Talk:Ploy (board game)

Ploy (board game) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Board and table games Low‑importance

	Games portal 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.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chess variant

Does having a "chess like feel" qualify this game for the "chess variants" article category? Since the game is not played on a chess board using chess pieces, but rather has its own distinctive board and pieces, I would question its categorization as a "chess variant". Wilhelm meis (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of stuff in that category. There's also a separate article now List of chess variants. On the far front, I've seen Stratego described as "derived from chess", though I can't call Stratego a chess variant, or even say it has a "chess-like feel"; it doesn't. I'm going to stick my neck out, and say that a chess variant must have pieces most of which actually have the moves of chess pieces (see for example, Capablanca chess or Chess960, two of the better known variants). Ploy doesn't, so it isn't. Ploy, with it's disk-like pieces and 9x9 board actually looks more like Chinese chess. The "capture all the pieces" motif is like that in checkers, Risk, Stratego and other popular wargames.

However, the mention of that little word "chess" has another more significant impact on the article. The play of chess is so well known, even among those who don't play, that it invites, even compels a detailed comparison with that game in the article, probably a separate oblique top-level section. Such a section isn't about this game, and that's an issue. But if we don't provide it, there is virtually no other source where encyclopedia users who are potential buyers/players of the game can get that info. Sbalfour (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What picture?

"The pieces are arranged according to the picture at right." Can we either get a picture, or an actual description? 206.130.136.162 (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we can't, and the text is therefore useless. The article is to be scrapped. Sbalfour (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4 top level sections on rules

Unbelieveable. Plus an inappropriate gaming section. And that's the whole article. I'll get around to fixing this, but I can say, that the Rules section (often and more properly called "Gameplay") should be brief and devoid of details. See Acquire#Gameplay for a reasonable example of this section. Sbalfour (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of this article is atrocious; except for copyvio, articles that are grossly factually incorrect, or violate WP:BLP, this article is the worst I've encountered. It has to be done over from the beginning. Nothing can be saved (except possibly the first paragraph of the lead). To start, a top-level section layout in accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games#Style guide should be established. Second, adhere to WP:GAMEGUIDE proscriptions with regard to transliterating detailed rules into the Gameplay section. Third, avoid citing commercial and marketing websites (i.e. Game Pile and Game Geek) as sources - see WP:RELIABLESOURCE (they can be external links if they provide unique resources beyond what would ordinarily be included in a complete article WP:ELNO#1). Fourth, do not list links to online gaming sites or game-playing automatons in the article. Such links might be apropriate only in an article about online gaming or games. This article is about the game, not how, where, who to play the game. Sbalfour (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on gameplay -> relevant?

There's zero, and I mean nada externally documented experience with this game. No recorded games, no tournaments that I can find, no notable players, no published work.

A game play section, or the section comparing the game to chess or other games, might want to include something about the "character" of this game. The battlefield is 25% bigger than chess, and the pieces don't have any long range moves. It's about like chess in the early years, before about 1200, when bishops were 'elephants' and moved only two spaces diagonally, jumping over the intervening space (i.e. no capture to that space); viziers or farzins (as Queens were then called) moved only one space orthogonally in any direction, and were the weakest piece on the board; pawns could advance only one space to start. The game was slow. Ploy is also slow and "local"; none of the pieces has power equivalent to a chess piece. In chess terms, each piece would be worth about 1.5 to maybe 2.0 pawns. Combinations like in chess do not occur. The commander is a very mobile piece because it can move in 4 orthogonal directions; actually cornering him requires a jumble of pieces. Pieces are often lost to "sneak attacks" because they aren't oriented to move (hence protect themselves) in the direction of the attack. The pieces don't have combining power like in chess, mostly because they're directional. Changing direction of an attack is cumbersome, because changing direction is a separate 'move'. Chess maneuvers like forks, skewers, discovered attack, are plodding to set up and easily avoided. The maneuvering is half-way between that of Stratego and chess. Games last quite a few moves, triple that of chess (>120 moves, maybe 150 or more). Of course, none of this can be cited anywhere, but it's the essential character of the game. Sbalfour (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]