Serious question… why are we still playing on two week turnarounds?
I’ve been to FtF weekends and I’ve finished a PWR game recently and frankly, 2 week turnarounds are too slow after experiencing the quick turnaround format.
I understand the game was originally set at two weeks because this game was developed to be played by post? Now however, I imagine most (not all) players play by email. I also think that the reason most (not all) people play in more than 1 different game at the same time is because the turnaround isn’t quick enough. If it was quicker turnaround, more people would play less games but this would be compensated by more regular turns.
Therefore, why isn’t there more 1 week turnaround games?
I genuinely think the slow pace is hindering the game picking up new players.
2 turns a week in PWR was a bit hectic, 1 turn a week seems more natural in the email age.
Most 2 week games I’ve been in there is a flurry of activity after the results are sent, a lull for 7 -10 days and then another flurry towards the deadline.
I’d like to see more 1 week turnaround games please Clint. Unfortunately, it seems that they have been promoted in the past and there hasn’t been a good takeup. My theory is that if every game ended tomorrow, then there would be more interest in starting 1 week turnaround games. Unfortunately, if Joe Average is playing in two or more 2 week turnaround games, then starting another 1 week turnaround might be a bit daunting.
A significant number of ME players are “ditherers”. No matter what the time-line they are assailed by indeciision and what-ifs right up to the last second.
While I don’t want to mention any names, Kev, I recall guys who in the last few days before a turn was due suddenly coming up with new ideas and trying to completely unravel coordination agreements arrived at more than a week before.
Super speed just might run off some of these chaps. But I admit it would be more realistic. A military commander might have only a few seconds to make decisions.
>>
“I recall guys who in the last few days before a turn was due suddenly coming up with new ideas and trying to completely unravel coordination agreements arrived at more than a week before.”
<<
Yes Ed, but with a 1 week turnaround that’s less likely to happen. There’s no way “agreements could have been arrived at more than a week before” - a few days before yes, but not a week.
All references to reality aside, I agree that some (myself included??) come up with different strategies just before the turn runs. I don’t think that changing the format will change their participation, though. I agree with Kev that there is usually a pretty big lull in the 2wk game. The “Last Minute Men” would not lose any ability to participate, there just wouldn’t be a period of about a week where nothing is accomplished.
After playing in both Pwr games (had to turn over HA to Kev T8 or so) the Pwr format (in my opinion) is a bust. The law of averages would suggest that there would often (if not always) be a player that forces the game to go for the full runtime available. But the one week turnaround and the two turns/week are fantastic, in my not so humble opinion. I’d like to see more of them! (Can you tell that I’m bummed that I missed the GB??? grin)
Totally agree with Kev. 2 week games can be frustrating to play not only
in the communication side of teamwork but in the length of time a game
takes to play from start to finish.
I’ve been in too many teams who by turn 15 just want to finish the game
as interest has been lost by many in the team… 1 week turnarounds would
allieviate ‘is this game still going on’ disease by some degree.
I’m not sure that I understand what it is that you are suggesting. The cost of the faster turn around games is about the same as the 2wk games. Sure the money would go twice as fast, but the number of turns provided would be the same. People should (obviously) only take on as many games as they can afford…:o
I don’t get that either…
I currently play two, two week turnaround games. 4 turns a month.
I would play one, one week turnaround game. 4 turns a month.
I would prefer to play a one week turnaround game and only play in one game. Most games last no more than 20 turns and you could basically get two games a year in, as opposed to taking the full year to complete two games, give or take the number of turns playing.
I am willing to play the one week game, but unfortunately tapped out on games probably for at least another year.
Agreed with speed and costing and “is this game still going on disease”. People who communicate poorly will continue to do so regardless of how much time they have to say “Yes” or “No”… I have to reacquaint myself to every game before the turn - “Okay, what nation was I in this one? What turn are we on? 2? Oh right right…” I personally think the often used “play quality” suffers with the longer turnaround.
Volume. With the automation faster games can reduce prices and still increase revenue. If I could play 3 1 week games instead of 4 2 week games for about the same cost, I see everyone winning.
There’s one problem there. Every time people start threads like this, 20 people say “I’d love it!” and then Clint wants 20 people to sign up, but because there ARE NO 1 week games, we’re all already at our spending limit with the 2 week games. So Clint says ‘You SAY you’re interested, but you don’t put your money where your mouth is’. Viscious circle. Start the conversion. Instead of “automatically” offering another 2wk game, only offer 1 week games until “demand” insists on a 2wk offering.
This is not a bad idea. If this were to be matched with the PWR format, then we might make a game of it. Say (for instance) that EVERY 1wk format game has the option of being PWR, then the pressure is off of the individual player, and the potential still exists for a faster turn around. This is the only way that I can forsee PWR being a viable format.
But, then again, this is my not so humble opinion…
So Clint should start a 1 wk 1650 game and wait for it to fill up as any other
normal game. I for 1 would put my name down for it, just for the joy of
playing with and against such enthauastic and skilled ME players.
It’s reasonably simply really.
£4.50 every 14 days = £117.32 per annum.
£4.50 every 7 days = 234.64 per annum.
I’m no genius mind, I could be wrong.
Seriously I think the thing to do is offer the option and see how many want to take it up.
No, you’re right on the simple calculations. I think the point that is being made is that people like a faster turnaround, in general, so they get into more than one game. The thinking in this thread is that people would rather play in a single game with a one week turnaround than a pair of games with a two week turnaround. That’s why they are saying that the cost would be the same.
But after a few beers that aint hard 
