If you could choose any TWO new unit sculpts, what would they be?

Yes I agree that more VCs needed in PTO and Japan should have to work to get that 1 more VC in the PTO. I do have a VC Capital in Manchuria for my 40 game but with not having 18 inf in area it doesn�t seem to get pressured much.
Singapore is out of the question due to Japan being so strong by islands from G40 game reports. Got to make Japan earn it. Just some thoughts.

How about… everyone gets ALL tech all the time?

OR, everyoen gets a random tech at game start?

Lately I play them as 8 Ipc defenseless units that can transport 2 inf. there range is 5. So typically they have a round trip range of a fighter unless they take off from airbase and then the round trip is that of a bomber.

What would you think if I merged Belgium/Holland, Albania/Yugoslavia, and make Switzerland an impassible territory?

i think that the cargo unit should cost 3, move 2, capacity 5 i.p.c. with no defense.
i think that buying the unit’s would stop excessive funding of other national power’s, and the capacity would mean that even though the unit’s might be more numerous, they have a cost which would be factored into the descision to send them, the cargo can be distributed to a territory that has an i.c. and can be used at that i.c. until the cargo has all been spent. i.e. a territory with an i.p.c. value 2 get’s 15 i.p.c. worth of cargo, build’s 2 tank’s at the next purchase unit’s phase, save’s 5 i.p.c., which can then be used at the next purchase unit’s phase to buy 1 tank.

First, I am assuming that all submarines in A & A attack from periscope depth, not the surface.  That is the only way that the first strike rule for submarines can be justified.  If all subs are attacking on the surface then aircraft should be able to attack subs without a destroyer present, and all surface ships should get a free shot at the sub with no chance of reply, as most successful torpedo attacks occurred at ranges of less than 2,000 yards, point blank range for surface guns.  The attack chance is based on a submerged sub attacking a sub running on the surface, not submerged.  WW2 boats spent most of their time on the surface, submerging only to attack or avoid aircraft and surface ships.  The snorkel only came into use by the Germans in mid-1944, and did allow for diesel running while submerged.  If you wish, I will post a detailed discussion of WW2 submarine tactics and operational proceedures.  If you argue that all subs are always submerged, then they should have a movement of 1 sea zone every two turns, to reflect the very low speed of submerged running.  You cannot have it both ways.

OK yes submarines attacked at periscope depth and then immediately submerged at the first sign of trouble. And what the ‘first strike’ idea is supposed to model. However, fighters didn’t have the tactic of attacking subs down until the mid war period and up until that time reconnaissance planes ( in our case bombers) were used as spotters for convoy or for wolf packs to hunt convoy system. Those snorkel types you mentioned are the type XXI Walter U-boat turbine system which could travel in some cases underwater faster than some allied destroyers ( about 16 knots). Also you have to know that a turn in AA is something like 4-6 months which is plenty of time to move around and not really effect its movement. The 2 movement point thing is for play balance issues because if naval vessels had unlimited range it would mess up the game because its already a highly abstracted strategic system.

As for a submerged submarine sinking a submerged submarine, the HMS Venturer sank the U-864 while both were submerged on February 6, 1945.  This is the first recorded case of a submerged sub being sunk by another submerged sub.  Both the US and the UK in the immediate postwar period began the development of hunter-killer subs designed specifically for submerged ASW engagement.  During WW2, British submarines sank 35 enemy submarines.  I will need to check on the totals for the other countries.

I knew you would bring up that example: but the game is representing one submarine as something like 20-40 submarines for each ‘piece’ and that is only one example near the last days of the war. Hardly anything to base a major principle of naval combat on IMO. The game has to reflect what actually happened as a matter of normal affairs during the war . All postwar developments wont help us model WW2.

when you feel happy with the infantry placement rules just tell me and I’ll paste them into the main document

I hope you’ll repost in table format though  :wink:

Another way to make it more fair.  Give Japan all of the Western hemisphere US territories.

The way you have it set up is:

Ger + UK + 50 % of US.

vs the original setup of GER + Jpn.

In my estimation, Ger + (any other country) makes it an interesting and usually fair game.  Adding any more to that will unbalance the economics and/or require a military offset.  You may want to also shift the order of nations in the round to prevent the taking of capitals at the game outset.