There should be NO communiction during the actual ACT of cmopleting the move, at least none regarding the game.
They can confer briefly before the move, but once one player starts moving pieces, the other should make NO statements of any kind (other than some “Oh Crap!” or whatever as dice are rolled) about the game until ALL movement is compelted and the turn is ended.
Why not? If your teammate is gonna do something stupid you should be able to tell them that it’s a mistake.
While ideally this is the situation, it really depends on the group of players. Nothing in the rules dictates that there cant be communication between the two or three teammates. If this were the case, I feel the allies would have a huge disadvantage, as, unlike the Axis, coordination is CRUCIAL between the allies, especially UK and UK. This is especially true when some players are more experienced than others. People are still free to disagree about moves, as US may not want to sacrifice their FTR or fleet in order to help out the Brits. But unless there is an agreement beforehand, I think that table talk is ok. One player dominating another player, however, should be avoided.
And besides, this is supposed to be a friendly, social game. And there was plenty of communication between the Allied leaders during the war, less so between Germany and Jap.
Of course when I lose a game, Everything my opponents did is wrong, whether it was table talk, serving me too many beers, or breathing too loud. But I have to admit, I can be a sore loser.
Mateooo
Yes, but Stalin was not usually giving orders to US troops during combat.
So discussion before moves, yes… but telling a player to change his moves during the act of moving, no.
At least in my personal opinion (void during “teaching” games where you HAVE to help a new player learn the game)
I wouldn’t consider it giving orders just advice.
There is a line that is crossed, and this last game i think it was. Not one single move, i am not exaggerating, was made independently. They both ran both countries.
Two heads are better than one!
Me and my frends don’t play serious like SERIOUS just we meet up and play for a day. the amount of discusion that goes round the table is disgusting
but to be honest if you were play a game with your mates…… SOUR GRAPES!!! :lol:
coordination is CRUCIAL between the allies, especially UK and UK. .
you play with schizophrenic people? i thiknk its okay to talk to your partner as long as its not in private and the other sidecan hear you.
I think that it is a good idea to decide what is what before the game and stick to that. Decide what talking is allowed and when and where and stick with that.
We usually have an inexperienced person playing with experienced people in multi-player games (been awhile since we had one) and some advice is always expected to those people. But we tend to also just let folks do their thing. Mostly because we don’t like being told what to do ourselves.
It is a game. The playing of games is supposed to be fun.
It is more fun to win…
but it is also fun to act with honor and integrety and win within the rules and code of the group. Get your code straight and you won’t have any worries.
coordination is CRUCIAL between the allies, especially UK and UK. .
you play with schizophrenic people? i thiknk its okay to talk to your partner as long as its not in private and the other sidecan hear you.
I play Axis and Allies by myself… and always lose. Schizophrenic people? I dont know any schizophrenic people. And neither do I.
Mateooo
For FTF tournament play, such help is normal.
If you are playing “for fun”, then you really shouldn’t care if they are helping each other. It’s just “a game”.
Squirecam
I consider it more of a challenge if I have to compete with a “committee” I also prefer not to give to much advice to my partners. Although I am not a blue falcon when it comes to pointing out things I think my partner doesn’t see. In short, that’s why I like face to face games, the table talk is half the game.
I have always encouraged partners to take their discussion of allied moves to some place besides the game table. For the AH game Diplomacy, this was facilitated by having small maps of the board handy so they had something to look at while thinking.
This was not an explicit rule by the way. I just figured if two allies were silly enough to discuss strategy and tactics in front of me, I had every right in the world to offer advice, second thoughts and lots of more “good advice” to the mix. Right down to the point of offering advice on the tactical side of things. All it takes is some bad advice from the “ally” to give you the wedge you need to point out the Ally “A” is trying to make sure Ally “B” does not get the personal win even if they both win.
“See, I told you he was giving you bad advice to attack me there. Like I said, your attack was crushed but you weakened me enough that his undeserving and wimpy army can waltz right in and now he gets the build points, not you. That’s quite the ‘ally’ you have there. Has he asked to borrow your girlfriend yet?”
I disagree. The players shoudl determine an appropriate discussion time before each move and the opponents should leave the table for that period of time. Gives the players a chance to point to units on the map.
In an effort to be realistic as possible, I am oppsoed to allies getting into the ultimate detail of each move - counting the number of spaces fighters can move, jointly determining the number of units to send in, and then looking for good non-combat moves.
I mean, that just didn’t happen - especially Japan/Germany (obviously) and Russia with US/UK. While a team game, there is some individualism needed in my opinion.
To be honest, ldoggty, I’ve never let Russia collaberate with the US/UK. They’re solo.
However, we also said that if Japan invaded USSR they got 10 IPC + 4 free infantry immediately to use as they saw fit. So it wasn’t too bad.
If you want to be most historically accurate, have Japan and Germany only have discussions before each round, have the Russians only talk with the Americans and British before the game starts, and have the Americans and British be able to openly discuss everything. Otherwise, I think everyone should be able to openly discuss everything.
Drives me most nuts when my “ally” gives pointers to the axis.
LOL, I do that all the time, but it goes more like: “Eww… I wouldn’t do that if I were you…”, “Hey Russia you see that?” “Hey anybody wana bet 5 buck that attack fails?” or “You sure you wanna do that?, you know how my dice have been tonight.”
Haha, I love the psy-ops.
My opponents can talk as much as they want, wherever they want.
It gives me time to go to the bathroom, grab a snack, take a brief nap, those sorts of things.
Or POSSIBLY discuss things with my team.
–
I really don’t care. If my opponents are REALLY GOOD, then their discussing things isn’t going to help them much, because the level of play was so high to begin with. If my opponents are REALLY BAD, their chatter will not help them anyways.
The only time I object to table talk is if player A is basically making all the moves for player B, even when player B objects. But that really goes beyond “table talk” to bad taste.
Well, okay, I also object if I’m sleepy, and my opponents are just wasting time.
Or if I was told to expect a good game, and one of my opponents is basically trying to set up a tutoring session for another player, complete with detailed explanations. (I don’t mind tutoring sessions, but I think it only polite to inform your opponent ahead of time if you are going to be spending a lot of time doing something that slows the progress of the game. Like the previous Friday or Saturday or whatever, not “oh hi, this is Joe, imma teach him A and A” )
Or if they are saying things like “i wuv u sooo much chickie-poo! y dun u move some fighters over here? did u remember to get some eggs?” ahhhh domestic talk . . . ahhh!
–
Well, okay, there are actually a LOT of times I object to table talk. But NOT when it increases the quality of the opposition.
