Recently a purchase of the first Carcassonne map (Germany), revisiting of wind rose expansion and a rather bizzare conversation with a fellow Carcassonne player about clasification of game components, has spurred an idea in my mind. I know that chess, along with many abstracts and other games that are being played at tournament level, have a notation system to keep track of and document the progress of the game. So I wondered if something similar was possible in Carcassonne. It would have to be relatively simple when compared to other games with notation, but at the same time thorough enough so that each game could be replayed accurately.This proposed notation system is intended for use in 1 vs 1 base game tournament play of Carcassonne:The consolidated tile reference was an immidiate go to, when deciding on how to refer to individual tiles. Only two small additions are needed. Firstly to differentiate between redundant tile references, that being ccff and cfcf. Both come in two variations: Splitters and Joiners. Thhus they can be referenced as ccff-J vs ccff-S and cfcf-J vs cfcf-S respectively. Secondly, the presence of a pennant can be marked by simple + symbol such as cccf vs cccf+.The fact that in consolidated tile reference, one of the four tile sides is alphabeticaly designated as a starting point of further description (a striking resemblence to alicyclic hydrocarbons nomenclature btw ) is also useful, because this side can serve as a descriptor of tile orientation.
Hello Meepledrone,thank you for explaining JCZ tile coding, as I was unfamiliar with it. It is interesting indeed and I believe it is a very good way of recording games that include expansions. However I chose to focus on just the base game for its simplicity and the fact that I have recently been trying to collect game data more efficiently to do some statistics of tournament play. My aim was to provide a more detailed, faster and more intuitive system of game notation, one that would be manageable by a person, in real time, with a spreadsheet. Thanks to inclusion of just the base game, I could afford to be exhaustively descriptive without notation getting convoluted, therefore I have created this system with that mindset.
I still have a few questions about JCZ system:how does it handle tile rotation?does it use some kind of grid as well?what about meeple placement?
{"type":"PLACE_TILE","payload":{"tileId":"BA.Rr","rotation":"R270","position":[-2,0]}} ,{"type":"DEPLOY_MEEPLE","payload":{"pointer":{"position":[-2,0],"location":"NL.NR.EL.SR.WL.WR"},"meepleId":"0.small.2"}}
In my opinion the biggest challange is accurate description of tile configuration without adding way too much complexity - ideally a set of rules that would enable us to describe any theoretical tile configuration (with as little exceptions as possible). Consolidated tile reference only describes the edges of the tiles and their connectivity with other tiles. It doesn't actually tell you anything about inner layou. In "special" notation, this is not a problem since there is only a limited number of configurations.
Hi tp10053,This topic can lead to long dissertations. I experienced it myself trying to split my reply in several posts. That was the idea behind sharing all this information so you could compare your approach with another point of view and borrow any ideas that would help you in your endeavor. If so, it was worth the effort and the long posts. Cheers!
Started by DIN0
Started by Big Guy
Started by kettlefish
Started by What If?
Started by cicerunner