About bombers, a cool new feature would be allowing for bombers to travel longer distances at the expense of lowering their bombing/attack power. Just an idea.

@KurtGodel7 said:

@Cernel said:

@KurtGodel7 said:

Also, some planes were harder to shoot down than others, and this is reflected in me giving some airplanes more hitpoints than others.

I guess your are not doing it, but it would be good if you split the heavy bombers available since start game at least into two different units, one mainly representing the Avro Lancaster and the other one mainly representing the B-17 (and the B-24 too if you don't want to split in 3) (I'm not talking about other future/tech ones like the B-29). The B-17 should have more hit-points and more defensive power than the Avro Lancaster, but the Avro Lancaster should have a slightly bigger bombing power (not much). This can be balanced by making the Avro Lancaster cheaper (whether or not this is the case) or just letting the United States have an advantage in heavy bombers over Britain.

The initial strategic bomber is the same for all nations. The final version is different for each. (This includes America Pacific vs. America Atlantic.)

America Pacific's final strategic bomber is the Liberator. America Atlantic's is the Flying Fortress. And Britain's is the Avro Lancaster. Of the three, the Avro Lancaster has the hardest hitting power, due to the "Tall Boy and Grand Slam" tech. Uniquely among the three, it can benefit from Window tech, which adds -1 to the interception value of enemy air. The Flying Fortress has the most ability to defend itself against interception. The Liberator has a longer range than a Flying Fortress. Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union each also get their own final version of strategic bombers, though their final versions are below those of the U.K. and U.S. Japan's version is a little better than Germany's version or the Soviet Union's version.

Wait. I saw that you had the "Superfortress" as "Strategic Bombers" tech. That would be the B-29. How is the "Flying Fortress" the final strategic bomber? That is the B-17, right?

Ok for the Avro Lancaster and the B-24 I guess, but the B-17 in mid-to-late 1941 should be already available for purchase. I mean, I certainly agree with the United States starting with zero of them (since they were very few before Pearl Harbour) but with the ability to purchase them (unless maybe you have a progressive tech and the B-17 is like at 95% development completion or something).

I guess you are taking into account the possibility of USA Pacific sending B-24 to fight in Atlantic, right? They have been quite important in the Mid-Atlantic gap and very important in bombing Germany.

KurtGodel7 said:

@Vendetta said:

@Cernel said:
For game-play (realistic or not - and I would say not too much if not), it would be necessary for India to have very low placement ability (factories) (and being able to place little TUV, meaning being restricted to placing infantry (a good number but not too many of them - whether realistic or not, I know there were many Indians in the British army) and hardly anything else - kind of like China even though the situation was not as bad as China after 1937), while having fairly high production (income) and being part of the British Empire - meaning sharing its income with the United Kingdom - so that India is mostly a British cash-cow that Japan can take and the British cannot defend alone, thus pressure from the United States in Pacific is needed, or the Japanese take India.

I think Kurt actually set himself up to handle this pretty easily if he wants since he split MP and PU into two different resources. He can do something like the conscript model he has for Italy/USSR/China (call it Colonial Infantry instead of Conscript for flavor here) where it’s a unit that only costs MP but is limited to only being produced in India, and India has high MP resources but relatively low PU.

I like this idea.

I could see this going in one of two different ways.

Let's say I give India 5 MPs. These are used to buy five colonial militia per turn, which are placed on India. A colonial militia would be a conscript by another name.

I give India five MPs. These MPs are added to Britain's general pool of MPs. They don't necessarily get spent in India. Britain could use them to buy more infantry for London, for example, with which to prepare an invasion of Europe. Britain could have used the MPs for colonial militia for India. It just chose not to.

I like 1) a lot more than 2). Once my weekly usage limit resets, I could have a conversation with Claude about this.

Okay, I feel silly. The obvious way of solving this problem is: don't allow India to give Britain MPs. Instead, Britain receives free bonus units for India. These bonus units will be colonial militia. I should probably make Britain research tech to unlock the free units.

In fact I have something like this in the game already, except that Britain is getting free infantry for India. I need to change that to colonial militia and increase their number.

@Vendetta said:

@Cernel said:
For game-play (realistic or not - and I would say not too much if not), it would be necessary for India to have very low placement ability (factories) (and being able to place little TUV, meaning being restricted to placing infantry (a good number but not too many of them - whether realistic or not, I know there were many Indians in the British army) and hardly anything else - kind of like China even though the situation was not as bad as China after 1937), while having fairly high production (income) and being part of the British Empire - meaning sharing its income with the United Kingdom - so that India is mostly a British cash-cow that Japan can take and the British cannot defend alone, thus pressure from the United States in Pacific is needed, or the Japanese take India.

I think Kurt actually set himself up to handle this pretty easily if he wants since he split MP and PU into two different resources. He can do something like the conscript model he has for Italy/USSR/China (call it Colonial Infantry instead of Conscript for flavor here) where it’s a unit that only costs MP but is limited to only being produced in India, and India has high MP resources but relatively low PU.

I like this idea.

I could see this going in one of two different ways.

Let's say I give India 5 MPs. These are used to buy five colonial militia per turn, which are placed on India. A colonial militia would be a conscript by another name.

I give India five MPs. These MPs are added to Britain's general pool of MPs. They don't necessarily get spent in India. Britain could use them to buy more infantry for London, for example, with which to prepare an invasion of Europe. Britain could have used the MPs for colonial militia for India. It just chose not to.

I like 1) a lot more than 2). Once my weekly usage limit resets, I could have a conversation with Claude about this.