Variable initiative

[Szilard]

It'd be good to let designers take more control of variable initiative. Eg: via an event which sets the probability of player 1 having the initiative to X% for all subsequent turns.

For one thing, with VI so much influenced by average movement allowances, it's easy to run into situations where the side which has taken the heaviest losses will tend to have the initiative - because of the weak modelling of transport in the game, and because often understrength units will be comparatively well endowed with transport assets.

[TOCarroll]

Ditto, one could make the initiative a feature where the player has some input, a la Avalon-Hill's Thrid Reich & Advanced Third Reich. This would be reallcome in the multi-season or multi theater campaigns.

[sstevens06]

I seem to recall relative Force Proficiency levels can influence which side goes first.

[JAMiAM]

I think it's a great idea, personally. It could be tracked as the EEV is currently tracked. However, that said, variable initiative does not seem to be very popular among players. Especially PBEM players, and ladder players in particular. I'm sure you've seen plenty of posts about people bitching about not getting their fair share of tactical rounds because of early turn endings due to "proficiency checks" or turn burning attacks. Imagine the outcry if they actually had to fend off back to back turns, following an early turn ending![:D]

[Szilard]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

I think it's a great idea, personally. It could be tracked as the EEV is currently tracked. However, that said, variable initiative does not seem to be very popular among players. Especially PBEM players, and ladder players in particular. I'm sure you've seen plenty of posts about people bitching about not getting their fair share of tactical rounds because of early turn endings due to "proficiency checks" or turn burning attacks. Imagine the outcry if they actually had to fend off back to back turns, following an early turn ending![:D]

Of course, if it was under event control as per my suggestion, could effectively turn off VI by setting the prob to 100% (or 0%). If VI is generally hated, could even make sense to have it default to 100%, and only have VI if the designer actually wants it.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

I think it's a great idea, personally. It could be tracked as the EEV is currently tracked. However, that said, variable initiative does not seem to be very popular among players. Especially PBEM players, and ladder players in particular. I'm sure you've seen plenty of posts about people bitching about not getting their fair share of tactical rounds because of early turn endings due to "proficiency checks" or turn burning attacks. Imagine the outcry if they actually had to fend off back to back turns, following an early turn ending![:D]

Variable initiative is a nice idea, but it can lead to some bizarre results. It should be possible to turn it off.

[Curtis Lemay]

It would be very useful to switch initiative via event. So, when O'Connor's Raid starts, the Commonwealth get the intiative until Rommel arrives when it goes back to him, until Crusader when it goes back to the Commonwealth, then back to the Axis after Crusader, then back to the Commonwealth for Second El Alamein, etc.

The method to determine random initiative now is absurd. It rewards having a navy or having units entrained. So the Commonwealth get it throughout CFNA and the Soviets get it throughout Barbarossa. Initiative should be based upon gaining ground. Whoever is increasing the number of hexes he controls should have the initiative (unless overridden by event).

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

It would be very useful to switch initiative via event. So, when O'Connor's Raid starts, the Commonwealth get the intiative until Rommel arrives when it goes back to him, until Crusader when it goes back to the Commonwealth, then back to the Axis after Crusader, then back to the Commonwealth for Second El Alamein, etc.

If and when the P1/P2 disparities are removed, the only impact of switching initiative is that one force gets two turns in a row. This strikes me as a highly artificial design device.

[Industrial]

I hate variable innitiative, even in games vs the PO. latest example: Bulge scenario, the germans attack, most of my US unitrs are frozen at turn 01 and I can do little to save them. because of the many trucks in the US TO&E the innitiative changes on turn 02 and as my forces were activated, I was able to evacuate all US divisions that were 'supposed' to be overrun at day 01 by the germans, how great :/
In PBEMs it would be even more desastrous, especially if the opposing side could 'depend' on the innitiative switch by EEV/event, say if I as the british know that next turn the initiative will change I would start my counterattack this turn, leave my forces in totally exposed positions because I know that my opponent wont be able to react anyway, and would use the next turn to encircel and destroy everything he has at the front.

Variable innitiative? Just say NO!

[Boonierat]

Yep, make it an option [;)], I could use fixed initiative for my Vietnam scenarios, to have the VC/NVA always move first in a turn, which they can never do because they are principaly foot infantry.

[larryfulkerson]

Hey Boonie dude:
 
The link in your signature is bad.  I clicked on it and it gamme an error page.  Just thought you'd like to know.

[Boonierat]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

Hey Boonie dude:

The link in your signature is bad.  I clicked on it and it gamme an error page.  Just thought you'd like to know.

Thanks for the heads up Larry, it was a bloody slash that had nothing to do there [;)]