Time limits :- should they be set

In the big Aussie game we are playing at the moment , the question of setting a time limit on turns has come up. With the onset of war came the lengthening of turns and some players have suggested a limit should be set.

I was just wondering what the general feeling was about this subject?

[Smash]

To each his own I spose.I personally won't play with time limits.Tech probs and lag are the reasons.

[Ming]

I agree with smash. Time limits can sometimes slow down the game early on. People will use all the time they get just because it is available. I much prefer that people just try to move as fast possible, do city maintance and diplomacy between turns.

The technical problems are one reason not to... but having a family, I know that at least a few times during a 3 to 5 hour session, some family problem will come up that must be dealt with... the price I must pay for ignoring everybody for 3 to 5 hours

[rah]

Ditto
Of the few games that I played that used a two minute time limit, My lag was so bad that moving 15 units in a turn was a problem.
But the worse thing, was that it didn't seem to speed up the game at all.
RAH

[SmartFart]

Definitely no.
Except in ideal cases where you have no lag at all (very,very rare cases).
I was involved in Diplo II game where we had 20 (yeah 20) mins time limit
20x6=120.
I played my turn every hour and half or so. Long negotiations during negotiators turn were common thing.

[cavebear]

Well, I'll disagree on this. There *should* be time limits. I have several reasons for this:

If players will use *all* of a time limit, then they will use more time if unlimited.

Believe it or not, sometimes people just forget to end their turn. They leave the keyboard for food or a cig or whatever, thinking they have hit enter.

A time limit encourages focussed play.

Some players just never learn to do their management of cities "in-between turns".

Having said that, I encourage generous time limits, with the understanding that moves should be made "in good speed". My Father always used to say about golf that one should "make haste slowly". He meant take your time when needed (your turn), but don't dawdle or waste time unnecessarily (be prepared for your turn).

I seldom use all my time with set time limits. But on the occasion of a complex move, you should have that time. So, my personal preference (for myself) is unlimited time, but I think the overall game works best with a time limit.

It also depends on how well you know the people you are playing. A regular group probably has players with similar habits, and time limits can be unneeded, but not all games are like that.

Good arguments either way. I have played board war games where 1 player's turn could take 2 hours or more, so slow turns don't necessarily bother me. On the other hand, I think time limits focus the mind. Usually its only a couple of moves that a player is agonising over and the time between turns can be put to good use. But I'll go with the flow with whomever I'm playing.

A fast game is a good game

[Smash]

hmmm....I don't think I'd care to play with Cavebear's group

if you play time limits I recommend you do not attack the host.Or anybody else for that matter.When the unpredictable lag hits you'll know why.

I agree with Smash et al, time limits give the host an advantage (as if they need even 1 more), and it really is frustrating trying to move several units with a lag within 2 minutes - how in the hell can I launch a complicated attack in that period of time?
Of course, when I'm being attacked a 1 minute limit is indeed very necessary

[Ming]

Yeah, now that you mention it Berzerker, I kind of wish that we had a time limit in that one game we are playing. Then maybe Xin could only take one city per turn from me

[cavebear]

Smash, LOL! *Fortunately*, they are not my "group". Just individual players I've come across at times. No one I'm playing now (or for some months now) is like that...

Cavebear has groupies?

[cavebear]

Well, of course I do. All of us do Civer's do. Uh, you mean you *don't*? Gosh, uh, I feel so embarrassed for you. I hardly know what to say.

No groupies, really?!? How odd... I get emails, pics, boxes of cookies, etc. And hardly a day goes by without finding some flowers and notes on my doorstep. I get a bit tired signing all the autograph requests, though. Still, one has to respect the fans.

You *are* joking about not having groupies, right?
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by cavebear (edited June 08, 2000).]</font>

Well EVC and Hydey follow me round like a bad smell but apart from that, no groupies here.

Hydey has always been a leader never a follower!!! smelly dead horses should be more respectful

[finbar]

I'll barely accept the triple exclamation marks, Hydey, but please capitalise "smelly" and you forgot your full stop at the end.

Huh? I would have thought the smilie could be considered an adequate punctuation mark at the end. No?

[Empress]

I think all games with more than four people should have a time limit to allow for more turns per game. However, I will play unlimited with no complaints

[finbar]

No, Horse, a smilie is decoration. Not punctuation.

------------------
finbar
Mono Rules!
#33984591

Spelling and punctuation are just there for people without the ability to include content in there arguments

ps =.

Look people, can we all move on now from the grammar fetish? Thank you.

I'm in a game at the moment where there should be a time limit on SOME players, I mention no names, and not others (thank you Hydey and finbar).