$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 48.77

3,659 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
23.1% of Goal | 30 Days Left

Support:

Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
16 Posts

Abstract Games» Forums » General

Subject: New game ... maybe: Dreikaiserbund rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Richard Moxham
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
designer
mb


About a year ago, I posted a prospective game under this same title. Since then, however - and despite the generous attempt at rescue by FauxSloMo - I've decided I was barking up the wrong tree, albeit in roughly the right part of the forest.

Revisiting some of the core ideas recently, I've come up with this substantially revised concept - which, disbelieve if you will, is quite a bit simpler than my first try.

Anyway, I put it 'out there' for those who so wish to discuss, ignore, or deride, according to taste.


Dreikaiserbund




1. The game

Dreikaiserbund (aka We Three Kings) is a game of pure skill for two players: Black and White.


2. Material

2.1 A 9x9 chequered board, six of whose squares (differentiated from the other 75 by stars in their corners) are designated throne squares.

2.2 On each side 18 pieces, arrayed as shown and consisting of:

2.2.1 6 couriers (2 of each primary colour);
2.2.2 6 captains (2 of each secondary colour);
2.2.3 3 crown-shaped kings;
2.2.4 3 disc-shaped blockers.

2.3 In addition, the following pieces, owned by neither player:

2.3.1 a supply of neutral blockers (grey discs), which there may or may not be occasion to introduce in the course of the game;
2.3.2 the amulet: an enabling token, not a playing piece, which may pass back and forth between the players any number of times in the course of play. Initially in the possession of White.


3. Victory

3.1 The game is won by the first player to install one of his kings in one of his opponent’s three throne squares.


4. Order of play

4.1 The players take alternate turns, beginning with Black.

4.2 A turn consists of the moving of precisely one piece, plus the implementation of any consequence arising from that move [see below].


5. Motion

5.1 Couriers may move orthogonally or diagonally forward, but never sideways or backward.

5.2 All other pieces (except for neutral blockers, which once introduced are permanently immobile and indestructible) may move orthogonally or diagonally in any direction.

5.3 No piece may:

5.3.1 pass through/over any occupied square;
5.3.2 land upon a square occupied by a friendly piece;
5.3.3 land upon a square occupied by a hostile piece which it lacks the power to destroy [see Section 6, below];
5.3.4 pass through/over a vacant throne square;
5.3.5 land upon a vacant throne square, unless it is a king engaged in making the game-winning move.

5.4 The range of movement of:

5.4.1 any Black piece is one or four squares precisely;
5.4.2 any White piece is two or three squares precisely.

5.5 In addition to these general rules, there are two special cases – namely:

5.5.1 a move whereby a king becomes the second or third king of its colour to vacate its throne square;
5.5.2 any move by a blocker.

In order to execute either of these, a player must be in possession of the amulet, which upon completion of the move he must then surrender to his opponent.


6. Destruction

6.1 In the case of couriers and captains, the right to destroy hostile pieces is defined by a strict hierarchy, as follows (arrows denoting ascending power):

yellow > blue > red > orange > green > purple

6.2 Any of these pieces may destroy any other which is, at the most, one place above it in the hierarchy. Thus, a yellow courier can destroy nothing but a yellow or a blue courier, whereas an orange captain can destroy not only any courier but also an orange or a green (though not a purple) captain.

6.3 Uniquely amongst the ranks of courier and captain, a purple captain can also destroy a king.

6.4 Kings may destroy only other kings, and (except for the case described in 6.3) may be destroyed only by them.

6.5 Blockers may destroy only other blockers, and may be destroyed only by them.

6.6 One piece destroys another by making a move that lands upon the square which that other piece occupies.

6.7 In every such case the victim is removed permanently from the board.

6.8 As a general rule, the destroyer replaces its victim on the latter’s square (for the single exception, see 6.8.7, below) - following which, where blocker destroys blocker, where king destroys king, or where purple captain destroys king, no further change occurs. But where one courier or captain destroys another, the destroyer will usually itself undergo a mutation, the outcomes being as follows:

6.8.1 courier destroys courier of same colour > no change;
6.8.2 courier destroys courier of different colour > promoted to captain of resultant colour (e.g. blue destroys red, becomes purple);
6.8.3 courier destroys captain [one case only] > mutates to latter’s other constituent colour (i.e. red destroys orange, becomes yellow);
6.8.4 captain destroys captain of same colour > no change;
6.8.5 captain destroys captain of different colour > demoted to courier of their common primary colour (e.g. green destroys purple, becomes blue);
6.8.6 captain destroys courier of a constituent colour > demoted to courier of the other constituent colour (e.g. purple destroys red, becomes blue);
6.8.7 captain destroys courier of unrelated colour (e.g. green destroys red) > both pieces removed and replaced by a neutral blocker;
6.8.8 purple captain destroys king > no change.


7. Promotion by breakthrough

7.1 Where a carrier reaches the opponent’s back rank it instantly becomes a captain, taking one of the secondary colours of which it was itself a constituent. (E.g. red may become either orange or purple – but not green.) The promotion is compulsory, but the choice of colour is the prerogative of the promoting player.

7.2 If arrival at the furthest rank occurs in the act of destruction, the above conversion rule overrides any different outcome which might otherwise have applied under Section 6.


8. Resolution of draws

8.1 Should a drawn position be declared at any time, victory goes to the player currently in possession of the amulet.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nick Bentley
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Wow. Uncharacteristically baroque, for a game posted here. Without knowing your motivation for designing as you have, the key intended novelty seems to be the capture/promotion scheme. Yes?

To help me understand the architecture better, questions:

1. why couriers and captains? Why not just one piece type?
2. Why color mixing instead of say, color replacement?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Moxham
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
designer
mb
milomilo122 wrote:
Wow. Uncharacteristically baroque, for a game posted here. Without knowing your motivation for designing as you have, the key intended novelty seems to be the capture/promotion scheme. Yes?

To help me understand the architecture better, questions:

1. why couriers and captains? Why not just one piece type?
2. Why color mixing instead of say, color replacement?


First, thanks for joining in, Nick. Much appreciated.

To answer 1. and 2. ... 1. because I wanted (within reason) as much differentiation as possible in terms of what captures might be prioritised, and why; and 2. partly because the pre-existing logic of triads a. aids memorableness (horrid word!) , and b. gives a mix of promotions and demotions as a further factor to take into account when aggressing.

As for novelty, I have a hunch that the asymmetrical range of movement may prove interesting. My intuition, for no good reason, is that it could balance rather well (and of course it eliminates the possibility of pieces' being mutually en prise), but I should stress that this is 100% unplaytested at the time of writing


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Luis Bolaños Mures
Spain
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
mocko wrote:
8. Resolution of draws

8.1 Should a drawn position be declared at any time, victory goes to the player currently in possession of the amulet.


I like this.

Having a winner and a loser encoded in every single position is a most effective way to prevent draws, and it's the central point of my game Yodd.

For cyclic games, where the nuisance of drawing is secondary to the nuisance of position bookkeeping while cycling, it occurs to me that the amulet (whether abstract or physical) should only change hands after irreversible moves so that players needn't care about cycles at all except for the necessary (but rather careless) realization, after hours of oblivious cycling, that they are indeed cycling and that the player in possession of the amulet should be declared the winner so that they both can go on with their lives.

For chess, it's been suggested that the amulet change hands when someone makes a capture. Pushing a pawn and castling could be additional triggers. The main question is where the amulet goes upon any of those three actions. Giving it to the player who performs the action seems the most logical option and has some nice implications as well. Namely, players are encouraged to set up piece exchanges where the opponent is forced to capture first, which seems better than a mere incentive to capture. Also, this will lead to the odd sacrificial exchange, which I like because it makes the game less materialistic.

(Come to think of it, the effect of the amulet, in any implementation, is always to make players materialistic about the amulet itself over traditional chess material as long as the game stays safely out of a checkmate result.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nick Bentley
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
luigi87 wrote:


For chess, it's been suggested that the amulet change hands when someone makes a capture. Pushing a pawn and castling could be additional triggers. The main question is where the amulet goes upon any of those three actions. Giving it to the player who performs the action seems the most logical option and has some nice implications as well. Namely, players are encouraged to set up piece exchanges where the opponent is forced to capture first, which seems better than a mere incentive to capture. It also encourages non-capturing sacrifices, which I like because it makes the game less materialistic.

(Come to think of it, the effect of the amulet, in any implementation, is always to make players materialistic about the amulet itself over traditional chess material as long as the game stays safely out of a checkmate result.)


Yep. This would have a huge effect on how Chess is played.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Luis Bolaños Mures
Spain
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
milomilo122 wrote:
Yep. This would have a huge effect on how Chess is played.

... which to me is a good thing.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Moxham
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
designer
mb
luigi87 wrote:
For chess, it's been suggested that the amulet change hands when someone makes a capture. Pushing a pawn and castling could be additional triggers. The main question is where the amulet goes upon any of those three actions. Giving it to the player who performs the action seems the most logical option...

Whilst not really very interested in seeing the idea incorporated into chess, I do find interesting the suggestion here (assuming I've understood correctly) that the acquisition of the amulet should be a reward for doing something, whereas - precisely to the contrary - I envisaged the loss of it as a cost. Specifically, I was looking for a way to set up opportunities, excluded under normal circumstances, to which the amulet would grant access, but only at the price of losing a potential longer-term benefit. So I found myself asking: what if you had three kings, but had to pay to bring any after the first one into play? And then: what if there were a piece you could use to obstruct enemy lines of attack etc without much fear of capture, but had to pay for the privilege. What's nice about this approach, as it seems to me, is its fostering of dilemmas - always an enhancement of gameplay.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Corey Clark
Canada
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
This game is in... Unacceptable condition. UNACCEPTABLE!!!!!!!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Moxham
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
designer
mb
CoreyClark wrote:
This game is in... Unacceptable condition. UNACCEPTABLE!!!!!!!

Oh dear. I honestly hadn't realised this. And I know that your experience of Morelli has led you to a similar conclusion there.

The only consolation I can come up with is that, since in my opinion (whatever that's now worth) your game Slither is right up there in the highest echelon of Noble Abstracts, at least between the two of us we managed to conceive one immortal game. So I guess the Clark/Moxham bond is worth preserving.

Peace, Love and Woodstock.

R
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nick Bentley
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
CoreyClark wrote:
This game is in... Unacceptable condition. UNACCEPTABLE!!!!!!!


For the sake of making this forum not lame, maybe provide thoughtful criticism instead of tossed-off aspersions?

(edit: alternatively, if you think it not worthy of the time required to think about it, silence is a good policy)
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nathan Woll
United States
Warsaw
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
mocko wrote:


6. Destruction

6.1 In the case of couriers and captains, the right to destroy hostile pieces is defined by a strict hierarchy, as follows (arrows denoting ascending power):

yellow > blue > red > orange > green > purple


I had to read it a few times to realize that you are using the "greater than" symbol to mean "less than". It confused me.

As for the rest of the game it seems really complex to me. It's hard for me to get a sense of how it will play and I wonder how intuitive it is?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nick Bentley
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
nswoll wrote:

As for the rest of the game it seems really complex to me. It's hard for me to get a sense of how it will play and I wonder how intuitive it is?


This is the rub for me. I'm not against complexity in rules, but I have to feel the force of a compelling reason for it. I've been thinking about this game's complexity, and I can't locate the feeling I'm looking for. The feeling of "oh yes, it must be this way"
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
christian freeling
Netherlands
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
milomilo122 wrote:
nswoll wrote:

As for the rest of the game it seems really complex to me. It's hard for me to get a sense of how it will play and I wonder how intuitive it is?


This is the rub for me. I'm not against complexity in rules, but I have to feel the force of a compelling reason for it. I've been thinking about this game's complexity, and I can't locate the feeling I'm looking for. The feeling of "oh yes, it must be this way"

This game is complicated rather than complex. Complexity originating from simplicity is great. This in my opinion is not so great.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Moxham
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
designer
mb
nswoll wrote:
mocko wrote:


6. Destruction

6.1 In the case of couriers and captains, the right to destroy hostile pieces is defined by a strict hierarchy, as follows (arrows denoting ascending power):

yellow > blue > red > orange > green > purple


I had to read it a few times to realize that you are using the "greater than" symbol to mean "less than". It confused me.

As for the rest of the game it seems really complex to me. It's hard for me to get a sense of how it will play and I wonder how intuitive it is?

Yes, I can see that - but I did call them arrows. I'd have used proper ones, but whereas I know where to find those in (e.g.) a Word doc, I don't in a BGG post.

Apologies.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Moxham
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
designer
mb
christianF wrote:
milomilo122 wrote:
nswoll wrote:

As for the rest of the game it seems really complex to me. It's hard for me to get a sense of how it will play and I wonder how intuitive it is?


This is the rub for me. I'm not against complexity in rules, but I have to feel the force of a compelling reason for it. I've been thinking about this game's complexity, and I can't locate the feeling I'm looking for. The feeling of "oh yes, it must be this way"

This game is complicated rather than complex. Complexity originating from simplicity is great. This in my opinion is not so great.

Well, I agree that its rules are (fairly) complicated, but with respect, Christian, you don't actually know whether it's also complex. They're certainly different things, but the one doesn't exclude the other.

(For that matter, though, I'm not really qualified to judge either, never having played it. I just put it out there for comment.)

But while we're talking, I was disappointed to see you thumb the comment that the game was "in unacceptable condition" - with or without a carefully-considered seventh exclamation mark. It's obviously anyone's prerogative to respond unfavourably to a game suggestion, but surely "unacceptable" figures among the range of appropriate judgements only if something behavioural is what's being objected to. Then again, maybe that really was what Corey was taking his principled stand against. How dare I subject people to this sort of thing?

Mmm. Yes. On reflection that must be it.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
christian freeling
Netherlands
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
mocko wrote:
Then again, maybe that really was what Corey was taking his principled stand against. How dare I subject people to this sort of thing?

Mmm. Yes. On reflection that must be it.


I interpreted it along those lines indeed. laugh
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.