Unit purchasing before/ during operation.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Just getting groggy on you...

GAHHHH

I was pulling examples out of thin air to illustrate the point (points taken though, as always quite useful)...that point being that you shouldn't have access to the whole range of available kit, rarity or not. If it wasn't there - as you say Elephants weren't - you shouldn't have access to them.

Does this give opponents in a campaign unrealistic information or an advantage? I don't think so.

Want to play a campaign with ahistorical kit? Design your own to include it, or modify an existing one.

I agree that it would be more fun to have access to the rare stuff, but I suspect it would become a crutch for many and inspire either

a) bitter, inspid debate, or

Fionn-like "76" rules or whatever

Neither of which are desirable.

[ww2steel]

Dorosh- what you described above would be awesome if they'd take the time to implement it.

The way Close Combat did it (CC3 was best) was that rarity meant not that it too more points, but that it simply wasn't there to be chosen. There was a chance that those cherry units just simply wouldn't be available for an entire operation.

The problem then is cherry picking of the common units, which of course I always did in CC3 and is unrealistic- but the fact that you simply couldn't just buy 4 King Tigers at once was good.

Mike

[Bruce70]

That's funny, I thought that what ww2steel said was exactly the same as what Dorosh said. Just shows how easy it is to read too much into something. Anyway I would back Dorosh's version. It could be that the player "request" simply modifies the %chance that a particular group of reinforcements will show up. e.g. a rush request on the tigers might improve the odds that they will make it from 50% to 75% (the %chance for other items would then drop).

[Tactical Wargamer]

I agree with Michael Dorosh.........I would luv to have a % chance the "requested" cherry unit doesn't make it to you operational command. Makes total sense and keeps the kit reasonable and historical.

[ww2steel]

So rather than just having the unit not available at all, or limited availablility you guys would rather put in a request for a unit or specific type of unit (ie armor) that might not make it, but the request improves the probability that you would get that type of reenforcement.

Interesting idea. I guess I could live with that. From my few programming classes I think this would be harder to implement, but I agreee the most realistic.

Can we can all agree that in long engagements simply receiving scheduled reenforcements with no tactical basis should be improved to give the designer/ player more control / flexibility?

[JasonC]

Mike's version will work just fine in the more managable scale of regiment sized campaigns. Just make available whatever the parent division actually had. It is perfectly normal for divisions to change tasking and shift components among various KGs or regimental combat teams in response to tactical developments.

A typical US infantry division might have available - Shermans from an attached armor battalion, SP TDs from attache TD battalion, armored cavalry, engineers, additional artillery support (105mm or 155mm) from div arty, a extra battalion from division reserve (left off the front from a different regiment, fed into your own regiment's part of the line) etc.

In the GD example, there could be Panthers, Tigers, Pz IVs, StuGs, Marders, towed 88s, towed 75mm PAK, armored or motor recon with 20mm PSWs, SP light flak, pioneers, extra motorized Pz Gdrs or their heavy weapons & infantry guns, 150mm rockets, 150mm or 105mm arty, etc. No need to reach up to corps. A campaign with the whole GD already under command would be huge - it started the op with 400 AFVs.

[Bruce70]

I think what Dorosh was saying is have both systems. ie. there is a limited selection to choose from, BUT requesting one of those items does not guarantee that you will actually get it.