There are a number of games I have played and liked -- or played and hated -- that take fuckin' FOREVER to play. The bad ones, it's a good thing; gives me a great excuse not to play them. The good ones, though, it makes me sad not to play more often.
Civilization: Before Sid Meyer came along, Civilization was a board game. (I understand there is a board game based on the computer game, with approximately 10 billion pieces, but that's not what I'm talking about.) Civ was a blast, especially with the Advanced expansion set. It had a much shorter time period than the computer game -- all in the ancient world. You *could not* take over the world militarily -- you didn't have enough game pieces. The game centered on trading. In the trading deck, though, were disasters. And we're not talking the piddly ass disasters of the computer game -- we're talking about disasters that could wipe out 2/3rds of your empire in a turn. Unfortunately, I never bought my own copy. :(
History of the World -- something along the same vein. There are 7 turns, though, in different historical eras. The weird thing about that game, though, is that you play an entirely different, random civilization each era, and there's a decent chance at least some of your pieces from earlier eras will still be in play. It's incredibly chaotic but incredibly fun.
Titan -- here's one on the crappy side. If you don't understand the strategy and set up your game pieces poorly, you will have lost the game at the outset. There will be no way you can catch up. Unfortunately, the only way you can *actually* lose is if you leader token is killed by another player. Since movement is random, there's no telling how long it will take for them to catch up with you. And even if you're doing crappy, you'll probably win the first time your leader is attacked, unless they happen to get you with their leader. I played this dog of a game three times, I think, and the third I just got up and left after 6 hours. I'd rather watch an Oprah marathon than ever play that dog again.
So, what are y'all's experiences with marathon-length board games?
Quote from: CyberzombieCiv was a blast, especially with the Advanced expansion set. [...] Unfortunately, I never bought my own copy. :(
Advanced Civilization is one of my favoritest games ever. I like it so much that I went to the trouble of making my own copy from stuff on the Internet. Unfortunately, most of my current gaming group are a bunch of pussies who don't feel like devoting an entire afternoon and evening to a board game.
As for games that take a LONG time to play, the worst I've played in that regard is Empires in Arms. I've actually never finished it. It's a game that takes place in Europe (and a little into Asia and North Africa), 1805-1815, right when Napoleon was at his coolest. There are seven major powers controlled by players (there are rules for how to handle non-player powers too): France, Britain, Prussia, Austria, Turkey, Russia, and Spain. Each of these has a ton of small piddly counters for various armies, navies, supply trains, garrisons, control of minor countries, and so on. There are rules for diplomacy, finances, alliances, declaring war, peace treaties, and all sorts of other things as well.
One turn can easily take over an hour, especially if there's a war going on between two or more of the major powers. Back when I was in high school, my old gaming group and I would often try to play this on week-long school holidays, starting on Saturday or Sunday and planning to play all week long.
Inevitably, at the start of the game, one nation would take a big beating (usually Prussia, Austria, or Russia). For some reason, the player of that nation would suddenly remember a pressing engagement to do something else on Monday or Tuesday, thereby ruining the game for everyone. I don't think we ever played past the end of 1807 or so, probably not even THAT long.
depending on how the dice roll and what strategies people take, even Monopoly and Risk can be long games. ;) of course, once you add in the "extra connecting board" concept, things get even crazier...
As a fan of train games, I note that nearly every one in the 18xx family of games is a 6-10 hour affair - which is why I typically avoid them at tournaments.
The Empire Builder family of games (crayon games like EB, Eurorails, etc., where you draw your rail lines as the game progresses) can take less than 2 hours with a group of experienced players, but add indecisive players, or really rotten luck, and a game might take over 4 hours.
One of the ironies of the whole thing is Avalon Hill's Rail Baron. Hasbro refuses to re-release the game because "it takes too long to play". Considering that it takes 2-4 hours (can be as little as 1, but that's rare), they apparently think that going over 2 hours is too long - when, except at Gen Con tournaments, I've never been in a Monopoly game that was shorter than my longest-ever RB game. And, fans actually produced a licensed version of Rail Baron as a computer game - and the COMPUTER version of RB takes, on average, TEN TO FIFTEEN MINUTES per game, as the computer automates the die rolls, destination lookups, and selection of the best, cheapest, routes to use to get from start city to destination city.
Quote from: CyberzombieCivilization
Civilization has the dubious honor of being my personal "Bataan Death March" gaming experience. Let's just say that it wasn't the best idea to start playing at 10:00 PM on a Friday night at Origins. The even worse idea was to play for money...
You know how tight things can get in the last couple of turns? When it is 9:00 the next morning and you've got money on the line, people can get mighty cranky.
TGA
Quote from: DackeAs for games that take a LONG time to play, the worst I've played in that regard is Empires in Arms. I've actually never finished it.
Yeah, you have to be planning for the long haul when you break out Empires in Arms. The group I used to play with regularly met once a week for 4-6 hours, and our games would take many months. Often the game would be called well before 1815 when it became blindingly obvious that either the French of British player had royally fucked up and was not going to recover, but we came very close to completion several times. We hit the 1813-14 mark a couple of times. I was younger and had more free time back then...:p
Another monster game that we played a couple of times was the infamous Federation and Empire from Task Force Games. Basically, a strategic game brought to you by the same people who designed Star Fleet Battles. Needless to say, it was complex and took some time to play! Months, in fact.
I would also mention the World War 2 monster game World In Flames, but since it was so totally broken we never played it for long.:heh:
TGA
Try a 7 player game of Catan, with Seafarers and Cities and Knights expansions.
We've had regular, vanilla games take 3 hours.
We've had just Seafarers or Cities and Knights take 4 hours.
I can't imagine how long it would take if we combined the two. :eek:
Arkham Horror with a full load of players. Same pretty much applies to Risk 2210 and History of teh World. Very enjoyable way to waste a long evening. :)
Talisman? With the expansions and the "Chaos Bloodbath option"? At least that's fun right up until the last turn
QuoteTry a 7 player game of Catan, with Seafarers and Cities and Knights expansions.
Don´t. Do. It.
Been there, suffered that.
Most boring:
Attack! with Expansion.
You will only have about 4 Turns, waiting 1,5 h for each of them.
Good Gravy, I am surprised no one has mentioned the granddaddy of super long board games, SUPREMECY!
When you add on all the expansions and have 5+ players that frigging game can go for weeks.
Fortunately (for me at least) is that most of the games in this thread simply aren't that fun - I can live with not having time to play Supremacy or the crayon rail games. 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. There is always someone who's running late to the game, who has to suddenly take a break in the middle of the game to drive his sister to work, or decides halfway through that he can't win so he's going to act kingmaker.
I still want to play Struggle of Empires though... At least that's just 3-4 hours, not 12...
Quote from: Dr_AvalancheFortunately (for me at least) is that most of the games in this thread simply aren't that fun - I can live with not having time to play Supremacy or the crayon rail games. 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. There is always someone who's running late to the game, who has to suddenly take a break in the middle of the game to drive his sister to work, or decides halfway through that he can't win so he's going to act kingmaker.
I still want to play Struggle of Empires though... At least that's just 3-4 hours, not 12...
It goes a long way to understanding why the PC version is damn popular, Reliablilty and the ability to save your game for later.
heh,
Titan is one of my favorite games to play. played it last week and the game was over in about 60 minutes.
no, if you want a long game, try playing out the entire general war campaign for Task Force Games Federation and Empire.
loosely based on the Star Trek universe, it's a massive fleet battle game between empires with hundreds of ships each. in a single player's turn there can be up to dozens of individual fleet engagements to resolve, each taking anywhere from 5 minutes to an hour to finally complete. with bookkeeping and everything, a full turn (with everyone taking there move) can take a full day to finish. and there are around 36 turns in the entire game.
ah, remembrances of college days when I could justify stuff like this...
Quote from: Eli the VileIt 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.
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.
Six player Cosmic Encounter can take a long ass time.
Quote from: The Good AssyrianEmpires 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.
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.
Quote from: SobekCiv 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.
Quote from: Dr_AvalancheCivilization 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!
Quote from: DackeCiv 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.
Quote from: NicephorusEIA 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.
Quote from: NicephorusI 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:
Quote from: NicephorusIf 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
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: McGuffinI 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).
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.
Quote from: CyberzombieOh, 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.
Quote from: Dr_AvalancheOh, 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.
That is such a damn cryin' shame. :(
Talisman. A game that could take forever, especially when the supplements and White Wolf magazine additions were used.
Quote from: Phantom StrangerTalisman. A game that could take forever, especially when the supplements and White Wolf magazine additions were used.
I suspect you meant to say
White Dwarf magazines, yes?
My experience is not so much with boardgames, but with wargames. You better have a nice, undisturbed spot in your home for at least a month if you ever want to play "Third Reich" or "World in Flames".
Quote from: KnightskyI suspect you meant to say White Dwarf magazines, yes?
Correct.
Junta can take a while.
The longest game I ever took part in was a game of Risk that lasted for nearly a week. We were using shotgun shells and bullets to mark LARGE armies towards the end. That was the last time I touched the game.
Two words...
Flat Top.
Quote from: WhitterJunta can take a while.
But its worth every second, damn that is a fun game.
Quote from: BolverkTwo words...
Flat Top.
That's a game that could have really used some computerization. All that off map plotting - realistic but tedious.
Quote from: DackeAdvanced Civilization is one of my favoritest games ever. I like it so much that I went to the trouble of making my own copy from stuff on the Internet. Unfortunately, most of my current gaming group are a bunch of pussies who don't feel like devoting an entire afternoon and evening to a board game.
As for games that take a LONG time to play, the worst I've played in that regard is Empires in Arms. I've actually never finished it. It's a game that takes place in Europe (and a little into Asia and North Africa), 1805-1815, right when Napoleon was at his coolest. There are seven major powers controlled by players (there are rules for how to handle non-player powers too): France, Britain, Prussia, Austria, Turkey, Russia, and Spain. Each of these has a ton of small piddly counters for various armies, navies, supply trains, garrisons, control of minor countries, and so on. There are rules for diplomacy, finances, alliances, declaring war, peace treaties, and all sorts of other things as well.
One turn can easily take over an hour, especially if there's a war going on between two or more of the major powers. Back when I was in high school, my old gaming group and I would often try to play this on week-long school holidays, starting on Saturday or Sunday and planning to play all week long.
Inevitably, at the start of the game, one nation would take a big beating (usually Prussia, Austria, or Russia). For some reason, the player of that nation would suddenly remember a pressing engagement to do something else on Monday or Tuesday, thereby ruining the game for everyone. I don't think we ever played past the end of 1807 or so, probably not even THAT long.
How dare you rekindle my sadness at being unable to find people interested in playing this game. :mad:
Awesome frigging game. I managed to make it to 1811 playing 8-10 hour sessions twice a month. I'd jump at a chance to play again.
I pulled many all nighters in college. Not for schoolwork, but to finish games of Talisman.
Playing with some of my friends, Trivial Pursuit can take hours. :headache:
Quote from: bondetampPlaying with some of my friends, Trivial Pursuit can take hours. :headache:
Play with smarter friends. :deviousgrin:
Magic Realm (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/22)
Murder to setup, takes forever with all the charts and pieces, but damn fun :)
Quote from: CyberzombiePlay with smarter friends. :deviousgrin:
Yeah - it was not uncommon to "run the table" with any of the people playing (playing the version where a right answer allows you to immediately go again) with any of my gaming friends, by someone in the first round. And, this was with previously unused card sets. Gamers - especially when each of us in the group was a gamemaster of decent experience - tend to be veritable storehouses of trivial data.
The only card set that ever stumped us was the sports one.
Whenever I play Monopoly, it turns into a 5 hour or longer ordeal. Two people? 5? Doesn't matter. Something about that game...
:brood: It's the dice, I swear it...
The longest game I've played was 5 player Risk 2210 after we decided the 5 turn rule was stupid.
I went down to spend a week with friends in San Diego. All my old High School D&D/Boardgame buddies came over. We played well into the night until we all passed out. Then got up the next morning around 9 and played until 6 when our chick friends came over and told us we smelled of dog. We all showered and then went out for the rest of the night and didn't touch the game for the rest of the time I was down there.
We tried Axis And Allies once but by the time we got the board set up, we decided to go network the computers and play diablo 2. :p
QuoteWe tried Axis And Allies once but by the time we got the board set up, we decided to go network the computers and play diablo 2. :p
You are a gamer, are you?
Sick.
Another Advanced Civ. lover here ! True, due to its length and the number of players required (5 at least, in my experience), getting a game running is murder. I only manage to pull it off once or twice a year.
Last one was two weeks ago. We had 8 players, the Western Expansion Map, the works. It was a blast ! Naturally we didn't 'finish' it but, thanks to Advanced Civ victory conditions, we were able to count points anyway and calculate everybody's rank, so no frustration.
One of the things I like the most with Advanced Civ is how easy it is to learn. As usual half the players were newbies, most of them casual gamer : none of them had any trouble learning the progressive mechanics, and they all had fun !
For frustrated Napelonic players, I recommend Phalanx's Age of Napoleon : two players, 3 hours games and very satisfying historical feel. An easy sell to casual boardgamers, also.
Like a couple of others here, I was defeated by axis and allies before we really even got started.
Federation and Empire
The last time anyone and I attempted to play, we had a three day weekend. My friend was going to crash at my place the whole time. We were going to game the whole weekend long.
So, Friday night, he arrives. We immediately start setting the game up.
Round about 4AM, we were tired and decided to crash. Bright and early at noon the next day, we started again.
Taking normal food breaks, and occasionally stopping to play Atari to relieve the tedium, it took us the rest of the day to get things completely set up. So, we decided that Sunday and Monday would be absolutely full of starship warfare.
I forget the details after that, but we got through about 4 turns in two days. At 10PM on Monday, we quit. From that point forward, whenever our game group was pressed for time, the tradition was to suggest a game of Federation & Empire.
Quote from: GabrielFederation and Empire
Over the last few years, they've added a few add-ons with a bunch of chrome that don't add much to the game but make it more complicated and slower.
It was already a game where accounts of people making it to near the end were so rare as to be legends.
I like some of the concepts but have become disgusted with the direction it has taken. That and half of the people on it's messageboard are self-important cry babies.
Quote from: CyberzombieCiv was a blast, especially with the Advanced expansion set.
Still my favorite marathon boardgame ... and in my Top 5 all-time boardgames. I agree that the Advanced Civ expansion improved it vastly; I also like AH's second add-on (the Western Expansion Map), which adjusted the balance nicely to bring Africa a little more much-needed love.
I've got a complete Avalon Hill set; I've been searching for a while for a copy of the original [British, IIRC] game AH licensed the core box from. When I used to represent AH at conventions, I ran a buttload of Civ demo games ... It says something about the quality of a game (and the difficulty of getting a group together on normal-people schedules) when you get overflow tables for a game that takes 6-10 hours to complete :)
Have I mentioned Empires in Arms already? That`s the mother lode! A Bonanza of Strategy, Diplomacy and Roleplay and the fucking coolest battle system evar.
Quote from: SettembriniHave I mentioned Empires in Arms already? That`s the mother lode! A Bonanza of Strategy, Diplomacy and Roleplay and the fucking coolest battle system evar.
I'd love to have a computerized version of that. Wargame AIs generally suck so it'd probably have to be multiplayer only. But that's ok, I just want the something to calculate all the supply losses/costs, battle results, incomes, track training times, and all the other things that get in the way of the strategy and diplomacy. Plus, not having a board laid out for months on end.
http://www.matrixgames.com/games/game.asp?gid=285
still waiting for it
Ummmm
Longest games I've played...
Axis & Allies is a Long Ass Game! LAG!
The other game that takes a LOOOOONG time to play...effing Car Wars!
I think this game took the four people playing it 4+ hours to make cars. The actual game itself took less than a a half hour. It's like the curse of Steve Jackson Games.
monopoly took me 5 days one time!!!!!!!!!
Hmmmm.....
Our catch-cry was 'How about a quick game of Axis & Allies?' Mind you, we played a fair bit of it, as well as Shogun.
We played a few games of Civilization; excellent game as nearly everybody else has said.
I spent about five weeks on a game of Empires of the Middle Ages once.
Who's played Outreach? Now there's a long game....
Diplomacy.
I've never once finished a face-to-face game.
QuoteDiplomacy.
I've never once finished a face-to-face game.
In my view, Dippy is a fast-playing game...
Quote from: KrakaJakLongest games I've played...
Axis & Allies is a Long Ass Game! LAG!
A&A is a pretty quick game in my book.
Has anyone tried the PC version of Diplomacy? What is that like?
Diplomacy is mostly played online nowadays I think.
Quote from: BalbinusHas anyone tried the PC version of Diplomacy? What is that like?
I picked up from a bargain bin. As you would expect from any game where the AI doesn't massively cheat, the AI sucks. The computer players rarely cooperate with each other or with humans, despite what their love/hate ratings say. They are so stupid that they some times self bounce in the first year land grab.
I mechanics are well implemented though, I think there was 1 tiny rules error but I forget what it was. And the map is good.
It's ok if you want to use it to run a game with other players but don't expect hours of fun on your own.
Ah, thanks.
There are already good options for Diplomacy online I understand so it probably isn't needed for that. Shame, it seems a natural for the company that gave us EUII and Victoria.
Quote from: SettembriniIn my view, Dippy is a fast-playing game...
If you impose strict time limits on negotations. We once played for four hours and got through 2 years. It was ridiculous, people started demanding to see each others' orders and wanting public pledgings of allegiance.
We've made a few assaults in Sid Meir's Civ and have yet to even make it to the industrial age. Also, there seems to be a problem with people being trashed early and then spending eight hours sitting on one city with no resources, drinking lots of beer and either dozing off or getting ratty.
Advanced Civ is a great, great game, although you do have to put away a whole day to play it.
The problem with Kingmaker is a messy endgame - very hard for one player to win decisively if the group is bloody minded enough (and have you ever found a board games group that lacked sufficient competitive spirit - "Quick, Dave's going to win, everybody attack Dave!").
Ned
I used to play a lot of Warhammer 40K (1st Edition -- Rogue Trader) when I was in highschool. My friend and I would use all sorts of lego men, plastic soldiers, and other toys mixed in with the Games Workshop miniatures. This let us have fairly large armies. Those games always lasted *at least* 4-5 hours, and rarely played through to completion. We'd just run out of time, figure out who was winning, and call it a night.
Risk, Axis & Allies, and Talisman were also games you'd only start if you had a loooong time set aside to play them.
4-5 Hours?!? I used to play old school wargames, that would be considered a quick set up time. Some of the games mentioned here, such as EIA and F&E, take well over 100 hours to play to completion. When someone gets more than halfway through one of these games, it's semi-legendary. It's not a game, it's a lifestyle choice, one that I've decide that I'm no longer cut out for.
It might be of interest to ask what it is that slows games down, and what can be done about it. E.g. with Diplomacy and a number of other games, the rules are really pretty simple, it's just the wrangling and strategizing that makes for slow play. Whereas other games have so many phases and rules obscurities requiring consultation that they'll be slow even if you play without thinking.
I think a lot of games could be enormously improved if people would worry less about winning and get on with it. Practice will provide insight and then after a while you can play fast and well. But this does make certain games unsuitable for players of divergent skill. E.g. in many operational-level wargames, if you simply blunder in, an opponent with greater skill will cut off all your supply and that's the end.
Quote from: Elliot WilenIt might be of interest to ask what it is that slows games down, and what can be done about it.
I think the monster games just try to model too much and stick on too much chrome that slows things down. To really be playable, they need simplified rules with quicker turns and an order of magnitude fewer pieces.
With games like diplomacy, you need to set rules on time and be serious about following them - take too long and you miss your turn.
Quote from: StuartRisk, Axis & Allies, and Talisman were also games you'd only start if you had a loooong time set aside to play them.
Talisman is another game where I think the poor endgame ends up ruining the fun. By the time you're slugging it out for the win, all the fun is been and gone, and yet the slog to win takes up most of the time. I played a lot of Tal in my time, but I'd sooner just play the fun bit and then toss a coin for winner when things get boring.
Ned
Quote from: Ned the Lonely DonkeyTalisman is another game where I think the poor endgame ends up ruining the fun. By the time you're slugging it out for the win, all the fun is been and gone, and yet the slog to win takes up most of the time. I played a lot of Tal in my time, but I'd sooner just play the fun bit and then toss a coin for winner when things get boring.
Ned
Every time I've played Talisman, the first player to go for the Crown always loses. The game is always won by someone who slogs around wasting time on the board, healing themselves as the player with the crown rolls to wound them.
Whenever my friends and I played, I'd always ask if we could house rule it so that the game ended as soon as someone claimed the crown, or that the crown allowed the player holding it to choose another player for immediate elimination instead of a simple wounding. I'd always get overruled because everyone seemed to prefer games that were 1 hour of gameplay and 5 hours of one guy sitting on the crown while 2 other guys ran along the middle and outer tracks getting more and more uber.
Quote from: Ned the Lonely Donkey;40392Talisman is another game where I think the poor endgame ends up ruining the fun. By the time you're slugging it out for the win, all the fun is been and gone, and yet the slog to win takes up most of the time. I played a lot of Tal in my time, but I'd sooner just play the fun bit and then toss a coin for winner when things get boring. Ned
Yeah, I've burned off a good chunk of my life playing Talisman. Several games stopped being fun and just became an endurance test. Getting rid of that (with all the expansions) was like getting a monkey off my back.