Japan 45 Campaign

[Green]

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