| Ah maybe I didn't write that clearly enough... | | The user takes turns moving and each move consists of placing a piece | and then turning one part of the board 90 degrees.
You wrote that clearly enough, but it leaves some questions open:
What sort of opening protocol is there? For example in many games there is the "swap" rule. After the first stone is placed, the 2nd player has the option to swap sides. If sides are swapped, the player who moved first is now the 2nd player, and makes the next move. Sides may be swapped only once per game. If the 2nd player does not swap immediately after the first move, then sides may not be swapped at all that game.
Such a rule can make the game much more balanced and interesting. But if the people who designed the game did not include any such balancing rule, that says a lot (in my opinion) about how much thought they put into the game in the first place (not much.)
I agree with Douglas there, who knows if it's needed yet... maybe it needs to be...
Are you required to rotate a quadrant on your move, or may you leave all quadrants as they are?
I'm pretty sure you must turn a quadrant, they say that each move consists of 2 parts.
If you form five in a row for both yourself and your opponent on your turn,that's a draw, it's also a draw if the board is full and noone won by then
what is the game outcome?
Does an overline (six in a row) win? If there is no mention of this
possibility in the rules, again this would indicate to me that the inventors
did not put a lot of thought into the game.
| On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 09:57:38AM -0500, David J Bush wrote:
| > | A Swedish publisher is just launching a new game called Pentago
| > | (http://www.pentago.se/) the page is still only in Swedish. The game is
| > | a simple five in a row but with a little diffrent concept as the board
| > | moves...
| > |
| > | Now to why I am actually writing all this is to see if anybody can see
| > | if this game have the same disadvantage as a standard game of five in a
| > | row? In five in a row the first player has quite an advantage compared
| > | to the second player. It is evem proven that with a perfect game the
| > | first player can always win but what do you think about this version?
| >
| > Like you said, only in Swedish. When I click on the English flag I get
| > "under construction." So how can I answer your question? I don't know
| > what the opening protocol is. I see the java moving board display, but
| > that leaves lots of unanswered questions. Even with the rotating
| > quadrants, it looks like such a simple game compared to Gomoku or
| > Renju, that a computer program could probably completely solve it.
| > So, perhaps game balance is not the main issue; it doesn't seem very
| > interesting in the first place.
| >
| > David Bush (chmeee)
| >
| >
| > To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@gamerz.net with
| > unsubscribe pbmserv-users@gamerz.net
| > as the BODY of the message. The SUBJECT is ignored.
| >
|
To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@gamerz.net with unsubscribe pbmserv-users@gamerz.net as the BODY of the message. The SUBJECT is ignored.