A thought or suggestion for possible change:
As it is now S/O options are called for on a specific turn. The turn comes and you have to make the choice then and there. There is no postponing the decision.
On the other hand, when the reinforcements do arrive later, you can choose to delay placing the units for as long as you like. Specifically, it is an easy thing to let the reinforcements arrive at a moment which fits your plans perfectly.
I would argue that it should be the other way around. The S/O option should be able to be delayed but the effect of that decision should happen at the given turn, as per the S/O option. The player should be able to postpone his strategic decision but once he decides then the carrying out of that order is final and happen on a specific turn or sequel of turns.
What is more historical? I´m not sure, hence this post on our board. But I know that general Clark during Operation Avalanche, the invasion at Salerno, had a great dilemma on how to use the airborne and where to drop them. He waited and waited with the decision, while eying what happened ashore. Finally, he made a decision and then it was practically irreversible. The planes took off, dropped the airborne, and flew back. There was no circleling around, waiting for the perfect moment to act.
Hope it is clear what I´m talking about, all thoughts are welcome!
I understand your point, and agree in part, but I think it depends on the situation and what the strategy is representing that really determines how "fixed" the decision time should be. In some cases, as you say, the choice could be delayed, but in many cases, these was no choice on the timing - the units are arriving and have to be sent immediately to where they are going, or there won't be transport to move them any longer. So I am okay with the strategy choice being locked in timewise.
On the reinforcement side of things, once a choice has been made, the units are added to the reinforcement list as if they were always there, and are treated as normal reinforcements then. Your issue there is with the reinforcement process, rather than the strategy choices. I imagine the program could be changed to treat these reinforcements from a strategy choice differnetly from other reinforcements, but your comments really apply to all reinforcements anyway.
As to that, again I see the situation as being complex and in some cases once a choice was made it couldn't be stopped, in others it could though, and I would tend to say that it would be much more common that reinforcements in the game could be committed when appropriate rather than they would be showing up no matter what. In your example, the airborne drop was only a forgone conclusion once the planes took off, and even then there might have been a way to stop them - I don't know about that though. But up until the take off time, the drop could have been cancelled due to weather, etc. Same thing in Market Garden, where the Polish drop was delayed for days due to weather, but could have been delayed due to the situation on the ground, if appropriate.
As it is, the current system is too flexible, I imagine, but locking all reinforcements into their set timeframe is way too inflexible and I would not like it at all. It is too easy already for an opponent that plays, as Hiroo says he does, to study the release/reinforcement tables and prepare for them, making entry of reinforcements a death trap in many situations in the games, if they can't wait for a more opportune time.
Regards
Rick
Let it be as it is, it do the work.
The German command in the west knew an invasion would be attempted. They never knew when.
Reinforcements could also be delayed because of an off map situation. In S42, the German pioneers could be delayed by their involvement at Voronezh.
I like the current system of flexibility with the reinforcements for strategy options. What is missing is not enough strategy options. The opposite force can relax once a certain time passes. At least, the idea of delayed reinforcements could force the other side to consider the known event could occur in the future. The other player has to make a choice. Anything in the system that creates more choices in the face of limited information makes a better war game model IMHO.
Many command decisions modeled in the S/O are of very short time frames to execute. Planning, allocation of units involved, logistics, those have all been handled for you "off line" to simulate that the commander has deemed a strategy is viable. Commanders will wait until the last minute to choose the correct timing of the blow. Greater risk is involved when a strategy takes too long to execute.
Good commanders are risk takers, not gamblers.
Dog Soldier
Dog Soldier Wrote:I like the current system of flexibility with the reinforcements for strategy options. What is missing is not enough strategy options.
I find too many Strategy Options get confusing, especially when the choice has to be made on one turn and the actual event takes place a couple turns later. But this way is often more realistic I figure.
Also, you only get a few characters to clearly discribe the Strategy and then a few more to define what the operations actually does.
Another consideration is the more Strategy Operations,the more challenging to test. It is also more problematic and harder (thogh not impossible) to control the AI.
It is certainly a fine line to walk with a number of cotrolling factors.
Glenn
Dog Soldier Wrote:Good commanders are risk takers, not gamblers.
Dog Soldier
Exactly my thoughts. In a balanced situation the difference between a 'draw' and a stunning victory is the calculated risk. He who risks nothing gains nothing.
Krak Wrote:Dog Soldier Wrote:Good commanders are risk takers, not gamblers.
Dog Soldier
Exactly my thoughts. In a balanced situation the difference between a 'draw' and a stunning victory is the calculated risk. He who risks nothing gains nothing.
I´m not sure how this relates to my question but thanks for the opinion.
Ricky B: you have some good points I did not consider, I guess it comes down to how much flexibility players want in the game. Most players seem to want a lot, often as a way to counter an opponents ahistorical knowledge of reinforcements. The way to counter this in turn would be, as DS said, more S/O options. Something I believe all players would enjoy.