PitFiend wrote:
Retaining the Initiative gets used almost every single game I play...
Well sure it often gets used, but the way in which it gets used is fairly narrow. I may be wrong, but it seems like retaining initiative is mostly used when a player activates a support unit to place BMs on a target formation and position for support, then retain and engage that formation. That works because assualts all but guarantee a formation will be broken as a result (often removing an available activation from an opponent so the result is a wash). The only other common time it is used is to ensure aircraft and artillary can be used before the opponent's similar formations can affect them. Besides those two scenarios, how often is it actually worthwhile to retain? Only in rare cases, I think.
As I wrote it, though, my rule variation wouldn't change the usefulness of the types of situations described above, but it would encourage a more liberal use of the retain initiative ability in other situations as well.
Quote:
You never had someone go "ground attack with Thunderhawk 1, Retain, ground assault on the same formation with Thunderhawk 2 and all the infantry inside it, aaaand, everything's dead"?
Of course, heck I've done that myself. I'd counter with the question of how often you see the nearly indentical maneuver where a commander unit is used instead of a lander. Probably a drastically fewer number of times.
In the case of the double T-hawk, the rewards match the risk. In the case of the commander, it doesn't because it's harder to get into position to pull it off, and you are open to counterfire while you position for the assault.
Again, as I wrote it, the rule variation wouldn't affect the usefulness of ground assaults, but it would encourage an increase in the use of the commander ability. In any case, the intention of the rule variation is to address the the effects of a big disparity in the number of activation between two opposing armies without changing the things about the game that I considered to be working as intended. Unfortunately, the definition of 'working as intended' varies from player to player.
In any case, I think that having a set number of activations is less prone to abuse that the others suggested here in this thread, mainly by virtue of being a known quantity from the very start, before a player even selects his army. That is a big plus in my opinion.