dresali: but then you would know which squares your opponents frogs might be at.

An easier variant is just have 2 different boards (like Battleboats) where you can set up your own frogs.

Maybe to even add to that different types of frogs - like a "king" frog - fake "lilly pads" to help throw your opponent off, etc...

BIG BAD WOLF: dresali got a point there. I suggest, if two players submit the same square for a frog, they (the frogs) both die at the beginning of the game (black square).

rod03801: Imagine it with 4 players! 4 different frogs in the pond!

Of course Fencer need to introduce multi-player games first, but that is my untimate vision for the game. 2 players work nice, but 4 players would be very cool.

dresdali, coan.net: The difficulty with a batleboats-style setup is that the frogs live on the same board and may not share a square. What should happen if both players choose the same square? Disallowing the second player's placement would give away the other's frog.

One way round this would be for each player to place, say, ten frogs and then the system would choose five of them randomly. The ones not chosen may or may not have had a clash but there's nothing to say. The disadvantage is that the random choice removes part of the player's choice, in the case where they wanted to put their frogs in a particular configuration.

Another, and easier, option is for a player simply to be able to regenerate the random placement until they're happy with it.

playBunny: a comment on your last statement: in theory a person could also keep regenerating the random placement until they knew where their opponents pieces were too...

playBunny: I know something better: If a frog is placed above another frog, both die and the square is colored black. No one gets points. That should be fair.