I think when we bring BAO in, that'll make a difference.. I can see something like 3 or 4 minute and 10 minute BAO games working..   And if it's a "fair" engine, Oh I don't know ..something like the M GAWP..Engine ..(excuse me).. then 2-player lightning games will be much more palatable for that many more people.

M57 wrote:

One of the things I was alluding to with my above post #13 is that it's likely that many people shy away from four and even three+ player lightning games because technically they can take hours if everyone takes close to the full time to make their turns.  I fall into that category.

Others probably shy away from 2 player games because they tend to not be "fair".  E.g. the player who goes first on most "standard" style of boards has a significant advantage.  I fall into that category too..

That doesn't leave too many games I'm interested in playing in lightning mode (the list of reasonably fair 2 player games is pretty short).

Don't regular games of Risk usually take hours anyway? I guess they could go quicker but it's something I expect from this game, personally.

Though I can see why you'd not want to play too long a game.

Amidon37 wrote: Valentorg - I don't think I've ever seen one of your games listed, which is what I am suggesting is part of the problem. I don't regularly check the open game screen - and on the nights where I am on the computer working I don't feel like constantly checking to see if a game is available and/or checking to see if one I created has started.

I am also with M57 in that I don't like the possibility the game could take more time then I anticipate.

I know being leery is part of the problem, so I hope with some tweaks to how it works I would be less leery.

Well I just recently signed up here so you wouldn't have seen my games before two days ago but now that I've signed up here, whenever I'm on the computer I'll usually create several lightning games and leave them there until they start or I get off the computer, which can be hours.

Maybe people not being aware of the lightning games is a part of the problem too, then.

Valentorg wrote:

Don't regular games of Risk usually take hours anyway? I guess they could go quicker but it's something I expect from this game, personally.

Though I can see why you'd not want to play too long a game.

They do. And I can't speak for everyone, but I know that when I play a tabletop game of RISK, it's often spread out to an hour or two a day over the course of a weekend. There's also usually a lot of additional eating, drinking, and BS'ing going on that makes the games take even longer.

I think I've only ever played one game of RISK from start to finish in a single sitting.

Valentorg wrote:

Don't regular games of Risk usually take hours anyway? I guess they could go quicker but it's something I expect from this game, personally.

Though I can see why you'd not want to play too long a game.

I haven't played Risk since with real dice in 30+ years (and that would be when I was in college so you do the math), but I do remember most games taking at least an hour to play, with most probably taking 2+ hours.  A lot of that time was spent doing piece management, rolling dice, and putting and taking armies on and off the board.  Then there was the libation, prandial activities, and the face to face social aspects related to sitting around a board for a few hours. And remember, it takes two to engage in any battle so there was that aspect of it too.  What I'm saying is, you were engaged for the whole 2 hours.

Contrast this with the fact that the game itself translates incredibly well to on-line play. No mistakes, no cheating (slight-of-hand taking too many pieces off the board, etc.).  But face to face aspects are largely gone (though chat is reasonable substitute).  Nevertheless, my expectation is that games should go much faster provided that all players are active and engaged.  And why not?  The engine does all the work that use to take time, and in a lightning game, who wants to sit around waiting (unless you are an expert multi-tasker)?

I think when we see a good BAO engine emerge that plays FAST yet feels like the regular game, you'll see a significant jump in the number of players interested in playing lightning games because they can look forward to making moves every 10 or 5, an potentially even less minutes,   This thread got me to thinking that that if that engine is not turn-based, and is truly "fair", then two player games will be very appealing to a lot more players.

M57 wrote:

Valentorg wrote:

Don't regular games of Risk usually take hours anyway? I guess they could go quicker but it's something I expect from this game, personally.

Though I can see why you'd not want to play too long a game.

I haven't played Risk since with real dice in 30+ years (and that would be when I was in college so you do the math), but I do remember most games taking at least an hour to play, with most probably taking 2+ hours.  A lot of that time was spent doing piece management, rolling dice, and putting and taking armies on and off the board.  Then there was the libation, prandial activities, and the face to face social aspects related to sitting around a board for a few hours. And remember, it takes two to engage in any battle so there was that aspect of it too.  What I'm saying is, you were engaged for the whole 2 hours.

Contrast this with the fact that the game itself translates incredibly well to on-line play. No mistakes, no cheating (slight-of-hand taking too many pieces off the board, etc.).  But face to face aspects are largely gone (though chat is reasonable substitute).  Nevertheless, my expectation is that games should go much faster provided that all players are active and engaged.  And why not?  The engine does all the work that use to take time, and in a lightning game, who wants to sit around waiting (unless you are an expert multi-tasker)?

I think when we see a good BAO engine emerge that plays FAST yet feels like the regular game, you'll see a significant jump in the number of players interested in playing lightning games because they can look forward to making moves every 10 or 5, an potentially even less minutes,   This thread got me to thinking that that if that engine is not turn-based, and is truly "fair", then two player games will be very appealing to a lot more players.

Good point, I can see where you're coming from.

It can get irritating having to wait that full 10 minutes, especially with not getting to watch what the other player(s) is/are doing unless you want to constantly refresh the page.

And @Cramchakle:

Also a good point, though personally I like to play the entire game at once as much as I can.

Also, forgive my ignorance but I have only some idea what BAO is so...what is it? It's some sort of simultaneous play or something?

Valentorg wrote:It's some sort of simultaneous play or something?

It stands for Board or Blind at Once.. BAO is what they call it on ToS (That other Site = warfish, dare I say it?). tom is "Gearing up" to create one for us.

As for ToS BAO, it is only simultaneous in that all players submit their orders at the same time, but my understanding is that from there it is still turn-based, so players who go first still have the advantage and battles are resolved in some kind of "order" based on a number of criteria.

I believe we should have no less than a truly simultaneous play-option here at WarGear.

M57 wrote:

Valentorg wrote:It's some sort of simultaneous play or something?

It stands for Board or Blind at Once.. BAO is what they call it on ToS (That other Site = warfish, dare I say it?). tom is "Gearing up" to create one for us.

As for ToS BAO, it is only simultaneous in that all players submit their orders at the same time, but my understanding is that from there it is still turn-based, so players who go first still have the advantage and battles are resolved in some kind of "order" based on a number of criteria.

I believe we should have no less than a truly simultaneous play-option here at WarGear.

BAO is Blind at Once.

I would also venture to say that WarFish BAO is really not "still turn-based", it is a completely different system with a different way that attackers and defenders "kill" troops and orders are resolved very different from normal turn based attacks/defends.

So players who are first don't really go first? Aren't WF BAO orders executed in some kind of order?

Edit:

Like player 1's first order, player 2's first order, player 3's first order

then P1's 2nd order, P2's 2nd order, P3's 2nd order.. etc..

M57 wrote:

So players who are first don't really go first? Aren't WF BAO orders executed in some kind of order?

Edit:

Like player 1's first order, player 2's first order, player 3's first order

then P1's 2nd order, P2's 2nd order, P3's 2nd order.. etc..

Order are executed in some kind of order, but they can be different than what is displayed as the order (it's dependent upon a Rule, so it could be P2, P3, P1, P2, P3, P1...)

But they also don't use dice in which the Attacker attacks against a Defender directly, they are against a Base/Floor/Armor value (all the same thing, just different names).

No wonder I didn't get it.. It doesn't sound like "Risk" anymore..

M57 wrote: No wonder I didn't get it.. It doesn't sound like "Risk" anymore..

Which is one of the pro/con (both :p) of it.