Complete Cyvasse Rules

[MikeL]

Made the edits and thanks.

[dylanrw]

I see in your rules that what we call "Missle" pieces can capture without moving.

I'm curious, how do you avoid the stalemate state of "Whatever moves past here gets shot down by a trebuchet". When I had ranged pieces not move on capture, me and my friend got to a divided board where nobody can move out of their territory.

We threw that rule out of the window after the first or second game.

In warfare stalemates can exist but the war must continue, the true test of a commander comes when he can see them coming or respond with the sacrifice that wins in the long run. Even in chess/checkers this occurs.

Hi Dylan,

Don't know if you waded through all the posts in this thread, but you might have noticed we found your site a few pages back. Good work yourself :)

Thanks!

I had originally thought it would be a square board too, but when I saw Zuberi's ideas about flanking (which only really work with a hex board) that won me over as a convert.

When I was working out this ruleset I prioritized the following:

1. Following the book as close as possible, right down what sort of pieces make up the board due to how the board moved when they were on a ship.
   
2. Take what I know about art history/old games/anthropology and fill in the gaps in the canon, ie: what is a game that would probably come to exist/survive in a medieval world.
   
3. Mimic medieval battle tactics as well as possible without excessive rules
   

I will say that I never enjoyed chess due to how it doesn't really mimic true battle tactics. But I respect it's depth and surface level simplicity. After looking at humanity's game history, I am convinced that if an old game were to exist in GRRM's world it would have the same depth/simplicity as chess.

#2 informed my decision on the board and game pieces, you must keep the hardware simple and easy to make, cities could easily be able to have the tables out in public. #2 also informed my ruleset, pieces move a certain distance, are not limited to patterns (unlike chess), and some cannot go certain places. I tried to keep extra rules (ie: the catapault can attack in a 2 block radius. The catapult is capable of killing dragons.) to a minimum but players do not often have a problem most likely remembering the small additional rules because they mimic the real life counterparts (this would in turn make it easier to learn than chess because last i checked bishops don't run around in diagonal lines lol), and unit strength is indicative of strength/quality/price which again mimics the reality.

In the end, the ranking, followed by sensible unit behaviors allows for significant depth of play and does not break canon. I'm pretty happy with it. :D

I tend to agree with what LB has said about the ranged pieces in your version, but I like what you've done with the terrain tiles - our plan is to include those once we've got this first stage worked out.

Thanks! I wish I could make a real Cyvasse board, it would be gorgeous.

Speaking for myself, my aim all the way through this has been to make it as simple as it possibly can be, and one of my criticisms of your rule set is that if you've got to remember which pieces can or cannot move/attack from which tiles that's an awful lot of combinations to remember and I think less likely to catch on. I think our ideas about flanking, the rock scissors paper dynamic, and the game winning conditions will be quite elegant, and judging by the reaction of MichaelMurphee and others, quite worth making. If you can find LB's link from a few pages back, I'd be interested to hear your ideas after you play his version of the game: it's already quite good.

I will dig back in the thread and hunt down those rules. I'm interested in seeing what you have figured out re flanking, as I viewed that as something that happened just by virtue of the piece's move count (horses can flank often due to their significant move distance).

[dylanrw]

In warfare stalemates can exist but the war must continue, the true test of a commander comes when he can see them coming or respond with the sacrifice that wins in the long run. Even in chess/checkers this occurs.

To this effect I will also say that typically if a trebuchet is blocking a pass I have to stack up a few units and unless they are cavalry, sacrifice one to break through.

[MikeL]

I was just reading aDwD again (I've discovered the list of quotes I put down in post #72 does not have accurate page numbers - at least not by my editions of the books). In Tyrion's game with Haldon (DwD p219-220 my edition), it mentions that it's about 3 hours when Tyrion finally gets up. I interpret that to meant that an evenly matched game can take as long as 3 hours (very much equal to chess).

In Tyrion's game with young Griff (DwD p324-328), he mentions at the end that Griff's dragon is "too far away to save you", so I think we've got it right having the dragon as a ranged piece, not something that can cross the entire board like a chess queen.

Qavo's game with "the big man" (p333-334) had the bit about onyx and alabaster armies, but also that "A flurry of quick moves followed, until finally the thin man (Qavo) smiled and said "Death, my friend". My interpretation: the King's death is clearly the final win condition, and the fortress can be ruined or not.

Also in Qavo's game with Tyrion (p334-336) it seems that once Tyrion's dragon was removed from the board "the rest was slaughter, though the dwarf held on another dozen moves" before losing. I think we've got the power balance right in not having the Dragon be so much more powerful than the rest of the pieces,

I quite like the strategic implications of dragons not being able to enter the fortress: if you were worried about your king being taken by the opposing dragon, you could keep it safe in the fortress, but that then leaves the fortress more vulnerable to attack by tier 3 pieces.

In warfare stalemates can exist but the war must continue, the true test of a commander comes when he can see them coming or respond with the sacrifice that wins in the long run. Even in chess/checkers this occurs.

All true, but I think what LB meant was that if the rules of the game lead to every single game starting with a stalemate and someone having to lose pieces in order to make the first attack, it will not be an enjoyable game to play. If you get into a stalemate that's one thing, but starting a game with one is no fun and I think that's inevitable if you have pieces that can attack without moving.

For this reason LB I've been thinking about the fact that most our games will start off with multiple possible captures being possible immediately after the curtain is lifted, because the front rows of pieces are so close together. Maybe we should have the "no-mans land" be wider than just one row? (would probably mean going to 8-a-side though).

When I was working out this ruleset I prioritized the following:

1. Following the book as close as possible, right down what sort of pieces make up the board due to how the board moved when they were on a ship.
   

Can you explain what you mean by this? I'm not sure which quote you're referring to. We know from Tyrion's game with Griff that "They played on deck, sitting cross-legged behind the cabin" but that when he lost, "Young Griff jerked to his feet and kicked over the board" like as if the set is a low table rather than just a board. I'm also not convinced that GRRM didn't mean the same piece when he's referred to Trebuchets and Catapaults in different games.

Thanks! I wish I could make a real Cyvasse board, it would be gorgeous.

Me too!

[LordBiscuit]

Right now, the beginning of a game is a bloodbath and is dominated by tier 2 RPS positioning and tier 3 defensive positions (Nobody wants to lose an elephant to an archer just because of luck).

I have a problem with further increasing the board size. In Chess, you position the Rocks in the corners so they can only come into play during mid-game. I'd like something like that to happen in Cyvasse as well. So yes, you have to put your T3 pieces back during setup to avoid capture from T2, but if the board was larger you could just put them back without blocking them.

[MikeL]

Fair enough about not increasing the board size. I do think that if we allow it to stay this way however, no game is ever going to come close to lasting 3 hours. The reason the beginning of a chess game isn't a bloodbath is 1) because of the distance between the sides and 2) because the pawns are in front.

We know that it's possible to position "Dragon, Elephants and Heavy Horse up front", so we know that the rabble aren't always going to be in front like chess, but I do think the rabble positioning has to be a part of the solution to this. We can't just let players position them around their fortress ready for promotion as it makes it too easy. It's actually really hard to get a pawn promoted in chess, and I don't think it should be so much easier here. It's also not really helpful to think of them as "commons" or "farmers" in my opinion: they should be considered a military unit, just a weak one.

What if we require during set up that every rabble piece must be placed in the row closest to the curtain (i.e. all the rabble will be in the two rows either side of the middle row)? That row is 12 wide and there are 7 rabble. That way, a player could choose to make that row full of rabble, mountains and/or some other pieces, but short of putting the fortress in the row immediately behind that, it will be quite hard to promote rabble - you would only do it if you were desperate. This would also mean that most ranged pieces would be at least 3 away from the other side at the start.

Perhaps you could make the rabble (and King) move like someone suggested earlier in the thread, have tier 1 pieces move one hex orthogonally, but have a range of two if moving into their home fortress.

[MikeL]

Also you wouldn't have to increase the board size if the no-mans land was 3 rows wide. In which case I'd suggest all rabble should still be in the first row on either side of the no-mans land (which is 11 wide).

[mmmmmm]

This looks amazing! I would love to play except I can't use the PM system. I can do some graphics for the game if needed, I have some time for some bits of 2d art. Contact me if you want at [email protected]

[el_spatula]

So, I've been reading this last night after searching for rules of Cyvasse. This thread turned out to be the most promising project, so I kept reading and reading. The pages kept coming, and I spend about 2:30 hours here!

First of all: Congratulations, this is a big job! You had many good ideas, and the programming thing is awesome, too!

I see that the last reply is some days ago, I hope this is not dying out. I would really like to add to this project, as I have always wanted to play Cyvasse since it was first mentioned in the book.

Here are my thoughts:

Positives: I really appreciate this tier system, it's neat and simple and not too much of attack and defense things. Also, it categorizes the figures in quite a nice way.

I truely love the idea of flanking, though I didn't exactly understand how it is meant by now, due to complete information overload.

Negatives: As Cyvasse is something between chess and those other two strategy games, I think it should be kept as simple as possible. My impression is, that you overexaggerated the thing with promotion. To promote someone to be king out of a high tier sounds great, but other promotions are too much. It would propably better if there were some Rabble functions like getting promoted when you reach the opponent's fortress (like in chess and already mentioned earlier in this thread). As a consequence, although I really like the Rock-Paper-Scissor dynamics, I would kick that out, too. It's a nice idea, but I think it's a bit too much "detail". Think of it this way: I think the game should be a "short time to learn, life time to master"-thing as MikeL called it. I haven't played your version (by the way, if I maybe could get the program, I would be really happy), but I think without those things, it's just a bit more tactical "from scratch" (I hope you understand)!

Other thoughts: I did not pay a lot attention to the environment development, for it is in an early stadium. But I would really stick with the books here and maybe add a little bit to it, say Mountains and Hills plus Rivers. It might be better if terrain does not have too much effects, it would just get too complicated too fast.

Hope I was able to contribute some thoughts,

Yours sincerely

the guy who posted this

[LordBiscuit]

To be honest, the thread dying is kind of my fault. I have too much going on right now to also program a server (Though I guess I can make something simpler than I originally wanted). Without a server, you can only play hot-seat or using a chat to send each other the moves you made (The program gives you a short string to send and when the opponent pastes it the program knows what to do with that).

You can get the program from a link I posted like 2 or 3 pages ago. All the files you need are there. If you encounter any bugs, report them here.

Edit: As for flanking rules, post #139 is up to date with the rules. Here's what it says:

There is also a +1 improvement to a piece's tier level when it has a flanking piece in attack. To qualify as a flanking piece, this piece must 1) also be able to move into the space occupied by the target piece, and 2) be either of the same tier level as the attacking piece, have the same rock, scissors, paper power as the attacking piece, or be the king of the attacking piece. The king is special in being able to serve as a flanking bonus for all other pieces. By contrast, the dragon does not act as a flanking piece for any other piece.

[el_spatula]

Ah, I see! Thank you.

So, what do you think about simplifying the game a bit?

[Dornish Whine]

*ahem* Google Heroscape ... awesome if you can find it. Very nearly cyvasse in alot of ways.

[LordBiscuit]

Ah, I see! Thank you.

So, what do you think about simplifying the game a bit?

Play it a few times, get used to it. It's not as complicated as it sounds.

Chess sounds complicated before you play it too. (The knight moves HOW, again? And what is that thing you do with your king and rock?)

[el_spatula]

So I just tried it out, and I think it works.

As I said, I couldn't tell very good, but now I start to understand. The dynamics is simple enough, I bet ;)

Maybe the trebuchet with it's range is a little too weak against the dragon.

[LordBiscuit]

The trebuchet is not weak. In fact, it is the strongest tier 3 piece and I always get 3 of them at the beginning of a game.

The friend I play with does this too, and his most beautiful victory was capturing my king with a trebuchet over a mountain range that protected me from anything else.

[el_spatula]

You played it more often than I did, so you may have a point :)

I especially meant the dragon in comparison to the trebuchet. It seems a bit ... unfair?

[MikeL]

Wow el_spatula, well done for reading the whole thing. I'll admit I've been lying low as well, since I knew LB was busy and it would probably take a while to set up server side things anyway.

If anyone wants to start a game with me in the meantime, message me on twitter or skype (mike_lepage in both places). It will be a slower game than hot seat, but I do want to see if some of the strategies I have in mind work.

The game isn't exactly simple, but the learning curve isn't too bad at the moment. I am still keen on defusing the blood bath that happens at the beginning of every game. This is one of the biggest issues with my enjoyment of the game as it stands. I think that means increasing the "no mans land" to 3 rows, and/or forcing both players to put their rabble on the front row to begin with. Maybe there's a better way to do it, but I think one way or another we have to reduce the number of capture moves possible on move #1.

[The Shadowbinder]

I totally support this idea. I'm a pretty awesome graphic designer and a fair programer, I'd love to help make a digital or Java based version of this.

Maybe someone has alreaday mentioned this idea but...

What if instead of having a set number of peices of any given class, players could vary the number and composition of their forces? Of course things like one dragon would be needed, but if you could change the number of crossbowmen or spearmen and gave them advantages and weaknesses to counter different types it could add a ton of dynamic to the gameplay - assuming it was all balanced correctly. Then not only is the arrangement of the enemy peices a supprise but the type of army fielded would be too, and different combonations could be used for different strategies and counters.

[el_spatula]

What if instead of having a set number of peices of any given class, players could vary the number and composition of their forces?

You already have that rule!

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).

@MikeL Thanks, it was some work :D

I will contact you on Skype, so I can play some rounds. That would be a great improvement to clicking around on the board stupidly for myself!

[el_spatula]

So I realised I can't capture an Elephant with four surrounding Rabbles ... shouldn't that be possible? (Flanking)

Or is the reason that Rabbles miss SPR-dynamics?