[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ][ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ][ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]Comments/Ratings for a Single Item Later ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier Unconventional Warfare Chess. Variant based on modern warfare. (10x10, Cells: 84) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]danielmacduff wrote on 2015-05-14 UTCAs regards the International Prop. error, I think it helps thematically (if a year after troops were committed nukes were flying the human race would have been wiped out back in the 60's or 70's) as well as changing the feel of the early game. It gives you time to play chess before the game REALLY begins to go crazy. But just for the record, in the game I just played, the player who struck the other's Propaganda first won. With a nuke. smakarov wrote on 2003-08-04 UTCHere's my algebraic notation for this game ([ and ] mean a variety of moves/pieces can be substituted, pieces may be followed by resolving rank/file): Put at the end of a turn: % Protocol raised + President in check (NBC doesn't count) +J Joint Chiefs of Staff in check Whole Moves: +[infantry] Draft >T Infiltrate -F Burrowed Special Forces >F[square] Unburrow special forces Tx Terrorist Detonates O>[square] Paradrop [nbc]x[square] NBC strike Hope it helps! smakarov wrote on 2003-08-04 UTCExcellent ★★★★★ I feel that after acually playing the game I owe you an apology.. however, I spotted one error in your game: to use terrorism against the enemy, you must first destroy opponent propaganda.. so consequently it can't sacrifice itself to kill terrorists.. and you can't raise status to yellow because propaganda keeps you using code-blue restrictions and that means no killing civilians. smakarov wrote on 2003-08-02 UTCGood ★★★★Nice idea.. I feel disappointed with the resulting game, though. I agree with the people who are saying that if you raise the escalation protocol, you will get creamed instantly. The moral: don't fight nuclear wars. (No wonder the Cold War was more like tiptoeing on a sleeping lion than fighting..) I'm not saying you should stop working on the idea.. maybe limit the power of certain pieces so you don't have instant armaggedon. Maybe trench warfare, plus tanks plus terrorism plus planes (plus hijacked planes), the ideas are limitless, and the escalation protocol can be added to a great many games in which you want to have the game start quietly, then gather steam. Keep working on it. Bart wrote on 2003-05-02 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Very good game. I like the esclation protocols and the pieces. I am going to make notation soon. I think this game is good enough to be commericially distributed. It is possible to notate. LCC wrote on 2003-03-12 UTCThanks for doing the Zillions file! All your interpretations are perfect, good sense ones. I never noticed how incomplete the rules were until you pointed those out, but the fact you've reached the same gameplay conclusions I would have proves they are sufficient, which is good :) Dan Troyka wrote on 2003-03-12 UTCI've completed a beta ZRF of this game. Any brave souls care to play test it over the next few days? Please e-mail me at [email protected] for a copy. This script works only with Zillions v.2.0. Here's how I've resolved some of the finer points: NBC weapons can be detonated on any square not occupied or protected by the enemy Hacker, including empty squares, squares occupied by friends, and squares occupied or protected by the friendly Hacker. When a Biological Weapon is dropped on an occupied square, pieces adjacent to the square become immediately infected. Infection occurs both when an infected piece ends its turn next to a non-infected piece, and when a non-infected piece ends its turn next to an infected piece. All pieces except for the National Guard, including all NBC weapons, can become infected. A Biological Weapon cannot land on the National Guard. It can land next to the National Guard, in which case the National Guard is not infected. An infected Civilian remains infected when converting into a Terrorist, Ranger, Marine, or Airborne. The Hacker can sacrifice itself to capture an NBC that is guarded by an enemy attacking the square with a normal move from a non-adjacent square, such as an Aircraft Carrier or Terrorist two steps removed. A Civilian can be captured in Status Green regardless of whether that player has an International Propaganda on the board (otherwise it would be impossible to capture an enemy Civilian without first capturing the enemy International Propaganda). A Civilian can be converted into a Terrorist in Status Green whether or not it captures as part of the move. When a Civilian is captured and more than one friendly Civilian is on an adjacent square, only one of the adjacent Civilians can exercise the privilege of converting to a Terrorist without spending a move. In addition, the privilege of conversion can be exercised only when the adjacent friendly Civilian is captured through a normal move, not a special action. When the Airborne is dropped into enemy territory, it can land on any square that is not attacked by an enemy normal move, including enemy attacks originating from non-adjacent squares (e.g., Aircraft Carrier). If the square is attacked only by an enemy special action, the move can be made. Pieces that move as Dabbabah, Alfil, or Knight can jump over intervening pieces, including the crater left by a Strategic Nuke. The Aircraft Carrier can fire over intervening pieces. LCC (the author) wrote on 2002-11-23 UTCWell, not fighting a modern war is also a very nice way of winning! In reply to Moussambani: notice that, during code red, the hacker can easily protect the president by being adjacent to it. The president is, as stated, capable of surviving an indirect hit with a strategic nuclear weapon, and the hacker would prevent it from being directly targeted. Still, escalation does indeed compromise significantly a player's chances. Sometimes the first strike advantage is worth the damage, if one's prepared for it, sometimes it isn't. I rather enjoy that calculating retaliatory capabilities plays a larger role that piece-versus-piece tactics in this variant. It's faithful to the chosen theme. Jared wrote on 2002-11-22 UTCGood ★★★★STRANGE GAME. THE ONLY WINNING MOVE IS NOT TO PLAY. HOW ABOUT A NICE GAME OF CHESS? (Seriously, though, where are the major cities? I would think that there would at least be a Capitol where the Prez starts.) --Jared Moussambani wrote on 2002-11-22 UTClooks like the first one that escalates to red loses the game. so TIP: Defend your International Propaganda like your own life! Anonymous wrote on 2002-11-22 UTCSigh ... the colourfull diagram comes out completely unreadable after black & white printing -- could you add a starting position in ASCII, too? --JKn 11 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.