Complete Cyvasse Rules

[MikeL]

Hmm. I guess I've been thinking of rabble as undisciplined mobs which only exist because the King conscripted them, where as the rest of the pieces are "army", and follow the chain of command.

I think losing just because you didn't have a tier 3 piece in the fortress at that moment (maybe it just moved out briefly to allow another piece to be promoted) would be a really frustrating way to lose. It would also mean that if you saw someone move their tier 3 piece out of the fortress, it would be worth sending your dragon on a suicide mission to capture the king because that would mean the end of the game. I was trying to have a distinction between losing the king pre fortress ruining (severe but not fatal) and losing the king after fortress ruining (end of game).

Maybe losing a tier 3 piece in the promotion to king is enough punishment, it just doesn't seem like it to me without play testing. Speaking of which, it was my work computer having issues with dropbox, I'll have a look at your new version today.

[stormtek]

It would be a good idea to have some indication during setup as to where you are allowed to place your pieces. Maybe have a semi-opaque filter you can add to a square that goes over the illegal placement squares? This will be especially useful for players who aren't entirely familiar with how the game goes yet.

[LordBiscuit]

Hmm. I guess I've been thinking of rabble as undisciplined mobs which only exist because the King conscripted them, where as the rest of the pieces are "army", and follow the chain of command.

I think losing just because you didn't have a tier 3 piece in the fortress at that moment (maybe it just moved out briefly to allow another piece to be promoted) would be a really frustrating way to lose. It would also mean that if you saw someone move their tier 3 piece out of the fortress, it would be worth sending your dragon on a suicide mission to capture the king because that would mean the end of the game. I was trying to have a distinction between losing the king pre fortress ruining (severe but not fatal) and losing the king after fortress ruining (end of game).

Maybe losing a tier 3 piece in the promotion to king is enough punishment, it just doesn't seem like it to me without play testing. Speaking of which, it was my work computer having issues with dropbox, I'll have a look at your new version today.

Well, if you move your tier 3 piece out of the fortress, that's like moving your pawns away from a position where they guard the king in chess. It leaves you open to an attack, but that doesn't make chess players go all in with their queen.

We can make not having a king at the end of your turn the losing condition. That way, if your king is down but you still have a fortress, you have one move to make things right, like when your fortress is about to go boom.

[MichaelMurphree]

Well, I have been out of touch for far too long on this topic. Been in touch with LordBiscuit for a bit, though. The rules discussed are amazing, and I love the way this game sounds. If I may make a suggestion, make what you have air tight before adding more conditions (ie terrain). You can patch it in an update later. If your game is already solid, though, then let's get that in the initial release, too. As far as iOS goes, I would say we leave the 2D sphere and go for 3D. Sure, it is a bit more work on our parts, but it will be taken more seriously, and allows us to add more uniqueness to the game. Unity is pretty good for this, and can publish to iOS, and I believe even allows a bit of C#(I am not an engineer, sorry if I am leading you wrong). With a few visual updates, I think we could easily launch this on the App Store and see some response. And, there is room for growth in this game, too. If we don't add terrain bonuses initially, we can add them later, as well as options for them and for the port idea(which is a good idea, if the players want it). Anyway, tell me what you guys think. Also, how many of you are good with 3D? I could do it all, but organics are not my strongest point.

[LordBiscuit]

Why again do we need to go 3D? The board is 2D, the game is 2D, everything is quite fine with only two dimensions.

I have some experience working with 3D, but I just don't find it necessary. I'd be glad if you draw something to explain what you mean by going 3D.

[MichaelMurphree]

I feel it will be taken more seriously as a 3D game. It is a purely aesthetic thing, but it sometimes makes all the difference. plus, the ability to zoom/rotate the board may be a pretty nice feature.

[3_Nugget]

In your most recent release of the rules, you forgot to denote the dimensions of the hex board. I am assuming you are continuing with the 7 sided hex board, but I thought it would be important to keep that in the rules.

[LordBiscuit]

Yes, board size is still 7 hexes to a side.

I'm thinking of putting a huge grey rectangle over the other player's area during setup. What do you guys think?

[MikeL]

Well, if you move your tier 3 piece out of the fortress, that's like moving your pawns away from a position where they guard the king in chess. It leaves you open to an attack, but that doesn't make chess players go all in with their queen.

We can make not having a king at the end of your turn the losing condition. That way, if your king is down but you still have a fortress, you have one move to make things right, like when your fortress is about to go boom.

Hey I'm back. I really like that condition - I think that will work well. Also the grey rectangle over the other side of the board during set up would work well I think - might help fix the slightly unfair advantage of setting up second and being able to see where your opponent's fortress is.

Regarding 3D that's way out of my league - I've played with google sketch up, but I wouldn't trust myself to come up with anything that's any good, and to me that seems a far bigger step even than including terrains would be.

Maybe that's something that could happen when porting to iOS - well in the future - I personally think it would do better in the meantime as an online (Facebook) social game - or at least on a website with a chat room and leader boards/online tournaments. iOS is probably better if you wanted to earn an income out of it, but I'm really not clear on what the copyright issues of that would be - we can hardly claim there is no prior claim to the name "cyvasse".

[LordBiscuit]

the slightly unfair advantage of setting up second and being able to see where your opponent's fortress is.

That happens? That's obviously something I've overlooked, since this isn't intended. I'll look into it soon.

[MichaelMurphree]

3D would be easier to move to than writing new conditions for terrain, but I understand your point. I have a programming friend who wants to take a look at it, so I may have him help do the 3D iOS port, and help you with what you want to do with it. In regards to why iOS, a webgame is cool, but to garner any respect in this community, you have to have a hot platform to put it on. Facebook is considered a platform, but I honestly would look to linking the app to facebook. Maybe that is where we will meet, so that you can play it on browser or iDevice. I do not think we can or should charge for this. In addition to copyright laws(I am pretty sure a gaming company has cyvasse copyrights), this is more of a fan service. But, if you do it well and make it pop, it does not matter if you charge or not. Some people will donate money to you, but the big thing is it gets your name out there and makes people notice that you can do this. Which is huge. No one cares about what your degrees are or what you have learned. They care about what you have done.

[MikeL]

3D would be easier to move to than writing new conditions for terrain, but I understand your point. I have a programming friend who wants to take a look at it, so I may have him help do the 3D iOS port, and help you with what you want to do with it. In regards to why iOS, a webgame is cool, but to garner any respect in this community, you have to have a hot platform to put it on. Facebook is considered a platform, but I honestly would look to linking the app to facebook. Maybe that is where we will meet, so that you can play it on browser or iDevice. I do not think we can or should charge for this. In addition to copyright laws(I am pretty sure a gaming company has cyvasse copyrights), this is more of a fan service. But, if you do it well and make it pop, it does not matter if you charge or not. Some people will donate money to you, but the big thing is it gets your name out there and makes people notice that you can do this. Which is huge. No one cares about what your degrees are or what you have learned. They care about what you have done.

I agree with some of what you're saying (it's definitely a fan service), but speaking as a indie musician and composer, I have fairly strong opinions about the idea of "exposure" - it's basically what people tell you you're getting when they want to use your stuff for free - exposure is useful, but also very overrated imo. Even though I've contributed a fair bit, this is definitely Lord Biscuits work, so his is the final decision. I don't even know if you (LB) were thinking about monetisation when you started this, but I think that will come through the creation of a 3d looking iOS game, or ad revenue on a site like facebook, and it's too soon to be talking about that seriously.

Because I haven't actually played a full game against anyone yet, I'm still not sure that I think it is a solid game yet. I do really like the winning condition now - I'll repost the rules with that mod in the next post. You'll know you have a solid product when you've had a couple of hundred full games having been played between a decent number of different people (say 20+). And as far as that goes, I'd really appreciate the ability to play you guys through a web interface (which btw I'm happy to host if you can send me the files to upload to my server) but I'd prefer to play it the way I play Words with Friends on Facebook (ie one or two moves a day, not sitting at a chat window waiting for my opponent to play the next move). I think the next move is to try and set that interface up so we can do some serious play-testing. Who has the expertise to do that? (it sure ain't me).

Edit: Sorry just reread some posts, and realised I wasn't quite clear - I'm not saying we should charge for it, just that it's too soon to make that decision. The web-based game I'm suggesting isn't the end product, just something to help us playtest better.

[MikeL]

Welcome to Cyvasse

By Lord Biscuit and MikeL

(Rules 1.2, last edit: MikeL)

Want to experience the game played by Lannisters and Targaryens, Pentoshi and Dornishmen alike? Here's our take on Cyvasse, the board game from A Song of Ice and Fire. Set up your spaces behind the curtain at the beginning, then plot to ruin your opponent's fortress and capture their king! With a hex board and new flanking rules to make things interesting, Cyvasse is like Chess, Blitzkrieg, and Stratego, but unlike anything you've ever played before.

Movement

One of George R.R. Martin's inspirations for Cyvasse is Blitzkreig: a 1965 military strategy game, based on a hexagonal board with "squares" (actually hexes). We have followed through on this concept to create a hex board with 7 spaces to a side, and these spaces alternate through three colors in a checkered pattern. This means the movements of our pieces are most comparable to hex chess.

The pieces

1) Mountain: Stationary (blocks movement of all other pieces except Trebuchet and Dragon).

2) Rabble: One space orthogonally (orthogonal means moving in the direction of the adjoining 6 hexes).

3) King: One space orthogonally.

4) Light Horse: Two spaces diagonally (diagonal means moving in the direction of spaces of the same colour).

5) Spears: Three spaces orthogonally.

6) Crossbows: Range of two spaces, or three when capturing (range means moving anywhere that two or three adjoining spaces can take you - this piece can jump other pieces, but not moutains).

7) Heavy Horse: Diagonally (This piece is limited only by mountains, other pieces, and the edge of the board).

8) Elephants: Orthogonally (This piece is limited only by mountains, other pieces, and the edge of the board).

9) Trebuchet: Range of two spaces, or three when capturing (can jump other pieces/mountains).

10) Dragon: Range of four spaces (This piece can fly over mountains, but not other pieces).

At the beginning of the game, each player sets up their pieces behind a "curtain". Once the gameplay starts, click on each piece to see where it can move and which other pieces it can take. Click on a space to complete the move.

Tier levels, Capturing and Flanking

Each piece is grouped into one of four tier levels. Tier levels and numbers of each piece are:

Tier 1) Rabble (x7) and King (x1).

Tier 2) Light Horse (up to 3), Spears (up to 3) and Crossbows (up to 3). (total of 7 tier 2 pieces)

Tier 3) Heavy Horse (up to 3), Elephant (up to 3) and Trebuchet (up to 3). (total of 7 tier 3 pieces)

Tier 4) Dragon (x1).

As you would expect, the pieces of each tier level can capture pieces of the tier level below. Pieces can also capture other pieces of the same tier level in certain circumstances (see below). Ten pieces is a lot of different permutations to remember however, so we've made it a bit easier:

The first thing to notice is that tier 3 pieces are improved tier 2 pieces, and together, these six pieces have a rock, scissors, paper dynamic. So within each tier group, scissors pieces (Light Horse, Heavy Horse) beat paper pieces (Crossbows, Trebuchets), paper pieces (Crossbows, Trebuchets) can beat rock pieces (Spears, Elephant), and rock pieces (Spears, Elephant), can beat scissors pieces (Light Horse, Heavy Horse).

With us so far? Good. The next thing to remember is that weaker pieces can capture strong pieces in certain circumstances. We call this flanking, and it happens when multiple weaker pieces threaten a stronger piece. If the weaker pieces are collectively strong enough, the strong piece is removed from the board and the attacking piece replaces it. Each piece is worth two of the tier level below it, four of the tier two levels below it, and so on. What this means is that to capture a dragon (tier 4), you might use two tier 3 pieces or one tier 3 piece and two tier 2 pieces or one tier 3 piece and four tier 1 pieces or one tier 3 piece, one tier 2 piece and two tier 1 pieces: the choice is up to you. The king is the exception to this rule: by itself it is a tier 1 piece, but when used in flanking it is equivalent to the tier level of the attacking piece.

Promotions, Ruined Fortresses, and Capturing the King

The fortress is a powerful space for two reasons: Firstly, any piece residing in it has their tier level increased as if they had a flanking piece of the same level - it is for this reason that dragons are not allowed to enter either fortress.

The fortress can also be used to promote any piece to the next tier level if that next tier level has less than its full complement of pieces: Any tier 3 piece in the fortress is promoted to king if the king has been captured, any tier 2 piece is promoted to its corresponding tier 3 piece if the number of tier 3 pieces is less than 7, and any rabble is promoted to a tier 2 piece if the number of tier 2 pieces is less than 7. Only one promotion can occur per turn - this happens automatically when a piece is in the fortress and does not prevent the player from also making a move on that turn.

To ruin a fortress, a player must capture the enemy fortress and hold it until the beginning of their next turn. That means the other player must retake their fortress on the very next move if they wish to avoid it being ruined. If the fortress does become ruined, that player is no longer able to promote any of their pieces, and their king becomes irreplacable.

The aim of the game is to capture the enemy king, whilst your own king remains uncaptured. If the enemy king is captured after their fortress has been ruined, the king cannot be replaced and this ends the game. If the enemy king is captured before their fortress has been ruined, that player must replace the king by promoting a tier 3 piece on their very next turn, or else this also ends the game.

May the best cyvasse player win!

Acknowledgements

Credit to Zuberi who started the ASOIAF thread and came up with the initial ideas on which this game was developed, and also the people who suggested ideas along the way. Thank you and enjoy!

[LordBiscuit]

MikeL, if I give you a program that handles client requests and whatnot, can you run it?

If yes, I'll work on it after I finish the project I'm working on at the moment. (Not a big one, but I actually get paid for doing that, so it's top priority right now)

[MichaelMurphree]

I am not saying we need to put what we have to market. Obviously, we need to play test and balance it. But once we get that far, and it is a solid thing, we should consider putting this out there. I will put it this way, I am planning on doing this for iOS, and it makes no sense for us to compete, since we probably will not see much more than exposure in the game design industry-and you can bet a good game done like this will get a lot of exposure, the industry is both large and small in that regard.

[MikeL]

I'm not actually saying we need to put it to market either (by that I'm assuming you mean charge for it) I think we had a bit of a misunderstanding there. Yes I think exposure is overrated, but yeah I agree if we nail this it could mean a lot of exposure. I totally agree we should put it out there, and I think LB's more interested in having a web-based version, and you and your friend could create an iOS version. I was only saying (which I think you agree with) that the rules absolutely need to be worked out and play tested before either version gets too big. It would suck if there were multiple versions each with slightly different rule sets.

Also if we do include terrain rules as "the standard" version later on - and I think we will have to because that's the direction GRRM is going in - then both versions should should have the same set of rules (probably based on movement advantages as discussed earlier).

[MikeL]

One small thing I just noticed. During set up it's possible to put your dragon or a mountain piece on your fortress space.

[LordBiscuit]

Yeah, I know. It's the kind of "bug" that programmers ask the beta users nicely to not abuse, and fix when publishing. (Which basically means, I'm too lazy to fix this now, and I've known about it since the very beginning).

Also, I don't intend to make it run on facebook or iOS or anything until I have a product I'm happy with. That includes both rules I'm happy with and a program I'm happy with.

[zhorak]

(Sorry, but my english is not the best)

You have done well guys, but it would be awesome, if we could play against a computer controlled enemy. It's boring to fight against myself or a friend (who is here next to me) (---> i see mine/their setup)

Or, is there a way to fight against the computer?

Keep up the good work! :thumbsup:

[LordBiscuit]

When you swap the setup player it hides the other player's setup, so me and my friend just do something else while the other guy is setting up (That can take a few minutes, so we just read a book or something).

And no, there is no AI right now. Making an AI is a tough business, especially if the rules change all the time.

There might be an option to play online some time in the future, but AI isn't even planned right now.