Feature I would like brought back: probability of reinforcement arrival

[Tank Hunter]

+1 for this. I'd also like to be able to request reinforcements with point penalty applied. Let's say I'm on the verge of winning/loosing and I decide that only way to achive victory or prevent loss is to call in reinforcement. By doing this I would loose some points.

[Baneman]

+1 for this. I'd also like to be able to request reinforcements with point penalty applied. Let's say I'm on the verge of winning/loosing and I decide that only way to achive victory or prevent loss is to call in reinforcement. By doing this I would loose some points.

Not sure I really see the point - if you're going to lose points by calling in the reinforcements, you may not achieve victory anyway even if they, for eg. allow you to take the VL. So you might end up turning what's looking like a Draw into a ... draw.

But I'm on board for scenario creators to be able to have randomly timed reinforcements arriving, rather than specifically timed ones.

[JonS]

Not sure I really see the point - if you're going to lose points by calling in the reinforcements, you may not achieve victory anyway even if they, for eg. allow you to take the VL. So you might end up turning what's looking like a Draw into a ... draw.

True, and like anything, it depends on how you use the resources.

Think of it the other way: assume half my force starts on map, and half arriving later. But I can choose to decline that second half - if I want - and so gain (or not lose, whatever) some quantity of points.

I know I have this choice coming up.

So I play the battle anticipating that I will decline that increment of force, specifically to reap the points reward. I have to be more careful and more efficient with my force through the whole battle. But if I can do that, and meet all of (or most of) my other objectives, then I'm going to win big. As I should.

Alternately, I might think at the outset "hmm, this is going to be a meat grinder, and I'm definitely going to need those additional forces, so I'm going to accept now that those points are lost to me because I'm going to take those reinforcements. Right then, what else do I need to do in order to win here?" I may not win as big as playing efficiently (which makes sense) but I can play in a style which perhaps I'm more comfortable with and still achieve success.

And, if I start out trying to be efficient and it all goes pear shaped, I still know I have those reinforcements coming which I can accept, and still try to win some kind of victory.

Same battle, one simple choice, radically different play. And it puts a meaningful decision right in the hands of the player, which is exactly where it should be.

[kohlenklau]

question: current reinforcements system in editor has drop down for EARLIEST arrival (say T=30m) and then your drop down for exact arrival or window of POSSIBLE arrival time delay (say 20m). Do I assume correctly that this is a heads-tails 50/50 die roll at each game turn starting at T=30 until T=50?

[SlowMotion]

OK, maybe we should define reserves versus reinforcements.

Reserves: I usually play some fairly small scale battles so my reserves could/would be on map and require no special settings. The bigger the units the more it might be off-map available platoon or company or whatever awaiting commitment if needed/requested. LIke Theater of War had you designate units as reserves prior to battle start IIRC. Maybe you as human player could hit a button and request reserves to bolster defense or exploit success as attacker. sub-routine could do its black-box and either release reserves or say no. No adding to failure, etc.

I think this requesting help from reserves command could be a nice addition. There should be some delay before they arrive, so they wouldn't just appear to map when you press a button. If you could get better score by delaying reserves, then you'd have to think whether you can do without them.

[Erwin]

"Ideally, I'd like to see reinforcements linked to losses, then they would only be released if they were required."

Yes, that was in CM1. I recall designing a Campaign and having the option to have Battalion, Regimental and IIRC Divisional reserves... each would be released based on a % of friendly casualties suffered. (I had no idea that this feature as well as % probabilities of reserves arriving were not in CM2. What a shame...)

[kohlenklau]

Erwin,

ALRIGHT! I love it when someone else wants to reminisce.

I loved the CMAK operations. I installed all the mods for snow and uniforms with gloves so essentially it was what I called CMBO2. I did Ardennes Offensive type operations with very long maps and lots of VL's. KG Peiper and stuff like that was awesome to make maps for. Then I read a great book called "Alamo in the Ardennes" about the delaying battles east of Bastogne and it provided tons more details for small actions that gave me hours of enjoyment.

And the probability of a reinforcement arriving was critical in replayability against the AI for these scenarios. Shucks, if YOU design the scenario and then play it yourself, you actually have to strive for "playability" meaning you don't know exactly what will occur to make it fun and enjoyable and not a cheat, insider trading? (H2H folks of course don't sweat this but all my H2H play was very difficult to arrange and finish. Fire up the PC and play old buddy AI. He is always ready anytime to have a beer and help you fix your car in the garage.)

HEY BF, please bring back probability of reinforcement arrival, 1-100%!!!