So far Der Kuenstler’s idea makes the most sense to me. I’m still not totally sold on the idea that one unit can make 2 different attacks in the same turn though. It’s great for attacking but at some time you have to defend that move as well. There’s value in having a front line to protect a capital or expensive units in behind it. I’d be more inclined to accept the “Rollover” option but make it so that units could retreat instead of advancing in another attack. That way you could leave infantry in the newly acquired territory (or nothing in) and retreating your expensive units away from a counterstrike but only if you succeed on the first roll in wiping out the enemy.
yes that’s what we do - you can move forward (or backward) with any units that have movement left. There is a downside of doing 2 attacks - your second land attack will be with all more expensive units that are exposed without infantry support.
Correct, it already assuming Mech Infantry is literally a half track with an infantry unit attached to get value of the unit. I’d just have a house rule that allows Mechs to pull AA guns and Artillery two spaces.
What if you just moved the carrier fleet from Pearl to San Diego?
Instead of introducing new TUV onto the board, you just shift it out of harms way. This would give the US a strong Pacific option, but also preserves these units to go either way if desired.
Admiral James O. Richardson would have approved of this concept. In fact it’s pretty much what he said to President Roosevelt in 1940. It didn’t turn out to be a good move career-wise in the short term (he was dismissed as CinCUS), but this wasn’t altogether a bad thing for him in the long run in view of what happened to his successor, Admiral Husband E. Kimmel.