Rising Sun thoughts

[David G]

Just a few thoughts on Rising Sun....

1. How come Rising Sun is played less than the others? In some ways its lack of big-ticket armour makes it a clearer, more straightforward tactical battle, for me anyway.

2. Is it the Banzai rule that's the problem, and if so what are other people's views? It has been explained to me that Banzai assault is implemented in a rather unrealistic way, in that it can be used multiple times in a scenario (subject to morale check, and of course fatigue consequences). I agree, but presumably agreeing a no Banzai Rule of Engagement unbalances a stock scenario?

3. I play with EA on by preference, but would be interested to know how EA fans or critics would regard it combined with Banzai (though in truth I have been persuaded that Banzai is unrealistic).

4. Any particularly good RS scenarios that people would recommend? Kool Kat's "**The Battle of Manila" scenario is the best I've played so far, with lots of interesting urban terrain.

Anyway, just some thoughts for discussion by any other RS players out there, if of interest.

David

[kolc]

FWIW

RS is a favorite. Especially like Road to Barrigada and the Guadalcanal campaign.

[Warhorse]

Myself, I like RS alot! I've brought up to our programmer the possibility of regulating any given unit only ONE Banzai charge a scenario, as they were a last resort most times. Not sure if it will ever be. or if it can be implemented, but the request has been put in. RS will be getting special attention when I get to it with the 2D project, as other issues are addressed while doing that as well.

[Scud]

I prefer that my opponents choose the scenario and no one ever picks Rising Sun. Don't know why. I like it OK, but I feel a sense of "sameness" in the scenarios. As for Banzais, Mike West (Kool Kat), for instance, hates it; so he just said up front not to use it as one of his ROEs and that was fine with me. I think that's the way to go. Why worry about coding it in/out/more/less when it can just be agreed to before hand?

Dave

[zap]

Count me as one who does not play RS. I have played RS before. These are my impressions. Just my opinions
1. Land based battles are static. (island fighting limits mobility, i.e. which limits the chance of surprise outcomes) 2. Japan's army was short on impressive armor/weapons. I would say that made it a second class army (certainly not on the level of the German army) They were not certainly the level of the Italians but I would say just a couple grades above.

For these impressions I just can't get into RS. I will say that the Sea battle aspect of Japan Navy is attractive to me. That is why I own WITP AE

[berto]

Count me as one who does not play RS. I have played RS before. These are my impressions. Just my opinions
1. Land based battles are static. (island fighting limits mobility, i.e. which limits the chance of surprise outcomes) 2. Japan's army was short on impressive armor/weapons. I would say that made it a second class army (certainly not on the level of the German army) They were not certainly the level of the Italians but I would say just a couple grades above.

For these impressions I just can't get into RS. I will say that the Sea battle aspect of Japan Navy is attractive to me. That is why I own WITP AE

Precisely because RS battles tend to be static, if A/I play is your thing, Rising Sun is a good game to play against a defender A/I. On the defense, the RS A/I is half-way decent, and will often put up a good fight.

Because A/I play is my thing, and because of my passion for WWII Pacific, Rising Sun is my favorite among the JTCS games.

WITP:AE? In some ways, I prefer it to the Campaign Series. But it's too much of a good thing, requires way too much time and dedication. With WITP:AE, you're all in, or you're not. I'm not.

[Kool Kat]

Gents:

Fascinating and little known battles of the Pacific War were Japanese clashes with Soviet and Mongolian forces over disputed boundary lines in occupied Manchuria. The four-month-long struggle, known collectively as the Battle of Khalkhin Gol, raged from May to mid-September 1939. Eventually, it involved 75,000 Japanese soldiers against 60,000 Soviet and Mongolian troops and included significant numbers of tanks, artillery, and aircraft.

Here is the Wikipedia article --------> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol

I am looking seriously at designing a scenario based on the battles of Khalkhin Gol!

So, while the mid-to-late war RS scenarios tend to be "static" - the early Pacific war period can feature significant numbers of AFVs.

Also, in regards to my "Battle of Manila" RS scenario, it is NOT your typical RS clash, since it depicts the largest WW2 urban battle fought in the Pacific. Lots of urban street fighting with desperate struggles for fortified Japanese positions! David utilized unorthodox American tactics in our game and achieved a Major Allied Victory with the margin of victory being decided by control of a 200 VP hex in downtown Manila during the end turns! Good stuff!

[Yossarian]

Rising Sun is my favorite CS game.

I like things the way they are. No reason to change or eliminate the Banzai option.
Any two players can agree beforehand if the Banzai is to be used or not. If you like
it, use it. If not...don't. Just like players decide to use "extreme assault" or not.

I have designed 5 Rising Sun scenarios and one of those scenarios was in the "Rising Sun
Death Before Dishonor Tournament" and I never heard anyone who played it complain about the Banzai rule. The Japanese used Banzai Attacks numerous times and for several hours in the battle for Peleliu against the U.S. Marines. Granted that most were killed but they hurt the Marines very badly. Marine losses on Peleliu were so severe that the entire 1st Marine Division was withdrawn before the island was secured and the Army 81st Division had to finish it. Usually the Banzai ended in disaster for the Japanese but don't eliminate the option to use it if so desired. Eliminating the Banzai option from RS would be like ignoring a part of history and Japanese culture.

This is just like the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It is your right to use it or not.
Just don't tell me that I can't use it if I want to.

Not all change is good.
I said my piece and I'm done.

[Crossroads]

AFAIK there are no plans, or even discussions, to remove anything from the game. Except bugs, as we find them

[R Zimmerman]

JTCS was conceived with mobile, platoon level combat on the Eastern Front in mind. Because of this, in my opinion, the game design works best in wide-open spaces with multiple tactical 'options'. Like previous posters have mentioned, it's just the nature of WW2 Pacific fighting...which was much more compressed and less about movement.Many times it feels like these close-in battles of attrition are more about dice rolls than tactics. This, obviously, is historically accurate and why I think most JTCS players prefer the mechanized/armored mobile battles.

That might be stretching it a bit...as all games are in essence 'dice rolls'...but it helps to make a point.