(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.

(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.

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.

(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.

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?