Scenario Length- Your Preference?

[Milt Smegma]

PBEM I prefer the 20-25 range but anything is ok

Singleplayer anything is cool

[CaSCa]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dfgardner:

Personally, game length ought to be dependant upon the ground one must cover to accomplish the mission, the size nature of enemy force, and of course, the size nature of your own force.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What he(she?) said.

[Nathman]

I'm not partial to a particular time length, however, I would love to see an option to continue a scenario after the prescribed time length has been reached. It isn't often that the inevitable result isn't reached by the end of the scenario, but there have been a few occasions where I would have loved to have been able to continue the scenario for a couple of turns. In order to keep everyone happy, the score would not be affected by the extended time. This is a little off topic, but Wild Bill, maybe this is something you could bring up to the boys at BTS as well as the expansion pack idea.

[Guest AggroMann]

Usually i can't mannage to get back into a game that i've started but had to continue later. I tend to play my games in one sitting. So i would prefer battles lasting from roughly 20 to 30 turns.

[Silver Fox]

20-30 turns seems to work best for my style of play.I rush anyway!!

[Terence]

my 2 cents:

I like a shorter game 20-30 turns, unless there is a compelling reason for a longer time frame.

Eg. Hold a good defensive position with a small force until reinforcements arrive, then counterattack and take these three objectives. While im doing this, who knows what the other side is up to... wheels within wheels. Im sure you catch my drift...

Terence

[BK6583]

Wild Bill,

I think 30 turns seems to be a good length. 20 is too short to really try to develop a battle and I've tried a few 40-60 turn battles and thought I'd never finish.

(Although as an aside, I read an official US Army AAR on Singling, and found to my surprise that that fight lasted all day!)

Bob

[Aacooper]

I like 20 - 40 turns. A good 15 turner is fun too. I started an operation against an overseas opponent in June, and it is still going on 58 turns later. That's a little much, though it is fun.

It seems to me that most decent, battalion-sized fights really took a whole day (in WW2). Since nobody would play a 480 turn scenario, there's nothing wrong with compressing the time scale.

[Wild Bill Wilder]

Thanks guys. This is as I anticipated. The majority prefer a moderate sized battle in terms of units and turns. There are many good suggestions here as well, such as # of units vs scenario turns, and others.

The matter of a variable ending is under discussion. I have opted for this very strongly since I think knowing what turn the game will end exactly determines many times how a gamer will play the scenario.

I concur with you. An occasional big battle is great, but for the most part a fight that can be completed in one sitting is enough for most of us.

And we can, of course, throw in an occasional quickie for a sleepless night, or if the family is not quite ready to sit down for dinner. Do people still do that, or is it a part of my distant recollection as a boy?

Off topic, sorry

------------------

Wild Bill

Lead Tester

Scenario Design Team

Combat Mission-Beyond Overlord

billw@matrixgames.com

[jKMkIII]

I prefer scenarios where I don't have to run to meet some given time frame. I like to send units scouting, and hopefully have enough time to fire my artillery.

So for 2000p (pretty close to size I like) I would go for 35-40 mins, and if in winter add at least 15 mins to that.

But of course it can be kinda fun to have time limit that doesn't allow you to do real scouting and artillery preparations and forces you to go in with all guns firing

------------------

jK.MkIII

[PershingII]

I Prefer 20-25 turns ,

[GonzoAttacker]

I perfer 20-30 game turns but sometimes longer turn 40-60 are needed to let the scenario develop in a more accurate presentation of the battle.

Right now I am in the final stages of a 30 turn Large/Huge battle on Banzai Hill in the Vosges. The limit and rush on the commanders is important here because the 442nd RCT(100th Battalion) must breakthrough to the Alamo (Lost Battalion). This scenario is in testing right now, I am putting together the briefings, with extensive historical background about the Charge to save the Lost Battalion. So, in some cases I believe putting the pressure on with shorter turns in the 20 to 30 range is important because of the urgency difined by the circumstances.

But once again I agree with WB the mid-range is more fun to play because of the less time needed to complete the scenario, and the less oppurtunity for real life interuptions.

Michael

[Medieval]

Shorter ones. 25-30 turns. Done and Done.

[Maj. Bosco]

Gimme the quickies. I like the larger point values for play against friends but we usually do QBs for those games anyway. I find that once you're over 1000pts you can afford enough losses that the AI can't really provide much of a challenge unless you start giving it bonuses. With a company and a tank or two a lucky panzerfaust can make all the difference in the world. Also you can get more in depth in your planning of each turn without taking forever and having to save and return to complete it. Put me down for 15-25 turn small games.