Thanks, good advice!
En passant will be in it. Castling is also still under construction :) But indeed, the chess has to work exactly like normal chess.
Need help to decide on chessrules
Sort:
Dec 30, 2011
0
#3
Hate to tell you this. But, I am in the process of making this exact same game. Once I am finished I am SELLING it online for not free. U know mine has to be bettter since i am selling it
well mine is a fun project :) gl with yours!
Dec 30, 2011
0
#6
Especially when there's nothing in your post to suggest sarcasm.
Back on topic:
move first money after. I'm assuming you start with some amount of money at the beginning so that your first turn isn't a redundant move just to generate some cash. Also, I tihnk pawns should be placed on their original ranks so as to avoid space conflicts, castelling, etc.
The turnissue mostly has to do with a specific situation: when the players battle for a square. If one hits the other, the hits again etc.
With move 1st, income 2nd both players get money for the square, because they own it at the end of their turn.
With income 1st, move 2nd the player who eventually wins the battle gets income for the square.
On pawns:
Starting on original rank has the advantage that its not confusing ("where did tht pawn come from?"). A disadvantage could be that pawns appear out of nowhere and are easy 'lifesavers'. But then again.. is something wrong with that?
Dec 30, 2011
0
#8
Wrinn wrote:
Especially when there's nothing in your post to suggest sarcasm.
Back on topic:
move first money after. I'm assuming you start with some amount of money at the beginning so that your first turn isn't a redundant move just to generate some cash. Also, I tihnk pawns should be placed on their original ranks so as to avoid space conflicts, castelling, etc.
Yes, selling it online for not free indicates complete seriousness....I thought canadians understood the english language.
Damn, people are uptight today!
Dec 30, 2011
0
#10
RoseQueen1985 wrote:
^ hint: Sarcasm is difficult to understand online because the context clues such as tone of voice and body language are missing. You will never come of as witty or sarcastic online. You come off as a dumbass. It has nothing to do with understanding Engliah.
I apologize that u do not have a sense of humor.
Dec 30, 2011
0
#11
Crazychessplaya wrote:
Damn, people are uptight today!
It is quite amazing isn't it
Something you might want to check out is Japanese chess, or shogi. In shogi, you can place captured enemy pieces back on the board as your own, which is somewhat similar to your "buying new pieces" idea.
Also, I think it would not be a bad idea to make the board a bit bigger, like 8x10. You're essentially adding more pieces on the board by giving players the ability to place new chessmen into an ongoing game, so I feel that it's only natural to make the board bigger to allow the pieces to better maneuver themselves.
Most board games where money or armies are earned, it is earn first, then spend, then move.. It makes sense because it rewards you for successfully defending against a players attack. Sounds like a very cool idea; can't believe you can get it made for only $150!
You might want to think of a new name...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Chess
Dec 30, 2011
0
#15
Arctor wrote:
You might want to think of a new name...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Chess
Meh, he is doing it for free for others and for FUN so I don't think that is true
Kens_Mom wrote:
Also, I think it would not be a bad idea to make the board a bit bigger, like 8x10.
For now Id like to keep it s close to regular chess as possible. Itll be interesting to see what happens. It could be that the board becomes crowdy if players are balanced for a long time. But the more crowdy it gets, the bigger the chance of clashes, so in the end players will clean the board again anyway. The prices of the pieces got a big influence on the crowdyness of the game. I have been thinking about a price increment of pieces every 10 turns or so, but decided not to do it.
[quote]Most board games where money or armies are earned, it is earn first, then spend, then move.. It makes sense because it rewards you for successfully defending against a players attack.[/quote]
In both cases the winner of the clash defends a bit more. Here's an example with both possibilities: (random situation ofcourse)
post continues...
(hmm weird text issue due to copying moves)
For move 6,7,8:
With first move, then income:
White gets +3 for d5
Black also gets +3 for d5, but keeps it and gets income for it in future turns.
With income first and then move:
White gets +0 for d5
Black gets +0 for d5, but keeps it and gets income for it in future turns.
It doesnt really seem to matter! With situation 1 a bit more money is generated throughout the entire game. (but not much relative to the total income) But could one of both situations be an incentive (or a hamper) to trade off pieces?
Well on turns I think I have decided: first income, then move. Basicly because it generates less income overall, and testgames have shown that money increases quickly anyway.
However, comments on pawnplacement are still appreciated!
As said the players can buy new pieces. Regular pieces are placed on their original spot on the baserank. But where should pawns be placed?
Possibility 1: on the baserank. (they double move only from there)
Possibility 2: on their original rank. (they move normal, like original pawns)
My main concern is that they will be bought as cheap defense. A player sets up an attack and *poof* theres a pawn destroying all plans*. With both possibilities this is possible but in a different way.
Pawn on the baserank: blocks horizontal attacks from rooks and queens. Also attacks pieces on the 2nd rank.
Pawn on original rank: blocks vertical (R&Q) and diagonal attacks (B)
* ofcourse the attacker should anticipate on the possibility of pieces appearing anyway, but perhaps pawns will be used to frequently for this purpose. On the other hand: if you force a player to spend his money on a pawn that is completely out of place, youve still gained an advantage with the 'failed' attack.
Sorry if Im asking dumb questions :) I am a very bad chessplayer and I dont know all glossary of chess. Also I dont know to which detail I have to explain things.. I just try to explain it as elaborate as possible to prevent misunderstandings. It could come across in a bad way, but its not intended that way.
Hey everyone!
Some time ago I created a chessvariant, Battle Chess. It's a variant in which you conquer the squares of the board. Each turn they generate income and enable the player to buy new pieces and eventually you'll check-mate the king.
I liked the idea so much that I wanted to play it. Unfortunatly its quite a hassle to play on the board. So I decided to hire a programmer and make a desktopcomputergame out of it! (costs $150,- thankfully Pakistan wages are not so high..) When finished the full game will be downable for free- I'll post it in the variantsection of the forum.
However, on some details of the rules I just cannot decide because I lack chessknowledge. So I'm looking for people with solid chessknowledge who enjoy thinking about game-mechanics and willing to help. The other small advantage is that you get to play the game before anyone else :)
What questions do I have?
- Purchasing pawns: Where should they be placed? On the baserank or on their original (2nd and 7th) rank? And if they may be placed on the baserank: may they double move? or move 1 space and then double move?
- turnorder: get income first and then move, or move and then get income?
If you are willing to help send me a personal message with your emailaddress. I'll send you an email containing a document with the Battle Chess rules + the questions and also the betaversion* of the game.
* I got a not so good betaversion now that doesnt fit on some screens (resolutionproblem) but it's playable enough to get answers to the questions. I hope to get a better version in January. After that I'll have to decide on the rules so the final version can be made.
Thanks for reading!