Adam Frandsen
United States
Kanab
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Originally, the game allowed up to 3 queens, 6 rooks, 9 bishops, 9 knights, and 18 pawns per player. Now the revised limits are 4 queens, 6 rooks, 8 bishops, 8 knights, and 16 pawns per player. Why the switch?

My gut tells me that they just changed the limits so that every limit is an even number. That way, when the board is divided into a 4-player Turanga board, the piece limits can be cut neatly in half for each player (2 queens, 4 knights, and so on). But then, why reduce the maximum number of pawns from 18 to 16?

I have some observations on this: when the number of pawns is reduced to 16 per player, it results in a total of 32 pawns, which is exactly the number you'd get from 2 regular chess sets. With 8 knights and 8 bishops per player, that's exactly the number you'd get from 4 regular chess sets. Same with the 4 queens per player. So did they change these piece limits simply to make them fit within these mathematically attractive boundaries?

If so, what does this do to the original balance of the game? This is my biggest concern, and incidentally, my smallest paragraph.

I also notice that the net change of the new piece limits is very small: the limits allow for one extra queen, which costs +110 points, while allowing for 1 fewer bishop (-40 points), 1 fewer knight (-40 points), and 2 fewer pawns (-20 points), resulting in a total net change of a mere +10 points. Is this just a pleasing coincidence, or a thoughtful (if minor) balance tweak?

Mr. Cavatore, the game's designer, said that "[I] rounded [the piece limits] all up in multiples of 3, to maintain the mathematical relationship with the 12 squares, the six faces of the plinths and of the dice." He then went on to say that this was purely for aesthetic reasons. Did he later discover that his original, aesthetically pleasing limits needed some balance tweaks? Or are the new 4-6-8-8-16 limits merely a matter of mathematical (or Turanga-related) convenience, as mentioned earlier?

Finally, are there any thoughts on how the new piece limits compare to the old? Do they play out much differently? Again, I'm primarily concerned with how these revisions affect overall game play and game balance.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alessio Cavatore

Nottingham
Unspecified
msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi Adam, you got it right, the main reason for the change is because of Turanga. Also, the higher number of queens acknowledges the fact that people were rarely going for hordes of pawns on the large board, as this slows down the game too much, and there was a tendency to using more high-level, high-cost pieces. Game balance should therefore be moved towards a faster game, overall.

Does that answer your question?
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam Frandsen
United States
Kanab
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mr. Cavatore, yes this answers my question. Thank you!

But it also raises another question. Do pawns still have the capacity to play a significant role in this game? Or are they sort of left behind by this tendency for faster games that you speak of?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alessio Cavatore

Nottingham
Unspecified
msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
They are not prevalent on 12x12 boards, where people indeed seem to prefer faster armies (though sometimes running into a 'horde' army with 16 pawns can be a bad surprise for these elite armies...

Pawns make a much great impact on games played on 6x6 and 12x6 (Flank Attack, less in Gauntlet), and therefore feature a lot more prominently there. Have you tired them in Shuuro Wrath of the Elements?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam Frandsen
United States
Kanab
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I will have to try Flank Attack sometime, it looks fun. (Still have to get Shuuro first though, haha...). But no, I haven't played much in Wrath of the Elements, because, to be honest, I didn't like the diagonal viewing angles of the board. It made it really hard to see which pieces could move where. Any chance they'll update that? It's such a minor detail, but for me it has a large impact on playability.

By the way, thanks for answering all my questions. :)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alessio Cavatore

Nottingham
Unspecified
msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi, should really check these forums more often... blush

I'm afraid the view is not going to change on SWOTE... but have you seen Loka?

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1744629938/loka-the-worl...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Cavatore wrote:
Hi, should really check these forums more often... blush

Subscriptions are your friend! (If you don't know, go to the top right box of the Shuuro page and click "Subscribe".)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alessio Cavatore

Nottingham
Unspecified
msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
Ah yes, I knew that... I knew it perfectly... just testing you...
blush
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam Frandsen
United States
Kanab
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Cavatore wrote:
Hi, should really check these forums more often... blush

I'm afraid the view is not going to change on SWOTE... but have you seen Loka?

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1744629938/loka-the-worl...


Indeed I have seen Loka, and have been backing it for a few days I'm very excited!
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alessio Cavatore

Nottingham
Unspecified
msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
great, thanks!
2 
 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.