"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

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.

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?

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!