Andreas (South)/Andre (West)/George (North)/Klaus (East)

[George]

Hi Everyone,
First - this is my first exposure to this activity, so I may be completely wrong. But what do you think of this idea.

Think of what happens in actual battles when there are two “cooperating but different” armies and army commanders?
They have meeting to determine their strategies and plans. However during the battle things can change and they have to adapt without communication.
After some time they have another “strategy meeting” and regroup based on the situation and the battle continues.

So, perhaps the partners can have an initial discussion to determine overall plans, clues and strategies.
For example: — Our overall plan is this ..... I will take my ships loaded with elephants around the left side, you take one Galleon with a catapult around the right side ..... we will try and take control of the ..... area of the board. Our overall strategy is to do this in the first few moves.

The game starts, and no communication allowed for a specific number of rounds.

After say three rounds (each player has three turns but could be any agreed number) - the partners are again allowed to communicate (have a strategy meeting) to review what has happened, discuss opportunities or failures so far, discuss strengths or weaknesses of their opponents and plan the next three rounds.

I think this will have some desirable effects, weaker players like me can learn from a stronger player and provide maybe better coordinated support. The stronger player can lead the game, but not overpower or control it. This will allow some communication but also allow a battle to be unpredictable and flowing.

Having never played a partnership game, I will leave it to you to see if this makes any sense in actual play or if it has negative consequences I may not be aware of.
Thanks and all the best from Anastasia State Park in Florida.
George

[Klaus]

Hi Everyone,
thank you for your statements. I noticed interesting ideas. Let's try to summarize:

1. Communication among partners is desired.
2. but no suggestions concerning specific moves, only such plans which George described or warnings about adversarial threats are allowed.

Does it make sense to discuss the strategy of a team publicly on the forum? I don't think so. Open plans can't take full effect! Maybe we could proceed this way:

1. At the beginning of a partnership play each team discusses the first strategy secretly by private forum (!) messages (not by email).
2. Two rounds without discussion (Edited: without team discussion; general discussions and influence towards the opponents are allowed naturally!)
3. After the second round the teams have to post their first strategy discussion (their private forum messages) on the forum and discuss the next strategy secretly by private forum(!) messages.
4. Two further rounds without discussion and so on.

(Edited: So we have to decide: Either open discussion of the teams or secret plans exchanged by private forum massages and published two rounds later.)

Thanx again, especially for your detailed recommendations, George!

Kind regards

Klaus