In AE optional updrades and conversions of ships if pre defined in editor.
There should be a production hit on Japan for altering these.
Japanese LB Radar now arrives earlier and has several upgrades
Japanese LB radar had no effect during the war and should be discounted or eliminated.
UBERCAP is reduced favouring the defender which after 42 is the Japanese - with more leakers kamis should be able to operate at reasonable heights (HL Kamis act like bombers from 40,000 feet i.e. they cannot hit ****)
This could be a good change PROVIDED THAT Japanese strike coordination is substantially reduced. WitP late war battles often see numbers of a.c. deployed by Japan from bases that could never under any circumstances have operated the number of aircraft that we see in the game.
Midget Submarines
Were utterly ineffective throughout the war, and should primarily serve as a source for cheap Allied victory points.
Overstacking penalties that apply to both sides at the same level - attacker still needs to get 2:1 therefore it should favour defender (offset to some extent by de facto limit of 6 on forts in most atolls)
Stacking as such was primarily a matter of the logistical capabilities of the opponents. Realistically, an assaulting force with sufficient logistical backup should have something close to unlimited stacking when attacking an atoll, provided that there are enough landing craft, command ships, and support craft to sustain the assaulting force.
Allied units now withdraw out of theatre and start with inadequate TOE's (per history)
Depends on the unit and where it is located.
Cost of replacing initial numptie leaders higher thus more likely Percival will remain in Malaya.
If you really want to improve AE, eliminate the Allied political point system in its entirety. The extant one in WitP is gamey, ill rationalized, unilaterally imposed, and limits Allied strategic and operational flexibility in ways that are not imposed on the Axis side and that arbitrarily reduce the scope of the Allied player's hand to "copying history." Binding the Allies hands with a poorly conceived historical straightjacket while allowing the Axis player the maximum potential to deviate from historical constraints is inappropriate.
Supply usage for allied units up c 40% accross the board because of extra devices.
This is exceedingly foolish. WitP does not model realistically the superior firepower of allied units because of these "devices," so there is no rational basis for further dinging the Allied resource use (given that already Allied logistical capability is undermodeled from the get go).
No crossing of CW aircraft i.e. seperate pools for NZ/Aus/Canadian Kittyhawks, Aus/Brit Spits.
Why not? In the real war all manner of cross delivery actually occurred.
Most DEI units cannot be evacced and rebuilt or if they do they have a disband date so no evaccing 20 Dutch Base forces and using them to construct ahistoric AF's.
Again, why not? This seems arbitrary and unrealistic. The allies had the capability to do it. That capability was one of the reasons why the Japanese maintained a very aggressive operational tempo in Indonesia. If you reduce the Allies capability in this matter, all you'be done is declare that Japan gets to ignore historical potentials over which the real Japanese had real and appropriate concerns.
In general India is going to be a lot less able to launch the traditional early 43 northern Burmese offensive but hopefully is also a tougher nut to crack defensively - its a fine balance to try and hit.
This is a good idea.
As I sit here now I think it will be more difficult for the Japanese to conquer all of India/Chian or Australia/NZ (I think NZ is going to become a much more attractive exploitation attack for the Japanese in PBEM - but thats a gut feel)
This should be achieved by substantially increasing resource use and concomitant demands on Japanese logistics in the home islands.
And in India/NZ and Australia there are drop dead lines that will trigger more reinforcements but equally so are they in Japan so an allied early attack on Sakkalin has risks as well.
This is a good idea. The triggers should be the occurrence of any Japanese land unit anywhere in Sri Lanka, India, Australia, New Zealand, continental North America, or the Hawaiian Islands, and any Japanese attack of any kind on the Panama Canal.
A limited conquest of one of them may be possible (assuming two competent players)
This is exceptionally unrealistic. Given two competent players, the usual outcome of any kind of land operation by the Japanese in India, Sri Lanka, Australia, New Zealand, or the Hawaiian Islands should be an insurmountable logistical problem that radically curtails operations in all other theaters and that adversely affects Japanese home island production. The Japanese never had the capability of invading any of these places with respect to merchant shipping, and because of that all pre-war Japanese plans (including ops on Hawaii) were shelved at the outset of the war.
and a total conquest is still possible but the penalty for doing it will be more severe e.g. shipping diversions
The penalty should come with the trying it, not with the doing of it.
On the other hand the allied counter attacks from 43 onwards will also be harder to do I think we have slowed the game down a notch - but testing will need to confirm that.
This is inappropriate.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
