[i]posted by Meikop[/i] These 8 games would then be played for at least 72 minutes, or 1 hour 12 minutes. It seems too long to me. I propose to eliminate one move (from ace to ace) and a free game. That way we would get the minimum game length to just under an hour. Maybe it's more reasonable.
that's why it's not in the list of games :) and the difference between 54 and 72 minutes isn't that big. Maybe we could do a mini-bismarck variant with 4 games in addition to the standard 8-player game? 36 minutes is already pretty good, in my opinion. In the mini-standard game, there would be 1x taking, 1x giving, 1x with trump, 1x without trump (which way you should decide), 1x from 6 to ace and 1x free move. maybe also standard short variants: 1) only give-take (4 games) 2) only stacks (3 games) one option is to let the table creator choose 4 games themselves.Bismarck Vindis
279 хэрэглэгч унших
[i]posted by Meikop[/i] What to do if you leave the game? One option is to end the game immediately. Another alternative is that the game remains unfinished - a player is expected to take the place of the player who left. The new player gets the points at the end of the game. Whether the game ends or a new player is expected can be decided by the creator of the game board. In both cases, the player who left should be punished a little (with minus points).
Maybe do something reasonable waiting time (nx 2-3 min) so that in case of an internet connection interruption, the table can be returned. And if it doesn't, then the existing score is added to the coefficient (in addition to an additional penalty minus for the one who left); then the creator of the board decides whether to take a new player into the unfinished game (everyone's score starts from zero, the game itself from where it was left off) or start a new one from scratch. If the creator himself is the one who leaves, then the "creator" of the board must play again using some mechanism, either by using the current score or by drawing lots or something like that.
So how do we make Bismarck shorter? I would do: 1x take 1x give 3x take with trump 3x give with trump - or leave it out altogether (would take 9 min.) 1x 6 - A lay 3x free lay Total 12 games - 36 min. If we leave out the give with trump, we would get another 9 min. shorter, or 27 min.
It is unfair to play games one by one, the right of first move - choosing cards for the first trick gives too big an advantage, especially in taking-giving. The suggestion would be to play 4 different games: 1) full-length Bismarck with 8 rounds (could you also get double points there?) 2) only giving-taking with 4 rounds 3) only stacks with 3 rounds 4) mini-Bismarck which would consist of, for example, 4 rounds: a) giving without trump b) taking with trump c) forced stack from 6 to ace d) free stack - deciding on 12 cards.
Based on the first feedback: It seems that the trump obligation is necessary at least in dealing - I remember being played with the trump obligation myself once. It should be changed. Free stacking - should you choose from all cards or three cards? The game is currently 35 minutes long, which is normal - I wouldn't want to make it any longer (by adding stacks).
Make both mandatory...also taking and urgent...already a fight in the house...
[i]posted by Rika[/i] Make both mandatory...also taking and urgently...already a fight in the house...
It is the trump obligation that needs to be introduced. And free stacking still from everyone's cards, although it is also played in such a way that it is said from three cards which card starts.
So what's the problem with this trump obligation, or rather the lack thereof?
Starting today, the obligation to take should be in place. In addition, I reduced the penalty for leaving the game to -10.