Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Timed games?

I've noticed that there is an occasional trend that pops up on the Infinity forums, where players start paying a lot of attention to how long their games take and just how time-efficient they're being.  This inevitably leads to the idea of "timed turns" as a way to solve perceived 'slow play'.  But is the timed turn best for the dynamic order-driven Infinity environment?

Timed turns come from traditional tournament play.  Events can only go on for so long, and there has to be a way to making sure that everyone has an equal time-window to create a win.  Some games even place sharp limits on how long a player's turn can be (the clock in competitive chess; the hardcore tournaments of WM/H), just to test a player's ability to handle his/her pieces under pressure.  This all makes sense, because it's a case of managing a wide assortment of pieces in a limited amount of time.
There are so many of us - we're hardcore!

In Infinity, though, you're not necessarily managing a wide assortment of pieces.  Instead, you should be managing orders, which might actually mean that you only need to worry about one or two models in a given turn.  The idea of the timed turn gives you the false impression that the turn as a whole (strategy) is what makes you a better player, rather than the individual order (tactics).

Instead of looking at timed turns, then, I'd suggest that players work with the idea of timed orders (15-30s; have a friend nearby with a stopwatch, if it helps!).  In a timed turn, you have plenty of time to think of strategy - but perhaps less time to execute tactics.  With timed orders, you're forced to think of the value of each order spent; a valuable exercise for players who want to a) speed up their game, and b) increase their tactical awareness at the same time.

Real life has been a bit busy for some of us here at CKP, but I'm looking at setting up a "quick game" with one of the other guys to give everyone out there an idea of the tempo of our games.  Until then, I'd suggest you try out the idea of timing orders rather than turns, if only to open yourself to new gaming paradigms - and hey, if you strike a balance between them, all the better.

2 comments:

  1. Seems good- but is that something that just pops off the top? like as soon as your turn begins you have 30s to finish your first order? or is there a certain amount of time to collect your orders, and plan a bit of a strategy?

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's ultimately up to the player to decide what's productive for them. "Time Trials" aren't my thing, but I recognize that some people want to improve the speed/play of their game by constraining themselves this way. I'm just trying to suggest that orders are more important to time than turns.

    I think it would (ideally) go like this:
    a) gather/count orders and start planning;
    b) once orders are gathered, you have 30s to complete that order.
    c) once all rolls are resolved (if any), you have 30s to complete the next order.

    Obviously, face-to-face rolls aren't strictly counted - if you get to the roll 28s into your order, you haven't "lost" anything because the resolution will take more than 2s.

    ReplyDelete