Perhaps it is a question of leadership. Instead of Clint trying to match sides through some elaborate formula that spells near parity, he should ensure that each side has someone who is good with newbies. A cheerleader/guru/fight-to-the-last-ditch kind of guy.
Clint, say you were king and were making military appointments. A particular city will come under siege and it is vital that the city hold. Who do you appoint? The officer with the most senority and medals? Or, the most subborn SOB in the barracks? You are certainly doing the former and not the later. You are trying to quantify the observations of Onasander, Saxe, etc. Yes, Player Ratings are fun to play with but they won't make the games longer, I think.
ยทยทยท
From: "kingoftherill" <kingoftherill@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Longer waiting lists for better games
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 21:47:21 -0000--- In mepbmlist@y..., Middle Earth PBM Games <me@M...> wrote:
>
> > >*** Not sure if that would help. Most games nowadays seems to
last around
> > >15-20 turns.
> >
> >You prove my point. Games lasting 15 to 20 turns are games where
one team
> >has seriously outplayed the other, and I'd suggest that in some of
those
> >cases it's because they're mismatched. When I've had games
lasting 15 to
> >20 turns it's always been where we've won quite systematically and
without
> >any major surprises being launched by the enemy. It's been where
we have
> >developed out nations strongly and the opposition has failed
almost wholly
> >to do so. I still think of turns 15 to 25 as "the mid-game"
because in a
> >hard fought game, that's what it is. Hard fought games usually go
on for
> >40+ turns.
>
> *** Um I don't necessarily agree with this.
>
> ClintI'd have to agree with Clint here. I'm in a game entering its 21st
turn. Both teams started with significant numbers of first time or
second game players. I think those games that end in 15 or 20 turns
do so not because one team has significantly outplayed the
opposition, or that one team has played badly. I believe it is more a
collapse of the will of the dropping. In our game the opposition came
out strongly and agressively. Our side was totally on the defensive,
we were simply reacting to what the other side chose to throw at us.
True the weak hearted dropped out. Were replaced by those of sterner
stuff and the game continued. Still the other side held the
initiative and we continued in the main to try to stem the flood.
Gradually the momentum has changed. Not because the other side has
blundered but because it is extremely hard to crush the opposition in
this game if your opponents support each other.It is our opinion that we will eventually prevail, but it did indeed
look dark there for awhile. Games that end soon in turn 15 or 20 end
in my opinion because those playing on the downhill side are not
enjoying having it put to them turn after discourageing turn and give
up rather than fight the uphill battle. That we have hung on and now
the game is more competitive has made the game I hope anyway more fun
for all involved. If it stays to course it will last into the 40s I'm
sure, it doesn't seem that our opposition are quitters either.Brad Jenison
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail