Wow, I never thought I'd hear someone complain about Shogun (Wallenstein) being too long. Samurai Swords/Shogun yes, but Shogun...

Play faster and lube the tower? How long is a game that over stays it's welcome in your house?

Your way sounds reasonable, but don't forget that the revolt markers would build up.

Though I agree with Bill. I've been planning on playing 3 years for a longer game

Well, it took us about 3.5 hours to play. We use a dispersed setup scheme, which makes decisions a lot more difficult (if your starting territories are in clumps, decisions are quicker but less interesting).

Ooh... good point. That might make it harder to survive the winter. Perhaps 5 turns, then that double winter trick. On the other hand, forcing folks to search longer for rice might add an interesting angle

Play two "three season" years, instead of the regulation "4 season" years.

In order to keep the balance up, increase all rice yields by 1, but randomly set a revolt marker at the start of each year by drawing one of your cards. (this gives three extra rice - same as a low end province.)

But I thought you're supposed to play 3 season years...?

I think he means play:

Spring/Summer
Summer/Fall
Winter (scoring)

Instead of:

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter (scoring)

Oh, I get it. Hmmm... I'm not sure about that one. I don't think it would give you enough time to drive into enemy territory and threaten cities (since, of course, you can't advance more than one territory a turn).

How many times have you played?

If it's one or two, just play it again, I guarantee it will go a lot faster.

As for my suggestion, play something else. You'll do the game and yourself a disservice trying to shorten it...

I dunno... 12-15 times, maybe? It starts crazy, but by the last season or two borders have solidified and we pretty much know what's going to happen. It seemed we could cut a season or two from the game without substantial change in the result.

In our early games we played with standard setup rules, but the result was one or two giant empires that had untouchable interiors. Battles were giant border squabbles - enormous casualties, but no real hope of changing the situation - and those who weren't really dealt a heartland had no real chance of winning.

The newer setup rules result in a more dynamic and intense game. The vast number of difficult decisions may explain the slower pace, but it becomes less interesting once it coalesces into Giant Empire Syndrome.

If you want a shorter game, trim the board. It really is too long isn't it?

Maybe I should just set the game to 4x3 rather than 16x9...

Hmmm...we played a five-player game and it didn't run that long. We have even discussed a third year, as two seems to end the game a touch too quickly!

To shorten it, I'd use the two three-season suggestion above.

What sort of setup did you start with? How contiguous were everyone's starting territories?

If you use a normal setup, chance dictates that someone will happen to dominate an area of the map. To stop this, someone else has to be willing to sacrifice men by taking and investing in a suicide territory in the middle of that domination. Most are unwilling to do this, preferring to concentrate on creating a dominant region of their own. As a result, normal setups tend to end with the map sectioned off into a few zones of dominance, and those with a bad draw are stuck without a "homeland" (a disadvantage that requires a great difference in skill to overcome).

Now look again at the situation and note how scattered everyone's possessions are - and this is the start of the SECOND YEAR!!!

This is because we use an alternate setup - your initial territories are determined by your enemies. As a result, they've made sure that every one of your territories borders an enemy and almost none are contiguous. With just about every territory being a combat zone, decisions are much tougher, but the game is also much more exciting with very little luck (outside of the Battle Tower). If you haven't tried this, I strongly recommend it - it's almost an entirely new game.

The downside is that every decision is agonizing. Even constructing a building is a huge risk, as every territory you have is right next to an enemy army (pray he doesn't plan to attack from there!) This greatly adds to the length (and excitement) of turns.

By the end of the second year the situation starts gelling into definite regions of dominance - much more like the initial setup of a normal game. Decisions are easier because there are only a few border territories that really need armies, and regions have cozy interiors where you can construct buildings unchallenged. The winners are pretty evident by now, as it would take a dozen seasons to drive deep enough to threaten those interiors. As a result, the drop in intensity of the game is so dramatic that the last few turns feel like a long, pointless epilogue.

Eliminating this tedious endgame is why I have an interest in shortening the game. Four playable seasons seems about right: usually by the end of that 4th season someone wins that big battle that establishes hegemony over a region. Further seasons just rub in their advantage with more turns build in their safe interior.

Hmmmm.... Let's see, you come up w/ this cool variant (which really does look intriguing) that makes the decisions longer & more agonizing, and then you're asking us for suggestions on how to shorten the game?

OK, then, here goes nothing:
Buy chess timers. Give each person 20 minutes total for the game. If you're out of time, you must place your provinces down randomly, sight unseen.

Each player, in turn, takes a province from your hand at random (you get to see the province) and places it on the order of his choosing. If you really want to get vicious (and by your tweaked set-up, you do) make it two cards. (The bidding order would be off-limits).

The first person to finish their orders gets a treasure. When the second person finishes, they and the first person each get a treasure, and so on. No one gets anything when the last person finishes. Everyone who finishes gets an extra rice for each 30 seconds/minute after they finish until the last person has finished their orders.

Please test out these ideas, individually or in tandem & tell us how it worked out.

Yes, I'm very sorry about that! I've been using this variant for a long time, so it wasn't until everyone else said their games are shorter that it even occurred to me my variant changes things a lot! As a matter of fact, it took me some effort to recall what games were even like back in the old (Wallenstein) days, as it has been several years since I've played with original rules.

So anyway, it's all my bad - I just totally spaced that we're using a variant - and yes, I'm feeling pretty stupid at the moment.

Chess timers are great if there's one player who takes disproportionately longer than everyone else. We've been lucky, though, in that no one - even newbies - really creates a problem in analysis paralysis. This is because you're never really waiting idly: the game is so intricate and your decisions so interrelated that you get worried and invariably want to tweak your decisions.

The setup time, by the way, is as fast or faster than the original setup time, so no timers are needed there. Remember, you're handing cards to your enemies, so it's a lot easier (even for a newbie) to see what you don't want to do: don't give him anything adjacent to what he has - especially if it's a rich territory!
That's a really great idea, but I'm afraid it would unfairly penalize the newbies (of which we always have a few) who have to learn the rules in addition to figuring out what they want to do. A more important factor is that everyone says the thing they like most about the game is how deep and intricate the decisions are, and I'd hate to cripple the strongest point of the game.

Really, the only fat I can see is the last few seasons that seem relatively static (especially after so much dynamism and drama).

A suggestion I have to shorten up the game without actually changing anything is getting player screens for your boards. That way when you are programing your actions you can place all of your cards face up and when you are set on your placement flip them all over and remove the screen.

I've found that with the group I play with that most of the time is in the program phase and there is a lot of placing cards picking them back up to see what they are and then replacing and so on so I thought that screens might help. Unfortunately I haven't had a chance to try it but I assume it will cut down some of the play time.

Oooh! That's a GREAT idea, especially for newbies! I need to find something that'll work for that!

I always admire a game-tweaker. I'm surprised you play your tweaked version w/ newbies, though. My experience has been it's a good idea to get them a game or two under their belt before you bring out 'the weirding way.' ::insert one long anecdote about a disastrous game of Kingmaker here:: Of course, if it works, go with it.

I prefer the negotiation aspect of the game, which only makes the game longer, but it means also that you take time to build instead of constantly being paranoid of everyone, which I think reduces game-enjoyment. But here's a thought: assign allies each season. You could do it randomly, or w/ a bid system, a la Struggle of Empires. You'd know that your border w/ blue is okay, thereby relieving the attention to attacking/defending.

Actually, in this case, it seems that newbies find the tweaked setup more intuitive (and quicker) than the original version. That's because it's immediately and graphically obvious what territory shouldn't be given to an enemy. Where newbies get into trouble is during actual play, as they're unlikely to recognize the danger when their enemy establishes a "buffer" territory behind which they can build houses.
Although there is some occasional lobbying, we generally play without much comment. Our folks are from a non-gaming background and may not know how to handle being ganged up on without taking it personally.

Once again, recall that being forced to deal with enemies everywhere is actually a good thing. I certainly feel that having territories free from threat takes away a lot from the game.

When the tweaked setup is complete, players look at their hopeless position and say, "I'm screwed". However, they look around and realize everyone else is saying the same thing, so they suddenly see their situation in a new light and - my favorite moment - their eyes light up and they get this evil "Aha!" that shows they realize what a meaty game they've embarking on.

Well, next time I'm in CO, I'll be sure to drop by your place for a game!

Oh, I'm sure you guys are better gamers than we are - try that tweaked setup and hopefully you'll see what I mean...

This thread is filled with exciting ideas that I'm looking forward to trying... If only I had a more regular gaming group. I've only played this twice since buying it around December 2007