Skip to Content

Glaciers:an almost PnP strategy game.

4 replies [Last post]
thecutestwug
Offline
Joined: 09/09/2015

Rules Document- Comments enabled

Glaciers is an abstract strategy game where two players attempt to eliminate all their opponents pieces by pushing them off the game board or into water. In order to do this, both players modify the board by placing ice, and melting and freezing existing terrain. Any feedback would be much appreciated.

As you can probably tell, I have no idea how to do this. I made this game and playtested and polished it as much as I can because I thought it was fun and had some strategic depth. I honestly don't know where to go from here besides offering it for blind playtesting and getting more data. I hope it is enjoyable.

Components needed to play:

  • 8x8 board - A chess, checkers or revisi board works wonderfully.
  • 5 pieces per player - Chess Pawns work well
  • 32-64 Flippable Riversi chips - The black side is for water and the white side for ice.
kos
Offline
Joined: 01/17/2011
Nice ideas

I like the ideas here. It's simple, uses easily obtainable materials, and looks like it plays quickly.

Having read the rules but not played it, I had a few questions:

I assume that pushing chains together. That is, if two pieces are adjacent and I move onto the first piece's square, it moves onto the second piece and the second piece moves onto the next square. Is that correct?

Let's say I use my first action to create ice underneath an opponent's piece, then I move my piece onto that square. Does my piece stop on the ice, or does it continue sliding (and thus continue pushing the opponent's piece)?

When your opponent has 2 extra pieces, does "extra move" mean:
a) 1 piece moves 1 square for free, or
b) 1 free action?

Regards,
kos

thecutestwug
Offline
Joined: 09/09/2015
Your questions

Thanks for the feedback. I will see if I can clear up the wording.

1.Yes, it does chain.
2. Technically you would continue slidinh.. However you can't change the terrain in a square that is occupied by a piece. Otherwise you could do "ice+melt" every turn under an opponents square.
Due to the fact that you can't create ice under another piece, there shouldn't be a game state where you would stop on ice.

3. You would get one free action. Will clarify the wording there.

kos
Offline
Joined: 01/17/2011
Playtesting feedback

In playtesting, how important do you find that the initial placement is?

That is, my assumption from looking at the rules is that a more experienced player would have a significant advantage over a rookie not just during the game but even more so because they will be able to put themselves in a position to win the game before it even starts. Is that so?

In playtesting, have you found that experienced players are able to "solve" each turn?

That is, on any given turn I want to eliminate an opposing piece (if possible) while making it impossible for one of my pieces to be eliminated on the next turn. Is there a level of skill at which the best move on any given turn is obvious, and any other move is sub-optimal?

In playtesting, have you found that it is possible to stalemate the game if both players play super-defensive?

Regards,
kos

thecutestwug
Offline
Joined: 09/09/2015
Playtesting Glacierss

From my testing, having three moves per turn leads to the optimal scenario that you mentioned. Things move fast enough that you get one elimination a turn. With one move, you get stalemates as the opponent has incentive to reverse your move over and over.

With two moves, it seems to balance between the two extremes reasonably. The fact that linked pools o ice/water all flip as once serves as a kind of acceleration mechanic to counteract the stalemate tendency caused by the lower number of pieces. You can get a stalemate by two super defensive players, but so long as they aren't just undoing the previous players moves repeatedly, the increasing amounts of ice/water usually reach a tippping point that gives an advantage to someone.

I will continue testing against stalemates in the future.

So far as the setup, I am testing a few variants. The game without setup has a very strong first player advantage from my testing. The idea behind the split was to give the setup advantage to one player, and the actual first turn to the other player, to hedge against it. From my limited testing, setup isn't too strong, but I need more data.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut