--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, "kingoftherill"
<kingoftherill@y...> wrote:
> I prefer the two week games primarily for family budget reasons.
I
> also prefer the two week time frame because I have found in my
more
> recent two week games that there have been cases of coordination
that
> took nearly the entire two weeks to work out to everyones
> satisfaction. Could they have been done so in a one week
turnaround?
Yes, my experience is consistently that more and better planning is
done in 1 week turnaround.
> Perhaps, but between other committments etc it would have been
much
> more difficult. I'm not as avid a gamer as most. I prefer to play
a
> single game at a time, I happen to be in two at the moment
> fortunately for me they run in alternate weeks.
So, you are paying for and playing 1 turn a week....
Yes at the moment I am. It is not what I prefer however. I had
already signed up for a game and was waiting for it to start when a
friend who had suffered some personal problems that hospitalized and
forced him to stop playing in a game we were in called to ask me to
play in a game with him. As I had promised to join him in a game when
his health improved and he felt up to it I felt obligated to join
that game as well. He has no access to the web so of all the players
on our team he is the one getting turns by mail. This does cause
final plans to be made the second week of the turn cycle. So while I
am in two different games and paying for turns every week I would
prefer not to be. I have two kids at University and am going to grad
school myself, this game is a luxury in our family budget and given
the choice I would prefer two turns a month versus 4.
> I don't think with
> the various other things I have going I could really give my
allies
> the effort that their involvment deserves given that they are
> investing their hard earned to have a successful and enjoyable
game.
You just said you were...
Again I honor my obligations, but I think those in game 88 will agree
that I am stretched thinner and my contribution to the teams thought
process is not what it was in our last effort. I don't like that
feeling but other demands on my time do affect the amount of time I
spend analysing turn and map information. I can run my nation well
enough but I cannot spend the time on big picture that I used to.
> Two weeks gives me time to give considered responses to team mate
> questions and to consider and adjust my nations actions for the
> upcoming turn.
Does it take you that long, or does it take you that long to ignore
the game for 10 days and then have to get back into it before the
turn is about to be run?
No I do not ignore the game for 10 days. I receive my turn, send it
to my team with comments on how I feel about the results. I then
spend a day or so thinking about what combination of orders will work
best for me and support the plans of the team. I then draft my first
set of plans and staff them with the team and wait for comments. I
then wait for those comments and make considered replies to them and
adjust what orders need to be adjusted. I also am waiting until I
have time to review the turns of my allies before I can make my plans
and cannot finalize them until I see their plans. This takes time,
maybe you have more time than I do but my real life responsibilities
take up my time too and this is not my only past time.
I have read posts on this subject where players have everything done
for their next turn in a couple of hours. To me that is too hastey
and I cannot believe those plans are well made because of the haste.
> I don't think a one week time frame would allow me that.
You don't know then? Aha! You haven't played one! Then how can
you
compare the two?
I am not comparing the two Brad. I am saying I think I am a pretty
good judge of the time I am willing to spend playing the game versus
doing other things that I have to do or want to do. I am also saying
that I don't want to spend that much money week after week, yes I
know it is not a lot of money but my entertainment money is limited
at this time and frankly keeping my wife and kids happy is my
priority not this game. This game is to be fun for me, and is my
escape, nothing more. I simply don't mind a two week turn around and
am not interested is spending part of every day working on the game
or answering emails about the game etc. If you are that is great. I
don't think that makes my want to have a slower turnaround wrong, I
don't think that makes your want of a faster turn around wrong, it
simply is what is the player most comfortable with. Since there are
options for both of us I think we should both be happy.
Of course 1 week isn't long enough if everyone
takes a week vacation inbetween turns! Of course, if you're bored
during this week off, you'll pick up another 2 week game to fill in
your vacation week ... See the logic?
In my games vacations happen and sometimes we don't hear from a
player for a week. My life is full enough that I don't get bored.
> The demands of a one week
> game would just be too much in my case, but two weeks per turn
seems
> to be just about fine for me.
I think you sell yourself short and are too humble. I think the
misconception is that we "need" two weeks to plan a turn that's
well
coordinated, communicated, etc. We used to need this time to wait
for the mailman. We've ixnayed the mailman...why are we still
waiting?
I just like the slower pace. I get enough excitement with the two
week pace.
Brad Brunet
Always good to cross sentences with you. Good luck in your games.
Brad Jenison
···
--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, "pbmnoot" <bbrunec296@r...> wrote:
