• Blitz Shadow Player
  • Caius
  • redboot
  • Rules
  • Chain of Command
  • Members
  • Supported Ladders & Games
  • Downloads


Japan 45 Campaign
09-22-2021, 02:06 AM,
#1
Opponent Wanted  Japan 45 Campaign
I would like to play the Japanese side and one of the full campaign scenarios (so either the Historical Plan Campaign or the other variant). Optional rules per the designer recommendation but some could be discussed. If you like to write AARs you are even more welcome to be my opponent, as I love to read them (of  course after the game has ended  Wink ). Maybe I will write one as well.
Quote this message in a reply
09-22-2021, 09:15 PM,
#2
RE: Japan 45 Campaign
If you haven't found an opponent yet, I'd like to play against you. Playing the Allies siuts me very well since I am currently playing the Japanese in Japan 46 and would also like to try playing the Allies in MP. We can discuss the details in the PMs.
Quote this message in a reply
09-23-2021, 04:02 AM,
#3
RE: Japan 45 Campaign
A patch for the Pacific titles is being worked on, but it's not entirely clear when it will be released or what shape it is in currently.
Quote this message in a reply
09-23-2021, 04:12 AM,
#4
RE: Japan 45 Campaign
(09-23-2021, 04:02 AM)ComradeP Wrote: A patch for the Pacific titles is being worked on, but it's not entirely clear when it will be released or what shape it is in currently.

Thanks for the info, but I hope it's not necessary to wait for it? I know a few issues Japan 46 has, like the missing japanese supply sources or the mortar bug, but I haven't heard of any such issues with Japan 45.
Quote this message in a reply
09-23-2021, 03:48 PM,
#5
RE: Japan 45 Campaign
I believe the intention is a minor overhaul of sorts, to move the Pacific titles closer to the other PzC games in terms of units and mechanics.

Most of the scenario problems Japan '45 had at launch have indeed been fixed, but there are still some issues with the Pacific games in general that could use some work. For example: the stats of the Japanese units aside from the "old style" divisions are good to excellent, and not really in line with McNamara values in other PzC titles.
Quote this message in a reply
09-24-2021, 07:20 AM, (This post was last modified: 09-24-2021, 07:28 AM by Green.)
#6
RE: Japan 45 Campaign
(09-23-2021, 03:48 PM)ComradeP Wrote: I believe the intention is a minor overhaul of sorts, to move the Pacific titles closer to the other PzC games in terms of units and mechanics.

Most of the scenario problems Japan '45 had at launch have indeed been fixed, but there are still some issues with the Pacific games in general that could use some work. For example: the stats of the Japanese units aside from the "old style" divisions are good to excellent, and not really in line with McNamara values in other PzC titles.

Japan '45 is being changed in terms of the default optional rules. The current default rules are not those that are generally seen as appropriate when using the McNamara data. As a consequence some balance related changes have been made to the scenarios, primarily in terms of objective values. There have also been a small number of changes to the Parameter Data that were seen as appropriate. I expect these changes to be in the update. The original scenarios and associated parameter data will still be available for those who prefer the current approach.

I am not aware of any inconsistency in the data in terms of this title compared to others using the McNamara data. The values used are those from the database. The Japanese do have unusually high Hard attack values but this represents antitank suicide squads rather than inherent AT weapons. This is also why they have a range of 1.

If by "good to excellent", you are saying that their Quality is too high, I think the problem stems from the issue of Quality and Morale being linked. Personally I think the Quality is overstated but the Morale understated for the Japanese. The values are a compromise.
Quote this message in a reply
09-25-2021, 02:57 AM, (This post was last modified: 09-25-2021, 02:58 AM by ComradeP.)
#7
RE: Japan 45 Campaign
Quote:The Japanese do have unusually high Hard attack values but this represents antitank suicide squads rather than inherent AT weapons. This is also why they have a range of 1.

That is somewhat difficult to follow.

To model close quarters tactics where men attacked with explosives attached to bamboo sticks or with AT mines strapped to their chest, units receive a hard attack range of 1 kilometre which is higher than that of Wehrmacht units, I'd say without argument the most lavishly equipped infantry units in any army when it comes to infantry AT armament?

And no reduction of the Defence value to model such suicide attacks by increasing losses?

The Japanese currently have:

-Bigger battalions in terms of component units (4 company units) as the abstracted US weapons are not abstracted into a fourth company (unlike, for example, German battalions with abstracted heavy weapons in some PzC games). Fatigue management is much easier with 4 company battalions.
-More men in each battalion due to the additional company.
-Abstracted heavy weapons and AT support assets in 2 additional units for many battalions. More units equals more flexibility.
-A hard attack rating that doesn't match their historical capabilities, as discussed.
-With the exception of old style divisions: increased movement speed compared to US units.
-High quality units, though the actual combat experience of most formations in Japan '45 and '46 would've been limited and most of it fighting the Chinese and not a modern army like the US army.
-Good to excellent mobile units in terms of unit quality.
-High assault ratings, even though historically Japanese formations were usually not equipped with sub-machineguns or other weapons suitable for assaults. Again, there's no reduction of the Defence value to model the Japanese massed assaults.
-The Fanatical Nations rule which means they'll never take additional losses when they can't retreat and that they won't retreat from bunkers. Considering that the usual way of destroying a unit is through repeatedly assaulting it when it can't retreat, reducing its strength by half with each assault, it's difficult to overstate how powerful that ability is.

By comparison, US infantry TOE hasn't been adjusted to the timeframe for the battalion composition aside from the cannon company receiving new gear in Japan '46 and though special artillery ammunition is mentioned in the design notes, the artillery ratings have not been increased.

I'll start a Japan '46 AAR soon for my ongoing game with Elxaime to illustrate some of these points.
Quote this message in a reply
09-25-2021, 09:36 AM,
#8
RE: Japan 45 Campaign
I'm playing a Japan '45 campaign PBEM as the Americans. We're playing with the recommended optional rules, except there is no Delayed Disruption.

From what ComradeP, it sounds like the game is tough for the Americans?

Michael
Quote this message in a reply
09-25-2021, 10:36 AM,
#9
RE: Japan 45 Campaign
(09-25-2021, 02:57 AM)ComradeP Wrote:
Quote:The Japanese do have unusually high Hard attack values but this represents antitank suicide squads rather than inherent AT weapons. This is also why they have a range of 1.

That is somewhat difficult to follow.

To model close quarters tactics where men attacked with explosives attached to bamboo sticks or with AT mines strapped to their chest, units receive a hard attack range of 1 kilometre which is higher than that of Wehrmacht units, I'd say without argument the most lavishly equipped infantry units in any army when it comes to infantry AT armament?

And no reduction of the Defence value to model such suicide attacks by increasing losses?

The Japanese currently have:

-Bigger battalions in terms of component units (4 company units) as the abstracted US weapons are not abstracted into a fourth company (unlike, for example, German battalions with abstracted heavy weapons in some PzC games). Fatigue management is much easier with 4 company battalions.
-More men in each battalion due to the additional company.
-Abstracted heavy weapons and AT support assets in 2 additional units for many battalions. More units equals more flexibility.
-A hard attack rating that doesn't match their historical capabilities, as discussed.
-With the exception of old style divisions: increased movement speed compared to US units.
-High quality units, though the actual combat experience of most formations in Japan '45 and '46 would've been limited and most of it fighting the Chinese and not a modern army like the US army.
-Good to excellent mobile units in terms of unit quality.
-High assault ratings, even though historically Japanese formations were usually not equipped with sub-machineguns or other weapons suitable for assaults. Again, there's no reduction of the Defence value to model the Japanese massed assaults.
-The Fanatical Nations rule which means they'll never take additional losses when they can't retreat and that they won't retreat from bunkers. Considering that the usual way of destroying a unit is through repeatedly assaulting it when it can't retreat, reducing its strength by half with each assault, it's difficult to overstate how powerful that ability is.

By comparison, US infantry TOE hasn't been adjusted to the timeframe for the battalion composition aside from the cannon company receiving new gear in Japan '46 and though special artillery ammunition is mentioned in the design notes, the artillery ratings have not been increased.

I'll start a Japan '46 AAR soon for my ongoing game with Elxaime to illustrate some of these points.

Like all subjective abstractions, the McNamara values can be debated. Everyone will have an opinion.

However, as you know, in PzC fire at a range of 1 does not imply that the combatants are necessarily 1 kilometre apart. They may only be separated by metres. In the case of suicide teams it represents short range action that is not encompassed by the assault process. The numbers of men involved are small and the programming change required to make a defense value adjustment for losses is not justified. And the effectiveness of such attacks is not solely a function of how lavish the equipment was. When attacking an armoured target, the willingness to do it and die in the process is a non-trivial consideration. Whether the values match the historic capabilities is not something I am qualified to comment on. There will be a rationale behind the McNamara values but different people will come to different conclusions. Clearly you are one.   

The Japanese forces had many unique characteristics. As I already mentioned, the issue of quality and morale cannot be separated in the game and so represents a compromise. Lowering quality would lower morale. But it would be hard to overstate Japanese morale as judged by their courage in the face of certain death. This may also be a factor in the high assault ratings as once again not everything is about equipment. Particularly in close combat.

Whether the Fanatical Nation rules overstates the Japanese fanaticism is debatable. The Japanese virtually never retreated from bunkers/pillboxes or surrendered. That is what this rule recreates.

I think the current default optional rules distort the McNamara values and hence the overall simulation in unintended ways. In my mind this is the bigger and more fundamental problem, which is why it is being addressed. Having said that, the Japanese are a relatively new addition to PzC and adjustments can no doubt be made to better represent their particular characteristics. The more discussion on this topic the better. McNamara values are not written in stone but they are the starting point and need a compelling case to justify significant deviation from them.

I look forward to the AAR.

John
Quote this message in a reply
09-25-2021, 06:55 PM,
#10
RE: Japan 45 Campaign
Just to be clear: I said it's difficult to overstate how powerful the Fanatical Nations mechanic is, not that Japanese fanaticism is overstated.


Quote:I'm playing a Japan '45 campaign PBEM as the Americans. We're playing with the recommended optional rules, except there is no Delayed Disruption.

From what ComradeP, it sounds like the game is tough for the Americans?


Japan '45 and Japan '46 each offer unique challenges for the Allied player. They can both be very frustrating in the opening days of the campaign scenario, but I like the titles even though they have issues.

In the case of Japan '45, the Allied naval units withdraw at some point (the naval units have a small withdrawal chance each turn starting on, I believe, turn 3 of the campaign scenario). There are also bad weather turns when no air support is available, including Storm turns.

The Japanese have many A quality units and particularly the north-eastern landings are vulnerable to defeat in detail. The US infantry and Marine divisions aside from the 98th ID are B quality, which helps quite a bit. 1st Cavalry Division is A quality.

In Japan '46, Japanese opposition is far more numerous and starts closer to the beaches. US units aside from the Marine divisions are C quality. The naval units never withdraw and visibility is always at least 2 hexes so air support is always possible.
Quote this message in a reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)