To Talk or not to Talk??

[yar68]

I've started a discussion on my blog about, allowing team members to talk tactics during games, what do you think??

http://onelover-ray.blogspot.com/2011/0 ... games.html

[obriendavid]

In large multi-player games that I organise I have always made it a point that the players are unable to talk to each other once the battle starts unless their command figures are side by side. They couldn't do it in real life so why let them do it on the wargames table.
Cheers
Dave

[barr7430]

We do allow 'team huddles' around coffee time in the afternoon on the big weekenders with a 5 minute 'at the table discussion' by each side in turn.

[Rob Herrick]

Do you have voice radios?

If so, then the players can talk. If not, then they shouldn't. The C-in-C writes the plans and then trusts his subordinates to execute them on their own. Tactical discussions or requests for support are by short flag signal (for ships of the line) or message (land battles).

It's essential in both ancients games (where command and control as we know it was rare to non-existent beyond an officer's voice range) and the 18th Century (where armies were so big, they were almost impossible to properly control by men on horseback with communication by messenger).

That's really the best way to introduce fog of war. With multiple people who cannot confer except by some dubious handwriting methods, you can introduce some real hilarity and genuine understanding of why things didn't go as planned.

That's one of the reasons I like variable initiative or games where your men may not respond to your orders. Friction is inevitable in war; if it's not there, then you're missing the key explanation for why a lot of things went the way they did.

[18th Century Guy]

With the way my dice roll talking to the players on my side has never helped. But I do understand the desire to control some of that.

[kiwipeterh]

Ideally no talk. Use couriers - a use and excuse for some pretty ADCs - to send messages which will hopefully be misinterpreted or out of date. Or get your two representative command figures together and chat away.

Life isn't always ideal though.

Salute
von Peter himself

[Rob Herrick]

Ideally no talk. Use couriers - a use and excuse for some pretty ADCs - to send messages which will hopefully be misinterpreted or out of date. Or get your two representative command figures together and chat away.

Or both. The player with the worst handwriting is Napoleon. It leads to some absolutely hysterical results.

[obriendavid]

In one of my multi-player games I suggested that the various allied commanders should issue messages to each other in their own national language just to add a spice of confusion to the game but the players didn't fancy the idea. I needn't had bothered, seeing the mis-interpretation of written messages in English was amazing and hysterical.

In another WW1 game, all the British players were either brigade, division or the artillery commanders and they were allowed 10 mins to plan their attack. After the initial planning stage the artillery commander went off to draw up his artillery bombardment plan and the other commanders kept chatting when one of them suggest an alternative to the attack which completely changed the plan but nobody thought to inform the artillery commander. He was amazed when only one brigade advanced at the start of the artillery bombardment and the others were cursing the artillery and other brigade commanders when they launched their attacks with no artillery support as it had no moved onto the German rear trenches. So much for hindsight but the result was hilarious to watch.
Cheers
Dave

[Redmist1122]

I read alot of good ideas to implement the no table talk so to speak...what would be a penalty if it happens?

[bibio]

I do'nt see any reason for not talkingunless you're playing on a huge table and commands are well seperated , the only proviso I would make is that your opponents can hear what you are saying.It does'nt matter what devious plans you come up with ,it all comes down to dice in the end.

iain

[barr7430]

Actually Iain don't agree totally with that point of view. The dice are mitigating in a wargame but not the complete arbiter or success or failure. A crap plan will usually fail even with the best dice. A good plan may still succeed with the dice against it. Otherwise, we'd be better of saving ourselves a lot of money and playing Monopoly!

[Churchill]

Ray.

[CoffinDodger]

...This is why I like Dave O'Brien's events...

Speak for yourself.

Jim

[obriendavid]

...This is why I like Dave O'Brien's events...

Speak for yourself.

Jim

Just remember Jim that the next time you go down to the woods you're in for a big surprise! The dancing Russian Bears are Ray's idea, not mine!
Cheers
Dave

[Rob Herrick]

I read alot of good ideas to implement the no table talk so to speak...what would be a penalty if it happens?

Napoleon's Battles had a free roll option. Essentially, you could use it to reroll an outcome you didn't like. One of the guys I used to game with gave them out to the other side as penalties for tabletalk.

The only place where that is really a problem is in Fire and Fury variants, where you total up all of the fire going at the target at once to see which line of the firing chart to consult. That requires a good deal of co-ordination to ensure all the fire is done properly. A work around would be to do fire by firing unit instead of target unit.