The Hill Strategic Forum Game: Development Thread

[Cuddly Khan]

Awesome!! Sounds like the makings of a good game.

[Jubal]

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.

[Cuddly Khan]

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?

[Phoenixguard09]

@ 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.

[Cuddly Khan]

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.

[Dimos]

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. 

[Cuddly Khan]

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).

[Dimos]

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! 

[Cuddly Khan]

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.

[Dimos]

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...

[Cuddly Khan]

...interesting. I still want armies though.

[Ladyhawk]

Yeah, armies would be great. I want armies in the next game.

[Cuddly Khan]

I really think your outvoted Dimos.

[Captain Carthage]

Armies for the win!

[Dimos]

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.