The Chess Variant Pages
Custom Search




[ 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
This item is a game information page
It belongs to categories: Orthodox chess, 
It was last modified on: 2006-12-20
 By Karl  Prosser. Pawntrooper chess. Missing description (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Joe Joyce wrote on 2007-01-25 UTC
Karl, you may well be right. Playtesting is the only way to demonstrate the answer. But I would like to offer some discussion, because this is part of a larger design question: how to appropriately limit extraordinary powers. As a weak counterargument, I could point out that my suggestion does require 2 turns in total to execute, so giving in essence a 'free move' to the opponent to compensate. The opponent gets a move before the para drops, to plug a weak spot, and another move after the para lands, so at least the opponent now knows where the attack is coming in and may counter directly. And the opponent does get to move once on a board where the player is missing a piece. It's unlikely the player will open a path for a queen, say, but the player will be down 1 piece for 1 opponent's turn. Also, this method simply eliminates the problems Greg and Charles mention. Finally, while I have limited experience with games that use drops, I have played and greatly enjoyed Pocket Mutation, which features pick-ups on one turn and drops on a subsequent one. That game is beautifully balanced, demonstrating the method can work. You do have to guard everywhere, though, one way or another, or you certainly can be destroyed by a well-executed drop or two. So you do have a point. What sort of rules did you have in mind to cover Greg and Charles' situations? Can you have dual captures or dual en passants? Or dual para drops? You pick up 1 pawn, so your opponent picks up 2. Does that mean you could pick up 4 pawns on the following turn? Obviously not, this is meant to be a ridiculous example, but you need to nail down the rules a good bit more so you won't get some knucklehead like me doing absurd things with your game. Good luck with this. I'm interested in seeing what you come up with, as you now have to balance the opponent's double move power properly. Maybe Marseilles is a guide, or can at least give a hint.

Karl Prosser wrote on 2007-01-24 UTCGood ★★★★
if you split it up into two turns, then i don't think it is balanced, as the other person doesn't get really the change to do 2 moves in response to the paratroop drop. I.e the pawntrooper guy things he is going to drop it one place, but changes his mind, because of the move of the opponent, and drops it in a difficult place, that the other guy has no chance to get out of in one move. I think to make this balanced, the oponent has to have a few turn (thus 2 full moves) to respond to a paratroop move. As for checking etc, you cannot capture the king, but the state of the board is the state AFTER the last of those two moves. So even in the first move the oponent could move into check, then move out of it in the second move.

Michael McGuire wrote on 2007-01-04 UTC

Better yet, you remove the pawn, write down the spot hes suppost to go and end your turn.

Then the opponent moves.

If your opponent moved in the square you had plotted then the pawn dies, and you get to take a normal turn. But if he lands, he can land anywhere except the back row.


Charles Gilman wrote on 2006-12-23 UTCGood ★★★★
I too concur with Joe Joyce's idea. It seems simplest all round.

Joe Joyce wrote on 2006-12-22 UTC
Thanks Greg, but I was playing Pocket Mutation recently, and that got me thinking in the right direction. And I just started a game of Chieftain and had to re-write the rules, so I was thinking wargamelike. There it is: complete to Turn Record Track!

Greg Strong wrote on 2006-12-22 UTC
Congratulations, Joe, on a very interesting suggestion... With this change, (making the paratrooping a 2-move process), it really eliminates all the questions. I was thinking about this game, too, but I thought of nothing as clever ... I like the clarity and simplicity of having the normal move order, (white, black, white, black...), while still maintaining the author's original intent (giving pawns a move that is very powerful, but slow.)

Joe Joyce wrote on 2006-12-22 UTC
What if you make the paratroop drop a 2 move process? On the first move, you pick the pawn up off the board, indicating it's in the plane. Your opponent then makes 1 move. Then you have 2 options: 1] you must drop the pawn on the immediately following turn; or 2] you may drop it sometime later. If a later drop is allowed maybe you must drop within 3-5 turns or lose it - you could have a 3-5 square long track the pawn moves along before it 'crashes'. This would allow a number of paratroops from both sides in the air at once.

Charles Gilman wrote on 2006-12-21 UTC
Here's another one. What if the first move in reply to the parachute drop is itself a parachute drop? Should the replying player still have a second move (in which case should the previous player have one in turn, and what if the second move is a third parachute drop)? Should the replying player forfeit their second move but give the previous player two moves? Should the two just cancel out? Should a parachute drop in erply to another be prohibited?

Greg Strong wrote on 2006-12-21 UTC
I think the two consecutive moves given to the opponent may need to be
clarified a little more.  Can the player put the King in check with his
first move?  And if so, couldn't he just capture the King on his second? 
You might want to adopt the rule from Marseillais Chess that says that if
you put the King in check with your first move, you forfit the second
move.

And are there any other restricitons?  Can the same piece move for both of
the moves?  What if the two moves are both a two-space initial pawn move;
in that case is it possible to do an En Passant on either one of those
moves, or only the second one?  And what about the player placing his own
King in check with the first move and then moving it out of check with the
second?

9 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.