Game Length

[acl]

Is there a chance that you could aim at something less than 3.5/4 hours for a standard game?

One of the main problems with DBM is that game length is a factor in determining the outcome. A significant minority of games are classed as "draws" because they are unfinished.

This causes particular problems in tournaments. A more experienced player might regard victory as "only a matter of time" and (undestandably enough) find the slow play of a beginner irksome. The less experienced player might worry that his slow play is thought to be deliberate - that he is "playing for a draw." This deters people from entering tournaments.

A 3.5/4 hour game is also pretty tricky to fit in to an evening. It doesn't leave much time between work and an evening meal or drink.

I know it is easier said than done, but if you could aim at something like 2.5/3 hours it would allow for more relaxed evenings and more conclusive tournaments.

Remember also that game systems are likely to increase in complexity and length as they develop - as it is easier to add to than subtract from the rules (DBMM would be an exteme example of this). Aiming at something like three hours would allow for a bit of creep without harm. If you start by aiming around the 3.5/4 mark then any addition at all will hurt.

Alan G

[IainMcNeil]

It is something we are working on and agree with, though whether it is possible is another question! It's hard to judge right now because the rules are still being tweaked and peole are still learning, but we wherever possible we are streamlining the gameplay.

[acl]

It is something we are working on and agree with, though whether it is possible is another question! It's hard to judge right now because the rules are still being tweaked and peole are still learning, but we wherever possible we are streamlining the gameplay.

This is very encouraging. Thanks, and good luck with the project.

Alan

[honvedseg]

The Reading Area Wargamers in Reading, PA, USA are currently limited to around a 3 to 3-1/2 hour session by our current venue, and MOST of our games have to be considered as "draws", occasionally with a possible "advantage" to one side or the other. We really don't want to switch to a short 1 hour "tournament" format, and give up any semblance of realism, but another 4+ hour game doesn't do us a bit of good. I know of two other game groups with around a 4 hour maximum time slot, so the problem appears to be widespread. Releasing a decent game which resolves in around 3-4 hours would make a lot of people happy.

[acl]

The Reading Area Wargamers in Reading, PA, USA are currently limited to around a 3 to 3-1/2 hour session by our current venue, and MOST of our games have to be considered as "draws", occasionally with a possible "advantage" to one side or the other. We really don't want to switch to a short 1 hour "tournament" format, and give up any semblance of realism, but another 4+ hour game doesn't do us a bit of good. I know of two other game groups with around a 4 hour maximum time slot, so the problem appears to be widespread. Releasing a decent game which resolves in around 3-4 hours would make a lot of people happy.

Yes, this must be true for a lot of us. Also, if AoW is to encourage electronic game players to give the table top a try, game length will be a significant factor. As I think the ability to cut a game to suit the times you have available is one of the big advantages of computer games.

Producing three-hour rules, tho, is easier said than done. I have written my own set for another period and found that the pressure you get from play tests is almost always to add to the rules rahter than to cut them back. The problem is that, taken individually, suggested additions often would impove either realism or the opportunities for player-involvment, at least for that particular engagement.

A further problem is that testers tend by their very nature to be good players with an exceptional interest in the period. As such they tend both to be quicker than the average player and to put a greater value on historical detail as against smoothness and simplicity of play.

However, the emphasis the AoW design philosophy puts on decisions taken by a CNC, as against low-level commanders is very encouraging. As is Iain's reply above. If AoW can squeeze a broadly-realistic and entertaining game into three hours it could add a lot to its success.

Alan

[bahdahbum]

One of the factors is just the player . Some people make their mind in just a few minutes . Others will need 10 - 15 minutes just to decidde what to do ! and as designer you can do nothing about that !

The lenght of the game will also depend on the armies involved . Agressive armies ( warband or knights you cannot holdindefinitly in DBM ) will have a tendency to attack rather quickly and you may have a quick decision .

If both armies a rather defensive and slow moving , the game may last a very long time indeed !

Jacques

[arnimlueck]

A lot of rulesets have tried a "basic rule" set plus "optional" or "expert" rules iin the past. As aprinciple I think this is a positive approach because it allows to differenciate between a nightlong game at home and a tournament event.
If a principle like this is introduced I would ask you to think about the following line of presenting 'options':

1) do a tournament base set of rules which aims at a decisive three hour game. Add a set of time rules for real tournament play such as time per round limits etc. The emphasize here should be playability, clarity of situation from an umpire point of view, decisesivness of the game.

2) Develop a set of options to set up simulation focused games. A guideline could be made up by a collection of well known encounters that where decided by effects not covered in the basic rule set

• period of the year, climate, weather, temperature (think ice quality at lake Peipus)

• daytime and visibility

• logistics: water supply, warriors being tired, sick or starved, unpaid, supply of arrows etc

• political circumstances. e.g. isolation of an army from its political allies

• physical endurance of the warriors resp. mounts.

• intelligence, one-sided knowledge about the opponent.

• differing army sizes. Now this is a personal wish I have. A 2000 points vs. 2000 points battle never happened in history.

• Target or aim of the opposing generals. Also battles that just had the aim of winning tournament points where very rare if i recall correctly. Rather blocking advance routes, slowing down invaders, occupying strategic places like castles, villages where the driving objectives of the generals (oh and honor, revenge, .....). Thus a guideline to historical replay of known battles might be a nice add-on (maybe outside the real rules). But more importantly a small ruleset to create interesting encounters between differing army 'sizes' (point values) but also differing targets would be a big step forward. That would add much to roleplaying the generals.

This second simulation type of rules can aim much more towards a suggestions type of ruleset than the first part. One of DBMs qualities is (in my eyes) that umpires of tournaments face less discussions/misunderstandings of rules than other rulesets. The step ahead would be a rich set of option to extend the table top experience to simulations that may create 5 hour games.

Regards
Arnim

[rbodleyscott]

You may be pleasantly surprised (if not incredulous) to hear that contrary to the usual truism, AoW is getting progressively simpler as development continues. In a reversal of the usual trend, we have been steadily removing unnecessary complications.

With regard to the time taken for a game, the authors are now finishing most of their games within 3 to 3.5 hours. (800 or 850 points for those in the know).

By "finishing", I mean one side's army is broken. However, we also have "Victory Conditions" for Marginal, Moderate and Decisive Victory for games which do not result in the complete defeat of one army within a set time limit.

These are not yet finalised, but we intend that the problem of "uncompleted games" should largely disappear. With the victory conditions we are currently testing, it is possible for one side to get an early lead sufficient to force the other side to go for broke in the hope of reversing the enemy advantage as he has nothing to more lose.

"Table-sitting" is largely impossible as skirmishers have only very limited ability to delay enemy "heavies".

"Corner-sitting" is unlikely to be an effective "drawing" strategy as it will be easy for the other side to concentrate shooting on part of the enemy line and cause battle groups to break thus gaining sufficient victory points to win.

Using the table edges to secure flanks is a poor strategy in AoW as all battle-groups within 150mm of the table edge are considered to have threatened flanks and hence a negative modifier on cohesion tests.

[daveallen]

Glad to hear the game is getting simpler but worried about banishing table sitting, not sure my knees can take 7+ hours a day standing at a table

With regard to the time taken for a game, the authors are now finishing most of their games within 3 to 3.5 hours. (800 or 850 points for those in the know).

Actually, that isn't at all encouraging!

If the authors [who tell us they experienced experts ] are taking that long then what hope for the average player or even a newbie?

My limited experience of playing you guys is that you a frighteningly fast and would have no difficulty polishing of 15+ bounds in 3.5 hours. Compare this with some of my regular opponents who sometimes have difficulty getting into double figures. On one notorious occasion [to me at least] when I outdeployed one fellow he took over twenty minutes per bound and I don't think we got beyond six bounds!! And that wasn't gamesmanship he's just slower than other players and when he's worried gets even slower.

You might be spending game time on analysis but I'd be much happier hearing that you lot were finishing games in under three hours.

Dave Allen

[rbodleyscott]

You might be spending game time on analysis but I'd be much happier hearing that you lot were finishing games in under three hours.

Well Simon and Terry usually do. I am a bit slower.

However, the point is that it is not necessary to "finish" a game in the sense of completely breaking the opposing army to get a result as we have separate victory conditions for time-limited games. These conditions, and the mechanisms of the rules in general, do not favour "playing for a draw".

The aim is that every game should be interesting and fun, even in tournaments where some players have their own agendas.

[hammy]

I played an 800 point game on Thursday against Alan, my regular playtest partner. Alan didn't arrive till abou 6:45 pm, we had a brief break for food and we were packed up and finished by 11:00pm. The Swiss pike managed to make it to Alan's camp.

Last night I played a game against Simon and we finished the game with my army breaking in just about three hours play. I lost 5 BG's broken and 2 fragmented for 12 AP's out of 12, Simon had lost 6 BG's broken out of 17.

I have now played 6 games and while I am not as fast at AoW as I am at DBM yet I am now generally playing to a finish.

One significant point, in a DBM game as things go on it takes longer as there are more choices. In AoW as your troops become engaged there are actually less things to do unless you have kept a big reserve so turns don't slow down to the same extent as DBM.

Hammy

[arnimlueck]

3 hour games sound very ok to me. I also appreciate very much a mechanism that allows to jusge a game without playing until one army completely breaks. Also considering that many encounters of armies in history did not evolove to decisive battles in the sense of fundamentally routing one army.

I still wonder about the issue between
a) creating a game that simulates many different battles from a long period in time (and culture, technology, society...)
and
b) simulating one specific encounter in the light of all details known about it

I usually viewed this as two very distinct styles of game. The main reason being that circumstances special to this encounter often hindered synchronization of "battle grouops" (well guessing here) in an extraordinary way. Also deployment in an WAB or DBM style does not reflect all encounters known.

If this was catered for in Art of War (at least in edition 2) we would avoid developing too many house-rule style of add-ons.

Arnim