Does it matter if we don't finish the game?

[Chris Pringle]

After some really good recent discussion of the respective merits of long vs short games, I fell to thinking about how much it matters if a game is left unfinished. My thoughts on the topic are here.

[Steve J]

A good and thoughtful post Chris and one that I agree with for the most part, if not all of it. My thoughts can be found as a reply to said post. It has certainly given me something to ponder over as I do some DIY today!

[pierre the shy]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Chris.

I have never had the pleasure of playing your rules, but if you can say that after 10 years that they continue to deliver what you set out to achieve then I think you can consider your goals to have been met 

As to leaving games unfinished maybe our little group here in NZ is fortunate in that at our usual venue we can normally leave a game set up during the week and if necessary continue/conclude it the at the following session. I guess if you are playing in a club/shared hall situation continuation is often not possible, so a call must be made.

You will probably only have to speculate what would have happened if you played a few more turns, if those reinforcements had arrived etc. So if you can pack a complete battle into one session and also reach a conclusion in a few hours then your BBB rules are definitely heading in the right direction.

 

[Ithoriel]

I wouldn't deliberately start a game that I wasn't reasonably sure could be finished. Of course sometimes life gets in the way.

That's not to say that I want games to grind on to an inevitable conclusion. If one side no longer has any realistic hope of a draw, let alone victory, I'm happy to shake hands and say,"Good game!"

However, if it becomes apparent that someone has set up a game that could never play to conclusion, that's a definite frustration. Doubly so if the organiser was me!!

[FierceKitty]

I wouldn't deliberately start a game that I wasn't reasonably sure could be finished. Of course sometimes life gets in the way.

Or the reverse. I had a game interrupted with the news that my father has just died. And I was winning too, dammit.

[steve_holmes_11]

I prefer a fight with a conclusion.
Failing that, calling time when the result is certain and one side has little option but a fighting retreat.

In cases where the game stops before an obvious decision, my pleasure hinges on other factors.
The quality of company, the appearance of the game.
But primarily the way the rules performed:
  Did we spend 75% of our time on command thinking.
    or
  Did we spend 75% of out time shuffling through lists of obscure exceptions, combat outcome tables or adding 12% to the normal hit chance (See paragraph 7.2.1.9).

[John Cook]

No, it doesn't matter at all - there are more important things.  However, that is one of the problems with club games where you usually have to set up and fight to the finish in a couple of hours.  Deeply unsatisfying and why I haven't belonged to a club for decades.  Armies rarely fought to the finish anyway and if the game is in the context of a campaign, the tendency is often to want to 'run away and fight again another day' rather than fight to destruction. 

[FierceKitty]

No, it doesn't matter at all - there are more important things.  However, that is one of the problems with club games where you usually have to set up and fight to the finish in a couple of hours.  Deeply unsatisfying and why I haven't belonged to a club for decades.  Armies rarely fought to the finish anyway and if the game is in the context of a campaign, the tendency is often to want to 'run away and fight again another day' rather than fight to destruction. 

Yes, but any decent ruleset forces one side or the other to withdraw before annihilation. I think the question is whether it's acceptable to call it off before getting to that point.

Actually, for me the real question is what to do about the opponent who gets the sulks and surrenders the moment he has a splash of bad luck, even though he still has a 30% chance or so of saving the day.

[paulr]

A thoughtful post Chris

I wouldn't deliberately start a game that I wasn't reasonably sure could be finished. Of course sometimes life gets in the way...

This, very much this. Where finished means a clear conclusion has been reached, not that the last enemy has been killed

There are many factors that contribute to this; time available, rule set, force size, scenario, player speed, set up and pack up time (one of the advanatages of naval games), ...

[Chad]

My wargaming friend and I have a permanent table so in that sense it never happens.
I agree with most of the posts here and on TMP (where it is also posted). Where a game is reaching an obvious conclusion there is little to be gained by continuing.
We have agreed many times to end a game when the result appears obvious and then move on to the next game.

[steve_holmes_11]

I prefer games to reach a conclusion, or at least reach a point where it is clear who is winning.

Sometimes this doesn't happen, players may be new to the rules, or trying a particularly frustrating scenario.
Occasionally a bright spark at the club organises a mega-game, these often run far slower than expected (friction is people).

I feel it's the job of the rules to determine when an army's ready to turn and run.
The job of the scenario is to define "other" victory conditions, and occasionally override specific rules (Perhaps the castle defenders will not surrender: quarter having been offered and once refused).

I've never enjoyed games where a 3 hour battle is followed by 30 minutes totting up "Victory points".
Especially where it's necessary to keep all casualties ordered (Occasionally even noting their cause of loss).

[Shapur II]

I once arrived at a game for my pre-battle briefing and told the gentlemen running the game that the battle was over. I was retiring because no one in their right mind would fight a battle in that position.  We rotated the terrain around the long axis of the table and I fought a fighting retreat.  A challenge for me but not much fun for my opponent as he could never come to grips with me.  I lost (I admitted that before the game started) because I was supposed to hold the untenable position, but I retreated with my army virtually intact while inflicting casualties on my opponent.

Many battles end up in similar situations and could provide for a challenging ending to a game but most war-games tables are not deep enough to accommodate a retreating force. Nor do the rules reflect the fatigue of several hours of combat.  How many battles ended when an opponent escaped because there were no fresh troops to chase them?

But to answer the question.  Fight until the game is decided, whatever that means, but more importantly, until everyone is satisfied that they have played enough and enjoyed the experience.

[steve_holmes_11]

I once arrived at a game for my pre-battle briefing and told the gentlemen running the game that the battle was over. I was retiring because no one in their right mind would fight a battle in that position.  We rotated the terrain around the long axis of the table and I fought a fighting retreat.  A challenge for me but not much fun for my opponent as he could never come to grips with me.  I lost (I admitted that before the game started) because I was supposed to hold the untenable position, but I retreated with my army virtually intact while inflicting casualties on my opponent.

Many battles end up in similar situations and could provide for a challenging ending to a game but most war-games tables are not deep enough to accommodate a retreating force. Nor do the rules reflect the fatigue of several hours of combat.  How many battles ended when an opponent escaped because there were no fresh troops to chase them?

But to answer the question.  Fight until the game is decided, whatever that means, but more importantly, until everyone is satisfied that they have played enough and enjoyed the experience.

That looks like an excellent answer to the question.

I've tried a few "fighting retreat" games.
It's an element of warfare that many rules handle poorly.

Examples:
 * Defender able to withdraw 90% of his force using march moves, while leaving a few piquets to prevent the attacker from marching. This is at least vaguely credible where funnelling terrain like mountain passes are present.
 * Rules that severely limit rearward motion. Or the closely related.
 * Rules that permit the attacker to advance by group, but allow the defender to only withdraw by element.
 * Variable movement / activation. I enjoy these in the correct context, but in a withdrawal they turn the game into snakes and ladders (without snakes or ladders).

Eliminate these, give the attacker a couple of fresh light cavalry, provide and a few rally points for the defender, and you have the makings of a memorable scenario.

[John Cook]

It's an element of warfare that many rules handle poorly.

I don't have that much experience of current rules really, but in general terms rules, surely, should allow the gamer to handle the situation well, or poorly, rather than impose strictures.

[Shapur II]

I don't have that much experience of current rules really, but in general terms rules, surely, should allow the gamer to handle the situation well, or poorly, rather than impose strictures.

HI John I would normally agree. The issue I see is that rules do not deal with the drop in adrenaline that surely accompanies the thank F#$@k that's over moment. The desire to find wounded mates, limited or no ammunition availability, hunger, fouled muskets etc that accompany 6 or 8 hours of combat. Disordered units, a lack of officers to motivate activity are but some of the elements of friction that wear on engaged units.  Fresh units, which we gamers NEVER have just don't exist.

It's not all roses on the other side buy if they have formed units, some artillery and unengaged Cavalry to cover their movement they are invariably able to escape. 

We of course have no reason to keep any of that, so when the table situation reaches the I'm FUGGED stage is there any point to continuing?