Well, I seem to have stumbled my way in here. (You can thank OCB's you tube game with Unfortunate Son for that, so if this gets sideways, blame him.
)
Another disclaimer is that the written word can be hard to interpret for intent at times. People can make a lot of assumptions (usually negative) from what is written, even if the person doing the writing doesn't have that intent. As someone who has used the written word as a primary means of communication in games and in forums for many years of gaming, I try to be as polite and respectful as possible. I am not one to flame, etc. I have also read this entire thread.
A bit of background before I go into my observations. I have played wargames since the 70's. I was a early avid computer gamer (got my first PC in the early 80's: a TRS 80 color computer with 16k of memory that you loaded programs with a cassette player). I have been on mod teams before, but it has been awhile. Probably my most involved one was Civ3 back in the day. The organizer did a terrific job of manipulating things to get the most out of the Civ3 editor and game engine.
I also want to say I am very impressed at how ambitious this mod is and also how far it has come in a short amount of time. I think someone mentioned how much they detested free units while playing the AI and I am in that same boat. Given my limited time to play games and work schedule, I usually play single player. I was messing around with the Civil War game as the CSA and basically quit when the Union got 7 infantry divisions and 1 cav division for free. Earlier, it had gotten a ton of free infantry brigades all over the map. At any rate, I digress.
So with the current version (18) I started a game as the Allies. I had played WIE way back and have won with both sides. The big issue to me was I could never really do a Russian campaign without the UK landing a massive invasion force in 1942 or early 1943 because of all the free units they get. I won because I was able to pull off a Sea Lion and then clean up the rest of the map. I know there have been newer versions of the game since then, but at the end of the day, because of all the free units, it ruins the game experience for me.
So as the Commonwealth, I did no investment in Poland in terms of spending points for replacements or moving units around. We defended Poland practically to the last Pole and it finally fell on 15 October. One thing to note on the campaign, I think Warsaw needs to be a bit higher supply (make it an 8 or so). On the prior turn, the Germans smoked the Warsaw unit I had in there, but could not move in. On my turn, it was raining and between being at supply 4 and German ZOC, I could not move a infantry corps in. It would have not made a difference in the long run, but still from the standpoint of "feeling right", it might help. I don't know how that rates (length of time for the German AI to defeat Poland), just information.
On the infantry corps being what they are (really unable to make any progress against other bigger units unless they hold a tech lead), I somewhat agree that it seems counter intuitive that a corps essentially can't hurt another corps very much when it is even. That is because the base hard attack value of a infantry corps is 1 (I don't know if that is intended as I am not sure what constitutes "hard", but infantry might be "soft". Soft attack and defense values are 4 and 3 respectively, which would be fine). The hard defensive value of a corps is 1. Very low combat values, so corps are not going to do much damage to each other at all. If anything, I would consider bumping the hard attack value by 1 to 2. Infantry corps historically were much more than just infantry. They had regular field artillery as well. My understanding is that the artillery in the game is supposed to represent concentrations of large caliber siege guns, etc. It should not be needed for breaking a position defended by infantry in regular terrain.
Naval items:
On the sub front. I agree with OCB and Unfortunate Son that Germany should start with sub tech 1 and most of the U-boats upgraded, although leaving 1 not upgraded to represent older designs, etc would be good.
There are a lot of ships that were seen as "battleships" historically that are marked as battle cruisers in game and some ships that were seen as "battlecruisers" historically marked as battleships. I understand some of it from a capability standpoint of view, but it is confusing to a person that knows a bit about history as to why both the Rodney and Nelson are marked as battlecruisers. They may also be confused as to why the Renown is a battleship. I also noticed that the RN has no light cruisers to start the game, which I find confusing as well. Some of the cruisers marked as CA's were light cruisers (if you consider 6" main armament vs 8" main armament as the difference between the two). So here is a list I found with some notes:
Hood (Listed as a battleship. Technically a battlecruiser although many see her rightfully so as the first modern capital ship vs a dreadnaught or super dreadnaught). She was to be refitted, but the outbreak of the war put an end to that. I can go either way with this one tbh, but most will remember her as a battlecruiser. I would suggest leaving her as either a un-upgraded battleship or battlecruiser, but my suggestion is battlecruiser.
Nelson and Rodney. Both listed as battlecruisers. Should be battleships. Had 16 inch guns and lots of armor. No major refits before the war, so base battleship should be fine.
Warspite, Valiant, and Malaya. All three listed as battlecruisers. Now, I can see the reasoning in making them battlecruisers. They are WW1 era warships and making them not a battleship is one way to represent that. However, they had good armor, reasonable speed and armament and were the best all around ships that actually saw action in WW1. Most people know these as battleships. I think you could go a couple of ways. Both Warspite and Valiant were extensively rebuilt and modernized between the wars. You could leave them as battle cruisers if you wish, but they should have the upgraded AA and naval weaponry. Malaya was not rebuilt, so should be left as a base ship. You could also bump Warspite and Valiant to battleships, leaving Malaya as a battlecruiser or you could look at it that Warspite and Valiant were probably the best all around battleships the RN started the war with, especially from a AA standpoint of view, etc. Realistically, all three would be battleships with Warspite and Valiant having naval weapons 1 and AA 1. Malaya would be just a base ship.
Renown. Listed as a battleship, should be a battlecruiser, but an upgraded version with 1 in naval weapons and 1 in AA. Renown didn't have the armor (even after extensive rebuilding) to justify the defense of a battleship. 6 15 inch guns come up short as well.
Southampton and Glasgow show as heavy cruisers in game (CA). These were Town class light cruisers with 6 inch guns. Should be CL in game.
French:
I am wondering where the Dunkerque/Strasbourg is. Should be a 10 strength battlecruiser. The other French BC units are WW1 dreadnaughts that were pretty obsolete by the start of the war. They had pretty much inferior everything compared to any other major power except the Russians.
By splitting up the French fleet into 5 point capital ship units, it is far less dangerous to the Italian fleet unless the French want to spend some major MPP's to fix them up.
Have to cut this post short (an oxy-moron as it is already a book) as I just looked at the time.
One final thing I did note:
The French armor unit listed in the production track is showing as a tank army. (XXXX instead of XXX). I don't believe that is intended.
I will try to post from time to time as I get a chance to play more and get more impressions. Overall, there is a ton to love about this mod and I hope more people try it out.