Japan 45

[Kool Kat]

With the new Defense value we have set for them in Japan '46 - Coronet '46 they are easier to take. They still take some time. In the Japan '45 Olympic playtesting they were next to impossible to take within the time frame of a scenario.

What I am doing for Coronet '46 is reduce the bunkers to a "+20%" (meaning build them to +40% but then remove the units from the location to reduce it to +20%). They are still tough to take but this reflects the ability of the Allies to burn out the inhabitants. It was either that or have each engineer unit (for the most part) have a huge Assault rating. I chose the latter method.


Note: I had no idea that in the beginning the bunker defense value was set to "40" and only found that out after the game was out. Again it was my first game in the series ... I bear all the blame for the issues it had. David was pretty tied up with Gold updates, did his best to review the Japan '45 game.

Also: remember that many of our products do get updates that correct things. If we held off releasing a game until it was perfect you would never see the game. Bear in mind that we are a team and do help each other out. I wish we could have had an extensive diagram showing every bunker, trench and tunnel in Kyushu for this Japan '45 game. For instance: the Gold updates standardized the unit values. We constantly update our work to make it BETTER. Please bear along with us during this time of transition to warfare in the Pacific.

Gent: 

Please help me understand the design considerations on use of the Fanatical nations rule and bunkers.

"In certain games, one or more nations may be specified as being Fanatical. Units of Fanatical nations have two exceptions to the Assault rules. First, Fanatical units do not surrender when assaulted and thus do not suffer the additional losses units that could not retreat normally suffer. Second, Fanatical units do not retreat from Bunker and Pillbox hexes and when they lose as a result of being assaulted, remain in the hex with no additional losses."

The Fanatical nations rule is specifically written to advantage Japanese units defending in bunkers... but there was a conscious design decision to make bunkers rare at scenario start... but to make it relatively easy (2.5%) for combat engineers to built bunkers in game?     

BTW... during a recent Japan '45 PBeM game, as the American I was able to build 4 bunkers during a 33-turn scenario! 

In a 195-turn campaign scenario, no telling how many bunkers a player could potentially build!   

Reminder, units have to have LOS to enemy engineers constructing bunkers in order to attack them... so hidden engineers could be busily constructing bunkers while the front line battle rages!   

As a Japanese commander, I certainly would be ordering my combat engineers to build bunkers at all opportunities!

_____________________________________

I also located the following U.S Army Intelligence Report titled: "Japanese Plans for the Defense of Kyushu"
31 December 1945

http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm/ref/collecti...l8/id/1148

Interesting exerts:

Q. "Would a strong defense have been made on the beaches? If so, in what strength, with what tactics, and supported by what kind of fixed installations?"

A. "Powerful defense was established directly near coastal areas. One third to one fifth of the whole coastal defense strength was established along the beaches. The beach defenses were uniformly strong; where natural terrain was advantageous for defense less troops were stationed, but poor defensive terrain was defended with greater strength. The principal fighting method and objective of coastal stationed units was to persistently destroy the establishment of beach heads (airfields), and to enforce continuous counter attacks in wave formation to attain the same. For this purpose fighting units would take their stand even to utter annihilation. Camps were basically established underground or in caves. Weapons were set up for last ditch defense against Allied fire and bombardment."


Q. "How would the defense of the plains areas of southern Kyushu have been conducted? What type of support from the rugged interiors? How and around what installations was the defense of these plains areas to be organized?"

A. "The defense of plains area in southern Kyushu was primarily to resist airborne troops (parachuters). There was no systematic plans for large scale coordinated defense of the plains. Fortifications on coast lines were stressed while areas behind were given to attack-proof fortification necessary for the concentration, deployment and fighting of strategic reserve units. These fortifications were to protect the units from aerial and naval bombardment, also having tunnels to facilitate counter attacks. At the time of surrender, part of these fortifications had been completed."


Q. "What use would have been made of cave and tunnel warfare? Where? How conducted? What preparations for such warfare had been completed at the time of surrender?"

Cave and tunnel establishments were apportioned to bases for counter attack and offensive against Allied gun fire and bombardment, and to exist indefinitely. Consequently these establishments were at all points where Allied troops were expected to land. At the time of surrender, granting differences in districts, sixty to ninety percent of these establishments had been completed."


_____________________________________


The U.S. Army identified fortifications and extensive use of caves and underground tunnels at both the coastal areas as well as inland in southern Kyushu.


Again, please help me understand the design considerations to make bunkers rare at scenario start... but to make it relatively easy (2.5%) for combat engineers to built bunkers in game?