A few more suggestions for the patch

[Robby1]

Hubert, I hope that you find these suggestions helpful. Also, I think GC is a great game, so please don't take these suggestions as any kind of criticism.

- Forgotten units: At the end of the game, it is not uncommon to see that the AI has left some useful assets in a remote part of the map. For example, in a recent game in which I played the Allies, Japan left several ships and some army units sitting in Rabaul doing nothing, even when Japan was under dire threat. When playing Axis, it is not uncommon to see that the US has left units in areas where there is little action, even as it was in desperate need of those units by the end of the game. This issue does not seem to be as big of a deal with Germany or the USSR, but it is definitely there for the UK, Japan, and the US. The AI should be told to move these units where they are needed.

- Dumb transports: I know you are fixing the problem of transports sailing dumbly into a known threat. I just wanted to flag a twist on this problem. When playing the Axis, I had subs stationed right off of UK ports, totally visible to the UK. Nevertheless, the UK started amphibious transports, which I then picked off immediately. The patch should correct for dumb commencement of amphibious transport as well as dumb movement after transport has begun.

- Latin America: Playing Axis, and after most of Latin America had joined the Allies, I was able to go from country to country in South America, conquering one after the other. I was expecting a US naval task force to come down and destroy my transports or US air units to be operationally moved into South America or US land units to transport in, but the US did nothing. This would seem to be both historically unlikely and just bad strategic playing by the AI.

- Peru: I got Peru to join the Axis via a decision event. Peru is weak, isolated from Germany, and close to the US, so I thought that it would quickly be conquered by the US. Instead, the game says that the US is enforcing League of Nations sanctions, and the US ties up a carrier and a sub for something like 10 turns. All they do is show up at Lima's port and reduce its value, leave, and then come back and repeat the process. This seems to be a waste of valuable US assets. I am not sure if this is an intentional penalty you want to impose on the US, and if it is, then I am fine with it. But if it is not intentional, I would think the US should get the option to invade Peru once the US DOW on the Axis.

[Hubert Cater]

Thanks Robby1 and these are great suggestions, I'll see what I can do

[macg]

If I haven't already said it, I agree this is not only a great game, but the shape of computer grand strategy, for pbem anyway.

Upon reading the Wargamer critique, they mentioned slow ship transit time. Since units represented are considered to be deliberately scouring their area for enemy, and thus the speeds make sense. perhaps a mode(like with subs) could be added for increased transit time at a cost of vulnerability to enemy attack. Alternatively, some form of operational movement could be afforded to ships, with either direct enemy attacks(when called for) made with additional advantage, or even ome kind of MPP loss when passing through raiders/subs.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Several of the mods have "warp" zones, spaces which you can place a ship and it will basically double or triple its transit speed.

[Baron]

I understand the argument that ships are "scouring" the sea as an excuse for slow naval movement. However, The Russian Baltic Fleet sailed to their doom at Tsushima in 7 months in 1905. In this game a carrier task force sailing from the UK to Singapore around Africa takes longer by far. This same task force had a cruising speed faster the the maximum speeds in the Russian fleet.

How would you reproduce the Yorktowns dash from Coral Sea to Pearl Harbor to Midway? You can't because of the slow ship speeds. I'm not certain but I'm pretty sure the IJN only needed a game turn to get from the Kuriles to Pearl Harbor.

I know the Russian Fleet needed to stop and coal but the carrier would also need to stop and fuel. If the argument is that the current speeds are for balance then well so be it because I consider the balance pretty good but the naval movement is very week.