Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kuildeous]

I overheard a conversation at work about trying to learn more about students. On question they may ask others is what games they like to play. Then they rattled off Clue, Monopoly, and Battleship. You know, games that really make you think and apply strategy. I quietly wept in my cube. 

[DG]

I feel the same when people talk about thinking puzzles like Sudoko. After you know some deduction rules it is just a matter of spotting where to apply the rules, so they are in fact observation puzzles.

[jsh357]

Board game publishers don't get their games in to chain stores = the average person never sees or hears about them.  How often does a person who knows nothing about board games outside of Monopoly go in to a game shop?  Probably never.

[Kuildeous]

Board game publishers don't get their games in to chain stores = the average person never sees or hears about them.  How often does a person who knows nothing about board games outside of Monopoly go in to a game shop?  Probably never.

Yeah, I know. It's kind of like how someone from a small Midwestern town likely has no idea how good Indian food, Thai food, or sushi can be.

And I suppose I cannot blame someone for wanting to stimulate himself mentally by playing any board game. Even Monopoly has some thinking to do, but it's no Power Grid.

I almost spoke up when they mentioned Clue, because I think Mystery of the Abbey captures that with a better format, but then I got stunned when the list continued and included Monopoly and Battleship. But hey, Clue does involve some deduction, so no hate there.

[KingZog3]

Board game publishers don't get their games in to chain stores = the average person never sees or hears about them.  How often does a person who knows nothing about board games outside of Monopoly go in to a game shop?  Probably never.

Yeah, I know. It's kind of like how someone from a small Midwestern town likely has no idea how good Indian food, Thai food, or sushi can be.

And I suppose I cannot blame someone for wanting to stimulate himself mentally by playing any board game. Even Monopoly has some thinking to do, but it's no Power Grid.

I almost spoke up when they mentioned Clue, because I think Mystery of the Abbey captures that with a better format, but then I got stunned when the list continued and included Monopoly and Battleship. But hey, Clue does involve some deduction, so no hate there.

Yeah, I've been playing Clue with my nine year old cousin, and it does involve deduction and some strategy when it comes to bocking doors as well as pulling people into rooms. It's a good strategy game for kids.

[blueblimp]

I feel the same when people talk about thinking puzzles like Sudoko. After you know some deduction rules it is just a matter of spotting where to apply the rules, so they are in fact observation puzzles.

I think the best approach to such puzzles is to try to work out the play rules yourself, as tempting and easy as it is to spoil yourself. Same principle applies to Rubik's Cube, which is a fun combinatorics puzzle if you create your own solution.

I figure that this kind of puzzle might have been more fun in the pre-internet era, where it's less convenient to spoil yourself.

[DG]

I was assuming that one worked out the rules for oneself We're a cut above the average forum when it comes to logic.

[soulnet]

I have not seen any set of rules that, when applied iteratively, solves any given uniquely solvable instance of Sudoku. Maybe you have a bad source of Sudoku boards. That being said, I agree that Sudoku gets old really fast.

[Ratsia]

Board game publishers don't get their games in to chain stores = the average person never sees or hears about them.

Are things still that bad in where you come from?

In Finland a typical chain store would have at least Ticket to Ride, Catan, Dominion, Carcassonne and then a few games of similar depth published during the last 1-2 year -- the kind of stuff that ranks high in Spiel de Jahres usually ends up in chain stores until the print runs out. That would include stuff like Kingdom builder, Pandemic, etc. Most people would naturally not recognize the newer titles, but they are still buying them as gifts etc, and most seem to recognize Carcassonne and Ticket to Ride as classics almost in the same boat as Monopoly and the likes. Dominion is also rather close to that status. My experience is that the situation is quite similar in most of central Europe.

So, the offering is still classics + subset of newer titles, but the classics already include quite a few proper strategy games and the newer titles are available for limited (but usually sufficiently long) time.

[Davio]

Random people not knowing about good games isn't that bad.

Your family not knowing about good games and giving bad ones to you as a birthday gift is.

[Lekkit]

Your family not knowing about good games and giving bad ones to you as a birthday gift is.

I visited my parents who live across the country. They wanted to give me Dominion as a birthday gift. However, we had brought it with all the expansions available at the time to teach them. They kept their set and now play a couple of times a week.

I guess my point is to brag about how I've never gotten any bad board games from my parents since they are into board games themselves.

[Teproc]

Growing up in Germany in a family playing Settlers of Catan means I don't have this problem either... and Monopoly is less popular in France than in the US I think (the theme maybe ?), but most people still don't know about modern games, aside from a few party games like Jungle Speed or Time's Up that broke through.

[jsh357]

I have seen catan at chain stores and maybe ticket to ride, but not much else.

[Dsell]

I think it depends on the chain store. I've never noticed any decent strategy game at Walmart, though I wouldn't be teeerribly surprised to see Catan anymore. Target has had Catan for years and seems to be expanding their selection: I've seen Ticket to Ride, Pandemic, expansions for Catan...I believe I've seen several more but am not remembering at the moment. Barnes and Noble, the largest bookstore chain in America, has an excellent selection of strategy games that might include Agricola, Dominion + Expansions, Arkham Horror (and several other games in that line), at least a couple Star Wars games including the LCG and X-Wing, and many more in addition to the ones offered at Target.

The thing is, these chain stores will never have the selection or the knowledge of a FLGS, plus their prices are high and by buying there you're not supporting local. The only reason I'd buy a game from one of these places is if I had like a 40% off coupon on a single item or something.

Edit: Their websites also have a stronger selection. Even Walmart offers Dominion, Pandemic, Terra Mystica, King of Tokyo, Puerto Rico, Smallworld, Agricola, Carcassonne, Mage Knight and others on their website. But despite that, the "Strategy Games" category on their website was labelled with Munchkin and Battleship.

Edit 2: Also I discovered years ago (when I had a gift card and before they had so many great options) that their site has dozens of rethemed Monopoly games. Just pages and pages of rethemes. It's pretty amusing to just browse their "classic games" to see what you find. Some good ones:

Over the Hill-opoly, Dog-opoly (as well as Shihtzu-opoly, Mutt-opoly, Westie-opoly, Poodle-opoly, Puppy-opoly), Photo-opoly, Post-office-opoly: Holiday Stamps, DIY-opoly, and -opolies for just about every city and major university in America.

[Davio]

I bought two Days of Wonder games at a local mega toy store: Cleopatra and Mystery of the Abbey.
I was excited to see them there for not much $$$.

Alas, the DoW stock hasn't been refilled since.

Some games that our biggest Dutch publisher 999 Games translates end up there: Dominion, the Village and Stone Age being the most notable ones.

[markusin]

In Montreal and surrounding areas, we have a chain store called Archambault. I think it focuses primarily on selling music related stuff. They're big stores though, and they have a large selection of board games, both for young audiences and for the strategy board game crowd. We're talking 7 Wonders and Descent here. They're all in French though.

I've seen Catan and it's expansions being sold in Chapters, next to some party games. I'm fortunate that there is also another small chain of stores that specializes in board games where I live. If it has a French translation, the store probably has it.

[KingZog3]

In Montreal and surrounding areas, we have a chain store called Archambault. I think it focuses primarily on selling music related stuff. They're big stores though, and they have a large selection of board games, both for young audiences and for the strategy board game crowd. We're talking 7 Wonders and Descent here. They're all in French though.

I've seen Catan and it's expansions being sold in Chapters, next to some party games. I'm fortunate that there is also another small chain of stores that specializes in board games where I live. If it has a French translation, the store probably has it.

I've seen in Dominion is Chapters, Indigo (which is Chapters), and Archambault has it too probably.

And wait, you're in Montreal? Why haven't we played Dominion IRL?

[mail-mi]

I think it depends on the chain store. I've never noticed any decent strategy game at Walmart, though I wouldn't be teeerribly surprised to see Catan anymore. Target has had Catan for years and seems to be expanding their selection: I've seen Ticket to Ride, Pandemic, expansions for Catan...I believe I've seen several more but am not remembering at the moment. Barnes and Noble, the largest bookstore chain in America, has an excellent selection of strategy games that might include Agricola, Dominion + Expansions, Arkham Horror (and several other games in that line), at least a couple Star Wars games including the LCG and X-Wing, and many more in addition to the ones offered at Target.

I've seen Power Grid in Barne's and Noble as well.

[markusin]

In Montreal and surrounding areas, we have a chain store called Archambault. I think it focuses primarily on selling music related stuff. They're big stores though, and they have a large selection of board games, both for young audiences and for the strategy board game crowd. We're talking 7 Wonders and Descent here. They're all in French though.

I've seen Catan and it's expansions being sold in Chapters, next to some party games. I'm fortunate that there is also another small chain of stores that specializes in board games where I live. If it has a French translation, the store probably has it.

I've seen in Dominion is Chapters, Indigo (which is Chapters), and Archambault has it too probably.

And wait, you're in Montreal? Why haven't we played Dominion IRL?

I've mentioned it in a bunch of places where you have. I figured you knew I was in Montreal and that you were just waiting for someone to make a "heading to Montreal. any Dominion players there?" post where we'd ambush the visitor. I think you've responded to some posts of mine where I reveal this information.

I got my hands full with work and stuff this summer, but maybe we can play sometime after September, when school starts.

And for the rest of you: why u no visit Canada?

Edit: Tour De Jeux is the aforementioned game store. You can find it in big shopping malls.

[eHalcyon]

I have not seen any set of rules that, when applied iteratively, solves any given uniquely solvable instance of Sudoku. Maybe you have a bad source of Sudoku boards. That being said, I agree that Sudoku gets old really fast.

Well, I can take a photo of a Sudoku puzzle with the Google Goggles app and it will automatically solve it, so there must be something.

[qmech]

I have not seen any set of rules that, when applied iteratively, solves any given uniquely solvable instance of Sudoku. Maybe you have a bad source of Sudoku boards. That being said, I agree that Sudoku gets old really fast.

Well, I can take a photo of a Sudoku puzzle with the Google Goggles app and it will automatically solve it, so there must be something.

Sudoku are trivial to solve by brute force: I've not come across a "clever" method that works faster than the solver I wrote in C to kick the habit.  (That's also the only program I've ever managed to write in C.)

[eHalcyon]

I have not seen any set of rules that, when applied iteratively, solves any given uniquely solvable instance of Sudoku. Maybe you have a bad source of Sudoku boards. That being said, I agree that Sudoku gets old really fast.

Well, I can take a photo of a Sudoku puzzle with the Google Goggles app and it will automatically solve it, so there must be something.

Sudoku are trivial to solve by brute force: I've not come across a "clever" method that works faster than the solver I wrote in C to kick the habit.  (That's also the only program I've ever managed to write in C.)

Fair enough, but it actually fills in bit by bit in a way that suggests it is using algorithms.

[soulnet]

Fair enough, but it actually fills in bit by bit in a way that suggests it is using algorithms.

Since the problem (generalized) has been shown to be NP-complete, it is doubtful that a greedy approach works. It would have to be particular for the 3x3x3 size. It is possible that good enough heuristic shows all or almost all Sudokus prepared for humans, though.

[sudgy]

And for the rest of you: why u no visit Canada?

I visit Canada at least once a year.  It's over in BC, though.

[Awaclus]

And for the rest of you: why u no visit Canada?

Having acrophobia and living across the ocean is a nombo. I swear, that's the only reason!

[eHalcyon]

And for the rest of you: why u no visit Canada?

Having acrophobia and living across the ocean is a nombo. I swear, that's the only reason!

That's not a good excuse.  Boats exist!

[KingZog3]

And for the rest of you: why u no visit Canada?

Having acrophobia and living across the ocean is a nombo. I swear, that's the only reason!

That's not a good excuse.  Boats exist!

We could also beam you here.

[Kirian]

And for the rest of you: why u no visit Canada?

Having acrophobia and living across the ocean is a nombo. I swear, that's the only reason!

Are there a larger than normal number of acronyms in Canada?

[KingZog3]

And for the rest of you: why u no visit Canada?

Having acrophobia and living across the ocean is a nombo. I swear, that's the only reason!

Are there a larger than normal number of acronyms in Canada?

No, we just have a lot of acrobats.

[shraeye]

I have not seen any set of rules that, when applied iteratively, solves any given uniquely solvable instance of Sudoku. Maybe you have a bad source of Sudoku boards. That being said, I agree that Sudoku gets old really fast.

I got pretty burnt out on Sudokus once; now I solve those and many other puzzles at nikoli.com as my daily brain work-out.  I'm pleasantly surprised to find out that I'm somewhat frequently in the top 25 solve times for sudoku puzzles.

[soulnet]

acrophobia

So, that's what that red A stands for? WOW, sorry for misinterpreting you all this time.

[blueblimp]

I was assuming that one worked out the rules for oneself We're a cut above the average forum when it comes to logic.

In that case, isn't it a puzzle of working out play rules? I thought the point that you were making is that if you know the play rules, then it's just about observation.

[DG]

Monopoly, Cluedo, and Battleships have plenty of strategy to work out in the first play as well.

[liopoil]

I've always wondered what optimal battleship play is. It's more complex than it seems. Of course, playing optimally against someone who plays with very little strategy will still only yield a win rate slightly above .5, but it seems interesting anyway.

[KingZog3]

I've always wondered what optimal battleship play is. It's more complex than it seems. Of course, playing optimally against someone who plays with very little strategy will still only yield a win rate slightly above .5, but it seems interesting anyway.

I think a checker board approach covers the most ground with the fewest pieces.

[liopoil]

I've always wondered what optimal battleship play is. It's more complex than it seems. Of course, playing optimally against someone who plays with very little strategy will still only yield a win rate slightly above .5, but it seems interesting anyway.

I think a checker board approach covers the most ground with the fewest pieces.

sure, but it's not that simple. Within the checkerboard, you should still spread out your moves. There is also strategy in placing your ships. I've searched the internet a bit and didn't find anything conclusive.

[Awaclus]

I find rock-paper-scissors strategy incredibly intriguing.

[KingZog3]

I find rock-paper-scissors strategy incredibly intriguing.

It's intriguing that there even is strategy. And tournaments.

[eHalcyon]

Read about the other 6 great gambits here!  Number 5 will blow your mind!

[Davio]

I've always wondered what optimal battleship play is. It's more complex than it seems. Of course, playing optimally against someone who plays with very little strategy will still only yield a win rate slightly above .5, but it seems interesting anyway.

I think a checker board approach covers the most ground with the fewest pieces.

sure, but it's not that simple. Within the checkerboard, you should still spread out your moves. There is also strategy in placing your ships. I've searched the internet a bit and didn't find anything conclusive.

The main problem with games like this is:

Let's say I devise an algorithm which plays optimally against a pseudo-random human ship placement (humans are bad at randomness so we get no clusters and everything spread out pretty evenly).
You could then devise a ship placement algorithm which preforms optimally against my devised algorithm.
Then I'd have to react to that with a new algorithm and so on.

To know which algorithm to use, I have to know what you're going to use. But if you say, select an algorithm at random, we're back to square 1 so I just end up with an algorithm which performs best against totally random ship placement. And I wonder whether such an algorithm exists.

[liopoil]

No matter what strategy I use the optimal setup strategy will be a weigthed random, even against a strategy that assumes the opponent is using a weigthed random. The optimal strategy would also take into account how well the opponent is doing.

[Kuildeous]

I've always wondered what optimal battleship play is. It's more complex than it seems. Of course, playing optimally against someone who plays with very little strategy will still only yield a win rate slightly above .5, but it seems interesting anyway.

I think a checker board approach covers the most ground with the fewest pieces.

Pretty much. I haven't played Battleship in several, several years, so I wonder if my strategy would change, but I did fairly well with the following plans:

* Attack in a checkerboard pattern so that there no launch more than two away from another launch. This ensures that a Destroyer could not hide in between attacks.
* If the Destroyer is destroyed, then spread the gaps out to no more than three away. If both Submarine and Cruiser are destroyed, then no more than four away. And if the carrier is somehow the only survivor, then no more than five away.
* Do not cluster ships next to each other. When a launch is a hit, then the next logical step is to orthogonally blast that piece of map. If he happens to hit the adjacent ship, then you've let your opponent know where two of your ships are with effectively one random launch.
* If I played against someone who didn't realize the checkerboard method works, then I would avoid letting him know that is my strategy by picking different points of the checkerboard to target. In other words, don't launch A1, C1, E1, etc., but instead launch C3, E7, H8. In the end, it becomes a checkerboard (unless I find that Destroyer first).
* Depending on how well I know the opponent, I could play mind games. Cluster the entire fleet in one tiny area so that most of his launches will miss, but when he hits a ship, he destroys it and possibly assumes that there are no other ships nearby. Of course, this fails spectacularly if he hits the others with incidental shots.

So, yeah, there is a strategy in Battleship, but it's not a real big thinker. I suppose that depends on how much you want to fake out your opponent. There is that.

[soulnet]

I don't think checkerboard is best. You want to find the big ships early, because they are easier and they provide more information. There is a subset of the checkerboard that is best to find the 4-length ship quicker. A simple example is going down diagonally from A1, A4, A7, D1, G1, etc, but there are some better than this because they are equally good at locating a 4-sized ship and better at locating a 3-sized one. However, there is likely a lot more than that.

Also, liopoil is completely right. A non-deterministic algorithm can easily be the optimal way of playing, even if the opponent knows you are playing it. The game is finite, zero-sum and can be considered perfect information (in the sense that, both players have the same info before ship placement, and after ship placement, the extra info of knowing where my own ships are does not matter at all against an optimally playing opponent)* so there is at least one Nash equilibrium for the game, thus, there is a randomized algorithm that plays perfectly and has a .5 expected winning rate against itself (obviously).

*We need to assume optimally playing, because the knowledge we may get from knowing our boats is an assessment on how close our opponent is to discover some boat. However, an opponent playing optimally would not play in such a way that his information is beneficial to us. I am not 100% sure of this last part, but still, even if it is not perfect information, it is close, and it is likely that the Nash equilibrium exists.

[blueblimp]

I don't think it matters whether it's perfect information for a Nash equilibrium to exist (and to be an optimal solution of a linear program). A way to see this is to recast battleship as a 2-player zero-sum simultaneous play game as follows. Suppose that each player uses a pure (i.e. non-random) strategy, so that each move is determined by the information that has been revealed to them so far in the game. Then you can think of the "game" as being the simultaneous choice of pure strategies before play begins. That falls into the theory of 2-player zero-sum simultaneous play games, which says that there is a pair of mixed (i.e. randomized) strategies for the players that is a Nash equilibrium, and they are given by an optimal primal-dual solution pair to a linear program.

(This doesn't help much with actually finding the solution, since the LP is computationally infeasible as formulated here, because there are too many pure strategies to consider.)

[soulnet]

I don't think it matters whether it's perfect information for a Nash equilibrium to exist (and to be an optimal solution of a linear program).

Wikipedia agrees with you. I would still like to know whether it is true that it is perfect information or not.

[blueblimp]

You want to find the big ships early, because they are easier and they provide more information.

I'm no battleship expert, but I propose the opposite: knowing where the smaller ships are provides you more useful information than knowing where the larger ships are, so you'd prefer to find them first. Intuitively, the information about small ship positioning is more useful because the smaller ships are harder to find, as you point out.

This gets to the same strategy conclusion as you got to, just with slightly different justification.

A little more precisely, here are some properties of the ideal checkboard-like pattern for finding a ship of length L:

• A ship of length L will intersect exactly one square in the pattern.
• A ship of length >L will intersect at least one square in the pattern, possibly more.
• The pattern occupies 1/L of the squares in the board if L evenly divides the board side length. Otherwise it's a little fewer.

Imagine that you're searching for a single ship, which has known length L. If you're using a checkerboard-like pattern, then because of property 1, you just need to find the one square in the pattern that intersects the ship. (Then you can sink the ship pretty quickly afterward.) You might as well search the pattern in random order, so you'll find the ship in expected (P+1)/2 tries if the pattern has P squares. P is inversely proportional to L, so the expected number of tries required to find a single ship is also inversely proportional to L.

Since the full game of battleship is at least as hard as finding the smallest ship, knowing where the smallest ships are is very helpful because you can make your search pattern more coarse. But if you're using a pattern for a ship of length 2 to find a ship of length 2, then for expected value it doesn't matter which order you test the squares as long as each square is in expectation visited with try (P+1)/2, so you might as well search in such a way that if you get lucky and find all the smallest ships early on, all the squares you searched are part of the coarser pattern you switch to at that point. (I think this is what you were saying in your post.)

For ships with powers of 2 lengths in a board with side lengths also powers of 2, it's pretty straightforward how to select subpatterns. When the ship lengths aren't powers of 2, it's not as easy. For example, if there are two ships, one length 2 and one length 3, then there's no ideal pattern for the length 3 ship that's a subpattern of any ideal pattern for the length 2 ship. So I guess you'd start where the patterns intersect, and if you haven't found the length 2 ship yet, then start looking at squares that are only in its pattern and hope you don't have to look at too many of them.

[soulnet]

I'm no battleship expert, but I propose the opposite: knowing where the smaller ships are provides you more useful information than knowing where the larger ships are, so you'd prefer to find them first. Intuitively, the information about small ship positioning is more useful because the smaller ships are harder to find, as you point out.

The premise makes no sense to me. Of course the position of a smaller boat is better to know, but since you need to find all boats, you cannot decide the order on which one would be better to know. The point about big boats is that they give more extra information, i.e., information that is useful to find other boats.

[blueblimp]

I'm no battleship expert, but I propose the opposite: knowing where the smaller ships are provides you more useful information than knowing where the larger ships are, so you'd prefer to find them first. Intuitively, the information about small ship positioning is more useful because the smaller ships are harder to find, as you point out.

The premise makes no sense to me. Of course the position of a smaller boat is better to know, but since you need to find all boats, you cannot decide the order on which one would be better to know. The point about big boats is that they give more extra information, i.e., information that is useful to find other boats.

It might just be that we mean something different by "useful". What I mean is, suppose there is an oracle that could tell you the position of one boat of your choice. I would always ask it for the position of the smallest boat.

I don't see how knowing the position of a big boat gives you extra information at all.

[navical]

I don't see how knowing the position of a big boat gives you extra information at all.

Some (many? all?) Battleship versions include a rule that different ships can't be in adjacent squares. So finding a big ship rules out a large area of the board.

[liopoil]

Soulnet says what I meant in better words.

I don't see how knowing the position of a big boat gives you extra information at all.

Some (many? all?) Battleship versions include a rule that different ships can't be in adjacent squares. So finding a big ship rules out a large area of the board.

Hmmm, I've never heard of that rule, and break it often.

[eHalcyon]

Time to start battleshipstrategy.com...

[soulnet]

I did not know that there were versions of Battleship that did not forbid placing boats adjacently. Of course, my remark about the extra information is only for the versions that do forbid it.

Regarding the oracle example: I agree with that, but I do not think it matters. You need to discover A and B. If A is more difficult, it is likely that you will ask the oracle for A. However, if there is no such oracle and (1) knowing B helps finding A more than knowing A helps finding B, it is better to search for B first. Of course, (1) is only true for the versions that forbid adjacency of boats.

[amalloy]

I did not know that there were versions of Battleship that did not forbid placing boats adjacently. Of course, my remark about the extra information is only for the versions that do forbid it.

Regarding the oracle example: I agree with that, but I do not think it matters. You need to discover A and B. If A is more difficult, it is likely that you will ask the oracle for A. However, if there is no such oracle and (1) knowing B helps finding A more than knowing A helps finding B, it is better to search for B first. Of course, (1) is only true for the versions that forbid adjacency of boats.

I've never heard of a version of Battleship that forbids you from placing ships adjacent to each other, and the top five or six Google hits for "battleship rule book" all allow it; the official Hasbro rulebook even uses that in its example placement. It seems like it would be quite a limitation.

[soulnet]

I've never heard of a version of Battleship that forbids you from placing ships adjacent to each other, and the top five or six Google hits for "battleship rule book" all allow it; the official Hasbro rulebook even uses that in its example placement. It seems like it would be quite a limitation.

Maybe the version popularized in Argentina has that rule. No idea when it came from or when I learned it.

[Kuildeous]

I've never heard of a version of Battleship that forbids you from placing ships adjacent to each other, and the top five or six Google hits for "battleship rule book" all allow it; the official Hasbro rulebook even uses that in its example placement. It seems like it would be quite a limitation.

Maybe the version popularized in Argentina has that rule. No idea when it came from or when I learned it.

It's an obscure rule. Additionally, if you place your battleship in Free Parking, you get $500.

[Awaclus]

I've never heard of a version of Battleship that forbids you from placing ships adjacent to each other, and the top five or six Google hits for "battleship rule book" all allow it; the official Hasbro rulebook even uses that in its example placement. It seems like it would be quite a limitation.

Maybe the version popularized in Argentina has that rule. No idea when it came from or when I learned it.

I've played it with this rule, too.

[ipofanes]

I've never heard of a version of Battleship that forbids you from placing ships adjacent to each other, and the top five or six Google hits for "battleship rule book" all allow it; the official Hasbro rulebook even uses that in its example placement. It seems like it would be quite a limitation.

Maybe the version popularized in Argentina has that rule. No idea when it came from or when I learned it.

I've played it with this rule, too.

German here, same as in Finland or Argentina.

[Lekkit]

Sweden here. We're allowed to place them adjecent to each other.

[Teproc]

Not in France. This is kind of like the free parking thing in Monopoly I guess, or does that exist everywhere ?

[pacovf]

I've never heard of a version of Battleship that forbids you from placing ships adjacent to each other, and the top five or six Google hits for "battleship rule book" all allow it; the official Hasbro rulebook even uses that in its example placement. It seems like it would be quite a limitation.

Maybe the version popularized in Argentina has that rule. No idea when it came from or when I learned it.

I've played it with this rule, too.

German here, same as in Finland or Argentina.

In Spain, I've always played with that rule too, as has everyone I know, although we usually state it before we start the game just in case.

[KingZog3]

I've never heard of a version of Battleship that forbids you from placing ships adjacent to each other, and the top five or six Google hits for "battleship rule book" all allow it; the official Hasbro rulebook even uses that in its example placement. It seems like it would be quite a limitation.

Maybe the version popularized in Argentina has that rule. No idea when it came from or when I learned it.

I've played it with this rule, too.

German here, same as in Finland or Argentina.

In Spain, I've always played with that rule too, as has everyone I know, although we usually state it before we start the game just in case.

But you lose the fun ability to mess with your opponents head! Hey, I just hit 6 in a row and didn't sink any boats!

[soulnet]

It's an obscure rule.

Obscure? Isn't calling obscure to something you are not used to a little self-centered (maybe US-centered in this case), judging for the response of some Europeans later in this thread?

[Watno]

I've never heard of Battleships allowing you to place ships adjacent to each other in Germany.
I remember discussions about diagonal adjacency being aloowed though.

[DG]

The whole point of having ships in Battleship shapes, instead of individual squares, is that you can use the shapes in your decision making. With adjacent ships you lose some of that information and decision making. You also extend the game unnecessarily. How can that be a sensible rule?

[Watno]

There is a point to Battleships?

[ipofanes]

There is a point to Battleships?

Speeding up the time until lesson ends.

[Kuildeous]

But you lose the fun ability to mess with your opponents head! Hey, I just hit 6 in a row and didn't sink any boats!

Well, per the rules, you have to announce which ship was hit, so it's pretty obvious when two ships are adjacent to each other, which is why I would advise against that, as you run the risk of giving extra information. Unless you do want to jack with them, but that'll wear off when they sink two ships at nearly the same time.

[sudgy]

But you lose the fun ability to mess with your opponents head! Hey, I just hit 6 in a row and didn't sink any boats!

Well, per the rules, you have to announce which ship was hit, so it's pretty obvious when two ships are adjacent to each other, which is why I would advise against that, as you run the risk of giving extra information. Unless you do want to jack with them, but that'll wear off when they sink two ships at nearly the same time.

That's a rule?  I've never played that.

[Teproc]

But you lose the fun ability to mess with your opponents head! Hey, I just hit 6 in a row and didn't sink any boats!

Well, per the rules, you have to announce which ship was hit, so it's pretty obvious when two ships are adjacent to each other, which is why I would advise against that, as you run the risk of giving extra information. Unless you do want to jack with them, but that'll wear off when they sink two ships at nearly the same time.

It's becoming obvious to me that we are not talking about the same game. Announcing the ship when you're hit ? That's... like... it takes away 75% of the choices in the game, which are already pretty limited, so...

[amalloy]

But you lose the fun ability to mess with your opponents head! Hey, I just hit 6 in a row and didn't sink any boats!

Well, per the rules, you have to announce which ship was hit, so it's pretty obvious when two ships are adjacent to each other, which is why I would advise against that, as you run the risk of giving extra information. Unless you do want to jack with them, but that'll wear off when they sink two ships at nearly the same time.

It's becoming obvious to me that we are not talking about the same game. Announcing the ship when you're hit ? That's... like... it takes away 75% of the choices in the game, which are already pretty limited, so...

Like Monopoly, I think Battleship is a game where people skim the rules once, and then play whatever rules they remember reading for decades. I'd be interested to see an actual rulebook that contains either of the rules "ships may not be adjacent" or "you must announce which ship was hit".

[Teproc]

Oh yeah, I totally buy that the non-adjacent rule is made up, that wouldn't surprise me in the least. Announcing which ship was hit seems insane though.

[Lekkit]

http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/battleship.pdf

[Awaclus]

But you lose the fun ability to mess with your opponents head! Hey, I just hit 6 in a row and didn't sink any boats!

Well, per the rules, you have to announce which ship was hit, so it's pretty obvious when two ships are adjacent to each other, which is why I would advise against that, as you run the risk of giving extra information. Unless you do want to jack with them, but that'll wear off when they sink two ships at nearly the same time.

It's becoming obvious to me that we are not talking about the same game. Announcing the ship when you're hit ? That's... like... it takes away 75% of the choices in the game, which are already pretty limited, so...

Like Monopoly, I think Battleship is a game where people skim the rules once, and then play whatever rules they remember reading for decades. I'd be interested to see an actual rulebook that contains either of the rules "ships may not be adjacent" or "you must announce which ship was hit".

I have never even seen a Battleship rulebook.

EDIT: Now I have!

[amalloy]

http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/battleship.pdf

Hah. The very same rulebook I looked at to confirm that adjacent placement is allowed, but I only skimmed it, and missed the bit about announcing hits. How ironic.

[Teproc]

Well the rules are bad, and they should feel bad.

[DG]

Having looked at the rules I might be remembering a similar game with pen and paper, predating the plastic versions. I can remember there being more ships, including something like an aircraft carrier in a plus shape.

[Grujah]

We only played it on paper ever.

IIRC, we played that adjecent ships were allowed, you do not announce what ship is hit (but you do say when it sinks), and sometime we had variant rule that you can make any shape as long as it takes the appropriate number of squares.

[Awaclus]

and sometime we had variant rule that you can make any shape as long as it takes the appropriate number of squares.

I have always played with this rule.

[Thanar]

Additionally, if you place your battleship in Free Parking, you get $500.

If you've ever played a "money on Free Parking" Monopoly "house rule/variant" (either a flat amount or increasing as people pay fees to the bank) and felt guilty because it is not present in any official Monopoly rules...  Never fear, for C. B. Hewison developed a little known add-on to solve your problem... 78 years ago!

In 1936 Parker Brothers produced Stock Exchange: an official Monopoly add-on which provides stock certificates for 5 different stocks, additional Chance and Community Chest cards, and the Pièce de résistance, a fold-up card stock "Stock Exchange" space which slips over and replaces, yes, you guessed it, that Space on the board designated as "FREE PARKING"!

Scan of original rules & cards: http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/StockExchangegame.pdf
Obligatory BGG link: http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameexpansion/9466/monopoly-stock-exchange-add

[Kuildeous]

Additionally, if you place your battleship in Free Parking, you get $500.

If you've ever played a "money on Free Parking" Monopoly "house rule/variant" (either a flat amount or increasing as people pay fees to the bank) and felt guilty because it is not present in any official Monopoly rules...  Never fear, for C. B. Hewison developed a little known add-on to solve your problem... 78 years ago!

In 1936 Parker Brothers produced Stock Exchange: an official Monopoly add-on which provides stock certificates for 5 different stocks, additional Chance and Community Chest cards, and the Pièce de résistance, a fold-up card stock "Stock Exchange" space which slips over and replaces, yes, you guessed it, that Space on the board designated as "FREE PARKING"!

Scan of original rules & cards: http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/StockExchangegame.pdf
Obligatory BGG link: http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameexpansion/9466/monopoly-stock-exchange-add

I actually own Stock Exchange. I thought it was so cool at the time. After all, considering how ubiquitous Monopoly is, how many people even know this expansion exists?

I played it a couple of times. It didn't blow my mind like I thought it would. I suppose in one regard, it adds money to the player pool, but the players have to spend money first. So it's an effective money sink at first, but not as effective as the properties. In both cases, you spend money to the bank upon purchase, but the properties get that money back by draining other players while the stocks get that money back from the bank.

But it's a little piece of obscure gaming history, so I'm glad I have it.

[Awaclus]

additional Chance and Community Chest cards

New reasons to lose or gain money?

[ConMan]

http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/battleship.pdf

Now that I think about it, the most likely place I learned the rules to Battleship was from Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey, in which they clearly do not announce the name of the ship until it's been sunk. So I guess that wraps up this case.

[Kirian]

http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/battleship.pdf

Now that I think about it, the most likely place I learned the rules to Battleship was from Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey, in which they clearly do not announce the name of the ship until it's been sunk. So I guess that wraps up this case.

Such a wonderfully terrible movie.

[ConMan]

http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/battleship.pdf

Now that I think about it, the most likely place I learned the rules to Battleship was from Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey, in which they clearly do not announce the name of the ship until it's been sunk. So I guess that wraps up this case.

Such a wonderfully terrible movie.

As opposed to Battleship, which was just a terrible movie.

[Davio]

http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/battleship.pdf

Now that I think about it, the most likely place I learned the rules to Battleship was from Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey, in which they clearly do not announce the name of the ship until it's been sunk. So I guess that wraps up this case.

Such a wonderfully terrible movie.

As opposed to Battleship, which was just a terrible movie.

I found Battleship to be a delightfully terrible movie, like the endless stream of Transformers movies. No story at all, just some CGI action I can easily digest. Om nom nom, look at that mirror image in the metal of Optimus Prime, chomp chomp, Michael Bay is such a great director, gnor gnor, too bad they removed Megan Fox, swallow, breathe, oh wait, this was about Battleship.