Game: Battle for Hill 218, The

Thread: Re: You Have No Excuse Not To Own This

cbs42 — 2008-12-02T17:02:46+00:00

In hindsight, having an insanely difficult computer opponent demo was what pushed me to buy the game. After about 10 games I *still* haven't beaten the bastard, but it proved to me beyond doubt that there's a lot of strategic depth to the game. When I get my arse handed to me 10 times in a row, it's clearly not just a matter of lucky draws for my opponent.

Had the computer opponent been easy, and I split the games with him, then I might have had more fun at the time but might also have concluded that there's not much strategy potential to the game. I think it would have greatly reduced the chance of my purchase.

Thread: Re: Two-Deck Variants

cbs42 — 2008-12-02T15:49:54+00:00

In theory, you could accomodate any number of players with this variant. Just put each new hill two spaces from the last one. Using 3 decks, you could have a 6-player game. I don't think you would want to push it much past 6-player at the most though, because downtime would start to become a major issue.

I think the turn order would have to pair-off on a given hill, so that both sides of a given hill go before the next hill in the line goes. It would be abusive and imbalancing if an entire side went before the other side. They would just all play their cards onto one hill and get a guaranteed win on that hill on the first or second turn.

Thread: Re: Two-Deck Variants

avyssaleos — 2008-12-02T09:41:18+00:00

It sounds like a very interesting idea and I am already thinking of buying a second copy of the game to try it out.

What I liked the most was the last option. Have two separate hills (preferably with two spaces between them) and battle for control over both of them. Some things I would suggest:

- You can track support from both of the hills, you are not limited to one per player (so I can use my cards to help my co-player with "his" cliff).

- If you manage to capture one of the two hills then you can use both sides of it for supply, giving you a big advantage and making it easier to capture the other one too. However, if the opponent manages to capture it again then he can start using it again. Not only that, but he may also get to capture a different side than the one he started with. This way the conflict becomes very interesting (and there can be games when one team ends controlling one hill from both sides with the other team controlling the second hill).

Had I two copies of the game I would try it out immediately! Very good idea!

Thread: Re: You Have No Excuse Not To Own This

cbs42 — 2008-12-02T04:22:18+00:00

What an outstanding review.

Since reading it yesterday I've played the game several times online (against the vicious 'Hard' opponent), and I now have two decks on order. It's gems like this inexpensive cool little game that keep my inner-gamer happy.

Thread: Re: Two-Deck Variants

cbs42 — 2008-12-02T04:04:45+00:00

I was also thinking that two separated Hills would result in the most interesting play. As an un-playtested estimate, how do you think Airstrikes would best work out: two per side, or all four per side?

Also, do you think that one base occupation should win in this scenario, or two?

I'm obviously not looking for "official" answers here -- just your gut feel as an experienced player on which option might hold the most interesting gameplay.

Thanks in advance for any input!

Thread: Re: You Have No Excuse Not To Own This

Darth Headbutt — 2008-12-02T02:04:44+00:00

Tichu was simply the direction my whim was pointing.

Thread: Re: Two-Deck Variants

Chad_Ellis — 2008-12-01T22:23:01+00:00

cbs42 wrote:
1) 1 Hill: This would be like the normal game, but each player would have twice the units in their personal decks.

Since something like 80% or more of games played at a high level end with occupying the enemy base, the only real difference I see here is that it will be harder to estimate your opponent's hand based on played units. I could definitely see it as a nice variant for people a bit earlier on the learning curve, where more games are won based on units remaining.

2) 2 Adjacent Hills: Put the two Hill cards right next to each other. There is a Base spot behind each hill, meaning that each player controls two Base spots. Supply can be drawn from either spot. Winning by Base occupation would require occupying both enemy Base positions at the same time.

Both bases at once seems like a big challenge, if you're using the normal rules. You typically take a base by emptying it with one play and then occupying it with the other. Unless you're able to occupy with a Tank, this probably means that you've taken one base with a unit that is already facing enemy support fire, making it relatively likely that you'll get expelled. It might need some tweaking, or perhaps your idea of making it a 4-player variant would work.

3) 2 Separated Hills: The same rules as the "2 Adjacent Hills" variant above, but the Hills start with some fixed distance of empty spaces between them. Again, supply can be drawn from either Base, and winning by occupation requires occupying both Bases.

This seems like it could be really cool. Maybe two spaces between the hills, so fighting from one would spill over into fighting for the other.

Thread: Two-Deck Variants

cbs42 — 2008-12-01T21:53:42+00:00

Has anyone tried using two decks? I see a few possible scenarios. In each case, I don't know how Airstrikes would best work. You might have to make an adjustment and still only allow 2 Airstrikes each, or maybe using all 4 Airstrikes each would make for a fine game too.

In any case, here are the main variants I see:

1) 1 Hill: This would be like the normal game, but each player would have twice the units in their personal decks.

2) 2 Adjacent Hills: Put the two Hill cards right next to each other. There is a Base spot behind each hill, meaning that each player controls two Base spots. Supply can be drawn from either spot. Winning by Base occupation would require occupying both enemy Base positions at the same time.

3) 2 Separated Hills: The same rules as the "2 Adjacent Hills" variant above, but the Hills start with some fixed distance of empty spaces between them. Again, supply can be drawn from either Base, and winning by occupation requires occupying both Bases.

As another option for variants 2 and 3 above, you could require that only 1 enemy base is needed for an occupation victory. In the normal game, very few games result in a Base occupation victory between experienced players. Reducing the requirement to 1 Base might allow for some "surprise" surges at the end to snag an unexpected occupation victory.

Options 2 and 3 would also make for a very nice 4-player team game. Each player would be responsible for a Base, but you can play off of each other's support.

Thread: Re: Why don't air strikes get shuffled into the deck?

cbs42 — 2008-12-01T21:22:18+00:00

I understand why air strikes aren't shuffled into the deck, but I don't understand why they're not in your hand at the start of the game instead of on the table. I mean, if you can play them any time as if they're in your hand, then they might as well actually be in your hand, no?

Now that I think about it, it might actually give the game even more strategic depth, because although you automatically start with them in your hand, you might choose one or both to be the cards you place on the bottom of your deck.

I'll have to playtest it and see if that helps or hurts gameplay, but it sounds like an all-around plus to me.

Thread: Re: You Have No Excuse Not To Own This

drunkenKOALA — 2008-12-01T06:07:18+00:00

Well yeah, it's just not as important. And why Tichu? Why not a standard deck of cards?

Thread: Re: You Have No Excuse Not To Own This

Darth Headbutt — 2008-12-01T01:54:00+00:00

drunkenKOALA wrote:
Um, I found the comparisons to be very apt. Except for tichu.

The only point of comparison I made to Tichu is the small size and transportability of the game. Is that not a fair comparison?

Thread: Re: You Have No Excuse Not To Own This

drunkenKOALA — 2008-11-26T16:15:46+00:00

MisterCranky wrote:
Really, there's no such thing as an implausible comparison. A mouse and a microwave might not seem to be closely related, but you can certainly compare them, as one example. "The microwave will not likely explode if digested by the mouse, but the mouse will almost certainly explode if cooked in the microwave." There's a comparison between disparate entities that is most certainly plausible.

So, when you promise "as many comparisons as plausible", and then your review is as relatively short as it is, I get somewhat disappointed. Where's the comparison between this game and Tic Tac Toe, for example? Or with Juden Raus? Or with the movie Dark Knight? There are a lot more plausible comparisons out there that you simply ignored.
Um, I found the comparisons to be very apt. Except for tichu.

Thread: Re: You Have No Excuse Not To Own This

drunkenKOALA — 2008-11-26T16:14:01+00:00

I just played a couple of games last night. It is exactly like you said. Part Hive, although its being a non-perfect information game makes the analysis not as as pure/intense/brain-burning, but that's alright. The theme and mechanisms have a strong relation. And there is a hand management aspect. Great game.

Thread: Re: Computer version is a poor loser...

jollypirate — 2008-10-28T10:25:22+00:00

Yeah...the best I've done is hit a draw...and freeze.

I have 8 cards, and the computer has 7 with just a special ops to play (which can't hit me).

Fun game though!

Thanks!

Image

Guantanamo — 2008-10-25T19:31:10+00:00

Pictured - Dimitri (Johnnydollar) and Mike

Thread: Re: You Have No Excuse Not To Own This

Yugblad — 2008-10-16T21:07:54+00:00

Great review - it forced me to buy a copy!

Thread: Re: I want to play but...

Yugblad — 2008-10-16T18:15:44+00:00

Even if you ordered from Europe and had it delivered via airmail, the whole shebang would only cost £12+. The game's worth it.

Thread: Re: I want to play but...

Chad_Ellis — 2008-10-11T18:19:30+00:00

Hi Mike,

Posting all of the cards and making a copy is normally a frowned-upon area of copyright, but I have two solutions that may work.

Pixelpark is a New Zealand distributor that has carried Battleground, in which case they should be able to order Hill 218 too. Ask your FLGS if they can order it, if you'd like to buy a copy.

I also use a Mac, and when I switched over I wasn't able to play Hill 218 online but a java update now lets me do so. I'm a complete moron when it comes to computers but it may be that you just have to update your java, which presumably means adding milk and sugar.

Best,
Chad

Thread: Re: I want to play but...

Joseph Hill — 2008-10-11T13:28:21+00:00

Salo sila wrote:
Joseph Hill wrote:
Is it not available in the UK?

It is available in the UK, but I don't know how that's going to help a guy in New Zealand.

lol... woops

Thread: Re: I want to play but...

Salo sila — 2008-10-11T06:35:45+00:00

Joseph Hill wrote:
Is it not available in the UK?

It is available in the UK, but I don't know how that's going to help a guy in New Zealand.

Thread: Re: I want to play but...

Joseph Hill — 2008-10-11T06:05:50+00:00

Is it not available in the UK?

Thread: I want to play but...

Dirty Harry — 2008-10-11T02:23:12+00:00

I would love to play this game on gaming night-sounds like a fun game! My mac however won't let me play online. (Java & Operating system).

I see this game is FREE-well the online one is-could some kind gaming soul post the cards in pdf format/jpegs maybe so I could make up my own to play-IF this doesn't infringe copyright. Thankyou.

Thread: Re: 2nd player always wins?

avyssaleos — 2008-10-09T23:24:56+00:00

I haven't played many games yet but from my experience I would go the other way and claim that the player going first, also has a small advantage. If the game goes on for a long time, his opponent will probably draw his whole deck sooner, thus leaving the first player have the final word in the game. In some recent games that was very important!

Also, if you get to airstrike early you end with a bigger hand size for the rest of the game (since you didn't play a card), something that gives you many options depending on each situation.

Thread: Re: You Have No Excuse Not To Own This

MisterCranky — 2008-10-07T19:02:04+00:00

Really, there's no such thing as an implausible comparison. A mouse and a microwave might not seem to be closely related, but you can certainly compare them, as one example. "The microwave will not likely explode if digested by the mouse, but the mouse will almost certainly explode if cooked in the microwave." There's a comparison between disparate entities that is most certainly plausible.

So, when you promise "as many comparisons as plausible", and then your review is as relatively short as it is, I get somewhat disappointed. Where's the comparison between this game and Tic Tac Toe, for example? Or with Juden Raus? Or with the movie Dark Knight? There are a lot more plausible comparisons out there that you simply ignored.

Thread: Re: You Have No Excuse Not To Own This

clloyd09 — 2008-10-07T00:11:56+00:00

willk_1230 wrote:
I've been on the fence about buying this game. Thanks for the great review - you've convinced me to get it!
Same goes for me. Been thinking about it for a while, but after reading this excellent review, it might just make it into my next order.

Thread: Re: You Have No Excuse Not To Own This

Random_Person — 2008-10-05T17:44:48+00:00

Wow. I'm glad this made it to the front page... otherwise, I would have never known that I needed to own this game!

Thanks for an awesome review. I gotsta get it now.

Chevee

Thread: Re: You Have No Excuse Not To Own This

willk_1230 — 2008-10-05T17:06:13+00:00

I've been on the fence about buying this game. Thanks for the great review - you've convinced me to get it!

Thread: Re: You Have No Excuse Not To Own This

ScottB — 2008-10-05T03:17:13+00:00

Darth Headbutt wrote:
neoshmengi wrote:
Going to a coed baby shower and your wife says it’s inappropriate to bring your huge copy of Starcraft?

Love this quote. Are you speaking from experience? I can picture you with a crestfallen look on your face while putting Starcraft away, then reemerging from the Game Room with a mischievous grin.

It is a true story, but I have to admit, I was on the hosting end of that baby shower. It was ScottB who posted above that was the one with the vetoed attempt to bring Starcraft. I was terribly disappointed, because I was also hoping to score a try at Blackbeard.

Gotta admit, it's tough to sneak Starcraft out of the house.

Thread: Re: You Have No Excuse Not To Own This

Darth Headbutt — 2008-10-05T00:43:08+00:00

neoshmengi wrote:
Going to a coed baby shower and your wife says it’s inappropriate to bring your huge copy of Starcraft?

Love this quote. Are you speaking from experience? I can picture you with a crestfallen look on your face while putting Starcraft away, then reemerging from the Game Room with a mischievous grin.

It is a true story, but I have to admit, I was on the hosting end of that baby shower. It was ScottB who posted above that was the one with the vetoed attempt to bring Starcraft. I was terribly disappointed, because I was also hoping to score a try at Blackbeard.

Thread: Re: You Have No Excuse Not To Own This

ScottB — 2008-10-04T15:59:01+00:00

Darth Headbutt wrote:
Going to a coed baby shower and your wife says it’s inappropriate to bring your huge copy of Starcraft?

Thread: Re: You Have No Excuse Not To Own This

neoshmengi — 2008-10-04T14:38:54+00:00

Going to a coed baby shower and your wife says it’s inappropriate to bring your huge copy of Starcraft?

Love this quote. Are you speaking from experience? I can picture you with a crestfallen look on your face while putting Starcraft away, then reemerging from the Game Room with a mischievous grin.

Thread: You Have No Excuse Not To Own This

Darth Headbutt — 2008-10-04T05:23:06+00:00

I hope you’re in the mood for comparisons, because this review will draw as many comparisons as plausible. I will compare The Battle for Hill 218 (referred to as simply 218 in this article) to other games you might be familiar with in order to illustrate specific aspects of the game and to highlight its features. That’s not to say that the compared games are perfectly similar. There is simply something in one that lets me make a point about the other. This review is also written so that the reader will be able to still have an understanding of 218 without necessarily being familiar with the game it’s compared to.

First, a very brief overview of what this game is all about. Each turn a player draws 2 cards and then deploys two cards. Each card represents a military unit. The surface you play will form an invisible grid filled by the cards that are deployed. When you deploy a unit, it will destroy an opponent’s unit if it can.

]]>

If you deploy a card in the space behind your opponent’s side of hill 218, you have captured this unique and important hill and win the game. Deployment is restricted by supply lines. You need an uninterrupted supply line leading back to your home base. Each unit has its own way of drawing supply, and therefore, deployment. Each unit also has its own way of being able to destroy an opponent’s unit.

]]>

The solid color square represents this card on the grid. That target symbol represents an opponent’s unit. So in the example above this card can attack up, down, left, or right. But, it also needs support. This means a different card already deployed must be providing support to the space in the grid where you wish to destroy a unit. It’s simple, but it often takes players a while to wrap their brains around it.

It’s like Hive: 218 is often compared to Hive, and for good reason. At their core, they are both 2 player abstract strategy games. They both follow the structure of each player taking turns to move/deploy their units. In Hive, you move your insects around to capture your opponent’s queen. In 218, you deploy your units to try to capture your opponent’s home base. Both games have 5 different units, each with their own unique movement/deployment. Both provide the types of decisions you would expect from abstract strategy games. You consider all of your possible moves, all of your opponent’s possible moves, and try to pick the best one. You have to consider the positions of the various units on the board and the capabilities of those units. These are the decisions that abstracts are great at producing. 218, like Hive, is crammed tight full of decisions.

]]>

Another common feature of Hive and 218 is the short playing time. Both will finish in less than 30 minutes and experienced players can get done in less than 15. Sometimes that’s how long you wait for your turn in other games. The battle is only over one little hill, after all. This short play time ensures 218 will hit the table frequently, and you’ll very likely get multiple plays out of one sitting. But don’t look at the 15 minute playing time and pass it off as just filler. It may be short, but 218 isn’t going to give your brain a rest after a tense game of power grid. 218 is jam packed with tons of tough choices in that short 15 minute window. The game length to meaningful decisions ratio is very favorable. You have to evaluate all the units in your hand and what combinations of play result in destruction of your opponent’s units. You also have to play close attention to where your opponent has support and what your opponent could destroy.

Generally, I’m not that into abstract strategy games. They satisfy my desire for a mental challenge, but they tend to be a little dry and not very exciting. I think the reason why I love 218 anyway is because…

It’s like Tide of Iron: If you’ve played both 218 and TOI you may wonder how in the world I find these games similar. As far as game mechanics, they are not even close. The commonality they share is their theme: World War 2. It’s not just that they have the same theme, but they both have a strong connection between theme and mechanics.

When you play some games, you can quickly realize that the designer came up with the idea for the mechanics first, and then found a theme to combine it with. For TOI, there’s no mistaking that the mechanics derived from the theme and not the other way around. The big surprise for 218 is that you can’t tell which idea the designer had first, the theme or the mechanics. Make no mistake, 218 is still at its heart an abstract game, but there is such a strong link of theme and mechanics that it doesn’t feel like it’s abstract.

Of the 5 units you have, you can easily see how they simulate their real world counterparts. The Tanks kill stuff easily. Artillery shoots stuff far away, and paratroopers can deploy anywhere they want, even behind enemy lines. Despite being abstract, it feels enough like a battle that I’m actually sucked into the theme. The black and white photographs were a very good design decision to help convey the WW2 feel.

]]>

The closeness of theme to mechanics is what separates 218 from Hive. Hive is OK, but I love 218. The types of decisions are very similar, but Hive is far enough on the abstract end of the spectrum that it takes some of the excitement away. Why in the world are all these different species of insects working together, anyway? Capturing Hills is much more thematically interesting than capturing queens. I find 218 superior for the same reason I like TOI: you get to shoot people and blow stuff up. And of all the Hills battled over in World War II, none were more memorable than Hill 218.

It’s like Star Wars CCG: The main similarity these games have is their components: nothing but cards. Don’t misunderstand, 218 is not customizable. Both players have identical decks. What both games have in common is the wonderful mechanic of hand management. Hand management adds a lot of interesting decisions on the timing of when you play your cards. Do you use your power cards as soon as you can or do you save them for later?

Even if you play the same deck over and over, both SWCCG and 218 produce a different game every time because your hand will always be different. Not only is it a different game every time, but every time your hand changes it gives you different tactical options to choose from.

Since both games are card driven, this provides a nice addition of controlled chaos. Full information games can be a great stimulating challenge, but the drawback is the decision tree can be unmanageable. The strength of full information games is the mental exercise of solving the puzzle to find the most optimal choice to make. Personally, I like a little chaos. Since you do not know what you will draw next or what is in your opponent’s hand, you can never truly know what that most optimal decision is. You have to choose between uncertain options, without knowing what the full consequences will be. I find those types of decisions very interesting.

SWCCG and 218 also avoid the extreme of too much chaos, which results in feeling like you have no control over whether you win or lose the game. 218 perfectly tempers chaos and control. The decisions you make with your units will decide who wins, not who has the better hand. 218 also has a built in mulligan. You draw 5 cards and pick 3 for your starting hand. This prevents getting screwed early. You also get 2 air strikes in the game. Air strikes aren’t a part of your hand but can be used any time in the game as one of your 2 plays per turn. They can instantly destroy any unit. This helps balance poor hand draws.

Both of these games also lend themselves to card counting. Neither game requires a player to count cards to be competitive, but in both games it does give you a small edge. In SWCCG, an expert card counter can know the exact position of multiple cards in his and his opponent’s deck. 218 isn’t that extreme. Card counting can only help you know what units you or your opponent may have left. It’s nice to know that all of your opponent’s special forces are gone. Late in the game this can help. Card counting isn’t required, but in a match between players of equal skill it can be the difference maker.

It’s like Tichu: 218 is rare because it’s one of the only games where the size of the packaging the game comes in is an important positive feature. The only reason I compare 218 to Tichu is because both games are just a deck of cards (whereas SWCCG is several MASSIVE binders and boxes full of cards).

]]>

Why is this important? Because it fits in your pocket. Going to the zoo with your family and a gamer friend’s family and want to play something over lunch? Going to a coed baby shower and your wife says it’s inappropriate to bring your huge copy of Starcraft? Does your gamer friend only have 15 minutes before he needs to go to bed? I was in all of these situations and each time I was saved by 218. It’s small size combined with its short playing time means owning 218 will give you the chance to play a game in situations that you couldn’t before. I now take 218 with me everywhere. No longer will I be deprived of gaming opportunities because War of the Ring was too bulky to take to the amusement park.

There’s no reason not to own this. 218 is dirt cheap. 10 bucks for an excellent game is extremely rare. Let’s say you buy it and you end up not being so crazy about it. Isn’t playing a mediocre game better than not playing any game at all? If there are small gaps of time in your life where you are not gaming, you can fill those holes with 218. Also, you can try the downloadable version of 218 before you decide to buy it. http://www.yourmovegames.com/pages/hill218.html The AI is pleasantly challenging.

Should you own Battle for Hill 218? I won’t say yes…but heck yes!

Image

Darth Headbutt — 2008-10-04T05:00:36+00:00

All of the different units that will fight to the death for Hill 218

Thread: Re: Using Mac osx 10.4.11

southseasnurse — 2008-10-01T02:29:42+00:00

Yah, it runs fine on my imac (64 bit) but not on my macbook (32 bit). I'm hoping we'll see a patch soon.

Thread: Re: Using Mac osx 10.4.11

kentreuber — 2008-09-27T01:38:22+00:00

It seems it's a bit more complicated than that. Java 1.6 is available only for 64-bit Intel Macs running OS 10.5.

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1856

Thread: Re: Using Mac osx 10.4.11

1copse — 2008-09-26T23:32:10+00:00

I looked into this myself a few months back and found out that the correct version of JRE is only available for Leopard.

Thread: Using Mac osx 10.4.11

Dirty Harry — 2008-09-26T22:37:15+00:00

All I get when I launch the Hill218 icon is a message:

An error occurred while launching/running the application.

Title: Hill 218
Vendor: Your Move Games
Category: System Configuration

The application has requested a version of the JRE (version 1.6+) that currently is not locally installed. Java Web Start is unable to automatically download and install the requested version. This JRE must be installed manually.

Any help much appreciated....I can't seem to find an install/update to 1.6 I think the 1.6 is only for Windows users??

thanx!

Thread: Re: Computer version is a poor loser...

JVKhoury — 2008-09-21T03:36:19+00:00

Great game, thank you.

It freezes up on me as well every time a draw could be forced. I have to restart the program.

I am running Vista, if that helps.

Thread: Re: Missing Cards

ALGO — 2008-09-01T02:21:42+00:00

Chad_Ellis wrote:
Sending you a geekmail now.

Best,
Chad

Received and thanks bg time Chad and all at yourmove.

Now of course, I have to go buy battlegrounds to say thank you.

Damn me!

A

P.S. I did think about deleting this whole thread, but I decided to leave it here as another testament to Yourmove and to say thank you.

Cheers!

Thread: Re: Computer version is a poor loser...

abrannan — 2008-08-21T14:14:36+00:00

andrewgr wrote:
Given that it doesn't happen the majority fo the time there's a draw, it could take an awful lot of plays before it happens and I can debug it.

If it helps any, it's happened every time I've had a draw, always when I went second, am up by 2, and the computer can tie by capturing any of a number of my cards (i.e. multiple available captures).

It wouldn't be high up on my priority list, either. Honestly, if you were to work on the program again, I'd rather see:

-A labeled play grid (using the coordinate system Chad posted with his session reports)

-A game log using the play grid, to make posting session reports/strategy questions easier.

Thread: Re: BookShelf Games Video Review

Veles — 2008-08-13T23:37:24+00:00

Thanks for the review, decided to buy it watching it and seeing it was inexpensive.

Apparently I was a playtester

Thread: Re: Computer version is a poor loser...

andrewgr — 2008-08-11T18:16:25+00:00

Obviously I never saw this in development/testing, or else I would have corrected it. :-)

This is a hard one to catch, because you need to force a draw, which can be time consuming. Given that it doesn't happen the majority fo the time there's a draw, it could take an awful lot of plays before it happens and I can debug it. I don't want to lie: it's not high up on my list of priorities in terms of how to spend a free weekend.

That said, my interests wax and wane in unpredictable cycles, so the next time I'm in the mood to tinker with the program again, this will be #1 on the list of things to look at. (#2 will be making "easy mode" easier, and #3 will be making "expert mode" harder).

Thread: Re: Computer version is a poor loser...

Chad_Ellis — 2008-08-11T02:03:56+00:00

Interesting. I can't really speak to it because I've had draws with the computer and have yet to have it freeze! Andrew, any ideas?

Thread: Re: Missing Cards

Chad_Ellis — 2008-08-11T02:02:02+00:00

Sending you a geekmail now.

Best,
Chad

Thread: Re: Computer version is a poor loser...

tickmanfan — 2008-08-07T19:49:48+00:00

It's happen to me a couple of times when the computer had the last move. The game seems to freeze.

Thread: Computer version is a poor loser...

abrannan — 2008-08-07T19:25:46+00:00

...Well, a poor tie-er, anyway.

I was playing a game against the easy AI, and it had managed to rebuff most of my attacks, but not really gain much ground in units on the field. At the final turn, I had 9 units on the board, and it had 7, but one of my units could easily be killed by several different placements of the AI's remaining Infantry. The end result would have been a tie at eight units apiece.

However, rather than play that final infantry, the AI just locked up and refused to move, thus denying me the satisfaction of a hard fought draw. The digital equivalent of "flipping the board", if you will.

Would it be possible for us to get an AI that's a littel more gracious in semi-defeat?

Thread: Re: Chad vs. AI, take three. The Computer takes the initiative!

abrannan — 2008-08-07T18:48:20+00:00

These reports have taken me from 1 win in 15 games agains the easy AI to about 1 win in 5 games. I've still got a ways to go, as I don't really consider possible opponent counters to my moves. When do we get the next session report?

Thread: Re: Missing Cards

andrewgr — 2008-08-07T07:09:27+00:00

ALGO wrote:
I may send a letter or call them up, but I am getting an error from the form.

Chad is out of town this week.

I am certain you will get a reply as soon as he gets back.

Thread: Re: Missing Cards

ALGO — 2008-08-07T00:25:10+00:00

I may send a letter or call them up, but I am getting an error from the form.

Thread: Re: Missing Cards

conky — 2008-08-07T00:19:03+00:00

You could try this route?

http://www.yourmovegames.com/contact.html

Thread: Missing Cards

ALGO — 2008-08-07T00:02:45+00:00

My copy is missing all blue paratroopers and two of the blue special forces...

I've sent an email using YOURMOVE's online form, but anyone know another route, since I haven't had a reply.

A

Thread: Re: Drawing and hand size

GameMasterX0 — 2008-07-29T20:58:09+00:00

Um... did I say "genius"... I meant... BEGINNER'S LUCK!
Have fun at gen con, oh great and powerful chad.

Image

mdu2boy — 2008-07-03T23:12:09+00:00

From Bobby Tweak's game night

Image

mdu2boy — 2008-07-03T23:11:29+00:00

From Bobby Tweak's game night

Image

craniac — 2008-04-07T04:07:12+00:00

Playing a game with my son, who is eight. He beat me.

Image

TakeMeToYourLizard — 2008-02-18T11:47:28+00:00

In the flickering candelight, Jen considers her next move.

Image

TakeMeToYourLizard — 2008-02-18T11:45:33+00:00

A game in progress. Green is boxed in but Blue is vulnerable to supply line disruption.

Image

moss_icon — 2008-02-03T08:49:14+00:00

contents

Image

keiththomasson — 2008-02-01T20:40:30+00:00

Front cover of box

Image

batdog — 2007-11-07T06:25:47+00:00

Battle for Hill 218 - Computer Version