Crowns: Strategy Boardgame (i.e. Chess + Stratego)

[BRickAstley]

So I was reading through a boardgames forum, and I stumbled on a link to this game called Crowns that recently came online. It's an interesting mix of strategic board games, in that each side is able to pick from different units and custom placing without the opponent's knowledge, as in a game like Stratego, but once all of the units for each side are picked and placed, the entire board is revealed for both players, and the gameplay is perfect knowledge as in chess.

I've just recently discovered it and played a few games this afternoon, but the AI client on the website is really good and has stomped me. :P I'm starting to get the hang of the strategy of the different pieces, and it looks to be quite deep and very fun.

The game can be played versus AI on their website, or PvP Through email or chat. Turns are passed by sending a URL through email or chat, so it would be fairly simple to send turns for multiplayer games.

Since I know a ton of you are strategy buffs, I'm hoping that this will prove interesting for you. :D Link to the rules is here, and link to the game is here.

[Tasunke]

sounds cool to me

[Cyneheard]

sounds cool to me

Agreed, although I found the AI underwhelming, I took it apart in my first game without much trouble.

Probably some of it has to do with your top-tier units:
Ballista is a patience game, you've got a defensive unit that shoots anything that comes into range. Let the AI suicide into you, it's really bad at not doing that. And the AI didn't force me to attack while it still had its ballista. Ballista vs. Ballista is probably a REALLY obnoxious MP game, as I'm not sure how you attack effectively.
I feel like the Elephant is a suicide unit. You're probably trading it for your opponent's top-tier unit.
Tower strikes me as a really interesting unit, you've got to get to its sides or behind it to kill it: it's your battering ram.

I'm probably around a 1000-1200 level chess player, if that means anything.

Oh, and don't forget that men-at-arms and footmen work like bishops: always on their original color.

[NobleHelium]

The archer and ballista look like huge flaws in the design to me. You almost can't advance on the ballista because you can't protect a unit that moves into its range as it doesn't need to move to capture. It's okay to have a cannon-like unit (Chinese chess has that), but the fact that the unit doesn't need to expose itself to counterattack to kill something is not really something that can be reconciled with the rest of the game. This is compounded by the fact that every unit in the game is range-limited.

The fundamental idea of adding an additional pre-game layer to reduce repetition is good, but the pieces themselves just have a lot of convoluted rules that are worse than those for chess pieces.

[Tasunke]

u ready to play? (real time not e-mail)

[Cyneheard]

The archer and ballista look like huge flaws in the design to me. You almost can't advance on the ballista because you can't protect a unit that moves into its range as it doesn't need to move to capture. It's okay to have a cannon-like unit (Chinese chess has that), but the fact that the unit doesn't need to expose itself to counterattack to kill something is not really something that can be reconciled with the rest of the game. This is compounded by the fact that every unit in the game is range-limited.

The fundamental idea of adding an additional pre-game layer to reduce repetition is good, but the pieces themselves just have a lot of convoluted rules that are worse than those for chess pieces.

The Chinese Chess cannon is closer to a modified rook, too. Not a modified stable queen.

[Tasunke]

I don't know if it was a bug in my game, but my Crossbow was on the back row and was shooting over 2 friendlies (3 ahead) yet it wasn't able to shoot

anyone know why? It seemed capable of diagonal attacks from the back row just fine.

[Tatan]

I played a few games against the AI, and while it was fun figuring out ways to select and arrange the different pieces, the actual games were mostly jokes. The AI has little concept of "not walking into an enemy's range without any sort of cover whatsoever", and while it actually managed to fork me several times, it failed utterly to capitalize on it.

Probably some of it has to do with your top-tier units:
Ballista is a patience game, you've got a defensive unit that shoots anything that comes into range. Let the AI suicide into you, it's really bad at not doing that. And the AI didn't force me to attack while it still had its ballista. Ballista vs. Ballista is probably a REALLY obnoxious MP game, as I'm not sure how you attack effectively.
I feel like the Elephant is a suicide unit. You're probably trading it for your opponent's top-tier unit.
Tower strikes me as a really interesting unit, you've got to get to its sides or behind it to kill it: it's your battering ram.

I agree with this. Ballista is really annoying, both because it leads to uninteresting games and because it is difficult to counter. Elephant is always going to be assassinating the enemy top-tier unit (which is boring, but very useful for killing ballistas). Tower is my favorite; it takes some work to get it close to the enemy, but once it is inside the enemy's formation it can wreak complete havok.

The archer and ballista look like huge flaws in the design to me. You almost can't advance on the ballista because you can't protect a unit that moves into its range as it doesn't need to move to capture. It's okay to have a cannon-like unit (Chinese chess has that), but the fact that the unit doesn't need to expose itself to counterattack to kill something is not really something that can be reconciled with the rest of the game. This is compounded by the fact that every unit in the game is range-limited.

Actually, I think the archer's about right in balance--it dominates bottom-tier units, but is pretty vulnerable to other middle-tier units which can threaten it from far away. It's the ballista that's the real problem.

It still might be fun to try this with a human through email, though.

[Tasunke]

Ballistas are just so frustrating to use tho ...

And Men at Arms will take some getting used to. Haven't ever played with a piece like that before. (as far as its 'trick-turn' it can use)

Still, I'm not sure that the elephant HAS to be the 'top tier sniper'.

I mean, it can easily dodge the ballista's firing range, and can out-maneuver the Tower. So yes, it can be used to kill them, but it doesn't necessarily have to interact with them either.

I think pikeman alone are a decent counter to the tower, but YES I would agree that its not a perfect strategy.

In Elephant vs Elephant games, at least with the AI, I've found more situations where each elephant tries to kill the opponent's king than where the elephant's kill each other ... but I suppose that is the nature of the AI.

In one funny game, I took the AI's king with my elephant the turn before their elephant took my king. Now, on that turn I COULD have killed their elephant with one of my guarding pikemen, but instead I opted to go ahead and end the game.

But yea, Elephant and Cavalry are PRETTY WEAK to pikemen, but they can totally just flank around them. Not only that, but the elephant has both CHARGE and DIAGONAL attack. This means that an 'inpenetrable' wall of pikemen will still get trampled by the Elephant. It also means that its a bit trickier to set up traps for the enemy Elephant.

I will agree/postulate that Man-at-Arms pretty much rule the field of battle, due to their wide range and variety of movement combined with the fact that they can kill pikeman at any time (are not blocked. Due to their nature of movement.)

Between Cavalry and Man-at-Arms, I don't see much use for the Archers, or even the Ballista really. I mean yes, the Ballista's mechanism of attack can be devastating at times, depending on the set up, but they are just so frustrating, both to play and to play against.

I think the only top tier I'd bother 1 for 1-ing with (assassinating) would be the Balista I think. I mean, if I HAD to give up my elephant to get rid of their ballista, I think I would do it ... but otherwise I'd just run past it.

Since there are so many empty squares on the board, unless you set up with 2 rows or something, you are pratically guaranteed to have flank opportunities.

Hmm, I think I'll try some formations and see what I can come up with.

[pindicator]

Keep in mind that you would not normally want to exchange off your man-at-arms or your elephant for an enemy pikeman. Yes, one on its own is weak, but like pawns in chess, pikemen or footmen working together are going to be able to ward off stronger units simply because your opponent will not want to capture your pikeman just to have his unit captured the next turn.