An Idea (reinforcements)

[jiminy_fatal]

What do you guys think of the selection of forces secretly and then the selcetion of a map process?

I don't like it that much, would be nice to see where I am fighting before I select that nashorn or not. ahha


anyways i suggest the following proposal:


Choose armies in secret. also choose a reinforcement force of 1/2 that amount. map is then picked. at this point you may choose to place 1/2 of the 1/2 reinforcemnts on the map.. this way you can make up for any weaknesses in your choices (you can see the other guys/girls forces) and choose map appropriate forces...


reason behind this is... Commander knows he is engaging in battle, surveys the incoming force and radios in for reinforcements and only has a limited amount of units that are available ready for immediate deployment from the staging area...


what do you all think???

[Zhukov]

Interesting, ive been thinking of ways to edit around and do reinforcement/reserve type things. But, Im not sure if its good or not but I think its neat.

[Domhnall101]

It should encourage more balanced forces as one doesn't know terrain type will appear

[killermuppet]

The only issue I would have with this method is Table of Organization and Equipment. Infantry companies may work with an Armor/Cav Company, but they are not always together in the same battle. If company A calls for fire support and company C is then counter attacked then they do not have armor support. This happened many times and that would be the reason a company or battalion was forced to pull back.
I remember looking at TO&Es for units and they would have 1 armor company and 3 rifle companies. I won't even try to get into support units (major headache). Just because you may have an Armor styled "Army" setup doesn't mean you can instantly pull in support. Combined Arms is in its infancy, as an only Sargeant of mine use to love to say, "Suck it up and drive on Private" Just try and think of any situation and look for any signs of intel.

[Autarch]

Some of WotC scenarios make use of additional units entering the game at later turns, but these are part of the starting force. Realistically, a commander wouldn't have time to assess his situation and hand pick his reserves. Even if he did, they wouldn't get to the battle in time.

[Lotus]

While I like flexibility, and love the concept (and practice) of bringing reinforcements into the game, I hesitate to have them be sideboard components intended to respond to an opponent's builds.

I personally don't want to cut out surprise. Much of the fun, and challenge, of this game for me is reacting to something I am unprepared for using only what I have available. It makes tactical thinking stronger I believe.

My thought on reinforcements is that they should be connected with the objective. Why do you need to hold the objective by the end of the 7th turn? Because...that's when reinforcements arrive.

It's how our game evolved. Not saying it's the only way to do it...just what works for us in our neck of the woods.

Either way, excellent topic for a thread.

Edit: Our optional version of reinforcements is whoever holds the objective by the end of Turn7 gets 50 pts of reinforcements...not both sides, and the game continues with that until someone is wiped off the board or concedes.

[manufan]

I would like the idea of a 2nd wave.

That is, pick half the points value in secret. Deploy them within 5 hexes of your starting side at the start of turn 5.

They've only got 2 turns to make sure they are effective with maybe more turns if both players are adjacent to the objective.

Cheers.

[Bastogne_Bulldog]

As I said in an earlier post, The old Avalon Hill game UP Front had a mechanism whereby reinforcements were discounted in price depending on when they arrived. As Up Front was a card-based game, the time was measured in decks. You could try the same thing in AAM. Maybe 5% (rounded down) per turn of delayed entry. The turn of entry would have to be written down when you built your army, and showed to the opponent afterwards.

[jiminy_fatal]

Well, i am going to try it out. Thanks for all the suggestions. Reinforcements are groovy.

Now, second question... how many of you play with multiple objectives?

I can see playing with 3.. that way if yuo hold 2 you win a minor victory, if you hold 3 you win a major victory. 1 Objective will be on each side and one in the middle. Encourages striking attacks into enemy territory and the like. This will prevent infantry from ganging up on the objective side of the map!! Oftentimes i find that the enemy rarely uses the oppostie side of the objective. any ideas??