Would there be any use for some sort of a “avoid detection” roll? For example…an enemy aircraft or vessel enters the same sea zone as your submarine with the intent of sinking it. As a first action, you roll 1 d6 for the “avoid detection” and perhaps on a 1 or a 6 you effectively do just that, you avoid being detected and submerge before getting attacked and sunk. sort of how AA guns get to try to kill planes before an attack, so to can subs avoid the attack all together?Weren’t most sub hunts a result of reports of submarine activity in the area, due to attacks on shipping etc? This was at a time when sub hunting was in it’s infancy, while even today submarines are probably the best nuclear detterent in the world soley because of the difficulty associated with locating them. Sub hunting is still more or less a cat and mouse game of “we know they are in this general region, but the exact location is questionable at best.”. So then the result is alot of activity involving (usually) several ships and aircraft and hundreds of people interperating alot of sonar ping information and visual observations. Alot of work to be, and alot of work can often take alot of time…Perhaps enough time for a good sub Captain to slip away. I am not a specialist at all when in it comes to subs, nor do I claim to be. I am speaking from what I see all the time where I live. I am located in Jacksonville Florida, home of Mayport Naval Base and one of the largest naval concentrations on the eastern seaboard, and just north is Kings Bay Georgia, a very large submarine port. My job keeps me close to the beach all the time and I see them conducting ASW (anti submarine warfare) all of the time. sometimes spending several days on one hunt. Anyway…I’ll stop now since this reply is way too explainatory already…lol… but that’s just my two cents.

I am curious if anyone has given any thought to using cruisers for their AA capabilities? I would like to know any thoughts anyone may have on this, pro or con.

to answer your question, no, the transport planesdo not have an attack value, however they do have a defense of 1. (traditionaly transports do not have much in the way of defensive capabilities, but they get a one here if by nothing else than default) I think that their attack value is in their ability to move forces quickly to re-inforce a beachhead or to supply the extra umph needed to break through at the front. They are great for nations like the UK who can only place large numbers of newly purchased units thousands of miles away from where they may be needed (such as India or Australia). Now, about the paratroopers. I generaly use them as they would normaly be used, to soften up a target landing area before an invasion force lands. I also use them to stall an advancing enemy, lending a little more time to re-inforce possible weak areas of defense. Yes, I agree that the mortality rate of these units is very high (unless used in high numbers) but they are a very useful tool to disrupt your enemy’s strategy. Also, if you take a territory with paratroopers and can hold it untill the next turn, you can use those transports to re-inforce with more men and artillary. Full historical accuracy or the sanctity of life (at least as it applies to this game) were not my major guiding concerns here. (who says that you cannot play as a tyrant leader?) This is just one of many changes I have made to my personal game to make things more interesting and less predictable (I play this game with the same four other players every time we play). Anyhow, that is what we do and it has proven to be a pretty fun change to the normal game play. Anyone who feels so inclined to try it I urge them to do so. Anyone who doesn’t like the idea can play how they choose, or maybe choose to change these rules around to better suit the way they like to play the game. I am open to suggestion on amending these rules in any way at all, maybe someone will have better ideas on how to use the units in question. I almost forgot to address another issue that was brought up by Imperious leader. Would it seem more appropriate to say that paratroopers can only be dropped where no more than one zone seperates them from friendly units? Or where sea power can reach them with a landing of re-inforcments on that turn or the next?

I have always used paratroopers as more of a disruptive misdirection, or a quick way to take islands in the pacific theater.I use transport aircraft (bombers that I have painted grey stripes on the wings) to drop them. For my transport planes I have been playing them as follows.
Cost: 12 IPC’s
Range: same as a bomber
Capacity: two paratroopers (or either two infantry or one arty)

I have added paratroopers to my list of tech. advancements so that the cost of development will more closely represent the added cost of equiping and training paratroopers. However, I have not added them as an additional unit to be purchased, therefor any infantry could be used as paratroopers. Another rule that I use is that a transport cannot load one troop, fly two spaces (for example) load another and then continue and drop as normal. I use this rule to more closely represent the time needed to load these men and equipment onto the aircraft. (also for packing chutes, jump briefing etc.) Any troops loaded onto a transport plane must already be in the same zone as the aircraft at the start of the turn. I also DO NOT change the attack or defense properties of the paratroopers from the normal infantry as I think the ability to drop behind enemy lines, and push from the front at the same time is advantageous enough on it’s own. I am sure that I probably left something out here so feel free to point out a potential flaw, or to ask questions about this as that is the way we make better supplementary rules and have more fun with this game.