'All directions' means horizontally, vertically and diagonally?
How does the 50-move rule work (since you have no Pawns)? There is no promotion in this game?
When an infantry reach the enemy's back rank, it gets called a Sergeant they can move 1 square vertically and horizontally.
The 50-move rule is not the 50-move rule anymore. It becomes the 200-move rule.
Nerd.
Okay,
this looks pretty much the same (except for designs), and still has the same problems: Infantry is basically useless, and other pieces are all over the place, especially in combination. Maybe try some test games with friends or with AI on protochess.com for tweaking piece dynamics. They're not heinously bad, but probably enough to make for a game that's either inherently drawish without mass blunders or chaotic on both sides (especially with pieces able to move FIVE SQUARES in one turn.
Drawish? I did mention about nukes.
And for the pieces that move five squares, think about the bishops, rooks and queens. They can move much more.
Where can I find a playthrough?
Then why not the makes play a full game with themselves and upload it on, say youtube. It will explain the mechanics of the game better, imo.
How? You have the game at hand, you have its rules ready. You can simply write a program (if you can code), or even a cardboard cut out (the cheapest option for the board and pieces, setup a table and record a gameplay.
One question: Do you like the modern or medieval version more?
One question: Do you like the modern or medieval version more?
Honestly, I understand neither well, but a gameplay will help me understand the mechanics. However I will prefer the medieval one purely out of aesthetics reasons.
If you don't understand the mechanics then go to Ohio or reread the posts.
I will. Yet if you make a game, and don't try to play it to demonstrate what the game is all about, then anyone can doubt the game is not playable. So, it is good to have a playthrough.
Then what is this thread and so many other threads about battleground chess are made for? There was one thread where someone was complaining about people hating battleground chess. I find the concept good, but the fact that it is unplayable is not helping its reputation.
What are the identified challenges to its playability?
If the following things are clear, I think playing the game (say with cardboard cutouts) with someone a few times will help you discover the flaws.
1. Is there a clear goal for a player?
2. Do the rules contradict each other?
3. Are the movement of the pieces well defined and sufficiently distinct?
4. Is there a loophole that can give a side unfair advantage or end the game too quickly without enough strategizing, provided players are rational?
Vanila chess too evolved over time, so do this can.
Drawish? I did mention about nukes.
And for the pieces that move five squares, think about the bishops, rooks and queens. They can move much more.
As for the nukes, you did mention them, but not how they work. Also, it's true a queen could hypothetically go from one end of the board to the other in one move, there are lots of squares near it that it cannot move to. For the comparison, the pieces in-game (I assume) are moving to absolutely any square within 5 "rings" of the piece, which- even on a board of this size! -is huge; such a piece does technically have limits, but its sheer mobility means that these limits are more or less insignificant, making the piece overpowered (IMO, any piece that can checkmate by itself is overpowered); you also said nothing about making the infantry, well, exist.
I feel like the warships should have a bigger range, but the farther out they get, the lesser chance of them hitting. Maybe do something like a dice roll.
Chess is about strategy, not luck.