B "Land capture" graph paper game

[DaveC426913]

TL;DR Summary

Anyone seen a game like this?

I don't know what the game is called. "Land capture" is a descriptive name I made up, not a prescriptive name.

I can't post the video because it's Facebook, but the basic gameplay should be self-explanatory.

Purple has rolled 5x2 and is drawing a box of that size.

Inferrable rules:

• A new rectangle must join an existing edge.

Things unknown:

• It is not clear what might happen if one fully encloses a space but doesn't fill it.
• The end game. What is the goal? Most land captured? Prevent one's opponment from playing?
• Strategy. Both players appear to be using a sort of "maximum packing" strategy - filling up back areas before movng forward. What's to stop just stacking box after box until you reach the other side? Or enclosing giant swaths of un-claimed land that the opponet can't reach?
• How has green managed to produce that 21-square irregular shape in the middle? Is it a rule not in-evidence? A mistake? A cheat?

There used to be an arcade video game called Qix, which looks similar but cannot be the same.

 

[jedishrfu]

It seems to be a freeform variation of pentominoes where the player who can make the last move wins. In pentominoes, you have twelve pieces each of 5 squares but arranged in differing shapes. You can place a piece anywhere and the one who moves last wins.

The strategy is to notice what pieces your opponent used, save your versions of those pieces and create areas that can fit only those saved pieces insuring you have a last move capability.

(((There is a variation called blokus where you pieces mist touch the corner of one of your pieces to be a valid move. )))

Although another variation could be when no more moves can be made then the one with the most area wins.

 

[DaveC426913]

It seems to be a freeform variation of pentominoes where the player who can make the last move wins.

There must be more rules to this than that. If the primary goal was to prevent one's opponent from being able to play, then the strategy would be to "capture" as much of a board as possible as quickly as possible. You'd try to cover a lot of ground toward your opponent and then encapsulate the space, so that your oppnent's field is drastically reduced.

As red is doing here:

 

[Hornbein]

There used to be an arcade video game called Qix, which looks similar but cannot be the same.

View attachment 361185

Qix : that was one of my faves. Had forgotten it.

 

[jedishrfu]

You may be right. That would be like the Nash/Hein game hex where you try to build a bridge from one side to the other while blocking your oponent from doing the same thing but again constructing blocks based on dice throws and abutting their same color.

Its an interesting game. Maybe we could develop a processing sketch version of it where you could play another play or play the computer. We could use a random number generator to simulate the dice throw, draw a rectangle and use the mouse to move and ratate it into position.

 

[Gavran]

Area Dice Game
https://bups.vic.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Area-dice-game.pdf

 

[DaveC426913]

Area Dice Game
https://bups.vic.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Area-dice-game.pdf

Well there ya go!

Thanks!

It's incomplete though, or at least presumably so. It does not mention any requirement to build on previous bricks. This means there is virtualy no strategy at all. You can place a brick literally anywhere it will fit - including deep in "enemy territory".

And, I guess it doesn't matter what dice you use. The example provided seems to be using at least a pair of d7s.

 

[DaveC426913]

This appears to be a variant on the game:

• "Divide the graph paper in two equal parts by drawing a line in the middle. This line creates territory!"

https://www.superprof.co.uk/resources/academic/maths/geometry/line/area-dice-game.html

This variant removes the sabotage component of the game, making it more like golf or other self-competitive games. You cannot affect your opponent's play, all you can do is be best at your own game.

 

[Hornbein]

I guess the strategy is that whoever is ahead tries to end the game before the other guy can catch up. Aside from that you might as well ditch the drawing, roll the dice, and add up the numbers. That doesn't seem all that exciting. So, how to improve this? I'd deduct a point for each empty square surrounded by your blocks and the sides. (If the enemy has any contact with the surrounded area then no deduction.) Then it becomes important to plan for tight packing in the face of stochastic input. It would be like ever-popular Tetris.

If you want to make it harder to foul up the area in order to end the game then deduct another point for non-surrounded adjacent empty squares that are also not adjacent to the enemy. That penalizes irregular boundaries.

These rules might bring about subtle strategies in which you compel the enemy to place their boxes so that they cancel out your deductions.

Competitive Tetris has advanced very far. They've been able to get scores so high that they crash the system.

 

[DaveC426913]

I guess the strategy is that whoever is ahead tries to end the game before the other guy can catch up. Aside from that you might as well ditch the drawing, roll the dice, and add up the numbers. That doesn't seem all that exciting.

Yeah.

Of course, after a bit of research I've come to realize this is more of a teaching exercise in geometry and areas for students, so I maybe overthinking the game itself, but I thought it would be fun to build it into more of a strategy game.

So, how to improve this? I'd deduct a point for each empty square surrounded by your blocks and the sides. (If the enemy has any contact with the surrounded area then no deduction.) Then it becomes important to plan for tight packing in the face of stochastic input. It would be like ever-popular Tetris.

Yes, the problem is, that makes it too simple the other way. If you lose points for enclosed spaces, you're back to tight packing. So where's the strategy?

 

[Hornbein]

Yeah.

Of course, after a bit of research I've come to realize this is more of a teaching exercise in geometry and areas for students, so I maybe overthinking the game itself, but I thought it would be fun to build it into more of a strategy game.


Yes, the problem is, that makes it too simple the other way. If you lose points for enclosed spaces, you're back to tight packing. So where's the strategy?

Just like Tetris, you want to optimize packing while having only a probabilistic knowledge of future inputs. It can get very involved. My fabric designer hippie friend was great at Tetris, as was the professor who taught me group theory. In graduate school I met people smarter than I. That was a good thing. As said Clint Eastwood when asked if he intended to learn to play the saxophone in the style of Charlie Parker, "a man's got to know his limitations."

 

[DaveC426913]

Just like Tetris, you want to optimize packing while having only a probabilistic knowledge of future inputs.

Tetris has a consequence of optimized packing: every full row disappears. That drives the strategy to keep the field open to more pieces. The strategy supports the endgame: to keep playing as long as possible.

What consequence does optimal packing have in this Area game that would drive a player to employ it as a strategy to win the game?

 

[jedishrfu]

I thought it was more of a last brick played strategy kind of like playing the card game war.

 

[Hornbein]

Tetris has a consequence of optimized packing: every full row disappears. That drives the strategy to keep the field open to more pieces. The strategy supports the endgame: to keep playing as long as possible.

What consequence does optimal packing have in this Area game that would drive a player to employ it as a strategy to win the game?

To avoid the penalty for surrounded empty areas and other unpackedness.