On the contrast of that rule between western and eastern chess It's either... - The west believe in complete loyalty to their lord, or they don't bother to take prisoner or - The east treat their prisoner better, or they don't believe in loyalty since troops just switch side as they're captured
PS: if KanColle got adapted by Hollywood, there would likely be a "queen" type that when killed, the whole enemy empire collapse on its own either by incapacity to reproduce or lost of centralized control.
On the contrast of that rule between western and eastern chess It's either... - The west believe in complete loyalty to their lord, or they don't bother to take prisoner or - The east treat their prisoner better, or they don't believe in loyalty since troops just switch side as they're captured
Or possibly, they are just mere peasants being force to fight a war in the East. It's often seen that a group of soldier would order the people in a village help fighting in many records about Chinese history, Vietnamese is kind of the same, so goes for pretty every other culture with maybe, an exception of Mongolia. They were more the type to conquer than the one getting conquered. It's probably because the king's figure is like that of a god to Eastern cultures so everyone doing what they have to to serve him is normal.
In contrary, I think that the West takes tactic/training for soldier more seriously since they can't quite fight with human-sea tactic like what the East does that loyalty is so required.
All goes to the root of natural/living condition I guess.
It's just like our livesJeweled GeneralKing GeneralTake any pieces that's not the king or jeweled... and the game never ends.
