Last point: pacific with not moving ships would be rather boring.
Well, there could be smaller vessels like PT boats, subs, supply ships and even destroyers that are mobile... But the aircraft carrier might be way too big and laggy - And more importantly, it might be impossible - or too much of a headache - to have it mobile with aircrafts on it. Battleship too - Although, I'm sure someone might dissagree
Besides what I've already proposed, I once suggested having naval battles with miniatures - Basically, ships and planes are drastically reduced in size, models are shrunk and detail lowered so that the current map size will cater for a much larger battlefield and therefore there can be more ships, longer range battles and a shitload of planes without too much lag save for the sheer number of variables that will have to be handled...
As a stationary platform, the aircraft carrier isn't a total loss - In most Pacific maps of Fh1, ship warfare was a really minor part of the battle, and ships infact acted as airstrips and artillery platforms for the marines. All that need be added is destructi-bility for the ships
And as statics this could be done really nicely - First off, ships can be alot bigger, real sized actually - And their surfaces could have modular destruction like the bridge - The AA guns and cannons is already one aspect - each representes a different vehicle on the static ship which can be damaged or destroyed - Then the main flight deck could be destroyed at various points, rendering it partly usable or completely unuseable depending on which side gets hit - And it could have actual rooms in it - like a building... like Sidi's apartment, save for gun platforms and perhaps an elevator for bringing up more planes -
Planes could be like tanks in Pacific maps - As many as Gazala in some, as few as Seige of Tobruk in others. With many stored below deck (Or spawning in waves, for SP-COOP).
Sure its alot of work, but it will be as major a campaign as Normandy or the Eastern front.
My only hesitation for that front is going to be, the fact that it really is a cul de Sac. We have the Americans, British and Austrailans, yes... we'll need the Japanese and maybe the Indians - and once that's done, that campaign is over, with little else to share with any future campaigns.
Italy has few to share too, but at least in could usher in some improvements to North African maps, add more maps to NA and perhaps include the Poles in Monte Cassino which would inadvertently push foward progress for early war and battle of Britain... I mean, we need a bit more focus on planes (I think its time)
Personally, I'd say, all campaigns following are cul-de-Sacs in themselves, and perhaps a multi-pronged apporach might be prefered at this point to a one-theater at a go aporach
As much as everyone loves to hate it, NA had more endurance and endearing than Normandy (or will) because it has some mediterranean maps that can push development in more than one direction as well as add freshness each time they are played. Such an approach is wise here on out -
Perhaps, focus on The bulge, while using some of the stuff in there for early Russian wars,
and then with some of that in, progress to later Eastern front battles while expanding the early war stuff into Blitzkrieg with Poles and Frenchies coming in
With the French, come the Torch operation and Kasserine Pass - Use this as a filler stage to simply expand on each already existing theater, while in the background working on the Pacific
By this time i.e Phase 4, we would have a functional Pacific, Bulge and late Western front, Russian front stretching from early to late war, blitzkrieg with Poles, french etc... And you'd be almost where you got to in 0.7... But you might need more men AND some strengent regulation to keep the quality... But you definitely need more men, lest you cut corners to avoid the sheer number of player models you obviously need to put in
well, that's my 'summery' of the situation.... But it stems from 'where Pacific, where Italy' -
Poll