Maybe you're willing to sit through battles that are 2 or 3 times as long, but I'm not...battles last about an hour now. I'm not sitting around for 2 or 3 hours to play one game.

i agree with sage they already take too long if anything u should try shortening them first before making them longer then i could never battle

I'll explain it again so that it'll be harder to miss.

THE REASON GAMES WOULD TAKE 2 OR 3 TIMES AS LONG (underline bold italics)

Turns do not take the amount of time they do now because of the number of troops moved. I can move all of my troops in under a minute.

What takes time is thinking and strategizing. I usually spend 2 or 3 minutes deciding what I'm going to do, then about a minute actually doing it. So assuming that my opponent is as quick as me, and the battle lasts...12 turns (a good average) then the battle is over in an hour to an hour and a half.

Now...if I could only move half of my troops each turn, I would still sit and think for about 2 or 3 minutes before moving. Then we'll say it takes me 30 seconds to move (since I have half as many troops to move per turn). Now a battle would take 24 turns to finish (since the action would have been slowed by half). So assuming my opponent was as fast as me...that comes out to between 2 and 3 hours per game.

Even worse would be 1/3 of your troops per turn. Then we're talking between 3 and 4 1/2 hours for a battle.

And it gets really bad when you consider that not everyone DOES move as fast as I described. I imagine we'd still see people taking 6 and 7 minute turns. Sometimes it just takes that long to think. The THINKING is what consumes time, not the moving.

I still missed the answer to the question:

"How much time/turn is given in those other games?"

Also 20x10=200 = 3 hours and 20 minutes
times 2 = 6 hours and 40 minutes

So that if a battle is taking about an hour, either the turns are taking less than a minute or the battle is being won in 5 to 10 turns.
Doesn't that sound like there's room for adjustment?

It's very commendable to be a thinker but even written tests are timed and fast thinking should have it's rewards also So maybe with 5 minute turns the faster thinker will still be able to finish the game in an hour.

TR

I don't know where you're getting the number that battles take 20 turns to complete. My average was around 12. So it can finish in an hour if the players take 2 1/2 minute turns.

Of course, that doesn't always happen. Near the beginning of the game and near the end, turns are over very quickly. It's the middle turns, the fighting, that takes a long time. Nevertheless, it averages out to about 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 minutes per turn.

Your average battle is over in an hour to an hour and a half

I didn't say it takes 20 turns to complete a battle but 20 turns are allowed and don't forget the other player. If your finishing a battle in an hour to an hour and a half you're proof that more than enough time is allocated/turn.

I do also believe that fast thinking should have it's rewards because in reality on the battlefield IMO the lives of men can depend on quick sound judgement
and I'm still waiting for the answer to the question:
"How much time/turn is given in those other games?"

*(edit)* was to change "your" to "you're"

TR

Last Edited : Sunday, 7 August 2005 - 19:24

Actually, battles can go over 20 turns. If for some reason you're not all dead by then.

And I understand that thinking fast should be rewarded. I agree...some games should reward thinking fast. Usually, though, turn based games aren't like that. They're more strategy than just fast thinking. You've already said you're against making the game for "people with fast internet or fast mouse" but if we shorten turn length, the people with fast internet will have a definite advantage, as they'll have more time to think before they move, since moving would take less time.

I'd answer the question you keep asking, but I don't understand it.

In a Turn-Based game players being quick with the mouse, having a fast connection and being fast thinking are all welcome assets that are only of benefit to the player to complete his turn.
It's not as if a slower connection is being over-run by a faster connection (i.e. my connection has been locked and been lost only to come back on line to find that my opponent apparently with a faster connection has made all of his moves in a campaign) and it's not as if there is a direct confrontation where being quicker with the mouse has allowed an attack before the defending unit could be moved or vice versa.

As long as battles are Turn-Based each player has the opportunity to move his units within the allowed time and sorry, there comes a time where if a player is losing game after game because of a slow connection or because of frequently losing connection, then he might want to consider getting a faster and better connection.
However, I have 56K and I don't think it's a problem because if I lose connection it only takes about 15 seconds to reconnect and if a take the trouble to disable the "call waiting" for my phone I don't think I would lose connection nearly as often. Also a reboot during the other player's turn would refresh the connection (i.e. I seem to find that my connection gets flukey after being online for several hours without much activity).

PS:
It was mentioned about other successful similar games but the amount of time allowed to make your move was not given.

TR

Actually, I think this is a good idea, and might add another level of strategy to the game. But instead of replacing the current system, why not create battles where you can only move a portion of your force at once as an alternative to what we have now, since obviously not everyone likes that idea. Don't forget that in the first strategy game ever, you could only move one piece.