How does the turn sequence work with doubles play?

[Redpossum]

Is it different?

In terms of the nuts and bolts of executing the game turn, how does one coordinate a team of two? Are they just playing two separate armies side by side, or do they assign roles?

And for that matter, in the blurb about those Argentine gentlemen recreating Magnesia, it looked like they had 5 or 6 people on each side. I have to wonder how one coordinates that. Perhaps with detailed assignments?

[Andy1972]

Doubles in tourney set up is 1 army 1000 points ran by 2 guys/blokes (depending on which side of the pond you are)

[hammy]

Normally one player moves each half of the army and from time to time they have an argument about what to do in the middle

With DBM it was neater as each player had control of one or two 'commands' In FoG you just share the BGs out roughly 50/50

[BrianC]

I have never played in a tournament but am trying to get more multiplayer games in. We have been playing around 800 points and have been giving 1 player command of the infantry main battle line and the other takes the cavalry. Skirmishers can be assigned to whoever can benefit the most from them based on the plan of battle. Our last game one side divided their command based on the side of the board they sat one and put the cavalry in the middle.

[peterrjohnston]

You could have fun by having four generals, two each, and having the unit moved by whoever has the closest general...

[paulcummins]

or allow (require) 2 ICs in the list (bit like the extra pip for the ally general in DBM doubles)

[Seldon]

Hi guys,
what we did on the big Magnesia game was fun for that game or for big games but might not work for tourney regular doubles play.

We created commands, each player had on commander ( TC, FC or IC - whatever was there in the army ). Each of those commanders was assigned a group of units. Only those units where considered to be "in line of command" for that commander. This of course is very restrictive and greatly reduces the effectiveness of the commanders but we wanted the player to actually participate as opposed to the more experienced players running the show.

Commanders/players where not allowed to discussed strategy or tactics during the game ( ie. after deployment was done ). Commanders/players where the only ones allowed to move or operate their units with one exception. The army commander could "steal" units from other players if he attached to them ( and only while attached ). We tried to have players on the same side to move simultaneous, if there where any doubts about who had to go first in a situation the army commander decided.

All this allowed us to keep a fast pace for the game and it really forced all players to play which was key as we were introducing players to the rules.

Finally we had a couple of players that arrived late and so those where simply assigned to one of the commanders as an assistant effectively acting as a small team for the sake of simplicity.

As I said, not a system you might want to use in competition play but a really fun system to run a BIG BATTLE !!!

PS: thanks for referring to us as gentlemen

cheers
Francisco

[BrianC]

Hey Francisco,

Really enjoyed the AAR, the pics and description was perfect. I hope you do more. I recently played a 2 vs 2 game after a long break over the summer. We talked strategy before the game and we took a break half way through and talked again. One thing I thought of afterwards is what if you can only talk strategy if you have 2 commanders in contact with each other? Or would that be too much communication for the period? For non tournament games as well.

Brian

[Redpossum]

Don Francisco-

Hello, there! I agree that your Magnesia AAR was magnificent. I just loved the lavish use of photographs and detailed descriptions, but I know how much work that is to create.

It sounds like you are fortunate enough to have a large group of miniatures enthusiasts in your area.

I love the idea of assigning commanders to players, and then assigning units to those commanders. It's almost like each player was a separate Ally, for chain-of-command purposes, no? And of course the ability of the Army Commander to "borrow" units is a brilliant finishing touch. I would love to participate in a big game like this some day soon.

Do I recall you had a dozen players in total? I am so jealous words just fail me

As far as the simple courtesy of referring to you as gentlemen, you are most welcome. I try to remember to do what little one man can to, at least in some small measure, help to redeem my country's reputation with our Latin American neighbors. Sometimes it seems like the task of Sisyphus, given the appallingly arrogant attitudes of the men and women we usually elect to high public office, but "a man's a man for all that"

[CrazyHarborc]

Some time ago, I told a couple of my regular opponents/friends about that thread. We all REALLY enjoyed the photos and the words as well. A well organised game that was well recorded. I very much liked the tables, the size of the tables. I do hope that there will be more photos and articles coming the group.

Is there a name for the group? The gentlemen of Magnesia perhaps?