OK - all good comments. I think the time to play the game depends a lot on who you are playing it with. Some groups are faster than others.
That being said, the game as it stands does take a while to play. But, we do play it at cons and usually we play a game in a FULL day (starting off at 9am and finishing a full game by between midnight and 2am). That is what our games are like out here on the East coast as well.
Sounds like a great way to spend the day. We used to have sessions like that 20 years ago. Play from morning until around 4 or 5, take a break for pizza and trash talk, and then start up again around 6 and go till who knows when that night. A little more difficult to pull that off these days when you’ve got a career, mortgage, wife, kids, etc.
Some groups like to take their time - and I think Yopers group has some players that like to analyze all their options closely before committing to a move. There is nothing wrong with that - but it contributes to the length of a game.
When we play (in New England or at a con) we usually shoot to start around 9am and reach Pearl Harbor by around 2pm. RandR can attest to that as he has played several con games. Then the game slows down. We reach Spring 1943 by around 6-7 pm and Spring 1944 by around 9-10pm. then the game starts picking up again as the focus gets tighter and we usually finish off around midnight-2am. So, yes - I guess I am stretching the definition of a long day to play a game - but it is what we do.
I’d say so. As I said, a great way to spend a day, but the 12-15 hours of game time you’re talking about here is for most people 2-3 sessions.
So - anyway, this is the discussion I wanted to have in starting this thread. I am not sure if the game should be a bolt-on to the standard game or include a new map or rules - that is part of the debate. At any rate, the pieces would certainly remain (and they represent $800 of the $1k game). I would never ask anyone to re-invest in that without thinking that my car would explode when I turn the ignition on. And - if there are any new player aids or maps they would have to be discounted for people who have already invested in the standard game and helped develop any more rules. Any rules developed should not contribute to the length of the game - so that needs to be a factor in determing whether it gets added or not. One way to prevent rules from slowing games down is to not inject "one-off" rules that apply to only certain conditions or times. The more consistent the rules are the better and they contribute to quicker play.
I think most things being discussed could be fit within the parameters of the basic game. I'm not sure all new materials are required - though they are fun to put together 
Personally, I’d love to see a larger map. I currently play on a ping pong table, which measures 9’ by 5’. The current map is 8’ by 3’, so you have a little room to expand for it to fit on a ping pong table. If you’re thinking about a new map, it might be a good idea to see where guys are playing the game now. I could (barely) play on my dining room table, assuming I had another table to put all the charts and such on. As I said, I’m lucky enough to have a ping pong table to play on, but others may not be as fortunate and their gaming space may be stretched as it is.
My thought is that the best route to go with a “deluxe” or “advanced” game is to stick to revising charts, adding/changing rules, and adding/changing existing units. This way, those of us who want a more in-depth experience can buy the add-on, while those who don’t can continue to use the regular game as is.
Here’s a thought: have you considered coming up with a “Patton’s War” for the game? With this you’d game a war between the USSR and the Western Allies starting with wherever you end the regular game – or you could make it a stand alone scenario that you could set up from the start. This might be a nice addition to an add-on project.
One thing I’ll toss out (without having any idea of what you may be considering) is an adjustment to the economics. I’ll do my best to say what I mean here, so bear with me. Some of the unit costs aren’t really what they should be. For example, light armor costs the same as medium armor, but is less effective. Early fighters are less effective than regular fighters, but cost the same. Japanese aircraft carriers cost the same as US carriers, but only take one hit to sink versus 2 hits for the US. It seems to me that the costs of units ought to be reflective of their respective combat abilities. If you were to adjust the economic values of at least each country’s home territories, you’d have room to adjust the costs of units, and then you’d have some room between the costs of units to introduce new units. For example, in the New Units/New rules thread I proposed assault guns as a new unit. They should be cheaper than armor, since they were in real life. In my mind, they should fall somewhere between artillery and armor in cost, but with artillery costing 5 and armor costing 6 there isn’t a place to put them. Of course, adjusting the values of any territories would mean changing the map…
Another idea might be to have some sort of research track. Germany could have had the most advanced fighters in the world during the whole war if they had taken what was already on the drawing boards (or even actually being test flown) if they had made more of a commitment to development instead of just continuing to modify existing aircraft that ended up being left behind by the more advanced Allied fighters that came online later in the war.
Another idea might be to have economics be more than just generic economic points. For example, if oil were treated as a separate resource, and you needed oil as a separate commodity to do certain things (like move fleets), it would give an incentive for players to play more realistically. This may be more detailed than anyone would like, but in the war there were natural resources that had to be defended because of their importance to a particular nation’s war effort – and these resource areas were attacked for the same reason.
Anyway, those are some of my thoughts. Comments, ideas, suggestions, threats, etc. are welcome.
Bob
