[JCrowe]

DETAILS, DETAILS, DETAILS

DESTROYERS
Why do I want to nerf the ability of destroyers to shoot down jets? For one, because Destroyers in v1.08 make Carriers next to irrelevant. A couple destroyers are enough to protect a fleet against air attack, so who needs carriers? Where’s the value argument for adding them to your fleet? There isn’t one, especially when fighter jet range is usually enough to strike across continental divides. The enhanced range you get from using a carrier as a platform doesn’t do much good in WS – unless you have a really massive ocean in your game.

Secondly, in real life, destroyers ARE used as air defense, but – they suck. Think “Pacific Theater” in WW2. Destroyers are nice, but they mean $#!^ against air power. Any fleet that’s gone to sea since 1942 without the benefit of air cover and has been attacked by air power has lost. (Well, the Sharnhorst, Gneisneau, & Prinz Eugen made it, but that was pure luck.)

Basically, destroyers are meant to act as a cheap shield for the ships that really matter. They can shoot planes, but their primary function is hitting subs or ‘getting in the way’. THAT’s where they ought to be ‘enhanced’ for naval pleasure – in the detecting and sinking of subs.

SUBS
Value argument all over again. What’s the point of the Attack Sub in WS? As it stands: target practice. High initiative is cute, but you need more than cute to win fights or establish a role in the game. Computer loves ‘em. I sink ‘em with jets. From shore. As an afterthought.

The strength of a sub comes from its ability to surprise, to attack without warning. T’ain’t no good if you can see the thing waltzing in from a country mile off. They’ve got to be hidden from prying eyes, or they’re useless.

And so are ASW units. Who needs ‘em if you can ‘see’ the subs with non-ASW forces and kill them with … just about anything else in range. ASW has a real point, a real value, when they’re the only game in town for spotting these underwater bushwhackers and putting them in their place.

Finally, in the real world, attack subs are often used to attack targets on land. And if our cruisers can bombard, why not subs?

And this is how it all comes together:

Sneaky sub steals up to the enemy coastline. He targets a squadron of enemy bombers and prepares to shoot. Team Blue is just one click away from invasion! But wait – Team Blue has ASW choppers based nearby. One runs a patrol and picks up Mr. Unfriendly from the deep blue sea – and says “hello”, with anti-sub torpedoes as he calls in support from a nearby attack sub...

And only after writing this did I realize that, like, this is right out of “Red Storm Rising”.

And this is what creates a real game dynamic. If you don’t have ASW, you risk having attack subs (or boomers) surfing your coasts and picking off your best units on land, or surprising unguarded transports. Put up a ‘net’, and you might catch them first. Or not. Cat & Mouse.

ROCKET ARTILLERY
Statistically, they seem useful / relevant. Operationally, they seem near useless for the $10 mil they cost. It seems like tanks can move three times for every one move the artillery gets. I might be wrong, because it’s hard to tell, but it seems like artillery either dies before it can shoot, or gets to shoot once if other units are dying slower than normal. If a tank unit in one-on-one combat can frag an artillery without even taking a hit, the artillery is way too weak. Boosting range might be the easiest fix.

TACTICAL MAP
Units have to stack by type, even if those units have different tech. Having Level 1 Fighters and Level 2 Fighters as different units on the Tac Map is too much of an advantage, and in a game between humans (or with a good AI), will inevitably lead to an overkill of unit proliferation or ‘sacrificial lambs’.

So, I suggest stacking them, even if the tech level is different. Stacking won’t affect their attack strength, and damage, when received, can be applied to the lower-tech units in the stack first.

I also think that a unit who chooses to pass up its turn (no move, no attack) ought to have that initiative held in ‘reserve’. So if an enemy unit moves into range after the ‘pass’ is made, the passing unit can immediately (automatically) shoot. Adds dimension to the game, and makes it harder for some units to exploit their overwhelming advantages without cost. Basically, instead of moving, the unit has chosen to hold back at the ready to spring the moment the enemy comes into view.

FORTIFICATIONS
Currently, they only confer a very modest benefit to the defender’s initiative. But it seems to make more ‘sense’ if they can offer protection from Bombardments and mitigate damage received in the Tactical Map. That is, so long as they stick to the defender’s side of the board. Seems wrong / odd that a unit that moves out into the attacker’s zone or the middle ground is covered by fortifications built waay back over yonder.

TRANSPORTS
Again, just seems ‘wrong’ that a transport loses all movement points, whether loading just one unit or a dozen. Cargo jet moves four per turn; why not let it fly one, load one unit, and fly one more space? Why penalize it all four points to load one unit when it has the capacity to load two?

CARRIERS
Should ‘Unfriend’ the cargo button entirely. Launch and / or recovery of jets is a triviality. Having to manage jet fuel capacity AND the carrier’s ‘load status’ is a bear and a short step to tragedy. I’d skip the load / launch penalties entirely and make carriers the equivalent of ‘floating land’ for jets. The limited range of fighters is a penalty enough – your carrier can’t move very far out of the area without risking the whole squadron.

TECH
Seems odd that the only penalty you pay for fancier toys is the investment in research. Production stays the same, whether we’re talking about Level 2, 3, or 4. Makes more sense (and adds to the game’s dynamic) if all those fancy, high-tech toys cost more. When the pressure’s on, players might find themselves opting for lower tech as a cheaper option to fill the gaps.

In fact, it would be really clever (a la “Master of Orion”) if obtaining high tech made lower tech LESS expensive. Develop Level 2 jet tech, and level 1 bombers drop from $36 mil to $32. Level 2 bombers cost $36M. Develop Level 3 jet tech, and Level 1 bombers drop to $28 mil; Level 2 bombers drop to $32 mil; Level 3 sits at $36M... etc.

It’s also “totally wrong” that a Level 1 Stealth Bomber or Stealth Jet costs the same as its conventional counterpart.

FIGHTERS & BOMBERS
Yes, maybe they should be limited to one combat mission per turn. Even with the rebalancing, they are a devastatingly powerful tool. You can have a squadron of fighters sitting on the edge of enemy turf, and when the ‘bell’ rings, that one squadron can be an active participant in up to FOUR battles. Which means you can stomp defending forces in four territories – WITH bomber support – and let the ground guys walk in to hold it ... and still have fuel left in the bombers to nail one or two more targets.

The presence of AA units might be enough to mitigate this strength. Hard to say, since the AI is not forceful enough in deploying these units or in leveraging its own fighters. And the presence of AA units tends to stop all but the most powerful air groups cold. But still. Damn. Maybe a one-mission limit is enough and would make battles more ground-unit intensive. About time the ground-pounders fought a few of their own battles already.

AUGMENTED INFANTRY
Again, the value argument. Infantry is better than it used to be, but they still end up becoming targets in a shooting gallery. Not a credible threat, unless packed into groups of 20 or so, which is expensive. I also find the APCs problematic – they don’t contribute much of anything to the infantry in terms of firepower or survivability, and usually end up being a unit that needs to BE protected from attack. So they have no real battlefield purpose beyond moving troops quicker on the strategic map – for a relatively high price. (Cargo jets are faster / much better.)

So I wonder if it might not be better to just “merge” the APCs with the infantry and have three “infantry” units available for play.

Standard infantry would be the guys we’ve got now – move one on the strategic map, 2 in battle, range of 2. Cannon fodder or a distraction – unless protected by those new forts, in which case, dislodging them might be a small process.

But for A Few Dollars More ... you can buy yourself “mechanized” infantry. Guys in APCs represented by an APC icon. More firepower, more speed, and a higher initiative.

And if you really want to get fancy, drop $6 or $8 mil to get “Air Cav”. Ground troops who can move on the strategic map like chopper units and have better initiative, range, and hitting power in battle than even the mechanized infantry.

Just a suggestion, but it seems as if they would plug a ‘void’ in the current setup and add exponentially to the dynamics of the game, without becoming too complicated, burdensome, or overly redundant.