• Havoc
  • Caius
  • redboot
  • Rules
  • Chain of Command
  • Members
  • Supported Ladders & Games
  • Downloads


Japan 45
09-12-2019, 06:49 PM,
#11
RE: Japan 45
(09-12-2019, 09:41 AM)Elxaime Wrote: On bunkers/pillboxes, I double checked the Normandy 44' Gold alt scenario and the bunkers are indeed -40%/+10 in that one, which uses McNamara.  I know designers do tend to vary these across the games.  Japan 45' seems to use McNamara values as the default (there are no "alt" scenarios and just a single .pdt) so it was the super bunker values that caught my eye.

I haven't extensively tested this, but I think a quick fix might be to reduce the Japan 45' .pdt bunker value to -40%/+10.  The other option would be to mirror the scenario files like in Normandy 44', with regular and "alt" versions like that game, but obviously that would be a lot of work.  Another option of course would be to turn off Alt. Assault.  But I am not sure how that plays, since the game is built on McNamara.

Welcome any wisdom of others here.  I'd love to see Japan 45' do well.  But right now, the bunker issue, at least, is a real concern.  Not sure what other issues folks have with the McNamara.  But since Japan 45' seems McNamara-based, the most available fix seems to be tweaking the .pdt.

Oops, my bad. The bunker values are indeed variable in Normandy.
I loaded up the 'default' scenario by mistake. Whistle

Nevertheless, I still don't like the way the Alt Assault OR changes the way fortifications are handled.
Given the low Hard Attack values of infantry, any bunker/pillbox becomes more or less impervious to assaults by infantry, unless you mass absurd amounts of men into an assault. Even if the target unit has a low Defense value, it may not kill very many of the enemy attackers, but then it doesn't need to. As long as it has ZOC, all it has to do is sit there and block movement.

Personally, I think the Alt Assault OR nerfs infantry to a point where armor becomes far too powerful, but that's merely an opinion.
But even if I did agree with the OR, the basic fact remains that a bunker isn't an AFV and shouldn't be treated as such.
When you're better off using Direct Fire from towed AT-guns than you are using assaults with Pioneers, something is basically wrong.
Quote this message in a reply
09-14-2019, 02:12 PM,
#12
RE: Japan 45
There are not many bunkers in Japan '45 .... thought we looked over the bunker values and David fixed that for the update.

I think on the entire map, other than the CD Guns, there are maybe six bunkers .... I made sure that they were not on the beaches too. But yes, we will look those over ...
Quote this message in a reply
09-14-2019, 02:13 PM,
#13
RE: Japan 45
The trick to taking a bunker becomes one of using a lot of armor. We were testing out the Japan '46 game and that was how I was able to take them. Use a lot of tanks. Esp. the ones with flamethrowers. They have a 37 assault value.
Quote this message in a reply
09-14-2019, 02:18 PM,
#14
RE: Japan 45
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.
Quote this message in a reply
09-14-2019, 04:25 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-15-2019, 03:21 AM by Elxaime.)
#15
RE: Japan 45
(09-14-2019, 02:18 PM)Sgt_Rock Wrote: 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.

Thanks.  Great to hear.  When you are going over Japan 45' larger scenarios, like "Take Kyushu," aside from some of the small issues mentioned above in that scenario (and perhaps others) of the eastern beach bunker and the duplicate Japanese 216th Division reinforcement strategy, you may want to consider:

- whether Allied air should be represented as air groups instead of squadrons, a la Normandy 44'
- whether it makes sense to make air/artillery strikes by the map a default optional to make Allied air recon more relevant and Japanese daytime movement in travel mode appropriately hazardous.
- on whether the Allied naval, especially the single use rocket units, are properly modeled.  Right now, in "Take Kyushu" for example the US naval rocket ships are 9 in number for the western USMC beaches - a front of four defending Japanese beach positions; however this is the same number of rocket ships available for the southern and eastern beaches where the US Army lands, invasion areas which are three times the size of the beaches the Marines land on, triple the targets as well.  It would seem likely Allied planners would adapt to the particulars of each landing zone as opposed to a "one size fits all" approach to naval support
- on whether the Operation Olympic forces in the standard plan would have been reinforced on discovery the Japanese Kyushu defenders were more numerous; these reinforcements could come from those preparing for Coronet or even accepting historically offered Commonwealth forces (the French are already in there) at a tradeoff of VPs
- I wonder if the Japanese civil defense and similar units shouldn't be more numerous.  This is not to add combat value, since these units are low value.  But it would provide the Japanese what would likely have existed in reality - a substantial force of civilian rear area units to dig trenches and ensure that as the front line infantry fell back, they would be able to move into already prepared positions.  This could help offset some of the Allied changes described above

Great game, again.  And really looking forward to seeing what you do with Coronet in Japan 46'.
Quote this message in a reply
09-14-2019, 07:42 PM,
#16
RE: Japan 45
(09-14-2019, 02:13 PM)Sgt_Rock Wrote: The trick to taking a bunker becomes one of using a lot of armor. We were testing out the Japan '46 game and that was how I was able to take them. Use a lot of tanks. Esp. the ones with flamethrowers. They have a 37 assault value.

37 Assault value is indeed good. But since the Alt Assault OR uses the Hard attack value against hard targets, it doesn't really help all that much. Instead those flame-thrower tanks will be using a Hard Attack of 4.

Which is kinda my point. Pioneers and flame-throwing tanks will have no discernible effect on bunkers, despite it being one of those things they were specifically equipped for.
You're better off using e.g. LVTs since they have a Hard attack of 7.
Quote this message in a reply
09-14-2019, 10:13 PM,
#17
RE: Japan 45
(09-14-2019, 02:18 PM)Sgt_Rock Wrote: 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.

Gent: Smoke7


Can players adjust / change the bunker and pillbox defense values? If so, how do we do it?   Idea2
Regards, Mike / "A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week." - George S. Patton /
Send this user an email
Quote this message in a reply
09-14-2019, 11:22 PM,
#18
RE: Japan 45
(09-14-2019, 10:13 PM)Kool Kat Wrote:
(09-14-2019, 02:18 PM)Sgt_Rock Wrote: 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.

Gent: Smoke7


Can players adjust / change the bunker and pillbox defense values? If so, how do we do it?   Idea2

PCParam.exe - call up the relevant pdt that you want to use, and scroll down near the bottom  -type in a different set of values and save, it looks like.

The user manual for that editor is pretty spartan, and if you do this, you might want to back up the original pdt somewhere... plus if you rename the file using save as, you'll have to point the 'scn file coding to your newly named pdt file.

Mind you, PzC has it easy - as I get to use notepad for this (and there is nothing better than finding someone's code that is broken, because the prior person used a period in place of a comma ... or an extra space ... it's nearly like coding gaslighting. :).
Send this user an email
Quote this message in a reply
09-15-2019, 03:29 AM,
#19
RE: Japan 45
As described above, you can open "pcparam" in the folder, open the file of the .pdt you want to modify, and change what you like. However, if you wanted this to only be for a custom modified scenario and not for the whole game, you'd need to ensure that the scenario file you wish to use as you modified scenario (I assume you'd have made a copy of the vanilla scenario you are modding and work off that) references the appropriate .pdt. You can do this by tweaking the scenario file using note pad or a similar program, altering the name of the .pdt there to the custom one you created (by copying the vanilla .pdt). You can do this same process for the .oob. Although it is not immediately intuitive, once you learn the basics you can pretty easily create your own modified scenarios, bearing in mind that if you want to use these in PBEM, you need to send copies of them to your opponent (whatever you modified, .scn, .pdt or .oob or all three).

I tend not to PBEM with modified files, since so many of these decisions are judgments for which reasonable people can differ. Its easier to just play with the vanilla and then everyone can let the chips fall where they may. But sometimes if you have an agreeable opponent and there is full disclosure of what was done, it can work out well too.
Quote this message in a reply
09-20-2019, 12:11 PM,
#20
RE: Japan 45
(09-12-2019, 02:10 PM)Strela Wrote: 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.
Quote this message in a reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)