Western Allied equipment

[uran21]

What Western Allied equipment would you like to see in future expansion?

We plan to add units like Churchill Crocodile, Sherman Crab, Bridgelayer tank, Sherman Calliope, Commandos as well as some other stuff.
Besides hearing your wishes it would be also helpful to hear why do you prefer those choices.

Thanks in advance.

[monkspider]

I have a softspot for tanks, so toward that end:

I would like to see the Tortoise Assault Tank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortoise_h ... sault_tank

The Matilida Frog (A flamethrowing Matilda II)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame-thro ... Matilda_II

The Canadian Grizzly I Cruiser so that the Canadians can field a tank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly_I_cruiser

Likewise for Australia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinel_tank

I would still love to see the German Panther II and Lion as well though. Oh, and we still need horse transport!:)

[ThvN]

Well, your proposed list already contains quite a few of my suggestions, so I'm happy already. A couple of questions though, if you don't mind: What time period are you looking at? 1942-1945? Or are the early years also welcomed? And are we talking about American/British forces on the Western/African front only?

As a further question/suggestion, would there be room for amphibious vehicles, like the Sherman DD or even better, the LVT-series? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Vehicle_Tracked) This is a type of vehicle the Western Allies developed and used a lot, but I'm not sure they would work in the game. And since you mentioned adding Commandos, Marines (naval infantry) would be a nice extra, but there is enough infantry already, so more for flavour than for a particular need.

Some unit types are a bit underrepresented (lack of choice, or completely unavailable during certain periods) in the game for the Allies, while some fairly common units are absent. In the case of a certain type of unit being underrepresented, I'll list several types that can fill the spot, I'm not suggesting to put all of them in the game. Some units already exist but could use some work, like a different icon. For the British maybe a different icon for the truck, like the Bedford QL-series, to distinguish them a bit more from the American units.

OK, a further flood of suggestions from me:

The British are famous for their engineer vehicles, like the Crocodile and bridgelayers you already mentioned. A lot of Churchills (Mk V and Mk VIII) were also equipped with a 95mm howitzer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_95_mm_Howitzer for the 'close support' role. These guns were very good against bunkers but were very inaccurate, might make an interesting version. There was an even more extreme version, the AVRE, which was a specialized engineer vehicle, with a 290mm demolition mortar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M24_Chaffee
A US light tank introduced in 1944, to replace the light M3 and M5 tanks, and a vast improvement over those. A missing unit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_GMC
Another missing unit, and also in an underrepresented class: The Western allies don't have a lot of self-propelled anti-tank units available until later in the war, but there were some early models which might fill the gap until then, like this one. This was a fairly common American vehicle, a 75mm gun (similar to the one on the Sherman tank) mounted on a halftrack to provide anti-tank support and it could also be used as light artillery (sort of switchable like the German StuH). Introduced in late 1941. There were also other variations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Half-tr ... elled_guns , mounting 57mm (6-pdr) anti-tank guns or 105mm howitzers as self-propelled artillery.

Another self-propelled anti-tank unit, but not a common one, is this British thing, I include it only because it occupies a niche for the British:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacon_%28artillery%29
Only used in the African theater, and only few were made.

Another type of unit that is a bit limited in choice is mobile anti-aircraft. For the US it's fine, the two halftrack models are their only common vehicles of this type, but the British have designed and built a whole range of those things, while they now only get a US halftrack. A couple of examples:

Truck with Bofors 40mm (Morris C9B):
http://www.wheelsofvictory.com/Morris%2 ... 9%20B.html

An AA version of their light Vickers tank:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IWM-E ... 420915.jpg

And anti-aircraft units based on obsolete tanks later in the war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusader_t ... 2C_AA_Mk_I

They saw little use of course, but if the Luftwaffe had not been demolished by the airforces, these units would have played a very important role.

The Allied used gliders during a few large (and famous!) operations, so I'll incluse those as a suggestion:
American:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_CG-4A
British:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspeed_Horsa

And a couple of airplanes are absent, although they were quite commonly used:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Battle
Quickly obsolete but a front-line unit in 1939 and 1940, a light tactical bomber as a cheap addition to the Blenheim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Beaufighter
This was an extremely versatile aircraft (basically a twin-engined fighter-bomber), and in common use well before the Mosquito became available.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_Wellington
Much more common then the A.W. Whitley, and it was built during the whole war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-20_Havoc
Common early-war light bomber, used by many Allied countries. Fills a bit of a niche for an early US tactical bomber.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_P-39_Airacobra
I'm not sure about this last one, it wasn't used much by the Western Allies in the European theatre, but was one of the main fighters of the US when they entered the war, and the Soviets used it as well.

[Kamerer]

Besides hearing your wishes it would be also helpful to hear why do you prefer those choices.

Thanks in advance.

I think the main reason to see a particular opponent weapon system is to counter it as a real threat. For example, a P-39 Airacobra would elicit a yawn. But a flame-throwing tank that could defeat entrenchment and minimize artillery suppression is a REAL threat; I would want to move to counter it quickly. This is why the IS-2 is such a real attention-getter in '45 East. I have to drop other plans once one is spotted in order to counter it. So I'd focus new-unit creation on ones that really make you sit up and take notice. So a few of those already mentioned, but how about also:

1) Tallboy equipped Lancasters - a real threat to hard targets. A nice follow-on to the Fritz-x units in the '43 scenario Taranto.
2) If "what if" or Pacific scenarios develop, then Fat Man or Little Boy equipped B-29s. A real threat you have to counter!

Not "not in the game," but I think under represented is US artillery. It was really effective and copious throughout the war, but I feel underrepresented in the game.

Among the suggestions on the board already, I thought M3GMC's, Beaufighter, A-20, and Wellington were already modeled in the game earlier? A Chafee is a good suggestion thought, also.

[bebro]

I understand we are talking about an XP playable from the Allied side, not Ger vs. (AI)Allies?

Anyway, I second a lot of the suggestions already made, esp.:

- M24 Chaffee
- M3 GMC
- Wellington bomber
- Bristol Beaufighter

Other ideas:

1. Recon jeeps switchable to inf as US equivalent to Kradschützen, Sahariana, LRDG; jeeps being widely used throughout WWII should make an appearance IMO

2. Gurkhas? Served not only in the Pacific but also in North Africa and Italy. Not sure about Western Europe.

3. Some transport alternatives, limited for a certain purpose like towing heavy art, or as APCs (Kangaroo for example)

Also, maybe some existing units could get more subversions, for example the P-38 fighter or B-25 medium bomber as they were used widely and improved constantly throughout the war.

[robman]

More than simply new unit types (though I am all for that), I would like to see units with new abilities and traits: minelaying, stealthy movement, bridge destruction, road obstruction, tunneling (in urban combat), fortification, and so on. I'm thinking of "Allied Corps," not the remaining Western front DLCs.

[monkspider]

Amazing list ThVn! My list of units tended a bit toward the obscure and fantastic admittedly.

Toward that end, here is one more fascinating prototype the Americans created that perhaps could be an award in one of the 1945 scenarios.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank

[uran21]

We are talking about Western Allied equipment to be used from Allied Campaign perspective. Focus is on European and Mediterranean theater of operations from 1940-1945.
Since Americans are joining in at later date US early equipment is not so crucial.

I have list of my own, expanded in second attempt, and it was interesting to compare it with what you said.

@monkspider non of your proposals was found on my list but you have a point at searching for something fancy and special. Having some late war bonus prototype could be handy. One of my choices close to your list would be Matilda Scorpion.

@ThvN very comprehensive list. Lets see: Sherman DD, considered it but also it was not clear to me how they would work in the game so disbanded the idea. Out of new experimental ideas I thought of recon plane represented with Avro Anson. It would have spotting of 4-5 with spotting rules how they are now or spotting of 3-4 but with revealing the whole flying path as special ability. Placed in bomber class so it can benefit from fighter escort and offered as bonus unit to avoid any purchase inconsistencies coming from its class. Other experimental unit would be torpedo bomber represented with Fairey Swordfish. It could shoot at naval targets if being placed adjacent to them. If this wouldn't work for some reason it would be used in some tutorial like air to naval scenario.

Bedford truck for British to replace existing icon also on my list.

Out of close support British tanks I was thinking on Churchill AVRE and Cromwell tank with potential for creating early Churchill from existing icon to represent Mk.II CS, experimentally used in Dieppe raid.

M24 Chaffee also on list it would be placed in recon class for late war stages.

M3 GMC on list as well, indeed it would be good to make it a switcher type. The one mounting 57mm gun was considered as well but I wasn't convinced small icon would be distinguishable enough and most of it went to Soviet Union so idea was disbanded. Making some additional self-propelled artillery was not considered too much at all because I think US artillery class is well covered in this respect.

Deacon, very obscure unit but it was listed as well as 2pdr portee and 6pdr portee to fill the gaps in mobile anti-tank units.

Vickers AA and Crusader AA were also added but mounted Bofors 40mm was not. It was considered but this niche has US half-track example from before.
When it comes to anti-tanks and anti-aircrafts I am not very convinced of their usefulness in Campaign play considering possible alternatives though.

For US no additional AA was added because we would need to pick either non-standard units like T28E1 or never used in war like M19.

Out of gliders I picked Airspeed Horsa and Hamilcar. Hamilcar would be capable of carrying light tanks and recon cars but nothing more this time because it would be used in historically sensitive scenarios. I thought to make them available for all Western Allies for rationalization but Waco is also a very good choice.

Fairey Battle was considered but disbanded together with Gloster Gladiator and Hawker Fury as historically used early war equipment that could be ignored by player.
More detailed, or even better, more epic Battle of France and Low Countries even with German perspective could find Fairey Battle as a good addition though.

Bristol Beaufighter is very good proposal, it could fulfill similar role German Bf 110 had in Axis Campaign. I like this proposal very much.

Vickers Wellington added as well as Handley Page Halifax is. With exception of Handley Page Hampden this would include all level bombers important to Britain.

Douglas Boston/Havoc added as well to be used in British and US roster.

P-39 was bypassed because as such an early fighter it could not have much use in this theater.

@Kamerer I was thinking about Grand Slam equiped Lancaster and A-bomb B-29 but because such units could reuse existing art didn't gave it too much thought at this point. Those should be some kind of rewarded units. Related to super bombers although B-32 Dominator was not intended to be used in Europe it was added to the list.

@bebro Willys Jeep is among planed but I wasn't thinking about making it a switcher but rather as decent soft attack recon unit.

Never thought about Gurkhas. The point is we do need Elite infantry units to be classified as nopurchase bonus units and IMO it would be much better to use special types of infantry not just different camo +added stats of already existing types. This is where I would like to see Commandos but also to remove Rangers too. More suggestions on this subject is very welcomed.

Alternative transports could be used although for Germans SdKfz 7 was added from combination of historical flavor and to celebrate widely used 88 even more and than the concept was expanded. Kangaroo was considered but not included at the end because I was undecided how to deal with Allies other than Britain and US although it was used by British as well.

Adding more variants of existing equipment is always possibility but it should reflect gameplay needs.

@robman new unit abilities is very interesting subject. Could you give us more thoughts about it. How do you see effects of it should look like?

[Razz1]

umm.. looks like everyone beat me.

I have the willys jeep, M24 Chaffe, Calliope, in the AA and and AT Mod and they work well.

[Kamerer]

Something else that comes to mind is while there is a B-25 in the game, I've only seen an early model. A later G model with the 75mm cannon and the multiple nose-mounted .50 Brownings would really be devastating.

[robman]

@robman new unit abilities is very interesting subject. Could you give us more thoughts about it. How do you see effects of it should look like?

Here are some general examples; the precise details of implementation could vary.

(1) Stealthy movement: the ability to move without being subject to normal spotting and/or ZOC rules. This could range from completely invisible and free to move through enemy ZOCs until attacking (at one extreme) to some chance (say 50%) of not being spotted by enemy units more than one hex away. In between, we might imagine "unspottable" beyond one hex. This trait might be attached to units like commandos, partisans, and scouts.

(2) Bridge demolition: this has been discussed before; it would require a larger change in the game, since bridges are currently a fixed part of the map. Demolition would not be certain in any given turn, perhaps each effort might have a 50% chance of success, or this might vary with the experience of the unit. Only engineers would have this trait.

(3) Road obstruction: Ability to turn road (or rail) hex into underlying terrain type. Could be represented with a little icon on top of the hex. Engineers would have this trait, but other infantry might as well. Removal takes one turn by infantry in or adjacent to hex.

(4) Mine laying: Ability to lay mines in one adjacent hex per turn. Mines could also be laid in deployment phase. Rules for mine removal are the same as AK.

(5) Fortification: Ability to turn a hex into fortification terrain type. Only engineers. One turn? Two turns?

(6) Tunneling: ability to bypass normal spotting and ZOC rules. This could range from a particular application of "stealthy movement," perhaps confined by hex type or part of a map, to the ability to move along a parallel map of underground tunnels/sewers, only visible to the player with units of this type (obviously a much larger change to game mechanics). I originally thought of this in connection with urban warfare (e.g., Stalingrad), but it would also make sense for Pacific fighting.

[KeldorKatarn]

As for fortification and mine laying: I'd be VERY careful with that. The fortifications currently in the game are usually defensive lines that have been built over months, if not years (like Siegfried Line or Maginot Line). Also building them took place between large operations, not during those. During such operations the units are way too mobile and alert to keep building such stuff. SO I think that feature wouldn't fit the setting of PzC at all. The short time built fortifications are very well represented by entrenchement levels already. Large scale fortifications that change the terrain require heavy machinery and rear echelon troops with the necessary equipment. Such non-combat forces are not represented in PzC and the time scale also doesn't work.

As for Jeeps.. They may have been used very much, but ... has there every been a unit sized troop type like "Jeep Infantry"? The German Kradschützen did exist, mostly as a temporary way of making a infantry bataillon very mobile. Did the US have such dedicated forces? bataillon sized units specialized on using Jeeps for mobility? If not, then Jeeps are just what similar vehicles where in any other army: A four wheeled transport without any special meaning or impact.

Any new units should really have been employed in large scale bataillon sized units and be relevant equipment and fit the Panzer Corps time scale and unit representation.
So while I'm always happy to see new units, this can quickly turn into "unit creep" which can quickly demolish balancing and game design.

Same goes for prototype units, I am already opposed to stuff like the Maus or the Panther II. The first was never even really built, it was clear that it would have nearly no combat value whatsoever and the Panther II was even abandonded at a project because it was no longer needed once the Panther got the Side Schürzen as Spaced Armor.

I'd rather see some rebalancing and new ways of using already present units than adding more and more units to a game that doesn't really need them. There are so many units already that people simply don't use very often. How many of the bombers of the German arsenal have you really been using regularly? How many of the non StuG Anti Tank units?

We already have lots of units several players see but never use unless forced to and then quickly upgrade. I think balancing the already present units so they all become very useful in specific situations is far better than adding loads and loads of new units that may end up not even being used.

Especially with an Allied Campaign planned, I think the already present units should be balanced and optimized so they work perfectly from a players perspective and once that is done, maybe slowly add a few flavor units if specific scenarios really ask for them.

Just my 2 cents. I tend to be a little more conservative with this kind of thing.

[robman]

As for fortification and mine laying: I'd be VERY careful with that. The fortifications currently in the game are usually defensive lines that have been built over months, if not years (like Siegfried Line or Maginot Line). Also building them took place between large operations, not during those. During such operations the units are way too mobile and alert to keep building such stuff. SO I think that feature wouldn't fit the setting of PzC at all. The short time built fortifications are very well represented by entrenchement levels already. Large scale fortifications that change the terrain require heavy machinery and rear echelon troops with the necessary equipment. Such non-combat forces are not represented in PzC and the time scale also doesn't work.

What if this trait were attached only to special military construction units? The sprite could be a bulldozer. Just like John Wayne in The Fighting Seabees!

[KeldorKatarn]

As I mentioned, I don't think such units would fit the setting of PzC. PzC scenarios are about ongoing large scale offensive operations of either side. Construction units don't operate on the front line in the middle of a major battle.

[bebro]

Maybe this is too outlandish, but if suggestions for Elite inf are still needed, what about a Free French Foreign Legion inf unit (thinking 13e DBLE) ? Could be even attached to US/UK forces, like the Italians used with the German core in AK.

Speaking about Free France, IMO their roster should include US made Sherman tanks, SP-ATs etc in 1944 (though these would not be new/additional types).

As for Jeeps.. They may have been used very much, but ... has there every been a unit sized troop type like "Jeep Infantry"? The German Kradschützen did exist, mostly as a temporary way of making a infantry bataillon very mobile. Did the US have such dedicated forces? bataillon sized units specialized on using Jeeps for mobility? If not, then Jeeps are just what similar vehicles where in any other army: A four wheeled transport without any special meaning or impact.

I dunno really if there was an "official" US Jeep unit like those Kradschützen. I know the LRDG did use them, but they already have the Chevy.

My idea was rather from a gameplay perspective. I thought the inf switch to Kradschützen and Sahariana was mainly done to give those otherwise probably very vulnerable units a bit more value, so making a jeep unit comparable seemed fair. However, I can live with it not getting an inf switch, or being left out completely, as this would hardly be a huge game changer.

[Razz1]

The jeep doesn't need an infantry switch.

The only jeep outfit that was used by the Allies was in Africa. aka "The Rat Patrol"

[brettz123]

@robman new unit abilities is very interesting subject. Could you give us more thoughts about it. How do you see effects of it should look like?

Here are some general examples; the precise details of implementation could vary.

(1) Stealthy movement: the ability to move without being subject to normal spotting and/or ZOC rules. This could range from completely invisible and free to move through enemy ZOCs until attacking (at one extreme) to some chance (say 50%) of not being spotted by enemy units more than one hex away. In between, we might imagine "unspottable" beyond one hex. This trait might be attached to units like commandos, partisans, and scouts.

I think it should be stealthy non-movement instead. What I mean by this is that things like recon units should not be spotable by other units unless:

1. They moved that turn.
2. The enemy unit is adjacent to them.
3. I think that would allow you to use your recon more like recon instead of small weak tanks.

[ThvN]

Thanks for the explanation and comparison uran21, funny how the lists overlap so much. One thing I thought was interesting is you mentioned reconnaissance planes... Nobody else commented on it, but when I just reread this thread after a few (busy) days, I have a few questions and remarks about them, since when I made my 'wish' list I didn't assume any new unit classes were going to be considered. That's why I wasn't sure about the amfibious tanks, and you confirmed my suspicions with the same reasons, that is they would be troublesome from a gaming perspective.

Since you mentioned you want to see if recon planes can be added, another big story, I hope you won't mind.

About the recon plane you proposed, the Avro Anson, that one has me a bit puzzled to be honest. It's only reconnaissance role was that of an ocean patrol bomber, like the Consolidated PBY 'Catalina' flying boat or the German Focke-Wulf Fw 200 'Kondor', flying over the ocean to spot ships. It was quickly superseded by the Lockheed Huson and Ventura I believe?

But anyway, this sort of recon is more of a strategic role, which will be hard to translate to this type of tactical game I think. Over land, similar planes (F-10 (B-25) Mitchell, Lockheed Hudson/Ventura) were used for photo-reconnaissance, but usually these bigger and slower aircraft were used only for mapping purposes over relatively safe areas. Photographing enemy units/installations required flying fast and/or high, these missions were either flown by single-engined fighter planes or light bombers (both types converted to this role). See for such organizations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_Photog ... e_Squadron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Photogra ... sance_Unit

The most used planes for photographing enemy units/installations by the western Allies were:

UK: Spitfire and Mosquito (both had 'PR' versions)
see http://airrecce.co.uk/WW2/recce_ac/RAFAR.html and http://airrecce.co.uk/WW2/recce_ac/RAFARP2.html

USA: P-38 Lightning (called F-4,later F-5 version), later on the P-51 Mustang (called F-6).

A lot of info about WW2 equipment used for photo recon can be found here: http://airrecce.co.uk/WW2/ww2_index.html


But there are other types of reconnaissance, and the way spotting and recon in the game works now I assumed any recon planes would have the purpose of 'tactical reconnaissance' or 'battlefield reconnaissance' or be used as 'observation/spotter planes'. The Germans had different names for each category. The western Allies had more overlap in the roles and used terms as 'observers', 'army cooperation', Air Observation Post (AOP), 'Rovers' or 'forward air control' (FAC), the distinction between all these concepts is blurry at best, but I'll give a few examples:

Tactical recon, a mixture of low-level photo recon and direct observation, missions could be planned or by request of higher ranking command units to get a better picture of what is happening. A few examples of western Allied units flying more diverse tactical reconnaissance missions (army support):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_Tacti ... rld_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._208_Sq ... rld_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._6_Squa ... -war_Years

Than there is battlefield recon or FAC, which is low-level loitering, direct observation and often close cooperation with front-line units.

So basically, if we simplify it there are three types of recon. First, big, slow aircraft flying high to photograph landscapes for mapping purposes or doing long patrols (mostly over water) to spot enemy activity. Secondly, the strategic and tactical pre-planned recon (mostly photo) missions for regonial (or high) command and thirdly, various forms of battlefield recon immediately preceding and during operations to aid local ground commanders. There is overlap but I use a simplistic distinction: if a mission cannot provide real-time data and is pre-planned, it's not a battlefield recon mission.

The pre-planned photo mission is simple: the plane flies over an area and takes photos, flies back to base. The film is unloaded, developed and examined. All this takes time and info can get outdated rather quickly. So mostly useful for planning operations by assessing enemy placement, strength and force composition. Also used to recon targets for bombing and assessing the damage afterwards. They generally did not use radio in order to prevent detection, so could not provide real-time data, and did not directly cooperate with other units other than their escorts, they had a mission of their own.

Battlefield reconnaissance: (the name is more of a German name, and overlaps with the Allied concept of FAC) This role uses a small or specialized recon plane with observers and radio to report on anything they see, or stay in direct contact with artillery or fighter-bombers to direct their strikes. They also frequently operate from front-line airfields and are used on request by local commanders to scout and look for anything. A famous WW2 example of 'Battlefield recon' is the Fw 189 Uhu, while the Allied form of FAC is more typically represented by the American Stinson L-5.


So roughly there are several types of recon plane:

(Ocean) patrol and mapping: Big heavy planes, mostly older bombers.

Photo recon: mostly modified fighter planes or fast (fighter-)bombers, missions could be low-level and tactical in nature, but are almost always pre-planned. Aircraft sometimes (partly) retained armament.

Battlefield recon or FAC: Light aircraft that specialize in low-level loitering and observe mostly directly, and use radio to closely cooperate with ground forces (recon/liaison), artillery or fighter-bombers (observing/spotting).
USA:Stinson L-1 'Vigilant', Piper L-4 'Grasshopper', Stinson L-5 'Sentinel'
UK:Taylorcraft Auster, Westland Lysander
Germany: Hs 126 Fi 156 'Storch', Fw 189 'Uhu'

So aerial recon can be modeled very differently depending on how you wish to use the concept. Some ideas of mine:

For patrolling and mapping, (obsolete) bombers like the Avro Anson could be used, with very limited offensive/defensive capabilities, or specialized only in anti-naval attacks. These are basically two categories, one is an anti-naval patrol medium-heavy bomber that can spot along the way, and the other (photomapping) is a light bomber with a large spotting radius. Both would have reasonable cost but be very vulnerable. The anti-naval patrol bomber would be in the tactical bomber class in PzC so it can attack submarines and will be less effective and more vulnerable when attacking naval targets.

For classic tactical photo missions, all icons are already in the game, it basically becomes an unarmed tactical bomber (PzC class) based on a fighter, so that it can be escorted. Units would be relatively expensive but fast, with more fuel than their 'donor' plane. Units would not be able to spot along the way, but with large spotting area as per uran21's proposal.

For FAC, new icons would be necessary, but they would operate as very slow and vulnerable tactical bombers (PzC class) without attack/defense capability, and very cheap. Can spot along the way, but with reduced spotting as uran21's proposal. Their slow speed would keep players from quickly revealing large sections of the map. It might be interesting to have it give a sort of bonus to friendly ground units inside it's spotting range, maybe +1 initiative (or +1 attack for artillery), like with the radar structure, or a negative bonus to enemy units in it's spotting range. This might motivate players to use them close to the front-line instead of zooming around around the map with two fighters permanently glued to it.

[captainjack]

I was just reading ThvNs post - part way through I started thinking that the recommaisance roles described could probably work along the lines of mobile radar installations or increased spotting in naval role, adding to initiative or or maybe range when I get the the final paragraph.So 100% agreement from me on this.

Back onto the vehcile, I like the idea of having options for some of the specialist engineering tanks - eg mine clearing tanks for allied landings that have the pioneer/engineer skill of clearing mines for a single hit, anti-bunker weapons (the Churchill equivalent of the close support Panzer 3 N, but with fort killer attribute, or possibly the Brummbar equivalent), and a bridgelayer tank that works like heavily armoured bridge engineers (probably with limited attack or passive attack only).

Some of these could probably be upgraded from older tanks (much as Panzer 2 can covert to a Flamethrowing Panzer 2).

[uran21]

@robman

(6) Tunneling... Tunneling is connected to moving trough already builded net of tunnels which makes unit goes beneath other units. It is almost as adding new plane with existing surface and air. Currently not even submarine uses similar special rules. And because tunnels wouldn't be everywhere beneath the ground it requires special indicator. It adds lot of complexity for limited gains.

(5) Fortification... I do agree fortifications should not be builded during an operation because they do represent complex set of structures that need to be finished before start of an operation in order to be effective. Units on the other hand entrench themselves even more with every turn if they are idle thus representing their efforts to strengthen their defensive position. Fortification as terrain feature instead of being terrain type would allow creating fortifications in any other existing terrain but not sure about visual representation of this. This shouldn't change nature of combat for any particular terrain but to add bonus to the defender.

(4) Mine laying... As an application of this it would be much more interesting to see H2H play while using mine laying than the game against AI. In its essence this is the same as purchasing units only supply source of it would be some engineering unit not some particular fixed hex.

(2) Bridge demolition and (3) Road obstruction... Damage to map elements made PG2 engine to be called Living Battlefield. It is a great interactive element in which I believe many would enjoy. In this specific examples I think bridge demolition or preventing it would be instantly turned into victory condition. When it comes to road/rail obstruction game would need to have some more advanced supply rules/lines to make this really significant.

(1) Stealthy movement... Personally I think stealth as game feature is more suitable for tactical game of smaller scale. But than again giving new breath of life to recon class could be handy to make it survive longer...