[JCrowe]

TO ADD ....

1.) CARGO "CARRIER" OR FIGHTING SHIP??

Problem:
Loading jets on or off a carrier burns movement for somebody, either the ship itself or for the jets. OK. But, operating under these rules, how does one use a carrier offensively?

I had a carrier with a full load-out of jets, sitting in waters just off an unfriendly coast. There was a battle in the interior, and (in theory), jets from my carrier should have been able to sortie, join the attack, then fly home for a couple victory laps around the tower.

No such luck, dog.

Minute I got them off the 'boat, they lost all movement points. On unfriendly (but unoccupied) territory. Not so good. Maybe I'm not hitting the right buttons, but if I am, then carriers have zero strategic value. Unless I drop ground forces, seize a beach, and hold that baby for at least one whole turn ... any jets I've got on-board a carrier are useless.

Suggested Fix (If I'm Right About This):
Jets ought to be able to treat a carrier like a floating airport. Players ought to be able to launch squadrons from the deck to hit targets one or two territories distant and return without penalty. Or pull a "Doolittle" - launch, fly, bomb, divert to nearby land-based sanctuary while huffing aviation fumes. So carriers ought to act like any regular land-based territory with respect to fighter-jets only. Otherwise, they just seem to be glorified sea transports.


2.) AI NEEDS MORE IQ

Problem:
The AI can pull a surprise or two out of its hat, but overall ... it seems to have the functional wherewithall of Lindsay Lohan by 2am PST. It makes BAD choices. Frequently. Often, it seems at a total loss for what to do on a strategic level.

Many examples, but my favorite so far is when one Captain Incompetence used multiple units of rocket artillery, tanks, and infantry to take on a neutral nation ... that had one bomber for defense. The computer "won", but lost nearly his entire attack force doing so. In essence, the AI risked $80M of equipment and ground-pounders to take down a $30M unit, and ultimately lost over $60M in the attempt. It blew $80M buckaroos to achieve what a single $20M fighter could have done WITHOUT subsequent loss of life.

Who needs "me" when el-computero has itself? Speaking of which ...


3.) NEUTRAL ... BUT NUTS!

Problem:
I see neutral countries with resource levels of $2M to $10M sporting armies with multiple bombers, fighters, tanks, rocket artillery, and infantry forces on a scale not seen outside of North Korea these days. Seriously. Might that be a tad overdone? Players would need to control the equivalent of a small continent (or TWO ...) just in order to generate enough revenue to cover maintenance on some of the 'neutral' armies I've faced. Seems a wee bit off-balance, and it causes the computer's AI no end of trouble. Neutrals might be speed bumps to a human player (most of the time), but they're the pyramids of Giza to the AI.