Lead Adventure Forum
Other Stuff => General Wargames and Hobby Discussion => Topic started by: ChrisBBB on February 15, 2022, 07:36:19 AM
-
After some really good recent discussion of the respective merits of long vs short games - especially on this very forum, in this thread here:
https://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=135130.0
- I fell to thinking about how much it matters if a game is left unfinished. My thoughts on the topic are here:
https://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/2022/02/at-that-point-we-called-it-who-cares-if.html
-
In my experience, games are usually played through to their conclusion, even if we royaly exceed the scheduled timeframe. For instance: a battle we thought would take till 2300h, is only concluded around 0030h. But we just couldn't leave it unconcluded, because the gameplay was just too intense and enjoyable.
Of course there were games that we have called at the end of the planned time, just because one of us (or both) were tired, we just didn't 'feel' the game, or the end result could be seen coming miles away. Usually, we then briefly discuss what-ifs, and because most of the time it will be quite obvious which way the pendulum would be swinging anyway, this results in a still (somewhat) satisfactory conclusion.
Now, I am in the lucky position to leave a game on the table during the week, so we can pick it up the next week, because I have a dedicated game room with table nowadays. The only thing I have to take care of in the meantime is keeping the cat off the table! lol
So yes; even though we're not tournament or pick-up gamers at all, we do prefer to play a game to its conclusion, because usually this means that the game is hard fought and too enjoyable to cut short. And games that are 'ok' (or just not ok!) can be cut short with a bit of hypothesising and analysing at the end. I don't know; it just wouldn't feel satisfactory not to...
-
I find we often end up playing games beyond the finish. By this, I mean that with, for example, Hordes of the Things, we often continue the game beyond the stipulated victory conditions so that we end up with the mopping up of the defeated army and last stands by those that continue to function.
In some cases, we've had games that have ended with the defeated side 'winning' - usually situations where the technical loser has a core of strong troop types left in a good position. For some reason, those games are always particularly enjoyable.
-
Interesting; I have never played a game beyond its planned ending. An industry standard is 6 rounds (mostly based on GW games), with sometimes mutation mechanics in play that can shorten or lengthen a game with a turn. But even then, we never played beyond turn 7 (or 8, in the case of particularly interesting rolling results).
However, what we do often do, is analysing and hypothesising what would have happened beyond the game's conclusion. Sometimes even with speculative dice rolls. All of this is part of the post battle discussion we usually have.
We're usually out of time anyway, but it might be interesting to see what could have happened by continueing play. I recall plenty of battles that were won in the nick of time by one side, but had the game continued, they would have decidedly lost...
-
I will never play games with tournament style fixed turn limits, preferring either a narrative scenario victory or a time based end using a "moving clock" mechanic.
If not ended that way games are played until we can call a result based on table positions. We won't just stop a game that could still go either way unless we lose players to family or work commitments and that generally only happens if we try and go too big with the forces involved.
-
It all depends on the scenario we play. I rarely play "pitched battle" style games anymore. So a game lasts until one side has achieved the Victory conditions (or it seems unavoidable he will) that was the purpose for the battle in the first place. It is therefore usually pointless to play on beyond that.
So it takes however long it takes, unless the scenario stipulated a turn-based time limit.
But I did play Hold-until-relieved-for-as-long-as-possible games where the outnumbered defender actually managed to beat off the attacker. One game of Trenton comes to mind where the Prussians managed to decisively defeat the attacking Americans despite their enormous numerical advantage and were actually expected to escape instead of making their stand lol.
-
Only to the extent that it impacts your fun levels.
After all, the point is to have fun first, and everything else is secondary.
-
I tend to play until a result is clear, which could be long after a rulebook specified number of turns.
I also usually play a game twice with the same opponent - each of us playing one game with each army.
Then if you have two wins it is clearly superior skills, rather than an overpowered scenario.
-
I don't play any games currently which have strict turn limits - other than an occasional Battlegroup scenario. So we tend to play until it's no longer fun, or until the result is rather obvious.
Now, do I support people just quitting randomly in the middle of a game? No, but ending a game on a handshake because it's just drawing out, is fine.
-
Nope :D
-
Interesting; I have never played a game beyond its planned ending. An industry standard is 6 rounds (mostly based on GW games), with sometimes mutation mechanics in play that can shorten or lengthen a game with a turn. But even then, we never played beyond turn 7 (or 8, in the case of particularly interesting rolling results).
I can't understand why you would play a game to a fixed turn limit. Real battles didn't last for a set period of time. The only way in which a game should end after a certain number of turns if if the turns represent a relatively long period of time, say an hour, and the game ends at nightfall, but this would only really apply to very high level games representing very large battles.
-
I find it quite unsatisfactory to have to leave a game unfinished due to time constraints. The way to avoid this is make sure you play a game that you are pretty sure you will be able to play to a conclusion in the time you have. If you only have three hours on a club night - play a game that's going to take around two and a half hours. It's better to finish early and have a chat about it after than to not finish and have to pack away with no clear winner. If you want to play a longer game sometimes, wait until you have more time, or play somewhere you can leave it set up and carry on next time.
Also, games should have clear victory conditions, and if this is not written into the game rules then you should be able to add such rules yourself, maybe specific to the scenario you are playing. For example, in a WW2 platoon level game, it could be - take the village and hold it for two full turns with no enemy in any of the buildings.
-
This has proved to be one of my most popular "Reflections on Wargaming" to date, generating scores of comments. I am grateful to all of you who took the trouble to respond, whether at thoughtful length (like Steve J in his comment at foot of the blog post itself) or with pithy brevity (OSHIROmodels, "Nope!", on LAF). It seems only right that I should in turn summarise all these responses. I have added this summary to the original blog post here:
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/2022/02/at-that-point-we-called-it-who-cares-if.html
-
I can't understand why you would play a game to a fixed turn limit. Real battles didn't last for a set period of time. The only way in which a game should end after a certain number of turns if if the turns represent a relatively long period of time, say an hour, and the game ends at nightfall, but this would only really apply to very high level games representing very large battles.
Or the end of the game represents the arrival of reinforcements for one side, or some other event which means the battle is over. Turn limits do allow the game to complete in a reasonable time; some players will sit happily bombarding for hours and never move anything if there is no time limit.
-
Turn limits do allow the game to complete in a reasonable time; some players will sit happily bombarding for hours and never move anything if there is no time limit.
So true. I played in a big ACW battle once with three or four players a side and my right wing neighbour had orders to occupy the flank and hold it and litterally did NOTHING ELSE for the entire game, even though no one even fired a cannon shot at him and I had to repulse attack after attack...
-
So many real world operations are 'on the clock', it's only to be expected that tabletop wargames reflect that.
Think of things like:
- Capture the bridge before the transport column arrives
- Defeat the enemy before nightfall (because they rule the night)
- Gather the intel and exfil before the carpet bombing begins
- Hold out until the relief column arrives
And I could go on.
In my mind, all set game lengths can be explained away in a similar fashion, should justification for the set game length be required.
Set game lengths are also in place because a typical game round lasts a certain time, so one can roughly determine how long a game will last. Which is useful when planning a game within a set timeframe, such as a typical week/school night. Most gamers do not have the luxury of all the time in the world, so compromises need to be made.
Which is why I absolutely have no issue with game turn limits. In fact, it's basically the only way I tend to game, if only to manage my (and my opponent's) time...
-
Great discussion about time and fixed game lengths! Clausewitz says something to the effect of it is always in the weaker side's interest to play for time, in the hope that the larger situation will change to its advantage. In a wargame, one side should usually be under time pressure of some kind, for the types of real-world reason Daeothar lists above. And in game terms, it's an important ingredient in the formula I like for my historical refights. Anyway, I can see I really need to devote a post just to this topic.
Thanks for all the comments!
Chris
-
I must be in a minority because it doesn't bother me at all not finishing a game. lol
Admittedly it doesn't happen very often that we don't finish a game.
Two occasions spring to mind one of a game never being played and one that would not end.
The first I think I've mentioned before As both of Us had just spent a week building a display. We thought a game would be a nice way to start the weekend. We set up the table both of us spent sometime looking at how pretty it looked. Then looked at each other and in perfect sync said"Pub?"
The unending game was a ten player game of Epic when we worked for GW( it was a compulsory game only way out .was to be wiped out.)It was a Friday afternoon So we played in suicidal mode. Tony was out in under an hour. I was planning Imperial Guards. I managed to destroy my entire force at a similar speed.With .... the exception of four stands of Rough Riders These little sod's would not die. They just kept sitting on that bloody hill and rolling six after six after six( I must have rolled just about every six I'm allowed in my entire life.because ever since they've become rarer than hen's teeth.) The worst part was this became a focal point for everyone playing .So I couldn't even claim to be wiped out.
The command stand lasted until 8pm passing modifier after modifier !and it was 9pm before we got out as everyone wanted to recount how they'd held out. Two hours after a couple of selfrespecting single Hull Lad's in their twenties would normally be in a pub on a Friday night.
Following Monday I sold the treacherous little buggers and have never played Epic again.
We tend to have set games in turns of hours rather than a set number of turns.
-
If you had asked me this 5 years ago, I would have said 'Absolutely'. Reason being, back then all my games were played on our dining room table and it needed to be freed up for mealtimes.
Nowadays, with a dedicated hobby space, if a game doesn't finish in time, we just document where we got to and leave it on the table.
-
Again it's all fun so how you enjoy your hobby - but I think there has to be some reasonable limit to game time. Whether it's real life or in the game depends ion the type of gaming experience desired. Days are not infinite in length and people do not have an unlimited level of energy - plus circumstances change. That is for both in the game and real world. :)
Many games/scenario's have this built in - such as with turn limits or the countdown clock. Some games can even have real world time limits - Bloodbowl being a great example with 4 minute per players turn limit, but most tournaments do this as well in one way or another. Other games have things like stargraves (or zombicide) have escalating opposing powers turning up to end/make the game progressively harder as it goes longer.
Unlimited game turns/time, just like unlimited command and control significantly effect the game played. So changing this gives different style of gaming experience - and likely gaming tactics. Some may like it but without it there is likely a missing level of jeopardy in many games.