>What's your personal favorite game?
World in flames, a strategic level WW2 game. Monstrously long and complicated, but damn good. Lots of strategic depth and great balance.
>What's your main group's overall favorite game?
The same.
>Have you ever dabbled with designing a game? If so, how far did you get through the process?
Well, I've done more game editing than I have actual game design from scratch. A while back, for a high school history project, I made a game on the battle of Concord, which was good enough that a few of the guys would play it even when I wasn't dragooning them for an assignment. But I don't have it anymore, didn't think to make a copy board or pieces, and as far as I know, my old HS still has it, unless they've thrown it out.
I am currently, and very idly, no set schedule or timetable, working on a game where you have a !NotByzantine empire in the middle, surrounded by 6 Barbarian players. The Empire wins if at the end of the game they control 80% or more of their starting provinces. The Barbs win if they have a certain amount of gold at the end in their strongholds.
The thing of it is, the Barbs get 1 big lump if they sack a province, but can't generate much gold beyond that. The Empire, on the other hand, can. If the barbarians all gang up on and attack the Empire, they'll crush it, but none of them will get enough gold to ultimately win themselves. What is supposed to happen is a diplomacy+military game where the Empire shifts alliances and pays out gold to the barbarians to get them to fight each other, or at least leave him alone.
In practice, I keep running into a problem that the Imperial player simply picks 2-3 barbarians and puts them firmly in their pocket, and wiping out or withstanding the others, who promptly win. I've been experimenting with mechanics to make it harder to do that, mostly involving having to transport the gold, but it's not going great.