Jump to content

Complete Cyvasse Rules


Zuberi

Recommended Posts

I've spent the last evening paging through the evolution of your version of Cyvasse and I am overwhelmed at how much work you've put into it.

If you've ever played Settles of Catan, you place the tiles of resources at random to create your board. To add to the randomness of the game, while adding a level of simplicity to a complicated game, set the terrain tiles at random before the game or have all but the mountains set the same in every board. The Mountain pieces would obviously trump what are on the tiles.

This would mean that every tile would have either your hill, forest, or grassland attributes, which could be used as skilled players, but allows new players a chance for beginners luck or have yet another hurdle to jump over when playing an advanced player.

I feel like I'm not being as articulate as I could be.

A new player needs to learn the pieces, how the move, flanking, fortress, promotion, and now terrain benefits. If the terrain was taken from the control of the player, much like real battle is, that would be one less thing used against a novice player. I also think terrain use could be completely optional, used for those advanced players.

But seriously, awesome work. I like the variety of movement and relation of all the pieces. I'm working to find the means to create my own board using my tile idea, I'll let you know once it happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you mean that the heavy horse cannot move more than one square away from the fortress?

Are you sure you've seen the youtube video? I mean I guess it could be clearer (I know it can get a bit pixelated on my phone). The bit that explains movement of Heavy Horse is at 5:05 (

) There are two fortresses in any game, so each heavy or light horse can move around one fortress or the other.

In order to come in under 15 minutes in the video, I cut out one bit: basically I was saying how, just like in chess where the knight's move is the one that some people find confusing, the heavy and light horse moves are also a bit confusing. What I find easiest to do is count out the number of spaces to the fortress you're going to move around, then you can count back out from the fortress to figure out where the "corners" of the ring are (hopefully that makes sense). Then it's pretty easy to figure out where the horses can go.

And what do you think about the terrain thing? I know there's mountains, but I think we should add some other stuff, each tile giving different pieces different advantages.

Yeah I've thought about it, but basically the only pieces that don't have terrain are the rabble and the dragon. I mean, it's a bit tricky to add more than three tiles, cause if you do then you have to decide why this or that piece gets this or that advantage. It works pretty well as is I think, but what other terrains would you like to see and what pieces would benefit from it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've spent the last evening paging through the evolution of your version of Cyvasse and I am overwhelmed at how much work you've put into it.

If you've ever played Settles of Catan, you place the tiles of resources at random to create your board. To add to the randomness of the game, while adding a level of simplicity to a complicated game, set the terrain tiles at random before the game or have all but the mountains set the same in every board. The Mountain pieces would obviously trump what are on the tiles.

This would mean that every tile would have either your hill, forest, or grassland attributes, which could be used as skilled players, but allows new players a chance for beginners luck or have yet another hurdle to jump over when playing an advanced player.

I feel like I'm not being as articulate as I could be.

A new player needs to learn the pieces, how the move, flanking, fortress, promotion, and now terrain benefits. If the terrain was taken from the control of the player, much like real battle is, that would be one less thing used against a novice player. I also think terrain use could be completely optional, used for those advanced players.

But seriously, awesome work. I like the variety of movement and relation of all the pieces. I'm working to find the means to create my own board using my tile idea, I'll let you know once it happens.

Hey thanks mate. I appreciate it :) - I'm so psyched for season 3 so I find myself thinking about this a lot!

I like the randomise idea - and yeah I get it :) It would be great as a learning tool. You could even have a third person set the tiles and mountains up. Maybe you could also have some "beginner formations" of both tiles and pieces that you distribute with every boardgame so if people don't want to think about that they can just copy something from a sheet. Alternatively, as a handicap, you have have people set up their opponents starting arrays :devil:

I think it's a sign of a good game when there are a bunch of extra versions you could add - I still like my "seaport" idea (the six corners of the boards are ports and any piece on any corner can move to either of the two adjacent corners).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I love your idea of Cyvasse...This isn't the actual game. That is the one and only problem with your post.

Nice job though! :bowdown:

Haha :D thanks.

GRRM has said he'll never endorse anything officially, so as long as this version is as good as anything out there I'll be happy. I have made Cat Taylor (works with David and Dan) aware of this thread (don't know if she read it but she knows of it), so come season 4/5 of Game of Thrones...

I can hope, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These rules are too complex. Cyvasse historical parallel is chess. Just as chess came to Europe via the silk road, cyvasse came to Westeros via the narrow sea trade routes. Also Cyvasse was spread about by orphans (read: Poor uneducated children) but has been picked up by every social class. What this means in my opinion is two things.

1. The Cyvasse board is simple in it's base form. Every piece is used. Nothing is extranious.

2. Most importantly, the rulles of Cyvasse should be SIMPLE. It's what made Chess such a popular game. You can teach it to a 10 year old on day, and watch a master battle a super computer the next. The rules are simple, but the strategy and possibility that comes from it is virtually endless.

My suggestions:

- Every piece is used. The unit ratio is simular to chess. (a lot of Rabble, 2 or 4 Horseman, 2 elephants, 1 dragon, etc.)

- No Tiers. No Rock Paper Scissors rules. No attack points. No flanking. Every unit can kill any other unit. A rabble unit should be able to take a dragon just as a pawn can take a queen. A piece's power should come from their movement capabilities and strategic use.

- Each unit should have a distinct movement pattern. Like chess this is where a units vulnerability comes in. A Bishop is particularly vulnerable to a Rook and visa versa because they cannot move the same way. An elephant should essentially be a rook. (it's stampedes straight in one direction until it hit's something) A knight is more maneuverable, maybe even being able to flank as it does in chess. Spearman move diagonally. Dragons are queens.

- Mountains should be impassable barriers even to dragons. Fortresses should be a positional piece. Any unit can occupy a fortress. If that unit is attacked, then the fortress is destroyed but the unit is saved, and next turn has the opportunity to escape or kill the attacking unit.

- Ranged unit's should have an attack radius that is a strength and an weakness. Example: An archer can attack anything that is two tiles away and move to occupy that space. However, the Archer cannot attack units that are adjacent to it. A trebuchet can kill anything 1-3 three spaces octganally regardless of any unit or mountain in front of it, but it can only move one space at a time and is vulnerable diagonally.

Just some thoughts. I think the current train of thought going to creating a version of this game is bassed too much off of RTS games and modern board games.

Also I'll actually write out some rules along these lines if anyone is interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These rules are too complex. Cyvasse historical parallel is chess. Just as chess came to Europe via the silk road, cyvasse came to Westeros via the narrow sea trade routes. Also Cyvasse was spread about by orphans (read: Poor uneducated children) but has been picked up by every social class. What this means in my opinion is two things.

1. The Cyvasse board is simple in it's base form. Every piece is used. Nothing is extranious.

2. Most importantly, the rulles of Cyvasse should be SIMPLE. It's what made Chess such a popular game. You can teach it to a 10 year old on day, and watch a master battle a super computer the next. The rules are simple, but the strategy and possibility that comes from it is virtually endless.

...

...

Just some thoughts. I think the current train of thought going to creating a version of this game is bassed too much off of RTS games and modern board games.

Also I'll actually write out some rules along these lines if anyone is interested.

Hey Kilroywashere,

Thanks for the feedback, but you appear to be commenting on a version of the rules from quite some time ago. I fully agree with most of what you have written. I don't expect anyone to read through this entire thread any more, but would be interested to hear what you think of the current set of rules:

Having gotten rid of rock scissors paper, I was able to explain it in the 15 minutes I could upload to youtube. It's now quite simple. Just to address some of your other points, I have changed Elephants to move like Bishops (the equivalent of the Bishop in several other chess analogues is actually called an Elephant), and it's the Trebuchets that move like rooks now. See the video for the explanation of how the Horses now move.

To reiterate: maximum 7 pieces per tier, 3 pieces of each kind?

That version becomes far too crowded on a 6-per-side board. What we have now is 2 each of all pieces except Rabble (6x) Mountains (6x) King (1x) and Dragon (1x).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys, looks like a complex game you're making here. Seems cool, but I've been playing with THESE RULES because it's much more simple, and easier to make as the tiles are square. Check it out:

http://gameofcyvasse.com/

As you can see in this version you only get one of each unit, and you setup all your terrain. It plays very well i really reccomend it.

I've been testing it with my roommate and we've come up with a few addition rules that just seem to present themselves:

-Dragons cannot be attacked while roosting (in mountains)

-Light and heavy horsemen may change direction durring a move (straight, then diagonal, or sideways)

-Dragons cannot kill dragons, only block them.

I'm trying to think of a rule for the elephant that will make it more useful. Perhaps elephants don't lose a turn in water.

I'm also thinking of reducing the amount of mountain tiles to 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys, looks like a complex game you're making here. Seems cool, but I've been playing with THESE RULES because it's much more simple, and easier to make as the tiles are square. Check it out:

http://gameofcyvasse.com/

As you can see in this version you only get one of each unit, and you setup all your terrain. It plays very well i really reccomend it.

I've been testing it with my roommate and we've come up with a few addition rules that just seem to present themselves:

-Dragons cannot be attacked while roosting (in mountains)

-Light and heavy horsemen may change direction durring a move (straight, then diagonal, or sideways)

-Dragons cannot kill dragons, only block them.

I'm trying to think of a rule for the elephant that will make it more useful. Perhaps elephants don't lose a turn in water.

I'm also thinking of reducing the amount of mountain tiles to 4.

Hey LL, it's really not that complicated once you have a go.

I came across that site early on. I think before I even started commenting on this thread. I've spoken about my criticisms of that game earlier in this thread (I think I was a bit more nasty than I meant to be actually - it was not meant personally), but I have since backed down on most of them. I really do admire the simplicity of what Dylanrw achieved there. It actually seems even simpler to me than when I last looked at it. I don't remember there being an order of ranking in pieces, but I'm assuming that was always there - it makes it like remembering the order of poker hands, which is cool.

I guess my remaining criticism is (1) The movement of all the pieces (except the dragon) is really kinda boring - it's on a chess board, but he didn't borrow any chess moves - every single piece can move in any direction, and only 1 can move more than half the board. Because the most powerful piece is also the most mobile, the disparity is huge and it just becomes my dragon (and some pieces) versus your dragon (and some pieces). I've found that play has become more interesting as the moves become more defined and even - especially once I got rid of the "ranged" pieces which can basically move anywhere in a certain zone. The dragon should be the most powerful piece, but not by so much. (2) The rules have a few things that are purely arbitrary. I mean why 6 mountains, 6 forrest and 5 water? (3) We know that in TWOW readings that there is such a thing as a "hill" tile which has yet to be accounted for. (4) It's hard to see a game with a total of 20 pieces (8 or 10 of which are basically destined to be cannon fodder) lasting for 3+ hours. We know from the books that there are "elephant*s*" plural, so I think it's implied that some pieces have multiple units - it was 10 types of pieces, not 10 pieces.

All in all, it's not a bad game, but it still feels like a chess variant to me. I really wanted to see something new which was still in-keeping with the books, which is why the whole flanking dynamic really appealed to me when Zuberi wrote about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys, recently i've really wanted to make my own version of Cyvasse. I just now saw all the stuff you've been doing and I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents. Here's my idea for the game of Cyvasse, let me know what you think.

I really like what you've done so far, but I don't like the rock paper scissors concept (not entirely). I'm more interested in pieces being closer to chess (most pieces can kill most pieces) with the exceptions of trumps and a few higher tier pieces. Either way, I'm glad i found this place!

http://www.reddit.co...<br /><br />E

EDIT: Also, someone recently told me I should make it a rounded board (not square ish).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey no worries Corey. If you look at my youtube link you'll notice I've actually taken out the rock paper scissors concept in the most recent version too. Thanks for posting.

I actually got a bit distracted responding to your post because while I was on Reddit (I don't look at it very often at all) I noticed someone else had pretty much lifted all the rules we had from page 2 of this thread and then claimed them as his own. Needless to say, not impressed.

Back to your post - I think it could work, but I like this version too - I guess it will be a case of seeing what people like better :) Good luck ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey no worries Corey. If you look at my youtube link you'll notice I've actually taken out the rock paper scissors concept in the most recent version too. Thanks for posting.

I actually got a bit distracted responding to your post because while I was on Reddit (I don't look at it very often at all) I noticed someone else had pretty much lifted all the rules we had from page 2 of this thread and then claimed them as his own. Needless to say, not impressed.

Back to your post - I think it could work, but I like this version too - I guess it will be a case of seeing what people like better :) Good luck ;)

Thanks for responding Mike. I think there is a lot of potential with Cyvasse. Keep in mind, all of what I say is in a polite, constructive manner. I also wanted to note that on your video, i can only hear audio from one side of my headseat....haha.

Anyway, I doubt people would be interested in my version, it recieved almost no feedback in my posts on Reddit. I just watched your video again and It's different from the last version I watched, as you said. I have some points that I will go into and maybe we can both share our knowledge to make the best Cyvasse game possible. Feel free to critique or borrow ANY of my ideas, I'm just looking for a solid, book based Cyvasse game (mostly) to play.

The board

I like the Hexagonal board and I think we can both agree that a hex board is the best fit for a Cyvasse game. What if you added one more row on all sides to reduce the clutter of the pieces. I noticed in your video that the board looked very congested (at least in my opinion). My proposal would be reduce the total number of pieces on a board of that size, as well as the number of mountains (maybe to 5).

The Terrain Tiles

I think you have moved in the right direction with your addtion of hill/forest/grass tiles. I have some questions though. If there are only 2 grassland tiles, what are the rest of the tiles(not special) on the board? While there is no specific mention of tiles having advantages in the books, it seems only logical to have bonuses.

This is trival, but I had an idea that the board could change depending on what part of Westeros/Essos you're in. For example, Dorne would have sand tiles instead of grassland, sand dunes instead of hills, and i'm not sure what would replace forests. Another example would be in the north where snow would replace grasslands, hills would be the same with snow on them, forests would just be snowed in forests. As I said, it's trivial an donly aesthetics. There could be potential for interesting play in that though (if bonsues were some how different).

The Pieces

I think that you have too many tiers, but that's just me. If you moved all down one tier (except rabble/king of course), it would be more interesting. It would be closer to Chess, but still have a stratego element to it. This would make rabble, king, light horse, crossbows and spears on the same level. Even with flanking, Rabble is going to be completely useless in this game unless it's actually able to kill SOME sort of piece on it's own. Pawns in Chess are a prime example of this. They are mostly fodder, but they can be extremely dangerous when used properly.

I also do not like the horse movement in your version, but it is original. It should be fine as it is, I think.

Do you like the idea of variation in # of pieces? For example, my version has these rules:

The second phase is placing the unit pieces, still behind the screen to keep the setup secret. Each player gets the following pieces to place:

•5 Rabble

•1-4 Spearmen

•1-4 Crossbowmen

•1-3 Light Horse

•1-3 Catapult

•1-3 Trebuchet

•1-2 Heavy Horse

•1-2 Elephant

•1 Dragon

•1 King

The range in units is a way to further customize the game. Each player gets at least 1 of every unit, but can choose some variation in their army.

The breakdown is like this:

•The player may choose 1-4 Spearmen and 1-4 Crossbowmen in any combination (so long as they add up to 5 total).

•The player may choose 1-3 Light Horse, 1-3 Catapult and 1-3 Trebuchet in any combination (so long as they add up to 5 total).

•The player may choose 1-2 Heavy Horse and 1-2 Elephants in any combination (so long as they add up to 3 total).

Since you're working with a smaller board (and you have no catapult) Maybe you could do something like 1-2 Light Horse/1-2 Spears/1-2 Crossbows (total of 4 instead of 6), 1-2 Heavy Horse/1-2 Elephant/1-2 Trebuchet (total of 4 instead of 6), and only 5 Rabble. The reason I suggest that setup, it further customizes the game and you have to make a choice between choosing more of one specific type (this makes tiles more valuable depending on your choices).

However, if you completely disagree with this concept, I understand and I'll not pester you any further haha.

Other

I mostly agree with upgrading the rabble by getting across the board.

I don't completely agree with your 'Ruining' concept. In the books, Tyrion states something like his fortress is ruined, but is still in the game. This means that Ruining a fortress does not keep you from winning, only that you're in a ditch you probably can't get out of. Another thing from the books is that after a King is killed, the game is over. I believe Tyrion says your king is trapped, death in 4. This means that a King kill is a final verdict for the game ending, just like in Chess (I think).

I mostly just want to enhance either of our versions so that more people can enjoy it. So don't take any of my criticism with any negativity, I'm jus trying to help!

Thanks again for responding and I'm glad there's at least a community to talk to about this sort of thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Corey. This is probably the most constructive feedback I've gotten in ages. Thanks!

Thanks for responding Mike. I think there is a lot of potential with Cyvasse. Keep in mind, all of what I say is in a polite, constructive manner. I also wanted to note that on your video, i can only hear audio from one side of my headseat....haha.

Anyway, I doubt people would be interested in my version, it recieved almost no feedback in my posts on Reddit. I just watched your video again and It's different from the last version I watched, as you said. I have some points that I will go into and maybe we can both share our knowledge to make the best Cyvasse game possible. Feel free to critique or borrow ANY of my ideas, I'm just looking for a solid, book based Cyvasse game (mostly) to play.

The board

I like the Hexagonal board and I think we can both agree that a hex board is the best fit for a Cyvasse game. What if you added one more row on all sides to reduce the clutter of the pieces. I noticed in your video that the board looked very congested (at least in my opinion). My proposal would be reduce the total number of pieces on a board of that size, as well as the number of mountains (maybe to 5).

Good point, I agree and I can't say I have a real justification for putting it back to the way it is currently. Yet we've played with having a 7-a-side hex board, and although it was good in the opening game, it seemed to give to much power to the longer ranged pieces in the late game. Also having an extra row (ie not perfect hexagon) was aesthetically unpleasing I guess. If you think about the number of starting pieces to spaces on board ratio, Chess is 32/64 = 50% and Stratego is 80/96 = 83%, and the current variation is 50-52/91 = 54-57%. While it looks cluttered, I think that's just the way I've arranged my pieces in the video.

The Terrain Tiles

I think you have moved in the right direction with your addtion of hill/forest/grass tiles. I have some questions though. If there are only 2 grassland tiles, what are the rest of the tiles(not special) on the board? While there is no specific mention of tiles having advantages in the books, it seems only logical to have bonuses.

This is trival, but I had an idea that the board could change depending on what part of Westeros/Essos you're in. For example, Dorne would have sand tiles instead of grassland, sand dunes instead of hills, and i'm not sure what would replace forests. Another example would be in the north where snow would replace grasslands, hills would be the same with snow on them, forests would just be snowed in forests. As I said, it's trivial an donly aesthetics. There could be potential for interesting play in that though (if bonsues were some how different).

Yeah, we have heard from someone who was at a reading of a Tyrion chapter from TWOW that there is a "hill" tile, so we extrapolated the rest. I don't think it hurts to leave the other terrain unspecified, although grassland might be the default terrain in some places in the world, it certainly isn't in all. I like your idea about different variants of the board, but I guess I'm trying to imagine the "original" Volantene version of the game haha.

The Pieces

I think that you have too many tiers, but that's just me. If you moved all down one tier (except rabble/king of course), it would be more interesting. It would be closer to Chess, but still have a stratego element to it. This would make rabble, king, light horse, crossbows and spears on the same level. Even with flanking, Rabble is going to be completely useless in this game unless it's actually able to kill SOME sort of piece on it's own. Pawns in Chess are a prime example of this. They are mostly fodder, but they can be extremely dangerous when used properly.

I also do not like the horse movement in your version, but it is original. It should be fine as it is, I think.

I have actually thought about readjusting the tiers in exactly the way that you mention, but the problem is it allows Rabble to flank tier 3 pieces with just two rabble, which perhaps isn't such a bad thing. In any case, mountains aren't useless, and they can't take anything or move at all! I guess I eventually came around to the idea that having Rabble as such a relatively weak piece means that while beginners may just use them as cannon fodder/promotion material, they can actually form a very effective moving wall which you may need to adjust once the screen is taken down.

Do you like the idea of variation in # of pieces? For example, my version has these rules:

The second phase is placing the unit pieces, still behind the screen to keep the setup secret. Each player gets the following pieces to place:

•5 Rabble

•1-4 Spearmen

•1-4 Crossbowmen

•1-3 Light Horse

•1-3 Catapult

•1-3 Trebuchet

•1-2 Heavy Horse

•1-2 Elephant

•1 Dragon

•1 King

The range in units is a way to further customize the game. Each player gets at least 1 of every unit, but can choose some variation in their army.

The breakdown is like this:

•The player may choose 1-4 Spearmen and 1-4 Crossbowmen in any combination (so long as they add up to 5 total).

•The player may choose 1-3 Light Horse, 1-3 Catapult and 1-3 Trebuchet in any combination (so long as they add up to 5 total).

•The player may choose 1-2 Heavy Horse and 1-2 Elephants in any combination (so long as they add up to 3 total).

Since you're working with a smaller board (and you have no catapult) Maybe you could do something like 1-2 Light Horse/1-2 Spears/1-2 Crossbows (total of 4 instead of 6), 1-2 Heavy Horse/1-2 Elephant/1-2 Trebuchet (total of 4 instead of 6), and only 5 Rabble. The reason I suggest that setup, it further customizes the game and you have to make a choice between choosing more of one specific type (this makes tiles more valuable depending on your choices).

However, if you completely disagree with this concept, I understand and I'll not pester you any further haha.

We actually had something like this earlier on, but I came back to the fact that this is a board game first, and if you include the pieces in the box people will eventually end up using them (while other people complain that they're not playing "properly" lol). To me it just seemed like yet another variation that didn't necessarily add a huge amount to the game. Definitely trying to cut down on the amount of information that people have to absorb.

Also re Catapults and Trebuchets, I realised in post #217 that GRRM only ever uses the term "catapult" in the presence of "spearmen" and "crossbowmen" and only uses "trebuchet" in the presence of "spears" and "crossbows". It's because of this linguistic tell, and the fact that I can't imagine why a difference so minute would be represented as two separate pieces in a board game, that I justify there only being a trebuchet piece.

Other

I mostly agree with upgrading the rabble by getting across the board.

I don't completely agree with your 'Ruining' concept. In the books, Tyrion states something like his fortress is ruined, but is still in the game. This means that Ruining a fortress does not keep you from winning, only that you're in a ditch you probably can't get out of. Another thing from the books is that after a King is killed, the game is over. I believe Tyrion says your king is trapped, death in 4. This means that a King kill is a final verdict for the game ending, just like in Chess (I think).

I mostly just want to enhance either of our versions so that more people can enjoy it. So don't take any of my criticism with any negativity, I'm jus trying to help!

Thanks again for responding and I'm glad there's at least a community to talk to about this sort of thing.

No negativity taken :) I've wondered about the multiple interpretations you could have for that "King is trapped, death in 4" line. It could mean "I see four moves ahead and that's when I take your king and win". But couldn't it also mean that "I'm about to take your King, you might be able to work around it (by ressurecting a king) but I've got that covered too".

I guess the main question is what the fortress is actually for if the King is the game decider - there are as many answers to this as there are versions of Cyvasse. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Corey. This is probably the most constructive feedback I've gotten in ages. Thanks!

Good point, I agree and I can't say I have a real justification for putting it back to the way it is currently. Yet we've played with having a 7-a-side hex board, and although it was good in the opening game, it seemed to give to much power to the longer ranged pieces in the late game. Also having an extra row (ie not perfect hexagon) was aesthetically unpleasing I guess. If you think about the number of starting pieces to spaces on board ratio, Chess is 32/64 = 50% and Stratego is 80/96 = 83%, and the current variation is 50-52/91 = 54-57%. While it looks cluttered, I think that's just the way I've arranged my pieces in the video.

That's a fair point, maybe the pieces and tile sizes just throw me off. I would still like a larger board, but that may or may not ever happen.

Yeah, we have heard from someone who was at a reading of a Tyrion chapter from TWOW that there is a "hill" tile, so we extrapolated the rest. I don't think it hurts to leave the other terrain unspecified, although grassland might be the default terrain in some places in the world, it certainly isn't in all. I like your idea about different variants of the board, but I guess I'm trying to imagine the "original" Volantene version of the game haha.

Yes, I can see how grassland is not a default terrain piece. I just feel like most of the board should be 'something' in stead of '?'. Anyway, it's pretty much a moot point haha.

I have actually thought about readjusting the tiers in exactly the way that you mention, but the problem is it allows Rabble to flank tier 3 pieces with just two rabble, which perhaps isn't such a bad thing. In any case, mountains aren't useless, and they can't take anything or move at all! I guess I eventually came around to the idea that having Rabble as such a relatively weak piece means that while beginners may just use them as cannon fodder/promotion material, they can actually form a very effective moving wall which you may need to adjust once the screen is taken down.

Even in chess, a single pawn can kill the queen (no flanking needed, but flanking is generally inolved). That's why it doesn't bother me that it takes THREE rabble to kill a dragon or TWO pieces to kill an elephant. It still requires another piece to be in place (which is a big deal). This also makes terrain tiles more useful, which is what I would like to see.

We actually had something like this earlier on, but I came back to the fact that this is a board game first, and if you include the pieces in the box people will eventually end up using them (while other people complain that they're not playing "properly" lol). To me it just seemed like yet another variation that didn't necessarily add a huge amount to the game. Definitely trying to cut down on the amount of information that people have to absorb.

Also re Catapults and Trebuchets, I realised in post #217 that GRRM only ever uses the term "catapult" in the presence of "spearmen" and "crossbowmen" and only uses "trebuchet" in the presence of "spears" and "crossbows". It's because of this linguistic tell, and the fact that I can't imagine why a difference so minute would be represented as two separate pieces in a board game, that I justify there only being a trebuchet piece.

I never thought about it like that, but with or without a Catapult does not bother me. I was just trying to make the game more varied. Even so, if you're trying to cut down on the amount of information, your horse movement is very confusing (would defeinitely be for a beginner).

No negativity taken :) I've wondered about the multiple interpretations you could have for that "King is trapped, death in 4" line. It could mean "I see four moves ahead and that's when I take your king and win". But couldn't it also mean that "I'm about to take your King, you might be able to work around it (by ressurecting a king) but I've got that covered too".

I guess the main question is what the fortress is actually for if the King is the game decider - there are as many answers to this as there are versions of Cyvasse. :)

Well, in what game have you played where you can have your king executed and put another back into power? :D In both Chess and Stratego, you capture the Flag/King and the game is over. This is also true in Chinese Chess. Maybe I"m just a chess/stratego purist when it comes to that.. haha. That being said, it is true taht there are many interpretations to be made. More than I'd like to count...

As a side note, did you like the concept of my light horse? What about the Elephant piece? They have unique movement, so I thought i'd ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even in chess, a single pawn can kill the queen (no flanking needed, but flanking is generally inolved). That's why it doesn't bother me that it takes THREE rabble to kill a dragon or TWO pieces to kill an elephant. It still requires another piece to be in place (which is a big deal). This also makes terrain tiles more useful, which is what I would like to see.

Honestly I can't remember why I decided to keep Rabble on a separate tier - having it as being the same level as spears, crossbows and light horse actually makes quite a bit of sense. I have discovered gamesalad.com, which allows non-programmers like myself to create games (you still have to think systematically - but it's a boon for me since I've always been scared off by the look of actual code). I'll try to implement this when I create my version.

I never thought about it like that, but with or without a Catapult does not bother me. I was just trying to make the game more varied. Even so, if you're trying to cut down on the amount of information, your horse movement is very confusing (would defeinitely be for a beginner).

Fair enough, but I think the program I'm building will make the horse moves clearer and therefore a lot more intuitive. I like your light horse "double" move and the Elephant being able to change direction (and I would "borrow" them for this version if they fit into the grander movement scheme ;) ). I guess a lot of the moves in this version were shaped by Lord_Biscuit's program (which kept moves pretty simple), and my desire to keep everything consistent (Elephant = better Spears, Heavy Horse = better Lighter Horse, Trebuchet = better Crossbows). It still bears the mark of the rock scissors paper system even though we're not using it any more, but I guess I like the symmetry anyway - it no longer seems like so many things to remember because it's 3 pairs of pieces, 2 types of blocking pieces (mountains/rabble) and 2 special pieces (king/dragon).

Well, in what game have you played where you can have your king executed and put another back into power? :D In both Chess and Stratego, you capture the Flag/King and the game is over. This is also true in Chinese Chess. Maybe I"m just a chess/stratego purist when it comes to that.. haha. That being said, it is true taht there are many interpretations to be made. More than I'd like to count...

Fair point :) though I must admit I've become quite attached to the concept, firstly because of GRRM's habit of having kings that are killable, replacable and not symbols of absolute power - to me it seems "right" that a board game based on ASOIAF would imitate that. I also like it because it means that you can have an extremely powerful ranged piece (dragon) which can fly in and around other pieces rather than just moving in straight lines like a chess queen - thinking about it, if capturing the king ended the game instantly, then all you would have to do is get the dragon within range in a position that can't be flanked, and bam: game over (it doesn't travel in straight lines so it would be very difficult to block - and there's no way a king can outrun a dragon). This way there are no easy wins like that - the dragon is powerful, but by no means unstoppable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly I can't remember why I decided to keep Rabble on a separate tier - having it as being the same level as spears, crossbows and light horse actually makes quite a bit of sense. I have discovered gamesalad.com, which allows non-programmers like myself to create games (you still have to think systematically - but it's a boon for me since I've always been scared off by the look of actual code). I'll try to implement this when I create my version.

Ahhhh I was actually thinking about writing some real code for a game, based on my version. I'm glad you guys are adapting it to a version you can work with. I would offer my help in writing some of the code, but we have a few core concept differences ;).

Anyway, I'm glad you support rabble being more viable! Power to the pawns (rabble in this case haha).

Fair enough, but I think the program I'm building will make the horse moves clearer and therefore a lot more intuitive. I like your light horse "double" move and the Elephant being able to change direction (and I would "borrow" them for this version if they fit into the grander movement scheme ;) ). I guess a lot of the moves in this version were shaped by Lord_Biscuit's program (which kept moves pretty simple), and my desire to keep everything consistent (Elephant = better Spears, Heavy Horse = better Lighter Horse, Trebuchet = better Crossbows). It still bears the mark of the rock scissors paper system even though we're not using it any more, but I guess I like the symmetry anyway - it no longer seems like so many things to remember because it's 3 pairs of pieces, 2 types of blocking pieces (mountains/rabble) and 2 special pieces (king/dragon).

I completely understand. It just doesn't 'mesh' with your current setup and that's absolutely fine. I hope you guys have a rockin' version of Cyvasse and it becomes very popular. I will say that I dislike the idea that a Mountain is a piece at all, it just seems silly. I'm also a supporter that if there are 10 unique pieces in Cyvasse, they should actually be pieces (not terrain). That's just me though (It's also why I wanted a catapult :P). After you're interpretation of Catapult vs Trebuchet, I understand that it's probably not meant to be (no catapult :/ ).

Fair point :) though I must admit I've become quite attached to the concept, firstly because of GRRM's habit of having kings that are killable, replacable and not symbols of absolute power - to me it seems "right" that a board game based on ASOIAF would imitate that. I also like it because it means that you can have an extremely powerful ranged piece (dragon) which can fly in and around other pieces rather than just moving in straight lines like a chess queen - thinking about it, if capturing the king ended the game instantly, then all you would have to do is get the dragon within range in a position that can't be flanked, and bam: game over (it doesn't travel in straight lines so it would be very difficult to block - and there's no way a king can outrun a dragon). This way there are no easy wins like that - the dragon is powerful, but by no means unstoppable.

The Dragon being too much of an early game ender is solved with not being able to fly over other pieces (just like in chess). It's why I gave it a large movement base (with restrictions). I even limit it's movement by forest tiles. I do, however, really like your current Dragon movement. It seems very logical and is very much like my Elephant, except it can move over pieces. I guess in the end, it comes down to personal preference. Thanks again for talking with me about this, it's a breath of fresh air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahhhh I was actually thinking about writing some real code for a game, based on my version. I'm glad you guys are adapting it to a version you can work with. I would offer my help in writing some of the code, but we have a few core concept differences ;).

Anyway, I'm glad you support rabble being more viable! Power to the pawns (rabble in this case haha).

Haha fair enough. Actually I'm rewriting it from scratch to be web based. I'm new to this so I'm still not sure how long it will take me, but I'm trying to make it a little easier on the eye than what we had before. What I also really want to do is try to design some kind of AI to allow a 1-player version. Methinks that will be the version that takes off! For what it's worth, good luck with your code too!

I completely understand. It just doesn't 'mesh' with your current setup and that's absolutely fine. I hope you guys have a rockin' version of Cyvasse and it becomes very popular. I will say that I dislike the idea that a Mountain is a piece at all, it just seems silly. I'm also a supporter that if there are 10 unique pieces in Cyvasse, they should actually be pieces (not terrain). That's just me though (It's also why I wanted a catapult :P). After you're interpretation of Catapult vs Trebuchet, I understand that it's probably not meant to be (no catapult :/ ).

Yeah it does bug me a little too, but the way I see it, the books describe "pieces" which are carved figurines, and "tiles" which are supposed to be flat. It makes no sense to me for mountains to be flat, therefore they are a piece. :P

The Dragon being too much of an early game ender is solved with not being able to fly over other pieces (just like in chess). It's why I gave it a large movement base (with restrictions). I even limit it's movement by forest tiles. I do, however, really like your current Dragon movement. It seems very logical and is very much like my Elephant, except it can move over pieces. I guess in the end, it comes down to personal preference. Thanks again for talking with me about this, it's a breath of fresh air.

It can still move around other pieces if it has the range - the only way to stop it is to have an unbroken line, for which I dislike the neccesity (heh, personal preference indeed). Good talking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi Guys,

Just an update on my version of the game - I've figured out how to do it (and I have an idea for a rudimentry AI too), but it's definitely going to take me some time. Wish me luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all I love the idea of Cyvasse (which i always thought pronounced as ki-vahs). I trawled through this post and saw the progression of the game you guys have put together. So congratulations, it's pretty bloody awesome. Just wondering MikeL, have you and Lord Biscuit gone your separate ways on this? because his drop-box file for the program was updated 4 days ago, but he hasn't posted here in a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...