Recommend
10 
 Thumb up
 Hide
109 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »   | 

Abstract Games» Forums » General

Subject: Why Storisende matters - its strategic dilemma explained rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
christian freeling
Netherlands
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmb

It seems fair to assume that not many posters understand Storisende or why the game matters. So I've played a game following a particular strategy, to show its merits (both the game's and the strategy's).

The game was played on the depicted board, a convex 6-modules hex with a module-sized lake in the centre. The AI had 30 seconds per move and was set at maximum strength. It moved first and I declined the swap so the AI plays White.


After white-10

'White-10' is indeed move 10 because the AI counts making the board lay-out as 'moves'. That being clarified, White immediately occupies another 'sub-grid'. A single double (sorry for that) can hop around breeding, but it can never reach cells that are adjacent to it. So to 'cover the grid' in terms of breeding opportunities, you have to create doubles on several sub-grids.


After white-22

Time to introduce the titles subject. My strategy was to disregard 'territory' in the opening, but instead focus on getting pieces on the Wall. That means working with several small territories, one or two cells, and breeding on the Wall where possible. Pieces on the Wall have a much larger range and cannot be threatened by pieces in the territories. Win the fight on the Wall, then care about territories, that was the strategy.


After white-28

White offers the exchange of a double that really didn't have anywhere to go, and Black gladly accepts because it slows down White's growth.


After black-35

Now it's Black offering the exchange of a double.


After white-48

Both have 9 men and White appears to cover the most terrain, but Black has 5 men on the Wall.


After white-62

Here the tables begin to turn. Black will defend the lower left, and doesn't need much to do so. Meanwhile the attack will be directed towards the upper right territory.


After black-71

Black starts a preliminary skirmish.


After white-86

This is already a won position for Black. So I'll refrain from further comments.


After white-96


After white-110


After black-125

This example of 'Wall-strategy' doesn't by far tell the whole story but its purpose is to show there's a clear strategic dilemma present in the game. Its object is territorial, but its object on the Wall is existential. Pieces on the Wall are much stronger because they're far less inhibited in their movements.

This game is an example of an unbalanced course of events, but imagine the AI to be smarter (rather than imagining me dumber) and you should be able to conclude that the dilemma gets much more 'refinement'. It might in the end hinge on one territory, even one cell of territory, and on the Wall there's this battle of elimination going on. Seeing the goals of territory and elimination so intricately interwoven in one organism is what me makes me feel Storisende matters.

P.S. In the deep endgame the fights on the Wall, and very intricate ones at that, may reduce material to the extent that there are not enough men left to claim all territories. So then its about the largest available territories, the unclaimed ones in particular. Pieces in the territories may still be able to contribute because they may still be able to cross into an adjacent territory, but you need at least a double for that in the first place. It was this very behaviour that I found so difficult to visualise before the game was implemented.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Bracey
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
"It seems fair to assume that not many posters understand Storisende or why the game matters."

Yep, most people do not understand your recently invented game whose rules are badly written ... that feels like a plausible statement.

Not to be mean, but I've seen a few of the threads where you or someone else has insinuated, or passively-aggressively suggested, or simply explosively screamed with rage, that anyone who does not immediately understand why your Battle Sheep variant is a work of transcendent genius is lacking the basic sentience necessary to qualify as human and I think the problem might be you rather than the readers.

Okay, I've not carefully perused every thread and set up a physical copy and tried to follow game play but I have read the rules and some responses you made to Russ, and they don't really properly explain how you score or what 'capture' is. Your play throughs, like this one, skip huge chunks of moves, so they do not really help. Perhaps it would help if you started by explaing the rules clearly and straightforwardly, with examples, or maybe getting a few people to sit down with you and help you do that. It might be frustrating for you that I won't invest a few hours to just work it out myself but hundreds of games clamour for me to learn them and most do not expect this level of work from me.

On the other hand I'm still contemplating that I've got this completely wrong and this is some sort of ironic performance art piece that is poking fun at the perceptions casual readers have of the Abstract Games sub-domain.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
christian freeling
Netherlands
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmb
RobertBr wrote:
"It seems fair to assume that not many posters understand Storisende or why the game matters."

Yep, most people do not understand your recently invented game whose rules are badly written ... that feels like a plausible statement.
I did my best to make them as clear as I could, but they are still provisional in that Storisende has not yet been officially published. So I'm open for suggestions to improve them.

RobertBr wrote:
Not to be mean, but I've seen a few of the threads where you or someone else has insinuated, or passively-aggressively suggested, or simply explosively screamed with rage, that anyone who does not immediately understand why your Battle Sheep variant is a work of transcendent genius is lacking the basic sentience necessary to qualify as human and I think the problem might be you rather than the readers.
I find this a colourful summary although I don't recognise the threads as quite that offensive. Regarding Battle Sheep, I had heard the name but I can assure you that it didn't stand at Storisende's cradle. Rather, it's ancestor was the game of Mu, a rather bizarre exercise in inside out inventing. Very clearly so because that process leads to an inherent outcome, not something predetermined. In fact it's the main characteristic of it and of course no-one would design a game like Mu on purpose. Mu, by the way, dates from the mid eighties. The idea of Storisende came when I thought that it would be nice to implement a simpler move/grow/capture system on top of a similar process of territory-wall separation.

RobertBr wrote:
Okay, I've not carefully perused every thread and set up a physical copy and tried to follow game play but I have read the rules and some responses you made to Russ, and they don't really properly explain how you score or what 'capture' is.
The scoring criterion is simple: at the end of the game all remaining tiles, if any, may be removed and a player owns a territory if and only if he is the only colour present in it. One man is sufficient for that. Capture is by replacement, regardless of size.

RobertBr wrote:
Your play throughs, like this one, skip huge chunks of moves, so they do not really help. Perhaps it would help if you started by explaing the rules clearly and straightforwardly, with examples, or maybe getting a few people to sit down with you and help you do that. It might be frustrating for you that I won't invest a few hours to just work it out myself but hundreds of games clamour for me to learn them and most do not expect this level of work from me.
Well, I'm sorry for that and I'm open for suggestions to improve the rules. As for examples, I had hoped that my illustration of a strategy - win on the wall and care about territory later - would have been clearly visible in the diagrams I uploaded. The AI clearly cared about territory in the early stages and lost. Human players might be able to conclude from it that in the early stages priorities may not lay all that much on 'securing territory' but rather on a more existential fight.

RobertBr wrote:
On the other hand I'm still contemplating that I've got this completely wrong and this is some sort of ironic performance art piece that is poking fun at the perceptions casual readers have of the Abstract Games sub-domain.
No indeed it isn't. It's a fun game and it was meant to be, but it's also deep in that it is resourceful in its strategies as well as in its tactics.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Moxham
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mb
RobertBr wrote:
"It seems fair to assume that not many posters understand Storisende or why the game matters."

Yep, most people do not understand your recently invented game whose rules are badly written ... that feels like a plausible statement.

Not to be mean, but I've seen a few of the threads where you or someone else has insinuated, or passively-aggressively suggested, or simply explosively screamed with rage, that anyone who does not immediately understand why your Battle Sheep variant is a work of transcendent genius is lacking the basic sentience necessary to qualify as human and I think the problem might be you rather than the readers.

Okay, I've not carefully perused every thread and set up a physical copy and tried to follow game play but I have read the rules and some responses you made to Russ, and they don't really properly explain how you score or what 'capture' is. Your play throughs, like this one, skip huge chunks of moves, so they do not really help. Perhaps it would help if you started by explaing the rules clearly and straightforwardly, with examples, or maybe getting a few people to sit down with you and help you do that. It might be frustrating for you that I won't invest a few hours to just work it out myself but hundreds of games clamour for me to learn them and most do not expect this level of work from me.

On the other hand I'm still contemplating that I've got this completely wrong and this is some sort of ironic performance art piece that is poking fun at the perceptions casual readers have of the Abstract Games sub-domain.
My, my. Aren't we just full of bile, then!

Ironically (though not all that interestingly so), this is the only post I can remember seeing here where someone actually was screaming with uncontrolled rage. Oh, apart from the Canadian guy, whose rants are at least works of art in their way. Maybe you really should toddle quietly off and engage with one of those hundreds of other games which clamour so competitively for your attention - otherwise I fear for your health.

Since reading you on the subject I've had an extra-careful look at the rules of Storisende and in my judgement (which I'll risk claiming is reasonably sound when it comes to explanatory prose) they're not bad at all - indeed, I would say fundamentally admirable in their attempt to do a tricky job as succinctly as possible. I'm sure if their author were preparing them for formal publication they would undergo some revision, and that that would possibly involve seeking outside opinion. As for the play-through, I assumed it was only intended as an aid to imaginative comprehension - an unexpurgated version of a game 125 moves long would be quite a lot to ask.

But what really shocks is the tone of your remarks, given who you're talking to. I remember once reading in Clive James' TV column an account of a documentary he had stumbled upon, in which a mountaineer discussed the dangers entailed in his attempt to solo all the major Himalayan peaks without supplementary oxygen. Because the guy talked in very slightly quaint English and with a funny Cherman accent, James assumed this was a stereotype idiot-with-a-death-wish and accordingly treated him to a maximum of condescension and a minimum of mercy. For any reader in the know, however, the laugh was ultimately on him, since he was clearly so ignorant of the subject as to be unaware that he was mocking probably the most redoubtable high-altitude climber of all time. I can only think that his unfamiliarity with the track record of Reinhold Messner must be paralleled by yours with that of Christian Freeling, for were it not so you would surely have shown a bit more respect.





2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
A rule text suggestion:

Quote:
The winner is the player who controls most territory.

At least in the flavors of English I know, "who controls most territory" is syntactically invalid (i.e. it's missing "the"), and as I tried to complete it into a valid English sentence, it left me realizing that I was unsure whether it meant:

"who controls the most territories" (I.e. each territory which you control is worth a point.)

or

"who controls the most territory hexes" (I.e. each cell in a territory which you control is worth a point.)

Also: "Territory" was used a bit ambiguously to describe both an individual cell (e.g. "The module underneath is the actual 'territory'") and to describe a contiguous set of such hexes (e.g. "expands exactly one existing territory.").

I understand now (due to other evidence, e.g. the sample game) that the second interpretation of scoring is the intended one, so I'd suggest something like:

For each territory which contains pieces of exactly one player, that player receives as many points as their are hexes in that territory.

and perhaps explicitly defining what a "territory" is in the start (i.e. "a maximal contiguous group of uncovered cells on modules", or some such description).

(Also be careful about "cell" in the concrete sense of occupy-able cells on the physical modules and "cell" in the more abstract sense of cells in the hexgrid, i.e. lake/inlet cells.)
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
the sample game in the OP above wrote:
Pieces on the Wall have a much larger range

This surprised/confused me and sent me back to the rules.

rules wrote:
A piece on the Wall may jump over any cell, whether occupied or vacant, and land on any target cell.

I previously understood that the only difference between being on the Wall and not on the Wall is that a piece on the Wall can jump onto another Wall hex, while a piece not on the Wall cannot.

Is there some additional capability of a piece on the Wall? This by itself didn't seem to justify saying "Pieces on the Wall have a much larger range", which makes it sound like pieces on the Wall can jump arbitrarily far, instead of jumping exactly as many spaces as the size of the piece.

The section "Mechanism" says clearly "A piece may only move straight in one of the six main directions and must move exactly the number of cells equaling its height." with no mention of this not being true for a piece on the Wall.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Buckley
England
Bath
Somerset
flag msg tools
23rd June: Black Thursday :(
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thank you for making the effort to explain why Storisende deserves to be taken seriously. I appreciate it better than I did after the rules dump. I think I mostly understand the rules but one question: If the game had ended after white 110, what would have happened to the two cells still covered by hexes? I assume that they would become walls but I don't think you made that explicit in the rules. It looks quite interesting, actually.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
christian freeling
Netherlands
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmb
russ wrote:
A rule text suggestion:

Quote:
The winner is the player who controls most territory.

At least in the flavors of English I know, "who controls most territory" is syntactically invalid (i.e. it's missing "the"), and as I tried to complete it into a valid English sentence, it left me realizing that I was unsure whether it meant:

"who controls the most territories" (I.e. each territory which you control is worth a point.)

or

"who controls the most territory hexes" (I.e. each cell in a territory which you control is worth a point.)

Also: "Territory" was used a bit ambiguously to describe both an individual cell (e.g. "The module underneath is the actual 'territory'") and to describe a contiguous set of such hexes (e.g. "expands exactly one existing territory.").

I understand now (due to other evidence, e.g. the sample game) that the second interpretation of scoring is the intended one, so I'd suggest something like:

For each territory which contains pieces of exactly one player, that player receives as many points as their are hexes in that territory.

and perhaps explicitly defining what a "territory" is in the start (i.e. "a maximal contiguous group of uncovered cells on modules", or some such description).

(Also be careful about "cell" in the concrete sense of occupy-able cells on the physical modules and "cell" in the more abstract sense of cells in the hexgrid, i.e. lake/inlet cells.)
Thanks Russ, I'll make the necessary changes sometime in the coming days.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
christian freeling
Netherlands
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmb
russ wrote:
the sample game in the OP above wrote:
Pieces on the Wall have a much larger range

This surprised/confused me and sent me back to the rules.

rules wrote:
A piece on the Wall may jump over any cell, whether occupied or vacant, and land on any target cell.

I previously understood that the only difference between being on the Wall and not on the Wall is that a piece on the Wall can jump onto another Wall hex, while a piece not on the Wall cannot.

Is there some additional capability of a piece on the Wall? This by itself didn't seem to justify saying "Pieces on the Wall have a much larger range", which makes it sound like pieces on the Wall can jump arbitrarily far, instead of jumping exactly as many spaces as the size of the piece.

The section "Mechanism" says clearly "A piece may only move straight in one of the six main directions and must move exactly the number of cells equaling its height." with no mention of this not being true for a piece on the Wall.
I see the problem and I'll address it asap (but not today). A piece on the Wall may land anywhere on the board, whether on the Wall or in the territories, of course subject to the rule that it travels as far as it is high. Pieces like to remain on the Wall as long as possible because if they move off it they can never return. One of the considerations that may lead a player to leave an unguarded territorial piece under attack of a Wall-piece, is that it may be worth it having it captured to get an opponent's piece off the Wall.

I now see that the use of the word range was wrong.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Bracey
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
christianF wrote:
... I'm open for suggestions to improve them.

The scoring criterion is simple: at the end of the game all remaining tiles, if any, may be removed and a player owns a territory if and only if he is the only colour present in it.

Well the scoring caused quite a bit of confusion. If I get it right it should work like this:

1. Players check each territory to see if a player controls it. A player controls a territory if they have at least one piece within it and the opponent has no pieces present in that territory.
2. The player who controls the most territories wins.

Importantly you do not remove tiles because then there would be only one territory on the board as it is only the presence of the tiles which is dividing the board into territories.

It would obviously help enormously to show a board position and explain what the scores would be.

christianF wrote:

Capture is by replacement, regardless of size.

I assume what you mean is that if your pieces land on a space containing your opponents pieces the opponents pieces are removed from the board, and that a stack of any size (from 1 to whatever) can capture a stack of any size (so my 2 stack can move 2 spaces and capture your 7 stack). Chess-like capture, but there is no reason for a reader to assume you mean that - it could be Coppit style stacking capture or a host of other options. Again examples would help.

Another obvious question not tackled in the rules is the end game condition. If there is a section of wall with no LOS to other wall sections once a player controls it they presumably are guaranteed a draw because they can decline to pass indefinitely?

christianF wrote:

As for examples, I had hoped that my illustration of a strategy - win on the wall and care about territory later - would have been clearly visible in the diagrams I uploaded. The AI clearly cared about territory in the early stages and lost. Human players might be able to conclude from it that in the early stages priorities may not lay all that much on 'securing territory' but rather on a more existential fight.

This seems to be the bit you are really excited about. The game contains functionally two elements, wall pieces which are valuable resources and territory pieces which are potential victory points. But that is not rules (and I got that you were excited about this even without the rules being clear), but it is not that original. It is how Dominion or a dozen other board games work, posing a challenge to players where they can pursue victory points now or the resources to acquire victory points later. Its fairly old, it goes back to at least Mine a Million in the 60s.
Does it work here? Hard to say without playing, and as already pointed out that is difficult without the rules. In those games it works because a player can just win by going directly for victory points. If another player pursues resources (analogy, focuses on the wall) they might find its too late to catch the leader. Thus creating a tension between the pursuit of the resources needed for victory and victory itself. Does this game do that? Or is it simply always in some-one's interest to pursue the wall?
Now it is certainly a rare strategic dilemma in abstracts (though as I say well known elsewhere) though not entirely unknown (Hive has some of this in its attack/defence balance). Is that enough to justify a game in the same family as Battle Sheep/Hive which is more complex, takes much longer to play, feels a bit clunkier in terms of components, and will only handle two players? Hard to say.

Ironically what the game is definitely not helped by is your fan club...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
christian freeling
Netherlands
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmb
Buckersuk wrote:
Thank you for making the effort to explain why Storisende deserves to be taken seriously. I appreciate it better than I did after the rules dump. I think I mostly understand the rules but one question: If the game had ended after white 110, what would have happened to the two cells still covered by hexes? I assume that they would become walls but I don't think you made that explicit in the rules. It looks quite interesting, actually.
Thanks for taking a closer look
Regarding the count of tiled cells, that too has recently been clarified in the rules. If a game has ended, if not by resignation then always by a double pass, the remaining tiles may be removed before counting. So they actually transform into territory rather than into the wall-cells.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nick Bentley
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

A lovely explanation. Even though I've already done some contemplating of Storisende and had already "gotten" it, I didn't quite appreciate how well it does on small boards until seeing this. As someone who loves tight games on small boards, this makes me like it even more.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Bracey
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
russ wrote:

"who controls the most territories" (I.e. each territory which you control is worth a point.)

or

"who controls the most territory hexes" (I.e. each cell in a territory which you control is worth a point.)

Interesting because after his 'clarifications' I definitely understood him to be saying that each territory was of the same value regardless of the number of hexes it contained.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Edited to add:
I was still confused about movement from a Wall hex, so I'm striking out this incorrect comment lest it confuse anyone else... :/

Oh! I was guessing backwards. I thought it might mean that an N-stack moves (as usual) in one of the 6 cardinal directions, but possibly (as an exception to the normal movement) not limited by the usual fixed distance N.

So in fact, it is limited by its fixed distance N, but doesn't have to move in one of the 6 cardinal directions?

I.e. it can move to any occupy-able hex which is exactly N hexes away, but not necessarily along a cardinal direction? I.e. landing anywhere occupyable on the "hexagonal ring" of radius N around its current location?

===

So to take a concrete example: in the last diagram of the OP, the 2-stack on the wall (in the northeast) could jump to any of 5 green hexes in that territory north of its location (moving NW-W, or NW-NW, or NW-NE, or NE-NE, or NE-E). But not to the 2 green hexes directly adjacent NW or NE of it.

And it could also move SE-SE to land on an empty wall hex.

And it could move SE-E or SE-SW to land on a wall hex occupied by another of its own pieces (thus creating a 3-stack), right?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
christian freeling
Netherlands
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmb
RobertBr wrote:
Ironically what the game is definitely not helped by is your fan club...
If such a thing existed. I'll have a fresh look at the rules shortly, with your suggestions and those of Russ in mind. As for my statement that the game 'matters', I'm not sure if anything matters at all, but just in case abstract strategy games 'matter', I've selected five out of an oeuvre of some fifty that I feel indeed matter. That doesn't necessarily mean that they would matter to you.
Storisende matters to me because it would be near enough a 'sport weapon' if were played on a base-5 or base-6 hex hex board. But I got a bit tired of the 'sport weapon' option that might result from it so I kept the modular board to emphasise its recreational purpose. But, barring accidental inventions, it is my last game and I'm glad it is because

- It is formally territorial but actually existential. The two goals most closely interconnected with human conflict.
- It has known 'goals' in abstract territory games as sub-goals like connection, race and blockade.
- It is organic, from the lay-out of the board to the emergence of the Wall. Players do not so much cooperate to create the Wall, but they do nolens volens operate together to create it.
- It was invented 'inside out' on the basis of very simple core behaviour, and the result was not predetermined.

And it certainly was not invented with the market in mind, if that's what you assumed. You see, I'm an alien at BGG. Nick's a half-alien, Russ understands aliens and a lot of others are not alien unfriendly, though they don't always understand, like you, what I'm talking about. But it takes all kinds to make a world doesn't it?


3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
christian freeling
Netherlands
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmb
RobertBr wrote:
russ wrote:

"who controls the most territories" (I.e. each territory which you control is worth a point.)

or

"who controls the most territory hexes" (I.e. each cell in a territory which you control is worth a point.)

Interesting because after his 'clarifications' I definitely understood him to be saying that each territory was of the same value regardless of the number of hexes it contained.
That might be because you hadn't thought about it
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Moxham
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mb
RobertBr wrote:
Ironically what the game is definitely not helped by is your fan club...
Just quickly. I'm assuming from context that you mean either principally or exclusively me. But I'm emphatically not a Freeling 'fan'. I'm an appreciator. The difference, if you think about it experientially, is that fans pretty much by definition lack discrimination. They're blind to the weaknesses of the person on the pedestal. But I've taken Christian to task over quite a lot of stuff over time - it's just that my assessment always comes back on balance to admiration.

As for whether my previous intervention helped or didn't - well, to judge from your own latest set of comments, something seems to have tilted you back towards engaging with Storisende rather than giving up on it, and doing so in a visibly more measured and constructive vein. I don't need that to have been anything of my doing, but I'm pleased to see that it's happened.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian K
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I was not really able to follow the original post here sadly. I would love to see na annotated game, where I get to see evry move (even though producing it is more work). I am extremely happy with people posting annotated games when they post a set of rules. It makes it much easier to get a feeling for the game.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
christian freeling
Netherlands
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmb
russ wrote:
Oh! I was guessing backwards. I thought it might mean that an N-stack moves (as usual) in one of the 6 cardinal directions, but possibly (as an exception to the normal movement) not limited by the usual fixed distance N.

So in fact, it is limited by its fixed distance N, but doesn't have to move in one of the 6 cardinal directions?
It is restricted to the six main directions and it must answer the general protocol.

The general protocol is that a piece must move the exact distance of its height in one of the six main directions. The difference between a piece on the Wall and a piece in a territory is that the latter is restricted to the territories and may jump wall-cells if and only if these are occupied by a like coloured piece. This of course excludes singles. Wall-pieces have no restrictions except that the target cell must belong to the board. They may fly over lakes, but the distance restiction remains and in this respect the lakes do have cells.

russ wrote:
I.e. it can move to any occupy-able hex which is exactly N hexes away, but not necessarily along a cardinal direction? I.e. landing anywhere occupyable on the "hexagonal ring" of radius N around its current location?

===

So to take a concrete example: in the last diagram of the OP, the 2-stack on the wall (in the northeast) could jump to any of 5 green hexes in that territory north of its location (moving NW-W, or NW-NW, or NW-NE, or NE-NE, or NE-E). But not to the 2 green hexes directly adjacent NW or NE of it.

And it could also move SE-SE to land on an empty wall hex.

And it could move SE-E or SE-SW to land on a wall hex occupied by another of its own pieces (thus creating a 3-stack), right?
I hope the answer above clarifies it - all pieces at all times are subject to the distance/height condition and to the six main directions. I'll check the rules to see if the misunderstanding to which it led can be prevented.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Molnar
United States
Bridgewater
New Jersey
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RobertBr wrote:

Ironically what the game is definitely not helped by is your fan club...

We have got to get t-shirts.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
christian freeling
Netherlands
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmb
Muemmelmann wrote:
I was not really able to follow the original post here sadly. I would love to see na annotated game, where I get to see evry move (even though producing it is more work). I am extremely happy with people posting annotated games when they post a set of rules. It makes it much easier to get a feeling for the game.
That was indeed my intention but it is a lot of work indeed, and BGG storage is not unlimited. I had hoped, and still hope, to show people the intricacy of the rules by illustrating its strategic dilemma. I fought with visualising this dilemma for months, before the game's implementation so I am the first to admit that it is not easily done. The process may have familiarised me to such a degree with its logic, that I lost track of the fact that others would have to go to a similar process, albeit in the opposite direction. Moreover, Storisende is a 'layered' game in more than one sense, and it is as far away from a tactical quickie as it could possibly get.

In my mind core behaviour presents itself as a 'dual' living thing, but I don't experience the duality as such because the 'thing' is inherently 'in balance'. There's no point in visualising unbalanced behaviour so I never 'feel' a situation where one side has won.
The OP's illustration shows unbalanced behaviour as well as showing that White's strategy is superior. The existential fight, it would seem, predominates. But of course, if both sides are aware of that, the existential fight will become more balanced. That, or slightly before that, is of course the moment where territorial considerations enter the equation, at least for those territories that are still contested. This behaviour is unusual because it is very much behaviour off one organism. It's that organism I felt and that explained itself well enough, but it left me puzzling about the endgame for a long time.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Tavener
United Kingdom
London
England
flag msg tools
designer
The overtext below is true.
badge
The overtext above is false.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Muemmelmann wrote:
I was not really able to follow the original post here sadly. I would love to see na annotated game, where I get to see evry move (even though producing it is more work). I am extremely happy with people posting annotated games when they post a set of rules. It makes it much easier to get a feeling for the game.
Just for the information of any game designers that may be reading, Ai Ai can create .gif animations of a game (after the game is over, go to Game menu, Review Game) whistle
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian K
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Stephen: AiAi sounds super cool, I really have to check it out at some point.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
christian freeling
Netherlands
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmb
Muemmelmann wrote:
Stephen: AiAi sounds super cool, I really have to check it out at some point.
It is, believe me
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian K
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It is because it is the only thinking entity which is interested in playing Storisende?

(By the way, you don't need to post your images on BGG. You could use another image hosting service or even create a video)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »   |