Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

However, Larry's zrf must be tweaked to alter the piece values. Especially, Zillions cannot properly evaluate the cannon. In order to evaluate XiangHex one must have recourse to a correctly programmed zrf. The graphics is boring. I created a better graphics for download here:
http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/XiangHex.zip
/Mats

It is good variant. So good that I choose to play it at Swiss Hippo
Tournament #2. http://swisshippo.blogspot.com/

It looks aesthetically nice.

Chariot, cannon, knight and pawn are stronger than in Xiang Qi. Chariot in
the center of the board controls 26 hexes (1\3 of the board!). To make
defensive pieces stronger, I offer three ideas.

1) Elephant-move. Elephant moves like Hex Bishop just limited with the
river. Can enter the palace. Or more conservative: Elephant can move one or
two spaces diagonally.

2) Advisor (mandarin) move. Advisor moves orthogonally, not diagonally.

3) General move. General moves orthogonally and diagonally, so like a
king.

I like first and third. Maybe this ideas can be used in Xiang Hex 2
(modern variation)... I will think about it! I don't want to change this
game, till somebody doesn't show path to forced win. Just to offer another
variant... I'd prefer to play with stronger Elephants.

It is easy enough to simply say that a game is somehow 'damaged' or 'incorrect'. It is another to specifically demonstrate these claims.

So far, those who have posted negative comments about this variant have done so without specific examples to demonstrate their positions. And to apparently done so to merely draw attention to their personal variants is very uncool.

To exactly extrapolate XiangQi to the hexagonal field may prove virtually impossible. For various reasons which have been stated further down the thread. The best a developer can hope is a hexagonal game which has the 'flavor' of XiangQi. And, yes, there are a large number of variants which have attempted to do this.

So to expect any hexagonal game of XiangQi to exactly match each and every dynamic of the square field is just silly thinking. Or is it simply forcing a personal viewpoint as an implied standard?

I look forward to anyone who can demonstrate that this particular game is 'flawed'. This should be done with a specific in-game demonstration. To further justify there should be an example of how the player reached, or forced, this supposed 'bad' position.