What improvements would you like to see?

[Cenobi]

I don't mean to derail the thread, but since there seems to be consensus regarding the original post question of the variants, I wanted to reiterate my concern:

When a player loses pawns to capture, the choices diminish and the game becomes very boring. Once you are down to one pawn, it is super boring. I suppose one can also lose pawns by reaching the middle, but then it is a reasonable balancing mechanism. I'd advocate that captured pawns be returned to the farthest open starting position. Still hurts, and still the + and - 1 point is assessed, but it is more fun to feel like you have a chance to get back into the game.

[Liallan]

Thanks A-dam for opening this up for discussion. Most of my post will be responses to other posts.

Do please keep the "double crossing" option. I get the idea of making "can't cross" the default, but I think "can" needs to be kept as a variant. Even if that's higher luck, that's not good or bad, but just player preference, and I think it's good to keep that option open for those who like it... and that's not hurting those who don't want to play with it. (And for those not paying attention, it would just default to "can't.")

Maybe a variant where the points in the center are connected to the lines going in, so when you arrive at a line to a 1 point you might want to move on a bit to get to a better point, but risk waiting on others to enter to the middle.

Interesting idea.

A very extreme balancing idea: you get more dice when you are on outer circles then when you are on inner circles as a balancing act (guess that's a bit to extreme).

Not so fond of this one though. Seems like you're trying to handicap those who managed to make it near the center earlier, which I don't believe is pure luck. It's not like it's just roll & move - I'm only in my first game and can already see there's plenty of room for "using" the dice and mitigating luck.

One variant that I would advocate is "captured pawns return to starting space". Even if player gets unlucky with pawn captures, player will still have opportunities for strategy and can still hope to get back in contention.

Another interesting idea. Of course, it just makes it that much more like Parcheesi, and this is already a bit like "Parcheesi for designer game players."

I would like to see a simpler way to move a double pawn than now.
As it is I have to click the button at the top to choose that alternative.

This is what I wanted to address. I get tired of always having to tell it to move double. What I would love to see is having double as default and then having to tell it when to do single. I think double-clicking is too chancy.

Could there be an option of 'pass' if you don't want to use 1 or both dice?
More decision choices = more strategy.

That would change the game considerably. I'd say that it would be detrimental, as it would slow the game and encourage people to have pawns lying in wait. It would also decrease the risk management aspect if you can ignore dice.

Agreed. I actually think it makes less strategy.

[RicardoRix]

Could there be an option of 'pass' if you don't want to use 1 or both dice?

More decision choices = more strategy.

That would change the game considerably. I'd say that it would be detrimental, as it would slow the game and encourage people to have pawns lying in wait. It would also decrease the risk management aspect if you can ignore dice.

What kind of risk management? You have 2 dice to choose, there is not much in the way of choice. It plays as a slightly more advanced version of ludo.

Normally you always want to press on to get to the centre quickly. I really can't see how 'holding back' is going to be over-whealmingly better strategy. You just need to do it occasionally because using both the dice give you no advantage in position - absolotely NOTHING to do with risk management you can do to circumvent some 'bad' dice situations.

Why not add it as a game option?

[N_Faker]

Could there be an option of 'pass' if you don't want to use 1 or both dice?

More decision choices = more strategy.

This seems to benefit those in the lead more than those behind.
-

My suggestion.

Let single pawns capture double pawns.

[RicardoRix]

Could there be an option of 'pass' if you don't want to use 1 or both dice?

More decision choices = more strategy.

This seems to benefit those in the lead more than those behind.

That's like saying there shouldn't be higher points for finishing 1st - 'benefits those in the lead'.

Also the 'bad dice' situation can happen equally to all players why does this show a benefit to those in the lead?

In contrast to more decisions is less decisions, so why not just have 1 pawn and 1 dice that you're forced to move, would that make it better??

[N_Faker]

That's like saying there shouldn't be higher points for finishing 1st - 'benefits those in the lead'.
Also the 'bad dice' situation can happen equally to all players why does this show a benefit to those in the lead?
In contrast to more decisions is less decisions, so why not just have 1 pawn and 1 dice that you're forced to move, would that make it better??

I disagree with your suggestion, I believe it would diminish the game. Nothing more, nothing less.
-
More ideas.

Change center scoring to 5, 4, 4, 3, 3 - or something more suitable
Increase pawn capture scoring to 2 points, captured pawn player still loses 1 point.

Disallow splitting double pawns + let single pawns capture double pawns.

Single pawns may move 1 extra space if this captures a pawn.

[RicardoRix]

More ideas.

Change center scoring to 5, 4, 4, 3, 3 - or something more suitable
Increase pawn capture scoring to 2 points, captured pawn player still loses 1 point.

Disallow splitting double pawns + let single pawns capture double pawns.

Single pawns may move 1 extra space if this captures a pawn.

I simply disagree, and I'm on discussion thread but simply cannot discuss this point any further. Nothing more, nothing less!

[bbqturtle]

When a player loses pawns to capture, the choices diminish and the game becomes very boring. Once you are down to one pawn, it is super boring. I suppose one can also lose pawns by reaching the middle, but then it is a reasonable balancing mechanism. I'd advocate that captured pawns be returned to the farthest open starting position. Still hurts, and still the + and - 1 point is assessed, but it is more fun to feel like you have a chance to get back into the game.

Can't agree more - very boring to be captured. Maybe instead of capturing, you Hit the pawn, and jump backwards one space. Then, you have a chance to capture them again and again, "riding" them around the board, but they still get a chance to react and play. They don't lose points but you gain.

[ufoseeker]

Why not "Every captured pawn returns on its starting location"? (with still the +1/-1 point)

[DrKarotte]

Especially with the bridge crossing double pawns are much more mighty than single pawns.
One possibilty to balance the value of normal and double pawns could be that double pawns cannot capture at all. (If you need to explain this one reason could be that the world of Hypnosia never allows 3 pawns to be on the same field at the same time )