Jump to content


Photo

2 Square Rule Change Suggestion


  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#1 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,469 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 14 November 2013 - 02:24 PM

Hi Everyone,

 

I have in the past come out against this menace of a thing called the 2 Square Rule.  It is anathema to natural board game play and common sense.  I still feel this way.  The arguments are old, but here they are again:

  1. In a real life situation I'm not going to quit running from danger if I can at all still move.  I am not constrained by real life to stop fleeing.  Rather, I am given the instinct to live, to run.  In real life who among us would stop running because we'd made three turns?  In real life if danger is not two of the three better than me--smarter, stronger, faster--I've got a chance to survive and I'm going to take it to the last breath.
  2. The 2 Square Rule here currently is danger's tool.  It constrains me to stop running; it forces me to die after three turns.  It is therefore unnatural.  On this site danger has this artificial mechanical "third hand" that allows an attacker to accomplish a kill with one piece that ought to require two pieces being brought to bear.
  3. The 2 Square Rule is not part of the original Milton Bradley board game rules.  Two 12 year-olds playing the board game here in the U.S. in the 1960's or 70's would never have used it. 

Having said the above, I believe we should still keep the 2 Square Rule, BUT WITH A SMALL CHANGE.

 

The argument that the 2 Square Rule helps stop certain endless chasing is true.  It absolutely does.  This is the good thing that the arguers for the Rule always will harp on.  But although it is true that certain endless chasing is stopped by the Rule, the method is flawed for the reasons above.   We need to have a chasing stop for the 2 Square situation, I agree, but let's make a small change in the Rule to accomplish it in a truer-to-real-life fashion.  

 

I propose that in the 2 Square situation we force the attacker to stop after TWO MOVES and allow the evading piece THREE MOVES.  This small revision of the 2 Square Rule would stop the endless chasing while simultaneously allowing the (generally) weaker piece to run for his life.  It would force the attacker to bring more forces to the affair, or to relent.  This would reflect true life better.

 

I know there will likely be no programming changes in this vein anytime soon.  But I wonder how many would agree to this departure from the existing 2 Square Rule?

 

GLS



The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#2 trickz

trickz

    Major

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,450 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 14 November 2013 - 02:37 PM

First of all I understand your frustration with the 2s-rule.

A few year ago, I was also totally not aware of this rule at all so it costed me some games to finally figure out what it was all about.

However,....looking back to it I have to say that this rule is not so bad after all.

It makes the games interesting plus there is a proceeding in the game like this cuz' taking iniative will be rewarded this way.

And since this is an official ISF-rule, it will stay in place for sure.

 

 

This rule is not the big problem in this game.  There's another rule that is BY FAR more irritating and it's really unfair.

It's about continuously chasing.  The ISF doesn't make a difference between chasing ONE piece continuously or MORE pieces continuously and here they are way wrong!

Continuously means uninterrupted in time and if I do a double chase then I switch my attacks after each time so the chain is broken after each time which means my attacks are NOT continuously.

One 2s-situation on the board is not a problem but it's about the fact when there are 2 or 3 2s-situations on the board at the same time.  

 

Classic example is I have two sergeants left with a sealed corner flag and my opponent has two miners left and they are both in position near my flag and the only thing I can do is double chase all the way.

According to the ISF I would lose this game eventually cuz' I can't "continuously" attack both the miners.

So I'm two ranks up, I defend my flag, I'm in position to kill the miners (my only chance of winning the game) but I can't because of that bs-rule.  They just don't care about the true meaning of the word continuously so it seems.

 

 

It's this rule that keeps me away from live events.

Cuz' I know myself,....if this occured in a live ISF-tournament and the referee decides that I will lose the game for this,.....then there's no doubt what will happen.

I will throw the board with all the pawns straight on the ground and I'd give him a well deserved middlefinger.

Maybe a little too drastic but I just can't deal with injustice :)


I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#3 LearningThisGame

LearningThisGame

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 14 November 2013 - 02:47 PM

Gary,

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Please see my thoughts, below.

 

Hi Everyone,

 

I have in the past come out against this menace of a thing called the 2 Square Rule.  It is anathema to natural board game play and common sense.  I still feel this way.  The arguments are old, but here they are again:

  1. In a real life situation I'm not going to quit running from danger if I can at all still move.  I am not constrained by real life to stop fleeing.  Rather, I am given the instinct to live, to run.  In real life who among us would stop running because we'd made three turns?  In real life if danger is not two of the three better than me--smarter, stronger, faster--I've got a chance to survive and I'm going to take it to the last breath.

 

I am not convinced by this argument. This game is not meant to reflect real life. It is an artificial construct with certain rules. If you wanted to compare this game to real life, there would be several other aspects you could criticize (completely equal numbers of pieces in war, fighting on a symmetrical terrain map, etc.). Simply put, Stratego is a game with its own set of rules and structures. It may have aspects of art imitating life, but it is not meant to reflect real life perfectly - nor should it, I argue.

 

 

  1. The 2 Square Rule is not part of the original Milton Bradley board game rules.  Two 12 year-olds playing the board game here in the U.S. in the 1960's or 70's would never have used it. 

 

There are a lot of different editions, variations, and rules out there. The game has chosen one of these versions. They may not be the best in some people's minds, but they are at least consistent. Sometimes people need to adapt to new norms. Why should the 1960s/70s version be the norm?

 

 

I completely disagree, here, that the method is flawed. It is simply a rule that one needs to learn how to manage. The answer is quite simple: learn how to avoid getting into full binds, and learn how to create said binds. The argument for allowing the evading piece to have three moves is not necessary. If you have setup your positioning correctly, the 2-square rule will not be a problem for the defender. Plus the weaker piece already can run for its life - on the first set of moves before going into a 2-square shuffle. The opportunity to run is already there with the existing rule. If one gets trapped, that is because one has not properly positioned one's pieces or backed out of the 2-square situation in time. 

 

If you are arguing that the weaker piece should have the last response and the attacking piece forced into a bind position to the latter's disadvantage, I'd say that the game is generally intended to facilitate some final game resolution - not to favor prolonging of the game, all else being equal. Given this general broad principle, the current 2-square rule would - in my opinion - be better than your proposition.

 

-LTG

 


How can I help you?

#4 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,469 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 14 November 2013 - 07:35 PM

Gary,

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Please see my thoughts, below.

 

My rebuttal comments interspersed in blue below:

 

I am not convinced by this argument. This game is not meant to reflect real life. It is an artificial construct with certain rules. If you wanted to compare this game to real life, there would be several other aspects you could criticize (completely equal numbers of pieces in war, fighting on a symmetrical terrain map, etc.). Simply put, Stratego is a game with its own set of rules and structures. It may have aspects of art imitating life, but it is not meant to reflect real life perfectly - nor should it, I argue.

 

LTG, you may not be convinced by any argument against the current rule.  Many will not be.  I submit they will all be higher ranking players who know how to utilize the rule to their advantage, however.  The poor newbie comes in and will get trounced by the rule, like I did, because it is not what seems intuitively fair, nor is it thoroughly explained up front to players here, as one might expect of such an important rule.  For that, I am suggesting a special link right on the main screens of the game so that it would be fully explained up front instead of found out the hard way as is currently the case.  A very high percentage of newbies will not like the rule as it is, I guarantee you.

 

Is Stratego supposed to imitate real life perfectly?  No, and I agree with you to a point. But it should likewise not be so far removed from reality that an example of it can NEVER be seen in real life battles.  Many situations have been played out in history with equal sides on wide-open symmetrical battlefields.   But NEVER has an army or a soldier been forced to sit tight and die after turning three times!  To have a rule in place that does just this is less than not fair, it's unnatural and begs common sense.  

 

There are a lot of different editions, variations, and rules out there. The game has chosen one of these versions. They may not be the best in some people's minds, but they are at least consistent. Sometimes people need to adapt to new norms. Why should the 1960s/70s version be the norm?

 

Yes, there will never be an end to the European versus American numbering system argument.  And I also agree that Milton Bradley version is not perfect.  The movement rule I discussed there at http://forum.strateg...rule/#entry1808 is clearly flawed.  I myself have never played that way.  

 

No, the "norm" should be the set of rules that is fair and encourages--without interfering with--regular game play.  We come pretty close on this site, in my opinion, all glitches notwithstanding.

 

I completely disagree, here, that the method is flawed. It is simply a rule that one needs to learn how to manage. The answer is quite simple: learn how to avoid getting into full binds, and learn how to create said binds. The argument for allowing the evading piece to have three moves is not necessary. If you have setup your positioning correctly, the 2-square rule will not be a problem for the defender. Plus the weaker piece already can run for its life - on the first set of moves before going into a 2-square shuffle. The opportunity to run is already there with the existing rule. If one gets trapped, that is because one has not properly positioned one's pieces or backed out of the 2-square situation in time. 

 

Look LTG, the rule is clearly a tool of the experienced player, and learning how to set up to both utilize and defend against such an unnatural rule is admittedly possible.  I just don't feel it's a skill that should be promoted.  The fact I can learn and recite perfectly something I learn in school wouldn't negate the fact it might be pure hogwash.  I would also quickly add that just because the rule is in existence in tournaments does not make it valid either.   The question here is it the right thing to have on this site?

 

 

If you are arguing that the weaker piece should have the last response and the attacking piece forced into a bind position to the latter's disadvantage, I'd say that the game is generally intended to facilitate some final game resolution - not to favor prolonging of the game, all else being equal. Given this general broad principle, the current 2-square rule would - in my opinion - be better than your proposition.

 

Hey, LTG, so many times people here at Stratego refer to chess rules as a model for our rule structures here.  I would ask where is the 2 Square Rule in chess?  There isn't?  You mean the attacker there has to bring material to bear to get the job done?  Why are we less fair here?

 

Do we only like the Rule for the general reason that it ends the game faster?  That is a poor reason.  The game will not last much longer because we allow freedom of movement of the evading piece.  I submit that skillful players will re-hone their skill of using two pieces to get the job done as they would have to do in board game versions.  

 

And when you might state that the 2 Square Rule could be put into place in any board game, I would have to concur.  But although it is possible it would be far more likely the case that two 12 year-olds, playing across from one another, would probably wonder at  the ridiculous lack of common sense with the Rule, nor would they  understand the Rule enough to enforce it correctly. The far stronger likelihood is that they'd get it wrong whether they started in "full bind" attack or diagonal.  And one kid could always lie.  The only thing that makes the rule even 100% possible is the computer. 

 

Upon second thought, I think I would modify my suggestion to adjust the 2 Square Rule limits to 3 and 4 moves respectively, instead of the 2 and 3 that I first proposed but that is a minor point.

 

GLS

-LTG



The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#5 LearningThisGame

LearningThisGame

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 14 November 2013 - 11:08 PM

 

Gary,

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Please see my thoughts, below.

 

My rebuttal comments interspersed in blue below:

 

I am not convinced by this argument. This game is not meant to reflect real life. It is an artificial construct with certain rules. If you wanted to compare this game to real life, there would be several other aspects you could criticize (completely equal numbers of pieces in war, fighting on a symmetrical terrain map, etc.). Simply put, Stratego is a game with its own set of rules and structures. It may have aspects of art imitating life, but it is not meant to reflect real life perfectly - nor should it, I argue.

 

LTG, you may not be convinced by any argument against the current rule.  Many will not be.  I submit they will all be higher ranking players who know how to utilize the rule to their advantage, however.  The poor newbie comes in and will get trounced by the rule, like I did, because it is not what seems intuitively fair, nor is it thoroughly explained up front to players here, as one might expect of such an important rule.  For that, I am suggesting a special link right on the main screens of the game so that it would be fully explained up front instead of found out the hard way as is currently the case.  A very high percentage of newbies will not like the rule as it is, I guarantee you.

 

Is Stratego supposed to imitate real life perfectly?  No, and I agree with you to a point. But it should likewise not be so far removed from reality that an example of it can NEVER be seen in real life battles.  Many situations have been played out in history with equal sides on wide-open symmetrical battlefields.   But NEVER has an army or a soldier been forced to sit tight and die after turning three times!  To have a rule in place that does just this is less than not fair, it's unnatural and begs common sense.  

 

There are a lot of different editions, variations, and rules out there. The game has chosen one of these versions. They may not be the best in some people's minds, but they are at least consistent. Sometimes people need to adapt to new norms. Why should the 1960s/70s version be the norm?

 

Yes, there will never be an end to the European versus American numbering system argument.  And I also agree that Milton Bradley version is not perfect.  The movement rule I discussed there at http://forum.strateg...rule/#entry1808 is clearly flawed.  I myself have never played that way.  

 

No, the "norm" should be the set of rules that is fair and encourages--without interfering with--regular game play.  We come pretty close on this site, in my opinion, all glitches notwithstanding.

 

I completely disagree, here, that the method is flawed. It is simply a rule that one needs to learn how to manage. The answer is quite simple: learn how to avoid getting into full binds, and learn how to create said binds. The argument for allowing the evading piece to have three moves is not necessary. If you have setup your positioning correctly, the 2-square rule will not be a problem for the defender. Plus the weaker piece already can run for its life - on the first set of moves before going into a 2-square shuffle. The opportunity to run is already there with the existing rule. If one gets trapped, that is because one has not properly positioned one's pieces or backed out of the 2-square situation in time. 

 

Look LTG, the rule is clearly a tool of the experienced player, and learning how to set up to both utilize and defend against such an unnatural rule is admittedly possible.  I just don't feel it's a skill that should be promoted.  The fact I can learn and recite perfectly something I learn in school wouldn't negate the fact it might be pure hogwash.  I would also quickly add that just because the rule is in existence in tournaments does not make it valid either.   The question here is it the right thing to have on this site?

 

 

If you are arguing that the weaker piece should have the last response and the attacking piece forced into a bind position to the latter's disadvantage, I'd say that the game is generally intended to facilitate some final game resolution - not to favor prolonging of the game, all else being equal. Given this general broad principle, the current 2-square rule would - in my opinion - be better than your proposition.

 

Hey, LTG, so many times people here at Stratego refer to chess rules as a model for our rule structures here.  I would ask where is the 2 Square Rule in chess?  There isn't?  You mean the attacker there has to bring material to bear to get the job done?  Why are we less fair here?

 

Do we only like the Rule for the general reason that it ends the game faster?  That is a poor reason.  The game will not last much longer because we allow freedom of movement of the evading piece.  I submit that skillful players will re-hone their skill of using two pieces to get the job done as they would have to do in board game versions.  

 

And when you might state that the 2 Square Rule could be put into place in any board game, I would have to concur.  But although it is possible it would be far more likely the case that two 12 year-olds, playing across from one another, would probably wonder at  the ridiculous lack of common sense with the Rule, nor would they  understand the Rule enough to enforce it correctly. The far stronger likelihood is that they'd get it wrong whether they started in "full bind" attack or diagonal.  And one kid could always lie.  The only thing that makes the rule even 100% possible is the computer. 

 

Upon second thought, I think I would modify my suggestion to adjust the 2 Square Rule limits to 3 and 4 moves respectively, instead of the 2 and 3 that I first proposed but that is a minor point.

 

GLS

-LTG

 

 

 

Hey, Gary,

 

You make some interesting points, and I hear you. I agree with your point that the rule probably needs better explanation up front for new players. I, too, kept losing a lot until I understood how the rule works/is applied. Truthfully speaking, I still see a lot of folks at the bronze ranks (yes, including marshall) messing up the application of the rule. 

 

Perhaps I can draft up some explanations and guidelines and see if Jumbo/Keesing will consider posting them. 

 

As for whether there should be a "last move for avoiding piece" setup, I guess that will just have to be a philosophical difference between us? :)

 

You ask about chess. I am a player of FIDE chess master strength and a former arbiter. I would say that the closest equivalent is the principle of zugzwang in chess. That being said, I'm not sure if chess would be the best comparison in this case since this rule is often used effectively in situations where both pieces' value may not always be known (as opposed to chess, which is a game of complete information).

 

Actually, chess does have its own version of a 2-square rule - except it usually results in the ability to claim a draw. 

 

Now, I could be wrong, but I believe that ISF rules allow for a similar application of the 2-square rule. I don't think that player should have to use two or more pieces to capture an evading piece. But that is, too, a philosophical difference, I suppose.

 

As for two 12-year olds playing the game over the board...I do think the rule makes common sense once one understands that it is meant to avoid perpetual shuffling. I do see your point, though, and can understand why it is confusing to some.

 

What would you suggest should be the benchmark for evaluating whether a rule is "natural?" If we use hypothetical real life scenarios, I might argue that it would be more "natural" for the Spy (Assassin?) to be able to capture ANY single piece but to be captured by any other piece. 

 

Perhaps the only way to resolve these kinds of questions is - as you have kindly done - to start the debate and take a poll of the players. Over time, a norm would be established with whichever rule makes more sense.

 

Thanks again for sharing your intriguing thoughts.

Best,

LTG


How can I help you?

#6 Losermaker

Losermaker

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 421 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 15 November 2013 - 02:58 AM

I think the 2 square's rule is all part of the game, it is what defines a newbie and an expert. If you want to improve your game, take some time to practice thinking of how you are moving, and learn to use the rule to your advantage.

Losermaker


  • Strobe and maxroelofs like this

#7 Manning2Cruz

Manning2Cruz

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 197 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 15 November 2013 - 05:00 AM

if you remove the 2 square rule the game is pointless


  • Sohal and maxroelofs like this

#8 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,469 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 15 November 2013 - 06:43 AM

LTG, yes we will have to agree to disagree.  But that's okay.  I just want to put the argument out there and see what people think.  

 

And yes, there could be a number of changes to the game.  Some like the spy thing you mention are interesting.  One of the most intriguing I have ever heard is the removing of the bomb once it has exploded.  After all, a real life bomb does not blow up twice.  

 

But these issues aren't as...let's give it the perfect word here...onerous as the 2 Square Rule.  As my profile states I grew up playing the 1960's Milton Bradley version of the board game.  What is "natural" play to my way of thinking is a couple of 12 year olds playing the board game in the commercial ( http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Q6tsYmadTAU ).  Such kids generally play the game out of love for it.  The game box in the commercial is the very one I grew up playing.  I can categorically state that it did not contain in its rules the 2 Square Rule.  I can also assure the one person commenting above that the game is far from pointless without the 2 Square Rule as we now have it.  Why would its absence make the game pointless?  The only thing it would do is make the game fairer and users of the current 2 Square Rule work a bit harder.  A bit.  

 

I was trying to get a rusty nut off a bolt the other day at work.  I grabbed a pair of vise grips for the head and used a wrench on the nut to get it off.  According to the logic of the 2 Square Rule I should only need the wrench to do the job because the bolt should hold itself in place while the wrench turns the nut...as I keep saying, there is no relationship to reality with the 2 Square Rule.

 

If a job requires two tools, then that's what one should go get.  Let's give the admiration to the skillful player who can attack and kill efficiently with two pieces as opposed to one.  I really don't think the guys at the Silver level would have too difficult a time adjusting to such a new and better reality.  Giving the evading piece an extra turn, as real life would, would make our dear game fairer.  

 

GLS



The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#9 LearningThisGame

LearningThisGame

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 15 November 2013 - 09:24 AM

Gary,

 

My issues/points are:

 

a) Should "reality" really dictate the rules of this game?

B) When should "reality" dictate the rules of this game, and when shouldn't it?

c) How do you define the "reality" benchmark?

 

I respectfully submit that you haven't really answered all these questions (particularly b and c). 

 

I could say it is "reality" that people can get trapped while evading. For example, a person runs from house to house avoiding a chase, only to find a house formerly open now closed. Or perhaps after trying to evade an attack, a person can no longer move or escape due to fatigue. These are all plausible scenarios in which the 2-Square Rule could map to a form of "reality."

 

At the end of the day, Stratego is an artificial construct. I don't think it should map to any particular "reality," and I think you are selectively picking out which "reality" you choose to apply - and when to apply it.

 

Where does one end? Does one question the reality of having a perfectly symmetrical playing field? Bombs that persist after first explosion? Scouts that can in one move immediately jump to the rear of an enemy army? The immobility of a target object (e.g., a flag)? 

 

I agree that the two-square rule is one of the least intuitive of the rules, but that doesn't mean it is wrong or unrealistic as a result. Also, I know of young children who have quickly grasped the two-square rule as applied on this site. At the end of the day, the rule is no more onerous than any other rule. Once one experiences it once and understands it, it is easy to use to your advantage. 

 

The main issue I think you fairly raise is that it should be made clear in the website rules - just like, say, the scout's ability to travel multiple squares per move should be.

 

I agree that many strong players could probably switch over to a two-piece based "kill system" - but that would be a different game (just like a game in which scouts cannot move multiple squares at once).


How can I help you?

#10 Sohal

Sohal

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 615 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 15 November 2013 - 10:02 AM

if you remove the 2 square rule the game is pointless

 

+1


  • maxroelofs likes this

#11 Nortrom

Nortrom

    Captain

  • WC Online Team
  • 876 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 15 November 2013 - 01:46 PM

It is a shame that there were two accurate posts without any further explaining (m2c and sohal) however, the posts are spot on. This is why:

 

Right now there are a few main strategies:

 

1) Defending
2) Attacking, aggressively
3) Attacking, calculated
4) Wait

 

For strategy 4) the potential change would have no influence, however for 1) 2) and 3) it absolutely does.

The current rule hits player 1) the most, why? because he has to make additional space in order to avoid getting trapped by one single piece.

 

The potential rule change would hit 2) and 3) the most, since they can no longer use one piece (often the marsh) to scout with a captain or whatever piece, and then take out a higher piece with the marsh (The same applies for counter attacking, player 3))

http://i.imgur.com/pthxjtn.png (attacking)

 

Defender already has the advantage of an unknown spy, marsh, gen, everything, basically, if you take out the capture via 3move rule, the game will become extremely passive and neither player gets rewarded for attacking without full information of the opponent's pieces. Also counter attacking will be pretty much eliminated

 

http://i.imgur.com/QD0G8M1.png (counter attacking). Red marsh is known, blue counter attacks.

 

If the rule would be changed, player red would be able in both scenarios to take out the captain with the major without being in risk of losing his piece

 

Also, in case blue goes for an attack but does not want to take out the major right away (pic 1), he is able to keep the major in the position he wants, whether it is H8 or I8, limiting red's movement. Without the 3move rule, there is no reason for blue to put his resources (pieces and info) in danger.

 

So, if you want to play a 3 hour game with both players doing nothing, change the rule. If you don't, keep it as it is.


  • SpacemanSpiff, maxroelofs, Losermaker and 1 other like this

"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

 

Follow the 3rd Online World Championship: http://forum.strateg...d-championship/


#12 trickz

trickz

    Major

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,450 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 15 November 2013 - 08:01 PM

It is a shame that there were two accurate posts without any further explaining (m2c and sohal) however, the posts are spot on. This is why:

 

Right now there are a few main strategies:

 

1) Defending
2) Attacking, aggressively
3) Attacking, calculated
4) Wait

 

For strategy 4) the potential change would have no influence, however for 1) 2) and 3) it absolutely does.

The current rule hits player 1) the most, why? because he has to make additional space in order to avoid getting trapped by one single piece.

 

The potential rule change would hit 2) and 3) the most, since they can no longer use one piece (often the marsh) to scout with a captain or whatever piece, and then take out a higher piece with the marsh (The same applies for counter attacking, player 3))

http://i.imgur.com/pthxjtn.png (attacking)

 

Defender already has the advantage of an unknown spy, marsh, gen, everything, basically, if you take out the capture via 3move rule, the game will become extremely passive and neither player gets rewarded for attacking without full information of the opponent's pieces. Also counter attacking will be pretty much eliminated

 

http://i.imgur.com/QD0G8M1.png (counter attacking). Red marsh is known, blue counter attacks.

 

If the rule would be changed, player red would be able in both scenarios to take out the captain with the major without being in risk of losing his piece

 

Also, in case blue goes for an attack but does not want to take out the major right away (pic 1), he is able to keep the major in the position he wants, whether it is H8 or I8, limiting red's movement. Without the 3move rule, there is no reason for blue to put his resources (pieces and info) in danger.

 

So, if you want to play a 3 hour game with both players doing nothing, change the rule. If you don't, keep it as it is.

 

 

Yo ISF-adept,

 

The 2s-rule is bogus, why is that a fact?

Cuz' it's a sign for bad attacks

and it promotes an early charge of the marsh who tries to jack a cap!

The defender's line is gettin' jacked

so this rule promotes onedimensional play, that's where this vibe is headin' at! ;)

This means that defending is wrong and that sign's forever sad

cuz' with this rule the marsh can CAPsize the cap his back

and if he was backed with a col, then this guy also faces a flatline or death instead!

Thanks to this rule, lottery was invented, jackpot for noobs who get a fat price for guessin' lad,

cuz' with the fullbind your opponent doesn't have time to get his back...

covered so the noob's gettin' rewarded for a mad try to crash ur deck

which in most cases means you're losing with a landslide and that upsets!

That's not how the game was supposed to be so use ur advanced mind, we're headin' back...

to the sixties,...where mankind was happy lad

and if you then looked in the rules, you didn't read a damn line of heavy crap! :D

Some fanatic die hards changed the rules, bad signs adapted fast

and thanks to that shit, you're now indoctrinated with a belief that never had life and that's a fact!

Compare it with Avatar,...and some fanatic redneck invaded Pandora to jack life, the Navi's death

just to open Pandora's box for the cash price they get instead!

It's the same with this rule cuz' whoever invented this damn line, the trap was set

to mathematically overpower the board for their own interest,...or do you think the stats lie? Well, never that!

You pretend this plan's wise, a clever act?

Then you should think as man twice you battlevet

cuz' it means that you have to play agressive

to beat the odds of gettin' butchered, math signs this matter lad!

And you know what's funny?

Suppose I had two sergeants and a corner with two landmines w'r my flag is at

and I was double chasing non-stop your miners, I can try but never catch,...

then without a doubt you would say that's illegal and that's why your text is wack

cuz' with TWO or MORE situations on the board, the rule changes,

I will explain with an example so let's try to set it lad...

 

Continuously means uninterrupted in time, the exact sign we're headin' at

so the moment I change my attack, the chain is broken and that's why I'm gettin' mad!

Cuz' according to the dictionnary, you can only continuously chase ONE piece, it's a fact guy so credit facts

but no,....

cuz' with more situations on the board, the rule suddenly changes, can I ask why they edit that?!

A rule has got to be bulletproof and this rule contradicts itself cuz' two is one?

Guess you're no math guy, I bet on that...

cuz' if I can't continuously chase more guys, then that sign is gettin' crashed

cuz' now the original meaning of the word is lost

which technically means that the word doesn't exist, let's give it a math try, you reckon that!

The word is good in one case but bad in another so plus and minus, the math signs are gettin' back

so now it means the word is like Switzerland,...it's NEUTRAL,

it has no meaning so lad, try to guess where I'm headin' at?

That's right! You guessed it lad

cuz' now you can see that I back science so that's why the deceptive acts

or damn lies,...whatever you wanna call it,...that's why they're neglected fast

cuz' the ISF is full of sjit when it comes to deffinitions, the sad guys...demand the respect they lack! :D

 

 

So in the case I described it should be a TIE...

just like humans and Navi cuz' we're all EQUAL, right?

And if not,...all the clans fight,...yes to protect their land

for men's pride and to reject their plans!

You're damn right we defend this stand.

The ISF wants the unobtainium? Then their men die and that's the end! :D

 

 

TORUK MAKTO!

shbu.jpg
 


I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#13 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,469 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 15 November 2013 - 11:21 PM

new remarks in red below

 

 

Gary,

 

My issues/points are:

 

a) Should "reality" really dictate the rules of this game?

B) When should "reality" dictate the rules of this game, and when shouldn't it?

c) How do you define the "reality" benchmark?

 

I respectfully submit that you haven't really answered all these questions (particularly b and c). 

 

LTG, the "reality" question you ask is fair, but I absolutely covered it at post #4 in this thread.  I reprint the original blue next:

 

Is Stratego supposed to imitate real life perfectly?  No, and I agree with you to a point. But it should likewise not be so far removed from reality that an example of it can NEVER be seen in real life battles.  Many situations have been played out in history with equal sides on wide-open symmetrical battlefields.   But NEVER has an army or a soldier been forced to sit tight and die after turning three times!  To have a rule in place that does just this is less than not fair, it's unnatural and begs common sense.  

 

 

 

I could say it is "reality" that people can get trapped while evading. For example, a person runs from house to house avoiding a chase, only to find a house formerly open now closed. Or perhaps after trying to evade an attack, a person can no longer move or escape due to fatigue. These are all plausible scenarios in which the 2-Square Rule could map to a form of "reality."

 

LTG, yes, "reality" could be as you say.  Fate could be against one and he'd be screwed.  But I am...AND YOU ARE...not going to stop running from one closed house to the next until our hearts burst.  Neither of us is running to just three houses and stopping to await death .  Why would we do that?  Because we're supposed to?

 

At the end of the day, Stratego is an artificial construct. I don't think it should map to any particular "reality," and I think you are selectively picking out which "reality" you choose to apply - and when to apply it.

 

I agree with you in that it is an artificial construct.  It's a game.  And yes, I'm harping on one aspect only of this game.  Is that being selective?  You bet.   But that is because the 2 Square Rule is the most onerous aspect of the game today.  "When I am applying" my position is NOT SELECTIVE.  I apply this position 100% of the time.  IT'S A LOUSY RULE.  

 

I repeat my simple observation that the 2 Square Rule has NEVER been witnessed in real life--nor could it be--and that it is an UNFAIR TOOL that has NO EQUIVALENT in chess.  (And lack of information in Stratego is not a critical difference here.  Most of the time the defending player well knows what pieces are attacking.)  

 

Where does one end? Does one question the reality of having a perfectly symmetrical playing field? Bombs that persist after first explosion? Scouts that can in one move immediately jump to the rear of an enemy army? The immobility of a target object (e.g., a flag)? 

 

If anyone chooses to pick up on these other potential issues of the game, I would be interested in the outcome of the discussion.  But I would not fight for them.  The big rules stink here only comes from one Rule.  That's the one I attack.

 

Are these other issues founded in non-reality?  Perhaps, and I agree with you there.  But they are certainly not UNFAIR.  That's what the 2 Square Rule is.  It is both UNREAL and UNFAIR.

 

GLS



The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#14 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,469 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 16 November 2013 - 01:11 AM

It is a shame that there were two accurate posts without any further explaining (m2c and sohal) however, the posts are spot on. This is why:

 

Right now there are a few main strategies:

 

1) Defending
2) Attacking, aggressively
3) Attacking, calculated
4) Wait

 

For strategy 4) the potential change would have no influence, however for 1) 2) and 3) it absolutely does.

The current rule hits player 1) the most, why? because he has to make additional space in order to avoid getting trapped by one single piece.

 

The potential rule change would hit 2) and 3) the most, since they can no longer use one piece (often the marsh) to scout with a captain or whatever piece, and then take out a higher piece with the marsh (The same applies for counter attacking, player 3))

http://i.imgur.com/pthxjtn.png (attacking)

 

Defender already has the advantage of an unknown spy, marsh, gen, everything, basically, if you take out the capture via 3move rule, the game will become extremely passive and neither player gets rewarded for attacking without full information of the opponent's pieces. Also counter attacking will be pretty much eliminated

 

http://i.imgur.com/QD0G8M1.png (counter attacking). Red marsh is known, blue counter attacks.

 

If the rule would be changed, player red would be able in both scenarios to take out the captain with the major without being in risk of losing his piece

 

Also, in case blue goes for an attack but does not want to take out the major right away (pic 1), he is able to keep the major in the position he wants, whether it is H8 or I8, limiting red's movement. Without the 3move rule, there is no reason for blue to put his resources (pieces and info) in danger.

 

So, if you want to play a 3 hour game with both players doing nothing, change the rule. If you don't, keep it as it is.

 

 Nortrom, thank you for your well-thought-out post on the thread.  The points you put up with linked examples are wonderful explanations of the situation.  I respect the weight of your response and it explains the problem clearly.  I know you grasp the situation very well.  Yes, the blue Major would be safe in each scenario.  But my question still remains "What's wrong with that?"  

 

The simple and only answer is the one you give that you feel the game will be lengthened unacceptably by my suggested rule change.   Respectfully, though a bit tongue-in-cheek here, I ask you if it is truly the job of that blue Major to die so that the game can be played faster?  Is that fairer to the blue Major?

 

But to the issue of game time I say this seriously, it is very valid point.  How long would the game be if said rule change were enacted?  I  do not agree with the fact the game would be played more "passively" necessarily, but there would clearly have to be a different strategy of aggression.  Would all this lengthen the game unacceptably?  It certainly wouldn't for the lower ranks; they don't utilize the Rule well anyway.  So my knee jerk reaction is to say no, though I feel that whatever extra time is brought on by my proposed 2 Square Rule change, the return to fairness and faithfulness to the original board game versions would be worth it. I would welcome a poll on such a question. Keep in mind, without an Auto Draw rule certain games can already go on all night as things are presently.  

 

Another point I want to throw out is Trickz' issue with the ridiculous situation that was brought up months ago with two Miners beating a Marshal and General due to the current rule.  He brings that up today here as well.  That result is neither intuitive nor fair.

 

Now I'm not one to go around saying that material ought to always win, because that is quite demonstrably not true.  The argument I have against 2 Square is that it prevents me from running when I should be able to evade capture.  Trickz' argument is that he should be able to defend his flag.  The 2 Square Rule, in this well-known example, says ONE CANNOT DEFEND HIS FLAG with his superior material.   

 

This is a strong reason, if not to eliminate, at least alter the rule as I have stated.  Given an extra move, the evading piece will be able to defend his flag.  Is this not common sense?

 

GLS 



The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#15 Losermaker

Losermaker

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 421 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 16 November 2013 - 04:01 AM

 

I propose that in the 2 Square situation we force the attacker to stop after TWO MOVES and allow the evading piece THREE MOVES.

 

I just have a small question regarding this, how does the computer recognize a piece is the "Attacker"?

LM



#16 LearningThisGame

LearningThisGame

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 16 November 2013 - 04:23 AM

Now I'm not one to go around saying that material ought to always win, because that is quite demonstrably not true.  The argument I have against 2 Square is that it prevents me from running when I should be able to evade capture.  Trickz' argument is that he should be able to defend his flag.  The 2 Square Rule, in this well-known example, says ONE CANNOT DEFEND HIS FLAG with his superior material.   

 

This is a strong reason, if not to eliminate, at least alter the rule as I have stated.  Given an extra move, the evading piece will be able to defend his flag.  Is this not common sense?

 

GLS 

 

It's called zugzwang in chess. It's a tactic that forces people to plan ahead their moves and their strategies and should be perfectly acceptable. 


How can I help you?

#17 LearningThisGame

LearningThisGame

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 16 November 2013 - 04:26 AM

 It certainly wouldn't for the lower ranks; they don't utilize the Rule well anyway.  

In my opinion, the game should not be changed to accommodate the lowest common denominator. Rather, we should elevate the abilities of those still learning the game (including myself) to improve their tactics and skill.


How can I help you?

#18 LearningThisGame

LearningThisGame

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 16 November 2013 - 04:28 AM

I just have a small question regarding this, how does the computer recognize a piece is the "Attacker"?

LM

 

The system doesn't. It just recognizes when a piece tries to shuffle from an original square to a second square, back to the original square, and then - unsuccessfully - to the same second square. Usually it is the "defending" piece that first exhibits this behavior.

 

Naturally, it would be more complex programming needed to distinguish which piece should be allowed to shuffle and which should not; it would require recognition of binds or two successive, adjacent shuffle attempts (and the order in which they are conducted).


How can I help you?

#19 LearningThisGame

LearningThisGame

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 16 November 2013 - 04:39 AM

LTG, yes, "reality" could be as you say.  Fate could be against one and he'd be screwed.  But I am...AND YOU ARE...not going to stop running from one closed house to the next until our hearts burst.  Neither of us is running to just three houses and stopping to await death .  Why would we do that?  Because we're supposed to?

 

Because your heart burst, as you say...or you ran out of breath! :-p

 

This is my point: we can't just make up the realities we want to justify rules. In fact, I argue that reality has no place in this game beyond the "reality" defined by the rules as set. 

 

Some people may not like the rule of en passant in chess; some may argue it is "unnatural and unfair." But it remains a rule, nevertheless. 

 

Again, I ask:

 

When should "reality" dictate the rules of this game, and when shouldn't it? Which form or "reality" should govern and why? 

 

You propose that your version of "reality" should be governing because in your "reality" it seems unfair. In one of my constructed "realities," the 2-square rule is perfectly sensible. That's my point. At some stage "reality" really has no place and one just needs to learn how to play the game and adapt. It's not even a particularly difficult one to learn or understand, though I agree it is not the most intuitive (then again, neither is castling in chess).

 

I'm not trying to give you a hard time, Gary. I just think - respectfully - you are approaching the rationale for eliminating the 2-square rule - or modifying it - from a set of invalid starting assumptions. I could be wrong.


How can I help you?

#20 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,469 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 16 November 2013 - 04:58 AM

I just have a small question regarding this, how does the computer recognize a piece is the "Attacker"?

LM

 

Losermaker, I'm not the programmer, true, but I don't believe this would be that difficult.  Right now the programming just recognizes movement between 2 Squares, and stops it at 3 repeated moves.  If attacked head-on, the defender will trip the stopping action first.  But what I propose is to say that the person who moves his piece into full bind with another will get stopped at three 2 square moves, while the person breaking this first full bind will get 4 moves between the two squares.  This might not be recognizing an "attacker", per se, but it would certainly serve the same purpose.  

 

If a full-bind was broken by the piece making the full bind, then the computer would forget the initial attachment as incidental.  There wouldn't be any invoking the rule unnecessarily in this way.  

 

GLS



The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users