Game: Castle Danger

Image

Joseph Hill — 2008-05-31T14:20:25+00:00

Castle Danger at YourTurnMyTurn.com

Thread: Re: A review of Castle Danger

papa_bear_is_asleep — 2008-04-07T04:32:45+00:00

A few more additions to my comments on CD.

First, it is now available for play at www.yourturnmyturn.com as well as at www.superdupergames.org.

Second, the first-player advantage in standard CD is so great that the game has to be considered broken.

Third, however, the designer Matt Worden, a few other players, and I have been playtesting a possible fix. The 3 AP limit on first player's first turn is removed. However, a 2 AP cost is imposed on either player entering a piece if that player would have more pieces than the other after the piece is entered.

This may not be a total fix. First player does seem to retain some advantage, and it may still be decisive with perfect play. However, CD seems much repaired, and I would be inclined to begin playing it again myself with anyone prepared to honor this rule change (Hopefully, yourturnmyturn and superdupergames will make the change).

Under the new rule, I lost as second player for the first time. I have never been happier to lose a game!

Thread: About Blowing Up Castles

voynix — 2007-12-01T16:43:36+00:00

Castle Danger is a small game self-published by Matt Wordern Games. It's been out about 5 years, though it has not received a whole lot of attention here on BGG.

It is a 2 player game about trying to blow up your opponent's king with cannons. This is done by blowing away bits of your opponent's castle, while you struggle to reinforce your own by creating more builders.

Components:
-The Box: a VHS standard cassette box with a front and back label
-The Board: 3 rigid rectangular boards that are laid against one another to create the playing field.
-The commponents: a variety of wooden blocks with icons depicting cannons, wizards and builders. A number of wooden castle wall pieces
- About 10 Blue and red wooden cannon blast tokens
- 1 red and 1 blue wooden king pawn

About the Pieces:

- Wizards: each wizard on the board allots 3 movement points (MP's)
- Builders: They can build a castle wall in an empty adjacent square for 1 MP. You can also have them destroy one of your castle walls for 1 MP
- Cannons: each may fire once. Cannon fire goes in a straight line, costing 1 MP per space entered. It may pass over units but not walls. It destroys whatever piece present in the space in which it lands (wall or unit). A residual fire token is placed there, so the opposing player may not enter that space his next turn.
- King: He doesn't do anything except move around cowering behind walls, avoiding cannon fire.

The phases of a game turn:
1. Remove your residual cannon fire from your opponent's affected squares, if any.
2. Calculate your number of moves: 3 + (# of wizards x 3)
3. Place a new unit: If your one portal space is unoccupied, you may bring in a new builder, cannon or wizard onto that space.
4. Spend MP's: Any units can move 1 space/MP, cannons fired spend MP's (see above), builders speend MP's building castle walls.

Play continues until a player loses his king.

My overall Impressions

Theme: 7 I enjoy the idea of each player tearing their opponent's castles.

Mechanics: 7 Overall, this is a fairly abstract game. It can get tough trying to figure out which new pieces to bring into the game. The limited board space also makes everything crowded and congested, especially since pieces may not move through each other. There fore, careful placement of your walls and units is crucial

Strategy: 9 No luck involved

Rulebook: 9 A simple sheet. The rules are easy to follow without ambiguity

Components: 7.5 I really like the wooden pieces. The board is solid. I am not a huge fan of the VHS case, but everything does fit in there rather snugly.

Verisimilitude: 3 This isn't meant to be a bad rating, just a measure of being realistic (10) verses abstract (1)

Overall Fun Factor 7.5
I am not a huge fan of abstract strategy games, though I would not say this is a pure abstract strategy game; the cannons do fire and blow things up after all. In some ways I liken this to Hive in that it is a small game, relatively quick, and is all about careful maneuvering.

This is a very compact game which makes it ideal for travel. I would recomment this to anyone interested in:

- soley 2 player games
- games that take virtually no time to set up and can be played in 20-30 minutes
- games with a castle theme and destryoing your opponent's castle, wall by wall
- Hive fans, and/or fans of maneuvering games general.

Image

spearjr — 2007-10-08T02:04:44+00:00

Online Interface on YourTurnMyTurn.com

Thread: Castle Danger Goes Out-of-Print

Brykovian — 2007-07-19T14:01:07+00:00

As noted on the my website's message board ...

I will not be selling any more tabletop sets for Castle Danger -- it is out-of-print at this point.

If another game publisher wishes to contact me about licensing, please send me an e-mail.

Thanks,
-Matt

Thread: try Castle Danger

papa_bear_is_asleep — 2007-04-26T15:47:20+00:00

Castle Danger can be tried out in three ways.

First, there is a Castle Danger program available for download at www.mwgames.com (also the place to go if you want to purchase the table-top game). The program does not have an AI, but does enable human-to-human play either in hotseat or PBEM mode. Thank you, Matt Worden, both for the game itself and for the software!

Second, Castle Danger is available for play at www.superdupergames.org. Thank you, Aaron, for your site and for implementing Castle Danger!

Third, Castle Danger is available to play at www.yourturnmyturn.com. Thank you, Bram, and everyone else involved in running the site!

Give Castle Danger a try!

Thread: Re: A review of Castle Danger

papa_bear_is_asleep — 2007-03-17T16:38:58+00:00

I would like to add a few things to my review of Castle Danger (CD).

First, I did not mention the heavy first-player (1P) advantage. I believe the advantage is far more significant in CD than in, say, chess. 1P has initiative, a lead in AP build-up (wizard recruitment), and can bring in a cannon earlier. Together, these add up to a major advantage. The limitation of 3 action points (AP), rather than the full 6, on 1P's initial turn is ineffective. 1P will have AP to spare in the first few turns, and can easily make up for the 3 lost on the initial turn. I have only lost two games of Castle Danger, out of several dozen, and in both I was 2P. As 1P, I often win without ever needing to enter a builder for defense.

I would recommend an alternative method for limiting the 1P advantage. Either instead of or in addition to the initial turn AP limit, I would suggest restricting 1P's initial turn recruitment to either a builder or a cannon. I would prohibit 1P from entering a wizard first turn. 1P would then retain the significant advantage of being one turn ahead in recruitment. 2P, however, would be the first to recruit a wizard and would therefore have a temporary initiative based on quicker increase of AP. I have not put this idea to a real test yet, but theoretically it seems like it should level the playing field a fair bit. It certainly can't be less effective than the current 3 AP limit.

Second, I would like to comment on the Hidden Danger (HD) variant. I believe the idea of this variant is great and I hope that it can be salvaged in a workable way. However, as it stands now I think it is broken. There does not seem to be sufficient incentive for smuggling a piece as opposed to merely entering it. Any advantage based on the enemy's ignorance of one's force composition is more than outweighed by the disadvantage of having the abilities of one's forces impaired. If one's pieces are to be used, eventually they must be revealed. Why not enter them revealed and save the trouble? I have only played Hidden Danger once, but by simply entering pieces rather than smuggling them I quickly won.

I do not know how to repair the variation. I might suggest that smuggling be requisite, rather than optional, in HD. I might suggest that the cost of revealing pieces, one's own or one's enemy's, be increased.

Third, in my review I discussed the crowding of the board, in response to Luca Iennaco's comment. I forgot to mention an important fact. Crowding was part of the designer's intention for the game. See his design notes posted here at BGG. Of course, a given player may not like this feature, intended or not. That is a matter of taste, and anyone who does not like that aspect may not enjoy CD. Regardless, the crowding of the board is a design success, rather than a failure.

Fourth, at http://www.superdupergames.org I encountered one opponent who very much disliked that, once I had attained a won position, it took a long time to accomplish the actual end-of-game condition: regicide. A win can be completely certain but still require many turns to consummate. I have noticed that fact in many of my games, but I disagree with my opponent's view that it is a flaw of CD. It is rather like, say, a KNB vs K ending in chess: the win is forced, but it often requires thirty or more moves. I do not wish to hold up my own sense of gaming honor and etiquette as normative for all game-players, but it seems to me that the appropriate course of action in any circumstance in which loss is inevitable but time-consuming is resignation.

If the amount of time it takes to drive home a sure win bothers me at all, it is not because when losing I will feel like I am dying a slow death. Instead, just as in chess, I'll resign and get on with the next game. If it bothers me at all, it is rather because when winning my opponent might stall the game instead of resigning, hoping either to bore me into giving up or else to win by longevity. This strategy is not entirely infrequent in correspondence chess, and it is also possible in CD. When Plan A (making strong moves) fails, some players will adopt Plan B (dragging out a lost game). In chess, we wear it. What else can we do? The same goes for CD.

I still encourage readers to try CD and to share their experiences. Software for playing the game with other people is available at www.mwgames.com, and a web-based implementation for playing against others is available for free at www.superdupergames.org. It will cost you nothing to try the game. If you try it and like it, please consider purchasing a table-top copy from the website.

I can be found at www.superdupergames.org as papa_bear. Will you be the one to give me my third loss?

Thread: Castle Danger... first game tonight.

mbourgeois — 2007-02-22T02:05:29+00:00

After reacquainting ourselves with the rules... shame to say it's been almost 2 years since our last game. We started out slowly... wizards and builders being our first entrants into the portal access points.

I took first blood by smacking one of Kim's wizards with cannon fire... she retaliated by... well dying. Very fair on her part I think. Next I took a potshot at her builder and that was the last we heard of him.

Kim suddenly remembered how to build cannons and tried to return the favour but my builder had been going nuts and building walls all over the place. So much so that we were having trouble moving around. Not too bright on my part but it did make for safe places to stand oer the rockets red glare and the softly burning wall parts.

Much as I'd like to say that I won the game... umm no... I lost... my King got smacked. and she had so little left by way of stuff... I got cocky and well *splat*!

THE END.

Thread: Re: A review of Castle Danger

papa_bear_is_asleep — 2007-01-09T15:35:18+00:00

I would like to point out that Castle Danger has been implemented at www.superdupergames.org, a free site for playing various games. This is a good step toward the interested community of CD players in which I hope some day to participate. Already some excellent games have been played and analysis conducted.

Image

Striton — 2006-12-09T02:58:09+00:00

Super Duper Games online interface

Thread: A review of Castle Danger

papa_bear_is_asleep — 2006-08-21T03:34:13+00:00

"It's a crying shame that more people haven't played this game."
- Clark D. Rodeffer (quoted from a game list here on BGG)

If I were asked to write a one-sentence review of Castle Danger, I would decline, on the grounds that Mr. Rodeffer has already expressed my precise sentiment. As it is, I was asked to write a review of unspecified length, and it will far exceed one sentence.

I am an amateur correspondence chess player. I enjoy other games to varying extents, but chess is easily my favorite. What do I love about chess? It is an abstract, "perfect knowledge" battle game with no genuine element of random chance. Somehow, though, that's not all. I have experimented with many other such games, including chess variants, Go, checkers, Wari and Mancala games, and many others, modern and ancient, Eastern and Western, etc. There is only one game which comes close to chess in its appeal to me, and that is Castle Danger.

After straining my brain one evening over several tough chess moves, I needed something different. I was momentarily burnt out on chess but still in the mood for that kind of board game. So, to Google I went, and eventually I discovered Castle Danger (CD). I downloaded the PC version and toyed around a bit. Immediately I thought the game looked good, but there was no computer opponent. My wife doesn't play board games (or computer games), and I'm always slow to go looking for strangers on the Internet with whom to play games. To get to the point, CD sat on my hard disk for a couple years without being played.

Then one day my brother was visiting from America and I suggested we try out CD. It was great. I won after a long game full of mistakes on both sides, and both of us had fun. Unfortunately, we didn't play again before he returned to America, and I have not gotten him to play by email. I tried introducing CD to chess players, but they seem to be suspicious of any game younger than dirt. Finally the lightbulb in my head brightened and I sent an email to Matt Worden, designer of CD. I found his address on www.mwgames.com and asked whether he'd honor me with a game. He did. In time we played several games, and chatted some. We have common interests besides CD. In email messages, to which I attached my saved moves from the CD program, I told Matt what I liked about CD, and we experimented with different strategies.

Matt sent a copy of the table top game (2nd edition) quite some time ago and asked me to write a review. I gladly agreed. Before I continue, I publicly offer apology to Matt. Matt, I'm sorry I didn't do this sooner. Without making excuse, I wish only to say that I failed to honor my word and I'm sorry. Persuaded by popular opinion that things are "better late than never," I'm finally doing what I said I'd do.

In contrast to Mr. Rodeffer, Mr. Joe Steadman had only the following to say about CD:
"Kinda lame"
(also quoted from a game list on BGG)

I can't speak for Mr. Steadman, which seems to make two of us, but others have been more successful than he in expressing what it is they dislike about CD. For example:

"It was a good game, but those of us who played it felt like the winner was determined by a mistake by the loser, rather than good play by the winner."
- Tom Vasel (quoted from his BGG review of CD)

This comment is far more informative than Steadman's. Mr. Vasel has identified a genuine characteristic of the game. As with CD, so with chess. According to the legendary Savielly Tartakower, victory in chess goes to the player who makes the last blunder but one. I am unsure of the exact words in which he said it, for several sentences expressing the same idea have been attributed to him. Regardless of the form, the content of the sentence is quite true. Every chess game I win I know I filled with mistakes. I never really earn my wins; it's just that my opponent makes more, worse, or more and worse mistakes than mine. A player some 300 Elo points below my level once said that he was sure that as he improved, he would more often feel proud of his moves. I didn't want to rain on his parade, but the opposite has been true for me. The better I get at chess, the more conscious I am of my mistakes and weaknesses. The further I get from novice level, the more clearly I see how far I am from master level. It is maddening, but still I love chess! Anyone put off by this idea may not enjoy chess or CD or any other perfect-knowledge, deterministic, abstract strategy game. It is a quality inherent in the nature of such games.

"The board can quickly become crowded, limiting a lot your options."
- Luca Iennaco (BGG comment)

I don't know whether Mr. Iennaco meant this as a complaint or as a neutral declaration of fact, but he has identified another genuine characteristic of CD which might dissatisfy some. You need Walls for defense, but they clog up your side of the board. You need Wizards for action points, but then you spend so many action points shuffling your Wizards out of the way to get your Cannons or Builders where they need to be. Some people will not enjoy this aspect of the game. On the other hand, your opponent has exactly the same problems, and its just part of the challenge of beating your enemy. Can you manage your space, action points, and balance of forces better than your opponent can handle his or hers? That's the whole point in a board game, I think. Just as in chess, you have to balance certain strategic concerns against others, and find a better balance and better plan than your opponent. Just as in chess, you have to carefully examine the tactical features of the position at hand, and implement your plan efficiently and effectively.

"This game is a good diversion for those people who enjoy chess but would like a lighter game to play now and then."
- David Whitcher (CD comments on BGG)

From my story above about how I became acquainted with CD, it might be thought inevitable that I would agree. However, I find it hard to say without qualification that CD is "lighter" than chess. In some ways it is, but in some ways it isn't. In chess there are twenty possible positions after White's first move, 400 possible positions after Black's first move, etc. Very rapidly the number of possible positions is uncountable. It seems to me that in CD the number of possible positions is even greater. In any given position in CD, calculating ahead is of greater complexity than in chess, because of the tremendous range of options available at each turn. What piece do you recruit? Do you assault with Cannons? Do you prepare to assault, by shuffling your pieces into position? Do you bolster defenses by building Walls? Do you rush your King to the other side for greater safety? Once these questions have been answered, discharging 9, 12, 15 or more action points permits a huge variety of ways to implement the strategic plan.

In the end, of course, the choices are finite in CD as in chess. But in CD it seems the complexity is greater, so in that sense I have trouble saying it is "lighter." The greater complexity makes CD simply incalculable at times. In chess, in a very forced position, even an amateur player like myself can calculate all variations for a dozen moves ahead fairly quickly. Given plenty of time, an amateur can calculate just as far even with several variations. In CD, most positions will not permit a human being to calculate a fraction as many moves ahead. On the other hand, this very complexity in CD does make it in some sense "lighter." Because you can't calculate long sequences of moves, you don't. All you can do is form a plan, think through your opponent's capabilities in a more general way, and make sure he can't hit your King next turn with a cannonball.

I guess what I'm saying is that theoretically, chess is "lighter"; but practically, CD is "lighter." CD is also "lighter" in the sense that there is not a great body of opening theory for it, as there is for chess. There would be, I think, if enough people realized how cool CD is and started playing it and discussing it.

Actually, I think it would take one minor change to the rules, too. The change I would suggest is in the initial position of the game. I would have both players' sides empty, and have each player import a King with three action points on the first turn. On subsequent turns play would proceed as usual, with the choice of importing Wizard, Cannon, or Builder, and with action points equal to three plus thrice the player's number of Wizards at the start of the turn. This would allow, I think, a greater variety of opening plans for either side, with neither being committed yet to the locations of two walls, a Wizard, and the King, as in the current initial setup. I think this would also help offset Blue's advantage of the initiative. The drawback to this change would be that the game would perhaps take a little longer to get going, as both players would need to take more turns in preparation before the attacks and counter-attacks started coming.

I find myself dissatisfied with what I've written so far, but clueless about what more I might say. CD is really great, and deserves to be better known. There ought to be a thriving community of interested players, competing and discussing and theorizing, as there is for chess. I recommend any reader to give the game a try. You can try it for free by downloading the PC version from http://www.mwgames.com/ to play hotseat, on-line, or by email with a friend. Use the forums at mwgames.com to find an opponent, or email Matt Worden (his address is at his web site) and challenge him. If you like the game, purchase a copy and try to get people you know to give it a shot with you. Writer your own review, write session reports, share tips about good ways to set up your pieces, etc. "It's a crying shame that more people haven't played this game."

One more minor point I'd like to address is the relationship between CD and Xiang-Qi (Chinese Chess). I read the following two quotes on BGG before I got to know Mr. Worden:

"Great game that feels like Chinese Chess, but is fast-paced and much more fun."
- Aleister Finchley

"Looks to have been highly influenced by Xiang-Qi.."
- The Rascal

I thought it strange, because CD feels very little like Xiang-Qi to me, and I could not imagine how it might look "highly influenced" by it. The similarities to Xiang-Qi are superficial and slight. There are Kings, a river, and Cannons in both games, but, despite the similarity of their names, all three elements function differently in CD than they do in Xiang-Qi. I was convinced there was no influence from one to the other, which was confirmed when I met Mr. Worden and asked him. He was entirely unfamiliar with Xiang-Qi at the time he designed CD.

If you have read this entire review, you have my thanks. If you give CD a try, you have a thousand thanks.

- Larry Travis

Thread: Re:Session Report

mbourgeois — 2005-03-19T18:32:58+00:00

Hi Matt,

We have tried a few variations of our own.

Fires don't go out and spread to other adjacent wall sections. Wizards can put out fires but you use all their movement capability to do so.

Cannons can fire a barrage shot. This will take down an entire row of walls. You cannot do anything else that round though... no summons, no moving pieces.

Our last one is silly but once I find a little pirate type boat we're going to try sailing a boat up and down the river that acts as a slaver/thief. If you have a builder/wizard or cannon on the outside of the castle on the beach the pirate ship when adjacent to the piece steals it.

thanks again for the trade.

Thread: Re:Session Report

Brykovian — 2005-03-15T18:26:45+00:00

mbourgeois (#453769),

Thanks for the session report, Mike!

You said: I only won the game because Kim forgot to move her King under cover. I'd like to try this with a larger board. One of this size is VERY challenging.

This has been a design item that I've noodled over a bit -- trying to make an "extended version" of the game with a bigger board and some changes to the balance. In fact, you can see a little bit of work I put in on it in a thread on my website:
http://www.mwgames.com/MessageBoard/viewtopic.php?t=163

In the end, the game completely lost all of its tension with a bigger board -- it became rather boring. I'm not entirely happy with the feeling that it's a struggle to not be the one to make the first critical error ... but I like how the game "feels" otherwise.

So, I think my next back-of-the-mind project might be to come up with a variant that gives a 2nd path to victory, but otherwise leaves the game the same as it is right now.

Thanks again!
-Matt

Thread: Session Report

mbourgeois — 2005-03-15T07:13:23+00:00

After playing a new game called Connexxions we decided to try our first official game of Castle Danger. Kim and I read through the instructions for her benefit and then started in on the game.

Kim started drawing a Wizard as her first summon. I started and drew a cannon as my first summon. I moved my cannon down to the base of the red property line.

After this the game started to move in a pattern for the next few moves. Kim builds a wizard or builder and then Mike kills a wizard, builder or walls.

You really notice the buildup of pieces and how you might wall yourself into a corner. Fortunately the removal of a wall only costs one point and then putting one up again in a different place with the builder allows for a little bit of movement flexibility.

I only won the game because Kim forgot to move her King under cover. I'd like to try this with a larger board. One of this size is VERY challenging. Kim really enjoyed the game though and is more than willing to try it again.

Thanks to the designer for his trading this game to me for two other family/kids games.

Thread: Differences between Editions

Brykovian — 2005-02-25T15:57:10+00:00

February 2005

There have been 2 editions of the "Castle Danger" tabletop game produced so far, with the 3rd edition beginning to ship next week (last week of Feb-2005). I thought it might be helpful to explain the differences in the 3 editions.

1st Edition
The game board was printed on photo paper and cold-laminated, resulting in a thin plastic board. There were differently-shaped wooden pieces for the different type of units used in the game. All of these were evenly divided into two groups -- one group painted blue, the other painted red. Everything was packaged into plastic baggies and shipped in a cardboard document mailer. Very few of this edition were sent out -- one is still being used at the annual U-Con abstracts tournament run by Clark Rodeffer.

2nd Edition
The game board was printed onto standard paper, affixed to illustration board, and adhesive-laminated. This resulted in a heavier board with a better "feel" to it. The differently-shaped (but not overly intuitive) pieces were exchanged for 5/8-inch unpainted wooden cubes with black representative icons for the Wizard, Builder, and Cannon pieces. The walls (large wooden cubes) also went unpainted. The King Pawns and Fire Markers were still painted blue and red, however. The rules booklet was updated to reflect the new look to the pieces (but was otherwise unchanged), and a half-page insert was added which included a moves tracker on one side and the "Hidden Danger" variant rules on the other. Plastic baggies and the docuement mailer were still the method of packaging. This is the edition that was sent to reviewers and most people who purchased the game.

3rd Edition
The biggest change is the packaging -- the game is now stored in a VHS-style plastic case with slip-in front, back and spine covers ... much more shelf-friendly. The second biggest change is the updated graphics on the game board. While the board is still produced the same way as in the 2nd edition, it is now cut into 3 sections in order to fit it in the VHS case. The only change to the pieces has been replacing the large cubes for Wall Markers with tall, skinny house-shaped pieces. These are a bit taller than the King Pawns and nicely resemble castle towers (plus they fit in the case much better). The fold-over rules booklet has morphed into a tri-fold rules "pamphlet", with its contents changed to reflect the new board and wall markers. The moves tracker and variant rules insert has been dropped, with a helpful moves look-up table added to the end of the rules instead.

Image

Brykovian — 2005-02-24T13:42:14+00:00

3rd Edition - Board and Pieces Mid-Game

Image

Brykovian — 2005-02-24T13:42:13+00:00

3rd Edition - All Components

Image

Brykovian — 2005-02-24T13:42:13+00:00

3rd Edition Game Board

Image

Brykovian — 2005-02-24T13:42:13+00:00

3rd Edition Front, Back, and Spine Covers for VHS-style case

Image

papa_bear_is_asleep — 2004-10-15T14:15:55+00:00

Castle Danger on the PC

Thread: User Review

TomVasel — 2004-01-21T21:35:47+00:00

I’m not a huge abstract strategy fan, ever since I continually lost the game of checkers to my girlfriend when in college. Now that we’re married, I can get her to play the Kosmos two-player series, so checkers never sees the light of day. I know that the Gipf project has produced some wonderful games, but I just don’t have the same enthusiasm for abstract strategy games as I do with a game that has a theme. However, give one of these abstract games a theme, no matter how light, and suddenly I am more interested. Thus it was that when I prepared to play Castle Danger (Matt Worden Games, 2003 – Matt Worden), even though I knew it was an abstract strategy game, I didn’t care because the pieces were cannons, wizards, etc.

And after playing the game, was my dislike of abstract games mitigated by the theme? I actually enjoyed Castle Danger quite a bit, but felt constricted by the board, so that my options were limited. It was a good game, but those of us who played it felt like the winner was determined by a mistake by the loser, rather than good play by the winner.
Setup of this two-player game is as follows: A small board is placed between the two players. Unlike many boards, the board is split into two grids, with a river running between them. Each grid is seven squares by four squares, and pieces from one side can never cross the river into the opponent’s squares. Each player starts with a “King” and a “Wizard” piece, which are each placed behind a wall piece on the back row. A group of “fire” tokens in each player’s color are placed near each player and the rest of the pieces are placed in a pile near the board (the pieces are neutral, since it’s easy to see who controls each piece – because of that pesky river!). One player starts the game and then turns alternate between the players.

The first phase of a turn consists of removing “fire” tokens of that player’s color from the board, and “resetting” any cannon pieces that are in the “fired” mode. After that, a player calculates how many moves they have this turn. This is determined by how many Wizard pieces they have on the board – with each wizard giving three additional moves (to a base of three). The player may then add one piece to their “Portal” space on the board (the middle square of the back row). The pieces that can be added are as follows:
- Wizards: All these pieces are good for are for extra movement points. Of course, that can lead to huge advantages for the player who has more of them.
- Builders: Builders can add or remove Wall pieces from the board.
- Cannons: These are the only pieces that can assail the opponent.

The next phase, probably the most important one, is the movement phase. The player then can use up their movement points in the following ways
- Moving: Each piece can move orthogonically one square for one movement point. Several pieces can be moved this way, as long as they do not move more than the player’s total movement points.
- Firing: Each cannon can fire one shot. The cannon is moved to its “fired” position to show that it cannot shoot again this turn. The shot uses up one movement point for each square it passes through. Any piece hit by a shot is killed and removed from the board. Walls, however, block cannon shots, and if a shot encounters one, the wall is removed from the board. Anything that is hit by a shot (even a wall) is removed, and a fire marker is placed in that square (preventing movement into that square for one turn).

After using up their movement points, a player’s turn is over, and play passes to the next player. If either player manages to kill the opponent’s king with one of their cannons, they win the game!

Some comments on the game…

1.) Components: All the components are obviously homemade, as Matt Worden is self-producing his own game, so that must be taken into account. The board is small, colorful, and a laminated piece of paper attached to a thick board (much better than other independent publishers, I must say). The wall pieces are large wooden blocks, big enough that my kids would love to play with them, but functional for game purposes. The other pieces are smaller wooden blocks, with what looks like decals of a wizard hat, hammer, or cannon on them. I wish that the decals were on all six sides, but I suppose that would have driven up the price of the game. The fire pieces are star-shaped wooden bits painted blue or red (the two colors), and the kings are basically wooden pawns. Everything comes in plastic bags stored in a sturdy, but plain-looking box. The components are nothing to write home about, but are fine, considering the game is self-published.

2.) Rules: The rules are very straightforward and painless to pick up. We found ourselves catching onto the stratagem of the game in a very short time, and only had to consult the rules once. The rules do have color illustrations and are nicely formatted.

3.) Website and Computer game: Matt’s website, www.mwgames.com, is very helpful, having a downloadable .pdf file of the rules for the game – but even better, a downloadable version of the game that one can play for free! This is an excellent way to see if one would be interested in purchasing the board game, as the computer game plays the exact same way. I am always pleased with publishers who publish demos and rulebooks on their sites, as I am usually rather leery of those who don’t.

4.) Strategy: There seems to be a couple different routes that players can take when attempting to win. One can build piles of wizards, hoping to accumulate enough movement points to do whatever they want. Or one can build a lot of cannons, hoping to blow their opponent into submission. Or one can build walls all over their side of the board, trying to make an impenetrable fortress. And of course, one can always try to do a happy medium of these three. Which is best? We haven’t discovered that yet. But almost always our games have ended by the person who lost making a mistake (leaving their king in an easy to kill location, or such) rather than by superior strategy of the winner. Of course, this still makes for a satisfying win, just not AS satisfying. The board is small, and this seems to limit strategy quite a bit. I’m wondering if a larger board would have made the game more fun, giving pieces to move around. Right now, the game often gets a “crowded” feel.

5.) Theme and Fun Factor: The game was fun, and we enjoyed it a lot. The theme fit fairly well (the cannons were great, but the wizards didn’t seem to make a lot of sense). One part of the game that was NOT enjoyable, however, was the fact that the game can easily end in a stalemate. The rules recommend ending the game after twenty-five turns, and I heartily agree – as the board can get so crowded that nothing much is ever going to happen.

If you like abstract strategy games, this is not a bad one to pick up, as the idea (shooting across the board as one another) is a good idea (from Chinese Chess, I believe) and makes for a fun, usually quick game. If you must have great components, a huge board, and win using superior strategy, then go elsewhere. But if you’d like a quick amusing game for two players, then this might be up your alley. But either way, go try the game out for yourself at the website! You have nothing to lose by doing that!

Tom Vasel

Thread: Session Report

gschloesser — 2003-12-20T15:44:54+00:00

Matt Worden is a business analyst and software developer who enjoys designing board and computer games as a hobby. He generously sent me a copy of Castle Danger, one of his 2-player strategy games, which has as its objective the destruction of the opponent’s king.

The homemade kit is filled with wood – big, chunky blocks similar to the type you can purchase at a craft store. The larger blocks represent walls, while the smaller blocks have stickers defining the piece as wizards, builders or cannons. In addition, each player has one pawn, representing their king, and numerous wooden starbursts, which are used to indicate the destruction caused by a successful cannon barrage.

The board itself is very pedestrian, clearly a product of some basic computer work and a color printer. The board depicts two land territories separated by a river. Each territory has a 4 x 7 grid superimposed upon it. Players will never move pieces onto the opponent’s territory, but will rather launch artillery barrages in attempts to slay the opponent’s king.

Each player begins the game with a king and wizard positioned on their territory. On a player’s turn, he performs the following actions:

1) Remove “fire” markers and reset cannons. Remove any existing fire markers and reset cannons that were fired on their previous turn.

2) Calculate moves. A player has a base three movement points, as well as three additional movement points for EACH wizard he has on the board. The moral of this rule: get several wizards on the board in order to give you more options on your turn.

3) Move. Use as many of your movement points as you desire. Pieces move orthogonal, one square at a time. They cannot move onto occupied spaces. With the field of play so small, this is a MAJOR consideration, as the board becomes very congested very quickly, severely limiting a player’s maneuverability.

Each turn, a player may bring one new piece of his choice onto the field … but only if his “portal” space is empty. Deciding on which type of piece to bring in is a critical decision in the game, as it will certainly dictate the strategy the player will pursue. More wizards mean more movement points. More cannons give a better chance of eliminating opposition pieces and potentially slaying the opponent’s king. More builders allow protective walls to be constructed, or removed, if the need arises. Of course, bringing too many pieces onto the board causes greater congestion and limits a player’s maneuverability. A delicate balance must be found.

In addition to moving pieces, players may use their builders to construct walls on adjacent spaces. Walls stop cannon balls, protecting any piece located behind it. However, they occupy a space, and with maneuverability being increasingly limited, players must carefully consider this when contemplating a construction spree. Walls may be removed by builders, but this does cost a movement point.

Players may also fire cannons with their movement points. A cannon ball travels in a straight line, costing one movement point for each square it traverses. It can land on any square in its line of fire, but must stop if it encounters a wall. The wall is destroyed and is replaced with a “fire” marker. Any piece that the ball lands on is destroyed.

Cannons may only be fired once per turn, being turned to their “fired” side once shot. They are re-set at the beginning of the player’s next turn.

Players alternate taking turns until a player’s king is slain, at which point the game ends in the opponent’s victory.

The game is one of tactical movement, maneuvering one’s pieces in efforts to protect your king and position your cannons so they can eliminate opponent’s pieces and king. However, as mentioned, maneuverability drops sharply as the game progresses since more and more pieces are brought onto the board and walls are constructed. It appears that one must find the correct balance between the number and type of pieces required in order to accomplish one’s objectives without severely reducing maneuverability. This seems to be the main challenge of the game.

Truth-be-told, I found the game, well, limiting. In spite of the choices involved as to what type of piece to bring onto the board, where to construct walls and where to move your pieces, the game feels to constrained. Options seem to decrease as the game progresses. After discussions with the designer, this was certainly his intent, and he freely admits that some folks may enjoy this “limited maneuverability” aspect, while others may not. I fall into the latter camp. Although the thinking involved is akin to that present in the classic 3M game Feudal, the options are actually far fewer … mainly because the board is so small. The game might prove more interesting if the board were larger, giving players more opportunity to perform tactical and clever moves. As is, I simply found the game to be too limiting and confining.

Jim went for movement early, bringing several wizards onto the board early. I brought on a builder and cannon early before bringing in an additional wizard. I quickly brought in more cannons and was successful in pinning Jim’s king behind one wall. I promptly placed my cannons in a line, destroying the wall and slaying the king with two successive artillery barrages.

Ratings: Greg 4.5, Jim 2

Thread: First Playing Report

gschloesser — 2003-12-20T02:24:43+00:00

Thread: Designer's Notes About Castle Danger

Brykovian — 2003-11-24T18:31:37+00:00

The idea for the game "Castle Danger" came to me one evening as I was driving home from work. I had the board design and the basic rules down by the next day, and had a working computer version of the game by the end of the next week.

The first concept that struck me as interesting was having a smaller-sized board, where the space on the board would become a vanishing resource. This lead to the add-a-piece-each-turn idea. I've also always enjoyed the concepts of building up your own defenses while trying to find a way to punch a hole through your opponent's -- and the need to balance offensive and defensive capabilities. Finally, the piece that really made this puzzle fit together was having the Wizard units determine your operational capacity -- trading valuable spaces on your half of the board for the ability to do 3 more moves. After that, I just tried to keep everything as simple as possible, figuring the mind of the players would add the right complexity.

Not much has changed since that first version of the design. There's been a minor change to how the game is first setup -- originally, there were four walls on a side instead of two. However, this only left 1 space in the middle of the board to get pieces out from the back row -- and players would lob cannon balls in front of it to greatly limit the opponent's movement. More recently, a blues-first-move limitation has been added to even-out the starting advantage, since the game has a strong momentum element to it.

In the past couple of months, an Oxford student by the name of Christopher Fitzsimons suggested a variant of the game, where the type of new pieces added to the board wouldn't be revealed until the player wished to use the piece. After a handful of discussions on the idea, the "Hidden Danger" hidden-information variant of the game was born. I need to give thanks to Clark Rodeffer also for talking through the idea with him.

The computer versions came first. v1.0 was only out a couple of months before v1.1 was released to change the start-of-game setup. These first versions allowed for "hotseat" games (2 players at the same computer) and for play-by-email. v1.3 took a little longer and only added a play-by-network feature, so people could play each other across the Internet. I'm currently working on v1.4 (without an official ETA at this point), which will add in a few new features: a new default graphics set by Clint Franklin, user-customizable graphics, user-customizable start-of-game setups, a couple blues-first-move limitation options, the ability to play the "Hidden Danger" variant, a better mouse-based user interface, and a more robust play-by-network system. It's still pretty much the same game though. I'm not sure when/if I'll get to a v1.5, which would add a computer opponent.

The tabletop board game was developed more recently. The first production version I made used a board printed on photopaper and then cold laminated, with each piece being of a unique shape and spray-painted red or blue. The newer production version has a better quality board and mostly neutral-colored pieces. The Wizard, Builder, and Cannon pieces are now all wooden cubes with an identifying icon on one side. This allows a bit more flexibility with the pieces in a "central stash" instead of being specifically assigned to one side or the other, and it also makes it possible to play the "Hidden Danger" variant.

I do have a follow-up game called "Thrones of Danger" in the plans (you can read initial concepts on my website's message board: http://www.mwgames.com/MessageBoard ). This game is a bit more complex and may work best as just a computer game -- we'll see how that goes.

Finally, for those folks who find this kind of thing interesting ... "Castle Danger" is named after a small community along Minnesota's North Shore of Lake Superior. I saw the road sign for it a number of years ago and when this game design came to me, I thought it made a catchy title. (http://www.mwgames.com/realcd.htm )

-Matt Worden, November 2003
website: www.mwgames.com
email: support@mwgames.com

Image

Brykovian — 2003-11-19T21:32:38+00:00

A handful of turns into a game

Image

Brykovian — 2003-11-19T21:32:34+00:00

Setup at start of a Game