Board games that take forever to play.

[Dacke]

It goes a long way to understanding why the PC version is damn popular, Reliablilty and the ability to save your game for later.

But the PC version is also a totally different game. I'm not talking about adaption for a different medium - it's literally a totally different game.

[Basara_549]

I heard in a magazine somewhere of some people who would set up a Civ or Federation & Empire game in their basement, they'd game one or two turns every couple weeks, prior to their RP sessions.

I've seen large battles of 40k miniatures take 90-120 minutes - I once was in one at a con, played 2 turns, left to run a 3-hour roleplaying game session, and came back to check on the progress after my game ended, to be greeted with

"You're just in time; your next combat turn's about to start..."

And they were referring to the turn immediately after the one I last played....

There's also that one massive Europa game that some guys run at Gen Con, that I think Pooka actually played in one year, where they had 9 square yard/meter game board with ALL of the European/African theatre on it - in standard Europa board scale, and a unified rule set.

[Freke]

Six player Cosmic Encounter can take a long ass time.

[Nicephorus]

Empires in Arms...the infamous Federation and Empire from Task Force Games.  

EIA looked very cool but we never finished more than a year of the campaign game.  the scenarios are cool though, especially some that were in General.  I always wanted to try the campaign variant that covers the wars created by the French Revolution - France is in a less dominant position.  But I doubt that I ever will.

I love F&E (now by ADB).  Not only does it take forever, they've published a bunch of add-ons that make it even more complex.  It's truly nigh unplayable. There are shorter wars to play with it though.

I used to really love Third Reich/ATR/GW - not quite as monstrous - many people have finished multiple games -but very long and complicated.  

If I had a room to spare I make it kids free and set up one of these.  Right now, it's inconceivable.

[Sobek]

Civ is one of my all time favorite games.  Unfortunately, it pretty much requires seven people to be really good.  When only 4-5 people I know really like it, getting the other couple to agree is a pain.  Plus, when one of the guy's wife informs him she's moving out right after she grinds his civ into the ground, it's a real buzz-kill.  *sigh*  It's been almost six years since my last game of civ.  I think we might actually be able to get one together in 06, though.
 
Talisman takes forever, too.  It can be fun, or not, depending on how people play.
 
Supremacy never seemed that incredibly long, to me.  About the same as Civ.  Of course, the other games we were cycling through at the time (high school) were Shogun, Star Fleet Battles, Aliens, and Johny Reb.  So, it may be a frame of reference issue.
 
Speaking of SFB, that has to be the killer.  I don't know if we ever completed a game in less than 18 hours.  It was usually in the 24+ hour area, with the longest at something like 36 hours of play time.  We tended to run point values roughly equal to two Constitution class ships, per player, though.
 
And, of course, playing any real wargames (where you need pipe-cleaners, rules, etc.) is an activity one should not commit to lightly, either.  But, it can be really fun.
 
Axis and Allies gets honorable mention because it is a long and truly painful game.  I couldn't tell you how long it takes to play.  All I can say is that the first turn takes too long for the pay-out.  I've probably tried to play it 8-10 times after being goaded by a friend or two.  Every time I've done so, though, I've come away feeling like they could have better demonstrated their friendship by hitting me over the head with a shovel.

[Dacke]

Civ is one of my all time favorite games.  Unfortunately, it pretty much requires seven people to be really good.

Civ is a bit more tolerant of differing numbers of players than many other big games, though. For one thing, with fewer players you remove parts of the board and/or a number of tokens from everyone. Junta, on the other hand (while not taking as long time as Civ) is virtually unplayable with less than seven players.

[Cyberzombie]

Civilization is a damn shame though - I would almost be up for wasting an entire day from sometime before noon until bedtime for a game of Civ if I knew we had a full table of reliable players, which *never* happens.  

Oh, I'm so sorry you've never experienced that!  I've played at least 10 games of Civ.  Maybe someday you'll get to!

[Sobek]

Civ is a bit more tolerant of differing numbers of players than many other big games, though. For one thing, with fewer players you remove parts of the board and/or a number of tokens from everyone. Junta, on the other hand (while not taking as long time as Civ) is virtually unplayable with less than seven players.

Civ plays with fewer people.  But it plays best with a full table.  I pretty much won't play if the whole board isn't in play.

[The Good Assyrian]

EIA looked very cool but we never finished more than a year of the campaign game.  the scenarios are cool though, especially some that were in General.  I always wanted to try the campaign variant that covers the wars created by the French Revolution - France is in a less dominant position.  But I doubt that I ever will.

I actually played the Revolutionary France variant once.  It was quite different.  I remember kinda liking it, but it the game didn't last for long.  I also recommend using the advanced naval rules from The General if you can get your hands on them.

I love F&E (now by ADB).  Not only does it take forever, they've published a bunch of add-ons that make it even more complex.  It's truly nigh unplayable. There are shorter wars to play with it though.

Yeah, I quit cold turkey after Carrier War...

We actually specialized in running massive Free Campaigns.  I even did the math to create an alternate production system that allowed you to build whatever ships you wanted within your "historical" build schedule.  It worked better than it should have!;)

We would usually get to about Y172 or thereabouts before it broke down due to players dropping out, getting a girlfriend, etc.

I enjoyed the Free Campaign better than the scripted scenarios because it was fun to play the Federation, launch a pre-emptive strike across the Klingon border, and hear the Klingon player say "You can't do that, you are the Federation!".  Oh yeah?  Let me introduce you to my little friend, Mr. CVA!:heh:
 

If I had a room to spare I make it kids free and set up one of these.  Right now, it's inconceivable.

One idea that we used in our monster game playing days was to laminate the map, tack it to a wall, and use a sticky substance called Plastitack (found in most education supply stores) to keep the counters in place.  It makes for a nice "war room" feel and keeps the game above the reach of toddlers and pets. We've left games up for months between turns this way.

TGA

[JongWK]

Kingmaker.

Cool idea. Cool concept. Boring as hell during 95% of the time. You end up wishing that a random plague kills your army so you can end the bloody game.

[McGuffin]

I'd love to play Advanced Civilization sometime, that really sounds like my kind of game.  

I love History of the World, but it's so rare to have enough players who can all make the time investment to play.  I'll chalk up War of the Ring as another fun game that takes a long time to set up and play, though at least that can be played with two people (not that I have anyone to play with anyway).  

As for games that take forever that I don't like I'm going to go with Settlers of Catan with the Seafarers and Cities and Knights expansions at the same time.  I love SoC, but using both of these makes getting points a real grind, after the 5th hour you just want it to stop and usually the game gets thrown to someone shortly thereafter.  That's not fun at all.

[phoamslinger]

if you only have 4 players for Civ, that can make for a fun game.  give everyone two sets of counters and play with 110 man armies, 18 cities (you go through the trade decks, 1-9, then go through them again).

too many cities, too many armies, it's a level of carnage you never thought possible in a Civ game.  especially with the advanced rules.

[JongWK]

I love History of the World, but it's so rare to have enough players who can all make the time investment to play.  I'll chalk up War of the Ring as another fun game that takes a long time to set up and play, though at least that can be played with two people (not that I have anyone to play with anyway).  

You can play HotW with only 3 players and still have tons of fun. Just give everyone two empires, as the rules suggest, but don't let a player give himself an empire card to his other colour (unless he has no choice).

[Joey2k]

Dark Emperor, a fantasy wargame from Avalon Hill.

It took me the better part of an hour just to set up the board.  Actual play isn't all that slow (even with figuring casualties from movement-yes, you lose men just from moving), and the game is only 14 turns max, but once you get into combat it really bogs down.

The setting itself is very compelling, however, and it keeps me holding on to the game even though I probably won't play it again.  There are two sides, the human kingdoms and the dark emperor.  The dark emperor is a necromancer returned from the dead leading an evil army of vampires trying to take over the human kingdoms.  The human player must unite as many of the squabbling kingdoms as possible in order to build a big enough force to defeat or hold off the dark emperor.

I always thought it would make a compelling rpg setting.

[Dr_Avalanche]

Oh, I'm so sorry you've never experienced that!  I've played at least 10 games of Civ.  Maybe someday you'll get to!

Oh, I guess *never* was a bit of hyperbole. I have played many games of Civ. Once or twice, it might have worked without any issues at all. So it has happened. But I don't expect it, ever.