Talk:Ludo (board game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Board and table games (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 

Backgammon[edit]

Is ludo and backgammon related? Though not the same, there are some similarities. 1. if your piece land on an opponent piece, you send him home. 2. if you stack up your pieces, you protect them from being capture. 3. I played a version that rolls two dices at a time and a free replay whenever you roll double, i.e. similar to backgammon again.

Cut and paste history[edit]

Can the history and the talk page of the board game be associated with the new disambiguated page? I don't really know how to fix this. Vadmium 02:15, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think I was referring to a WP:cut-and-paste move that got reverted a couple months later. Vadmium (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC).

Slovenian link[edit]

The Slovenian game link seems to just go to a chat page... I won't delete it, because I don't speak the languages to know if I'm missing something!

Probably gone by now. Vadmium (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC).

Criticism[edit]

I have removed the following recent addition from the article:

Ludo's very simple to grasp rules and quick nature lend it well to a family game, particularly when young children are involved (and of course, any game involving numbers can aid in early math development).
Despite this, Ludo is criticised by many as being a game of futility, as absolutely no player skill is involved in winning - the victor is decided by successive dice rolls. Most board games, especially fiercely competitive examples such as Chess, allow the players to form a strategy of some form in order to attain victory; Ludo lacks this depth. Even games such as Monopoly, which famously involve many dice rolls, contain an element of player skill (in the form of purchase decisions).

When more than one piece is on the move, it is not correct that "absolutely no player skill is involved". I'm not sure the rest of this section really belongs to this encyclopaedia article. Feel free to put it back in, but please make sure it is correct.--Niels Ø 07:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ that, if the ability to spot all possible moves is taken as a player skill too. That is, if the experienced player is able to spot all optimal moves (such as all the moves to kick an opponent's piece back to the starting point), he has a certain advantage than an inexperienced opponent. There is also more optimal moves in the Chinese version, such as moving a piece to a space of its own colour whenever possible, in order to move 4 more spaces, or moving a piece to exploit the arrow move which provides a shortcut. Kiwi8 08:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
That's why Ludo world championships are so crowded of Ludo Grandmasters and hard-working students of such a complex game. Whenever I play with the World Ludo Champion, I always lose... certainly a game of skill, not luck. --Taraborn 22:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Better play description?[edit]

I find several bits of the description utterly confusing. Would something mind explaining (in the article!) what these statements mean?

"To the left of each home column, one square from the edge of the board, is a starting square, also coloured."
In the diagram I cannot find such a square. I can see a large squarish object, but these have many details inside, which look a lot like the "spaces" on the board. Are these details to be ignored? IE, is the entire red block with the cross of red squares inside it the starting square? If so, this should be mentioned!
"At the start of the game, the player's pieces are placed in the areas to the next to the arms."
Do you mean the "starting square"? I'm pretty sure it does. If so, this should say that as opposed to the unclear "areas next to the arms". The tabletop is next to the arms, for instance.
"A player moves one of their pieces forward"
What is "forward"? There is an earlier mention of "clockwise around the perimeter of the board", but I am equally confused about "perimeter of the board". The starting squares are on the perimeter of the board, but I'm guessing they are not included?
"it passes along the "home column" of its colour."
I assume "passes along" means "moves up the column"? If this is true, where does it enter the column? On the colored square that lies in the outside row? Does it have to be an exact roll?

I assume there is some sort of pattern of moving from the starting square out into the uncolored squares (starting where?), along the white ones (stopping on the triangles in the middle?), then to the colored home row (entering it where?) and finally to the center? Can someone explain how a single red marker would move around the board? That would help greatly!

Pictures should be used for explaining how the pieces move. Anyone good with vector graphics? Tronic2 (talk) 07:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Maury 19:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Mensch_ärgere_dich_nicht

Ludo in East Africa[edit]

Momo2008 uk recently added three paragraphs about ludo in East Africa. I wonder:

  1. Can any sources be given for this info?
  2. Are the variants described actually known as Ludo in that area, or is it in fact one of the many other Cross and circle games?

--Noe (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Variants[edit]

This seems to be the same game as Kimble/Trouble [1] but just with a different board. Could someone who knows more write a section about their similarities and differences? Tronic2 (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The English version of the page about this game and Parchisi are really kind of, well, unclear on variation. Compare with this german language section Dlamblin (talk) 11:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Globe and star[edit]

Are the globe and star spaces unique to Denmark? I have never seen a board without them.

--Klausok (talk) 07:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

May be. I was never in Denmark, and I have never seen a board with them. Eddau (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Need more ref?[edit]

Wil this help?[1][2]

reflist[edit]

Who is going to write the strategy section?[edit]

I wrote one in the Hebrew article, so in case I do not translate it, feel free to write it yourselfs. Eddau (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Other variants[edit]

The "other variants" section should somehow link to the article and the category on cross and circle games. And list of national names and variants should be either complete, balanced ("due weight"), or absent (except for the aforementioned links).-- (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Ludo and Uckers[edit]

The gameboard is precisely the same. They are identical gameboards. Doesn't that provide basis enough, that Uckers is closely related to Ludo enough, that Uckers would qualify as a 'See also' item, at the Ludo article? (Looking at the same question from a different perspective, if Uckers is not included as a 'See also' item at the Ludo article, when their gameboards are precisely the same and identical ... wouldn't that cause a bit of confusion to an average reader ... seeing that there is no link whatever or connection or mention of game of Uckers, at the Ludo article?)

I could understand disclusion without a criteria for comparing the closeness of their relationship, if there were, say, multiple games that use the same board, that have their own articles. Maybe there are. (Do you know if their are? My assumption is that Uckers is the only other game, that has its own article, using that precise gameboard. Maybe that is wrong. Do you know if there are any others?)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not know how many of the cross-and-circle games that are identical, or nearly so, or how nearly... The matter is complicated by the fact that many players around the world have various "house rules" or variants, so that e.g. "Ludo" is far from being well-defined. It would be great if someone could do a systematic revision and comparison of all these articles, or even better, find the answer in a reliable source. Until then, I think the "see also" section in each article should be composed of at most these things:
  1. A link to the article about this broad family of games
  2. Possibly one or more links to specific games with an explicit statement of the relationship between these games that warrant inclusion.
  3. Possibly other "See also" links (such as a link to an article about the World Championship in the game in question, if such a thing existed)
This way, if you re-add your links with an explicit statement that the games are identical, there will be a fact that someone might challenge if they disagree.
By the way, if they really ARE identical, I think the correct solution would be to merge the articles, mentioning both names in boldface in the lead, and make "the other" article a redirect. The name for the article proper should be the one that makes moste sense to an English-speaking audience; I don't know which name that would be in this case. (I'm strongly inclined to the name "Ludo" since that is the name of the game in my language, Danish, but that, of course, is an invalid argumenmt!)-- (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Not sure I'm following you ... My only contention is, since article Uckers exists, and that sister-game uses the identical gameboard Ludo uses, making a 'See also' to Uckers in the Ludo article is appropriate. (And to *not* include it, is begging confusion!) Whatever criteria a future review or research would produce re what s/ or s/not be included in the Ludo 'See also' list, will no doubt include Uckers. (So, how can including it now, be a mistake?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Uckers See also Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, there are several ways of doing this. One may simply include Uckers under "see also" as you suggest; I'm against this as it will not be clear on what reasons Uckers is included while other Cross-and-circle games are not ()and including all of them is silly; that's what the category is for). Secondly, one may include Uckers in the "see also" section with a brief explanation like "(similar game played on identical board)" or whatever is appropriate. I'd have no objection to that. Thirdly, "see also" sections should only contain links that for some reason don't fit in elsewhere in the article. One might instead write a short paragraph on Uckers and link from there. Finally, if the games are virtually identical, as I said the appropriate solution is a full merge.-- (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

GB189616426 (A) - A New Drawing Room Game[edit]


~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

"Don't be Angry"[edit]

I have heard of this imitation called "Don't be Angry". Is that simply an imitation of Ludo? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)