About game length

 One of the things I have experienced in my wargaming history is a lot of different type of game lengths. There are a lot of different opinions in this and oodles of different gaming principles from gamedesigners as well as from players. I thought to discuss some of them and ponder a little about the games' I play's game lengths. 

Most of the games I will discuss goes into other types of length rules as well. Epic Warpath have basically a set amount of turns with some random elements. Epic Armageddon might end on turn 3 and else in turn 4. And so on. And there are many games that combine unique aspects like playing a set amount of turns and if no one have won until then it is a draw.   

The shorter game turns 3-4 turns

In some games the idea is that you get so fast to the action and start to remove models that a shorter type of game is more suitable. Fort instance Epic Armageddon have its main mission ending in turn 3 if the victory conditions are met and one player stand as a clear winner or it will go on to turn 4 to see if we can find a winner, else it is a draw. In this game you can be on the opponent's side in several ways turn 1 and we start the action with the first activation. 

In another also really interesting game we have Onepage Grimdark Future with only 4 turns. You start scoring end of turn 1 and it also goes fast into causing casualties. The game designer have been clear that they felt that 40k (which it is a un-hinged clear copy of) tended to be over in a few turns and then you had a "mop-up" phase of about 2 turns where one player just get their army destroyed and the winner was already decided. 

I feel these design choices are sound. The games are usually fairly fast with clear ending and restriction. You kind of end the game at a high note instead of just moving miniatures you know just going to be fodder. For Armageddon I totally agree that if one player is clear winner in turn 3 - why play more? Since scoring many times depends on winning turn 3 and you get less winning turn 4 the "looser" can make some hard choices stalling the opponent's win to cause the game to continue into turn 4 even though that turn will be mop-up turn.

The downside is that longer games with even battles can be about what would have happened if there was another turn. In some games you have slow-starter armies where they shine a bit more in the last turns. Also if you do want longer games in the shorter games you have to have some scenario addition where you add units to the table pretty often as there games tend to be bloody. 

In the 4 turn aspect we have games like second ed 40k and oldschool warhammer fantasy. They went from skirmish/RPG to armies being fielded and still had quite a lot of phases and special rules - for natural reasons they tended to need restriction in time. Armies moved up in turn 1 and the main action started turn 2. For me these games had few turns because how complex they really were. I really liked 40k going from 2nd to 3rd (and with that moved up to 6 turns) so I am not really missing anything in these games. 

I think I prefer games that are bloody to have a shorter amount of turns and more complex games should be more about fewer models per side. 

The "modern 5-6 turns"-games.

With the move from 2nd ed 40k to 3rd we started to see a bit slower table. Models only moved 6" and when moving they lost a lot of range in the shooting phase. There are a ton of faults in this ed but still there were some universal truths here. Simpler game where you had less casualties in the beginning meant you could logically play more turns. The game's buildup to the storm was quite fun. In the same idea we have Dropzone commander v1. Units started off board and turn 1 tended to be a "Move onto the table turn+blow up some buildings"-turn. Add to that units couldn't fire the turn they diesmbarked and embarked in the almost-mandatory transports meant you had a much slower buildup even though you were almost in each others' faces turn 1. 

The more modern game though tend to be pretty bloody from the start. Epic Warpath, Legion Imperialis, newer ed 40k and Dropzone commander v2 are all games that are fairly fast into the action but still have a few turns. I think this is a mistake. Legion Imperialis is a good example where we fairly often have just stopped playing turn 2. That is also because of the way the mission is and works better in Epic Warpath but we have some of the issues there as well: We know the winner fairly early. Gods! Dropzone commander went from first ed (down to the last die and movement decision) to a giant abyss in v2 (might have ended turn 1). 

I just don't like modern idea of maybe playing lots of turns with generally no point. Again with Dropzone commander you can check on youtube battle reports. V1 had lots and lots of games ending with the last die and activation described. V2 stops at turn 2-3. I just can't see how that is more fun. 

In Legion we have the issue of objectives being sticky and so as one start to win they tend to steamroll. In Epic warpath it is smoother as you need to have something left back that holds the objectives but even here we have a issue with game length. It is not often I see any reports where a player down in turn 3 turn it around to a win end of turn 5. 

I haven't played many times of the later editions 40k but it all feels like a game that is over fairly early as well. I played until 6th and there were lots and lots of discussion of first turn advantage (something most modern games mitigate now with alternate activation). 

I do think that if you going with 5-6 turns you should not even start on table nor be allowed to fire the first turn. So if you have a normal deployment phase and are pretty fast to the action you can decrease the amount of turns with at least 1. 

The Random game length

In many games the designers want to stop people from doing "a last turn movement" to claim a objective or something and want the players to be forced to bet on the game ending and if not - that models is most likely very exposed. I think this is a leftover from 40k 3rd-4th where small really fast units that were quite resilient could claim objectives end of the game. It is the same thing we see with unit strength to hold objectives (a completely waste of time according to me to have it unit-specific, it is generally enough to make infantry better).

Some games handle the last-activation-problem with objectives during the game. Dropzone's way of getting point built up during the game is a good example. Especially when you might get extra point from the same objective depending on how you handle it. You have random mission cards on some ed of 40k and Grimdark onepage utilize this as well. Then you have to get your act together early and start hoarding points.

Epic Armageddon is basically built on the premise that you need to go for the objectives early and with only 3 turns before possibly ending it really makes it a rush. But we can of course whether this is a actual "random" game length as it is based on if the game i already decided. 

Legion Imperialis should only have max 3-4 turns. It it stupid long and I don't have much respect of it having so may turns as it has with the rules that exists.  

At the same time for several games you can still have fewer turns and still a random game length. Take Epic Warpath. Allowing for 50% of the reserves entering the table but not end up closer to the enemy deployment zone than yours turn 1 and then the rest may enter turn 2 or 3 and then the game basically ends turn 4 or maybe to turn 5 would work just fine. I think we know how the game ends then. And with reserves entering earlier it can absolutely work fine. Epic warpath have a really cool idea with reserves getting more entry points in later turns and this would work well with that. 

Still I like a random element. But I kind of will not miss it that much. It is interesting to see if you can keep some mobile units left at the last turn to claim objectives. And done right it is actually not that problematic. And if you have a mission where you get points during the game it could be completely discarded.

One thing I have never seen being utilized is that you play, say four turns and then both player will get a movement round. You can tie up enemy infantry in melee but no die is used. Only basic movement like running. Then you score. 

Victory-based missions or "sudden death"

Games like GW Lord of the Rings are perfect examples of victory conditions that causes sudden death. Either tournament games where you have a certain amount of models left to win or scenarios that have clear ending (and oh my god some of the scenarios are epic!). I like this when done right and the scenarios means something. 

To be honest I don't know why more games doesn't do this. Mantics could absolutely do special scenarios for Epic warpath to build the backstory and have "mini-games" with the miniature you already have. Anyone going to conventions (at least in Sweden) will see lots and lots of own produced special scenarios both for entirely made up games or special scenarios with a set amount of figures in games already known. 

Again Lord of the Rings is exceptional in this. But there is no reason why other games can't do this. And it would mean a release to keep a game's hype up. 

To make a special scenario I'm thinking a designer need to:

1. Have the forces on both sides "set". I see many cool special scenarios in games where the balance is completely skewered when players can pick any units in their army. For instance Dropzone Commander have a cool Monorail mission but by choosing certain units the balance is completely whacky. Stating the exact units to use makes a whole lot of difference. It is very possible to build up clear weakness' on one side with this.  

2. Have some special set-up. For instance certain amount of units are in the middle of the table, surrounded by the enemy and the reinforcements arrive in a certain way. This is also possible for terrain. Say a Epic warpath table with minimum 30 buildings (stolen from Dropzone commander). Or a Grimdark Future game where you have daemons coming out of forests continuously.  

3. Have some special rules for this mission only. Certain units can have special abilities and since the forces are set we don't really think of points the same way we do for a tournament-style-game. As long as the mission becomes balanced it will work fine. For instance going with the table above with lots of buildings: assume Enforces infantry with antigrav packs may jump between buildings 10" and both leaving and entering buildings in one activation - even assault inside the building! This is perfectly fine as long as the forces in large are balanced in the scenario and really builds character to both the battle and the game in total.

4. Backstory to the battle. Knowing why we play the battle and preferably how it went as well is nice. 

5. Some small variation in form of decisions (this unit may enter from this table side or this). Give some replay value but generally these type of scenarios aren't made to be played by the same players more than a couple or three times. It is well enough. Typically the game should be "Wow this is epic - lets switch sides next time!" and that will do. I have two little kids, a full time work. I get maybe 2 games in per month. And that is with several games. A special scenario doesn't need to hold up 20 times. It is ok that player would fine certain winning tactics or the mission is decided on a certain thing after a few games. It is not intended to be played that many times. 

6. For a setting where armies are a bit more general (Like the small scale games this blog is about) I think you need to have set factions and chosen units. Absolutely nothing to spam - just balanced army that people tend to have and the scenario handles it. For instance if a unit is really good in this scenario you get one but it arrives turn 3 by left or right side. It might be really good if reaching the center but you have to give up attacking for that and exposing it. 

I am kind of surprised special missions are not used more with new model-releases. Specific mission where you get to test that specific unit and the skewer the mission so you will use the unit to the purpose it is intended. We see things like this in video-games where a new unit's ability is extra utilized in the next battle to emphasize it's effect. 

7. You could have some special terrain. The Dropzone Monorail is cool and it works as it is usable as a cool terrain piece as well. But generally I think it should be kept to being usable in a normal game as well. Like the monorail that adds real value in form of just being cool and good looking in a normal game of Dropzone Commander.   

I think the scenario based games are under-used and is something that game creators can really use to build story and keep the game alive. Not all releases have to be models. Cool way of using your already purchased minis works just fine to keep the game alive. One of the game designers behind Epic Warpath was also heavily involved in Lord of the Rings.... Just saying...

The handling of objectives. 

Another thing I thing I feel is important is that the way objectives are handled. In Dropzone infantry has to give up several turns of movement to find a objective. In Epic Armageddon you need to have so many different type of objectives it is hard to get hold of all of them. In Epic Warpath you need to keep something back to tank points at a rear objective.

Legion Imperialis tend to be short as hell. It is over turn 2 pretty often. But I designed a mission for this game that worked really well: 

6 objectives (2 on your side, 2 neutral along the centerline and 2 in enemy territory) where you get different points depending on how hard the objectives are (think it was 2 points for friendly, 3 points for neutral and 4 points for enemy) in each turn. The winner of that turn get 1 Game Point. So with 5 turns you could get maximum 5 points. 

Also the player that was down could bombard one objective (any objective) that was just destroyed. So the winning player could not hold that objective anymore. No units destroyed or any of that - just nothing to claim anymore. With 5 turns the loosing player could always get to destroy 4 objectives which was actually quite fun but also meant that they tended to be able to win the objective game in one or two turns. 

Add to that we had a balancer in the form that the player who is down get 1 extra Game point if they succeeded to draw or win in a turn. Once per game and player. I think that balancers are underused. Alternate objectives tend to be extra points for the person already winning.

That meant that the game was sensible to continue to play to the end as eventually the loosing player had a pretty good chance to get a draw in a turn to get at least 1 Game point. 

I think this balancers are needed in the more "modern" games that are long in turns and bloody like it should only be 3-4 turns. I have always felt that a good game makes each player want to finish the game even though they are loosing or winning. 

Conclusion

So in the end. I would prefer bloody games end earlier. I would like to see balancers in those games to make sure they are worth playing to a conclusion. Several games are drawn out unnecessary but shorter games have some drawbacks as well. Game designers should absolutely work more with set-faction-specific mission where placement, terrain and victory conditions are set to the point the players have very little starting options. Random game lenght is kind of "meh" and mission and how claiming works can work around it.