Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

More about previously posted idea:
There are four players.  Each player has a home square at a different
corner of the board.  When the game starts, each player has n zorkmids. 
(I don't know how many would work.)  Their king is at his or her home
square.  A player's turn has 3 phases:  They may offer a trade of
zorkmids and stock in non-king pieces.  Next they propose a move for some
piece.  They don't have to have stock in it.  The players who do have
stock in it vote whether it should do the proposed move or not.  Their
votes are proportional to their stock.  Finally, the player may buy a
piece from the 'bank' to put on their home square, if it is empty.
Other rules:  You have complete stock in a piece when you buy it.  You
always have complete stock in your king.  If your king is captured (no
check or checkmate), you are out of the game, and your stock in any
pieces
in divided among the othet players proportional to their stock in them. 
Any pieces that you had complete stock in are removed from the board.  If
you are the last remaining player, you win.

Stock?  Board?  Bank?  Doesn't sound very chessy to me...
War's more fun. (Hey, call me simple, I don't mind...nyuk...)

Maybe you could but and sell land so you can take spaces if you land on an
opponents piece of land you have to pay rent. 
Auctions may be a good idea at the beginning people bid on pieces

Just had an odd idea - what if you played for a territorial victory? Each unit has a minimum territory it must own or occupy. For pawns, 1 square, the one they currently occupy, is sufficient. Knights require 2 squares, the one they occupy and another empty square unclaimed by any other piece. Bishops require 3, the one they occupy and 2 other unclaimed squares. Rooks require 4. Queens require 5. Kings require 9. 

Occupation of a square is obvious, if you occupy it, you own it. But what about empty squares? Who owns empties? This is determined first by control - if both sides can capture on that square, neither owns it. If only one player attacks that square, then that player owns it. If neither player attacks the square, but it is behind the pawn/piece lines of 1 player, that player owns it. 

Victory is by checkmate or by being the first player to own enough squares to satisfy that player's current army. Squares do not have to be contiguous for individual pieces, but the entire kingdom's squares must directly connect to every other owned square. The kingdom cannot be separated into disconnected pieces voluntarily, although an enemy attack could force a disconnection. If this occurs, the game cannot be won by the disconnected side other than by checkmate. 

So the smaller your army, the easier your victory conditions. The values I've given seem, off the top of my head, to make for a playable game, although adjustments could be made. For instance, you could reduce the king's required squares to 6, to possibly speed up the game, or make it more playable, or to handicap 1 player. 

Just a thought, fueled by insomnia and who knows what else. Enjoy.

Hi Joe

Winning by territorial gains seems rather similar to what I wrote a couple of weeks ago under 'TigerMarks'.

Regards

Glenn Nicholls

Hello, Glenn. You are absolutely right. Just goes to show you that I should read everything I post. Sometimes I don't if it's a known author and I am very pressed for time, as I have been recently. I don't think I subconsciously copied your game, because I've been working on or thinking about various aspects of territory for quite some time, and seeing Maxima repeatedly offered for play recently, which uses the dual win opportunities. But I certainly can't deny it's possible. Still, it wouldn't be the first time I've independently re-designed something, nor is it likely to be the last. And I'm certainly not the only one who's been in this situation. 

I think my scheme, if not both schemes, depend on a fairly solid pawn line to delineate territories. [And yes, I was also thinking of Go recently, but still...] You don't always get that, especially if my version goes deep into mid-game. One difference is that the player with the most pieces is likeliest to win in the tiger variants, whereas mine is more likely to be won by the smaller side, as it is then easier to meet your territory goal.

another idea:
'Hasbro' Monopoly chess.
1.You can spend one turn without moving to buy some square. After this turn this square will be your square. 
1.1-Your piece need to be on the square you will buy.
1.2-If some enemy piece move into this square, the piece is killed.
2-You can trade squares and pieces with the other player, by killing some of your pieces, giving some of your pieces to the other player (they will stay at the same place, but change sides) or giving some of your squares.
2.1-You can also save a enemy piece from being killed on a square or make some squares(s) safe for x turns by trading stuff.



Banker Monopoly chess.
1.Normal 'Hasbro' Monopoly chess rules apply.
2.You can sell one of your squares to the bank and you will be able to move one more piece in this turn.