Buyer's Remorse?

[Partizanka]

Another benefit might be to limit the number of troops that can stack in a bunker or pillbox or similarly named defensive construction made for a certain number of men.

Then, you are getting more in the line with Panzer Battles or Squad Battles.  On PzCs level, there would be a lot of bunkers in that amount of space.  So, more troops would be in there.

I think you've confirmed my thoughts on this particular offering, and that is that it would probably work better as a Panzer Battles game, where you could employ smaller defense positions to simulate the monkeyholes and other defense obstructions that slowed the U.S. advance but did not amend the outcome. For the PZC game, I would suggest altering the defensive strength of bunkers and limiting further building or a gentleman's agreement on their use. I did love the flow of the Leyte operation in the PZC game and found the design work outstanding with the battle pretty much matching U.S historical progression in game time. With a little tweak it could be more competitive. There is another issue with Leyte, for which perhaps someone could suggest a remedy. The ending days resulted in less resistance as Japanese suffered from literal starvation. Is there a way that the scenario could implement a timed adjustment to supply, troop quality, leadership or some other variable to replicate that reality? Could on for example could all supply sources be removed as of a certain date, or have troop and leadership quality drop to E or have fatigue max out at a certain time and date? I guess I am asking if any of those variables are controllable in the scenario design. That might also be beneficial in making the game more playable.

[Steel God]

Another benefit might be to limit the number of troops that can stack in a bunker or pillbox or similarly named defensive construction made for a certain number of men.

Then, you are getting more in the line with Panzer Battles or Squad Battles.  On PzCs level, there would be a lot of bunkers in that amount of space.  So, more troops would be in there.

I think you've confirmed my thoughts on this particular offering, and that is that it would probably work better as a Panzer Battles game, where you could employ smaller defense positions to simulate the monkeyholes and other defense obstructions that slowed the U.S. advance but did not amend the outcome. For the PZC game, I would suggest altering the defensive strength of bunkers and limiting further building or a gentleman's agreement on their use. I did love the flow of the Leyte operation in the PZC game and found the design work outstanding with the battle pretty much matching U.S historical progression in game time. With a little tweak it could be more competitive. There is another issue with Leyte, for which perhaps someone could suggest a remedy. The ending days resulted in less resistance as Japanese suffered from literal starvation. Is there a way that the scenario could implement a timed adjustment to supply, troop quality, leadership or some other variable to replicate that reality? Could on for example could all supply sources be removed as of a certain date, or have troop and leadership quality drop to E or have fatigue max out at a certain time and date? I guess I am asking if any of those variables are controllable in the scenario design. That might also be beneficial in making the game more playable.

Supply Variations are already a thing within the games.  You could have supply levels dropping slowly over time, and eventually bottom out at zero at the date which you think appropriate.  I don't think you can remove the Source of Supply Hexes otherwise everyone would go "Isolated" or, check that, I think without a supply hex any map edge works as a supply source in the engine....either way though I don't think isolation is appropriate.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Supply could be compensated by growing your own food or things that were found edible in the jungle. The last surviving Japanese soldier surrendered in 1974, 30 more years of his life wasted.