Why is the game still on a two week turnaround?

[Bobbins]

Serious question.... why are we still playing on two week turnarounds?

I've been to FtF weekends and I've finished a PWR game recently and frankly, 2 week turnarounds are too slow after experiencing the quick turnaround format.

I understand the game was originally set at two weeks because this game was developed to be played by post? Now however, I imagine most (not all) players play by email. I also think that the reason most (not all) people play in more than 1 different game at the same time is because the turnaround isn't quick enough. If it was quicker turnaround, more people would play less games but this would be compensated by more regular turns.

Therefore, why isn't there more 1 week turnaround games?

I genuinely think the slow pace is hindering the game picking up new players.

2 turns a week in PWR was a bit hectic, 1 turn a week seems more natural in the email age.

Most 2 week games I've been in there is a flurry of activity after the results are sent, a lull for 7 -10 days and then another flurry towards the deadline.

I'd like to see more 1 week turnaround games please Clint. Unfortunately, it seems that they have been promoted in the past and there hasn't been a good takeup. My theory is that if every game ended tomorrow, then there would be more interest in starting 1 week turnaround games. Unfortunately, if Joe Average is playing in two or more 2 week turnaround games, then starting another 1 week turnaround might be a bit daunting.

Kev

[Diehard]

I agree with you, Kev.

A 1 week turnaround seems like the "right" speed for a game of ME.

- Keith

[Ed Mills]

A significant number of ME players are "ditherers". No matter what the time-line they are assailed by indeciision and what-ifs right up to the last second.

While I don't want to mention any names, Kev, I recall guys who in the last few days before a turn was due suddenly coming up with new ideas and trying to completely unravel coordination agreements arrived at more than a week before.

Super speed just might run off some of these chaps. But I admit it would be more realistic. A military commander might have only a few seconds to make decisions.

[Bobbins]

>>
"I recall guys who in the last few days before a turn was due suddenly coming up with new ideas and trying to completely unravel coordination agreements arrived at more than a week before."
<<

Yes Ed, but with a 1 week turnaround that's less likely to happen. There's no way "agreements could have been arrived at more than a week before" - a few days before yes, but not a week. :D

[johnstrac]

Good to know that some players can afford to basically double the amount of money they pay to play !

[Overworked1977]

Ed,

All references to reality aside, I agree that some (myself included??) come up with different strategies just before the turn runs. I don't think that changing the format will change their participation, though. I agree with Kev that there is usually a pretty big lull in the 2wk game. The "Last Minute Men" would not lose any ability to participate, there just wouldn't be a period of about a week where nothing is accomplished.

After playing in both Pwr games (had to turn over HA to Kev T8 or so) the Pwr format (in my opinion) is a bust. The law of averages would suggest that there would often (if not always) be a player that forces the game to go for the full runtime available. But the one week turnaround and the two turns/week are fantastic, in my not so humble opinion. I'd like to see more of them! (Can you tell that I'm bummed that I missed the GB??? *grin*)

Wade

[happymadcat]

Totally agree with Kev. 2 week games can be frustrating to play not only
in the communication side of teamwork but in the length of time a game
takes to play from start to finish.

I've been in too many teams who by turn 15 just want to finish the game
as interest has been lost by many in the team.. 1 week turnarounds would
allieviate 'is this game still going on' disease by some degree.

Yes, please more 1 week games..

Guy

[Overworked1977]

Good to know that some players can afford to basically double the amount of money they pay to play !

I'm not sure that I understand what it is that you are suggesting. The cost of the faster turn around games is about the same as the 2wk games. Sure the money would go twice as fast, but the number of turns provided would be the same. People should (obviously) only take on as many games as they can afford...:o

[Bobbins]

Good to know that some players can afford to basically double the amount of money they pay to play !

I don't get that either....
I currently play two, two week turnaround games. 4 turns a month.
I would play one, one week turnaround game. 4 turns a month.

[thuiatt]

I agree with Kevin,

I would prefer to play a one week turnaround game and only play in one game. Most games last no more than 20 turns and you could basically get two games a year in, as opposed to taking the full year to complete two games, give or take the number of turns playing.

I am willing to play the one week game, but unfortunately tapped out on games probably for at least another year.

tim

[VEO]

Agreed with speed and costing and "is this game still going on disease". People who communicate poorly will continue to do so regardless of how much time they have to say "Yes" or "No"... I have to reacquaint myself to every game before the turn - "Okay, what nation was I in this one? What turn are we on? 2? Oh right right..." I personally think the often used "play quality" suffers with the longer turnaround.

Volume. With the automation faster games can reduce prices and still increase revenue. If I could play 3 1 week games instead of 4 2 week games for about the same cost, I see everyone winning.

Brad

[VEO]

I am willing to play the one week game, but unfortunately tapped out on games probably for at least another year.

There's one problem there. Every time people start threads like this, 20 people say "I'd love it!" and then Clint wants 20 people to sign up, but because there ARE NO 1 week games, we're all already at our spending limit with the 2 week games. So Clint says 'You SAY you're interested, but you don't put your money where your mouth is'. Viscious circle. Start the conversion. Instead of "automatically" offering another 2wk game, only offer 1 week games until "demand" insists on a 2wk offering.

Brad

[Overworked1977]

Viscious circle. Start the conversion. Instead of "automatically" offering another 2wk game, only offer 1 week games until "demand" insists on a 2wk offering.

Brad

This is not a bad idea. If this were to be matched with the PWR format, then we might make a game of it. Say (for instance) that EVERY 1wk format game has the option of being PWR, then the pressure is off of the individual player, and the potential still exists for a faster turn around. This is the only way that I can forsee PWR being a viable format.

But, then again, this is my not so humble opinion....:D

[happymadcat]

So Clint should start a 1 wk 1650 game and wait for it to fill up as any other
normal game. I for 1 would put my name down for it, just for the joy of
playing with and against such enthauastic and skilled ME players.

Guy

[johnstrac]

It's reasonably simply really.
£4.50 every 14 days = £117.32 per annum.
£4.50 every 7 days = 234.64 per annum.
I'm no genius mind, I could be wrong.
Seriously I think the thing to do is offer the option and see how many want to take it up.

[darrell]

No, you're right on the simple calculations. I think the point that is being made is that people like a faster turnaround, in general, so they get into more than one game. The thinking in this thread is that people would rather play in a single game with a one week turnaround than a pair of games with a two week turnaround. That's why they are saying that the cost would be the same.

[Overworked1977]

Thx Darrell. That's what I was trying to say...*shrug*

To please Guy on another thread, "I jes ain't the cuttin'est nyfe in the cupboard..." *grin*

[happymadcat]

To please Guy on another thread, "I jes ain't the cuttin'est nyfe in the cupboard..." *grin*

:confused: But after a few beers that aint hard :)

[VEO]

But after a few beers that aint hard

Ha. Now THIS can be taken in so many different directions....

[happymadcat]

Ha. Now THIS can be taken in so many different directions....

From you, anything is possible Brad.. :p

[Caradoc]

Frankly, the two week turn around is almost too fast for me. Besides communicating with the rest of the team – which is, yes, either first minute or last minute, and might be compressed into a shorter time – I have the rest of my life.

In a short week, I will work twelve hour days, then put in about ten volunteer hours for my fire department. Then there are other demands. Personal life, social life, secret life. In a good week, I can spare a couple hours for gaming.

I have not essayed any one week games because I know I cannot spare the time.

I know a few other gamers who also have busy lives, and for whom the two week turn around is almost too short.

Now, in 222 days, it will be feasible for me to retire. I probably will not, but if I were to, I might be able to handle a one week turn around. Or, maybe, not. So many wineries, so little time.

But, until then, whenever it comes, I do not have the time to handle a one week turn around.

Steve Allen

[herman]

I for one have the basics of my orders done within 1/2 hour of looking at my results, it's just the need to get feedback and consensus on what needs to be done from stopping me putting orders in the next day. I for one would much prefer the 1 week turnaround format. Waiting that extra week is such a drag. JMO

Regards Herman

[happymadcat]

So true Herman.... :)

[John Simpson]

Like Caradoc I couldn't play in a one week game unless it was a Gunboat game (ie no communication) I just don't have the time. By all means Clint could start a 1 week list but at present I couldn't play this game if that was all that was on offer.

Cheers
John S

[darrell]

I think that CLint will offer whatever people want, so as long as there is a demand for two week games, there will be two week games, I don't see those going anywhere.

This was brought up earlier, and I think it bears repeating: People who want faster turnaround times are typically going to get into more games so that they can have more turns. When Clint asks for interest in a one week game, all of these people are interested, of course, but they cannot join up immediately because they are in so many two week games. I think this is the group of people that are being talked about in this thread.

I think the overall idea of this thread is that there may be a good chunk of the player base that would prefer to get the same number of turns per month, but be in half the games, if that makes sense. I, for example, have been in as many as 4 two-week games at once. I would have much preferred to have been in 2 one-week games. Now, my limit is 2 non-gunboat games at a time, which I would cut back to 1 at a time if it was a one week game. Same cost, same number of turns coming in, but half as many games to think about. I think that's fairly compelling.

[Clint]

You guys have said it for me already.

1wk game though - in the past we had upto 2 of these running but usually we aim for one. With the Power game 2 turns per week it was requested that I put on hold another fast game and it appeared that lots of you were fatigued so I thought I'd give it a small break to see what came up here.

I'm happy to offer a roughly 15% discount (so I'm offering turns 9/15/21/27 free) for this game. (1650 btw). Let's see how many I get interested here...

John: clearly the more games you play the more it costs, but in this case if you were to play 1 1wk games instead of 2 2wk games (that's that average games per player) you'd get a 15% discount.

Clint

[happymadcat]

Ok, put me down.. Whats the game number and I'll send in my nation
choices..

Also how are nations allocated? I previously thought it was a '1st come 1st
served' procedure..

Guy

[Diehard]

I'd happily drop my Game 30 spot in favor of a 1-week game. Like HMC said, just post the game number and I'll send in my request.

[Clint]

Game 32 do?

"Also how are nations allocated? I previously thought it was a '1st come 1st
served' procedure.."

That's because like most players either you've not read the house rules or didn't understand them... LOL ;) :D

ALL games you need to send in a list of 3 nations (duos for the GB games) - that's at least - some you need more - eg 2950 I really usually need more Neutrals as we're always over-subscribed on that.

As I've mentioned before if you are serious about signing up email me at the me address so that I know as I sometimes get players who "sign up" here but don't actually...
:rolleyes:
Clint

[happymadcat]

Read the rules Clint? You know I hate doing that!! :D :p I far prefer
learning them by tripping over them and falling flat on my face!

Email will be sent later today after nation choice discusissions with another
player.

Guy

[Clint]

Don't worry Guy, I'm like you, I detest reading the rules - usually try to get someone else to read them, tell me what to do, then maybe read them at a later date.;)

Clint

[VEO]

Rules? Damn, the Aussies should have taken over this game... ;)

[johnstrac]

I really don't have any argument with the cost of the games, I simply dropped to 1 game because of work considerations.
Reading back over my comments in the past cost does seem to be a recurring theme however, seriously the game is still value for money.
Hope all who want it get into a one week turnaround game, good luck !

[herman]

Rules? We don't neeeeed to read no stinking rules! :cool:

Real men don't read rules, instructions or ask for directions!! :p

Which is probably why I get beaten in most games, ended up assembling something resembling a bookshelf instead of a coffee table and live in Perth not Brisbane. :D

Regards Herman

[Clint]

Thought they did - don't they win all the games? :cool: :rolleyes:

Clint

[Pearly]

Clint/HQ has data indicating there is a finite and small pool of players willing to play 1 week variants. Bobbins believes otherwise. The 2 POWER games were filled by essentially the same pool of players. The 1 week GB game filled quickly, but 3 other GB games ended in the same week the thread requesting a 1 WK GB started.

I too prefer the 1 week format, but I am not convinced the market prefers this version over a 2 week game.

Clint/HQ is going to make game 32 a 1 week format, but that is consistent with the HQ business practice of running only one 1-week, 25 player game at any given time. If most players do prefer 1 week games, as suggested above, then said unidentifeid players should speak up more vocally (the MEPBM Forum is a good place to shout) after game 32 fills.

[TheWayfarer]

If most players do prefer 1 week games, as suggested above, then said unidentifeid players should speak up more vocally (the MEPBM Forum is a good place to shout) after game 32 fills.

I've e-mailed HQ twice about starting up more one week games. Since then, I've taken on a total of six nations in three different games...all two week turn-arounds. The games are fun which is why it's a long two weeks. Too long. I don't like two week games and won't sign up for any more.

Of course, when I received an e-mail from HQ three days ago asking me if I would be interested in signing up for a one-weeker I had to decline. (Let's just say I over indulged in six.)

If you look at the forum front page there are six two-week games posted for filling. I think all anyone here is asking is for at least one weekly game be posted as well. It will fill just like all the others.

The Wayfarer