Skip to Content

Ideas for an abstract strategy game based on raindrops

20 replies [Last post]
HyveMynd
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969

It was raining here in Osaka last night, and like always my brain was working in all different directions at once as I walked home from the train station. As a kid I loved watching raindrops "eat" each other as they ran down the window or some other surface. Just like that an idea for an abstract strategy game congealed in my head. But, like usual, the more I thought about it the more and varied ideas my mind game up with. I just wanted to share a few of them with you to see which you find interesting, if anyone has a similar game, or if you have any comments/suggestions/whatever.

1) Players move their pieces around a grid, trying to get to a opposing "home" space. You can combine your own pieces to increase their movement, but once combined pieces can't be seperated again. I see this as fair trade, numbers vs. speed. There would have to be a limit on the number of pieces combined though, say like 6 or something. That way a smart opponent could "trap" a powerful piece with a number of smaller ones.

2) Same as above, BUT you can combine with your opponents pieces as well as your own. Pieces that have an equal "amount" of white and black in them are neutral, and get replaced with a grey piece of the appropriate size. Neither player can move neutral pieces, instead they have to "tip the balance" by pushing another one of thier pieces into the grey piece. Combined pieces can move a number of grid points equal to the difference between white and black compponents. For example, a piece composed of 3 white parts and 1 black part could be moved up to two grid points by the white player and not at all by the black player. The pieces whould have to have some kind of marking on them, showing what percentage of white and black each is composed of to avoid the obvious confusion. I rather like this option because it introduces the concept of "noble sacrifice". Something like "Do I push my 3 strong black piece into his 3 strong white piece, sacrificing them but stopping his attack?" It also makes for an difficult choice between capturing enemy pieces at the cost of movement.

3) Similar to #1 (meaning that you can only combine your own pieces), but played on a three dimensional board, The playing field would be a stack of clear boards, each with a decreasing number of grid points (9x9 on the top, followed by 7x7, 5x5, 3x3, and 1x1 on the bottom) like an inverted pyramid. The goal is to get your piece to the single point on the bottom board first. Players take turns setting up their 30 or so pieces at any point on the topmost board. Then take turns moving those pieces one point at a time, trying to combine pieces so that they "drop down" to the corresponding point on the board below. Smart players could set up a "chain reaction", so that a piece drops down onto another piece below it, which in turn drops down onto a third piece, and so on.

4) A combination of #2 and #3 (a 3D board and the ability to create "neutral" pieces). However, you only win if the piece at the bottom is 100% your own color. So why combine with enemy pieces? To create "dead" pieces that get in the way of your opponents plans, or to be really evil and drop an opponents piece where there is no corresponding board point below it (thus removing it from the game). Though I'm not sure how much I like this idea. You will always be trading a number of your pieces for an equal number of your opponents pieces, giving neither player an advantage. That just doesn't make sense in my opinion. There has to be some kind of benefit for dropping an enemy piece off the board. Like getting to make an additional move this turn, or (even better) getting to place an extra piece on the topmost board.

There are many MANY other ideas floating in my head (like having a curved board surface, and only being allowed to capture/combine pieces when traveling downhill) but this post has gotten way too long. I feel like I'm asking for alot of help without providing any myself (meaning replying to other peoples posts). Thats doesn't seem fair to me. So, I'll stop here are go troll the boards and see what help I can offer. Cheers.

Hedge-o-Matic
Hedge-o-Matic's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2008
Ideas for an abstract strategy game based on raindrops

As an abstract sort of guy myself, I relate to your inspiration story on this. I get ideas for abstracts all the time based on observations like yours, of raindrops joining together.

This game would best be represented by stacking, and since I'm struggling with a stacking game at the moment (Halo, see my journal on my linked abstracts), I'm interested in other takes on the mechanism.

Ironically, though, the drop theme also suggests glass stones of various sizes, or dome-shapes pieces in incresing size. Also, it suggests a terraced board for the drops to run down. And, strangely the game "Terrace" has both of these features. But Terrace, is, in my limited experience, not a whole ton of fun. This game could be better by far!

Man, this is a great premise!

I'd suggest a mechanism that simulates the "eating" of drops by other drops. For instance, you could add a piece to any empty space of stack, and then move that stack as many spaces as the stack has pieces. During this move, the stack leaves its bottom piece in empty spaces, but picks up all but the bottom-most piece in occupied spaces. This wil leave trails behind moving drops, and future drops will move over this trail without any resistance.

After a move, the drop could "compress" by exchanging pieces in sets of three with a single next-larger disk. The color of the disk is decided by two out of three disks.

When a drop gets to a certain height (say, three high, after all compression), it will drop through its space onto the next-lower board. The player now gets to place a single piece anywhere onto ths next-smaller board. The color of this piece is decided the majority of the largest pieces in the original drop, ties broken by the next lewer size pieces in the drop.

The boards could be a simple as a 9x9, a 5x5, and a single victory 1x1 board.

Victory is decided by a two-out of three on the lowest board.

[EDIT: I really hadn't meant to write your game for you. But you know how these things go! This premise is awesome. Use any of the above as you will, and ignore the rest. I hope you don't mind me developing the rules I just posted a bit on my own, borrowing your theme? Trade ya!]

TheReluctantGeneral
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Ideas for an abstract strategy game based on raindrops

A word of warning - this is an abstarct game with no hidden information and no random factor , just like chess. So look out for the old analysis paralysis here. The search depth might be quite high also, what with the multiple boards or 'terrain', so you could have players having to analyse multiple possible moves to a significant number of turns in the future.

You'll need some way of either reducing the number of sensible seeming moves to a reasonable number and/or keeping the search depth reasonable, unles sthat is you want a mind melter of a game aimed at the sort of people who have brains like computers.

One mechanism that comes to mind is a mod to hedge's suggested rules. Instead of being able to move a stack of your choice, you are able to make a move which 'tilts' the board in one of eight directions - 4 resulting in all stacks moving straight towards the nominated edge, and 4 which result in all stacks moving diagonally towards the nominated corner.

This kind of fits with the water theme, and reduces the scope of possible moves, instead placing the emphasis on the search depth. Perhaps only 4 tilt directions would be better...

There are various other ways you could introduce elements of abstract physics to alter how droplets move and behave, such as changing the droplet weight needed to drop levels (call this 'surface tension' - hey - cool name for the game!), or change speed of stack movement (call this viscosity...)

Another idea to add a new twist (though it does not help with analysis complexity - probably makes it worse actually) would be for placing of little walls that stick up along square intersections. These stop droplet movement in that direction. They could either be deployed or present on the board to begin with.

It is a very nice idea. I like abstracts too and this could be a very beautiful game.

HyveMynd
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Ideas for an abstract strategy game based on raindrops

So, I knocked out a (very) crude prototype yesterday after posting my ideas. It was really nothing more than a 9x9 cardboard grid (5cm between each point), 15x 1 Yen coins, and 15x 10 Yen coins (I'm in Japan remember). I decided to test game idea #1, since it is the simplest. Even so... analysis paralysis set in almost immediately. I'm really hoping that this was just because my mind was still thinking along multiple paths and not really concentrating on the game. Plus, I find it very difficult to play against yourself. So I have made a short (1 A4 sized page) .PDF of my first round rules and placed them in my uploads section. You can grab the .PDF here:

http://www.bgdf.com/files/My_Uploads/HyveMynd

I tried to reduce the AP problem by imposing some movement rules. You MUST move a drop every turn, you MUST move the drop it's full amount, you MUST move the drop in a straight line, you MUST end your move farther away (or the same distance) from your "home point" then where you started from, and you CANNOT move your drop over or through any other pieces. Hopefully that will help move the game along a bit quicker. I didn't want to create a "mind melter" as General put it, but a simple elegant game that was fun, interesting, and tactically flexible. I know this isn't the "Playtest Forum" but it seemed to make more sense to post here then to start another thread. I'm be much obliged if you download the rules and look them over. Hell, you can even PLAY it a bit if you want to *hint hint*. I'm taking the prototype to work tomorrow (yes, I WORK on Saturday) and will try to con some of my students into playing it. I'll post any thoughts or feed back I get tomorrow night.

My head is still swimming with loads of ideas. I LOVE the "surface tension" and "viscosity" ideas General. They helped me come up with another one "coagulate". Baiscally if two opposing drops combine they harden up and become immobile, with any imbalance "sliding off" onto an adjacent point of the players choice. Or how about "collect"? Played on a 3D board, you don't move the drops, just place them on the topmost grid. Then you place "heavy drops" on an empty point, causing all the adjacent drops to collect there, and then drop to the next lower level. I'm really glad that I have recorded all these ideas here in the forum. Otherwise all my new ideas would push out all the old ones, and I could loose some great material!

And Hedge, don't worry about "writing" the game for me. I know how these things go, and you are more than welcome to any of the ideas that you see here. Hell, it's why I posted them. I know that even if we both use the same idea, each of us will follow it down a different path and end up with a different game.

And lastly, I need to "read up" on meta-games. Since all the ideas here follow the theme of fluid drops on grid points, and all use (relatively) the same components, it would be nice to somehow link the game play. A victory in this game affects the game play in another game, and so on. Plus I feel the "X games in one" idea makes it a bit more appealing to marketers.

OutsideLime
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Ideas for an abstract strategy game based on raindrops

I jotted down concepts for a game similar to this several months ago, under the working title "Gravity". The inspiration being that a celestial object exerts attractive forces on nearby objects, the more mass, the greater the gravity generated. When objects are drawn together, they merge to form a more massive object. When objects get too massive, they implode upon themselves.

Players start with a set of objects in their colour placed on the board in predetermined positions (all of which are out of range of each other's influence.) Each player has a stockpile of objects in their colour that they may place into empty zones on the board. When an object is placed, the player must resolve the movement that is created by the gravity exerted by and upon the object. If objects become too massive, they implode and are removed from the board into the discards pile.

Endgame comes when each player has exhausted their stockpile of objects and made the final movement resolutions. Players count up the objects that they "control" - that is, objects which their colour makes up over 75% of the composition. Split objects go unscored. The more mass an object has, the more points it is worth.

I started writing out the system for resolving that movement but found that it became quite complex fairly quickly, and after some frustration, shifted Gravity to the backburner.

I never really took the idea anywhere but was reminded of it by this thread. Perhaps I'll dust Gravity off and look at it again. Your raindrops concept is very refreshing and I will keep an eye on the interesting resolutions you seem to be quickly developing. Thanks for the inspiration!

~Josh

TheReluctantGeneral
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Ideas for an abstract strategy game based on raindrops

I'll definitely take a look at those rules when I get a moment. In the meantime, have you heard of icehouse pieces?

http://www.looneylabs.com/whybuy/treehouse.html

They are made by looney labs and each set consists of 5 large hollow pyramids, 5 medium sized ones and 5 small. They are made from a range of colours of clear plastic (as well as black), and can either stack (big at the bottom, medium in the middle and small on top) or can envelop one another (big envelops medium, medium envelops small.

They look very nice, and they migth be perfect prototype pieces for you. They's look especially nice with a clear plastic or glass board.

Even better, looney labs run a site where you can submit games that use icehouse pieces for inclusoin with their rule sets, so if it's not a commerical runner, you can still get some kudos.

TheReluctantGeneral
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Ideas for an abstract strategy game based on raindrops

Well, I read the rules and I'm sorry to say I was a little underwhelmed. Obviously I haven't played it yet, so take the following with a pinch of salt.

I appreciate that you have taken a strong stand against the AP problem, but in the process it seems that you may have lost some of the elegance and potential of the original premise.

In particular I was not keen on the capture mechanism, which it seems has been borrowed from Go. Firstly, this mechanism did not seem to fit with the water theme. Secondly, the rule about not being able to move onto or over opposing pieces combined with this capture mechanism seems likely to result in a somewhat static game, once the opposing forces have met in the middle of the board, which also seems to counteract the theme.

I'll be interested to see how your first playtest goes.

HyveMynd
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Ideas for an abstract strategy game based on raindrops

Well.....

I played two and a half games today, and I am rather underwhelmed as well. The first game (played on a quarter of the board as a demonstration) ended in a stalemate, as both of us got our pieces "stuck" in the middle. The other two games I watched while my students played. There was no excitement, no strategy, no "I eant to play this game again!" which is what I am ultiamtely going for. So, it's back to the drawing board.

Now that I take a step back and look at it, the "capture" mechanism is too much like "go" for my tastes, and it really doesn't fit with the theme of "liquid drops". I included it at (kind of) the last minute to prevent players from just leaving a piece on their home point, denying the opponent a win. The movement rules were clunky as well. There was absolutely no apparent advantage to "absorbing" pieces, as the smaller drops were much easier to move. It ended up being a "mind melter" anyway, because the larger drops were so difficult to move given the "straight line" and "forward moment only" rules. Basically the whole thing just stank. I killed any elegance, ingenuity, or creativity that the idea once had.

I need to go back and really think about what I am trying to achieve with this game, and which of they many ideas I want to persue. The tilting idea is really nice, and it certainly does cut down on the AP problem. I just envision that alot of pieces would collect towards the outside of the board, since when you tilt the "web" ALL the pieces would move in the tilt direction, and therefore not combine with each other. Unless..... I added "sticky" pieces into the mix. "Sticky" pieces wouldn't move (or move less then "normal" pieces) when the board was tilted, allowing other pieces to run into them and then drop down to the lower grid. Thats an interesting idea. I still don't know what to do about pieces "falling off" the board edge, because it is bound to come up sooner or later.

So, in a nutshell, v.1 of "absorption" is a complete bust.

Hedge-o-Matic
Hedge-o-Matic's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2008
Ideas for an abstract strategy game based on raindrops

Yeah, I was having the same sort of problems for my recent game "Halo", which is vaguely modeled after distribution of galaxies in dark matter halos. The first major problem I had was too much frredom of movement. When I clamped down on that, I had unbearable pattern-finding. When I corrected that, I found that play had compressed onto a tiny section of the board, eliminating the possability of creating the needed formations. When I fixed that, the game spread out too far, and the pieces stopped interacting at all. Once I balanced that, I found my victory conditions let the game fizzle out, rather than end with some drama.

Sigh...

Abstracts are a challenge for the simple reason that, with so few rules to work with, the slightest change in one of them completely alters the way they function. So I'd suggest finding one single rule in your game that makes it feel less like your inspiration. What about raindrops intruiged you that this game doesn't do? For instance, in v1, half of the pieces no longer interact with each other like the raindrops do, making them feel less like droplets overall.

I'd suggest altering a single rule at a time, but sometimes radical action needs to be taken...

I'd shy away from the tilting concept, cool as it sounds. Any move that alters the entire board will take away most of the clarity in the game, and replace focussed consideration with an attempt to picture what 49 changes to the board might look like each turn. That's asking a bit much.

I'd suggest freeing up your movement a bit, letting the game end more easily. Perhaps a piece could "roll through" one opposing piece of the same size per move, but gets stuck beneath a second, unable to move until the piece above it is moved?

Also, some questions. What is a size-5 or -6 piece cannot move its full move without leaving the board? Though it seems implicit this cannot happen, it would add some tactical depth is the opposition could force enemy pieces together, giving the player no choice but to roll them off the board's edge. Pieces rolled off the edge are returned to the starting zone as indovdual drops. This would give the players an interesting tactic (forcing unwanted combining among the enemy), and introduce a backgammon-like element of continual renewal of racing pieces.

As to your capture rule, It seems odd to me, and not fitting with the theme. Surrounded groups might be forced to combine into a single large piece, though. Still, this seems unlikely, since, unlike Go, the pieces aren't hanging out very long in one spot. I'd reconsider this.

HyveMynd
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Ideas for an abstract strategy game based on raindrops

Allright...

I think that I've hit upon a much better idea this time. One that has much more of the "liquid" feel that I was going for. And it will work for between 2 to 4 players (maybe even more). Here is a 'rough' outline of how it'll work:

Setup - Place the playing pieces into an opaque bag (there will be 20 pieces in 2 colors if 2 are playing, 13 pieces in 3 colors for 3 players, and 10 pieces in 4 colors for 4 players). One at a time, the players reach into the bag, pull out a random piece, and place it on any one of the empty grid points (the board is still a 9x9 grid). Continue placing pieces until they are all on the board. Put the "Push" and "Pull" tokens (haven't determined their numbers yet, but the group should roughly be 2/3's "Pull" and 1/3 "Push") into the bag and shake them up. Randomly determine which color each player is and who will go first.

Play - On their turn, a player reaches into the bag, removes a token, looks at it, and places it on any EMPTY grid point of their choice. All the drops on the adjacent points move in a certain way as follows:

Pull Token - All the adjacent drops move one grid point directly AWAY from the token. Remove the token from the board after all the drops have moved. Place it back in the token bag.

Push Token - All the adjacent drops move one grid point directly TOWARDS (and therfore onto) the token. Remove the token from the board after all the drops have moved. Place it back in the token bag.

This represents the player pulling the grid point up (causing the nearby drops to slide away from the point) or pushing the grid point down (causing the nearby drops to collect at that point).

When Drops Collide with Drops - If two drops of the SAME color meet, they form a larger drop, which is too heavy to stay on the grid. Remove the pieces and give them to the player of the appropriate color. If drops of DIFFERENT colors meet they "congeal" into a hard, solid mass. Place the pieces to one side (DO NOT give them to the appropraite player), and replace them with a grey "congealed" piece.

Congealed Pieces - The grey "congealed" pieces DO NOT move, but remain on the board until the end of the game. If another drop collides with a congealed piece, the colored piece drops off the grid. Give it to the correct player.

Winning - The game ends when the last drop falls off the grid. Players now total up the number of drops they have collected, each drop gives you one "point" and whoever has the most points wins. Simple as that.

I really like the random piece placement and color determination. That way the players CAN'T just clump their drops together for a quick win. It will encourage a pretty even distribution of colors, since you don't know your color until AFTER the setup. There are still some kinks to work out, like the number of "Push" and "Pull" tokens, but I think that the basic rules are pretty solid. Plus they allow for alot of flexibility. I could change it so that you DON'T put the tokens back in the bag after playing them, and the game ends when the last token is pulled. That even allows for solitare play. Place the pieces on the board, randomly determine what color you are, and then see how many points you can get in your color with a limited number of tokens. Or I could combine this with the "layered grid" idea that I had. When the drops fall off one grid, they land on a smaller one below it. You can't "Push" or "Pull" on a grid until all of your drops are off the one directly above it. First player to get a drop on the bottom most grid wins. I could tweak the number of points that the drops move when pulled ("runny drops"), or allow special token to affect drops that are TWO points away ( a "big" pull or push). I think that this idea is much MUCH better then that static "go" clone that I posted before.

Julius
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Ideas for an abstract strategy game based on raindrops

I'd avoid the different colored pieces altogether. They are raindrops, afterall.

What I've learned from watching raindrops on a window is that the bigger ones move faster than the little ones. To this end, I've come up with the following rules for a simple, abstract raindrop game.

What you need:
A square grid (8x8, 9x9, 400x400, whatever).
A bunch of stackable pieces.
Two players.

Setup:
Place the board between the two players, and skew it 45 degrees so that a corner faces each player. One corner not occupied by a player represents the 'top' and the other represents the bottom. Place the pieces off the board where both players can reach them.

Play:
On your turn, you both introduce two new raindrops onto the board, and move one drop already on the board.

Introducing drops is done by placing two drops along one of the edges at the top of the board. It does not matter where you place them otherwise, you may place them separately, stacked together, or even stacked on top of an existing drop on the board, but they must be located along one of the edges that touches the top corner of the board.

You may then move one drop down the window. You may not move a piece that you have just played. If there are no eligible drops to play, your turn ends.

Movement is done orthoganally (like a rook), but always down the window (raindrops don't move upwards). You must make all of this movement in a straight line (no bends). The number of spaces a drop moves is determined by its size, i.e. a drop that is made up of one piece moves one space, while a drop that is made up of five pieces moves five spaces. There is no maximum size to a drop.

If a drop collides with another (moves into its space), movement stops, and that drop's pieces are added to the drop already in that space. Drops cannot be separated once they have been joined.

If you move a drop off of the bottom of the board (one of the two edges touching the bottom corner), you get to keep it, and you earn a number of points equal to the size of the drop.

Winning:
You win the game once you have earned a number of points equal to or greater than a preset score agreed to at the beginning of the game (i.e. first to 25).

TheReluctantGeneral
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Ideas for an abstract strategy game based on raindrops

HyveMynd wrote:
Allright... I think that I've hit upon a much better idea this time.

This seems much more like it!

Quote:
One at a time, the players reach into the bag, pull out a random piece, and place it on any one of the empty grid points

There will be alot of strategy employed at this stage of the game. I like that you have a two phased game, in which preparing the board for play is a major part of the game. I'm a sucker for battle plan preparation games, and this could be a good example of such a game.

Quote:
On their turn, a player reaches into the bag, removes a token, looks at it, and places it on any EMPTY grid point of their choice.

Just some random ideas here:

- you could deploy the counters face down. Each player plays a few (not sure how many - would need to playtest). Then the counters are all simultaneously revealed. drops move as per your rules, but drops experienceing equal forces stay put. This mechanism means players can defined against opponents who are trying to disrupt their drops, as wlel as introducing some bluffing etc.

- some counters may only affect a particular colour. This may get too complex, but would provide a way of uncongealing congealed drops, which is one of the aspects of these rules that I found less appealing (i.e. not water-like).

Quote:
I think that this idea is much MUCH better then that static "go" clone that I posted before.

I agree.

Hedge-o-Matic
Hedge-o-Matic's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2008
Ideas for an abstract strategy game based on raindrops

This thread highlights a lot obout why I love abstract game design. HyveMynd has one idea, I've got another, Julius has a third. All playable, all based on the same theme, and all striving for simplicity. Sweet.

Julius: Like the sound of your game. I'd test it, to see how detirministic it is, based on the fact that the pieces are uniform and shared. It seems like the obvious strategy would be to place near the corners, and then run a steady stream of pieces off the board, since the route is so short. Playtesting this game would be interesting.

Hyve: This is a definate improvement.

Julius
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Ideas for an abstract strategy game based on raindrops

Hedge: Your strategy might not be the best one. Remember, you cannot move a piece the turn it is placed on the board. So if you place a piece near the corner, odds are your opponent will capture it and earn the points.

NetWolf
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Ideas for an abstract strategy game based on raindrops

Man, Julius, your game sounds pretty good and very strategic. I may have to break out an old set of checkers and try my hand at this game!

Hedge-o-Matic
Hedge-o-Matic's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2008
Ideas for an abstract strategy game based on raindrops

Julius

I'd carefully consider the grid size. With an 8x8 grid, the movement is too detirministic. Play to the top center or third from the side cannot be stopped, while play to any other square gives your opponant points without any way to stop them. Maybe it's me, but a larger grid may be the way to go, so that the continuing buildup of pieces is a viable strategy. With an 8x8, the players run one piece, and score as stated, unless one player willfully does something outrageously stupid, which, with this grid size, won't happen often.

Even so, starting with a blank board of whatever size would yield a simple pattern for those looking for it. This is caused by the lack of options for any given piece (2), coupled with the easily forecasted movement options. Perhaps a "setup phase" to place stones onto the board, might loosen this up a bit?

Maybe I'm just missing a strategy here. Let me re-read the rules and see if the trouble isn't on my end...

Julius
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Ideas for an abstract strategy game based on raindrops

You could just use a lone piece (drop of size one) to "block" a player who builds up something too big, and should they be foolish enough to move into its space you could capture it yourself.

I'm having trouble envisioning how the 3rd space in cannot be stopped. You'd have to grow it to a size of four before you could move it off the board, but growing a piece in that manner would leave you vulnerable (your opponent could simply move it off the edge to capture it). If you choose to try and move it closer to the edge while it is smaller, you also would leave yourself vulnerable to your opponent capturing the piece.

The most important rules of my game involve what pieces cannot be moved. Remember: Drops you play at the start of your turn (including an existing drop that is grown by adding a new piece) cannot be moved. Also, moving a drop into a space occupied by another drop ends your turn once they are combined (the drop stops moving in that space).

So far, with playtesting, I've found that the board builds up very large amounts of water, but never enough to move off the board. There's always a breaking point, however (what with adding two, but moving one).

Through this playtesting, I've come up with a rules modification that makes play considerably more interesting:

Placing Drops:
You may add a new piece anywhere on the board, not just the top edge.

Also, I've discovered that the game works just fine with more than two players, though it feels less strategic and more frantic.

Julius
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Ideas for an abstract strategy game based on raindrops

Also, I have some clarifications that came up:

You must place two drops at the start of your turn.

You must move a drop if a legal piece is available. If there are no legal moves (such as on the first turn, where you have placed the only drops on the board), your turn ends.

The drop moved must move the maximum distance possible, unless it runs off the edge or collides with another piece. I.E. if you choose to move a drop of size 5, you must move it 5 spaces (if possible).

Finally (though I may have said this before), there is no maximum drop size.

Hedge-o-Matic
Hedge-o-Matic's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2008
Ideas for an abstract strategy game based on raindrops

Ah, I didn't see that placing a piece onto another drop ends your turn. I was thinking that the first player places a drop, and then the second player could just add to that drop and move it. This process would continue until the predetirmined player scored the drop. If, as you say, players cannot move a drop they've just added to, the game changes quite a bit.

Allowing players to play anywhere, not just in the top row, is also a huge improvement, allowing the blocking of movement as the pieces combine. This is far better.

Julius
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Ideas for an abstract strategy game based on raindrops

Hedge-o-Matic wrote:
Ah, I didn't see that placing a piece onto another drop ends your turn.

Well, it doesn't end your turn, it just means you cannot move that drop. If there is another drop already on the board that you can move, you must move it normally.

Hedge-o-Matic wrote:
Allowing players to play anywhere, not just in the top row, is also a huge improvement, allowing the blocking of movement as the pieces combine. This is far better.

I agree. Thanks.

RAF
Offline
Joined: 11/17/2008
Ideas for an abstract strategy game based on raindrops

Why not use "water" itself in a unique way?

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut