It should remain.
What should be changed?
1. Scouts should NOT be allowed to attack from more than one space away. Why you ask? Because stratego is about information and position. If you want information you should have to sacrifice something - in this case board position. Scouts attacking from afar make the price of information much too cheap.
And this leads to too much defensive playing. The purpose of stratego is to capture the flag. The opponent's flag is on the other side of the board. When players sit on their side of the board the entire game I don't believe I'm playing stratego anymore.
2. When one player creates an advantage using the 2 square rule - the other player should NOT be allowed to then chase using the 2 square rule where there is no advantage. Being aggressive and creating the advantage should be rewarded.
3. If #1 is not changed, then the spy should not be allowed to move until the 100th or 200th move or unless immediately threatened by an opponent's piece. Again, we already have way too much defensive play - put your spy somewhere and it sits for a while. Try going to the other side of the board with some pieces.
1. I totally don't agree with you. This game is all about info and position, true.
But how do you gain quick and effective info? Right, with the scouts!
Look at the stats : it's highly likely that a scout will discover a crucial piece or bomb in each game that is being played on this site!
If we have to follow your vision, then why should the miner be able to diffuse bombs for instance?
Why should the spy be able to kill your marsh?
Scouts and miners are weak pieces but the difference is : they can be used for any situation on the board, the majority of your pieces are scouts and miners so they start and make the game proceed, they play crucial roles in the endgame.
I think scouts are essential with their function. They're ideal bluffers : for the cheapest price you can really screw the mind of your opponent. They give you time, they're fast, they're cheap and you can play them like they are really big guns.
I don't know if the original rule was like this but I'm glad it involved into a flying piece.
It gives this game an extra dimension what it deserves. Otherwise it would be really onedimensional and without the scouts, guarantee you will get a lot more blitzers from move one. Would that be good for the game? I don't think so.
So if scouts didn't fly, people would play more agressive you say?
I think it's the other way around. People will become more agressive (being agressive is not the same as to blitz btw) cuz' they know they have cheap fast detecters to figure out what to do.
If the scout couldn't fly, then people would play more defensive.
It's faster gameplay, it stimulates process in the game and it makes sure you have to think defensive but attack at the same time.
They bring the right balance on the board. It's not good to be overly defensive nor overly agressive.
2. Being in position with the two square rule should indeed be rewarded EXCEPT for the classical flag defending.
You should not be rewarded if your two miners are at my cornersealed flag and my two captains block you off.
The reward you get should be a tie in this case, just common sense.
Funny part : with the bombs you should win according to ISF but WITHOUT THE BOMBS, you can get a valid tie!
Cuz' all you do is move your captains in a constantly repeatin' pattern. They just move, you don't kill anything so ISF can't see this as chasing. Chasing means to make an attempt to kill that piece.
But if my opponent still had a scout left, he literally forces me to............don't attack.
Ironic isn't it,........my opponent is in position, in advantage with the two square rule, he doesn't want me to attack but in fact he needs to be attacked or he won't ever win the game.
That's my entire problem with this rule regarding flagprotection.
With the bombs, my opponent should gain the advantage but without the bombs, he clearly lost this advantage but even then, he still should be rewarded.
According to ISF, the miners are the stronger pieces on the board to go for the flag in the endgame.
But if there are no bombs, they are suddenly no longer the stronger pieces although technically they still have the same advantage and position on the board, LOL!
It doesn't make any sense at all.
3. You say the target of the game is to capture the flag.
This is absolute bs. No, it isn't,....at all! I hardly play for the flag.
In ninety percent of my games I go for the kill and I don't care about the flag at all.
I rarely grab flags (only if I'm behind in fact).
The target is to take the flag OR to kill all his pieces.
I think both styles of play should be treated equally.
In the classical situation, I am going for my target to kill the miners and the miners are going for the target to get the flag.
Both players can't do it, both ways are equally to treat so mathematically it's therefore a TIE.
And that's the only exception on the 2s rule in my eyes.