Stratego4 - awesome game option, please implement it? :p
Posted 29 November 2012 - 04:54 PM
The Barriere version is already here (the short version), the classic one of course and then the 4 player mode as well, that would be awesome!
But it needs a lot of work and study to built that feature in the game I suppose...
Posted 01 December 2012 - 01:04 AM
Posted 04 February 2013 - 08:41 PM
Posted 04 February 2013 - 10:37 PM
Posted 04 February 2013 - 10:49 PM
This post here would talk about cut throat style game. This is just a brainstorming idea/rough draft. Feel free to build off of my ideas.
1) Game would be on a 40x40 grid with a number of no man zones dividing each section of the board to assure that every side has equal access to each side of the board. Or we could have it one large no man zone with small island in the middle with a lanes that has access to all four sides.
2) Each player would have their own color. With that in mind, the site would have to allow two more colors to be allowed that every can use and the highest ranked player would have option to their favorite color, then the 2nd, 3rd and the lowest ranked player gets the remaining color.
3) Each side will move their army and still protect their flag but, also make an effort to capture the other three players as well.
4) When a player attacks another players piece ONLY the two players involved get to see what pieces were involved. This would also mean unlike a two player game, ONLY pieces you captured will be displayed and NOT others that other team captured. This would make this very challenging. Bluffing would play a bigger role indeed in this game, because one will not know if a Marshall was captured on one side or not.
4a) If not then all four players can see what pieces were captured and all pieces displayed. I would find this not as fun, but it is how we have our game in a two player game.
Question now is:
If a player loses their flag, would their remaining forces now join with the team who defeated them? (example losing player still had a Major, two captains and a miner left...would the side who captured their flag have control of these pieces now?) If a player has no movable units left, would the bombs or any pieces trapped in the bombs join the winning side? If yes, then the flag of the losing side could just turn into a bomb.
If we decided not to go this route, then we can simply just say the losing player's units will all be removed from the game.
When the player wins a game vs the other three players, clearly the winner should get 3 times the reward of winning the game while the first player to lose gets three times the penalty. Second place player could get a normal victory for a two player game and the third place would get a normal loss.
Posted 04 February 2013 - 11:01 PM
1) Would each player have their own pieces, color, and own flag and just work as a team or... each have a separate color but, just one flag?
Would each player have a combined forces double of each piece and same color but only have one flag for that team?
1a) If each player has their own pieces, would the game be over if one of the players flags is found or they have no moveable units? If not would the remaining player be forced to play two vs one? Would the player who lost their flag have their remaining pieces go to their teammate?
1b) If both sides have a combined force, then would they take turn alternatively moving the same pieces? When the flag is capture, the game is over for both players on that team.
Posted 05 February 2013 - 06:51 PM
I have 4-player chess at home, it really gets you thinking
Posted 05 February 2013 - 07:16 PM
Personally i was thinking more about a team-based multiplayer game. It could be like 'Age of Empires' were two (or more) seperate players (each with own flag and units) play against two others. If so, yes if someone's flag is down the players looses and its 2v1. So there is a need to balance on attack and help defending a troubled teammate. Could also do a nice double attack on one opposing side ofcourse, with the risk of loosing on the other side. So discussing tactics upfront might give an edge if your team has a complementary setup.
Your idea of 1 flag is also interesting. But you need to be able to make a real joint setup which might be some more difficult (or get a fixed location but that would be a bit lame i think). Or with 3v3 were you have 2 frontplayers and the one in the back has the flag.
Just brainstorming some ideas, having some doubts about the overall game speed though. But i think its pretty much be a complete new game so it will require lots of thoughts.
- vowles_23 likes this
Posted 05 February 2013 - 07:21 PM
Posted 05 February 2013 - 11:24 PM
Another idea if you don't want to go with my first suggestion here; How about the last say 10 pieces you lost are replaced? I at first thought you can select what 10 you lost, but this would be more challenging.
What did you think about my idea you only get to see pieces you capture and only see attacks you are involved in?
As for 2 vs 2:
Whatever route we go, we there will be some consolation going on with each team mate in IM's. We would be foolish to think that no one will be talking to each other and not telling each other where their major pieces are at or if they each have a flag, where they are at so in case if one player can't protect their own flag the other can come to help. We'll also of course run into situation where a player may forget where one of the other teams Marshall's are at for example and they may ask their teammate for help. However with a buffer going on, a team can't spend too much time talking in IM. Since there will be a lot more thinking involved, I would recommend a 10 min buffer and perhaps a 20 second per move.
Though after reading your posts, I would be more in favor of each side gets their own force, own color, and own flag. That would speed up the game a bit, but still we'll need a longer buffer so because again this would be a team effort and the team will be asking each other for help/advice. If one player is gone from a team, then it would be 2 vs 1.
Posted 06 February 2013 - 06:53 PM
hmmm, 4 players chess.. sounds very interesting. now i want that board and 3 people to play with.
hmmm, and now you got me wanting to play Age of Empires again!
Posted 06 February 2013 - 07:29 PM
4 player chess? lol,....sounds like a game for technical advanced robots.
I never liked chess btw,....it's just too hard with the endless possibilities and the constantly think ahead-process.
4 player Stratego would be the border for me.
It makes it more interesting, a little bit chaotic but yet it's still clear and playable.
The gameplay is always the most important aspect of any game.
No chess for me but I stick to 1vs1 chess and Stratego 1vs1 and the 4player-edition.
Both chess and Stratego can have as much variants as they like, I'm all cool with that.
Speaking about that,...................when the f.... is the Sci-fi-version comin'?
Posted 06 February 2013 - 07:45 PM
i am a big fan of chess but i never heard of 4 player chess sounds cool but hard, i mean it is already hard playing 1 person playing 3 would be awesome!!!
I think both a 2v2 and a free-for-all option would be fun
I have 4-player chess at home, it really gets you thinking
Posted 16 February 2013 - 04:13 PM
@all I love the 4 player boardgame as well! As a matter of fact I just bought one in a 2nd hand store ;-) There are a lot of features we might add but I must say this is not on top. Things like the spotter-piece and sci-fi themes will be on top..
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users