumping an arbitrary number of pieces, cannot capture, but can optionally take any or all of the adjacent pieces with it, if the correspondingly adjacent square of its target square is empty. This allows moving 9 pieces at once, so that more pieces can be used in the same number of turns. And it allows weak pieces (staeppers and other short-range leapers) to move to a place that would take them 10-20 moves to reach otherwise, without making these pieces individually strong.

Alright, I have a feeling we'll be basing this on variants like Scirocco and Typhoon.

I've renamed the Infantry piece to Infantryman and armies to squads.

I made some rules about squad:
When an infantry moves, all of the friendly pieces (and Infiltrators/Guerilla-affected pieces) inside the squad move, but not any piece beyond the squad unless an Officer is present.
If a piece cannot normally make a move, it cannot make that move during an squad move, it may only move the maximum distance in that direction (if it even can move in that direction).
If an infantryman is immobilized, so will its associated squad unless it untied by an Officer with another one.
When an infantry member (or Guerilla-affected pieces) in an infantry move collides with a friendly piece, it may not move further.

I've also come up with pieces that can make squads less powerful.

Interceptor - All enemy pieces within a 5x5 radius of it cannot partake in an squad move. Moves like an Infantryman.
Infiltrator - When entering an enemy squad, it will move with that squad but it will still be able to capture enemy pieces. Moves like an Infantryman.
Assassin - When it captures an Infantryman, all of the members of its corresponding squad gets captured as well. Moves like an Infantryman.

Here are some other pieces:

Officer - When in a squad, all overlapping friendly squad will move with that squad. Moves like an Infantryman. A group of squads united by an Officer or Airlifter is called a platoon.
Driver - When in a platoon/squad, all pieces inside it will be able to move like an Infantryman during an squad move. Moves like an Infantryman.
Scout - Unable to move unless it is a squad move.
Guerrilla - When in an platoon/squad, all enemy pieces inside that platoon move as well but cannot capture (unless they are Infiltrators). Moves like an Infantryman.

I've decided we should have 4 Infantrymen, 4 Scouts, 2 Drivers, 2 Officers, and 1 Guerrilla.
Also, we will be upgrading the board size to 50x50 due to the new concepts being added in.

How many pieces do you intend to use? When I talked about the infantry piece I was thinking of maybe having about 250 infantry pieces in a 50 x 5 area (if we're using a 50 x 50 board). Maybe a bit less or more depending on the other pieces and if you want to have a few holes in the infantry piece area (empty squares) or if you want the infantry to cover a larger area (such as 500 infantry pieces in 50 x 10 area).

Regardless, I would like to know how many pieces you want to use and how many types of different pieces. If it is around 800 pieces for each side, then I don't really think it is a good idea to have a lot of different types of pieces that you have only 1, 2 or 4 of each. We don't want over 100 types of pieces with different rulesets, that's for sure (who would even remember those rules?).

Also, I'm not really sure if I really understand the last post. What is your definition of how big a squad is? I had it as a 5x5 area you can choose wherever you want, but is your squad related to where the infantryman is located instead? I am not at all worried about squads being too powerful, but rather the opposite. Too weak compared to moving the most powerful pieces. I would also prefer if squads was only related to how pieces move, not how other pieces captures pieces that are a member of a squad and no piece that interacts with enemy squads. Captures that cover an area is already some sort of counter since army movement encourages your pieces to be close to each other.

How many pieces do you intend to use? When I talked about the infantry piece I was thinking of maybe having about 250 infantry pieces in a 50 x 5 area (if we're using a 50 x 50 board). Maybe a bit less or more depending on the other pieces and if you want to have a few holes in the infantry piece area (empty squares) or if you want the infantry to cover a larger area (such as 500 infantry pieces in 50 x 10 area).

Regardless, I would like to know how many pieces you want to use and how many types of different pieces. If it is around 800 pieces for each side, then I don't really think it is a good idea to have a lot of different types of pieces that you have only 1, 2 or 4 of each. We don't want over 100 types of pieces with different rulesets, that's for sure (who would even remember those rules?).

Also, I'm not really sure if I really understand the last post. What is your definition of how big a squad is? I had it as a 5x5 area you can choose wherever you want, but is your squad related to where the infantryman is located instead? I am not at all worried about squads being too powerful, but rather the opposite. Too weak compared to moving the most powerful pieces. I would also prefer if squads was only related to how pieces move, not how other pieces captures pieces that are a member of a squad and no piece that interacts with enemy squads. Captures that cover an area is already some sort of counter since army movement encourages your pieces to be close to each other.

I'm thinking the type to number of piece ratio of Taikyoku shogi would be better.

Quote from: Martin0 on April 02, 2018, 04:52:59 am

How many pieces do you intend to use? When I talked about the infantry piece I was thinking of maybe having about 250 infantry pieces in a 50 x 5 area (if we're using a 50 x 50 board). Maybe a bit less or more depending on the other pieces and if you want to have a few holes in the infantry piece area (empty squares) or if you want the infantry to cover a larger area (such as 500 infantry pieces in 50 x 10 area).

Regardless, I would like to know how many pieces you want to use and how many types of different pieces. If it is around 800 pieces for each side, then I don't really think it is a good idea to have a lot of different types of pieces that you have only 1, 2 or 4 of each. We don't want over 100 types of pieces with different rulesets, that's for sure (who would even remember those rules?).

Also, I'm not really sure if I really understand the last post. What is your definition of how big a squad is? I had it as a 5x5 area you can choose wherever you want, but is your squad related to where the infantryman is located instead? I am not at all worried about squads being too powerful, but rather the opposite. Too weak compared to moving the most powerful pieces. I would also prefer if squads was only related to how pieces move, not how other pieces captures pieces that are a member of a squad and no piece that interacts with enemy squads. Captures that cover an area is already some sort of counter since army movement encourages your pieces to be close to each other.

I'm thinking the type to number of piece ratio of Taikyoku shogi would be better.

So Taikyoku shogi is played on an 36 x 36 board with 402 pieces of 209 types.
If we convert that to 50x50 board we get 775 pieces of 403 types.

I like your enthusiasm, but I'm very pessimistic of having that many piece types.

How many pieces do you intend to use? When I talked about the infantry piece I was thinking of maybe having about 250 infantry pieces in a 50 x 5 area (if we're using a 50 x 50 board). Maybe a bit less or more depending on the other pieces and if you want to have a few holes in the infantry piece area (empty squares) or if you want the infantry to cover a larger area (such as 500 infantry pieces in 50 x 10 area).

Regardless, I would like to know how many pieces you want to use and how many types of different pieces. If it is around 800 pieces for each side, then I don't really think it is a good idea to have a lot of different types of pieces that you have only 1, 2 or 4 of each. We don't want over 100 types of pieces with different rulesets, that's for sure (who would even remember those rules?).

Also, I'm not really sure if I really understand the last post. What is your definition of how big a squad is? I had it as a 5x5 area you can choose wherever you want, but is your squad related to where the infantryman is located instead? I am not at all worried about squads being too powerful, but rather the opposite. Too weak compared to moving the most powerful pieces. I would also prefer if squads was only related to how pieces move, not how other pieces captures pieces that are a member of a squad and no piece that interacts with enemy squads. Captures that cover an area is already some sort of counter since army movement encourages your pieces to be close to each other.

Squads are centered around an Infantryman.

Quote from: ubersketch on April 01, 2018, 10:12:46 am

I have an idea, why don't we make it so that when a piece in the opponent's side of the board gets captured, one type of your pieces gets promoted. This should allow for more powerful pieces to come through.

Graeme Neatham and I tried this idea of battlefield promotions - promoting a piece when it captures - but found it destroyed the game we were playtesting. In chess, most pieces are guarded, and when one player captures, the other generally recaptures. This means that whoever captures first gives the opponent a promoted piece, effectively. We stopped being the first to capture...

Good point. Although we can make this rule: When a piece promotes, it may also move in the same turn. Or: When a piece promotes, it is unable to be captured in the next turn.

Quote from: ubersketch on April 21, 2018, 12:01:09 pm

Quote from: joejoyce on April 20, 2018, 10:43:07 am

Quote from: ubersketch on April 01, 2018, 10:12:46 am

I have an idea, why don't we make it so that when a piece in the opponent's side of the board gets captured, one type of your pieces gets promoted. This should allow for more powerful pieces to come through.

Graeme Neatham and I tried this idea of battlefield promotions - promoting a piece when it captures - but found it destroyed the game we were playtesting. In chess, most pieces are guarded, and when one player captures, the other generally recaptures. This means that whoever captures first gives the opponent a promoted piece, effectively. We stopped being the first to capture...

Good point. Although we can make this rule: When a piece promotes, it may also move in the same turn. Or: When a piece promotes, it is unable to be captured in the next turn.

Ow! Both of those rules have what I think you would consider unintended consequences. In the first case, a single piece could capture, then move and capture again, and again... a knight's tour could end the game in one turn of 800 or so consecutive moves. The second case is just slower. A piece, as long as it keeps capturing, is invulnerable. What kind of piece density are you looking at, and why?     You might want to re-think what pieces are in a giant game like a 50x50.

When a piece promotes.