Of course, but what kind of fighting? Turn based wars or real time? Complex technology trees or simple ones?

No technology tree, no turns. The game consists of two people hitting each other in the face with rocks over and over until one loses consciousness. The "strategy" part is in figuring out which rocks to use.

Try this at home.

Hmmm, well THAT was awkward.

Real time and complex trees like command and conquer

1. It would be a board game. I like human interaction best in person. I only come here because it takes a herculean effort to get a board game of diplomacy together.

2. Turn based. Gives you time to talk and eat pizza.

3. No tech tree, but should have several unit to choose from. Why? because...

4. There should be Multiple paths to victory. the thing I hate with most games is that after a while you discover there's one best strategy to employ in order to win. I want three or four equally good paths to winning. not four different victory conditions like in Civ 4 or Illuminati the card game but four different strategies.

5. Something that takes about an hour to play. I like hard games but other poeple have limited brains.

6. Not a conquest game. Again, I like them, but women don't and I have female friends and would like them to play.

Competing tribes of Kardashians.

Wait a few more things.

7. A game that rewards strategic thinking and minimizes luck.

8. A game where a large number of stupid people can't just hang up on the smartest person.

Magician, i can truly appreciate your desire for a board game you can play with women, but it's a little hard for a programmer to make a board game well.

@hanged man - now THAT would probably sell quote well!

Yes, Kardashians are very quotable.

I'll put Obama in it.

Wait, now the game's ruined.

Stupid people....sigh

The rules should be simple. I hate any game where you have to constantly consult the rulebook or decide on ambiguity in game design. Have a simple goal with many straightforward ways of achieving that goal. Above all else, keep it easy to learn, but difficult to master.

Oh, and make CDs illegal :)

On a more realistic note, I have actually created a semi-board game I like to call "European Crisis".

I used some flags (national flags for ARMIES, naval jacks for NAVIES, and air force icons for AIR FORCE) and placed them on a map of Europe (from the mid-Atlantic to mid-Russia) that was published by National Geographic in 1975, so there's East/West Germany and the USSR.

Either way, it involved something like 60 or so countries (not all European; I also added in African and Middle Eastern countries. Only the tip of Africa can be seen from the far-out European map, so I have to flip to a different page to get a map of Africa and continue from there.

Anyways, there were 60 countries but I could only get 6 players max so I we left some countries out (mostly African) and each player got 7 countries with special rules:
a) they were not allowed to ally
b) they were not allowed to support each other unless in real life they are allies

It was very complex and fun. There was diplomacy, pacts, battles, wars, campaigns, a United Nations-like organization called "NOW", which stood for "Nations Of (the) World".

The rules were basic: it was turn-based and each player was allowed one order per flag (unit). The unit could either battle another unit that was less than or 1" away or it could move 1". Like Diplomacy, support moving/holding was essential. Another army about 1" away can support the other army, dislodging the enemy army. If an enemy army is dislodged 7 times, then it is "destroyed", which it is removed.

It is fun yet complex. Sorry for poor explaining, this game is nearly impossible to explain.

If a programmer can't make a board game, what good are they? Kill them all, I say and get me someone who can make a board game.

Well let new rephrase that, i hadn't planned on making a board game when i started this thread. And i definitely would beat a disadvantage since i only have experience with the electronic world.

There's a couple of games I'd love to play:

1. Turn by turn WWII type game with at least seven players (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK, US, USSR, China would make a nice 8th) daily turns, ideally, control of units down to at least division sized, that affords me strategic control, and no fixed diplomacy, but perhaps subject to certain preexistent conditions (e.g., US can't enter into the war until attacked). It would be fascinating to game out some scenarios, especially for Japan (like invading Siberia or not attacking US possessions in the Pacific until after the rest of the colonial powers get knocked out of Asia); ludicrously complex, but fascinating.

2. A game that really, really accurately represents guerilla warfare.

A ''city'' building exercise, but in this case the city is a virtual representation of your you country.
It starts out preindustrial times, and you need to 'build' your region
Simultaneous turn based
Different tech choices according to goverment / economic plan
Population growth steady, and at some point the population will no longer be able to be sustained.
The player whose 'city-state' collapses the last & with least damage wins.

Interesting thoughts though wouldn't it be better to go back to the creations of the war? What if the Japanese had supported an Indian revolt against England?

@kaner - interesting concept. How about we take it further and the players represent political factions in this city state? They quarrel for control between what is right for now and right for long term.

I'd like to see something very geographically focused. Neighborhoods, rather than nation-states, fighting. Like Santa Monica vs. Long Beach (Los Angeles); Hell's Kitchen vs. Greenwich Village (NYC); Knightsbridge v. Chelsea (London); etc. Reenactments of WW2 or other real major historical battles/geopolitical settings are tired.

@LM - The important factor would be the end-game collapse. The collapse could be triggered a number of ways. Anyway it's a pet concept of mine for a board-game (something like Alhambra, or Porto Rico), but you could easily transfer it into a computer program. Set each playing into the same city - bring in ideas of trade, different polities and policies influencing the type of collapse that the city brings upon itself - and how devastating it happened to be.

*sigh* So be it.

How about something different? I've seen/played a million conquest and civilization building games. How about a game of ideas? You control a prophet or philosopher and you travel the world trying to get people to adhere to your beliefs and then you suffer/benefit form the consequences of it. The more followers you get, the more power you get, but the more diluted your philosophy becomes.

That kinda makes me think of Populous.

Well if we're going to computer games, I hate tech trees. You choose skills at the beginning and they don't change. The game gets harder, but you succeed based upon skill and cleverness, not leveling up.

For board games, perhaps a slight mix of Catan and Diplomacy, where you have armies that can travel, and move twice as fast along roads, and you can fortify you cities or sack a city. If you sack a city, the other player can't get any resource cards from it. Its a rough idea, but I'm sure you can build upon it.