emf

Bill101 I concede your point. How about this - since not all intell gathering is based on sight, can we say that some is based on hear-say, radio/telegraph intercepts etc. If so then perhaps some sightings should be false info. Having a unit in one area when in fact its in another or even not at all. Some units should remain spotted, however they are ghost units, some intell saying that the last know location of unit z was x,y, when attacked it vanishes. I point this out because of the elabarate measures the U.S. and Britian used to hide units from sight in England. And of course the radio messages sent out just before D-Day. It could make for an interesting ploy on one side to have the ghost units, and the other side attacking them, using resourses and drawing their units away from the real ones. Perhaps we could have ghost units we can build for next to nothing (but not free) do a false invasion in one area while the real one is somewhere else.

Hi all!! loving the expansion. kudos to all. I have a thought on intelligence. When a unit is spotted, I noticed that the next turn it is no longer spotted. It seems to me that unless the unit moved, it should stay spotted, after all the spies that saw the unit aren't going neccesarly going to dissapear (yes i know spies are caught, but not all of them and lets face it an army is sort of hard to hide from all)

RobertC has a pretty good take on what I was thinking. Here's another thought, something I'm working on with my own wargame - if someday we're allowed to do an opposed amphibious landing using Special Forces/Marines, any carrier in range, that has been set for tactical attack, adds its Soft Attack or Tank Attack rating to the SF/Marine unit. In other words a Marine unit has an SA rating of 2 and the carrier has a SA rating of 2, add them together. Should any enemy air (carrier or land based) intercept, any available friendly air (carrier (set for cap) or land based) may escort.

If the Doolittle Raid is too be done with scripts then I propose that it be done not just for Tokyo, but for every major capitol. Historicaly or the first time a capitol is subjected to strategic bombing, the effect should be the temporary reduction in moral of all the enemies units; i.e. bomb Berlin all German unit's moral decreases. This reduction could be a % per unit or for all units, and then rise in a similar way each turn there after.

Hi there, I just want to throw these two thoughts out there. Carriers: I think we should be able to choose to have the air component be a fighter, tactical, or strategic. Fighter is the default air in the game. Tactical, because I'm sure they were used in that fashion during the war (especialy the U.S.) Strategic, remember the Doolittle raid on Tokyo? Perhaps you could choose the componet on the carrier depending on the need for the turn. Or maybe, upon building the carrier, choose whether to have it as a fighter, tactical, or strategic air. When building choosing tactical air it should be cheaper, fighter more expensive, and strategic even more. Special Forces (only) should be allowed to make an opposed landing. They are already almost marines in the game, why not take them all the way. Special Forces (in the game) have a good attack (like marines) poor defense (like marines) and can do not need a port to launch an amphibious assault (like marines). I don't think it would unbalance the game any if we include theses features, and it would be upto the players if they want to spend the mpp's on the units. Special Forces making an opposed landing should have their attack points halved, and (maybe)if they fail to take the square then they would suffer five points of damage and return to their ships.

I kind of agree with Lars. How about this then: Production goes up - cost and time goes down. Tech goes up - cost and time also go up.

Hello all, I have a question about production. As your production research goes up all units become progresivly cheaper to build, well should they also be made quicker? In my opionion it stands to reason that, as more effcient means of production are used to make it cheaper to build, then it should also be faster to build. I don't know any specific sources of info, however I remember reading that the U.S. was able to build Liberty ships as fast as 60 days. Perhaps with every increase of production, the time to build would decrease maybe by 1 turn. What say ya'll?