Well done Amidon (and testers)!  I spent a small portion of my day thinking about why everything is the way it is and whether it all works to create the intended game. And, it's all very clever. Some spots are left open where randomness could influence the outcome (no way around this in the design as far as I can tell), but the probabilities are smaller than astronomically small (play a game every second for a trillion years and failing even a single precapital attack after "winning" in that time is still extraordinarily unlikely...Using the 1 against the precapital is more likely, but still "out there" and "stupid strategically").

Anyway, I think this may be the most complex essentially deterministic map on the site.  It's on people! I intend to dominate!!  

Meant to include link:

http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Octagons

Thanks Hugh.  I've been a long time fan of connection games.  (Anybody familiar with Twixt  or Hex?). When I saw other boards popping up that were not Risk-like, I figured I'd give recreating this game a shot.  It took a few iterations to make it work.  (Remember also that I got this game out of a book I own - so I can't take all, or even most, of the credit.)

The irregularities in the layout of this board makes it more complicated to play than other connection games - you need different strategies depending on where you are.  I really enjoy playing it and hope others do too. 

Didn't you have like 8 different scenarios for this board too?  What happened to those, were they just testing?  Some were quite different weren't they?

Scenarios, interesting. By the way, this is crack, so unless you can handle it socially...  

Amidon, I have a question about the description in the book: can you make a single "square move" to save up a "square + half-octagon" move combination? This is effectively what you can do in your implementation. I like this "saving up" move too much to recommend changing it, but I wanted to know if that was being faithful to the book's description. (I also thought of an implementation to avoid this, but again, I do not want this tactic removed!)

Hugh wrote:

Amidon, I have a question about the description in the book: can you make a single "square move" to save up a "square + half-octagon" move combination? This is effectively what you can do in your implementation. I like this "saving up" move too much to recommend changing it, but I wanted to know if that was being faithful to the book's description. (I also thought of an implementation to avoid this, but again, I do not want this tactic removed!)

This is not faithful to the book.  I couldn't/didn't think of a way around it, so I left it.  Does it change the game significantly? 

If you have a good way of stopping such a move, I am thinking I should put in.  But I am not in a hurry to - not until you beat me in a game using that tactic.

Yertle wrote:

Didn't you have like 8 different scenarios for this board too?  What happened to those, were they just testing?  Some were quite different weren't they?

I had a few scenarios that were similar to Seven - in that a random selection of squares and/or half-octagons started filled in.  I also was experimenting with ones where you can move stuff around on the board. 

Also, the version that is in the book is played on a larger board (8x8 octagons instead of 6x6).  The larger board makes it more forgiving, but makes the games longer.

I'll put these (and others if suggested) up some time.  

It does seem to change the game. The combination "square+half-octagon" does make/break connections that can't be made/broken by any other means. To some extent, this just means you try to make your connections immune to the tactic, or to avoid allowing your opponent getting a good "single square" move in that allows him to break your connections with the square+half-octagon.

I don't think it is the same game because the order in which tiles are placed matters. You can't make some sort of psychological "well, you get to place just as many tiles over time anyway" type of argument.

The way around it is this (can't believe I might be killing the version I like): Put a half-octagon within each half-octagon. The main base only attacks to the inner half-octs, while the inner half-octs attack the outer half-octs that are the only connection between the bases. You could still make "single square moves", but the distinction is that you've gone to an inner half-oct and determined which outer half-oct you're going to eventually claim. In the current version, you get to choose any half-oct you like with your "extra half-move", which is much more powerful.

If I understand scenarios correctly, we'd have to be really clever to have the "correct" version be one scenario and this lovable version just another scenario. However, I think I know a way.

Hugh wrote:

Put a half-octagon within each half-octagon. The main base only attacks to the inner half-octs, while the inner half-octs attack the outer half-octs that are the only connection between the bases

I had thought of doing this before I went with the neutral octagon near the units.  The problem I see with this solution is that you could then claim two different "inner half-octagons" on your turn, which would be bad for the game.

Good point - that would also be a very different game (and worse than the current version).

As far as I can tell the game isn't hurt by the ability to keep an octagon move "on deck".  It perhaps adds strategy, because the only way to get back to the on deck position after expending it is to forgo placing an octagon square, which in essence surrenders control of play to your opponent.

I decided I don't like having the ability to set-up the "square+half-octagon" move.   It seems to change the game too much.  I changed the board so that players share the attack-octagon.  So, if you leave a unit behind the other player can just kill it on their way to a half-octagon.

Sorry Hugh -

Boooo... J/K, I do understand, and that is a nice way to implement it. When does it go live?

It's up now.

Some scenarios are now up

- a larger board with player 2 starting with 3 squares,

- two versions of the larger board with the players starting with some 1/2 octagons

- the smaller board was changed to give player 2 more starting squares.

I have a plan for a team game when Tom gets barren/factory territories going.

Any other thoughts on scenarios let me know, I do have some more that I'll do as time allows -

I'm getting broken images on

http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Octagons/Starting%20Scenario

Bug? Your fault? My fault?

Hugh wrote:

I'm getting broken images on

http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Octagons/Starting%20Scenario

Bug? Your fault? My fault?

I believe it Bug and is affecting ALL (?) Starting Scenario board pages.... I don't think it's been brought to tom's attention either (at least I don't think I've seen it on the forums).

Not just Octagons

http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Circles+of+Death/Starting%20Scenario

http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Five/Starting%20Scenario

http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Micro+Mission/Starting%20Scenario

I think it is a bug - I'll report it in the support area.

Okay, now that the scenarios are showing (who's the man? tom is!!!), I have some suggestions.

One is that since many people have been playing the small board, and since the original actually had a square for 2nd player in the center, I believe this scenario should be called "Small original" and a different scenario, "Small current" or "Small default" should be the two diagonal. 

While first player seems to have the edge in the center square scenario, I almost always found interesting 2nd player opening moves as possible improvements. The 57-43 (as of today) outcome edge at the very least suggests that first player pieces are easier to navigate, but I'm not confident of the theoretical outcome. So, keeping that scenario, at least as a scenario, would be worthy, in my opinion. Other deterministic maps have had more imbalanced first player outcomes, so 57-43 I don't think places that scenario in the scrap pile.

I really like your filled-in square random start scenario and I think you made a good choice on the large board starting scenario.  I look forward to playing more. Thanks for the work on this one!

Also, on the scenario "Large Start Squares", did you intend two half-oct moves each turn or did you eliminate the hexagon because the squares were all taken, but meant it to be one half-oct move each turn?