Here are a few of my own, most of which I think have already been suggested by others:
[ol]
[*]Some sort of limit on ships using ports:
I guess this would be similar to the idea put forward by Apollo11 and
others - a limit on how many ships can load/unload at friendly ports,
with larger ports able to handle larger numbers of ships. An example
would be something like:
Code: Select all
Port size Ships
--------- -----
0 0/3*
1 1/3*
2 3/3*
3 6
4 10
5 15
6 21
7 28
8 36
9 45
10 60
* The second number are ships that unload at "beach" (port 0) rates.
[*]When a leader is removed from command, they become unavailable ("in
transit") for a period of time, say 2 weeks. After that time they can be
used for another command.
[*]When an airgroup rebases to another base, they can not fly another
mission that same turn, except that fighters can scramble (with some
sort of readiness or fatigue penalty) if the base is attacked by enemy
aircraft.
[*]When an aircraft is lost due to ops loss, there is a chance, perhaps
based on the pilot experience, that the pilot survives. This will allow
ops loss rates to be increased if desired, without the subsequent loss
of pilots as a result (the loss of which has been the stated reason why
ops losses have not been increased).
[*]The ability to ensure that supplies/fuel are not automatically moved out
of a base, perhaps using some sort of "retain supplies" toggle.
[*]Patrol zones for submarines. Perhaps set using a settable hex radius,
with the AI moving the sub within this limit.
[*]A new "Intercept TF" option for SC and sub TFs. This would allow
mid-ocean intercepts. Note, however, that it should still be difficult
to do - the enemy TF must be spotted and remain so for the interception
to succeed, in addition to other factors such as: weather, crew
experience, TF commander ratings, day/night, the size of each TF and the
speed of each TF.
If BOTH TFs are seeking battle and can find each other then the
intercept would have a much higher chance of succeeding. Otherwise, if
the intercepting TF is faster than the target TF, then there would be a
chance of success, assuming all of the above factors are favourable.
[*]A new "Shadow TF" option for SC and sub TFs. Similar to "Intercept", but
the shadowing TF does not seek to engage, just follow the target TF.
Again this would have a low chance of success unless the above
conditions are favourable, and only if the "shadowing" TF is faster than
the target TF.
[*]Waypoints for TFs.
[*]Removing supply production from resource centres. Replace with either a
separate "supply centre" (most flexible) or add supply production to
manpower centres, to represent local light industry and basic supply
production. This supply production would not be dependent on the input
of resource points.
[*]Better avoidance of enemy bases by friendly TFs when moving
automatically - e.g. transport TFs. They should actively avoind any
enemy base that has the potential to have aircraft based there.
[*]When an air unit is upgraded to another type of aircraft, the old
aircraft are not added to the available pool until a set time, say 2
weeks.
[*]Air units can be transferred to India from the West Coast in the same
way as LCUs are.
[*]Air units and LCUs can also be transferred FROM India TO the West Coast.
[*]US LCUs should NOT be able to transfer directly to Chungking.
[*]Much more severe penalties if a unit is operating away from its HQ, say
in the operational area of another HQ. This would force players to
assign units to the proper HQ.
[*]HQ heirarchies: e.g. Corps -> Army -> Theatre, or something similar.
[*]Some sort of Japanese Army/navy co-operation penalty or restriction.
This is currently not modelled at all. I am not sure how it could be
done though.
[*]Stricter restrictions on the deployment of Australian reserve and
Canadian LCUs. There were political restrictions on their use which are
not currently modelled outside of house rules.
[*]ZOCs can only be exerted in a hex if the forces there are above a
certain size threshold. Probably this would be based on Assault value.
This would prevent tiny forces from surrounding and trapping much
larger forces, which is too open to exploitation, given the way the
current ZOC rules work.
[*]Some type of "planning" for HQs, whoch would also affect all units
assigned to that HQ. Like the old Pacwar system perhaps.
[*]Remove the "Zero bonus". Replace with adjustments to the normal data
attributes, such as Allied pilot experience at the start of the war.
[*]Replace the Japanese "super" first turn bonus move with some other type
of "surprise" mechanism. What I don't really know yet, but I am sure
that this aspect of the game could be improved.
[/ol]
That is all I can think of for now. I might add a few more later...
Andrew
