Slitherine

What if any have been the rules used in doubles comps to limit the partners from communicating with each other during the battle?

I would also appreciate any guidlines as to how such tounaments are structured.
Points, generals, allies, etc.

Thank You
Gino
SMAC

kal5056 wrote:What if any have been the rules used in doubles comps to limit the partners from communicating with each other during the battle?

None

I would also appreciate any guidlines as to how such tounaments are structured.
Points, generals, allies, etc.

They haven't been structured beyond being set at 900 or 1000 points.

They seem to work fine without any artificial limitations. Most teams seem to work on the basis of each player controlling the troops in half of the effective playing area, but no competition organisers that I am aware of have so far seen fit to attempt to regulate this. It is unlikely that such regulation would add to anyone's fun.

As most tournament organisers will allow players whose partner fails to turn up to play solo, there does not seem much point in any restrictions.

Moreover it would be against the FOG design principles to attempt to impose restrictions which players could then circumvent to a greater or lesser extent. We have solved the "deployment map" issue, let's not try to invent new things to wrangle over.

rbodleyscott wrote:They seem to work fine without any artificial limitations. Most teams seem to work on the basis of each player controlling the troops in half of the effective playing area, but no competition organisers that I am aware of have so far seen fit to attempt to regulate this. It is unlikely that such regulation would add to anyone's fun.

Good point. I do not think that there is any point in trying to limit communication between doubles partners, either on the practical level or the fun level. Doubles tournaments are an interesting alternative to singles events; they tend to be a bit less competitive and more about the jawing around.

As an aside, there will be a doubles event at Cold Wars. March 2009 in Lancaster, PA. I should have the announcement posted sometime in the next week. Mark your calendars.

Marc

For guidelines as to how they are structured, just have a look at some tournament websites, eg the www.maws.co.uk website where there is information about the Northern Doubles league.
Regarding communication betwen players on the same side in a game : when I joined the group I currently play with, they had a sort of house rule limiting discussions between players. Having played in some DBM doubles tournaments where discussing plans & moves is allowed, I was somewhat suprised to be told off for "coaching" mid-game. I suppose it does make sense that generals on the other side of the battlefield shouldn't be able to discuss plans. It can also slow the game down if every move is discussed jointly between the two players - part of the advantage of a double tournament is that it speeds up play by having two players move the troops. This is nullified if every move has to be agreed between the players (or more likely, "authorised" by the better of the two players).
On the other hand, part of the attraction of a doubles tournament is that there are two of you, and the more experienced or better player can guide and advise the other. This probably applies more to DBM, but a two day singles tournament with two 3-4 hour games each day can be a real brain-burner. Doubles tournaments always seem a lot easier, partly I think because having a partner to refer to occasionally takes some of the pressure off and reduces the liklihood of costly mistakes.

IMO in a doubles game players are totally free to 'coach' their partner but in a singles team event then it is a no no.

The best doubles teams actually don't communicate that much as they almost inately know what the other half of the team is going to do.

To be castigated in the Northern league sounds rather odd to me. There are a lot of beginner players there at the moment and often they need advice.

I would also appreciate any guidlines as to how such tounaments are structured.
Points, generals, allies, etc.

Structure - As any other tournament. Possibly themed, Swiss scoring. Some tournaments/leagues carry their score over

Points - Normally 900 or 1000

Generals/Allies - The doubles I have played with FoG the generals bases seem to freely swap between who needs them at the time. The players are players, not generals. Although it may work, and was used in other rules that I had played that the 'second' player commanded the allied troops and their general.

What generally (oops) happens is the players discuss their tactics before deployment, they discuss again once deployed and then each will control part of the table; trying to convince their partner to send some of the troops they said they needed to their control if they can. There tends to be little, if any, discussion of individual BG moves, but this can be amusing when it starts anyway, depending who you are playing. (someone may lose their rattle).

Hammy - I wasn't castigated in the Northern League. I was referring to the group I play with each week.

Polkovnik wrote:Hammy - I wasn't castigated in the Northern League. I was referring to the group I play with each week.

Blimey! that is even worse IMO.

In friendly games I will regularly tell people what their options are when they are in a mess, even if that means they can get out of the mess. I also explain when they are getting the rules wrong or doing something incorrectly. It is not uncommon for players from other games to be called over to look at a situation and offer suggestions.

The only way to improve at a rapid rate is to be told when you are doing something wrong IMO. As a result the FoG players at the MAWS club are an all round pretty competent bunch even if Dave still can't get the rules right and Phil insists on using as many cataphracts as he can carry

philqw78 wrote:There tends to be little, if any, discussion of individual BG moves, but this can be amusing when it starts anyway, depending who you are playing. (someone may lose their rattle).

One of the main advantages of the Doubles format is that players tend to argue with their partners and not their opponents.

hammy wrote:

Polkovnik wrote:Hammy - I wasn't castigated in the Northern League. I was referring to the group I play with each week.

Blimey! that is even worse IMO.

In friendly games I will regularly tell people what their options are when they are in a mess, even if that means they can get out of the mess. I also explain when they are getting the rules wrong or doing something incorrectly. It is not uncommon for players from other games to be called over to look at a situation and offer suggestions.

The only way to improve at a rapid rate is to be told when you are doing something wrong IMO. As a result the FoG players at the MAWS club are an all round pretty competent bunch even if Dave still can't get the rules right and Phil insists on using as many cataphracts as he can carry

I agree I am IMO very lucky to be in the MAWS club, there are many players that I've asked most monday nights about some aspect of the rules that i need explaining I can ask Hammy Dave R or any of the other good players to come and help me out ofton pulling them from their own games to explain simple things that i can't get my head around. I must say its nice to know if stuck you've got people to ask. I have never yet played a double game but to not be able to speak or confer would spoil the aspect of the game and thats the fun side. I'm playing my first this sunday so will tell you how i feel about it all.
dave