The site has moved to a new server, and there are now some issues to fix. Please report anything needing fixing with a comment to the homepage.



The Chess Variant Pages




[ 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
Unconventional Warfare Chess. Variant based on modern warfare. (10x10, Cells: 84) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
danielmacduff wrote on 2015-05-14 UTC
As regards the International Prop. error, I think it helps thematically (if a year after troops were committed nukes were flying the human race would have been wiped out back in the 60's or 70's) as well as changing the feel of the early game.  It gives you time to play chess before the game REALLY begins to go crazy.  But just for the record, in the game I just played, the player who struck the other's Propaganda first won.  With a nuke.

smakarov wrote on 2003-08-04 UTC
Here's my algebraic notation for this game ([ and ] mean a variety of
moves/pieces can be substituted, pieces may be followed by resolving
rank/file):

Put at the end of a turn:
% Protocol raised
+ President in check (NBC doesn't count)
+J Joint Chiefs of Staff in check

Whole Moves:
+[infantry] Draft
>T Infiltrate
-F Burrowed Special Forces
>F[square] Unburrow special forces
Tx Terrorist Detonates
O>[square] Paradrop
[nbc]x[square] NBC strike

Hope it helps!

smakarov wrote on 2003-08-04 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
I feel that after acually playing the game I owe you an apology.. however, I spotted one error in your game: to use terrorism against the enemy, you must first destroy opponent propaganda.. so consequently it can't sacrifice itself to kill terrorists.. and you can't raise status to yellow because propaganda keeps you using code-blue restrictions and that means no killing civilians.

smakarov wrote on 2003-08-02 UTCGood ★★★★
Nice idea.. I feel disappointed with the resulting game, though. I agree
with the people who are saying that if you raise the escalation protocol,
you will get creamed instantly. The moral: don't fight nuclear wars. (No
wonder the Cold War was more like tiptoeing on a sleeping lion than
fighting..)

  I'm not saying you should stop working on the idea.. maybe limit the
power of certain pieces so you don't have instant armaggedon. Maybe
trench warfare, plus tanks plus terrorism plus planes (plus hijacked
planes), the ideas are limitless, and the escalation protocol can be added
to a great many games in which you want to have the game start quietly,
then gather steam. Keep working on it.

Bart wrote on 2003-05-02 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
Very good game. I like the esclation protocols and the pieces. I am going to make notation soon. I think this game is good enough to be commericially distributed. It is possible to notate.

LCC wrote on 2003-03-12 UTC
Thanks for doing the Zillions file! All your interpretations are perfect, good sense ones. I never noticed how incomplete the rules were until you pointed those out, but the fact you've reached the same gameplay conclusions I would have proves they are sufficient, which is good :)

Dan Troyka wrote on 2003-03-12 UTC
I've completed a beta ZRF of this game.  Any brave souls care to play test
it over the next few days?  Please e-mail me at [email protected] for a
copy.  This script works only with Zillions v.2.0.

Here's how I've resolved some of the finer points:

NBC weapons can be detonated on any square not occupied or protected by
the enemy Hacker, including empty squares, squares occupied by friends,
and squares occupied or protected by the friendly Hacker.

When a Biological Weapon is dropped on an occupied square, pieces adjacent
to the square become immediately infected.  Infection occurs both when an
infected piece ends its turn next to a non-infected piece, and when a
non-infected piece ends its turn next to an infected piece.  All pieces
except for the National Guard, including all NBC weapons, can become
infected.  A Biological Weapon cannot land on the National Guard.  It can
land next to the National Guard, in which case the National Guard is not
infected.  An infected Civilian remains infected when converting into a
Terrorist, Ranger, Marine, or Airborne.

The Hacker can sacrifice itself to capture an NBC that is guarded by an
enemy attacking the square with a normal move from a non-adjacent square,
such as an Aircraft Carrier or Terrorist two steps removed. 

A Civilian can be captured in Status Green regardless of whether that
player has an International Propaganda on the board (otherwise it would be
impossible to capture an enemy Civilian without first capturing the enemy
International Propaganda).  A Civilian can be converted into a Terrorist
in Status Green whether or not it captures as part of the move.  When a
Civilian is captured and more than one friendly Civilian is on an adjacent
square, only one of the adjacent Civilians can exercise the privilege of
converting to a Terrorist without spending a move.  In addition, the
privilege of conversion can be exercised only when the adjacent friendly
Civilian is captured through a normal move, not a special action.

When the Airborne is dropped into enemy territory, it can land on any
square that is not attacked by an enemy normal move, including enemy
attacks originating from non-adjacent squares (e.g., Aircraft Carrier). 
If the square is attacked only by an enemy special action, the move can be
made.

Pieces that move as Dabbabah, Alfil, or Knight can jump over intervening
pieces, including the crater left by a Strategic Nuke.  The Aircraft
Carrier can fire over intervening pieces.

LCC (the author) wrote on 2002-11-23 UTC
Well, not fighting a modern war is also a very nice way of winning!

 In reply to Moussambani: notice that, during code red, the hacker can
easily protect the president by being adjacent to it. The president is, as
stated, capable of surviving an indirect hit with a strategic nuclear
weapon, and the hacker would prevent it from being directly targeted.
 Still, escalation does indeed compromise significantly a player's
chances. Sometimes the first strike advantage is worth the damage, if
one's prepared for it, sometimes it isn't.
 I rather enjoy that calculating retaliatory capabilities plays a larger
role that piece-versus-piece tactics in this variant. It's faithful to the
chosen theme.

Jared wrote on 2002-11-22 UTCGood ★★★★
STRANGE GAME.

THE ONLY WINNING MOVE IS NOT TO PLAY.

HOW ABOUT A NICE GAME OF CHESS?

(Seriously, though, where are the major cities?  I would think that there
would at least be a Capitol where the Prez starts.)

--Jared

Moussambani wrote on 2002-11-22 UTC
looks like the first one that escalates to red loses the game. so TIP: Defend your International Propaganda like your own life!

Anonymous wrote on 2002-11-22 UTC
Sigh ... the colourfull diagram comes out
completely unreadable after black & white printing --
could you add a starting position in ASCII, too?

--JKn

11 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.