Teaser

[Xaver]

I think bigger campaigns could enter in PzC series with Japan45/46... i think in Soviet part of the war (1939 and 1945), Both Phippinnes in a single title (42 VS 44), a pack with the Japanese blitzkrieg (even is possible complete it using what if Pearl Harbour comes with an invasion force) and war in the continent.

But island battles are for me more into PzB scope.

Fanatic troops are going to be a great hit in PzC because this could slow a lot offensives and increase value of "meat blockages", imagine this rule use to in SS or Marines... firepower+last man defenses.

Early east front is a mix of fanatic defenses but a lot more fast surrenders... as you say a random value is the best way but question is... how use it??? is going to be forever active or is possible burn it when unit lose combat efficiency???

Japan is going to be an interesting test area specially when in 1945 title terrain and OOB are going to made it an infantry battle (curious if flam tanks are going to be finally usefull, same with the AAA in "meat grinders" role, i think A quality is not related with their job shooting down airplanes).

PD: weekend is coming... any bone for us??? hehehe

EDIT: the problem with Guadalcanal is the lack of "systematic battles" but is possible play with it adding what if scens with extra troops and more time to play with time and not only space.

[wiggum]

Well, i personally hoped for Spain 1936...but still a interesting choice. :)

[Xaver]

Well, for me a Spain 1936-1939 is more into the FWW area... i feel is a better engine to cover it.

But now next step is Japan45/46... and we are in 2nd week of     

[ComradeP]

I'm looking forward to Japan '45. 

Fall Kreml was well done, even though the balance favoured the Axis due to the sheer number of high quality units the Germans have.

I wonder how the Fanatical nations rule will work in practice, as disrupting all defenders in a hex can already be difficult, but the fanatical nations rule would require actually eliminating everything in a bunker hex before it is captured.

As fire from Gun/Vehicle units tends to be weaker than direct fire from units composed of Men due to the size difference, and assaulting requires a substantial superiority in numbers or quality to be effective, taking bunkers from anything but the weakest screening units could take a disproportionally long time. The tactic of piling units into a handful of bunker hexes would also become more effective.

Some sort of advantage for assaulting across multiple hexsides would be nice, as the stacking limit restrictions favour the defender in situations where the attacker doesn't outnumber the defender by a fair margin.

[Strela]

I wonder how the Fanatical nations rule will work in practice, as disrupting all defenders in a hex can already be difficult, but the fanatical nations rule would require actually eliminating everything in a bunker hex before it is captured.

This may surprise most of you, but the vast majority of the defences on Kyushu are trenches. Why? Because the Japanese had a chronic shortage of concrete and other materials needed to make more permanent defensive structures. They did not have the years the Germans had to prepare an Atlantic Wall type defense and had to cover a much larger empire when it came to providing resources.
This is not say that aren't bunkers, but they are pretty much the exception rather than the rule.
Makes everything quite interesting - particularly with the naval and air firepower available to the Allies....

David

[Xaver]

But fanatical nations really doesnt need bunkers, if i remember it well bunker presence means the unit stands in the hex, never retreat unless you eliminated it or japanese player retreat it... but if there is not a bunker the unit suffer less casualties and never surrenders to but is possible push it out of the hex.

I really want see how is going to work in PzC because a fanatical nation could delay a lot attacker paying with blood delay enemy advance... if japanase units are not in the "isolated routine" even with a lot of firepower allied player is going to need a lot of time to eliminated a japanese unit.

Naval firepower helps disrupt heavy entrenched and sure in a fire duel japanese troops are going to suffer a lot but in urban-forest terrain... not open terrain is going to be best japanese player friend.

PD: a little question, how many sub-factions are going to have Japan??? i asume army, navy and maybe the partisans-militia unit are going to use different counters???.

[Strela]

PD: a little question, how many sub-factions are going to have Japan??? i asume army, navy and maybe the partisans-militia unit are going to use different counters???.

There are no sub-factions currently on the Japanese side.

David

[Xaver]

I see, its a little strange not see at least as separate factions army and navy, every time appear navy units in PzC they are separate and in japanese case needs the same specially with their "love" relation in the war.

Well, is possible add an axis folder and edit OOB to have this as a mod and maybe in future in a patch see an official implementation.

Thanks for the reply.

[ComradeP]

This may surprise most of you, but the vast majority of the defences on Kyushu are trenches. Why? Because the Japanese had a chronic shortage of concrete and other materials needed to make more permanent defensive structures. They did not have the years the Germans had to prepare an Atlantic Wall type defense and had to cover a much larger empire when it came to providing resources.
This is not say that aren't bunkers, but they are pretty much the exception rather than the rule.
Makes everything quite interesting - particularly with the naval and air firepower available to the Allies....

David

According to the user manual, a bunker represents mostly timber/wooden field fortifications whereas a pillbox represents concrete and steel structures.

I've commented on that before, reasoning that PzC could use some of FWWC's fortification variety for a more pronounced difference and with bunkers that you can create during a scenario or which were log bunkers as an intermediate step between trenches and concrete structures as the difference between soft and hard target type and the accompanying advantages make the difference between trench and bunker night and day unless the attacking force has high hard attack value equipment.

My impression from the Pacific War was that the landings on islands in the outer defensive ring tended to face log/sand bunkers instead of concrete bunkers. As long as there are suitable trees around, such field fortifications can be created without specialized construction tools or additional materials.

There were only about 270 Japanese from 2 Company , 2 Battalion, 23 Regiment, 6 Division in the landing area, but they were concentrated around Cape Torokina itself and gave the southern landings significant difficulty. There were about 25 Japanese pillboxes in this area, and their single 75mm gun, concealed in a coconut log and sand bunker, managed to sink four landing craft and damage several others. The LCP containing the wave commander was one of those hit, and this threw the landing of 1/3 Marine Regiment into serious confusion. Sergeant Robert A. Owens led an attack that neutralized the gun but cost him his own life; he was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor. The 1 Battalion commander, Major Leonard M. Mason, though wounded, was able to restore order before being evacuated.

From: http://www.pwencycl.kgbudge.com/B/o/Bougainville.htm

[Xaver]

Ummm i allways understand, in PzC at least, bunker-pillboxes represented areas with very elaborated defenses, something you cant create in hours... for me not only time and resources, they need a plan to made them perform like an "unit".

Here, many times japanese defenses have a core of very well placed and interconnected defenses (the hex with a bunker-pillbox in PzC) but are other areas where a bunker is the strong point in a trench line and trench hex represents better this.

But is true i dont see bad add other defensive hex types to replace bunkers and pillboxes, in FWW are redoubts for example.. maybe bunker could be in Pacific titles the top defensive work (with actual values of bunker replacing pillboxes) and replace bunker for an intermediate defensive work between trench and actual bunker... call it log bunker or improved trench camp.

For me the Pacific "log bunkers" are stronger than a simple trench but weaker than a concrete bunker... apart that Japan with their "marine you die" tactic create them more in an "kleenex" use, they are to kill soldiers but not to survive the contact after be spoted.