Of course, this simplicity is deceiving! And the point here is not even the exotic rules of " taking on the aisle " and castling (because of which the cascade and set-attribute commands had to be added to ZRF ). In part, this illusion is supported by the fact that most of us are familiar with Chess from early childhood. Ĭompared to the variety of all kinds of rules that I talked about in a previous article, the concept of ChessIt looks very simple. Why start a new product development? I’ll try to talk about it. In any case, as the very first step, it will be useful to figure out what is bad about what is already available. This work is not simple and I'm not at all sure that I will be able to cope with it (at least alone). ZoG showed a possible course of action, the very possibility of creating such a universal game engine, but if you want something to be done, you will have to do it yourself. Therefore, I am not going to write any letters to the creators of the product - the engine has long been gone. I am fully aware that with a completely stopped product development (by the way, this is one of those moments that I do not like), such criticism, as a means of feedback from the developer, is completely useless. Of course, this criticism is not needed on its own. Today, I want to talk about what I do not like about this project. ZoG is unique in that it allows you to quickly and practically "on your knee" develop a prototype of almost any logical game, but this does not mean that it is perfect.
=)ĭon't feel too bad-I'm currently building a set using Warhammer 40k figurines, re-purposed and painted according to correspondence, with the different Races divided up elementally by their humours.Dreadnaughts for Castles, Terminator Marines for knights.and I'm almost certain it's blasphemy. I am all for "making it work", and using what's available!.That being said, that's got to be the worst I've seen.