Timed turns

[majikforce]

My group is playing a game next Saturday and we are thinking about playing with timed turns.  Some in our group suffer from analysis paralysis and it can really slow down the game.  We usually play for about 8 hrs and make it somewhere around turn 6 -8.  Any body have experience/ideas for a timed game where we can get more turns in?  Thanks for the input.

[KaLeu]

I would be happy if people in my group were that “fast”…. 13 hrs last time and we still only made turn 6. No wonder we rarely play the game at all.

I have no experience with timed game turns in A&A, but the most time-intensive phase would probably be the combat move. So if you set a time limit for that, the question would be, what precisely to do when time is up. The problem with A&A is that executing a move takes time, simply because there may be many pieces to move - it’s not like chess. So if someone is still busy moving units into a combat zone when the buzzer sounds, you can’t really allow him to finish that entire move, because he will inevitably still be thinking and hesitating while doing that. I think you need to impose on your players to stop moving immediately when time is up, and give them the opportunity to undo the combat move into the last territory or sea zone they were busy moving into, by claiming that they had not finished. Such a claim would have to be made immediately, without further thought, and otherwise the (partial) move would stand.

But that’s just an idea of mine. If you try it, or anything else,  I’d be interested to learn how you fare with it.

[ossel]

I think using timed turns might be good, simply to reduce the “thinking time” people feel like they have. I played a game with some newbies recently, and the U.S. player formulated his entire long-term Pacific strategy before he had even moved a piece. His turn took and hour and a half, and we got to turn 4… So yeah, if anything encouraging players to limit strategizing in favor of action is a good thing.

[ItIsILeClerc]

Playing 6-8 turns in 8 hours doesn’t (not even remotely) sound like a paralysis to me though. It sounds pretty decent. Nothing unusual according to my own experience. 1,5 hours for just the USA sounds a bit too long, even for me, mister ‘patience’ himself :P.
I have a hard time deciding what is a reasonable time for each major power if you really want to play with a timer… I would say max 15 minutes per major power per turn. More for major powers with large numbers of units (Japan), at the cost of the smaller ones. Still, skipping a major power’s turn, either partially or completely because time is up, will most likely result in the loss of the side that major power is in. Global A&A 1940.2 is very sensitive to the loss of ‘tempo’ if played at the cutting edge. So don’t be surprised if a side/player resigns after being forced to skip. A rather disappointing way to win…
Of course if played on a more casual level it all matters less.

What can you do to shorten your game regardless of the use of a timer?

1. You can make simultaneous moves with Major Powers that do not influence each other.
2. Major Powers like Russia can make all its Pacific moves first, so Japan can start moving while Russia moves its European pieces and so on.
3. Ban strategic discussions that pause the game. Players can discuss strategies with each other before the game starts. Ofc such a ‘ban’ should never include hints/tips while playing. Everything that does not interrupt the gameplay and/or cannot be considered a discussion (e.g. a hint/tip) should be allowed.
4. Do not ‘try out’ exotic strategies on an unsuspecting opponent.
5. Think during opponent’s turns, while you are waiting. Plan your production already.

[cyanight]

First one to start with that I think takes some time is “Buying Units”.  Unless you roll on tech you must have your “Buy” ready before the other player starts.  If you roll on tech you have 1 minute to decide if you want to change your “Buy” otherwise you wait until next turn.  I keeps people focused on the game and is not that difficult.  You know before your turn 90% of what your going to buy unless you roll on tech and succeed. This has helped speed the game up for us.  I cant imagine someone taking over an hour on their turn.

[majikforce]

@Herr:

I would be happy if people in my group were that “fast”…. 13 hrs last time and we still only made turn 6. No wonder we rarely play the game at all.

I have no experience with timed game turns in A&A, but the most time-intensive phase would probably be the combat move. So if you set a time limit for that, the question would be, what precisely to do when time is up. The problem with A&A is that executing a move takes time, simply because there may be many pieces to move - it’s not like chess. So if someone is still busy moving units into a combat zone when the buzzer sounds, you can’t really allow him to finish that entire move, because he will inevitably still be thinking and hesitating while doing that. I think you need to impose on your players to stop moving immediately when time is up, and give them the opportunity to undo the combat move into the last territory or sea zone they were busy moving into, by claiming that they had not finished. Such a claim would have to be made immediately, without further thought, and otherwise the (partial) move would stand.

But that’s just an idea of mine. If you try it, or anything else,  I’d be interested to learn how you fare with it.

Good point about mid moves when a timer goes off.  I’ll have to poll the group to see what everybody thinks.  We are gonna have probably 4-5 players and so far the consensus is you have 5 minutes to buy units, make combat moves. Time stops for rolling combat. Time starts again for non combat.  Also thinking about making it 3 minutes.  But  I wonder if for the first 4 turns time should be longer since those turns are pretty crucial for setting up the framework for the game.  I kind of want a frenetic pace to the game but I also don’t want to upset the balance because of something stupid somebody did because of the pace of the game being to fast like leaving their capital open to attack.  I am looking forward to seeing scenarios play out and people being forced to decide quickly what to do and not be able analyze the best possible action.  I hope we can learn a lot about the game and hopefully have fun.

[Young Grasshopper]

Our group uses action blocks, here’s a link…

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33477.new#new

[rocknroll]

in my group we tried once a simple timer watch… 5 minutes for thinking one’s turn. it’s not that it worked purrrrfectly, but it reminded people better to play faster than other means like teasing someone etc. :D
sometimes we just reset the clock once more in connection with an “ultimatum”. exceptions were only made to germany and japan in the first round.

[WILD BILL]

I have to say that our turns can be rather lengthy, and I’m probably the worst offender. I tend to over think everything, and if I’m playing alone (2 on 1) it can be worse because I think I’m missing something stupid that will be costly. Believe me we troll the hell out of each other making matters worse, so when the mind games get going things can really slow down (but that’s part of the fun too). Needless to say I prefer to play with a partner for those reasons.

I think the first round is important and can be time consuming to lay out your strats for the game. With that said most things in the opening round have been done before already at some point (nearly scripted), so maybe that’s just an excuse (lol). If a clock is used the first round should probably be a bit longer limit though especially for the axis because they have the most moves to make round 1.

Having powers go at the same time that don’t have much of an effect on each other is a good practice. As suggested Russia moving the Far East units first so that Japan can get going is very helpful. US and Anz going at the same time in the Pac is pretty standard. I know it speeds up the game to have purchases ready to go when your turn starts, but it can also tip your hand to your opponent. Believe me they are paying attention, and will note an IC, air/nav base or mostly air units purchase, so now the fake out starts……(gota love it).

When we are playing 2 on 2 (or more), at times one side will leave the room when the other side is taking their turn. This normally would happen when the US starts because 3-4 allied powers can go roughly at the same time. The axis might get the room on Italy’s turn so they can plan Italy and Germany (and look at Japan).

As far as a timer, we have talked about it, but haven’t done it. Like I said, I can be the player that pushes the “Time Continuum”, but the other players in our group aren’t exactly “Speedy Gonzolise” either (plus the fact that they’re my games we’re playing, and at my house lol). Our games are pretty loose, and a timer could push it along. It could also push it over the edge and get ugly. If we were to put in a timer/clock I think it would have to be more of a suggestion at first then a deadline. You would also need to factor in if you were taking multiple turns at the same time. If you are doing stuff for your power, but its not your official clocked turn can you reserve your unused time for later, or for an ally (like in a political debate lol). Maybe even allow each side one timed 5 min evaluation period each round of play that they can take at any time during the round if needed to discuss the ever changing strat.

How about giving major powers say a 14 min running clock to complete the Tech, Purchase, Repairs, and Combat Move phases, and 1 additional min for NCM (basically a 15 min clock w/1 min reserved for NCM that is paused for battles). That way if you set-up your purchases ahead of time you get longer for combat moves etc…. If you didn’t use all your min’s before your battles (clock stops for combat phase), then you can get more time for the NCM phase. Smaller powers like Italy and Anz could be cut down to say 11 min w/1 min reserved for NCM (wouldn’t bother timing China or France). Of course these times could be cut down as needed.

The problem would be when he runs out of time…hmmmm

Maybe he can buy additional minutes at 1 IPC per min?

Like I said above, I also think that if you install a clock that it would be a good idea to allow both sides one short (5 min) discussion/strat period each round of play (taken before one of their turns). That way they can work out some things, and it won’t be pushing the limit of their individual turns.

[ItIsILeClerc]

I like your contribution Wild Bill!

Apart from that, I want to say I find having only 3 to 5 minutes of thinking per Major Power way too short. People who cannot wait for other people to complete their turn in a game of brain exercise shouldn’t play one! In my house, I would agree with a lot of attempts to shorten the “think time”, but not if it would force people to be as quick as 5 minutes… 15 minutes is the absolute minimum IMHO. I really like YG’s “action blocks” for speeding up. http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33477.msg1277573#new

Because like in Blitz Chess, I am sure a Blitz A&A game is rather filled with stupid mistakes that will not be made in a normal A&A game. Everybody makes mistakes, some more than others (I know I do sometimes ;-)) but not in such high amounts as in a Blitz game. Well if you like it that way, go ahead and play Blitz. I sure won’t! I also don’t like Blitz Chess as it kills my playlevel (as Bobby Fischer and Nigel Short also stated… sort of).

To each his own, so to say 8-).

[WILD BILL]

ItIsILeClerc, I agree with you, like I said I tend to be the player that takes too long. I wouldn’t be comfortable with just 5 minutes to think either, nor would I like to be pushed by a timer (kinda takes some of the fun out). I understand the other side of the coin though too. Some people get turned off and lose interest in a very slow moving game.

I could see some time limits put forth if your playing in a tournament though, because the game itself has a ticking clock. Players are going to want to get as far as they can.

Guess each group needs to set their own parameters. Even if we played with a timer or set limits, I know we wouldn’t stick to it all the time or have penalties. We play more of a gentleman’s game, so there would be allowances. We of course would point out “hey that the clock is ticking” just for the heckling effect.

[rjkesq82]

Wild Bill said it best…probably a meeting in the middle is required…

Because we a rather decent sized group, but it ranged from:

Me) Laid back, can think VERY well fast and on my feet, rarely overthink to begin with, but am famous for missing a KEY detail like building 3 transports undefended in a sea zone and losing them all. Lol

friend 1) ADMITS he has analysis paralysis, but at the same time wants to get more rounds in…our group has NEVER gotten past round 6…furthest we got was round 6, Germany was at Moscows doorstep, so we just did Germanys turn in round 7, they took Moscow, Allies conceded defeat…But he’d like to see MORE rounds in the time we have

friend 2) Hates spending 2 days of his weekend to sitting in the house, but LOVES doing it for one day…however, he doesn’t see any way a time clock works because it’s a thinking mans game and he doesn’t want to cheapen the experience. I call this friend the wants his cake and eat it too friend Lol. Because I WOULD dedicate 2 days as would friend 1, but friend 2 refuses lol.

Family member 1) Wants to play games out fully and refuses to conceded even if Russia falls early and Germany and Japan can just turn around and focus everything and all those IPCs in their respective theatres…wants to leave board set up and keep coming back to play…problem with that is, we are all career men, many have families, so week to week not all the same people play…we are just fortunate to have 9 or 10 guys, all very interested, so we can pretty much field a decent game everyweek, just not always the same guys…

Family member 2) much younger than the rest of us, involved in lots of stuff, also can only dedicate one day, and likes the idea of a set time limit and set victory conditions, and is 100% fine with saying “we play from 9am to 5pm, and whoever has majority of X, Y, and Z at that time wins”

…you get the picture…I can keep going, but everyone kinda has their own agendas and wishes…so I think the ONLY fair way to do it is everyone make compromises and meet in the middle…

What exactly that is, probably depends on each individual game group. We are managing and having fun, but EVERY week there is post game discussion of how we can improve.

[majikforce]

Thanks for all the insight.  I must say I do love the thinking part of the game and analyzing all the angles.  I think our time limit idea is just to spice it up a little.  We play with pretty much the same 4-5 guys and I know for me I mostly have their play style pegged.  I think with the slightly quicker decision making we may get to see some interesting or unorthodox decisions.  Also I have been known to play the mind games unrelenting.  Now with a time limit I might have to keep the chatter to a minimum and maybe we can squeeze in a couple more turns.  I like the block idea and we usually have Russia far east go so Japan can start going too.  I think our group has agreed on 5 minutes for the first four turns and then it goes to three minutes after that.  Anything happening when time runs out is going to go back to where it started as well as anything found to be illegal, because mistakes will be made.  Anybody think of any other rules/guidelines we should have?

[CWO Marc]

This is just a rough idea which I haven’t thought out in any kind of detail (it’s similar to Wild Bill’s proposal to buy additional minutes at 1 IPC per minute), but if your goal is to find a solution to “analysis paralysis”, how about providing some kind time-based of bonus (or penalty) as an incentive for players to make their moves more quickly?  You could take the golf concept of par and apply it to Global 1940 by agreeing with your group that the “par time” for planning and completing a move is x number of minutes (depending on the size of the power), timed with a stopwatch or similar device.  Players using less time (i.e. playing under par) could get a few bonus IPCs as a reward.  Players using more time (i.e. playing over par) could get a few IPCs deducted as a penalty.  And if you really want to be ruthless, you could even set up an open-ended formula: one IPC bonus granted for each minute under par, and (this is the one that would really hurt, because it’s potentially unlimited in extent) one IPC penalty deducted for each minute over par.  This would set up an interesting dynamic: 1) the faster you play, the more units you get, but the greater the chances that you’ll make a costly mistake; and 2) the slower you play, the fewer units you get, but – in principle – the fewer the chances that you’ll make a costly mistake.  (Similarly, there are chess sets whose pieces are hollow in proportion to their point value, and which are intended to be filled with booze to be consumed by the player who captures them, thus creating a dynamic along the same lines: the more pieces you capture, the more you weaken the opponent, but the more your own judgment gets affected by the alcohol.)

[majikforce]

@CWO:

This is just a rough idea which I haven’t thought out in any kind of detail (it’s similar to Wild Bill’s proposal to buy additional minutes at 1 IPC per minute), but if your goal is to find a solution to “analysis paralysis”, how about providing some kind time-based of bonus (or penalty) as an incentive for players to make their moves more quickly?  You could take the golf concept of par and apply it to Global 1940 by agreeing with your group that the “par time” for planning and completing a move is x number of minutes (depending on the size of the power), timed with a stopwatch or similar device.  Players using less time (i.e. playing under par) could get a few bonus IPCs as a reward.  Players using more time (i.e. playing over par) could get a few IPCs deducted as a penalty.  And if you really want to be ruthless, you could even set up an open-ended formula: one IPC bonus granted for each minute under par, and (this is the one that would really hurt, because it’s potentially unlimited in extent) one IPC penalty deducted for each minute over par.  This would set up an interesting dynamic: 1) the faster you play, the more units you get, but the greater the chances that you’ll make a costly mistake; and 2) the slower you play, the fewer units you get, but – in principle – the fewer the chances that you’ll make a costly mistake.  (Similarly, there are chess sets whose pieces are hollow in proportion to their point value, and which are intended to be filled with booze to be consumed by the player who captures them, thus creating a dynamic along the same lines: the more pieces you capture, the more you weaken the opponent, but the more your own judgment gets affected by the alcohol.)

Wow I really like this idea.  My only concern would be that early on the US would probably be under time limit a lot (depending on when they are brought in to the war) Would that extra income swing things too much one way?  I don’t know but it sounds like a cool idea to explore.  I think we are gonna go straight time limits to start with and get feedback from everybody and then maybe experiment with the par idea.  Thanks for the ideas!

[CWO Marc]

@majikforce:

Wow I really like this idea.  My only concern would be that early on the US would probably be under time limit a lot (depending on when they are brought in to the war) Would that extra income swing things too much one way?  I don’t know but it sounds like a cool idea to explore.  I think we are gonna go straight time limits to start with and get feedback from everybody and then maybe experiment with the par idea.  Thanks for the ideas!

Rather than a one-size-fits-all model, you could set up tables that give different pars for different countries at different stages of the game.  In competition chess, I believe, players must make x number of moves per hour during the initial stages of the game, but are then given more time per move past a certain point.  The principle would be similar here, reflecting such factors as the wartime vs. peacetime status of some powers, the more marginal role in the game of some countries (like France and China), and Britain’s split global economy.