[Adonthell-minigame] Re: Mini-game (fwd)

[Nezumi]

> That's what I had in mind.  In practical terms, clicking on a piece would
> show its strength and the movements available to it, so you wouldn't have
> to commit everything to memory.  I wonder if the type (wind, fire, etc.)
> could control the movement, while the "strength" of the item would
> determine its ability to capture and/or special effects.

Maybe we can start with a simple capture game for uses who have not advanced
to a certain level. Only once the player becomes a master wizard (or
whatever in the normalgame) can he use the defense/attack abilities of the
pieces. I am worried that the play gets lucky and finds a very strong piece
that wipes out everything else at that level. By only allowing the extra
bits at a later date, it forces the player to learn the strategy that goes
with this type game.

>
> > On the size of the board, how about controlling it?s size equal to the
> > strength of the players strongest "reagent"?
>
> That's a possibility.  I'd like to keep the game simple for beginners, but
> with the ability to scale for advanced players.  The changing board size
> is lifted from Go, but we could also add challenges like obstructed spaces
> or a non-square board.

I am rethinking. I believe it would be better to keep the board one size
only and to increase the complication of the game by adding more extras.
Game starts with simple rules and capture the other pieces. Then goes onto
involving the pieces strengths in defense and attack, next combinations
could come into it and so on.

> I'm considering a couple of interesting possibilities for the game.  For
> instance, each piece might have an attack and defense stat, whereby a
> piece might not move fast, but pack a real punch.  So if you try to take
> it with a weaker piece, it won't get taken so easily.  However, the stats
> for the piece would then go down and make it more vulnerable.

I like the idea of the pieces having their own strengths ect, but I am not
sure one should weaken the piece, too many calculations. It would be easier
that the loosing piece gets lost. Winner takes all.

>
> If we go with that, it makes a capture a battle instead of an automatic
> capture.  An addendum to this might be the ability to have an adjacent
> piece, if any, join the battle and add its stats to the attacking piece,
> at the cost of the attacker losing a turn or some other penalty.

Or maybe not strengthen the piece but add the piece to the oppositions
pieces

>
> I also wonder if starting a mailing list for this, so we can invite others
> into the conversation.  What do you think?
>

This is a good idea, up to you.