Czuch: The game I mentioned, Strategy War works like a pond does - with each making their pick whenever they want - and then when the time limit comes, all players "flip" their card over to see who wins. (Like the card game war - which is what this game is based from)

coan.net: ah, i see now, I misunderstood it! It sounded like everyone got to see how the other person played in front of them, which I guess doesnt make much sense because then you would also have to change the order of play after each round.

I think my way sounds fun too, and probably would have a lot more strategy, but not too good for a turn based site


The only difference in your war game compared to the one I know as a kid, is that we used to just flip a card at random, and your game allows us to pick from whatever card we have left?

I think there could still be some very interesting strategy the way you have it outlined, if I understand it correctly now!

Okay, all we need is for fencer to have Liquid make it a top priority, I can hardly wait!

coan.net: Just re read the rules, sounds like a great game addition for this site, and it would be very interesting indeed to see how the strategy would work itself out!

Have you played this game at all, and how did it work for you, did it seem like more luck involved than anything else, when all is said and done, or did you find that a solid strategy could really work?

Czuch: In Strategy War, all players should move simultaneously, so the game *COULD* be implemented in such a way that moves can be made simultaneously as well. Note that I say could - in logic moves are (from a game mechanics point of view) simultaneously as well, but it's implemented sequential. The suggested 10,000 game could easily be played with each player moving at the same time as well (which would any advantage a player has based on turn order). So, if the game would be implemented, then it could be implemented in such a way all players moved in parallel. Then again, Dice Poker, Triple Dice and the battleboats variants could have been implemented in such a way that players moved in parallel, but their moves are sequential as well (giving the second player a tiny advantage).

As for flipping cards at random in 'strategy war'; that wouldn't be much of a game. There's no decision to be made by the player - the entire game could be played by the computer (tournaments would be decided seconds after they start).

Remains what to do with players timing out. It was suggested that in strategy war, a random move would be played. But what to do on the next turn? Can the player come back in? If you allow the player to get back in, it means that if the player doesn't come back, each move will have to wait for a timeout. Which means that some games could take a long time. It's probably better to say that if you timeout on one move, the the rest of the game, the system will play a random card. For 10000 I suggest that a player that has timed out is supposed to be making non-scoring moves for the remainder of the game.

Czuch: As AbigailII said, just flipping cards over randomly like the original war game would be some-what boring, at least for a turn based game site.

When I designed Strategy War, it was somewhat based on the old War card game - but designed in a way that would (1) make it less random, hence the name "strategy", and (2) work with multiple players - similar to the current pond system here - where all player make their turn simultaneously - with the results shown at the same time.

Each player gets 1 suit of cards - 2 through ace (13 cards) - and on each turn, you get to pick which card to play. In the main game (non-dark variant) you can see what your opponents have left - so even though there will still be a lot of "luck" in the game in guessing what your opponenet will play, you can use some strategy to try to figure out what to play and keep which will help you in the long run.

AbigailII: As for the time out rule - how ponds work now, if a player times out during 1 round - they just get the same bid as last turn - and if they are still in, able to come back. This is an important feature for ponds since it is a game where vacations do not come into play. That is why the "time out" rule was put into this game - so if someone does have to miss a turn for some reason, they will lose their biggest card, but would be able to come back and still play. They can't win anything in the round the timed out in, just sacrifice some points to the game.

Time outs would not extend the game at all. If the game has a 1 day time limit, like ponds - everyone has 1 day to make their move. If they don't, they lose their best card - but can still play the next round. Like ponds, weather they play or time out - the round time limit would still be the same.

- - - - -

Now if it was just a 2 player game, then I think a time out would be lose of game. I never really designed the game as a 2 player game.... even though I did mention that down below. But after thinking about it for a few minutes, if a 2 player "regular" game was also introduced, then my opinion is a time out would be lose of game.... since vacations could then be used in that game situation.

coan.net: I'd be really disappointed if, in the case Brainking would get multiplayer games, the games were implemented as ponds currently: having to make a move once every 24 hours. Unless it would be games that are over in less than five moves, I'd never play such a game.

AbigailII: Ponds can be defined with 1 hour per move.
Besides that, do you have a better idea?

Fencer: The only thing that I can think of which would make some people happy is to have the ponds (or similar multi-player games) be defined with the option of "move to next round when possible"

And that would be when everyone has made their pick, even if there is time left, go ahead and move to the next round. Possible after someone submits the move in a pond (or similar), have system check to see if all other moves have been made - it so, move on - it not, wait.

I say that it should be an option for the creator to pick since I know some might like to be able to change their pick after they already made one - plus lets say I'm going to be gone for 3 days, I know I can "survive" a 2 day pond since I know from the start of round 1, to the end of round 2 - I will have 4 days - time for me to make a move in both rounds - and if round 1 ended early, I could time out in round 2. Very picky I know - but just a reason why it should be an option to choose and not default.

coan.net: I would suggest that timed out players would have their lowest remaining card played so that they lose any advantage, also I would suggest that their be a field next to each player showing which cards have been discarded sinse the game would be too long to possibly use your memory as to what cards have been played

Vikings: I think he said that the game would show you all the cards left in everyones hand....

also, wouldnt having the people who dont make a move, to lose their highest card discarded to the winner of that rounds pile, be more of a disadvantage to them than to lose their lowest card?

Czuch: if they use their highest card they would have a more likely chance of winning that round, losing their low card virtuly guaranties losing that round

Vikings: Timed out player CANNOT win a round. The rules forbid that explicitely.

Vikings: yea... If a player times out, they do not actually play in the round - and they can not win any points - but that players highest card is just thrown in the pot to give whoever else wins those points - so in hence, punishes them for timing out - yet still letting them continue the next round.

coan.net: Ahh, verry good

Fencer: It looks to me like AbigailII doesnt play any ponds at all, and i think her complaint was more directed at her perception that you have to move in a pond every day, and that if there were more than 5 moves that would cut into her weekend and she would end up timing out in all her games?


Abigail, you should give ponds a try, just because they dont allow vacation or weekends, they still have possible time limits of 3 or 5 or7 or any amount of days between turns that you want to play, not to mention the faster limits like 1 hour


Although I would like to see maybe 1 or 3 minute time limits available as well

Fencer: If I were to implement a multi-player game like the proposed Strategy War, I would allow any time control that's now possible with regular games. Which means that if a turn starts, the clock of all players start to run. If a player moves, his/her clock stops. If all players have played their move, the moves become visible for the other players, the system resolves the moves (count scores, etc), and the next turn starts (all the clocks of the players run again). That means if the time control is five days/move, but all players have made their move on the second day, the next move starts on the second day. This still allows the possibility for weekends, vacation days, and even a Fisher clock. I would not allow a player who has timed out to get back in the game - once (s)he has timed out, (s)he's supposed to be out of the game. For strategy wars, the system makes the rest of the moves for the player. In a game like 10000, I'd let the system make non-scoring moves for timed out players. For say, multi-player Ludo, I'd remove a timed out player.

This doesn't answer the question "What to do with players resigning?".

AbigailII: Abigail, I would recommend that you play a pond run or two, and see how that works, I think that would satisfy your understanding of how the time control would work in a game like war strategy, and it would also help you understand better about time outs in those types of games as well!

AbigailII: In ponds, there's no option to resign too. Sometimes when a player resigns, they just put in a bid of 0, just telling that to their friends, (that's not resigning, that's cheating!).

Still does not answer that question.

What to do with resigning players???

joshi tm: resigning is a hard thing to do in a multi-player simultaneously played game (like ponds & suggested Strategy War)

My opinion: Proper way to do it in a pond is to just bid 1, but do not tell anyone. Do not post that you are doing that, just do it and move on. Telling anyone, even posting it in the game discussion board - I also agree is cheating. For example, I usually play my ponds as soon as they are on my game sheet. So if I make a move, and then someone else comes along and posts that they are bidding one - then all the other players will have information that I did not have - hence, cheating. So again, best thing to do in my opinion is just bid 1 and don't say anything.

Nothing else would work. I've heard some suggest just take a person out of the game where there bid does not count. The same issue as my example above comes into play. Lets say I see someone with 1 point left, so I bid 2. Then they come along, resign so there bid no longer is good. Then all of a sudden my safe 2 bid would be the losing bid - and I never had a chance to know that information.

There are probable some complex things that could be done, all with problems of one sort or another - so again, easiest is for the person to bid 1, not say anything, and move on.

Now the questions - what to do with someone who wants to resign a game of Strategy War. Well my suggestion is to have a "resign button" - then from that point on, have that person "auto-timeout" - that is their highest card "points" are donated to the pot for the rest of the hands. They no longer win or gain any points.

coan.net: How about if you don't move in Ponds, or click "resign" if that exists, then you automatically get the maximum number possible for that round (and zero next round). No problem with lack of information then.

coan.net: I can see some problems with someone who "times out" (doesnt play a move in one turn) and then is allowed back into the game again. It might be better to just make it so if you time out once, then you are done for good?