Skip to Content
 

My nameless game

9 replies [Last post]
Sun, 02/08/2004 - 22:22
Anonymous

Hi folks,

I've mentioned in passing a game my familiy invented back in the early 80's over in the "game production" forum. Although I haven't completely ruled out entering the game publishing business, the numbers aren't looking too good. But, no sense letting what might be a fun game for some people sit around rotting, so I've put the rules on the web, along with some printable boards (though it's in 4 segments, so you have to tape them together, etc. It's a bit of work.)

Anyway, here's the game: http://www.geocities.com/smcameron/game/thegame.html
Some pics of prototypes:
http://www.geocities.com/smcameron/game/prototype.html

for as long as my web hosting holds out (which might well be zero seconds . . . :)

Bit of short description here: It's a 2 player strategy game. The game is played on 2 10x10 grids, each player being able to see only his own board. Players have pieces much like chess pieces, and "asteroids", which act like mines. What makes this game different than any I've seen is that when you move a piece, you inform your opponent of only the location the piece is departing from, and not where it is is going. This makes collisions (and dodging of collions)have a sort of "time-travel" feel to them, which is quite cool. I'm sure that's not clear, maybe the rules on the website will clarify it. Usually takes playing the game a time or two to get the hang of it.

Anyway, feel free to comment on it, and print out some boards and pieces and play it if you want to.

I played this thing again with my Dad tonight, for the first time in ages. I'd forgotten what it was like. It was actually as cool as I remembered it being. :) But, I noticed using extra pieces for tracking movements is pretty much mandatory. (we just used a cupful of pennies to leave a trail of breadcrumbs to know what areas we'd already explored.)

anyway, there it is, FWIW. Enjoy.

Top
Mon, 02/09/2004 - 12:49
#1
Deviant
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
My nameless game

That is pretty interesting. The "time warped" gameplay is something I haven't seen before (FWIW; I haven't seen a lot of games). Have you entered it in any game contests yet? It could qualify as an abstract game on About.com, which ran a "shared pieces" contest last year.

Top
Mon, 02/09/2004 - 13:35
#2
Anonymous
My nameless game

I see you figured out where I got my username here. :)

No, I haven't entered the game in any contests. It doesn't even have a name. (Haven't thought of a good one, we always just called it "the game.") The post above is pretty much the first time the game has escaped the confines of my family and friends into any thing like "the public." It's a pretty cool game, but the amount of hidden information makes for perhaps a tad too much luck in the game, so it will never be a "deep thinker" type game like chess. It has its moments though. And it would work rather well over IRC, I think, though I've never tried it that way.

Top
Mon, 02/09/2004 - 14:12
#3
zaiga
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
My nameless game

Weird! But in an interesting way... It's seems a bit like a cross between Chess, Stratego, Battleship and Black Box.

I agree that the amount of hidden information make this game different than Chess, but perhaps not necessarily lighter. The resolution of collisions seems pretty complex. It seems more a kind of deduction game than an abstract strategy game, though.

Are you looking for any specific advice?

Anyway, some general observations:
The names of the different units don't make sense from a game mechanic point of view. A "W" beats a "B", but a "B" beats an "Y"? You could consider numbering them 1 to 7, higher beats lower number. That would be easier to grasp.

If you want to reduce complexity and/or game length you might consider reducing the total number of units and the size of the gameboard. I haven't played the game, of course, so this might not be a good idea. However, I am always looking for ways to make a game as short and simple as possible, without losing much of its gameplay. I would rather play 3 short and tense games than one long game, but that may be a personal thing.

The rules state that a player can have multiple units on the same square. Have you tried the game with the rule that there may not be more than one unit on the same square? Perhaps this would introduce a nice deduction aspect to the game... ("He moved his Y piece from E4. Did he go to D6 then? I thought he moved his X unit to D6... well, perhaps he moved his X piece to B4 then, after all...").

Anyway, congratulations on what seems like a fun and original game!

- René Wiersma

Top
Mon, 02/09/2004 - 14:49
#4
Anonymous
My nameless game

zaiga wrote:
Weird! But in an interesting way... It's seems a bit like a cross between Chess, Stratego, Battleship and Black Box.
That's a pretty good description. I may use that in future.
Quote:
[ . . . ]
Are you looking for any specific advice?
No, just wanting to see people's reaction to, (sort of selfish I suppose) but also not wanting the game to just go wasted if there are people who might enjoy it.

Quote:
Anyway, some general observations:
The names of the different units don't make sense from a game mechanic point of view. A "W" beats a "B", but a "B" beats an "Y"? You could consider numbering them 1 to 7, higher beats lower number. That would be easier to grasp.
Good idea, though I think they still need to be letters, as there are 2 X's, 2 Y's, and 4 Z's which need to be distinguisable during the game. (e.g. z1, z2, z3, z4, not just z z z z ). Reversing W - B, and X - Y would make the strengths alphabetic, and also X would be a drawing of the way it moves (like a bishop). Fro that matter, make W into a T, and it becomes a drawing of the way it moves (like a chess knight.).

The original names of the pieces were pretty ad hoc. This game was invented in 1982, when Star Wars was huge, so the names X-fighter, Y-fighter, etc. sort of came from that, but 22 years later, they are just generic. :)

Quote:

If you want to reduce complexity and/or game length you might consider reducing the total number of units and the size of the gameboard. I haven't played the game, of course, so this might not be a good idea. However, I am always looking for ways to make a game as short and simple as possible, without losing much of its gameplay. I would rather play 3 short and tense games than one long game, but that may be a personal thing.
Usually the games don't last very long (10-20 minutes? I haven't specifically timed it though.)
Quote:
The rules state that a player can have multiple units on the same square. Have you tried the game with the rule that there may not be more than one unit on the same square? Perhaps this would introduce a nice deduction aspect to the game... ("He moved his Y piece from E4. Did he go to D6 then? I thought he moved his X unit to D6... well, perhaps he moved his X piece to B4 then, after all...").

Anyway, congratulations on what seems like a fun and original game!

I think we tried that in the beginning, but allowed overlapping pieces because it allowed for some interesting defensive moves. (passing a Z through a W, perhaps coaxing your opponent into traveling the same road, to certain destruction, or packing all your Z's on top of eachother to reveal minimum information on launch, etc.) Not sure the game play is noticeably improved one way or the other though. Maybe I'll try it that way for awhile.

I think one potential flaw in the game is that it ends as soon as anyone smashes anything into the opponent's home planet, which can happen with a jarring suddenness. If there were more of an endgame it would probably be an improvement.

Anyway, thanks for the ideas, and the encouragement.

Top
Mon, 02/09/2004 - 19:25
#5
Anonymous
My nameless game

An intersting game. I wouldn't sell yourself short. I think that this game has some potential with some playtesting. Zaiga hit the nail on the head witht he description - it is like chess, stratego, and battleship. I think this makes it ideal for a great thinking strategy game.

I know you said you weren't looking for a lot of comments, but we can't resist.

I think the pieces should all have their own unique movement. THis helps keep them differentiated from each other, and allows the opponent to at least make some estimated guess as to the players moves. You have 2 units that move like queens. Maybe 1 could move out to 6 spaces, while the other can only move 3 spaces? This may change to dynamic of the game but could be intersting.

I would make it so that one player plays 'dark' the other 'light'. The light player would set up and use the dark pieces to track his opponent, the dark player sets up his dark pieces and use the light pieces to track his opponent. This makes the game feel more like a contest between two opposing forces.

You mentioned using tokens to track the opponents moves - one thing you might consider is using a laminated board. You could then use viz a viz markers or grease pencils to track your opponent as he moves. At the end you would create an interesting piece of art!

Just my two pence, but this looks like a fun game to play.
- Geoff

Top
Mon, 02/09/2004 - 21:56
#6
Anonymous
My nameless game

paleogeoff wrote:
[ . . . ] I know you said you weren't looking for a lot of comments, but we can't resist.
I never said that, did I? I said I wasn't looking for any specific advice. but by all means, I'm interested in hearing what people think, that is, any and all advice or comments you want to make. :)
Quote:
I think the pieces should all have their own unique movement. THis helps keep them differentiated from each other, and allows the opponent to at least make some estimated guess as to the players moves. You have 2 units that move like queens. Maybe 1 could move out to 6 spaces, while the other can only move 3 spaces? This may change to dynamic of the game but could be intersting.
I can see why you'd say this, several people have asked me what's the difference between those 2 pieces. I can give you the rationale, which is that you have 4 very weak but very mobile scouts, (Z's) which are modelled on chess pawns, really, not in the way they move, but in their function, they are "expendable." The "B", is meant to be more like a chess queen, powerful and unique, and thus valuable, and not expendable. In reality, since it is in some sense a "blind" queen, it probably loses some of its value, and becomes somewhat of "just another piece." Typical gameplay involves, initially lots of sending out Zs, while stronger pieces maintain defense, until all the Z's are used up, then the bigger guns are forced to come out. I think changing the way the Z's move isn't good, since they are the primary explorers. And I think having one very mobile very powerful piece is good too. So that would mean changing the way the "B" moves, probably. But change it how? Limitiing the number of squares might be one way. It's probably worth trying out to see how it works out. Or, maybe just explain better in the rules what the difference is, or make clear (maybe just via artwork, big hulking ship for B, small fleet scout for Z, never mind that they move the same.)
Quote:
I would make it so that one player plays 'dark' the other 'light'. The light player would set up and use the dark pieces to track his opponent, the dark player sets up his dark pieces and use the light pieces to track his opponent. This makes the game feel more like a contest between two opposing forces.
Although you don't really get to see the other player's board, and you won't really know what colors they use. I wrote the rules the way I did for economy of words, I guess. I could add a sentence: "Actually, each player may use either set of peices for either role." The only piece unique to the player's pieces is the Home Planet, which really needn't be light or dark

Quote:
You mentioned using tokens to track the opponents moves - one thing you might consider is using a laminated board. You could then use viz a viz markers.
Hmm. That's an interesting idea!

Regarding improving the endgame, one idea I had was, instead of having just one home planet, each player might have two or three "bases". That way, there wouldn't be that sudden jarring end of the game as occasionally happens now, when you luck out and just stumble onto the opponent's home planet early in the game, but instead there'd be a kind of countdown: I have 3 bases, oops, now only 2 bases, down to my last base. Ok, now the game's done. I'll have to try it that way. It may throw things off so that you start running out of pieces before the game ends though.

Thanks, everyone, for taking the time to look my little game over.
-- steve

Top
Tue, 02/10/2004 - 18:36
#7
Anonymous
My nameless game

TimeWarp wrote:
Regarding improving the endgame, one idea I had was, instead of having just one home planet, each player might have two or three "bases". That way, there wouldn't be that sudden jarring end of the game as occasionally happens now, when you luck out and just stumble onto the opponent's home planet early in the game

I think this idea is good, but keep the theme of the home planet. Maybe you have the home planet and 2 colony worlds, or maybe moons. You could even have a rule similar to the rook/king switch in chess so that if your home planet gets hit early in the game you can move your capital to one of the colonies, allowing you to stay in the game.

Again, just my two pence. I'd like to try and find somebody to play this with, it seems like such a cool game idea. Thanks for sharing it with us.

- Geoff

Top
Tue, 02/10/2004 - 20:22
#8
Deviant
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
My nameless game

Instead of a homeworld, you could have a mothership. Basically this would act as a mobile homeworld, that you could move away from danger (or into it, if you're daring enough). The only problem I see with this is that even if you're keeping track of the area you've explored, the mothership could be camping out in explored space.

To counteract this effect, there could be a "probe" unit, that allows you to "ping" a region of space for intruders. Instead of moving a unit you would call out something like "Pinging d6, 3 spaces" and your opponent must tell you how many units lie 3 spaces away from d6. The probe can ping its own square, or any adjacent square, so you don't have to give its precise location away to the enemy. Come to think of it, the asteroids could be probes.

Just a weird idea I had. Maybe it adds too much to an already streamlined game, I don't know.

Top
Tue, 02/10/2004 - 21:22
#9
Anonymous
My nameless game

paleogeoff wrote:
TimeWarp wrote:
Regarding improving the endgame, one idea I had was, instead of having just one home planet, each player might have two or three "bases". That way, there wouldn't be that sudden jarring end of the game as occasionally happens now, when you luck out and just stumble onto the opponent's home planet early in the game

I think this idea is good, but keep the theme of the home planet. Maybe you have the home planet and 2 colony worlds, or maybe moons. You could even have a rule similar to the rook/king switch in chess so that if your home planet gets hit early in the game you can move your capital to one of the colonies, allowing you to stay in the game. Hmm. I agree, it's desirable to have a single "home planet" which is somehow unique and special, but if I add these "moons" and you need to get all 3 to win the game, the HP and the moons are essentially equivalent. I'm not sure how to differentiate them, or in other words, what's special about the HP? Hmm. Maybe you have to get the moons first, in order to disable the force sheild around the HP, and only then can you get the HP. Seems a bit complicated though. Introducing extra HPs might solve the problem of the sudden ending, but these other things seem just sort of cosmetic, and unnecessary. I'll have to think on it a bit more.

Quote:

Again, just my two pence. I'd like to try and find somebody to play this with, it seems like such a cool game idea. Thanks for sharing it with us.
Well, it should be perfectly suited to playing by internet chat since each player has his own complete board and is forbidden from seeing the other player's board anyhow, and moves must be communicated, e.g. "X1 departing from E5", etc. Maybe if I figure out how to use IRC . . . or there's a java applet based chat right here on this board (though it appears there are only 3 chat rooms with specific purposes in mind, none of which seems to be for playing games. Set a time and a "place", and we can have at it. Evenings, CST are best for me. :)

-- steve

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut