I’m curious to see that 1 week turn around games do not seem to be as popular as I would imagine.
I am a veteran of MEPBM, originally playing in the early 90’s. Back when “snail mail” was virtually the only way to play. The only thing to expedite gaming was the ability to fax in orders. Eventually EMail became an option of sending in orders only.
In this faster paced “Information Age” of having orders received in moments of sending, and results available the same day of process; the experience is more productively gained.
Earlier this year, a friend of mine said to me “Hey Ron, remember MEPBM? Want to try it again?” or some such. We came across a 1650 team game with a 1 week turn around that was just starting up, so we gave it a shot.
Needless to say, I am hooked again
However, for me, waiting 2 weeks for results is not desirable. I love a faster paced game. Strategizing weekly, and seeing the results just as fast.
So I ask:
Why aren’t there more 1 week turn around games being set up?
Set me up!
I guess it is everyones busy schedule that makes them seek out two week games. Even in grudge games where the team is motivated I still seem to be changing orders on the last day to accommodate allies requests. I must admit I like the idea of a one week tunaround. Speed MEPBM!!
I played in many 1 week games under GSI. It seems the current player base will not support 1 week games from the comments I have read.
Personally I would like the GB games to gravitate towards 1 week. Faster games mean more games and more chances to try varying strategies. Part of the allure of GB games to me is that the strategy is different than in normal games where there is very little “new” to be tried.
Game 139 is the current 1 week game, and a public outcry like this thread helped get it off the ground…
I agree totally with Thors. 1 week is yet still too long to wait. The busy schedule argument is some of this and some of that… Most planning is done the two days after a turn and then the last minute before. There is easily a week or more inbetween of inactivity as we all have gotten over the excitment of our turns/plans and then settle in for the drudgery of waiting…waiting for the last minute to have to start it up again (and often remind allies what they’ve forgotten due to the long wait inbetween turns…)
Many players have reported that with the 2 week turnaround they can get in more games - 2 “regular” games costs as much as 1 1-weeker, different games, different people, different plans and different results.
I agree wit Celebion in that Gunboat games are a natural for the 1 week turnaround, but there the problem is likely cost - 2 nations a week for 1 game is quite the bullet over time.
As for the player base, I suspect that there are many like me (and this was confirmed during the last 1 week discussion) who max their MEPBM budget with “regular” games not out of preference, but because that’s all that’s offered. In my case, I’ve missed a couple 1 week games because when they finally came up for filling (usually immediately after the only 1 they run at a time ends…) I simply can’t afford to join…Murphy’s law and all that.
But a great deal of the reason is that people are comfortable with tradition… We used to “need” the 2 weeks to wait for the postman. Email has eliminated that wait, but we continue to gravitate to 2 week games. Personally, I consider tradition to be something we continue to do after forgetting why we started in the first place…but in this case, we know exactly why we needed 2 weeks, but continue despite the solution that’s been presented to us.
I really like the pace of a 1 week game, the reason I don’t play them though is purely finacial. Sure it doesn’t cost more in the long run, but it costs more money upfront.
Back in the day, I would have anywhere between 3 and 6 PBM games running (all 2 weekers) at the same time. I know many other people did as well. With the 2 week turn around, I wanted to keep busy, as I had plenty of down time in between orders as it was.
So as indicated, many people have multiple 2 week games to keep them busy. I suppose if I was also limited to 2 weeks, I would run up to 4 games. But as is, I would still prefer 2 games with one week turn around. The finances would be equivalent, yet I would be more focused and garner more pleasue with a faster paced culmination of my strategies.
When 1 week games are available, don’t they fill up relatively fast?
I am sure if you can get 12 people to actually send nation choices and commit funds for a one week game, Clint will list it as a "filling” game.
Keeping the Gunboat thread on the first page of this forum has increased the interest in that variant. More GB games have been offered due to increased awareness. I would guess more talk about 1 week games can only help.
I would love to see a 2950 or FA game offered as a 1-weeker. Given the fact that 1650 is about 75% of the player base, I am guessing that it would the best bet for getting a 1-week game going.
Why aren’t there more 1 week turn around games being set up?
As mentioned in the posts the main reason is lack of player base. Also recently we tried running two and had a major dropout percentage and the game basically got seriously messed up. I think some players took it on (as they have done with GB) and not realised the impact on their finances and time it would have.
If there are enough interested then yes I would certainly run one. At present I have one such player who asked.
With GB recently I contacted all the old players of GB asking if they were interested but that took some time and effort. I’d be prepared to do that if there was a commitment from some players (preferably 12!) to the game with an email direct to me (not on this list other then for confirmation to your potential team-mates if you want - I find that some who post here aren’t always able to actually commit to signing up and it biases whether or not a game has enough suport to start-up!).
1650 only - there’s little or no support for a 2950 or 1000 1-wk game I am afraid.
Ditto for a 3wk game - we have 2 running at present.
How about we start a new thread, canvasing for a 1650 1 week turn around. We do the work, asking around (many people I know dont post here) gaining insurances for Clint. Then present him with a definate package.
1 week games are great for all the reasons mentioned.
That said, a 1-week game doesn’t allow for
the amount of back& forth coordination & cooperation that
can be achieved in a 2-week game. Yet, if all players are
young adults with more time on their hands (HS or college,
or new into workforce), then I can see a 1-week game
being a win. But for us old farts with spouses, kids, weekend
sports for the kids, nightly homework with the kids, business
trips, demanding day jobs, etc., the 2-week game allows for
more time juggling. And, I find the communication/coordination/
diplomacy of MEPBM to be a big part of the enjoyment factor.
That does take time, especially in the early game when
neutrals must be courted, etc. Finally, add the time-lag in
that comes from games consisting of players in lots of time
zones, and I think you see why it’s difficult to find enough players
who both commit and stick with a 1wk game.
I always like to consider a happy medium. That would be 2 turns turned around in 21 days (3 weeks) instead of 28. Have turns due for simplicity on 2 diffrent days of the week, on 11 and 10 day turnarounds, i.e. Jan 2004 turn1 due tues. Jan 6, Turn 2 due
Sat. Jan 17th, back to Tues (Jan. 27th) for Turn 3, etc. A little faster, yet gives time for us old farts some time to keep up.
But for us old farts with spouses, kids, weekend sports for the kids, nightly homework with the kids,
err… I fall into that catagory :rolleyes:
I am in my second 1 week 1650 this year. The first ended a few months ago. In both games we have set up Yahoo user groups, and are extremely active and coordinate very well.
Maybe some people just dont realise such methods are available?
We usualy have about four active days. Two when we get the results, and two when we are finalizing our orders. I much prefer having three days of slack, than ten.
always like to consider a happy medium. That would be 2 turns turned around in 21 days (3 weeks) instead of 28. Have turns due for simplicity on 2 diffrent days of the week, on 11 and 10 day turnarounds, i.e. Jan 2004 turn1 due tues. Jan 6, Turn 2 due
Sorry I don’t want to offer this - opens a whole can of worms. Then we’d have to offer 2.8 day turnaround games which only 2.54% of the player base would play. Well you get the idea. - In theory cool, in practicality “urgh”.
