Slay 2: an idea for a new game

Conquer the island
User avatar
gruff
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:44 am
Location: New York State
Contact:

Slay 2: an idea for a new game

Post by gruff » Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:50 am

From time to time people suggest adding ships or other new features to Slay. I don't agree with these suggestions - I think Slay is fine as it is. BUT...wouldn't it be cool to have a game sort of like Slay, hex-based, with battling kingdoms, but have it be slightly more "realistic", i.e. have trade, farming, maybe religion...combat would be less important and borders would change much more slowly than in Slay, in fact you could win (say) a "trade" victory while other countries were still on the map. Maybe there would be a little exploration. More terrain - mountains for ore, etc. Some monsters or little subquests. Artifacts perhaps.

Basically you would have a little pocket kingdom that you could rule and control various aspects of. I would pay for such a game. What do people think of this idea?

User avatar
Fusion_power
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 2:34 pm
Contact:

Post by Fusion_power » Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:05 pm

Lets say we call it Sim Kingdom or something like that?

It would be significantly more complex than Slay is. There would be many more factors to interact and deal with.

Fusion

User avatar
BoxZone_Author
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 7:46 pm
Location: UK (back from USA)
Contact:

Post by BoxZone_Author » Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:43 pm

Sounds very much like Sid Meyer's Civilisation.

User avatar
gruff
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:44 am
Location: New York State
Contact:

Post by gruff » Mon Jan 17, 2005 10:34 pm

Yes, like Civ, but it would be considerably smaller. The map would be the same size as the Slay map, the various systems - economic, political etc. - would be very simple. It would be like Chess to Slay's Checkers.

SirOops
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:33 pm

Post by SirOops » Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:58 pm

I support this wholeheartedly. Anything that feeds my addiction is welcome :)
It would have to be graphical, no tables with exchange rates for goods and such, that always makes me yawn.

herman
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:33 pm

Post by herman » Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:02 pm

I would also very much like this idea.

A game of CIV is very, very interesting but typically takes me multiple days to complete (about 10 hours of gameplay)

Just pick the best from Civ and downsize it into a game playable in 1-2 hours.
Not 20 types of terrain but 4, maybe just 1, Not 20 types of trade resources but 4, maybe on, Not 100 types of units but 4...

This might still result in a well balanced, multi approach game. But some considerable testing and balancing would need to be done.
--
Herman Engbers

User avatar
Styro
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:15 pm
Location: UT, USA

Post by Styro » Tue Jan 25, 2005 7:24 pm

It sounds like what you want to play is Settlers of Catan, or something similar. But with combat. :)
If I may say so, life is a game, and there's so much to do and so few turns.
- Reiner Knizia

User avatar
gruff
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:44 am
Location: New York State
Contact:

Post by gruff » Thu Feb 10, 2005 7:15 am

Yes, like Catan.

Tris
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 9:18 am

Post by Tris » Fri Feb 11, 2005 2:38 pm

It would have to be quite different from Slay. At the moment Slay is a game about imbalance - at the start a 4 hex kingdom with one guy is quite good. Then a few turns later you must get spearmen almost as soon as (hopefully before) the opponents do. Then towers come in, and slow the game down slightly, but then knights arrive and if you aren't big enough to support one, you lose.

It's a red queen race. If you wanted a more civlike game you'd need to find a way to slow it down, give more advantage to the defense (towers add one level to any man stationed in them?) and turn it into more of a strategic competition, rather than a tactical race.

Jindocai
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 8:03 pm

Post by Jindocai » Sun Feb 13, 2005 9:18 pm

I bet it's a common feeling players have with Slay, we love what it does but we wished it did more. The focus of Slay is world domination, plain and simple, kill everyone and take over.

The question we'd should ponder, is that is it possible to add features to Slay or Slay II without losing what made Slay special or duplicating what already has been done in a game.

Some games to compare to Slay,
Lord of the Realms [series]
This great (IMHO) series has many similarities to Slay. Both are hex based, turn based, and both set in medieval area. Both have levels of soldiers, both have defensible castles. Also both share the same goal, dominate the map. Of course LotR has allot more complexity: non-combat population, resources, and of coures real time combat.

Civilization [series]
Civ has all of LotR and more. Research, culture, cities, exploration and so on. Of course if you try and make Slay more like Civ you probably would just get a cheap nock-off. Civ is a great game but not a short one like slay.

The Settlers [series]
Cool series that did things differently. real time strategy with a focus on infrastructure, ie creating different buildings roads, and monitoring you individual population.

Castles II, Siege @ Conquest
Old school game by Interplay, similar to slay in that it is a super simplification of features. RTS game in '92 unlike to C&C of the time. Built custom castles, super easy resource management, diplomacy, unified territories, simple units. Only problem is that the game is hard even on the lower settings and 80% of the game is just surviving since it is VERY offense (you can only defend with 1/2 your troups) making it next to impossible to stop an invasion.

Age of Empires [series]
Great games (but unfortunately published by M$). Of course real time research but similar focus to Slay in that you just try and kill your enemies (though not only game type). Games can range from short to LONG, and heck I love researching the highest techs so you can play with the best units but this takes a while.

Rise of Nations
Think AoE but from stone to post-information age. Adds feature of 'territory' with single capital like Slay. Again games can be long, but it's sure fun to attack a pre-gun powder civilization with tanks and helicopters.

Ok after playing these games, I've tried to come up with some features that they could share with Slay.

Non-Combat population
Slay Doesn't have this and I can't see why it would need this. Unless you consider level-1 units non-combat in which case this is a non issue.

Town/Capital
Slay has a town/capital, and I think that there is room to expand this feature. How about the ability to move the town of course for $$$, also what about fortifying it like a castle? Also when merging two territories why not replace the smaller town with some simple fortification so you don't lose defense (ie still a level-1 unit that might even have an upkeep).

Exploration
Slay doesn't have this and it probably wouldn't need it any way since you start scattered and make long term decisions based on a world view.

Resources and Gathering
Slay has only one resource money, and it has auto gathering, 1 per territory. I think this simplicity is important, so no new resources, however there could be new ways to generate money. Special squares that are worth more than 1 could make things more interesting. Also these specials could be only last a specific amount of time, and are only discovered upon capturing the territory.

Units
Slay has 4 units (6 if you could structures) and each is increasing in power and cost. Each is easily upgradable. Since there is no concept of speed, attack-type and unified offsense/defense this limits the possibilities of new units. There is room for an additional defensive structure that can only be destroyed by the top unit. Which would probably only extend the end game. Additional possible units could include a suicide unit, which dies after it attacks. Mobile defense unit, can't take territory but can move.

Research
Slay has no research, and based on games that have research it tends to extend the length of the game. This may not be beneficial to Slay and probably shouldn't be added.

Trade
Well since slay only has one resource, this basically means giving money to other teritories. One of the strategies in Slay is carefully managing the available resources for each territory and assuming you can either buy now or save for later buy allowing for transfers this could lead to small territories with a castle (ie high defense/no offense) that would fund a single offensive territory.
An additional resource are units allowing trade of units could be allowed through water, which would offset the disadvantage that costal territories have. However costal territories also have higher defense and thus probably don't need this feature. Allowing ships that move through water also create the issue of owner ship. Which territory pays for the ship and the occupants.

So my ideas:
More Terrain types, ie 0 values, > 1 values, maybe -1 values too
Terrains with functions when populated, ie gold mine adds +5 money when unit stationed there
Add additional level 1 & 3 structures (town is level 1, castle is level 2), ability to fortify the town and move it.
Add ability to kill own units, with big consequence (but better than losing all units), limitations maybe only 1 per territory per turn and lose all money in territory (call it disbanding).
Light trees on fire, expands each turn, burns adjacent wooden structures, dead tree terrain still worth 0.
Plant tree in enemy territory (cost maybe 15 or 30 for palm tree) carefull it doesn't back fire.
More customization, be able to do free customizations to territories. Like give them names, personalize units etc (completely optional).
Maintain unified view, ie see whole map at one time but add much more detail. Still allow custom tile sets. How about some music, context based on how well you did last turn, ie triumph or mourning (think Total Annihilation if you played it you know).

I hope my post (which is too long) might spark some suggestions ideas, since I still would like to see more work done on Slay or a sequal.

User avatar
Leon
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 3:28 pm
Location: Switzerland

Post by Leon » Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:25 am

Jindocai :

Your post is imaginative and very impressive. I fully support the suggesions made.

Thanks,

leon


ps: I do hope we shall be gratified with a reply from the conceptors.
Intelligence is a tool to fight the forces of evil.

Alex
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:46 pm

Post by Alex » Sat Feb 26, 2005 1:43 pm

Actually, there's room for another troop unit that you didn't mention:

the equivalent of the Assasin from Stratego, i.e., something that could kill everything else. It would need a serious disadvantage; this could be

i) anything can kill him
ii) he dies automatically after a turn
iii) he's expensive to make &/or maintain.

So, for example, he could be made from 5 peasents, and die after a turn. But it would give a way to get past Barons.

DanaeKC
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 10:44 pm

Post by DanaeKC » Sun Mar 27, 2005 11:04 pm

Alex wrote:Actually, there's room for another troop unit that you didn't mention:

the equivalent of the Assasin from Stratego, i.e., something that could kill everything else. It would need a serious disadvantage; this could be

i) anything can kill him
ii) he dies automatically after a turn
iii) he's expensive to make &/or maintain.

So, for example, he could be made from 5 peasents, and die after a turn. But it would give a way to get past Barons.


I think that's an excellent idea. Right now when barons appear it's basically over.

Adding an 'assassin' as you described, with the disadvantages you described would kick butt by add an interesting twist to in-game economy, and restore a bit of the classic 'rock-paper-scissors' dilemma to the whole thing. Nothing should be invincible; a circular hierarchy option ... i'd love to see that, how that could work.

User avatar
BoxZone_Author
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 7:46 pm
Location: UK (back from USA)
Contact:

Post by BoxZone_Author » Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:59 pm

Barons are far from invincible, they are so painfully expensive I like to see my opponents create them.
I rarely use a Baron, preferring to swamp my opponent with knights protected by peasants (so the Baron can only take a peasant).

JBC
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 1:34 am
Contact:

Post by JBC » Tue Mar 29, 2005 7:56 pm

>> Barons are far from invincible, they are so painfully expensive I like to see my opponents create them.
I rarely use a Baron, preferring to swamp my opponent with knights protected by peasants (so the Baron can only take a peasant).

Agreed.
Ancient & Old Boardgames
http://www.boardgames.150m.com

Post Reply