How much in-game strategy conversation do you tolerate?
eldeano last edited by
The frist time we played the revised edition we spent a lot of the time pulling each other to the side to discuss strategy. You guys allow that or are you strictly, “You play your country and I’ll play mine.”
JLord last edited by
Whenever we play there is a LOT of strategy discussion. As long as everyone is having a good time who cares…
Guest last edited by
In an FTF game, such conversation should NOT slow play.
A quick strat chat while getting a beverage or taking a smoke break. But not hour long sumits
Aretaku last edited by
I play with three friends, all of whom take quite a bit longer than me to take their turns, regardless of who is using which nation.
Gives me time for a smoke break, but it can get annoying.
Still, we do discuss strategy quite a bit, especially the Allies.
I’m in a crazy game right now…Japan huge in India, and also making small scale landings in Alaska/Canada… America alternating transport loads between Norway and Algeria…Britain with constant flow of men into Archangel…Russians holding the Japanese at bay in China…Germany bottled up, but too strong to take out effectively.
It’s quite possibly our longest game so far…and it’s interesting having Brits, Yanks and Russkies all defending the Eastern Front.
If me and my partner could not strategize as the Allies, we would have long ago lost the game…so discussion is certainly important…it can lead to arguments, but in general someone learns something by seeing a new or different strategy from someone elses perspective, so it evens out.
We always played that UK/USA could strat together, but everyone else was on their own. Our justification was that the UK and US really don’t have much in the way of strategizing to do after round 1 (aka when they decide KGF or KJF) and Chruchill and Eisenhower did an extreme amount of collaberation with each other, the other nations were more solitary during the war.
(Let’s face it, Hitler and Tojo didn’t plan the invasion of Russia together, Stalin may as well have been a 3rd side in the war given the degree of information he was sent…)
BTW, we also play that US/UK troops cannot land on Russian zones unless the Russian capital falls. (From then on it’s a free for all.)
Nightmare last edited by
IsnÂ´t this a quite strange rule?
For me itÂ´s often important to land in Karelia or Soviet Far East if IÂ´m beeing the Allies.
Guest last edited by
It is one of those variants that exists that is used instead of a bid to help balance the game and to create more historical accuracy.
Personally, I think it shifts the game from slight Allied favor to slight Axis favor. But it is an interesting house rule.
Grimelark last edited by
Just keep talking, keep a timer if need be, and remember you can pass notes in study hall if need be…
If you're having problems, please send an email to email@example.com