Exilian
Off-topic and Chatter: The Jolly Boar Inn => Mafias and RPGs => Forum Games - The Beer Cellar! => General Chatter - The Boozer => Finished/Dead Mafias and RPGs => Topic started by: Phoenixguard09 on January 15, 2012, 01:03:08 PM
-
Heya guys,
Well, as a lot of us know, Dimos' Hill RPG has been running for a while now. It has had its fair share of highs and lows and I commend Dimos on his efforts. I'll just begin by saying now, well done Dimos! Round of applause people! :D
EDIT*
Now this has been inspired by Dimos' game. IT IS NOT A CONTINUATION AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS SUCH.
As far as features go, they will be forthcoming but I think how this should work is a simple vote to see what ideas are liked. Simply post your idea in the thread and a poll will be put up to determine the public opinion on the idea.
For starters, let's kick it off with the big one. Who wants armies?
I will put together a trial rules set for everyone to pick over and suggest changes to soon. Then this project can really begin.
Cheers,
-
I would love to take the games master role next time.
I hate competing with you guys.
-
Yay! Thanks Nightangel XD
-
Thank you NightAngel. I may be an egotistical prick but I did predict that you would have a hankering for it. ;)
The idea of this thread is that suggestions can be made here so that the next game can be run like a democracy with a fair and equal say as to the rules and such for everyone.
-
I think I might be more tempted to play a game-mastered version of this, potentially...
-
saves a lot of time and accusations
-
So will there be extended stuff. Like my ideas of a horse and fishing in the dark waters is 3 coins and farming on land with a house owned by you is +1 coins each turn. Sorry, that last one was Dimos idea. Castles need to be fixed as well. Chainmail and a Castle both have +4 resistance. ??? I think a castle should be three times better that Chainmail.
-
Even having it 3 times better is ridiculous. Its a big stone wall, whereas chain-mail is a piece (lots of pieces :P) of metal. I reckon a castle should be measured about as strong as a small cliff :P
-
Which is why I'm suggesting a completely different system. It's IMHO a bit silly having a bunch of kings running around whacking each other. On the other hand, we should have armies. So I'm suggesting get rid of the axe-sword-chainmail system and go instead with a basic scissors-paper-rock combat system.
Say we have archers-infantry-cavalry. We can get more complicated. My original write-up had blackpowder, artillery, differences between light cavalry and knights etc. but for now let's keep it simple.
An "army" can be made up of one troop type, infantry, archers or cavalry. This army is trained in any territory where you own a castle. (One thing I'd suggest is a considerably larger map coincidentally.) Following the scissors-paper-rock logic, archers beat infantry, infantry (think pikes) beat cavalry and cavalry beat archers. (Let's just forget Crecy, Agincourt etc. :D ) If two armies of the same type come up against each other, both would retreat to a free adjacent square. If unable to do so, the army is destroyed. You'd be allowed more than one army, but that's ok because we'd have a GM who can keep track of it all. Armies would be expensive to prevent it from getting overboard.
In addition to this, all troop movements would be submitted to the GM through PM. One can post troop movements on the thread, and keep them public. This would be the honourable thing to do. However, you could feed false information too. This would mean that other kingdoms can initiate spying and such. Anyway, these two suggestions I feel would bring back the feel of the old King of the Hill.
I have more but I'm in a hurry at the moment.
Cheers,
-
A goal other than last man standing would be nice you could quest to find the Holy Grail, that would be cool.
-
:D Sounds so awesome. Don't make it too complicated though.
I don't really like the scissor, paper, rock thing. One solder/archer should cost 0.5 coins and a knight 1 coin. It would make more sense. You could have mixed armies and armies of different sizes. You could have it so they all do different damage (Archers would have times 2 damage to Infantry but divided by 2 for Cavalry.) that way you would need more than 100 Archers to defeat an army of 50 Cavalry.
More buildings would be cool too, with each building having an ability. (Stable for Cavalry, Archery Range for Archers and a barracks for Soldiers. It would keep people from building an army right at the start.)
-
Yeah Khan's idea there with the armies is pretty similar to my original thoughts regarding them. You can have magic users, handgunners and the like that way as well. On the other hand I think it should work more like 10 Coins for a "unit" of archers, 14 for a "unit" of knights, etc. armies should be really expensive, meaning that unless you want to bankrupt yourself, armies should be disbanded fairly quickly. I also reckon there should be upkeep costs.
More buildings would be good as would more quests as NA said. Dimos' plan to create a knightly order could be followed through with knights being sent out to procure the Holy Grail. In addition, I PM'd and idea to Dimos about having an invading force come in, a la Mongols in MTW. Not necessarily Mongols but in the same style. (Come from the East, let's rape everything.)
-
I like how this is sounding :)
-
So do I. I think you would have to extend the map a bit. Maybe if you just left it where it is but made more Rectangles. I would be happy if the island had 12 Rectangles instead of 3.
-
Yes, extending the map is a must. In addition, I think we should look at multiple resources. It could get complicated but hear me out.
Gold
Food
Building Resources
Gold can be used to buy stuff, be it technology or other resources. It can be gathered from mountain regions. (ie. mining)
Food is used to feed your armies. Armies consume for instance 1 unit of food per unit of men. Higher quality men might consume more food. It can be gathered through farming in a castle region (you'd need to build the farms) or fishing in a coastal region (you'd need to build a harbour/dock/whatever, I don't know I hate fish)
Building Resources are used to build things, ie addons to your castle, new farms etc. They can be gathered in mountain regions (quarrying) or forest regions (lumber)
All of these resources could be traded with the other players. It would be a little complicated, so this idea could probably use some streamlining.
Cheers,
-
Awesome!! Sounds like the makings of a good game.
-
I'd either have resources or statlined units. Both would get to the sort of complexity where we might as well all just play some multiplayer game or other...
Also, if things get too complex that will mean that we spend tons of time on the mechanics of it and don't spend so much time on the alliances, backstabbing and other such fun which is the main bonus of playing this game on a forum.
-
I think we should just leave it as it is. Wood and Stone for building and Gold for buying units.
Will it be possible to recruit workers to collect the materials for you?
-
@ Jubal: I see what you are saying but I do think that if both were kept relatively simple then we could afford to have both. Naturally the alliances and backstabbing will be a massive part of the game.
@ Khan: Naturally. This game won't be kings running around collecting crap. It'll be us ruling our lands from the safety of our castle as true kings should.
-
If you build more than one of that building would you get benefits? eg. 2+ Unit Probuction etc.
Build time. Rome wasn't build in a day. :D
-
Hello, people. Just seen this... well I also have some ideas about the next game, but I'm afraid many basic things will be unchanged in the classic version of it...
EDIT: From what I read so far, I will have to argue against the armies instead of weapons, the scissors, papper, rock thingie, but I'm totaly in favor of a moderator run game, based on already created rules. Anyone can see that the first game was nothing less than a trial of the game's potentials, and since you guys are aprticipating in this thread, it looks like the game I've inspired from the King of the HILL game is a kick-ass masterpiece... -modesty- :)
EDIT2: In my version of the future, each building type might be build only once, but it might be given to other players and the region will be able to multi-economical roles. But there will be a limit to how many players can be on a region. Khan's ideas on Ships and Horses has also a good potential IMO. Turns on the other hand should remain dynamic and not become ridiculous ''challenge me''-things... :)
Btw I was also thinking of a gathering system in which you get resources, no money and you craft items or you sell them. You also craft coins. :)
-
Good idea... except for when you ruined our ideas of making an army. :( But I do mean it, good ideas.
Oh and your making it sound like the other one with what I don't like. A space limit will make me happy. eg Maximum of 40 of any building in any rectangle other than a Castle/Palace (You may only place one or the other).
-
Well, I think there won't be one HILL next time. There will be two. I will never acceot armies. It's basic. Armies in my version are viewed as ''companies of players'' . The nature of the game ''forces'' the players to join toghether and establish factions and armies. The current system allows both Kings and Generals to become great warriors. It also allows mercenaries. It's more realistic and free that having some minions running around the land.
Now as for the space limit... I only proposed a player-limit. Each type might be build once [maybe houses can be allowed more than once], but all buildings will be able to be sold, rent or donated, thus each rectangle will be a real society, a city that will be able to hold many players and allow them defence or attack at risky momments! Hope your game will be better than mine. I am sure it will, since most players look upon Phoenixe's ideas, not mine, as better and more attractive. I won't take part in that game, for it won't be recognised by me as a true HILL rpg, only a version of it; which I don't like. As I've said, I will make my own, after this HILL will be over...
Cheers, mates! :)
-
More than one house but not anything else would be fine. More building type would be fine. Upgrades for buildings instead of more than one.
I want armies. The ability to send people to colonize a place for you, send some troops for a border skirmish, build tons of farms (Another type of building), etc.
You still can be a Merc with troops. Upgrades for troops, buy weapons for troops, a potable building (Largish tent?) for hiring Merc recruits (weak ones). You need to think on a broader scope. Look at all of the possibilities.
-
No armies; but yes, more building types... ;)
I am planning that if the next game has around 12 players, then it will be OK to play withought armies. The basic unit in this game is the Player and its will to form Kingdoms / Republics or whatever else. If many players join one Kingdom they can create rear guards, skirmishers and main army. Imagine a Kingdom with 5 people. 2 will be skirmishers and 3 will be the main army. That will be awesome, many wars will be fought and many lands will be conquered. On the other hand, a player buys soldiers and he stays safe in his base somewhere in the middle of nowhere.
By the way, even now, in the current game players can also take religious possitions. We already have a dead religion with no alive followers, that of ''Corranos, the Hunter'' the God of Hunting. My goal is to have few but importand cities in the map with citizens and generaly forming a seperate society. Ownership will be fixed, and owners will be able to live in the place they own even a single house or the docks...
-
...interesting. I still want armies though.
-
Yeah, armies would be great. I want armies in the next game.
-
I really think your outvoted Dimos.
-
Armies for the win!
-
I am outvoted, but I'm never disgraced...
I will not take part in a ''Hill'' game that will have armies. Armies are formed from players, not puppets. Armies are things of major importance. They can gain loot or suffer terrifying loses... The ''armies'' you propose won't cause any harm to any player so the game will go on and on forever, and the players won't feel the taste of loosing their belongings...
My version is far more realistic, for there's nothing better than having people as they are, social by nature. If you have armies, the benefits of social organization won't matter to no-one; worse, social forms will be useless, for none will fear for his life neither somebody will believe he can't gain advantages himself. Society is build upon public good, not personal need for leadership. I think the armies feature can destroy this ''Society Building RPG'' , thus I will not participate in PG's version of the game.
I will do my version, possibly, but I need players and a moderator. Rules will be fixed from the beggining, this time we know some disantantages of the HILL game, and they will be changed. But the nature of the game [based on Units called players and not army leaders] will remain the same.
-
I'll happily Mod both.
-
Thanks good fellow. I think you're the best man for this job. I will also send in e-mail a document which has inside the map, some figures and the [-hopefully- improoved] rules of the game, to all of the people that took part in the first HILL RPG.
I hope the traditional version is a nice and fun-playing game... :)
-
Really?
"the best man for the job"
I'm honoured, but I must ask, what do I have that others do not, perhaps I'm just the agreeable sort.
-
My version is far more realistic, for there's nothing better than having people as they are, social by nature.
Sorry, just wanted to quote this because I disagree most strongly. If we're all kings then in no way should we be wondering around the wilderness. That's not realistic at all. I'd also like to point out that this is not my version of the game, it is a community project so that the players can have a voice. In the interest of fun for the players (which is of course the reason the game exists) surely the players themselves have some ideas regarding what they would like?
-
My version is far more realistic, for there's nothing better than having people as they are, social by nature.
Sorry, just wanted to quote this because I disagree most strongly. If we're all kings then in no way should we be wondering around the wilderness. That's not realistic at all. I'd also like to point out that this is not my version of the game, it is a community project so that the players can have a voice. In the interest of fun for the players (which is of course the reason the game exists) surely the players themselves have some ideas regarding what they would like?
Well, it's not realistic for a King to go on campaign? That's riduclus... That's after the middle ages, when kings were staying home... Or do you propose that King William the Conqueror or Alexander the Great were not Kings? They were both Kings and Generals, that's realism. I'm remind you that most Kings during the middle ages were energetic and had full controll of their armies... Unlike some Louis the 17th or so who lost his Kingdom to the French Revolution... He was staying at home...
Players are encouraged to propose ideas, and I openly ask for ideas. New buildings, items, possiby mining rectangles, and whatever else are welcome. Even a crafting system based on ''recipes'' about how an item will be self-made. Even self made coins... Will be nice, unless it will make the game very complex. That will require resources, trading and moving trough the map and generally some sort of social organazation...
I think NightAngel is the best for the Job, for he can hold such a responsibility and he seams more impartial than me or PG09. I think he , If he follows the set rules can become the best moderator for such a game... :) I am also working on a new map, or possibly we'll improove the already existing one. A real-world map would also be nice... If we'll have around 12 players next time, I think the game will be just awesome... :D
EDIT: IMO, the HILL RPG is the best game out there!! ;)
-
Of course the examples you cite are kings. But tell me, good Dimos, did they have armies?
-
Indeed they had. But armies were men, and men are not the puppets you propose, but my basic unit [aka the ''player'']. Armies were players and thus for example Alexander's men refused to march to India, because they had personalities, just like Dripping D and Death Nade did against my royal rule in the HILL. And William I's Brother Odo, bishop of Bayeux, rebeled against him sometime. The armies, as I propose them are made of social beings able to go rebel, or follow orders due to reason. The armies as you propose them are slaves, servants and nothing else than the will of man to stay unharmed... They are really unrealistic.
This I say to you good Phoenixguard because I know you'll recognise my proposals superiority and reason. I think your ideas are generaly speaking correct, but I will have to go against the armies as you propose them... I think we can have many of your innovations, but for the shake of unity I think you must deny this unrealistic and unreasonable idea about armies.
Thank you.
-
Well with the advent of a Games Master, desertions and mutinies and the like can be handled easily, even allowing the bribery of your opponent's armies. An army made up of two people is really not all that impressive. Would you not agree that the mass, sweeping charge of cavalry as you order them to thunder into your opposing king's flank allowing you to turn the tide of battle is a far more impressive image than two thugs with axes beating up a supposed "king" in the wilderness.
The armies add a grand scope to proceedings.
(On a note regarding inter-player relationships: It is also much less confrontational to have your armies duke it out than physically beating your opponent down. Having armies would reduce the hostility which has been rife in the current game and has, I believe, disillusioned several players already.)
-
Also Dimos, if you are a good enough ruler, your army will come to love and respect you :P I fully suport the idea of armies, having the King or Queen leave their castle totally unprotected is not right. I believe that armies is a better and more realistic option.
Think of it this way, trying something new can be fun :) There is no harm in trying.
-
Then you can try withought me. I stand to what I said before. I will not play this version, neither will I acknoledge it as a continuation of my game... It will simply remain a different scenario.
I agree that armies of more than 2 people / thugs are better, but I only accept armies made of players. And it's more realistic to have people who claim to be Kings and have no vassals, than claiming to be kings and have armies which are our super-ego, our need for survival... I'm sure no true social bonds will be formed in your version... only petty alliances based on self-preservation and interest / personal gain.
Imagine; I am thinking that if around 12 players join the next game, we can have a fairly good game. Imagine [again...] 3 Kingdoms... One with 2 people two with 5... It will be an epic skirmish... Imagine them clashing toghether... Two balanced states [5] and [5] and a smaller faction [2] that can turn the tides of war... That will be awesome.
I will make my version, you will make yours. If most players join yours, I will simply won't bother to even watch it. That will be a parody. I am sorry if that sounds strange or insulting, but I am bound to defend the best and not the most popular game.
-
Ok everyone, calm down before we actually get angry with each other.
Dimos doesn’t like the game you propose, that's fine.
You want your own one to see how it works, that's fine to.
In my opinion both games work in a realistic fashion, Dimos games (I like to imagine) plays out between local warlords or chieftains. The other game sounds more like between empires where monarchs can't be everywhere.
Dimos has a good role-playing game, the kind I would like to put quests into. While the other seems more like a grand strategy, where the GM could introduce diplomatic incidents or neutral realms.
That's just my take, personally I think you should try to make the games as different as possible and run them at different times.
I guess what I'm trying to say is stop fighting, do your own thing and try to make people happy.
-
As Nightangel has rightly said: no mudslinging. Please remain civil, ladies and gentlemen.
-
I would like to GM both games, in said games I would like the power to introduce things that the players are not expecting such as goals or threats.
But I think you're all right in saying we should drop this until the current one is over.
-
Alright then, just getting a little bit of attention for thread so as to let people know that work has resumed I guess. I tried to delete the majority of the sledging in here but then I got really bored and just a little embarassed so I stopped.
-
I really want more buildings, economical buildings are preferred
-
More buildings are a must.
Mines, fishing villages etc. Would Khan or anyone else like to suggest other new ones please?
-
Some industrial buildings for the towns would be cool. Like a Mason or and Architect. In which you can research stuff to unlock more buildings. More types of boats too. Galleons, Transport Ships and fishing boats are a must.
-
Hmm, I do wonder whether this is worth picking up again...