| Author |
Message |
Dr. Ulrich Schaedler (Uuschaedler)
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 07, 2001 - 2:39 pm: | |
Thank you, LL Smith, for programming the Roman game according to the rules I suggested in my article in Abstract Games no. 7. There are but a few misinterpretations:
1. I suggested that in the first phase of placing the stones on the board no captures are made, i.e. even if a piece is placed between tow enemies or enclosed by two enemies this is no capture. Captures are only made in the second phase by active movement.
2. Trapped pieces cannot help to liberate themselves. Only two pieces that are both free can capture another piece.
3. Movements are only orthogonally, not diagonally.
Best regards
Ulrich Schaedler
See the homepage of Board Games Studies, the first and only scientific journal on board games: http://www.boardgamesstudies.org |
Ramutis Giliauskas (Gil)
| | Posted on Saturday, September 01, 2001 - 8:36 pm: | |
When I first started trying to decipher the clues to Ludus Latrunculorum I found I was working hard to make rules fit. It is a game that captivated the Roman intellectuals...hell, everything that I tried or read about about was as captivating as checkers, and this game was supposed to captivate and stimulate the 'best of the best'? Hardly.
So, I tried something else....if I was a Roman Noble in antiquity, what motivated me, what did I find that stimulated me, what had I seen that could arouse my intellect and passion. I read many of the authors Ovid, Juvenal, etc to see what annoyed and excited me and then looked at the military innovations of the time. What problems did they have and how did they solve them...the interesting thing is they found solutions that were effective but different to what we (21st century man) would have done.
If they found different solutions than we might....might they also design a game that has logical concepts...BUT completely different than we might expect or interpret.
Two things.....I suspect that this is a late republican game involving cohorts engaged in civil war. In times of civil war political enemies were also often called bandits or latrones. In the game with 13 stones there are 12 stones that are cohorts and the 13 stone is a Proconsul with his guard (praetorian guard).
Secondly....capture by enclosure does not occur immediately...that is a 21st century thought...
Anyone interested in discussing this game from a purely military aspect please contact me at ab067@hwcn.org
I have figured out most of the game....and some of Petteia....is is quite complex, extremely logical, but doesn't involve any jumping with Dux's etc. There are walls, fortresses, sieges. soties and cohortial warfare. Anything that ancients wrote about can be played as they saw it. It is an intellectual wargame that is far superior to Chess or Go.
...Gil |
L. Lynn Smith (Interrupt27)
| | Posted on Sunday, July 31, 2005 - 9:02 am: | |
My apologies for not responding to this thread sooner. Honestly, I only just found it a few days ago while just surfing the discussion forum.
I am currently in the process of re-writing my implementation to more honestly reflect the rules as described by Dr. Schaedler. I must confess that the initial code was hastily throw together and I was reluctant to tackle this hodge-podge of horrendous conditionals.
But perfectionism got the best of me. I have hopefully completed the task. I am currently play-testing the result to be assured of its total compliance.
I hope to have this update posted at Zillions by next weekend. I look forward to all constructive criticism. |
L. Lynn Smith (Interrupt27)
| | Posted on Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 5:19 pm: | |
The updated implementation is now posted at this site.
During the application of the add-partial command to the jumps of the Ordinarii there arose an interesting dynamic. As the piece leaps from position to position, it releases and makes Alligati. Since Ordinarii can find themselves between opposing Ordinarii during the placement phase, a jumping Ordinarus might make one of these an Alligatus then continue jumping leaving it an Alligatus if it is still located between two opposing Ordinarii. And such formation of opposing Alligati might lead to the release of friendly Alligati. I am not aware of anything which might specifically forbid this condition, and I would argue to keep this potential as it adds strategic depth to the game. Similar to the capture-jump in Checkers, it allows a piece to have an effect on each one of its moves during the turn.
I also applied the following end-game conditions:
1. If a player is reduce to one piece, they lose the game.
2. If either player is stalemated(unable to perform a move), all the pieces(both Ordinarii and Alligati) on the field are counted and the player with the most wins.
3. After the placement phase, if there is no removal of an Alligatus in forty turns all the pieces on the field are counted and the player with the most wins.
4. Three-time repetition of position is a loss.
The logic of condition 1 is that a player reduced to a single piece has no chance of making any more Alligati. Condition 2 allows a player to force a losing opponent with a strong defensive position to make a sacrificial move to continue the game or continue to consolidate and lose. Condition 3 might force a player to make a sacrificial move in order to continue the game. And condition 4 prevents a losing player from creating a strong defensive structure and hoping for a draw, and prevents a winning player from doing the same and hoping for a concession.
Play-testing with these end-game conditionals has proven to be quite enjoyable. |
|