Open table communication leaves me wondering…


  • 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.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    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.


  • Points noted - thanks CJ!


  • @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:

Suggested Topics

  • 8
  • 190
  • 8
  • 31
  • 5
  • 3
  • 1
  • 26
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

36

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts