Japan 45

[Kool Kat]

Ok - just checked on the bunker/pillbox/trench values. Yes, the values are wrong for Japan '45 - Olympic. We got them right for Japan '46 Coronet so its just a matter of fixing this for the next update.

The Bunker Defense is 40 when it should be 10. The Pillbox defense is 60 when it should be 20.

Also I noted that the Elevation Modifier is -25 when it should only be -10.

All something for a future update.

Guys,

Let us check the bunker values and get back to you. This was not a deliberate design decision to make them tougher, and if anything they were an issue due to insufficient concrete being available.

That said, you will notice a paucity of bunkers & pillboxes in this title for that exact reason. This was not Hitlers West Wall and the Japanese did not start to fortify their coast line until very late in the war. By that time there was shortages of everything.

David

If this is correct then does it make sense that bunkers are relatively easy to build during play? The parameter data has a bunker prob. of 2.5% per turn. This is high compared to normal and in a medium or larger size scenario allows for a number to be constructed. In the medium size scenario I have been playing my opponent built three in less than 30 turns. In a campaign of 195 turns the number that could be built would be considerable. If building bunkers was so easy, wouldn't they have built more prior to the invasion?

Given the current erroneous bunker values, this ability shifts the balance in favor of the Japanese in anything other than small scenarios. A bunker on an objective hex would make it all but unattainable for the Allied player. But since we have just had an update I assume it will be a long time before there is another. While I can just change the .pdt file, it seems odd to me to expect players to do this.

Even with the correct bunker values, the ability to build bunkers so readily will have a significant impact on balance. My assumption is that this ability was not used during playtesting or the incorrect bunker values would have been noticed. So perhaps the bunker prob. value needs to be reduced, maybe even to zero, so that it does not cause balance issues?

Also, I see that the Range Effect Value is set to 1, in the parameter data. Was this deliberate? Seems unusual to have no range effect.

Gents: 

I located an interesting .ppt presentation titled; "Japanese Defenses and Fortifications Tarawa, Iwo Jima and Okinawa 1943-45"

https://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/umrcourses...943-45.pdf

and these statements:

* "Material shortages of concrete and steel was due to diversion to fortifications of the Home Islands and mandated territory such as Iwo Jima."

* Large sand-covered concrete bunkers that housed command HQs and coastal guns were at Tarawa.

* Pre-fabricated steel pillboxes were erected on-site at Tarawa.

* Reinforced (with rebar) concrete bunkers were used at Iwo Jima.

* Pillbox caves were used at Okinawa reinforced with logs, rocks and earth.


I believe it is a serious oversight not to have Japanese bunkers in many (all?) of the Japan '45 scenarios. Historically, the Japanese were diverting concrete and steel construction materials from their outer island defenses to the Home Islands. Look at the formidable Japanese defenses that were constructed at Iwo Jima, Tarawa, and Okinawa. Would not (at least) that same level of defense fortifications be constructed to defend the Home Islands? 

Historically, bunkers, pillboxes and other significant fixed defensive structures were built prior to battle so from a Japan '45 standpoint, it makes most sense for the Japanese to have bunkers defending "some" objectives at scenario start and to NOT allow the building of bunkers in game.    

But, with the incorrect bunker values, players really should not build bunkers (either side)... since as noted earlier it will shift the balance to the Japanese who can build bunkers on objective hexes and make them unattainable by the Americans and unbalance other scenarios.


So, what are players to do?