How long are your games going?

[animus]

It seems to me based on my experience and the battle reports I'm reading that games are usually decided within 3 turns of contact with the opposing fleet. Not long games at all. Is it worse in 2e or am I making more of this than I should?

 

[darknight]

yea i thought that as well, but thought they were just condenseed down for reading, when we play they take about 3-4 hours, i noticed the battle reports dont seem to have debris so not as much tactics?

 

[Right Hand of God]

A couple of gas clouds or an asteroid field is vital in a game to provide not just cover, but to mask of areas of the board, allow for tactical movement and to out position your oponent. With no debris you are looking at two fleets lined up opposite each other blasting away as thaey both advance, fly past, turn around, and do it again, by which time the game is over.

3 medium areas of terrain, say 6x4 inches or 8x6 inches should be enough, depending on the size of your table, to provide you with enough dead zones and reduced lines of sight to provide an interesting game with more of a tactical challenge

 

[Itkovian]

Thing is, under 1e the most common scenario is A Call to Arms (funny that! ) which by default has no terrain.

So that may well be why.

I agree terrain makes things a lot more fun

 

[Da Boss]

terrain does seem to make a much more interesting game - although trying a scenario out last night with two planets and two moon near each other proved a bit odd!

 

[Chernobyl]

I'm not a big fan of the "call to arms" scenario because of that. It has a place, but I don't think a tourney should run that scenario exclusively. Terrain makes the battles require maneauver.

Chern

 

[Davesaint]

I'm not a big fan of the "call to arms" scenario because of that. It has a place, but I don't think a tourney should run that scenario exclusively. Terrain makes the battles require maneauver.

Chern

If we run this scenario in future tournaments, there will be terrain on the board.


Dave

 

[Triggy]

I think the best way to go in tournaments is just to place the terrain (2-3 main pieces at least) and if you play Call to Arms as the scenario then you just play with the terrain. Keeps things simple and the terrain makes for a better game as most people have said.

 

[zulu01]

Having played many game systems, I conclude that more terrain = better gaming experience.

Terrain makes you THINK: How do I time my moves so I can concentrate fire power? How can I avoid a bottleneck, but force the opponent into one? How can i set up to crash against one flank of the enemy, while forcing him to spread out his fire against my entire force? Etc.

All this adds up to a much better, more tactically interesting game.

I HATE going to a tourny to find wide open boards. That's just a slug fest.

terran DOES slow down play, but thats an easy tradeoff for me.

I find that B5 takes a lot longer to play than I would guess. The rules are simple, but some mechanics, like interceptors and 1E beams take a long time to execute. And boresighting slows movement down dramatically for some races.

 

[Chernobyl]

I think what actually makes the game take a bit longer is the back and forth - you move, I move, you move, I move, etc. before getting down to shooting...I shoot, you shoot, I shoot, You shoot.
Which I don't mind - it gives the game a better "simultaneous" feel than my turn, your turn.
Another great game that did this in the past: Epic Space Marine!

Chern

 

[Right Hand of God]

Mechanisms like GEG slow things down, and adaptive armour where you cannot group all your identical weapon types and roll all the dice at once. Having to roll indivudually for a few dozen star furies can really add to the time it takes to finish each round of shooting.

 

[Chernobyl]

Ouch, yeah, I can see how GEG could do that...

Chern

 

[Banichi]

Intercepters slow things down as well. A friend and I played 5point raid EA vs Abbai, and the game was noticably longer. I think we might have rolled more dice for intercepters than actual weapons fire :lol:

 

[Court Jester]

We played a 5 point battle that lasted 4 turns before the ISA threw the towel in. However it took almost 4 hours to play as well.

 

[Davesaint]

My question is How much time do you want the game to be played in. I personally like playing a 3-4 hour game that involves lots of maneuver. I am concerned that the current direction of the game is pushing it to a 1-2 hour game timeframe.


Dave

 

[Romu]

What changed so much to shorten the games ?
The games i played always took 3 to 4 hours i think.

 

[Burger]

I don't mind a 3-4 hour game if it is an evening. If it's tournament then 1-1:30 is quite enough before I get bored and tired.

 

[Da Boss]

Sounds about right for me too

 

[Ripple]

We vary.

Some games go for 3 to 4 hours, and are usually the ones we like for an evenings game. Sadly a lot of games go about an hour and then just become forgone conclusions after a couple of good beam strings/crits.

Tourney we have tried one to two hour games I think, depending on the tourney. I like the longer format as some fleets simply need more time to get the best out of them. Drahk used to be like this, and a number of the primarily single damage Drazi/Abbai configurations. Quite a bit less so nowdays as damage output has generally increased and defenses did not keep pace.

As far as the bored part of it...really? That has generally been the one thing that hasn't happened at tourney's for me. I have gotten frustrated, and once suffered from a bit of bad match ups and got a bit silly once I knew I couldn't win...but generally not bored.

Ripple

 

[Admiral Phlop]

We are running a campaign and even our large games might at the most last three hours. On the average they last about 1 to 1.5 hrs.