Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

⇩Latest ⇩Later ⇩Reverse Order⇧ ~~Earlier~~

Fugue. Based on Ultima and Rococo this game has pieces that capture in unusual ways. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

David Howe wrote on Thu, Mar 18, 2004 04:29 PM UTC:

You're right Mike, I forgot to take into account the triple repetition
rule. :( But other than that, it is (as far as I can see) a perfect
defense, even against a stronger force. I can see the wisdom of having the
triple repetition be a loss instead of a draw.

Well, anyway, I really do like this game -- the limited archer which
requires a spotter works really well and the pieces in general interact
well with each other. I especially like that the immobilizer has been
weakened by having more pieces which are effective against it.

💡📝Michael Nelson wrote on Thu, Mar 18, 2004 03:40 PM UTC:

The example David gives is indeed potent, but can be beaten by a stronger
force even without a Swapper (an if the enemy is weaker, why settle for an
unbeatable defense when you should be winning?)

The problem will all such formations is that they cannot be
maintained--the opponent arranges his moves so that you must either break
the formation or lose by triple repetition.

David is quite correct that the Swapper is highly valuable in breaking up
formations of this type. I fact, I suspect that this factor makes the
Swapper considerably more valuable than its Rococo counterpart.

David Howe wrote on Thu, Mar 18, 2004 03:35 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

It's interesting to note that the Swapper is critical in this game -- without it, a player could form a perfect defensive position (using only 3 pawns, 1 immobilizer, 1 shield, 1 queen, and of course a king). Anyone care to take a stab at what one of the perfect defensive positions would look like? My solution is posted in this comment, but you'll have to 'view source' to see it.

💡📝Michael Nelson wrote on Tue, Mar 16, 2004 10:41 PM UTC:

I eliminated the suicide rule because after playtesting it both ways I
liked the feel of the game better without it. I feel suicide is less
necessary in Fugue (and for that matter Rococo) than in Ultima becase the
Cannon Pawn is such an excellent Immobilizer-killer--it can capture the
Immobilizer by using an immobilized piece as a mount. The Archer can also
pick off an Immobilizer from a distance if there is any open line--the
immobilized pieces spot.

Another reason for this and also for having Immobilzers immune to each
other and Swappers unable to swap with each other is that I wanted to
increase the third-thing aspect of Fugue: to intentionally be different
from both Ultima and Rococo.

Making the Withdrawer immune to the Immobilizer would certainly make it
very valuble for its special ability but losing value rapidly after thew
enemy Immobilizer is gone, suddenly regaing value if the enemy protes a
Pawn to Immobilizer.

Peter Aronson wrote on Tue, Mar 16, 2004 09:37 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

This looks really neat, and if I ever have any free time again, I'm going to play around with it some. I do wonder why you eliminated the suicide rule, though. Apparently, while in music Rococo was followed by Classical, in art and architecture it was followed by Neo-Classical. Confusing. <hr> I can see why you replaced the Withdrawer, it being so comparitively weak (and even weaker without the ring board). I wonder if making the Withdrawer immune to the Immobilizer would increase its value significantly? It'd be horribly irregular, though.

5 comments displayed

⇩Latest ⇩Later ⇩Reverse Order⇧ ~~Earlier~~

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.