Well, as many have suggested, ditch the coordination bonus for Japan. Unwarranted as many have posted data regarding details of Japanese attacks vs US TFs etc and no superior ability was revealed. Because there is no CAP uncoordination penalty, perhaps ditch the concept of uncoordinated attacks altogether, at least as they are modelled now with CAP.
Not going to happen ... as *some* have suggested is not the same as *many* have suggested. Just because you don't like something does not make it wrong. As the player has the ability to completely negate this penalty, there really is no valid excuse here. The whole *point* of the rule is to let cap be more effective. You are trying to negate that once again.
How? Have CAP come before the target assignment phase , or whatever you call it, to negate the need for each strike (I'm now referring to the fact that air attacks split and attack seperate LCUs and TFs, suffering the same gauntlet as uncoordinated do, even though they may have been coordinated) to run the gauntlet of the homogenous CAP in the hex. This is already being done this way when aircraft select ships as targets...these packets don't have to make it through the CAP at this point, why should bombers attacking multiple LCUs or multiple bombers have too?
What you are basically talking about is making cap target specific instead of hex specific. That would stretch the cap thinner resulting in more leakers assuming that there is not enough cap to go around. Assuming there *is* enough cap, it results in absolutely no difference at all. As to the rest of what you said, that is eactly how the game works already. It also adds a pile of micromanagement and room for lots of mistakes to the player which does nothing but frustrate people.
This once again goes right back to the fundimental aspect of warfare. He who has "more" wins. He who has "way more" mops up. You want to see the game 'handicapped' where he who has "way more" gets the same as he who has "more" resulting in no differences.
This is akin to simply saying that you can only set 20% cap on your CV's no matter what. You want a hack put in that says someone can not apply a different doctrine and run 80% cap. This is simply taking the choice away from the player. This is not a history book, it is a game. People are free to try different things if they want to.
