Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Six Fortresses Short Range & SHORANJI. A short-range-piece version of Six Fortresses. (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

Joe Joyce wrote on Fri, Dec 22, 2006 04:16 AM UTC:

Hey Gary, this is quite a battle. You've designed a real toe-to-toe slugfest here. If you don't mind another suggestion, I think you might be able to stretch the parameters of the game by adding empty rows, one at a time, to the center of the board. As well as your current 1 middle row empty, I think you might find playable games with 2, 3 and 4 empty rows in the middle. You'd have a series of 4 variants with the same rules, pieces, and setup, and only the board different. So along with your 9x9, you'd have a 9x10, 9x11, and 9x12 version, and I'm guessing they'd all be playable. Something a bit unusual. Might make a nice 4-game ZRF.

💡📝Gary Gifford wrote on Fri, Dec 22, 2006 02:51 PM UTC:

Joe, you seem to be the modern Guru of short range variants, so I am glad you like Six Fortresses Short Range. I have no problem with having alternative game boards to obtain 9x10, 9x11, or 9x12 versions. 9x12 would allow for the most maneuvering possibilities and might be best.

Joe Joyce wrote on Sat, Dec 23, 2006 01:12 AM UTC:

Gary, whatchoo call me?  :-)  I bet it's just revenge for me messing with
your Flags and Stones game.  [Looks good; gotta play it soon.] 
I agree 9x12 gives you the traditional spacing, but then you have to deal
with a double first step for pawns. If you add it, you bend your 'same
pieces, same rules... only the board is different' concept a little - the
purists will howl. Seriously, I think the 9x10 and 9x11 will be also
interesting games and worth the effort - bet you a pizza next time I go
through Ohio. And if you're right about what you called me, then you
should do better and better in each longer version, because you've sure
taken me to the cleaners in a bunch of those longrange piece games we've
played. [Like Avis, you've tried harder. Congrats on climbing in the
ratings.] The strategies and tactics should shift nicely through the
variants. Go for a new effect: board variants. Or do you think all game
boards could be expanded and shrunk in the unoccupied middle and give all
playable results?

💡📝Gary Gifford wrote on Sat, Dec 23, 2006 02:03 AM UTC:

Joe, you say, 'I agree 9x12 gives you the traditional spacing, but then
you have to deal with a double first step for pawns.'
I ask, 'Why?  They can still be one-steppers.  I don't want two-stepper
pawns in this game.'

Joe Joyce wrote on Sat, Dec 23, 2006 04:54 AM UTC:

Where's your sense of adventure, dude? People whine when the pawns are
slow.
Oh, the pizza is in addition to the one I buy this time around.
Merry Christmas to you and the family. Pity my doctor made me stop
drinking spiced eggnog; he said I can't drink the eggnog.  ;-) Enjoy

💡📝Gary Gifford wrote on Sat, Dec 23, 2006 01:58 PM UTC:

Joe, thanks for thinking about the game and commenting.  You recently wrote
[in regard to a bigger-board variant of this games's one-step pawns]:
'People whine when the pawns are slow.'  

My response is, 'Be that as it may. Many whine much louder when
checkmated.  But we still allow checkmates.  I like keeping the rules for
this game constant; not change them if the pieces moved to a larger board.
If it takes each pawn 1 additional move progress across the board - what is
the harm in that?

6 comments displayed

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.