time limits

[KHD|BloodnIron]

does anyone think (appart from me) that adding a time limit (40-30 minutes) might make games more interesting?

[fidd]

I can't say as I do, but then, I've probably failed to see the reason why this might be a good idea. For the life of me I can't see it!

If the games had no artillery, you might be onto someting - but assuming both sides have artilery, then the attacker is going to be liable to lose a lot if he has to slam all his troops in with little ceremony?

[[GG]AndrewKent]

The only game I've ever played with a time limit was one of Ash's campaign games. And, yes, I think this can be fun.

Especially with a hard-pressed defender scenario, where the attacker has a significant advantage in numbers and the defender's task is not to win outright, but to delay the attackers for a certain amount of time.

Variety is good.

AK

[Matador]

Like a normal game, it is only good for the victor. There may be that one moment that you realize you are low on time and are forced to charge blindly - it proving to be successful just in the nick of time. There is also the time where the enemy simply keeps on retreating and the time screws you over.

I like AK's idea on having scenarios. If there is an objective for the attackers to the accomplish other than wiping out the other side, THEN having a time-limit would be interesting. Other than that, I most likely would not agree too much with the idea though would be willing to try it out.

El Matador