[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ][ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ][ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]Comments/Ratings for a Single Item Later ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier Fantasy Grand Chess: Giant Army. Giant Army. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]George Duke wrote on 2018-04-24 UTCCollossus is DAN. Titan is TZCH, any square three away: Tripper(3,3) Camel Zebra Trebuchet (0,3). By and large, tri-compounds and up are not much implemented, probably still under 100 times -- counting separately repeat use within the same games write-up. David Paulowich wrote on 2007-04-05 UTCGood ★★★★A Giant (Alibaba) is a weak piece in spite of all its jumping around. The four of them are worth no more than a Queen on the 10x10 board. The Behemoth Rider moves like a Free Dwar in JETAN, but apparently without the 'did not cross the same square twice' restriction. This piece is powerful. The Two-Headed Cyclops is worth perhaps 15 percent more than a Rook. Ralph Betza, writing on 'Bent Riders', values the Gryphon at around 45 percent more than a Rook. Unlike the Two-Headed Cyclops , the Gryphon can move and capture like a Ferz. After crunching some numbers to compare this army with the 'Human' or Grand Chess Army, I found them to be almost equal in total strength. Any advantage for the Giants reduces to the superiority of the Two-Headed Cyclops over the Rook. The Maharaja and the Sepoys game teaches us that the pawnless army will face many difficulties, enough to cancel out this tiny advantage. 'Giants' versus 'Humans' should make an interesting match. I have not examined the other fantasy armies yet. Comment [2005-02-09] by George Duke includes the statements: 'Elves are stronger, Druids not so.' and 'This analysis is not comprehensive.' 2 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.