Some suggestions

[bjarmson]

After playing for awhile, I have a number of suggestions I like to see implemented. Now I realize some sort of competitive balance must be maintained. However, some of this leads to very unrealistic scenario situations.

1) Units that carry over to later scenarios should be automatically upgraded to the newest model types. No country, particularly the US in WWII, is going to send outdated units into battle, unless there is no other option. US infantry 42 units should automatically become 43 or whatever year the scenario is set in without having to physically upgrade them from limited funding points. Computer troops, planes, and ships seem to do this. Why not the player's units? Or just give more purchase points or cheaper upgrades. To have the Japanese with more modern equipment than the US, especially after 1943, is ludicrous. In a scenario like Leyte or Okinawa, upgrading most of the carry-over units leaves the US unable to afford more plane or tank units. Having the US at a plane and armored unit disadvantage is silly, and totally unrealistic to the actual situation.

2) The US should be given the ability to purchase mobile radar stations as a recon item by at least 1944.

3) After 3/4 turns of becoming red (disordered) at a strength of 4 or less, a unit should automatically disintegrate if isolated from fellow troops. Or alternately such a unit should not be able to reinforce unless near (say 2/3 hexes) another friendly unit or near a friendly city. It is unrealistic to have to chase down enemy units that keep retreating and reinforcing for 6-10 turns, without any friendly forces nearby. Having to detail a unit, or two, to chase after them this long is a waste of needed resources, and not realistic.

4) What's with the blue units? They are on your side but unavailable, at least at first. They should become available for use after some period of time, unless they are a picket-lines or some such thing. Even then some sort of time limit should be mandated. To have valuable ships sit totally useless or remain motionless even when attacked is totally unrealistic.

[Erik2]

1) This is only a problem in a campaign if the player priorities repair rather than upgrade a unit. But I think an upgrade of a lower-than-10 strength unit should include putting it at full strength as well.
Single/multiplayer scenarios are ususally designed with the current most modern unit variant, unless the designer overrides this.

2) There is a naval radar specialization that is available as an option during the late campaign. This could introduce the mobile radar as well.

3) Low-strength/low-efficiency units are more prone to retreats when attacked. As long as it is in supply it can repair. Usually a fresh units can dispose of it in 2-3 turns if it chases it.

4) SOme scenarios include an AI-controlled friendly faction, this often uses the 'other' Japanese or the blue US. It is actually a nice tool for designers.

[bjarmson]

1) In all the late US scenarios (Leyte, Okinawa, Tokyo) I've had to spend hundreds of points to upgrade units to their appropriate year (42 units to 44, early model armor/planes/ships to late model, etc). Leaves virtually nothing to buy some extra armor or planes, let alone heal units. The US never had this problem, except in a couple of instances (small escort carriers often still were equipped with Wildcats long after Hellcats became the front-line units). Doing this automatically, or better yet either giving more purchase points or charging less for them, seems a fair way to remedy. Scenarios of the late war period in which the Japanese have more and better planes, armor, and ships than the US are historically inaccurate.

2) There should be a relatively cheap (2 points) mobile radar unit from about 43/44 on. Okinawa, in particular, with all the suicide planes and boats needs this. In actuality the US had a destroyer picket-line between Okinawa and Japan (which took the brunt of the Kamikaze attacks, expendables), but this wouldn't work well with the large Japanese fleet showing up as it does in this scenario. Thus land-based mobile radar units could serve a similar function without having to redo the scenario.

3) In theory, and with good dice roles, a fresh unit can destroy a low-strength/low-efficiency enemy unit in a few turns. But I've had these units regularly last 5-10 turns. Retreating, being attacked for 2 damage,repairing 1 to 3 or 2 to 4 over and over and over .... My suggestion eliminates the need to chase an enemy unit, that should disintegrate after 3/4 turns when widely separated from friendly units or cities, for extended, unrealistic, periods of time. Could a unit really be reinforced when it's 10, or more, hexes from the nearest friendly units or city. No.

4) Sure some blue units do come with AI-controlled movements, but these vary from somewhat helpful to useless (such as battleships that give some helpful, but indiscriminate, covering fire at first, then sit useless when things move beyond their initial range). Giving the player control of these ships at some later point in the game (as happens with some of the blue units in the Leyte scenario), can make them into assets rather than useless statues.

[SSLConf_Yolo911]

POINT # 3 -- I agree times ten! In beta testing I reported this as well. Time after time I have had to assign a couple of units to chase an insignificant unit down. I would start with one unit but It never could quite kill the enemy unit. So I would have to assign an additional unit to the task.

What I reported was that invariably when I first attacked the unit the odds indicated that it would be destroyed, but it always managed to survive, barely. And the chase was on. For turn after turn.

[bebro]

After playing for awhile, I have a number of suggestions I like to see implemented. Now I realize some sort of competitive balance must be maintained. However, some of this leads to very unrealistic scenario situations.

1) Units that carry over to later scenarios should be automatically upgraded to the newest model types. No country, particularly the US in WWII, is going to send outdated units into battle, unless there is no other option. US infantry 42 units should automatically become 43 or whatever year the scenario is set in without having to physically upgrade them from limited funding points. Computer troops, planes, and ships seem to do this. Why not the player's units? Or just give more purchase points or cheaper upgrades. To have the Japanese with more modern equipment than the US, especially after 1943, is ludicrous. In a scenario like Leyte or Okinawa, upgrading most of the carry-over units leaves the US unable to afford more plane or tank units. Having the US at a plane and armored unit disadvantage is silly, and totally unrealistic to the actual situation.

Personally I could see the case for infantry indeed, but would be rather careful with other units, this could be unwanted. For example the main tank models offer various versions for somewhat different roles (like Sherman Jumbo, or 105er support) so the player IMO needs to be able to select what he gets, instead of auto-upgrades.

There could also be other reasons, for example "role-playing" - where players could want to keep a more historic setup instead of an "all modern" core composition (think all Tiger tank forces for Ger).

edit: and there are cases where outdated eqp was used because of limited availaability of better stuff, for example AI China uses various versions of inf in most MS scenarios (modern as well outdated)

[Erik2]

Re outdated eqp.

Currently most/all equipment has an expiry date. You can override this in the editor.
I wish you could buy cheaper, outdated equipment in the game as well, sometimes you don't have the RPs to purchase the fancy stuff.
Then the old eqp will do in a pinch. It also means you'll generally will have more variety to choose from.
Yard-sale anyone?

[bjarmson]

Regarding bebro's post. I agree, some of the improved units, particularly armor, are not easily upgradable by the method I've suggested. But most planes were superseded by improved models (Wildcat by Hellcat, Dauntless by Helldiver, Devastator by Avenger, etc), ships by year designation (which mostly means improved antiaircraft and radar capabilities), and of course infantry by better equipping them (thus the year designations). Even armor was generally handled this way (the Mark 1 superseded by Mark 2, etc). Some units could be left to the discretion of the player, but units in a direct line improvement could be done by simply showing them as cheaper to upgrade to (as infantry is now handled).

This comment is basically about the US (and to a lesser extent the Japanese) since the level of improvement was immense from one year to the next (as it was for the Germans and Russians, and even the English, but those are future OoB releases, hopefully). Regarding the Chinese, all these suggestions are moot. They were lucky to field an army, let alone upgrade it.

Erik's post got me to think of another suggestion.

5) Garrison units. They would cost 1 point, be able to move only 1 space at a time (unless transported by truck or railroad), and be relatively weak (say about 1/3 or 1/2 of a regular infantry unit). They would only be able to defend, not attack. I often want to leave a unit to hold an important city or bridge or whatever, but using a regular infantry unit is expensive. Garrison infantry units would provide a small level of rear-guard security without wasting a real combat unit.

[Erik2]

A cheaper garrison/security unit is a good idea. Maybe at a cost of 10 RPs which is half of the cheapest Chinese infantry I think.
The garrisons could have a max strength of 5 so they would be unsuitable for offensive operations.
I would like the designer to be able to set a max strength for any specific unit type in the editor. You never know when it comes in handy.

[bjarmson]

Yes, my mistake, I meant 10/15 RPs not 1. They 1 would be for the Command Points needed. Thus by sacrificing 1 combat infantry, you could purchase 3 garrison units.

[bjarmson]

Couple more suggestions:

6) When buying a carrier to add to scenario, it should come with plane command points equal to the carrier's plane capacity (fleet carriers, with 3 planes/squadrons, would automatically add 9 plane command points to the scenario). Or alternatively, carriers might be purchased with planes already loaded, 1 fighter, 1 dive bomber, 1 torpedo bomber.

7)There should be a way to detach transport units from their assigned unit so they can be reattached to another unit.

And a question. Why do the Japanese carriers have the ability to repair 1 point/turn after damage and the US doesn't? From what I know about carrier operations during WWII, US damage control capabilities, designed-in carrier systems, and general carrier operations were all far superior to Japanese. In reality, the US carriers should be the ones to gain a point after damage. Japanese plane operations often caused bombs or torpedoes left strewn about the flight deck or hanger (as proved fatal at Midway) and fuel containment and protection were shoddy (which permitted gas fumes to permeate within a carrier, thus contributing to huge explosions that sank several Japanese carriers). US carriers regularly survived damage that often proved fatal to Japanese carriers. The game should reflect this.

[Erik2]

6) This is up to the designer. Sometimes you want to give the player the CPs to freely purchase air units, other times you would like the scenario to start with the historical squadrons assigned to each carrier. I usually like campaigns with a bunch of RPs and CPs and you purchase what you want.In historical scenarios I prefer the 'correct' units.

7) Agree. This would give human players more options, the AI would probably not be able to benefit without more extensive programming.

All naval units except supply ships are able to self-repair when they have only 1-3 strength points left. Note that their efficiency hits bottom after the repair, making them very vulnerable. Even a fighter unit may sink a freshly repaired destroyer. The better US doctrine in this matter should be reflected in the defense stats for the carriers. I think the steel decks of British carriers are accounted for.

[bjarmson]

Thanks Erik. I wasn't aware all naval units could repair at the 3 or less level. About my suggestion 6, if the designers want a historically correct scenario, then they should limit the units available to those actually there and not give you a choice. If you have the choice to select a carrier, it's my opinion that it come with the plane command points it should have. What's more worthless than a carrier without planes? About the detachable transport units. Often early in a game, when the need to move units is limited, as are the command points, I'll use 6 land command points to buy 1 anti-tank, 1 artillery, and 1 anti-aircraft unit, rather than 2 units with transport, and I'll use an extra point to give transport to one of the units. Later in the game it is often advantageous to switch the transport to a different unit. This could easily be set up along the lines of leaders, detach from unit, wait a turn, attach to another. Seems easy enough.

[Erik2]

I really don't think carriers should come with air units as default.
As I've said, the designer can easily add the correct land/air/naval CPs needed to get a full carrier complement.
There are times where you want the carrier to arrive with less than max air unit.
Example:
In my Guadalcanal scenario 1/3 of the US carrier air units start near Tulagi, a couple of air units start outside Lunga Point and the remainder are stowed in the reinforcing carriers' hangars.
The current system gives the designer max flexibility. Trust me, I've created a lot of custom naval scenarios

[bjarmson]

Erik, I have no problem with naval air units starting detached from their carriers, as long as they compliment the number of carriers provided. My problem was I decided to add a carrier to the Guadalcanal scenario, since you get a lot of naval points to play with. I'd already maxed out the air units at Henderson with land based planes. I figured no problem, a carrier would have to come with plane command points. Of course no command points were forthcoming, so I'm stuck with what amounts to a cruise ship. This seems rather foolish, no US fleet carrier would show up anywhere in the Pacific without planes. It is only logical that when buying a carrier, unless the scenario is created with lots of air CPs, that one should get the plane CPs such a carrier would have.

[Erik2]

Well, you should have checked if there were any air command points available before you purchased the carrier.
The naval command points were probably meant for buying regular warships.
It is up to the player to use his combination of resource points and command points in the best way.

[Genad]

I'd already maxed out the air units at Henderson with land based planes. I figured no problem, a carrier would have to come with plane command points. Of course no command points were forthcoming, so I'm stuck with what amounts to a cruise ship. This seems rather foolish, no US fleet carrier would show up anywhere in the Pacific without planes. It is only logical that when buying a carrier, unless the scenario is created with lots of air CPs, that one should get the plane CPs such a carrier would have.

No, if your fleet carrier shows up in the Pacific without planes, is because your commander in chief in his decision to deploy it, forgot to consider available air assets.

[bjarmson]

So you're saying that carriers should not have dedicated air CPs. I'm saying they should. Now that I know carriers don't automatically come with air CPs, I won't buy any unless I have the necessary air CPs. But what I saying is this is an inaccurate way of handling carriers. After all if a carrier shows up, it's going to have planes on it. If it doesn't it should not be included as a purchasable unit. This is handled in some scenarios by having naval units become available, either by showing up at a specific time or by gaining control of blue units. If the designers don't want you to have certain units, they should nix your ability to buy them.

[Genad]

I am saying that carriers like Airports, do not provide dedicated Air CP. And it's not the designer job to choose your force composition for you e.g. if you equip fleet of torpedo dive bombers on a map with no enemy naval assets, its not the designers fault that you didn't paid attention to the info given to you and made the wrong choice.

[bjarmson]

Yes Genad, in this game carriers do not get dedicated air CPs. What I'm saying is, that is the incorrect decision to make. If one buys a carrier after the start of the scenario (in other words, post deployment) it has to have planes, thus it needs to have dedicated air CPs (9 in the case of fleet carriers). Do submarines show up without torpedoes, do warships show up without guns, etc. Planes are a carriers weapons. They are as ubiquitous as the weapons automatically provided any other warship.

I might add 'torpedo dive bombers' is an oxymoron. Dive bombers drop bombs from a steep dive, torpedo planes must drop their torpedoes when flying level at very low altitude. This is represented in the game by placing torpedo planes in a hex next to their targets, while all other air attacks are made from the hex the target occupies. Having torpedo dive bombers is impossible.

[Genad]

Again the designer job isn't to to choose your force composition for you. If you foolishly deployed an asset you don't need, for example an Air Carrier with no planes, a TORPEDO bomber at land etc.. its your fault.

The designer create the scenario. When necessary you will receive additional assets e.g. In Java sea mission you get additional Air CP upon gaining access to the airport, and other time you received additional land CP, units, construction etc as needed. But what you are asking is to be able to override the set scenario limits, or for the program to hand hold you from making a silly mistake.

Also Carrier simply can carry, resupply and deploy aircraft, cruisers can do the same with float planes, and many other units have special abilities. Also when you deploy a land unit, it doesn't come with transportation by default, but you can spend extra resources and land CP trucks to it. Similarly, when you buy a carrier (naval unit) you spend naval CP, if you wish to add planes to it, you have to either use what you have or spend air CP. Simple.