Wednesday, August 02, 2006

It's harder than I thought.

A two-person, four-vs-four game is fairly simple. Move the pieces around until you get lulled into a sense of complacency and thus make a mistake. Bam, you lose.

A three-person, four-vs-four-vs-four game is a bit more interesting. Since the players are on the attack and defense at the same time, I found myself teaming up the attacks together against all three defenses. Does that make sense? Green and red attack blue together; green and blue attack red together; red and blue attack green together. I'm not sure there's even another option, if you want to win.

I haven't made the rest of the pieces yet, or the landscape. It's still fun enough without.

Here's the board I made (with the lunchtime version beyond):

Wanna play?


Anonymous said...

Play? Not if *you* find it mentally challenging. I only play games *I* can win.

Sotosoroto said...

Oh, come on. After three games, you'd never lose!

Sotosoroto said...

I made landscape pieces (a lake (cannot cross), some fields (double speed), some cliffs & ravines (one-way only)). I played a 4v4v4 game last night and it took two hours. The side with the lake seems to have an advantage.

Pedicularis said...

Can you add a few more rules to similate the mess in the Middle East? Have the Iranians provide support to the Syrians, and the Syrians to the Hezbos, and have the U.S. provide support to the Israelis and Iraqis, and let the Saudis and Turks have wild cards? You might need to add a few team colors.