Slitherine

Hi everybody,

I would like to know your opinion and your experiments in connection with the length of a game.
On several occasions I read that the players found that a game were very long and it was hard to be finished.

In my opinion, and in particular for the tournaments, a game should finish in 3H to the maximum with victory result like it's writing in the rules.

Personally I think that it is related to our lack of experience of the rules. What do you think about it ?

Could you indicate to me:
- How much games you played ?
- How long played for your first game ? And for your last games ?

- Average time to get a moderate victory +
- % of games achieving at least this
- % of games with army break
- average time to army break

Thank you for your answers

We've never finished a game, despite taking up to 4 hours on occasions! We have got a bit quicker over 8-9 games though - try playing with the same sides for several games in a row - changing the terrain gives each game a unique feel. I've expressed the view elsewhere that the rules need to be streamlined a bit. I would suggest that an unfinished FOG game is more fun than an unfinished DBM game, interestingly.

Regards

Adrian Clarke

I won't colour the repsonses with our experiences. Its a good poll as long as the question is clarified a little.

By unfinished do you mean no army breaking? We wouldn't expect hat to happen in 3 hours every time of course. Or are you aiming to get a victory result in the rules - moderate victory + being perhaps being a good target.

So perhaps:

Time to get a moderate vistory +
Time to get an army break
% of games with army breaks

Si

shall wrote:I won't colour the repsonses with our experiences. Its a good poll as long as the question is clarified a little.

By unfinished do you mean no army breaking? We wouldn't expect hat to happen in 3 hours every time of course. Or are you aiming to get a victory result in the rules - moderate victory + being perhaps being a good target.

It's true. I would say a victory result usable in tournament.
I change immediatly my post

Hi Nicofig,

It is a very worthy poll so lets keep it going...

average time to get a moderate vistory +
% of games achieving at least this
% of games with army break
average time to army break

Cheers

Si

Some 15 games.

The first games we got decisive victories within 4 hours, as we tended to just line up and run forward.

The middle games we got clear results most of the time in three and a half hours, although with some draws. However we did not get a decisive victory in time till the last games (with the exception of the previous to last game, the pseudo-draw).

I would say some 33% of the times get to decisive victory, and another 50% get a moderate victory.

Three hours to get a winning side, but usually still formally a draw, half an hour more may be enough to see a decisive victory or just a moderate one.

Jose

15 or so games.
One decisive win - army broke - about 4 hours.
One other result - also 3.5 hours.
All other games have not reached a conclusion, although all were fun and exciting.

We are not blasting through games, with discussions about rules etc. I feel that once we know the rules properly and have a more complete understanding of unit/terrain/unit interactions we would get a result 50% of the time in 3.5 hours.

Not sure if this is often enough!

We are not blasting through games, with discussions about rules etc. I feel that once we know the rules properly and have a more complete understanding of unit/terrain/unit interactions we would get a result 50% of the time in 3.5 hours.

tht perhaps is auseful debate point - 50% f games getting army tour once everyone is up to speed was our target in fact. 35% moderate vistory+. 10% beaten to death draws with some minor winner ro no (both sdes in trouble), 5% max "inactiviity draws.

An authors experiences............

~50 games (3/12/hour limit)

30 army routs roughly - ranging from 1hr 25 mins to 3 hours roughly
15 mederate + victories
2 draws where both armies collaped
3 minor victories

Si

I think I have worked out where some of the apparent indecisiveness of our games arises from (see elsewhere). We have been so keen to spend a bit of time discussing the games after play ends that we have not formally scored them using the victory conditions at the end of the rules (sorry...) It's clear enough that victory criteria are adjusted pretty sensitively, whereas Our DBM-ish perception of most of an army being in rout as the criteria for a major defeat is redundant under FOG.

Going back over the games for which I can find proper records, the score is as follows:

6 games (3-4 hours play)

1 army rout – (3.5 hours roughly, though we didn't realise we'd reached a rout point at the time due to rule fatigue!)
2 major victories
2 moderate victories
1 marginal victory

We've definitely got quicker as we've played more games.

This is much more in line with everyone else’s experience. Is it worth putting the victory conditions near the beginning of the rules, perhaps? That way, players know what they’re aiming for...

Adrian Clarke

I have played 4 games all with a major victory result. All 4 games were finished in between 3 and 4 hours. I feel that I can achieve a result in less time than I was able to in DBM.

All these games were between the same opponents who have a similar lack of knowledge of the rules.

rgrds
Martin