Open table communication leaves me wondering…

Hi taamvan,

Yes.  It does subtly alter the game in profound ways.  But it is by no means all “Pro-Axis”.  (If you feel bored sometime, try giving the full Three-Turn Playing System and Enhanced Combat rules set a read)

By having the Axis and Allied forces go in the same turn respectively and allowing them to attack together, you are eliminating:
 -  Can Openers.  No more gamy “one - two” punches.
 -  Eliminating Allied airplanes landing in your recently captured territories.

Also, the Allied forces and “Russia” are now working together … but separately.  Allied and Russian forces cannot attack together.  And, Allied and Russian forces cannot occupy the same territory … so therefore, Allies can no longer attack Germany via Norway --> Finland --> Leningrad --> Poland.

But, in general, the coordinated attacks tends to benefit the Allies more than the Axis.  This seems to counter-act the added initiative that the Axis have in the 1st turn.

@seancb:

Table talk can get out of control sometimes. Generally we have found that limiting the amount of smack talk or “propaganda” directed at an opposing player cuts some of the time down because then the player can think a bit straighter on their turn. We have a rule that you can talk crap on your non-combat and collect income phase. After you collect income, you must do the following: whisper to your partner your next turn objective(s), shut up, go get everyone a beer that needs one, have a smoke if you have that habit, and then see what your partner is doing making any suggestiosn after they have made their combat moves prior to dice rolls. No purchase decisions are open for discussion. This tends to average about 2 hours per full round in 1940 Global for the first 3 turns then it speeds up quite a bit. Smoke breaks are coordinated for the smokers at the beginning of a round and that tends to get the table talk out of the way for us.

Breaks combining tobacco use and propaganda / disinformation broadcasts could perhaps be called “smoke and mirrors” breaks.  :)

@Der:

Do you get what I’m talking about?

I wonder if any of you that play face to face games use any house rules that limit open communication with your Allies, and if so how do you implement them?

I was coming here to post the very same thing and instead find myself responding to your post.  My hardcore gamer friends refer to A&A as a “two-player” game for that very reason.  What usually happens is the two sides are played by committee, or worse, by the dominant player on each side.

A few ideas:

• Only allow written communication.  Require a roll to determine if a message makes it across the table or if it is intercepted.
• Put a limit to the number of summits ie. closed strategy sessions
• Eliminate table talk between allied powers

Still only rough ideas but you get the point.  Playing by committee makes the game into a very tense, chess match and causes the game to become routine too quickly.  Having to make up for your ally’s bonehead move should be part of the fun of the game.

This is an interesting conversation. I’ve only played one game where there were multiple players so I haven’t experienced what you guys have.

In that game, the US player was building forces as the Russian player was dealing with a German onslaught and he was getting pretty upset, just like the real thing.

Personally, I’m only playing these games for sheer enjoyment, so if someone, even my best friends, started telling me what to do, not only wouldn’t I listen, but I’d most likely do the opposite, even if I temporarily suffered or lost the game. I’d consider anything more than a simple “I’m going to need help in the Med” an insult.

I have been thinking about this off and on today.  It all comes down to, in my mind, that Stalin, Eisenhower and Churchill got together periodically for meetings.  How is that any different than Russia, England and the United States working together on a strategy?

Now, maybe kibitzing on specific battles is a bit much, but I don’t think it is out of line.  You’re a team and I could see myself saying “dude, you really want to throw all those troops at Crete?  It’s just Crete man!” So I wouldn’t really have a problem with chatting at the table.

Just my two IPC.  Take it, leave it, agree, disagree.  Not saying I am right! Don’t think I am wrong though.

So if you want to limit chat:

Teams are allowed 20 minutes to kibitz between each other.

Then orders are written down for all countries for major engagements (as defined as not territory trading, ie attacking with 50 infantry, 20 artillery, 10 armor is a major engagement; liberating a territory with 2 inf + fig is not)  and major actions cannot be altered.

Adds a lot of fog of war too.

@Der:

Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill’s meetings are represented by the 10 minute opening meeting and the 5 minute meeting every round. According to this site the three only got together three times during the whole war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_conferences

As for the table talk sample you gave, at our table it would go more like this:

Player 1: “dude, you really want to throw all those troops at Crete?”
Player 2: “Yeah, because look over there, the USA could counterattack.”
Player 1: “No they won’t with my submarines threatening them.”
Player 3: “What you should do is use those on the East Front”
Player 2: “But islands are hard to get back - Crete could pay off for several rounds.”
Player 1: “But that won’t win the game for us.”
Player 1: “OK take Crete, but use the bomber on Caucasus’ factory.”
Player 3: “No way - what if it gets shot down? Italy doesn’t have money to replace it.”
Player 1: “Seriously dude, just do this…” (Starts moving player all of player 2s pieces around) “See?”
Player 2: “No, I don’t like that” (Moves all pieces back to where they were)
Player 3: “Can we have the map for a few minutes?”

It’s this type of tomfoolery I’d like to curb - in my solution players can advise each other all they want if they are not actively trying to complete a turn. I think that is reasonable. If you have something so all important to say to your teammate that it’s worth spending 3 IPCs, you can still do it. We’ll see if it works, I could be wrong also.

I like the setting individual goals idea the most, but after thinking about it it seems too hard to implement. Each nation does not start out even. For example, Italy may have played a great game just keeping what they have with their small income, while Japan should be able to take a lot of land. How do you figure out who did better to declare individual winners? Seems complicated.

Yes, this does happen over table and in team meetings !  :lol: :lol: :lol:

We do have little talks over table if somebody needs to ask what you or him want to do if its like when US and UK are playing split sides and Germany Italy.

We do have team meetings after every turn for 5 to 10 mins if sides request it.

Last game was really good and we had more team meetings than was expected. But guys want that and get it.  :wink: