![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Abstract strategy game ideas
Apr. 1st, 2013 12:47 pmI imagine these have already occurred to others. Either that, or there's not much strategy going on.
1. "Branching trees". Start with an nxn grid (say 20x20). The first player picks two squares to serve as starting points. The second player chooses which of the points he wants to start at. Then, alternating in turns, each player places a marker (stone, piece) on a square next to any of his already placed markers. First player that can't move loses.
I imagine this is a second player win, but I haven't tried to prove it. More specifically, without the cut-and-choose protocol at the beginning, that it's a first player win.
2. "Uneven branching trees". As 1, but before playing, place x dark tokens and y light tokens on random places of the board. When a player is to place his marker at any of these spots, then the token is removed and the player in question gets an extra turn for dark, and two extra turns for light. These turns *must* be played, so if the player in question hits a light token and then has one accessible space left after that, he'll lose.
It might still not have enough strategy. I imagine that players would start with starting positions next to each other in the middle of the board, then both would just go up (or down) until they've sealed off their half. Then it would simply be a matter of who has the right amount of tokens... not very interesting. Could it be made more interesting, perhaps? Are some pairs of starting points more interesting than others without obviously favoring the second player?
{EDIT: Oh, and there are two others that might have more complexity.
3. "Unbranching trees". Same as 1, but one can only put a marker next to where one put the marker last. Thus, instead of a tree, you get a line.
4. "Uneven unbranching trees". This is to 3 what 2 is to 1.
One could also consider penalty variants where tokens make the other side get extra turns instead. Or for that matter, multiplayer variants, since the game easily generalizes to any number of players.
}
1. "Branching trees". Start with an nxn grid (say 20x20). The first player picks two squares to serve as starting points. The second player chooses which of the points he wants to start at. Then, alternating in turns, each player places a marker (stone, piece) on a square next to any of his already placed markers. First player that can't move loses.
I imagine this is a second player win, but I haven't tried to prove it. More specifically, without the cut-and-choose protocol at the beginning, that it's a first player win.
2. "Uneven branching trees". As 1, but before playing, place x dark tokens and y light tokens on random places of the board. When a player is to place his marker at any of these spots, then the token is removed and the player in question gets an extra turn for dark, and two extra turns for light. These turns *must* be played, so if the player in question hits a light token and then has one accessible space left after that, he'll lose.
It might still not have enough strategy. I imagine that players would start with starting positions next to each other in the middle of the board, then both would just go up (or down) until they've sealed off their half. Then it would simply be a matter of who has the right amount of tokens... not very interesting. Could it be made more interesting, perhaps? Are some pairs of starting points more interesting than others without obviously favoring the second player?
{EDIT: Oh, and there are two others that might have more complexity.
3. "Unbranching trees". Same as 1, but one can only put a marker next to where one put the marker last. Thus, instead of a tree, you get a line.
4. "Uneven unbranching trees". This is to 3 what 2 is to 1.
One could also consider penalty variants where tokens make the other side get extra turns instead. Or for that matter, multiplayer variants, since the game easily generalizes to any number of players.
}