From: Near Paris
Using Political Points
1) This is probably too much of a rework for a small patch, but I'd like to suggest a more sophisticated use of political points. They could be used to avoid "gamey" behavior by attributing a political point cost to certain decisions, particularly the abandoning of bases. For instance, many players suggest stripping the Philippines or the DEA bases of their units, whereas this would have been extremely difficult to imagine for the real commanders and politicians involved. The stripping of Singapore's defences would have been particularly unimaginable. Just as it has a pp cost to switch a unit from one HQ to another, it could cost something simply to move a unit off of a given base, or a given landmass. This would also have the benefit of obviating the need for "restricted" units - they can be moved, but at a pp cost.
2) Likewise, I suggest that A bombs have a pp cost, although I assume this has been discussed in the past.
3) I don't think new units should automatically be assigned to an HQ, with the possible exception of "home" HQ's (West Coast, Aussi, NZ, the corresponding Japanese HQ's, etc.) They follow their historical assigments, however since the player assumes the role of a grand commander, and may well follow a different strategy, there's no reason to assume that he would make the same underlying allocation of his forces. Currently, we fashion our own round holes, but then have to ram historical squares into them.
4) Lastly, why not include a pp calculation in the victory points? Many, many wargames have included something along these lines (in AH's "The Korean War", for example, allied decision making was always a delicate balance between pp costs and air/ground strength). As it is, the only drawback to using pp's is that there will be less available for some future switching around. In the extreme, and continuing on the above example, reinforcements could all be "purchased" out of a pool of pp's, with the cost being that victory therefore becomes more difficult to achieve: at least for the allies. There's a bit of this with the current a-bomb rules, but there's no reason why a good campaign couldn't make do with less force, therefore theoretically releasing more units for the ETO and hastening victory there, fostering eternal gratitude and tickertape parades and the accolades of gamers across the virtual world.
I think the above, or something like it, would add a bit more of a rounded element to the game.