Frankly, the two week turn around is almost too fast for me. Besides communicating with the rest of the team – which is, yes, either first minute or last minute, and might be compressed into a shorter time – I have the rest of my life.
In a short week, I will work twelve hour days, then put in about ten volunteer hours for my fire department. Then there are other demands. Personal life, social life, secret life. In a good week, I can spare a couple hours for gaming.
I have not essayed any one week games because I know I cannot spare the time.
I know a few other gamers who also have busy lives, and for whom the two week turn around is almost too short.
Now, in 222 days, it will be feasible for me to retire. I probably will not, but if I were to, I might be able to handle a one week turn around. Or, maybe, not. So many wineries, so little time.
But, until then, whenever it comes, I do not have the time to handle a one week turn around.
I for one have the basics of my orders done within 1/2 hour of looking at my results, it’s just the need to get feedback and consensus on what needs to be done from stopping me putting orders in the next day. I for one would much prefer the 1 week turnaround format. Waiting that extra week is such a drag. JMO
Like Caradoc I couldn’t play in a one week game unless it was a Gunboat game (ie no communication) I just don’t have the time. By all means Clint could start a 1 week list but at present I couldn’t play this game if that was all that was on offer.
I think that CLint will offer whatever people want, so as long as there is a demand for two week games, there will be two week games, I don’t see those going anywhere.
This was brought up earlier, and I think it bears repeating: People who want faster turnaround times are typically going to get into more games so that they can have more turns. When Clint asks for interest in a one week game, all of these people are interested, of course, but they cannot join up immediately because they are in so many two week games. I think this is the group of people that are being talked about in this thread.
I think the overall idea of this thread is that there may be a good chunk of the player base that would prefer to get the same number of turns per month, but be in half the games, if that makes sense. I, for example, have been in as many as 4 two-week games at once. I would have much preferred to have been in 2 one-week games. Now, my limit is 2 non-gunboat games at a time, which I would cut back to 1 at a time if it was a one week game. Same cost, same number of turns coming in, but half as many games to think about. I think that’s fairly compelling.
1wk game though - in the past we had upto 2 of these running but usually we aim for one. With the Power game 2 turns per week it was requested that I put on hold another fast game and it appeared that lots of you were fatigued so I thought I’d give it a small break to see what came up here.
I’m happy to offer a roughly 15% discount (so I’m offering turns 9/15/21/27 free) for this game. (1650 btw). Let’s see how many I get interested here…
John: clearly the more games you play the more it costs, but in this case if you were to play 1 1wk games instead of 2 2wk games (that’s that average games per player) you’d get a 15% discount.
Game 32 do?
“Also how are nations allocated? I previously thought it was a ‘1st come 1st
served’ procedure…”
That’s because like most players either you’ve not read the house rules or didn’t understand them… LOL
ALL games you need to send in a list of 3 nations (duos for the GB games) - that’s at least - some you need more - eg 2950 I really usually need more Neutrals as we’re always over-subscribed on that.
As I’ve mentioned before if you are serious about signing up email me at the me address so that I know as I sometimes get players who “sign up” here but don’t actually…
:rolleyes:
Clint
Don’t worry Guy, I’m like you, I detest reading the rules - usually try to get someone else to read them, tell me what to do, then maybe read them at a later date.
I really don’t have any argument with the cost of the games, I simply dropped to 1 game because of work considerations.
Reading back over my comments in the past cost does seem to be a recurring theme however, seriously the game is still value for money.
Hope all who want it get into a one week turnaround game, good luck !
Rules? We don’t neeeeed to read no stinking rules!
Real men don’t read rules, instructions or ask for directions!!
Which is probably why I get beaten in most games, ended up assembling something resembling a bookshelf instead of a coffee table and live in Perth not Brisbane.
Clint/HQ has data indicating there is a finite and small pool of players willing to play 1 week variants. Bobbins believes otherwise. The 2 POWER games were filled by essentially the same pool of players. The 1 week GB game filled quickly, but 3 other GB games ended in the same week the thread requesting a 1 WK GB started.
I too prefer the 1 week format, but I am not convinced the market prefers this version over a 2 week game.
Clint/HQ is going to make game 32 a 1 week format, but that is consistent with the HQ business practice of running only one 1-week, 25 player game at any given time. If most players do prefer 1 week games, as suggested above, then said unidentifeid players should speak up more vocally (the MEPBM Forum is a good place to shout) after game 32 fills.
I’ve e-mailed HQ twice about starting up more one week games. Since then, I’ve taken on a total of six nations in three different games…all two week turn-arounds. The games are fun which is why it’s a long two weeks. Too long. I don’t like two week games and won’t sign up for any more.
Of course, when I received an e-mail from HQ three days ago asking me if I would be interested in signing up for a one-weeker I had to decline. (Let’s just say I over indulged in six.)
If you look at the forum front page there are six two-week games posted for filling. I think all anyone here is asking is for at least one weekly game be posted as well. It will fill just like all the others.
I far prefer