Infiltr8 comments

["davidlhsl" <DavidLHsl@...>]

Regarding the rules to Infiltr8 (interesting idea):

* I'm assuming coins are place face-down as in Stratego. This needs
to be specified if 
it isn't.

* Commander vs. Commander chart: Both players average the sum of 3
dice. Are 
fractions included in determining victory or is the average rounded
down or up? 
Example: My total = 11, which averages 3.667. Your total = 10, which
averages 
3.333. Suppose we round down. That results in 3 vs. 3. Tie result.

If fractions are factored, then 3.667 vs. 3.333 results in my
commander winning.

My feeling is that you could accomplish a similar result by
streamlining your design. 
Let's say fractions are counted. If you change the rules to say: Both
players roll their 
die 3 times and add the results together. The player with the higher
total wins. You 
accomplish the same result without forcing an additional calculation
(divide by 3).

In the case of rounding down or up, you increase the probability of a
tie, since you'll 
produce results 1-6 in a bell curve (many more results of 3 than 1 or
6). I would just 
have both players roll 1 or 2 dice (you'll have to determine which
based on your 
preference). You won't get the same probability results, but it's a
more streamlined 
mechanic.

* Retreating die results table and drop results table.

In both of these table you are using the results 1/4/6 for one
result, 2/5 for another, 
and 3 for another. I find that using consecutive values are much more
useful (not to 
mention easier to remember) to establish die results than scattering
them the way you 
have. I also think you could streamline your description of the
results.

As an example, here is how I would define the retreating die roll
results in your rules:

Retreating Results:

If there is a free space in the player's Home field, the player may
automatically retreat 
the piece attacking the opponent's fortress to any empty square in
his Home field, 
provided one is available. The player may then roll his die:

Ace = the player may retreat any other one or two of his pieces to
any empty space(s) 
in his Home field, provided the free space(s) is/are available

4-5 = the player may retreat any other one of his pieces to any empty
space in his 
Home field, provided a free space is available

Null-3 = no other effect

You could define your Drop table similarly. As you can see, the
results improve with 
the die value, and the die values are grouped together to make it
easier to memorize.

* Time estimate: 15 minutes

With the ability to drop pieces, movement of 3 pieces at one square
at a time and the 
requirement to attack the enemy's fortress 6 times, retreating after
each attack; it 
seems this game would take forever. Perhaps permitting pieces to move
up to 3 
squares in a straight orthogonal line would speed things up? I
haven't played this yet 
and don't have your board diagram available (I'm on my Mac at home at
the moment, 
but I saw it on my PC notebook at work), so if you have actual time
results from 
playtest, then ignore my comment.