Once we had our concept and slogan nailed down, it was time to dive into the nitty-gritty of Battle Fog Chess: the mechanics. We knew from the start that if BFC was going to stand out as more than just another chess variant, the gameplay needed to be both strategically deep and fair. But how do you balance innovation with the need to maintain a level playing field? That was the challenge we faced.

Determining the Cost of Each Piece

The first hurdle was figuring out how much each piece should cost. We knew players would start with 40 gold coins, but how they spent those coins needed to feel meaningful. If the cost didn’t accurately reflect a piece’s value on the board, the whole system would fall apart.

We started by looking at traditional chess strategies. Queens are undeniably powerful, so they were set at 10 gold—representing a significant investment. Rooks, with their ability to control files and ranks, came in at 5 gold. Bishops and Knights, each with their own strengths, were priced at 3 gold, ensuring they were valuable without being overpowered. Pawns, the backbone of any strategy, were set at 1 gold each, giving players the option to fill out their ranks or save for more powerful pieces.

But it wasn’t just about matching power with price. We also had to consider how these costs would affect overall strategy. Would players opt for a heavily skewed lineup, like four Queens, or spread their investment across a more balanced army? The cost of each piece needed to encourage diverse strategies, rather than funneling everyone into the same “optimal” setup.

Setting the Rules: Filling the Back Row and the Fixed King
Once we had the costs down, the next step was establishing the rules for piece placement. We wanted to give players freedom, but within a structure that maintained the integrity of the game.

The first rule we set was that pieces must be placed on the back row first. This mimicked the traditional chess setup and ensured that games didn’t descend into chaos right from the start. It also meant players had to think carefully about the placement of their key pieces, knowing they had to commit them to the back row before advancing.

We also decided that the King’s position would be fixed during the preparation phase. This was crucial. The King is the heart of any chess game, and its safety is paramount. By fixing the King’s position, we preserved the classic objective of the game—checkmating the opponent’s King—while allowing players to experiment with different setups around it.

Balancing Freedom and Fair Play
Finally, we had to make sure that no single strategy would dominate. This was perhaps the trickiest part. Give too much freedom, and the game could become unbalanced. Too little, and it wouldn’t feel different enough from traditional chess.

The key was testing—and then testing some more. We played countless games, experimenting with different setups, adjusting piece costs, and tweaking rules to ensure that each game felt fresh, but still fair. The goal was to allow creative strategies to shine, while ensuring that no one approach was unbeatable.

Through this process, we found that BFC’s mechanics allowed for a wide range of strategies. Some players favored a powerful offensive lineup, while others invested in a balanced force. And the beauty of it was that either approach could work—depending on how well it was executed.

In the end, balancing strategy and fair play wasn’t just about the rules or the costs; it was about creating a system that encouraged creativity without sacrificing the core principles of chess. And I believe we’ve done just that.

In the next blog post, I’ll share some of the surprising strategies that emerged during our early playtesting sessions. Trust me, some of them caught even us off guard!