Halma

Halma and Chinese Checkers belong in the same category board game. As there seems to be considerable support from the [ Ideas for Games ] page, I have setup a wiki page to discuss which Halma rules we should use, that way if I ever get round to coding it, I'll know what people would prefer.

Lets refer to the 2 or 4 player version played on a square board as Halma, and the 2,3,4 or 6 player version played on the star board as Chinese Checkers. As Halma would be easier to implement (at least graphically!!), I'll start off by restricting the discussion to it.

In the >2 player games, you can 'gang-up' on other players therefore I believe it makes sense to have different ratings for 2 player and multi-player versions of Halma (prob likewise also for Chinese Checkers). Phil The Hat: Yes this is very important. This should be done for Salvo and Outbreak before any more multiplayer games are introduced.

In Halma you can prevent the opponent from winning by leaving men in your own home area and refusing to move them. There are various ways of preventing this tactic:

1. Insisting that at some point of the game, you must have moved all your men out of your home area otherwise you lose. e.g. 30 moves is used for this on one of the other game sites!
2. As previous, but instead of losing the game, you are forced to move a home piece instead of another. Of course if you are prevented from doing so, then you may move another piece istead without penalty.
3. If a home-placed piece is offered the opportunity to jump over an opponent's piece, it must take it.

With the first of these you can also insist that pieces do not move back into (or even through) their home area.

Some rules I have read for Halma and/or CC (especially multi-player) disallow moving through other players homezones and once you enter your destination zone you cannot move out of it (I guess these rules prevent some blocking manouevres in multi-player).

BTW, some reasons I dislike the 30 move rule (while accepting that some sort of restriction is neccessary):

1. It is arbritrary
2. In some games you can arrange for the opponents players to be blocked in his home, you can then permanently block that player in and he loses at move 30! I don't believe you should lose a game because you are prevented from moving out!

Also note that if I had a 30 move rule, none of these other rules would be present in the 2 player one (I'll defer judgement on multi-player till later) as that would be sufficient, although a bit harsh.

Any thoughts? JK

---

I think the 30 move restriction is an excellent idea, but I don't like the idea of forcing me to move over an oponent. Sometimes when I put a defense that if my oponent force me to jump, it will damage it. I would also like to be able to move in my home and in my oponents home because i can do some chain movements that way. I see your point in the multiplayer games and I do think in the multiplayer that after you get to your home, you should not be allowed to move them back on the board, but allow you to move in and out other peoples homes so you can do chain moves...

About the 30 move restriction, I do think that losing the game because your opponent block you is not fair. Why not turn the penalty to the person that is blocking? How about if after 30 moves you don't have your pieces out of your home and/or if you are blocking your opponent from moving out of their home after 30 moves YOU lose the game? That will prevent malicious people to block the opponent in purpose...

How about my 2nd option above, where after 30 moves, you must move your pieces out unless they are blocked in? This isn't quite as simple to code as a hard 30 move limit, but should be possible.

I forgot to add that I hope to see a 10x10 version when it starts. I don't like the 8x8 version because is so small to maneuver in it... many other people I play Halma with in other sites said the same thing... at the end is a thing of taste, but I'll love the 10x10 version to be released from the beggining if its possible of course.

There wouldn't be much difference in coding between an 8x8 and 10x10 version, I thought that the 10x10 would take significantly longer, do you know how many moves typically the 10x10 games take? My original thoughts were that 10x10 would be better for the 4 player game, but I am beginning to think that would be a bit crowded and it may be better to use the traditional (hundreds of years old) sized 4 player board of something like 13x13 - which would make it the biggest board on this site so far.
Phil The Hat The original game is 16x16.

---

I hope that this is going to have up to 6 player support, I think no halma game is good without 6 players!

Halma is the square board - there is only room for 2 or 4 players. CC would be played on a star shaped board with 2, 3, 4 or 6 players. As described above, initial offering is hoped to be a 2 player Halma board. The big difference (to me!) between this site and certain others is the friendliness of the players and this has always been enhanced by the >2 player games, therefore >2 player Halma and CC would be "right" for the culture of this site. My resources are limited though and rather than wait until >2 player support is available I think it'll be best to have the 2 player version around first - note that I think ratings will be different for the 2 player and >2 player versions.

I have played hundreds of Halma games and enjoy both the 8X8 and 10X10 games. While they seem to be the same you have to play different in them. I like the rule of you must move by 24 or 30 moves since a unskilled player can force a draw by not moving otherwise. I don't like "no jumping back into your home area rule" since I have done this to get into a better prostion on the board. No, I don't like the forced jump rule, unless all the other checkers is in the home area and they are using it as only a block. I never played a 4 person halma so I can't say anything about it. I have played CC and I think a 2, 3, 4, 6 player game would be great and lots of fun.