Fastest game type?

[palloco]

The fastest game type is the royal rumble and derivatives.
Beyond that, you can set turn limit to 1minute. And although sometimes I have problems to deal with turns of 2:30 minutes, it is possible to play much faster, although not as wellas you can do with more time.

[silent]

Agreed about royal rumble tournaments, they are quick and fun.

Other than that and the unbalanced abomination that is Isar's cross, some games just become really long, it all depends on amount of time you have to play and opponent. I used to really enjoy long, drawn-out struggles on cynsaun battlefield when I had the time, but not everyone wants a long battle which is fine. Decisive plays will also end games quickly if such an opportunity presents itself, which is also good.

[MCP]

People are always [censored] about luck to the point of numerous "less-luck" mods. When is someone going to make a "faster game" mod?

Speed Wesnoth? 30 second turns!

... Doesn't sound that fun ):

[Zachron]

I've played games with short turn limits, they are usually played by impatient people who will quit anyway. lol.

I don't ever quit when left to my own devices, but I cohabitate a dwelling with an autistic, bipolar, obsessive-compulsive child, and unexpected things are par du course. (The irony of course is that before we got the kid, our internet connection was crap. The awesome internet connection I enjoy and the labor intensive child arrived during about the same time-frame.)

[ancestral]

I propose this to you all:

Let players on the same side take their turns simultaneously.

With survival-type games as well as 2 vs. 2 and other allied games, much of the time is waiting for other players. There is obviously trouble if opponents are taking their turns at the same time, so that's bound to never happen, but for allies, there's really no harm at all. In 2 vs. 2 you can cut the wait time by half; in survival games you can cut it down to almost 2/n, where n is the total number of players including AI.

This would help speed up allied games immensely.

[Noy]

For an agonizingly long time Wesnoth has boiled down to:
1) Start game, someone leaves.
2) Half way through three hour game, someone leaves.
3) A wall of units cover every piece of valuable terrain but must stare eachother down, as moving would mean standing in the grass to be quickly picked off.

The third point is fixed by skirmishers but the first two are still a pain in the arse. So what is the shortest game type where I can where I can finish in half an hour.
(I chose half an hour because getting a bunch of players together for those maps where everyone's leader has a free for all around a tree is difficult.)

There might be something wrong with the search button. I searched "fastest game type" but it decided to ignore the word "game".

Basically, if you're asking for the fastest game type, you're almost asking for leavers to come into your game. As others have pointed out, the best way of ensuring you don't have leavers is being choosy on who your opponents and allies are.

[Turuk]

I propose this to you all:

Let players on the same side take their turns simultaneously.

With survival-type games as well as 2 vs. 2 and other allied games, much of the time is waiting for other players. There is obviously trouble if opponents are taking their turns at the same time, so that's bound to never happen, but for allies, there's really no harm at all. In 2 vs. 2 you can cut the wait time by half; in survival games you can cut it down to almost 2/n, where n is the total number of players including AI.

This would help speed up allied games immensely.

And how would you address leadership, healing, and other abilities?

[ancestral]

And how would you address leadership, healing, and other abilities?

They would continue to function no differently. If Player 1 and Player 2 are both on side A, player 1's abilities all resolve, then player 2's, then they're both free to make their moves in any order.

[Turuk]

They would continue to function no differently. If Player 1 and Player 2 are both on side A, player 1's abilities all resolve, then player 2's, then they're both free to make their moves in any order.

Right, but what about losing the healing benefit of having two turns because on their one turn, healing cannot exceed +8?

Also, if they are using leadership to support their units and then ending the movement of their leader next to an ally's units to help them, wouldn't the second player still have to wait for the first player to move that unit?

[The1exile]

I set up 1vs1 hornshark games with 90 or 120 second turns pretty much every time I'm on. They usually only take about half an hour (maybe 45 minutes max).

[Aethaeryn]

I propose this to you all:

Let players on the same side take their turns simultaneously.

With survival-type games as well as 2 vs. 2 and other allied games, much of the time is waiting for other players. There is obviously trouble if opponents are taking their turns at the same time, so that's bound to never happen, but for allies, there's really no harm at all. In 2 vs. 2 you can cut the wait time by half; in survival games you can cut it down to almost 2/n, where n is the total number of players including AI.

This would help speed up allied games immensely.

I would love simultaneous-for-allies play, especially for nontraditional game types like RPG or same-side survival. Of course, the player who won't end will probably still hold up the simultaneous turn being the last to finish.

I guess the main problem is that if you want it badly, you'd have to resolve all of the issues and code it yourself.

(And, of course, it should be merely an option so that those who prefer the old style could still play it that way.)

[thespaceinvader]

What happens when two players simultenaously attack the same enemy/move to the same space? More importantly, what happens when lag causes you to attack an enemy that's no longer alive, or move to a space that's blocked?