Nothingness:
Perhaps an even smaller (faster) game on an 8x8 (or 8x10) board with no bombs.

happy hermit: Have you tried small fast espionage? It is played on an 8x8 board. So just remove the bombs

Colours and graphics make no difference to me, they won't improve my game!

On IYT we had a prolonged debate on an extra piece. I think we decided for the cannon in end?

happy hermit: Developing Eric's idea for a faster game, what about:

White places his/her pieces, but does not have to take the full compliment (base must always be placed). So they might choose to only play 5 pieces + base.

Black now places their choice of 5 pieces + base. They will know that they can only place 5 pieces, but won't know what white has chosen!

SL-Mark:
To me this sounds like an interesting idea, Mark!
We first should check out if there will be a greater strategic variety for choosing pieces. It should not end up everybody choosing 2x5, 2x4, 2x3 and so on plus the hq as a default

Sandoz: Not knowing your selection, but only that you chose 6 pieces + hq, I might have chosen a recon, 1x5, 2x4, 1x3, 1xsab.

That would make an interesting battle :)

Sandoz: If you chose only two pieces, I might guess that you have gone for 2x5 and your strategy is to blast through to my base. I would place my base and choose my pieces accordingly.
Probable outcome would be a draw?

okay, Mark, here comes my real choice:
- hq
- 2xbomb
- 1xrecon
- 2x5er
- 2x4er
- 1x3er
- 1xsab

total: 10

Chaos: As you don't have a recon, you won't know this, and Sandoz might have opted to barricade his hq with 2 bombs and dispensed with the 3s! :)
But yes, you are right, I ought to replace it with a 5.

Perhaps a minimum of 5 movable pieces must be chosen, and a general cannot be selected unless you have the one below it. So if you went for 5 pieces, you could choose 1x1, 1x2, 1x3, 1x4, 1x5, or perhaps 1xRecon, 1x1, 1x2, 1x3, 1x4 or even 1xRecon, 1xSab, 1x1, 1x2, 1x3.

Sandoz: Thank you, just modified the rules though :)

I can't believe you would go for two bombs though :) In this case I would choose 2x5, 2x4, 2x3, 2x2, 2xRecon and game over :)

Rule modification only applies if you think it a good addition.

SL-Mark: well, with your setup you would probabely loose our game, hehe

Sandoz: But I don't need to capture your base to win, only all your pieces and as I am two pieces up at the start, easy game :) Perhaps we could try it, firstly sacrifice the unwanted pieces at the start so we are left with our chosen pieces, then game on!

SL-Mark: I would simply try to trade one of my 4 + sab against one of your 5ers. And then: I'm king of the board!

Unless we have another rule modification, winner must capture base to win, if this cannot be achieved then game is a draw.

Sandoz: Yes, but you don't know that I have no sabs and your single recon would be gone in a flash, without having even detected my 5s :)

Nothingness:
I think the Corner variant already exists and it was very successful at IYT.
The game is faster than Open fast and the strategy is different.
If they could implement it at IYT, sure Fencer can do better at BK!
Is there anyone remembering the adress of the site with the example of the game? Rules at IYT don't show the "corner pattern " of the board.

SL-Mark: in that case, it should allways be a 2-game-match. This makes it more interesting from the choosing-point of view.

Different idea: how about a 3-games-match with a fixed set of pieces you choose from in game no 1 and no 2. The third game then is an all-in game (all remaining pieces have to be placed on the board) ?

If the set of pieces is not fixed, but you may choose some of them, I'm afraid it will give two problems:
1) the strategy would not change much, because you don't know the set choosen by your opponent.
2) the uncertainty given by the unknown opponent's pieces would lead to a more difensive and slow game

The most important thing for me in a new variant is a higher speed of the game.

Sandoz: I like the 3 game idea, though for games 1 & 2, white may still choose how many pieces to place, between a max & min, hence ensuring always at least a piece for game 3. (Don't get left with only bombs to place in game 3 :D )

SL-Mark: yes, and don't waste all your big guys in the first round! :)

dAGGER:
1. Yes, I agree with this and was also a concern for Sandoz. But the 3 game match would change this considerably.
2. I think these games would actually play faster, though there are now 3 matches in the game.

As you want speed, another idea, what about atomic sabotage (similar to atomic chess)? Or even extinction sabotage (again similar to extinction chess)

Sandoz: Thank you, I will keep that in mind

there is also the stratego rule where ties remove both pieces from the board. samegames but that one rule change . I side with Chaos for the 2 on 2 thing.

Nothingness: I prefer the 4 player individual variety. In that way, 3 players could gang up against one, or form other temporary alliances before proceeding to everyone for themselves :)

SL-Mark: I think that could get frustrating and too much like Risk. All the skill in the world wont help you if its 3 on 1.. uggg

SL-Mark: Can you say something about the extra piece the cannon?

Styleone: Yes, from memory it was something like this:
1. There is only one cannon per player in a game.
2. Can fire a shot two spaces in front of it, e.g. if it is on e5 it can only shoot at e7.
3. It may fire at and kill any piece, even undetected, but it cannot take out mines nor the hq.
4. Any piece may capture it. Also, if it moves onto a space occupied by the enemy, it will lose.
5. The shot is considered as a move, so you cannot move it and fire on the same move.
6. In small espionage, the board can accommodate another piece, but in open espionage, it would have to replace one of the existing pieces, perhaps a 1?
That's about it!

Nothingness: Exactly. Eric doesn't stand a chance :)

SL-Mark: The problem with the 4 player individual game is that the site hasn't got the options for multiplayer games yet. Way back I asked Patrick Chu at IYT about possibilities for a 4-player game and he said he would have to change too much in the workings of the game. IYT and BK are set for 2 player games. 2 vs 2 is still the same game, same board, only the moves change between the teamplayers.

dAGGER:
I have posted a new corner game on IYT. Would you be able to use that to send as a template?

Chaos and I trying to set up ateam in the upcomming Team tournament in Espionage. The tournamnet starts on the 31st of January. If you are intrested send me a message, and I will invite you to the fellowship "Espionage League". Just rember that you must be at least a "Rock"-meber to be able to be a member of a fellowship, and play in team-tournaments.

dAGGER: I can't send you an answer on your message, because you have me on your "blocklist"

SL-Bosse:
I did not even know about this chance of blocking users.
I discovered that you and Mark where in my blocklist!
Maybe it was because I lost a game with you some weeks ago... :-)
Now you are both removed and you can send a message if you like.

SL-Mark:
I never played Extinction or Atomic chess. I just read the rules and I think we can apply both variant to Espionage with success!
They both comply with "my requests" for the new variant: higher speed and different strategy.

i'm against the corner version.. i couldn't stand it. I would love to have something ground breaking and new for a new game. Let take our times on this...

Nothingness: Ground breaking? What about a machine gun wielding number 1? dAGGER would like this too as it could all be over in a couple of moves :)

My vote is for atomic espionage, extinction espionage, the canon piece, the 3 game match and the 4 player individual (in order of ease of implementation).

Good post Mark!
I would also add a 10x8 board variant (10 is the width and 8 is the depth).

heck why not just add in exposed base espionage where you can see where you opp base is located from the start position

How is everyone progressing in the latest tourney? By the lack of posts lately I'm assuming that everyone is deep in thought in their games.

Heck, (I like this word :-)
to keep things going I've set up a poll.
May be we can first figure out, on which variant to put our further focus. And then we bring up a concrete proposal to those guys running this platform.

Here comes the link:
http://www.doodle.com/xcxzd4iidcrz6m2k

Sandoz: we need an explanation as to which version is what. i forget half the proposals.

Nothingness: yes, you are right. I'll come up with an explanation of the 3-game-match idea, soon

Sandoz: Cool, you can enter more than 1 favourite. I have 5 :)

SL-Mark: hehe, in that case your vote would not influence the outcome pretty much ;-)

Sandoz:
I believe Fencer could do the atomic and extinction quite easily, so we should ask for that anyway. Will see if I can amend my choice!

Sandoz: Oh dear cannot amend, but I can vote again :) I see Styleone went for 4 options :)

SL-Mark: After you went for 5 options I think four is ok :)

SL-Mark: grinch! this is how my dictionary translates the German word "Spielverderber" ;-)
not every system is meant to become crushed, if you know what I mean. well, but I see, things aren't that easy, lol.
I suggest, we then change the rule in that way, that everyone may choose more than one favorite. But no multiple identities, Mark!

Alternatively, we switch to a site with a radio-button-poll-tool.

Or, we discuss the whole thing here at the board.

How does the Atomic and the Extinction thing work, anyway?

Sandoz:
Okay I refrain from voting again :)

The Atomic and Extinction variants are expained well in the chess variants:

http://brainking.com/en/GameRules?tp=18

http://brainking.com/en/GameRules?tp=28

(IYT has a different version of atomic chess, which I prefer http://www.itsyourturn.com/t_helptopic2020.html )

What about anti-espionage :)