Help support TMP

"Longer Games Are More Satisfying" Topic

43 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Wargaming in General Message Board

Action Log

31 Jan 2018 7:03 p.m. PST
by Editor in Chief Bill

  • Removed from TMP Poll Suggestions board

Areas of Interest


Featured Ruleset

1,184 hits since 26 Jun 2017
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian27 Jun 2017 3:47 p.m. PST

True or false?

Neal Smith27 Jun 2017 4:20 p.m. PST

Only if they aren't longer because of players playing slowly… :)

Coyotepunc and Hatshepsuut27 Jun 2017 4:26 p.m. PST

My attention span is about two hours. I need to go from set-up to clean-up in that time.

skipper John Supporting Member of TMP27 Jun 2017 4:30 p.m. PST

The exact opposite I think. I'm with Coyotepunc!

JMcCarroll Supporting Member of TMP27 Jun 2017 4:37 p.m. PST

Not sure about the length of a battle. But a campaign battle is more satisfying.

Dynaman878927 Jun 2017 4:41 p.m. PST

It takes 30+ minutes to get to the game, so at least 3 hours of game time is needed to make it worth the trip.

Ragbones Supporting Member of TMP27 Jun 2017 4:53 p.m. PST

Two to three hour sessions.

cavcrazy27 Jun 2017 5:32 p.m. PST

The group I game with can go from 2-6 hours depending on the scenario.

14th NJ Vol Supporting Member of TMP27 Jun 2017 5:37 p.m. PST

I used to like all scensrios. Getting more into 1/2 day games. So both…

Personal logo Extra Crispy Sponsoring Member of TMP27 Jun 2017 5:40 p.m. PST

Having a table you can leave set up is a nice luxury. Many of our games run over 2 or 3 evenings.

jdpintex27 Jun 2017 5:40 p.m. PST

Generally true. As always there are exceptions.

robert piepenbrink Supporting Member of TMP27 Jun 2017 6:03 p.m. PST

I have very fond memories of some two-day games from long ago, but these days I tend to see long games as a sign of something gone wrong. Two hours solo or at a convention is what I shoot for. Up to four hours with friends. The easy way to produce a 6-8 hour game is to take a four hour game and use the wrong rules.

Personal logo Zeelow Supporting Member of TMP27 Jun 2017 6:03 p.m. PST


21eRegt27 Jun 2017 6:22 p.m. PST

True. If the game doesn't last several hours, depending on scenario and context, then it isn't worth setting/planning. I will always make time for my hobbies.

Winston Smith27 Jun 2017 6:27 p.m. PST

1 Corinthians 13:11

I used to believe in proving my manhood by commanding 1200 figures in TSATF games that dragged on for hours.
Now I realize that such games remove all tactical finesse. What can you do besides pushing masses forward?

Now I have rediscovered the charms of small games. Like I had before I bought those thousands of figures. grin

Doug MSC Supporting Member of TMP27 Jun 2017 8:03 p.m. PST

Our game night runs from 6 to 10. Giving the first 1/2 hr. to greeting and talking until everyone arrives. So the game is about 3 hrs. long. However, I have played games that last a few days because I can leave everything set up. These are usually with only a couple of people who really can invest the time and are focused enough and enjoy the detailing of each move. These are usually much larger games with many more figures and the ability to bring in re-enforcements.Both are fun.

Personal logo miniMo Supporting Member of TMP27 Jun 2017 8:14 p.m. PST

Only if there are sufficient decision points to fill the time.

If I can only make a meaningful decision once every hour or so, then definitely no.

Early morning writer27 Jun 2017 8:24 p.m. PST

Any length of time for a game can be enthralling. Or appallingly boring. Depends on a well designed scenario, workable rules, verisimilitude, and camaraderie. Have all of that firing in sync and a long game is great. Time permitting – and the honey-do list status.

Dust Warrior27 Jun 2017 9:27 p.m. PST

That's what she said.

Sho Boki Sponsoring Member of TMP27 Jun 2017 9:32 p.m. PST

Yes, I like everything to do slowly and long time. ;-)

Frothers Did It And Ran Away27 Jun 2017 10:07 p.m. PST

Not necessarily. I played in an all day Battle group Kursk game recently, it was like pulling teeth. Having lots of decisions to make is what makes for a fun game, length doesn't matter really.

Whirlwind27 Jun 2017 10:53 p.m. PST

Generally speaking, not true for me.

Jcfrog Supporting Member of TMP28 Jun 2017 2:33 a.m. PST

A game can easily be long because, the system is not adapted to the size of the scenario.
A short, lively, skirmish that GOT to the END, is good.

On the other hand besides dumping most features of the period and edging towards a DBA type of rules, a proper napoleonic battle with 50-200000 men involved cannot be done in a few hours.

>1/2 h less checking uselessly " smart" phones a day and doing something needed instead and you have 3-4+ more for your hobby on week ends.

Games need to reach a coclusion, need not be rushed, need be good loking ( takes time to set up and back) not to be frustrated with.
Well all tastes…

Calico Bill28 Jun 2017 2:35 a.m. PST

False. We play a lot of scenarios with One Hour Wargames, and it's much more fun to play 2 games of a scenario, changing sides, than one game taking twice as long.

Durban Gamer28 Jun 2017 3:38 a.m. PST

Good rules must kick things along fast – time is a luxury not always available, and slow, over-fiddly rules are a real pain.

coopman28 Jun 2017 3:40 a.m. PST

3 hours is about my limit, satisfying or not.

79thPA Supporting Member of TMP28 Jun 2017 4:26 a.m. PST

In general, I would say false.

TodCreasey Supporting Member of TMP28 Jun 2017 4:54 a.m. PST

As most have pointed out a tactically complex several hour game is fantastic – something like the 2 days of Aspern or Quatre Bras – Ligny would be great for that. The use of your reserves, gradual arrivals and grand tactical decisions would be a real treat (this is why my club still loves campaigns).

Long for the sake of long no – long to try something very big that has lots of decisions yes. Having said that we usually game 3 hours on an evening and 4 during they day due to family and other pressures.

KSmyth28 Jun 2017 4:58 a.m. PST

It was true thirty years ago. Not so much any more. Too much going on to spend a couple of days or 12 hours on a game. I do have some fond memories, however.

Thomas O28 Jun 2017 5:03 a.m. PST

We try to do games that can be completed in about 2 1/2 hours, but I can leave my table set up if it needs to go longer.

TheDesertBox28 Jun 2017 7:41 a.m. PST

It amazes me that so much ink has been spilled about the "greying of the hobby" and yet a lot of older gamers like massive, complex, lengthy games.

I am a millennial. I can play longer games, but find 1 hour or less to be ideal. If I want to play for three hours, I'll just play multiple games. My attention span is fine, I just hate wasting time with overly complex or needless rules. Abstraction is our friend.

boy wundyr x28 Jun 2017 9:29 a.m. PST

Like legs, a game should be long enough to reach the ground, i.e. suitable for what the game is. A short intense Ganesha Games family of rules battle is satisfying, so is seven hours of Waterloo using another rules set. So I like oysters and snails.

OTOH, seven hours for a skirmish of ten figures against ten figures doesn't work for me, nor is Waterloo getting a decision in an hour.

Micman Supporting Member of TMP28 Jun 2017 9:53 a.m. PST

My weekly group plays a game in 2 to 3 hours ( 6 to 9 PM). Rarely do we play to a real conclusion. We do know who won.

Convention games usually go about 4 hours. Many times it is hard to keep everyone into the game for longer than that.

goragrad28 Jun 2017 11:03 a.m. PST

It all depends on the rules used and the scenario.

As long as things are moving at a reasonable pace and the time is available, long or short are both satisfying.

Old Contemptibles Supporting Member of TMP28 Jun 2017 2:14 p.m. PST

Depends on the game. But in general, yes they are. Prefer 5 to 6 hours. But it depends on the game.

Old Contemptibles Supporting Member of TMP28 Jun 2017 2:21 p.m. PST

Considering all the work I put into my games, it had better last five or six hours. Otherwise it is a waste of time.

Khusrau28 Jun 2017 3:01 p.m. PST

Sometimes I want a 5 course meal, and other times a light snack. Gaming is the same.

Personal logo etotheipi Sponsoring Member of TMP28 Jun 2017 4:51 p.m. PST

False. Fun games are more satisfying.

I've had 8-hour "first stage" games of a campaign whizz by with enjoyment and I've spent an eternity and a half slogging through 90 minute games.

Henry Martini28 Jun 2017 4:56 p.m. PST

A two hour game spent sitting idle waiting for your turn, or because you can't get your command to activate, is far more tedious than a four hour game in which you're fully involved for its entire duration.

Shagnasty Supporting Member of TMP28 Jun 2017 6:01 p.m. PST

A vote for longer games. Travel time is a problem however where I live so shorter games are growing in popularity.

Old Contemptibles Supporting Member of TMP28 Jun 2017 6:56 p.m. PST

We will be looking for a new house this fall and I am defiantly going to look for a space that I can leave a game set up for as a long as I want.

UshCha05 Jul 2017 1:12 a.m. PST

I like both, but if pushed the most memorable take several eveings to play. The long games we play are in general not bigger individual games, some are smaller, some are bigger but they have CONTEXT, you are fighting for a reason bigger than the current engagement. This forces a different complection on your approach to a game, you have a much more convincing set of of goals. Victory points are nothing compared to your own set goals where all of the engagements are part of "hopefully" of your master plan. It generates "Senarios" you could not make convinceing if played in isolation.

Small games are more of a social interation, pleasant but not the great games.

However big games need experts in tactics of the period and preferably experts in the rules, which need to be effectively invisible so that copeing with the more coplex nature of a big game is possible. Long games with inexpert players and complex rules has to be the worst sort of game.

capncarp05 Jul 2017 3:41 a.m. PST

"Longer Games Are More Satisfying"
That's what _she_ said….

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.