|
Basically, I am just writing as
I think here, so I apologize for the rambling style of the last
email.
As I think more about it, my
opinion is starting to solidify around Suggestion #2. I think that system
should be workable with a minimum of rules changes and a minimum of hard
feelings. Here's how I see it working:
Each of us will choose a "2nd" and our choice will
be on record. (Obviously, we can change our 2nd at any time, but such a
change must be announced to the rest of the group before it would take
effect.) The designated 2nd (and that person alone) is empowered to make
decisions for the player if that player has not made a required
decision in the specified time period.
The time-period in question would be 24
hours. If a decision is required by a player, that player has 24 hours to
respond. If the player does not respond in that time, then the 2nd will
have an additional 6 hours to make the necessary decision. (A 2nd can send
along his decision early if he wants, but that decision will not be official
until the original player has had 24 hours to decide.) If neither the
player nor the 2nd send a decision within 30 hours, then the issue may be
resolved by a roll of the die (in which each alternative is given equal
probability).
During times when a person is away from his
computer for an extended period of time (like JJ was this week), we should
suspend the rules during that time and cut that person some slack.
But hopefully a person in that position would be kind enough to
the rest of us to empower his 2nd to make all his little decisions for
him while he is away. (I'm not saying that a 2nd should be sending
out land orders or economic orders, but things like deciding whether to retire
into the city or even choosing of chits during battle are things that should be
delegated to the 2nd.)
This regime may sound a bit draconian. I hope
not. I'm just trying to find a way to speed things up in a way that will
have minimal overall effects on gameplay. We all have an interest in
actually finishing the game. I think this suggestion should be relatively
effective at keeping things moving while not making huge sacrifices with regard
to our individual autonomies. (As long as we can trust our 2nd's to do
what is right for our country, there is minimal loss in autonomy.)
Let me know what you think.
kdh
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 4:35
PM
Subject: [eia] need to speed things
up
According to my email records,
we began the month of Sept. 1805 on March 23. Today is April 25, and if
we continue at our current speed, it could easily be another week before we
are done with the month of Sept.
Taking 5 real weeks to finish
one game month is not a sustainable rate of play!!! We need to
brain-storm some strategies for speeding things up. As of right now,
we've been waiting 2 days for Jim to decide whether to burn his depot at
Brest-Litovsk and retire into the city or stay out and fight. I think we
waited 5 days for Mike's decision whether to take a +1 in the first round of
2nd Nemirov. That's an entire week of waiting right there, just for two
*tiny* decisions.
My point here is not to
embarrass Jim or Mike, but simply to point out that little decisions which
should take no time at all are really adding significant lengths of time to
our game. Perhaps we could add a house rule or two to eliminate some of
these little decisions that end up taking up so much of our time. I'd
hate to do that, but I'm currently at my wit's end. I think we're
getting to the point where we need to start considering some drastic
solutions.
Secondarily, please do let the
group know when you will be away from your computer for a while. For
instance, JJ announced that he would be gone for a week on his honeymoon last
week. Because he had told us he would be gone, none of us had to wonder
why we weren't getting responses from him. I would encourage others to
do the same: when you know you will be away from your computer for days on
end, please warn the rest of us.
But back to the problem at
hand... Does anybody have a suggestion for how we can reduce the amount
of time each turn takes? I'm afraid we are at the point where we have to
start considering drastic solutions.
Suggestion #1: I know some people play Empires in
Arms with simultaneous movement. So each land phase is broken up into 5
segments/impulses. Each person sends out movement orders simultaneously,
and each corps's movement from one space to another along its movement
path is assigned to a segment/impulse. Battles are only fought when
forces occupy the same space at the same time. (Obviously, battles
interrupt and halt movement.)
Suggestion #2: People could be given a time limit
for responding to inquiries. It would go something like this: if a
player has not sent out a warning that he will be away from his computer for
an extended length of time, then he has 24 hours to respond to make any game
decisions. If no response is received in this time, then a
pre-designated ally could make the decision for him. (Or we could simply
roll a die to determine the decision.)
I'm just trying to throw
out some ideas here. I would like to actually finish this game
sometime before my 40th birthday, but that won't happen at our current rate of
speed. Please let me know whether either of these suggestions is
appealing. Please also let me know if you have any other
suggestions. But one way or the other, we *need* to find a way to speed
things up. If that changes the character of the game somewhat, then so
be it. (If I had to choose between not finishing this game, and
finishing a game that is slightly different from this one, I'd choose the
latter.)
Let me know what you think.
kdh
|