I might not be the first one to find that, but the rules clearly state: "Any player's animal standing in opponent's traps (magenta squares) can be eaten by any enemy animal, even by a mouse." this is not implemented correctly, an elephant cannot be eaten even if it is on a magenta square. I'm right now losing a game because of that....
Cubs93: I'm curious, someone of approximately Class "C" strength at chess should find this game fairly simple to play and do very well. It appears the rules of the game were rather difficult for you to grasp. I have found in my games against the top 20 or so that this game is deceptively simple. Those games usually end up as a race to see who can get to the den first . . . and the better players allow weaknesses in order to try for that goal.
Marfitalu: Oops, I missed that subtlety ... when a piece is in the opposition's pink squares (traps) they can be eaten by anything. My previous answer related to eating in the wilds not at home (so to speak). You probabaly need to reread the Jungle rules, in particular the notes right at the bottom under "Other important rules".
Cubs93: Not every game is for everyone. Some people see Checkers as stupid... some see backgammon as stupid. Jungle is an interesting game where you try to out-wit your opponenet, so for some - Jungle may not be interesting for them.
The Hunter: I don't like the croc idea. The croc has a great power that could be easily abused and even if a lion can kill it it will be a very dangerous piece. The snake idea is good, any piece attacking a snake will be killed (so this is a kamikaze weak piece) I think you might want to make the rat immune to his powers, not the elephant. You really don't have to make any animal immune to his powers though. That way you would either have to trade snakes or get your cat out there and sacrifice him. The point is, this snake piece is a good idea because it forces each player to make moves that aren't normally considered in standard jungle. I personally usually leave my minor animals at home to protect my lair but if a snake is coming you don't want to fight it at the last minute and lose a defender (usually their are two defenders for each magenta square but with a snake nearby you can make it one, this is an invaluable tactic). I think the snake idea is great, perhaps you should take your idea to the feature request message board?
Modified by The Hunter (16. November 2005, 00:30:50)
what about adding a new animal peice? Maybe a croc or snake? the croc could go on land or water and be able to kill anything weaker than a lion. perhaps also make it so that it can only attack while in the water or when coming out of the water. if already on land it can't attack.
A snake could be like the crock only it could be killed by any animal. in addition it could possibly kill any other animal(poison) in return. though, perhaps not the elephant. you know, to keep it as the strongest piece in the game.
prendek: with the mouse in a pond square you stand no chance of losing (you'd just have to use your elephant to block the other elephant). I don't see the purpose of the variant. Usually, variants are designed to make regular games a little more interesting, I don't see this variant being that much different (perhaps maybe even more drawable).
I would like to see a variation of Jungle in which to win you either get your mouse / rat in the opponent's lair or eat the mouse. I'm currently playing Water Dancer with the honour system of this variation. Any support for this?
Hrqls: Your right, I know she'll gain them back and she seemed as positive about that as you are, I just thought it was kinda silly for an unrated player to get that many points from a rated one. (not a huge beef or anything, just an odd observation).
Hrqls: If I had known she would lose so many points by losing I would have just challenged her to a different game. It doesn't seem very fair for someone who worked hard for a good rating should suffer so badly from a single loss.
the amount of bkr lost/gained depends on several factors :
the difference in bkr between the 2 players
the amount of games played by the player
the variation in winning/losses (deviation)
and maybe some more factors?
i assume you are talking about your game of jungle with volant ? as you had not played a game of jungle before your bkr was at 1500 (i think?) which was more than 400 points lower than volants bkr at that time ... 400 seems to be a break point .. when the difference is more than 400 the gain/loss in bkr is even larger
BBW: that's precisely the only restriction to when a mouse can kill: it can't kill an elephant when going out of the water, only a mouse... but it says nothing about the other possibilities so it can kill at any other occasion.
i have heard that one who has finished 50 games loses less points as one who has finished only 5 games if they lose. so it's understandable that one with a high ranking and a lot of finished games loses less points as a person with lower ranking and a few finished games. maybe???