 hile it did not garner
as many entries as last year's competition, the Unequal Forces Game Design Competition still attracted over
40 entrants. Perhaps the smaller number of games was due to the difficulty of designing games that offer fairly
even winning chances for the two players. Beforehand we had been concerned that we might just get a collection
of Fox and Geese variants. This was not the case. Although some of the entries did investigate the Fox and Geese
theme—a number of them with considerable originality, it should be emphasized—all of the established genres of abstract games were represented by games of "unequal forces." There were unequal forces chess variants, checkers variants, a connection game, some attainment games, and even a mancala game. A number of them were simply unclassifiable.
One of the competition judges made the very good point that when you have unequal forces in a strategy game one side must theoretically start with an advantage, and that all of these games are perhaps best played in pairs, the players taking different sides, with some accounting system to determine the winner. This is a good idea, but I see no reason why an unequal forces game
can not theoretically be drawn with best play on both sides. In this respect, these games are no different
from games in which there is a symmetrical starting position. For that matter, unless there is simultaneous
movement, no abstract game is completely balanced because one player must move first—the starting position for the second player must of necessity be different from that of the first player.
In most cases, of course, the imbalance caused by the first move is quite small, but in some games, notably Gomoku, the first move is a crushing advantage. Japanese players decided Gomoku was worth saving, and over a period of several decades gradually introduced a series of modifications to balance the game, eventually creating modern Renju—essentially, a game of unequal forces!
Because of the large asymmetry in games in which the players start off with different armies, different objectives, and so on, a balance of winning chances between the players is clearly much more difficult to attain. It is obvious from many of the competition games that their creators must have struggled with this reality, some of them more successfully than others.
Nevertheless, I believe it is worth persevering
with these games for the very good reason that radically different strategies and tactics may be required of the
two players in a single game of unequal forces—the interplay of the different strategies can provide a fascinating gaming experience that is more difficult to attain in games that are ostensibly symmetrical.
The first game below, Defiance and Domain, illustrates this point perfectly. I urge you to try it!
The second game, Por'rika, is a good illustration of an original approach to the Fox and Geese concept.
Lastly, Takat is one of those unclassifiable games I mentioned. It initially attracted me because of the
minimalism of the playing surface. I have played it a number of times, but I have yet to formulate a coherent strategy.
Within the constraints of a busy life and 40 or so games to evaluate, we have playtested these three games as much as possible. I think they are fairly well balanced, but a more extensive investigation may prove the opposite. If so, perhaps the rules may be adjusted, or a scoring system may be utilized, as recommended above. Like the case of Renju, it is worth a little work to preserve an excellent game concept!
It should also be noted that in none of the three games do the rules yet provide for the possibility of draws. Payers should use their own discretion if repeating or stalemated positions occur.
The actual winners of the competition will be announced in the next issue. One of the games in this issue might win, or not-there were many good entrants.
Defiance and Domain
Defiance and Domain was invented by Arin Sandhop. It is a game for two players, who play the Imperium and
the Rebels, respectively. The game is played over a 10x10 board divided into quarters.
Each quarter is known as a domain. Other equipment consists of two Imperial Commands, one Rebel
Command and at least 40 Force Counters for each side. The Force Counters should be marked in some
way so that it is obvious which way they are pointing. The inventor recommends using two black rooks
for the Imperial Commands, a white knight for the Rebel Command, and checkers for the Force Counters,
with directions indicated by the crowns on the checkers. I found that poker chips with a pointed spade
symbol embossed on them were particularly convenient to use as Force Counters. The initial position is
shown in the diagram below.
Note that the Commands occupy the points where the lines intersect rather than the squares themselves, so for the Commands the board may be regarded as an 11x11 array of points. The Force Counters, on the other hand, must be placed within the squares, and must be oriented in a specific direction.
The objective of the Imperium is to capture the
Rebel Command with one of the Imperial Commands by moving an Imperial Command onto the same point as
the Rebel Command. The objective of the Rebel player is to control key points in each of the four domains.
A key point is one of the central 4x4 array of points in the domain. The Rebel player controls a key point
if Rebel Force Counters occupy all four squares around the key point. As soon as either player reaches his
objective, he has won.
The players take turns to move. The Rebel
moves first. Each turn consists of two parts. First, a player places or reorientates a Force Counter; then the player may move a Command. The Force Counter move is compulsory; the command move is optional.
Place or reorientate a Force Counter:
A player places one of his Force Counters on any vacant square on the board except a dead zone—see below. The Force Counter placed must be oriented to face toward either one of the sides of the square or one of the corners of the square it occupies. Instead of placing a new Force Counter on the board a player may choose to reorientate one of his force counters already on the board, in which case it is simply turned to face in the new direction. A player must perform one of these actions in a turn, but not both.
Move a Command:
The Imperial Commands move one space horizontally or vertically along the lines of the board. Diagonal moves are not permitted. The two Imperial Commands may not occupy the same point, but may move onto a point occupied by the Rebel command. In the latter case the Rebel Command is captured and the game is over. An Imperial command may not move onto a point controlled by the Rebel player except to capture the Rebel Command. The Imperial Command is allowed to move to a point surrounded by four Rebel Force Counters provided this point is on the edge of a domain and is not a key point. The Imperial player chooses just one of his Commands to move in a turn, and may not move both.
The Rebel Command moves one space horizontally or vertically along the lines of the board, or may instead move one space diagonally. The Rebel command may not move onto a point occupied by an Imperial Command. The Rebel Command may not move from one point to another horizontally or vertically between two squares occupied by Imperial Force Counters; neither may the Rebel Command move horizontally or vertically between an Imperial Force Counter and the edge of the board. The Rebel Command may move diagonally over a friendly Force Counter or between two diagonally-adjacent Imperial Force Counters. However, the Rebel Command may not move diagonally over an Imperial Force Counter.
Capture of Force Counters and Dead Zones:
If a situation occurs in which a Force Counter is flanked on both sides by enemy Force Counters such
that the enemy Force Counters are both oriented to point towards it, then the attacked Force Counter is
immediately captured and removed from the board. Usually such alignments of the three Force Counters must
be horizontal or vertical, and can straddle domain boundaries. However, if an attacking player's Command is
occupying a key point of a domain (and not just on a border point), then such captures can also occur diagonally
within that domain. Diagonal captures cannot occur across domain boundaries—all three Force Counters must be in
the same domain. Diagonal captures can occur retroactively, so that when a Command is moved into a domain any
appropriate diagonal captures are made immediately. A player can make a diagonal capture even if the opposing
player also has a command in that domain. Captured Force Counters are returned to the player they belong too
rather than being permanently removed from the game.
After a capture, and as long as the two attacking
Force Counters remain oriented towards the square between them, the square between the attacking Force Counters
is a dead zone. Force Counters belonging to the other player cannot be placed there. Dead zones can be created without a capture, as soon as two Force Counters belonging to the same player are positioned flanking a square and both are oriented towards the square. Diagonal dead zones are created and remain so only as long as the player's Command remains on a key point in the domain. The rules concerning capture of Force Counters and dead zones are exactly the same for both players.
Variant
The rules as given above are the inventor's original rules. However, in playtesting we have frequently used the rule
that, for both players, it is compulsory to move a Command each turn. This rule appears to benefit the Imperium,
and may be used to balance the game more finely. We also assumed that a Rebel Command hemmed in by Imperial Force
Counters and unable to move simply missed a turn. Some players may wish to count this as a loss for the Rebel
player—again, the correct choice will depend on the exact balance of play determined after more extensive playtesting.
Por'rika
Por'rika is a two-player game. On a far planet there is an amphibious alien race called the Schelati.
Since time immemorial, the Schelati have laid their eggs in the Sacred Waters, or por'rika in their strange
trilling language. The Sacred Waters are located in the prime hunting territory of the Ser'ra, large birds
of prey which are the Schelati's only natural enemy. The periodic struggle of life and death this necessitates
has been represented by the Schelati in this game they devised, and which was brought to us by Terry Alber.
The diagram below shows the Por'rika board.
The shaded triangles at the pointed end of the board represent the Sacred Waters. The Ser'ra have four pieces. They are initially placed on the four marked triangles at the pointed end of the board. The Schelati have six pieces, two of which should be distinguished in some way as Egg Carriers. The other four are Guardians. The six Schelati pieces are placed on six of the marked triangles at the wide end of the board in any way that the Schelati player chooses.
The Scelati move first. The players take turns to move. The objective of the Schelati is to move both of
their Egg Carriers into the Sacred Waters at the opposite end of the board. The objective of the Ser'ra is to immobilize just one of the Egg Carriers.
All pieces move in exactly the same way. Each move consists of two parts. First the piece is moved to the opposite triangle of the square in which the piece starts its move. Then the piece is moved to one of the triangles that touch this triangle at a corner, but not at a side. Both the first triangle it is moved to and the final destination triangle must be vacant.
If the first triangle across the square from a piece is occupied, it cannot move. In fact, neither piece can move: they are "locked in mortal combat." This immobilization is the equivalent of capture.
Obviously, if the Schelati can immobilize all four opposing Ser'ra with Guardians, the Egg Carriers can romp home unopposed. The strategy of the Ser'ra, therefore, is to dodge around avoiding immobilization as far as possible until they get a shot at an Egg Carrier.
Further playtesting may indicate that the game favors the Schelati. In this case, I suggest a scoring system whereby the Schelati player scores one point for every Ser'ra remaining free at the end. A Ser'ra win can be counted as five points.
Takat
Takat, another two-player game, was devised by William Wragg. The Takat board is shown below. The shaded hexes are red. There are six white pieces and 15 black pieces. They should be flat and easily stackable and fit comfortably within the hexes of the board. One player takes the white pieces, the other the black. White makes the first move.
White's objective is to create a stack six pieces high. It does not matter what mix of black and white pieces goes into making the stack. White still wins even if the six-high stack is created during Black's turn. Black's objective is to immobilize White. In other words, if on White's turn White does not have a legal move, then Black wins. Although it is an unlikely circumstance, White also wins by immobilizing Black in the same way.
Each turn a player enters a piece of his color
onto the board or moves a piece of either color that is already on the board. A piece is entered onto the
board by placing it in any empty space except the central hex. Black must not have fewer pieces on the board than White. If this is the case then Black, on his turn, must enter a piece. If Black is unable to enter a piece in this circumstance, then he may move a piece already on the board instead.
As stated, when a player moves a piece already
on the board, he may move a piece of either color. However, only the top piece of a stack can be moved. Also,
a piece's movement may be limited if it is a safe piece—see below.
A piece may be moved from one stack to another stack on an adjacent hex provided the target stack is not more than one piece higher than the starting stack at the beginning of the turn. Thus a piece maybe moved from the top of a stack that is three high to the top of a stack that is four high (or lower), but not to the top of a stack that is five high. Pieces can always move down to lower stacks, of course.
There are two kinds of safe pieces.
Any two pieces of the same color that are stacked directly on top of one another are temporarily safe. The
top piece may only be moved by the player whose color it is. Three pieces of the same color stacked directly
on top of one another over a red hex are permanently safe. The top piece can never be moved by either player.
There is no restriction on stacking other pieces on top of safe pieces.
Lastly, two stacks that are four or more pieces high and that have the same color safe piece on top cannot be adjacent to each other. Any move that would result in such a position is illegal.
Corrections
Defiance and Domain: It was stated that diagonal captures can occur within a domain if a player's Command is on a key point in the domain. Actually, diagonal captures can occur if the Command is on any point of the domain except a border point between two domains (i.e. including edge points of the board within the domain). Also, the inventor wishes to emphasize his intention that a Rebel player unable to move his Command simply skips the Command movement part of the turn rather than immediately losing the game.
Takat: A player cannot move a piece just moved or entered by the opponent.
|
