Re: [mepbmlist] 1 week games

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

>Looking back at my last 10 or so games, the longest running, best played
>(both sides), and ones with the fewest missed turns were the 1 week games.
>
>The company will only run 1 at a time, though, and I forget exactly
>why. I think a primary reason is lack of demand. (?yes?) If that's the
>case, I'm curious: Why do players prefer the 2 week game over the 1 week game?

Yes missing 4 players at present for the latest take-up and can't seem to
fill them.

Clint

[D N]

>Why do players prefer the 2 week game over the 1 week
game?

1-weeks are satisfying (Brad, the one we played
together was a close fight all the way through, and
good fun). And it's a satisfying pace without such a
long delay between turns.

But it's not suited for all teams or players -- if you
respond to messages only every few days, it's easier
to coordinate over two weeks.

Dan

[Urzahil]

I would love a 1-week game. I almost always have my orders done (and
sent) within an hour of receiving them, and two weeks is a LONG wait.

Unfortunately, like Laurence, the people I usually play MePBM with don't
like the idea of a 1-week game, and I don't think I'd want to try one
with unknown players. Oh well.

Mike Mulka

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Laurence G. Tilley [mailto:laurence@...]
>Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 4:51 PM
>To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
>Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] 1 week games
>
>At 06:34 06/10/2003, Brad Brunet wrote:
>>Looking back at my last 10 or so games, the longest running, best
played
>>(both sides), and ones with the fewest missed turns were the 1 week
games.
>>
>>The company will only run 1 at a time, though, and I forget exactly
>>why. I think a primary reason is lack of demand. (?yes?) If that's
the
>>case, I'm curious: Why do players prefer the 2 week game over the 1
week
>>game?
>
>I've not tried a 1 week game. I find the idea attractive, but I would
only
>bite if I knew 9 players who could be relied upon to send their news
within
>the first 48 hours. In one of the two weekers I'm in, we can't rely on
all
>players to get even just a pdf forwarded in the first week! (Yup, this
is
>really true.) I know enough reliable chaps to make a 2 nation each
game
>viable, but they don't happen to like the idea of 1 weekers - not
enough
>time for debate, or some such reason.
>
>Also of course. most people I know are already playing to what they
>consider their sensible limit of games. (For me it's 5 nations in 3
games,
>any more and I'd be selling my body to pay for them.) When a 2 weeker
>ends, team mates and I tend to sign up for another 2 weeker, but a 1
weeker
>is double the cost (and time) so is only likely to be considered if two
2
>weekers should co-incicentally end at the same time.
>
>
>Laurence G. Tilley