Board Game Arena

Now I have played some games where a double pawn can't cross a bridge.
Since "everyone" has been saying I expected a better game.
But so far it's been the other way around!
It's been more like Ludo and I maintain it's better to let double pawns cross bridges because so many special and subtle plays can happen then.
That's my experience so far anyway.

chrislinn wrote: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.
What if I could just double click the double pawn instead?!
That would be so much quicker and easier to do.

Agree with chrislinn

Also please could the dice be put at the right hand side of the game, not underneath.

DrKarotte wrote:Clicking on a selected pawn could cancel the selection, in addition to the action button.

Good idea! This will be surely done in the next update!

postmans wrote: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.

This sound like a good idea!

postmans wrote: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).

Im not a big fan of that

Penguin123123 wrote:

chrislinn wrote: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.
What if I could just double click the double pawn instead?!
That would be so much quicker and easier to do.

Agree with chrislinn

Also please could the dice be put at the right hand side of the game, not underneath.

Dice is primarily on the right side, it is below the board only if the sreen is smaller..

Hi A-dam. I was just going to write a post saying "Make doubles don't cross" the default. The other option is just boring - usually a race to the centre and the first to get a double home wins automatically. Admittedly I've played just one game with a couple of the better players where it became a chase and capture game, much better. But I've only managed to play a handful of 'can't cross' games (nobody else ever creates them!) and they are almost always excellent games, decided more by captures than centre-scores.

I would say rule out crossing games, but I think probably a lot (especially the less experienced players) probably much prefer them and they give them a way into the game, so maybe keep it as the alternative.

Thanks - with this option, excellent game

PS - just read the other posts in this thread. I really can't agree with the posts about can-cross games being more subtle. Possible, but very rare. chrislinn - we've played a few but probably almost all can-cross. I challenge you to a can't cross game!!

Ad why not a "blitz" option, where players would have only 10 seconds to react?

Pedros wrote:Hi A-dam. I was just going to write a post saying "Make doubles don't cross" the default. The other option is just boring - usually a race to the centre and the first to get a double home wins automatically. Admittedly I've played just one game with a couple of the better players where it became a chase and capture game, much better. But I've only managed to play a handful of 'can't cross' games (nobody else ever creates them!) and they are almost always excellent games, decided more by captures than centre-scores.

I would say rule out crossing games, but I think probably a lot (especially the less experienced players) probably much prefer them and they give them a way into the game, so maybe keep it as the alternative.

For me, both variants have its pros and cons. It seems that delete "can cross" would be mistake. For now, Im more inclined to swap the variants.. But that is not a final decision yet..

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

More decision choices = more strategy.

RicardoRix wrote: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.