RS Sorrow on Saipan - Design Notes

[Kool Kat]

Yeah well a counter assault is something I can only dream of at the moment (I am Japanese). I don't play much RS, so maybe it's me but the Japanese weaponry seems so inferior, even at close range. Perhaps the defense factor of the marines is very high? Haven't checked.

Marine platoon = Defense 9 and Morale 7

Japanese infantry platoon = Defense 7 and Morale 8

Japanese MG platoon = Defense 5 and Morale 8


One of the primary reasons for adding an engineer company in the Japanese OOB... was to help offset (or attempt to offset?) the defense strength superiority of the American Marines... and to provide some decent anti-tank capability.

The American Marine high defense strength + morale and 14 inch naval artillery... is a devastating combo against the Japanese.

The proposal to place 80mm dual purpose guns firing direct from bunkers... is so the Japanese have opportunity to extract "some" damage from the advancing Americans... who must move through open terrain... before the Marines get in close among the entrenchments and heavy jungle cover.

I believe these dual purpose guns may be able to survive 1-3 turns firing direct from bunkers... maybe longer if I look toward reducing naval bombardment strength?

This scenario... by far... has been the toughest one I've ever developed to get the balance correct!

[Huib Versloot]

Pillboxes out of initial line of sight and the victory hexes moved to the back of the hill might help? The Marines would still have to go over it?

Yes this was a sentence I had in mind for the test report. Btw the defense value of Marines is 9, which is about as high as it gets. Most units have 7, including US AB troops. SS units have 8 and SS engineers also have 9.

I think historically the Japanese lost a multitude of troops compared to the marines, so it is not really inaccurate. It just makes it difficult for the designer to get it winnable for both sides.

[Huib Versloot]

Marine platoon = Defense 9 and Morale 7

Japanese infantry platoon = Defense 7 and Morale 8

Japanese MG platoon = Defense 5 and Morale 8


One of the primary reasons for adding an engineer company in the Japanese OOB... was to help offset (or attempt to offset?) the defense strength superiority of the American Marines... and to provide some decent anti-tank capability.

The American Marine high defense strength + morale and 14 inch naval artillery... is a devastating combo against the Japanese.

The proposal to place 80mm dual purpose guns firing direct from bunkers... is so the Japanese have opportunity to extract "some" damage from the advancing Americans... who must move through open terrain... before the Marines get in close among the entrenchments and heavy jungle cover.

I believe these dual purpose guns may be able to survive 1-3 turns firing direct from bunkers... maybe longer if I look toward reducing naval bombardment strength?

This scenario... by far... has been the toughest one I've ever developed to get the balance correct!

Yes I understand the reasoning. I don't have a unit viewer on this PC (which is the easiest way for me to see the capabilities of the units). I was looking in the org editor if there was a more powerful Jap MG. The standard one seems to be effective no further than 2 hexes. Unfortunately I'm very unfamiliar with RS, that will show in the result and limit my advice on the design somewhat.
However my game is still going and not yet decided

[Herr Straße Laufer]

I think historically the Japanese lost a multitude of troops compared to the marines, so it is not really inaccurate. It just makes it difficult for the designer to get it winnable for both sides.

When I played the first version I said it would be better versus the AI. Probably perfect.
I think your comment that the naval guns are too effective coupled with the firepower of the Marine platoons was spot on.
Morale was also a major factor in the Marine ability to come back from disrupt.

Through each allied play my experience was to lay on the barrage and continually move forward. If a platoon became disrupted I would have one behind it to replace it until the next turn when it recovered morale.
Once the Marines got adjacent to the Japanese it became one or two turns of direct fire and then assault.

EA may be the only help for the Japanese. Couple EA with moving the pillboxes to hidden might be best. But, once spotted, a couple rounds of naval gunfire would be likely to disrupt and destroy units (even in the pillboxes).



HSL

[Huib Versloot]

EA may be the only help for the Japanese. Couple EA with moving the pillboxes to hidden might be best. But, once spotted, a couple rounds of naval gunfire would be likely to disrupt and destroy units (even in the pillboxes).



HSL

What might be a good idea for Mike to do is to place the Naval Guns so far away that the top of the hill is the maximum range, and that they can't hit the reverse slope (which ofcourse they couldn't in reality, due to the trajectory of the shells, unless they moved around the island, but artillery support while firing towards your own troops seems unlikely to me).
It's something one needs to do in a text editor, as the range of the guns is so great that it doesn't fit on the off board arty screen

edit: on this map 25, -77 would be a good spot for the off board artillery.

Huib

[Kool Kat]

What might be a good idea for Mike to do is to place the Naval Guns so far away that the top of the hill is the maximum range, and that they can't hit the reverse slope (which of course they couldn't in reality, due to the trajectory of the shells, unless they moved around the island, but artillery support while firing towards your own troops seems unlikely to me).
It's something one needs to do in a text editor, as the range of the guns is so great that it doesn't fit on the off board arty screen

edit: on this map 25, -77 would be a good spot for the off board artillery.

Huib

Huib - I really like this idea!

Couple the above change... with the 80mm dual purpose guns firing direct in bunkers (bunkers located on the reverse slopes)... and maybe EA = ON... could achieve the elusive balance?

Also, I've updated the proposed 1.3 version changes (Post #3)

[Huib Versloot]

Huib - I really like this idea!

Couple the above change... with the 80mm dual purpose guns firing direct in bunkers (bunkers located on the reverse slopes)... and maybe EA = ON... could achieve the elusive balance?

Also, I've updated the proposed 1.3 version changes (Post #3)

This way you can play a little with the naval guns. You can put them all at 25,-77 or spread the ships a bit, so others can hit the right and left side of the hill. The 80mm guns might be a good idea as well (or better MGs if they exist), but I have to say that in my game as Japanese I achieved most of my succes with the 75mm guns and repulsing the attack on those guns. Were at turn 10 and I lost the hill and Ashley is just at a minor victory now.

ps. with EA "on" a few more turns allocated than 12 may be necessary, maybe not.

Huib

[Huib Versloot]

Mike,

FYI, the end result of my test against Ashley.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Wow!
I would have liked to have seen an Allied minor in our tests.
We could never get that! Even after all the revisions.

I was starting to think that balance was impossible.



HSL

[Kool Kat]

I was starting to think that balance was impossible.

Never say never Ed?

Waiting for one more test game to conclude... than I can work on and upload the new version 1.3! I can't wait!