How long are your games?

[Tony_S]

As the heading says...how long do your games take? We've played perhaps three games, and they seem to take about 4 hours for 600 points. This includes setup and takedown as well as actually puyshing lead and rolling dice. Our club can only play from 8:30 to 12:00.

Are we inordinately slow? Once we get a bit more familiar with the rules, do you think we can finish a game within those times?

[BrettPT]

We usually allow for 4 hour games as a standard in tournaments, or 3.5 if preset terrain (800 points )

Most friendly games seem to take 2-5 hours depending on how aggressive a player is.
So if you only have 3.5 hours all up, play aggressive. ..

[MDH]

I think one of the issues with any set of rules is you tend to go at the speed of the slowest or least experienced player. Currently I am playing a lot of FoG(N) games at around 1200 points over 6 hours but we still often fail to complete the game - although by then the direction is usually pretty clear and the absence of much in the way of attrition points doesn't really matter.

This is largely because my regular opponent is very cautious and careful and likes to think a lot about his moves in the manoeuvre phase. He also has to carry his army here and so unpacking it and laying it out in divisions while we chat and have a coffee soaks up a bit of time. Mine are already laid out waiting to be deployed so it's easy for me .And like cricket we stop for lunch!

Maybe having one's army organised in the carrying boxes by divisions in advance would speed set up for an evening game in a club?

I use my inactive player time to think well ahead about my next moves ( in any rules where "I go you go" is the style) which I often get through in about a quarter of the time of my regular FOG(N opponent . We have talked about using a chess clock to push us both along: lol: Maybe tournaments should think about that at least for the manoeuvre phases if there is an issue? Most sports have time limits eg between points and games in tennis.

In FOG(N) If one or both of you has an unreformed army that will tend to slow things down a bit especially if the initiative is with an unreformed army. Practice can also speed you up. Do some solo stuff experimenting with how you manoeuvre Divisions without getting them into bottlenecks and tangles - drill yourself - and so your army in grand tactics so that - to quote a character in " The Charge of the Light Brigade " - " Then you know what to manoeuvre!" . In real battles of the period armies can and did get tangled up sometimes by commanders who were inexperienced.

I think the point about aggression is well made .Being fast and aggressive also puts the other player on the back foot.

But then I am, by inclination aggressive in a two player game - more cautious by far in multiplayer games (or when I am facing one T Shaw ).

I also love manoeuvre especially in FOG games . If I can't do it I get frustrated or bored and make silly errors. I would also rather have some fun even while losing than get bored with a long and tedious draw.

I suggest in any set of rules it may be slow if players sit back and wait for stuff to happen or are over cautious . I recall many club evenings in the past when players seemed to spend much of the time laying out their armies making a few moves and then packing them up again!

[Saxonian]

Most sports have time limits

Excellent point! Do you think you could call my wife and convince her that playing with toy soldiers is a sport, and hence constitutes exercise?

On a more serious note......we found that once we became more familiar with the rules and our armies, battles did indeed begin to move more quickly. The use of a timer might seem a bit draconian, but it would certainly get players in the habit of thinking in their opponents turn. I remember in the past (when playing with another set of rules) we used an egg timer to limit the manoeuvre phase per division, and after a short time we actually found we didn't need it any more.
We find that most battles approach completion after about 8 turns, in about 3.5 hours, with two experienced players.

[MDH]

Most sports have time limits

Excellent point! Do you think you could call my wife and convince her that playing with toy soldiers is a sport, and hence constitutes exercise?

On a more serious note......we found that once we became more familiar with the rules and our armies, battles did indeed begin to move more quickly. The use of a timer might seem a bit draconian, but it would certainly get players in the habit of thinking in their opponents turn. I remember in the past (when playing with another set of rules) we used an egg timer to limit the manoeuvre phase per division, and after a short time we actually found we didn't need it any more.
We find that most battles approach completion after about 8 turns, in about 3.5 hours, with two experienced players.

After 6-7 hours on my feet gaming in the cabin I feel as tired as I would after along walk .( Maybe TEWTs are the wargamer's response to the need for exercise).In the old days the only exercise was lifting of the wrist for few pints in the pub afterwards.

Yes I can see how once you get into the groove with moves a timer would not help much anymore. I really only saw it as a " chess " type of thing for tournaments . But if they are not having issues of slow play ( whatever the rules) it has no application . Of course in tennis there are the spectators to think about. As a spectator sport wargaming is far too geological .

My mate and I were just laughing at our own expense. It could work for a fun game like 8 players with one tank each, the first one KO'd gets the first pint in plus one for the next player plus one for the winner ( a real Xmas game we did in Bath once in the 1970's)

When you say 8 moves do you mean 8 each as active player? That would be 16 manoeuvre phases so petty good going, whereas 4 each would be on the slow side even by our standards.

[Saxonian]

When you say 8 moves do you mean 8 each as active player? That would be 16 manoeuvre phases so petty good going, whereas 4 each would be on the slow side even by our standards

Yep, 8 turns each. We find that the first 3 - 4 go pretty quickly, all dependant on how successful the attacker is at getting the second moves in.
Things slow down from that point as units get into pokin' range. A couple of turns for things to start going wrong for someone, then they seem to keep going wrong!!
Having large numbers of veteran troops who can recover well can make a game go a bit longer. Once conscripts start to slide they seem to keep sliding.

[terrys]

Most competition games we play are 800pts and are allowed 3 1/2 hours. We usually get a result (one army broken) in about 75% of them.
'Friendly' games at the club are often over within 2 1/2 hours. That's because we take risks that we wouldn't take in a competition game.
You don't learn about your army's capabilities without taking risks.
As armies increase in size above 800pts the game gets a little slower, but time taken then becomes more dependent on terrain and the mix of armies. Certainly you get quicker results if both sides have a high proportion of cavalry.

[hazelbark]

We generally get a conclusion in 3.5 hours with 900 points.

[deadtorius]

I would say 4-5 hours for 1000 point armies, 28mm on a 5X8 table.

[Tyler]

At the Australian Champs in January I allowed 4 hour rounds. Probably 80% of games ended before the time limit, and even the games that hit the time limit ended up having a pretty decisive winner, once we worked out the scores using the scoring system from the downloads.

The more experienced half of the players, including everyone who placed on the podium, all finished their games before time. Usually in about 3.5 hours.

Oh, and the event was 800 points.