Some thoughts about identical development

Some thoughts about identical development
Fred Horn (c) Sep 3, 2012

BUFFALO is a well known game invented by Alex Randolph. 

In his article in The Games Journal Greg Aleknevicus states the game is a further development of a group of games normally referred to as “Fox and Hounds” and in Dutch as ‘Kat en Muis’ (Cat and Mouse).

In fact, it is from another source, because there is also an element of capture involved. It has more to do with ASALTO and all its variants, where two unequal opposite parties try to accomplish different goals.
One wants to capture all of his opponents pieces, the other wants to go somewhere on the Board a) to reach some goal-squares or get off the Board or b) to occupy certain squares.

The extra that was introduced by Alex Randolph were the two different kind of pieces at the conquering side, one Indian with his four Dogs, against a herd of Buffalos. But was this really new?

A long time ago, somewhere in the mid-seventies of the last Century, I bought some printed games from before 1900, which are in Holland known as “Spelplaten” or ‘Platte Spellen’ (“Gameplates” or ‘Flat Games’). One of them was the game De Schapendief, a rather abstract looking game, unlike most others from that period which are mostly Goose-like games. When you examine what is in the Rules at a first look you really cannot believe your eyes. Has Alex Randolph plagiarized an old game?

Of course not! I cannot believe that Alex should have done such a thing (use a game-mechanism) without reference to the original. And this original is only known in Holland, was never ever published after its first printing and the rules are written only in Dutch. So here is a true example of that much talked about phenomenon of separately inventing the same thing. And this has happened with nearly a Century in between!

The Sheepthief

This game is played with two; one is the shepherd, the other the thief.

The shepherd places his 16 sheep on the squares at the bottom-side of the game, next to each other, leaving the middle column open. 

Here he places in his first row the shepherd. The other player places the thief in the middle of the upper row of squares; and places his dogs to his wish anywhere, one in each row on the three upper rows.

Then players move alternately. The shepherd moves first. He may only move one sheep one square forward in a turn. The thief can only move a dog sideways in his own row two squares at the time. 

As soon as the thief can move (slide) a dog to a square occupied by a sheep, this sheep is captured.
Thief and shepherd can move one square in all directions in their turn.

The thief will pay the shepherd one counter for each sheep that reached the grasslands, while the shepherd must pay one counter for each sheep at the end of the game to buy it back.

If the shepherd himself is caught, he must pay five counters ransom. 

§

Greg Aleknevicus' The Games Journal article

To tell you about Buffalo, I first need to tell you about Fox & Hounds (also known as Fox & Geese and at least several other names). For those who do not know this traditional game, it's quite simple: 

Place four "hounds" on the rear-most black squares of a standard 8x8 checkerboard. Place 1 "fox" on any of the front-most black squares. Movement is as in Checkers without the jumping — you may move into any diagonally adjacent square. Hounds may only move forward whereas the fox may move forwards or backwards. Note that there is no capturing. The winner is the player who leaves his opponent unable to make a move.

 

This game is actually quite clever and very useful as a bar trick, I've won a few pints with it. At first glance, it may seem that the hounds have a rather unfair advantage, all they need do is slowly advance each hound in succession and there's no way that the fox can get through. In practice, this proves rather hard to accomplish and it's quite easy for a player to casually move his fox, disrupt the line of hounds and escape. Again, and again and again. Opinion quickly shifts and it seems that the fox is the one with the strong advantage. (Here's where the winning of pints takes place.) You then offer to switch sides at which point you capture the fox every single time. The truth of the matter is that Fox & Hounds is solved and with proper play, the Hounds will always win. The reason it remains interesting is that the correct moves are not at all obvious and figuring them out can be an interesting exercise.

Why mention all this? Well, Buffalo is obviously inspired by Fox & Hounds and I'm almost certain that it too has a solution. The trick is that I have not yet been able to ascertain if this is so. In fact, I can't even say for sure which side is favored.

 

Play is on an 11x7 board with 11 buffaloes placed along one edge (one per column). The Indian and his four dogs start one row in from the other edge. Turns alternate with each player moving one of his pieces. The buffalo player may only move his pieces one space directly forward as long as that space is unoccupied. The Indian player may move his dogs any number of spaces in a straight line (like a Queen in Chess) but may not move onto or through any other piece. The Indian himself may move one space in any direction but not onto a space with a dog. The Indian can move onto a buffalo which is then removed from the game. The buffalo player wins if he can get any one piece to the opposite side of the board and the Indian wins if he can prevent this.

You can't get much simpler than this, but it has proved to be an interesting challenge. The game has flip-flopped back and forth as players try a variety of different "openings". First one approach will be attempted, effective counter-moves will be discovered and it will seem that one side must surely be the "winning" one. Then another approach will be tried, and it will seem that the other side has the guaranteed win. At this point I haven't explored Buffalo enough to make any definitive statements but while it does seem that the buffalo player has the easier time, I have the sneaky feeling that the Indian has the guaranteed win. Even though the game will lose all interest once (if) I'm ever able to figure it out completely, it has been an enjoyable exercise working through the various approaches and responses.

Of course, you could easily just ignore all this nonsense about "solving" the game and play it as a very quick and simple contest but I'm not sure that it's all that engaging as a game rather than an interactive puzzle.

Hong Kong

Hong Kong is a 1999 Reiner Knizia building game, published at Platnik.

The game includes the 5x5 board, 40 standard building-blocks in two colours, ten fast building-blocks (in two colours, with white imprint), and ten roofs (in two colours).

The rules (also available at BGG):

Objective. The objective of the game is to control more buildings than your opponent, when all plots are occupied, or when all standard building-blocks and roofs have been used. A building is controlled by the player whose piece is topmost on it. 

On his turn, a player chooses one of the following options: 

• to place one standard building-block
• to place one roof
• to place one fast building-block, followed by a standard building-block
• to place one fast building-block, followed by a roof

Corresponding to his five fast building-blocks, each player has the opportunity five times, during the game, to perform a 'double' move. 

When placing pieces, the following rules apply: 

• On the starting player's first turn, a piece may not be placed on the centre plot.
• If a player places two pieces in a turn, he can place them on the same or two different plots.
• Any type of piece can be placed upon any empty plot, even a roof.
• No piece may be placed on top of a roof.
• The maximum height of a building is five pieces.
• Players may always place on top of their own building-blocks.
• In order to place on top of an opponent's building-block, the player must control a building on an adjacent plot (i.e., with an edge in common) such that the newly placed piece does not create a building that is higher than the adjacent one. For this purpose, note that building-blocks are considered higher than roofs.
  

The game ends in one of two ways:

1. when, at the end of a turn, all 25 plots are occupied; or
2. when, at the end of a turn, all standard building-blocks (not necessarily all fast building-blocks) and all roofs are used up.

The player who controls more buildings wins. If both players control the same number of buildings, the player who controls the building on the centre plot wins.

Shoulder to Shoulder

Shoulder to Shoulder is a 1975 game by David Parlett, published by Intellect Games.

These rules are from David Parlett's website:

 

The board and set-up. The board  consists of 114 hexagonal cells, 38 each of red, green and blue. The three central cells, one of each colour, are each marked with a spot and are referred to as home cells.

Three players, designated Red, Green and Blue, each have twelve pieces of their own colour. They start by placing eleven of their pieces on the edge cells of their own colour and the twelfth on the home cell of the same colour.

 

Object of the game. Your main aim is to get all your pieces together into a single connected group, so that each one lies edge-by-edge with at least one other of your own colour. The group may form a large area or a line, or a mixture of the two, so long as all its constituent pieces are connected. In this example (right), Red has just "connected" and play immediately ceases.

A secondary object, in case of failure, is to ensure that your own pieces form as few connected groups as possible (for which purpose a single unconnected piece counts as a group). The winner scores zero penalties and each opponent scores one penalty for each distinct group formed by their own pieces. The minimum penalty score is therefore normally two. However, a player who at end of play is only one move away from forming a single connected group scores only one penalty instead of two. In this example, Green counts three penalty points and Blue four, while Red counts none.

A match is three games, and the ultimate winner is the player with the lowest penalty score at the end of the third game.

 

Movement. Red moves first in the first game, Green in the second, and Blue in the third. The order of play within in each game is always Red, Green, Blue.

At each turn you move any one of your own pieces. There are two different types of move: the straight and the squeeze.

A straight move is one that follows a straight line, crossing at right angles over the edges of adjacent cells. You may move your piece one or more spaces across any distance, so long as it does not land on or jump over another piece of any colour. You may end the move on an unoccupied cell of any colour except for the home cell of either of your opponents. You may pass over an opponent's home cell if it is vacant, but the only one you can land on is your own. Three examples of straight moves are shown at top left of the diagram.

The squeeze is a short move that can only be made by a piece occupying a cell of your own colour. In this case you can move it to any one of the nearest vacant cells of the same colour (your own), by making it exit from one corner of the cell and travel along a single edge until it reaches the next cell of the same colour. This move is called a squeeze because it may be made even when either or both of the cells it passes between are occupied by a piece or pieces of any colour, so that it is forced to squeeze between them. Three examples of squeezes are shown in the diagram above. Note how the red piece on its home cell squeezes between a blue and a green.

Play continues until one player has connected. No more moves may then be made.

The two-player game 

 

This is how the board is set up if only two are playing. The twelve pieces of the third colour (in this case blue) are arranged as shown, with two each radiating in all six directions from the home cell of that colour. The unused home cell is left empty. Follow all th rules of the three-player game but with these exceptions:

(a) You may not move any pieces of the third colour - their purpose is merely to act as hindrances.

(b)You may not land on or pass over the home cell of the third colour.

Stragone

Stragone is a 1977 game by Jacques Le Floc'h, published by Polyajeu.

Each player has eleven light and eleven dark stackable pieces. 

BGG describes the following rules:

The goal of the game is to take or block the opponent's checkers. Each player's pawns are placed on the front rows. In his turn player moves his piece (pawn or stack). To move, a pawn jumps one hex or stacks one of his pawn directly in the next hex. A stack of two pawns jumps two squares. A stack of three pawns jump three squares, etc. A piece by jumping over an opponent's piece "takes" and removes it from the game.

A translation from the website L’Escale à Jeux:

Goal of the Game: Capture or block the opponent's pieces.

How to Play: Each player's pieces are placed on their first rows. Players take turns moving one piece (a pawn or a stack).

• To move, a single pawn jumps one space along one of the three axes of the hexagon.
• A pawn can be stacked onto a directly adjacent piece. Another pawn can then be added to this stack, but a stack cannot be placed onto a single pawn.
• A stack of two pieces jumps two spaces.
• A stack of three pieces jumps three spaces, and so on.
• A piece jumping over an opponent's piece "captures" it: the top piece of the opponent's stack is removed.

Commentary: A piece—whether a single pawn or a stack—cannot reach all spaces; it moves along a specific network.

• For single pawns, there are four independent networks.
• For stacks of two, there are nine networks.
• For stacks of three, there are sixteen networks.

Mastering these movement mechanics is key to developing a winning strategy.

Axom

Axom is a 2001 game by Michel Villalonga, published by Gyptis Edition.

 The board and the pieces:

A (partial) rule description:

Michel Villalonga presents an original creation with his game Axom. The name of the game comes from Axe (axis) and Somme (sum), as the deployment axis of a stack of pieces is determined by the sum of the pieces composing it.

A stack of two or four pieces "falls" in a straight vertical or horizontal line onto the square or the three squares aligned along the axis. For instance, a stack of four splits into four parts, which either become individual stacks of one or add one piece to the stacks on which they land. A stack of three pieces, however, falls diagonally. A single piece moves one square diagonally.

The Tête (Head) is equivalent to the King in chess. Its movement is limited to one square in any of the eight possible directions, but it cannot stack with other pieces. The objective of the game is to capture the opponent's head.

The ruleset can be found here (in French).

§

The type of stack movement depends on the stack's size. This reminds me of a 2003 game of mine named Abstract Chess where each stack size defines a different Chess piece. Players can transfer power between pieces by moving one stack piece to neighbor squares. 

the initial position is that of Chess;
there's a zrf to play abchess in Zillions

I didn't knew Axom then, and now it feels an example of independent invention even if they are not the same game. Still, I prefer mine ;-)

Variance, and shifting rows

Variance is an uncredited 1985 game published by Dash Inc.

BGG description:

The object of the game is to be the first to move all nine of your pawns from your own "home intersections" to those of your opponent. The playing board is made up of 17 thin strips, which can be slid left or right to transport pieces laterally. Pieces may move to adjacent intersections, jump adjacent pieces, and make "long jumps" covering a greater distance.

The main game uses a die to determine how many moves a player may make on his or her turn. A variation, included in the game directions, removes the die by adding a schedule of moves per turn.

A review by Jake Davenport:

Variance plays like Chinese checkers for two players, with the addition of a board that shifts some pieces laterally and the ability to make long jumps across the board. The game board consists of 17 strips that make up a diagonally oriented grid, and each player has a set of pawns that he or she must move to the other player's starting location. A player may do one of three things in a  "move": advance a pawn, jump a pawn over any other pawn, or shift one of the board's strips either left or right. A pawn may jump another pawn which is several spaces away, landing that many spaces beyond it. If you jump a pawn that is in the exact center of the board, you can go from your start to your destination in one move. You can also make a series of jumps in one move, leapfrogging quickly to the other side of the board. Setting up for such jumps is an integral part of the game's strategy.

Variance looks sharp. The board is well designed and aesthetically pleasing. The rules are simple, but players quickly realize that there is much to learn in planning out moves. After the first game, we decided to play with the move schedule to keep luck from affecting the game. Each game we played found us learning new tricks. We found more efficient movement, at first jumping pawns to a point near the goal and then marching them in, then in later games jumping pawns directly into the goals. As we get better, I expect to find ways to move across the board faster, while simultaneously thwarting the opponent from doing the same. It's a rare joy to encounter a game with simple rules that has an interesting forward thinking strategy. Variance is a game which can be learned quickly and yet has depth of play which becomes evident with each successive game.

games review US GAMES #102

This ludeme of shifting rows is not common. Games that use this mechanism include Shuttles,

A Sid Sackson's review for GAMES #47

1988's Shift Tic Tac Toe,

where each player either drops a friendly stone, like Connect 4, or slides one row, eventually moving pieces out of the board.

And 1976's Perplexus,

An older version comes from 1962's Chequero,

Babuschka

 Babuschka is a 1982 board game by Al Newman, published by Ravensburger.

 

BGG description:

Uses an 8x8 board with the 12 corner squares taken out. The pieces are nesting Russian dolls (8 each of small, medium and large, for 24 pieces per player). Reminiscent of Halma, the pieces attempt to cross the board and re-form on the opposite side. You only move the topmost of any Russian doll stack and you must land on an empty space or on top of a smaller piece. Checkers-like jumping is also possible. The clever part is that pieces underneath others are out of reach, thus you immobilize enemy pieces by covering them ... until you move away.

 

Rules also at BGG.

The game has an interesting and original property: it has perfect information, but requires the use of memory, since some pieces will become hidden during the match. Usually games of hidden information work on the opposite direction, less and less information stays hidden as the match advances.

Hexagons

Hexagons is a 1923 uncredited puzzle and game, published at Clement Toy Co.

The board is hexagonal holding 18 half-hexagonal pieces,

There is a puzzle named Nine-Hex which is a variation of the 15-puzzle. The player position the board in a given puzzle position. The goal is to keep sliding half-hexes until the initial position above is reached (no rotations are allowed). The text provides a notation that describes many initial positions to solve.

The game is named Hexagons and also starts with an initial puzzle position (where the piece 5 is removed). The game can be won by stalemating the adversary or pairing half hexes, but the ruleset seems unspecified or ambiguous.

The 1 Game

The 1 Game is a 1994 uncredited game, published at The 1 Game.

It is played on a triangular board with three types of pieces,

BGG rules description:

Players take turns removing any number of consecutive balls along a single horizontal line, as long is there is no gap or red ball between them. The removed balls are discarded into the large hole and underneath the slider, which stops them going astray and gets them ready for the next game. The red ball can only be taken on its own. Any row containing red can only be taken up to the red. A blue ball allows players to take up to, or part of, three entire rows radiating from that blue. Other blues in the path are treated as regular silver balls. The player with the last ball loses.

I was able to find the ruleset from the original website (via Wayback Machine, from 5 Dec 1998).

Siesta

Siesta is a 1999 game by Guido Hoffmann, published at Goldsieber Spiele.

The rules by Paul Lucas:

An excerpt from Stven Carlberg review:

Siesta is an excellent game by Guido Hoffman (who is, by the way, the son of game designer Rudi Hoffman) that has turned out in my group to be one of the biggest favorites of the year. Not only do the bits look good -- as no reviewer seems able to resist mentioning -- but the particular geometric swirl produced as the game plays out is rather fascinating. So as well as being fun to play, it's aesthetically very pleasing to watch each game develop.

Siesta falls into the category of games with no hidden information and no dice, but it is very much an original. There are three types of pieces in the game: the suns and the shadows, which everyone uses equally, and the roofs of a different color for each player.

 

Tac-Tic-Turn

Tac-Tic-Turn is a 1987 game by Ned Strongin, published at IRWIN Games.

This is a variant of Tic-Tac-Toe played with nine 2x2 pieces that can be picked and rotated back.

Rules:

• On his turn the player either:
• drops a friendly piece on an empty square
• rotates a 2x2 grid by 90º degrees
  
• Wins the player that make a 4, or longer, in-a-row

The game had a review on GAMES #99,

§

Yasuhiro Jisai mentions that a variant of this game is marketed in Japan as Pitagoras, and includes a custodian capture for pair of pieces (like in Pente).

I went searching (ピタゴラスゲーム) and found this page where it is said: 相手の駒２個を自分の駒で挟むと取ることができます（１個を挟んでも取れません）[You can capture your opponent's pieces by sandwiching two of them between your own pieces. (You cannot capture by sandwiching just one piece.)]

This game comes with more pieces (which makes sense, given that captures are allowed),

Otherwise, having just six pieces, the captured pieces should be returned to the respective player's reserve.

Some comments from the mentioned page:

You know, I think this is quite a brilliant game. If you focus too much on lining up pieces, you'll get captured. But if you only think about capturing or blocking your opponent, you might overlook the rotation mechanic. And predicting how the board will change after a rotation is really tricky!"

Yuki-Onna highly praised the game, saying that constantly considering the effects of "sandwiching," "lining up," and "rotating" makes it excellent for training flexible thinking and multi-angle strategy planning.