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


Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Japan 45
09-20-2019, 10:20 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-20-2019, 11:27 PM by Kool Kat.)
#21
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.

(09-20-2019, 12:11 PM)Green Wrote:
(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.

Gents:  Smoke7

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?  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
09-23-2019, 09:10 AM,
#22
RE: Japan 45
John Ray Skates on page 100 of his book "The Invasion of Japan" says that steel and concrete were in short supply by the time of 1945. The Japanese generals were offensive minded and were not as prone to want to build fortifications. Much of the concrete went to building new coastal defense positions.

The Japanese had seen what had happened with the Germans and realized that trying to build a "Pacific Wall" would not work. Instead they preferred to avoid contact with the Allied forces at the beach and defend inland where the natural terrain would be their ally.

The Osprey book "The Defense of Japan" makes little to no mention of a bunker line on Kyushu. Finally I have added one on the Kanto Plain for the Coronet game to make the advance a bit harder for the Allies. In that case I used the degraded type of bunker .. where you exit the unit and its defense is halved. The bunker properties still apply (harder to get the Japanese to give them up) but they are not indestructible.

So yes, there were not a lot of bunkers in the Olympic game. You are always welcome to copy the campaign file and add in your own bunkers if you wish. We found in playtesting that the US Army units had their hands full as it is.

Also: there is really no unit that can recreate the use of gasoline in the openings of the bunkers and caves to set them on fire. We would need to add in engineer units with a 70 Assault rating to really do the history of the Pacific justice.
Quote this message in a reply
09-23-2019, 10:40 AM, (This post was last modified: 09-23-2019, 10:43 AM by Elxaime.)
#23
RE: Japan 45
Regarding Japanese operational and tactical approaches to Olympic, I thought this was interesting:

https://history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacA...1/ch13.htm

"The Japanese tactical plan called for a rigid defense of the beaches which would be reinforced as rapidly as units could be sent from other parts of Kyushu and the western regions of Honshu. The ridges immediately to the rear of the anticipated landing areas were fortified by a network of large caves and tunnels covered by a series of strong artillery and mortar emplacements and manned by large forces of coastal-combat ground troops. These troops would meet the first assault waves and, together with the line-combat divisions, would endeavor to hold all positions until the arrival of the mobile reinforcements at the beach battleground. If the primary target of the Allies could be ascertained before the landings, then the main Japanese forces would rush to that point. If the Allied target should be unclear or if all points should be invaded simultaneously, then the main enemy strength would be committed to Ariake Bay, while delaying actions were fought on other fronts. In all cases, the decisive engagement would be waged in the beach areas with all available forces moving toward the southern Kyushu coasts. The whole object of the Japanese was to repel the invaders before they could put their heavy armor and artillery ashore."

So basically, the Japanese ground combat plan was to engage in close combat on the beach, something that might be called a "grab them by the belt" approach which would keep the US assault forces in the beach "kill zone" and an apparent willingness, on the Japanese part, to accept catastrophic losses doing so. This stands in contrast to the Okinawa "defend back from the beach in rough terrain to extract losses" approach, although likely in practice they would not be considered mutually exclusive necessarily. Since the Japanese lacked a real armored force, waves of fanatical infantry would substitute - sort of like Rommel's plan for Normandy but using foot troops instead.

In the current version of the game, this is the deadly strategy that people have discussed on the Eastern Beaches. Significant high morale Japanese infantry groups are within march of the initial US landing zones. They will get pummeled to some extent by air and naval, but they can keep the US forces on the beaches in many sectors and even launch Banzai attacks on the beach troops. In game, the Allied naval support is not all that overwhelming and the Allied air is decent but also not decisive. Once you have stacks of Japanese A and B morale infantry hosing packed beaches - 200% terrain plus over-stacking - the US forces take unbelievable losses. According to post-war surveys of the defeated Japanese officer corps, they had a reasonable expectation they could throw the US back into the sea assuming they guessed right on where the landings would be. They do not appear to have contemplated an Okinawa type "fall back into the hills" approach as being their first choice.

In game, the Japanese player has some fascinating choices therefore. He can roll the dice - at least on the Eastern Beaches and, perhaps, the eastern side of the Ariake Bay landing - and see if he can throw the US into the sea. Or he can try to conserve his forces and defend further inland...an approach that can lead to an early stalemate.

What would be fun would be to create a scenario that really throws uncertainty into where the initial landings will be an in what force, as well as multiple Japanese defense plans. This is sort of what was done with some of the campaign variants in France 1940.
Quote this message in a reply
09-23-2019, 01:24 PM,
#24
RE: Japan 45
Yes, using the Strategy choices is possible. I was up against a time limit for the work I did on the game. I do this for a living so I cannot design a scenario to explore all options available.

As to the defenses. It all depends on who you read. The Japanese general staff was divided on the "All out beach defense" and "Fade into the countryside" approach so they struck up a compromise. Found in John Ray Skates' book on the chapter covering the Japanese defense plans.
Quote this message in a reply
09-24-2019, 04:36 AM, (This post was last modified: 09-24-2019, 06:42 AM by Kool Kat.)
#25
RE: Japan 45
(09-23-2019, 09:10 AM)Sgt_Rock Wrote: John Ray Skates on page 100 of his book "The Invasion of Japan" says that steel and concrete were in short supply by the time of 1945. The Japanese generals were offensive minded and were not as prone to want to build fortifications. Much of the concrete went to building new coastal defense positions.

The Japanese had seen what had happened with the Germans and realized that trying to build a "Pacific Wall" would not work. Instead they preferred to avoid contact with the Allied forces at the beach and defend inland where the natural terrain would be their ally.

The Osprey book "The Defense of Japan" makes little to no mention of a bunker line on Kyushu. Finally I have added one on the Kanto Plain for the Coronet game to make the advance a bit harder for the Allies. In that case I used the degraded type of bunker .. where you exit the unit and its defense is halved. The bunker properties still apply (harder to get the Japanese to give them up) but they are not indestructible.

So yes, there were not a lot of bunkers in the Olympic game. You are always welcome to copy the campaign file and add in your own bunkers if you wish. We found in playtesting that the US Army units had their hands full as it is.

Also: there is really no unit that can recreate the use of gasoline in the openings of the bunkers and caves to set them on fire. We would need to add in engineer units with a 70 Assault rating to really do the history of the Pacific justice.

Gents: Smoke7

Both you and David keep stating that the Japanese were not trying to build a "Pacific Wall" and finding no references to a bunker line on Kyusha. 

I stated the following:

"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."

I am not referencing a Japanese "Pacific Wall" or a "line of bunkers."

Also, the Japanese were masters at constructing non-concrete and non-steel bunkers dug deep into reverse hill slopes that were reinforced with coral, rocks, timber, narrow gauge railroad ties, steel barrels, etc. The Japanese used construction materials that were available on site. Many of these strong points and bunkers were connected by tunnels and trenches. 

Are you stating that the Japanese would NOT have built these type of bunkers and strong points on their Home Islands?

Also, you state that players can add bunkers to various scenarios as we wish. But in reality we can't since the bunker values are incorrect and if bunkers are either placed or constructed will severely unbalance the scenarios and make Japanese bunker positions impenetrable.

Again, I ask - What are players to do?
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
09-24-2019, 09:15 AM,
#26
RE: Japan 45
Per above, you can hand modify both the bunker values and the probability they will be built using the .pdt modifier application "pcparam." You can also place bunkers to your hearts desire using the scenario mod tool "pcedit." Once you try them they are pretty intuitive.

You need to be careful though, since generally a game or scenario designer has the "big picture" in mind when designing, and making what seems to be a small change can have ripple effects on play balance.

Designing something hypothetical like Japan 45' is very tough, since you are basically left making the best guess as to what the Japanese or US would have done. So a lot of credit to the tremendous amount of great work that went into this one. In the play through I have done so far (not to the finish, but to around turn 60) the design really captures well what a horrible, grinding and bloody contest this would have been.
Quote this message in a reply
09-24-2019, 11:50 AM, (This post was last modified: 09-24-2019, 11:50 AM by Kool Kat.)
#27
RE: Japan 45
(09-24-2019, 09:15 AM)Elxaime Wrote: Per above, you can hand modify both the bunker values and the probability they will be built using the .pdt modifier application "pcparam."  You can also place bunkers to your hearts desire using the scenario mod tool "pcedit."  Once you try them they are pretty intuitive.

You need to be careful though, since generally a game or scenario designer has the "big picture" in mind when designing, and making what seems to be a small change can have ripple effects on play balance.  

Gent:  Smoke7

Why should players be expected to modify the parameters file of a game?

Why should players have to "guess" where bunkers "may" have to be placed at a scenario start?

Should not all of the above issues been sorted out and play tested prior to release?

We've had one major patch release with a whole slew of updates and changes. 

Now we (players) have discovered incorrect bunker values. What's next? 

I paid $40.00 for a finished and complete game - not a sandbox.
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
09-24-2019, 01:28 PM,
#28
RE: Japan 45
(09-24-2019, 11:50 AM)Kool Kat Wrote:
(09-24-2019, 09:15 AM)Elxaime Wrote: Per above, you can hand modify both the bunker values and the probability they will be built using the .pdt modifier application "pcparam."  You can also place bunkers to your hearts desire using the scenario mod tool "pcedit."  Once you try them they are pretty intuitive.

You need to be careful though, since generally a game or scenario designer has the "big picture" in mind when designing, and making what seems to be a small change can have ripple effects on play balance.  

Gent:  Smoke7

Why should players be expected to modify the parameters file of a game?

Why should players have to "guess" where bunkers "may" have to be placed at a scenario start?

Should not all of the above issues been sorted out and play tested prior to release?

We've had one major patch release with a whole slew of updates and changes. 

Now we (players) have discovered incorrect bunker values. What's next? 

I paid $40.00 for a finished and complete game - not a sandbox.

Mike,

i understand your passion, but please understand that everyone has a different take on what is correct. A great example is the differences in proposed strategies for the Japanese (defend at the beaches or go inland). Both Bill and I have taken where possible primary sources and built from there.

We have definitive documents that state there was insufficient resources to build the concrete bunkers as called out. I view that more in the pillbox area, not bunkers per se, but we decided that with the fanatical nation rules we would minimise the bunkers overall. Something, no one here has seemed to have mentioned and a very important consideration in all our play testing.

The one glaring issue is the bunkers rated at 40/40. I will correct that and reissue the 1.01 patch. No need for a 'sandbox' as you say. As far as the bunker build percentage of 2.5% - you know, it's completely academic in my opinion. That is a 1 in 40 chance every turn. Neither side can afford the engineers (yes only engineers can build bunkers) to sit around building bunkers and if I saw a line of Japanese engineers happily building they would be priority targets for me.

There is logic, there was deep discussions and we all have our own take. If you feel the game is underdone and not to your taste, so be it - I expect we can get you a refund. Just be aware that we do keep updating these games and consider feedback and have proven that for the last twenty years. It will also mean you will miss out on Japan '46, the big brother to the currently released game, which I believe is an excellent title as well.

David
Quote this message in a reply
09-24-2019, 08:52 PM, (This post was last modified: 10-03-2019, 09:45 AM by Kool Kat.)
#29
RE: Japan 45
(09-24-2019, 01:28 PM)Strela Wrote:
(09-24-2019, 11:50 AM)Kool Kat Wrote:
(09-24-2019, 09:15 AM)Elxaime Wrote: Per above, you can hand modify both the bunker values and the probability they will be built using the .pdt modifier application "pcparam."  You can also place bunkers to your hearts desire using the scenario mod tool "pcedit."  Once you try them they are pretty intuitive.

You need to be careful though, since generally a game or scenario designer has the "big picture" in mind when designing, and making what seems to be a small change can have ripple effects on play balance.  

Gent:  Smoke7

Why should players be expected to modify the parameters file of a game?

Why should players have to "guess" where bunkers "may" have to be placed at a scenario start?

Should not all of the above issues been sorted out and play tested prior to release?

We've had one major patch release with a whole slew of updates and changes. 

Now we (players) have discovered incorrect bunker values. What's next? 

I paid $40.00 for a finished and complete game - not a sandbox.

Mike,

i understand your passion, but please understand that everyone has a different take on what is correct. A great example is the differences in proposed strategies for the Japanese (defend at the beaches or go inland). Both Bill and I have taken where possible primary sources and built from there.

We have definitive documents that state there was insufficient resources to build the concrete bunkers as called out. I view that more in the pillbox area, not bunkers per se, but we decided that with the fanatical nation rules we would minimise the bunkers overall. Something, no one here has seemed to have mentioned and a very important consideration in all our play testing.

The one glaring issue is the bunkers rated at 40/40. I will correct that and reissue the 1.01 patch. No need for a 'sandbox' as you say. As far as the bunker build percentage of 2.5% - you know, it's completely academic in my opinion. That is a 1 in 40 chance every turn. Neither side can afford the engineers (yes only engineers can build bunkers) to sit around building bunkers and if I saw a line of Japanese engineers happily building they would be priority targets for me.

There is logic, there was deep discussions and we all have our own take. If you feel the game is underdone and not to your taste, so be it - I expect we can get you a refund. Just be aware that we do keep updating these games and consider feedback and have proven that for the last twenty years. It will also mean you will miss out on Japan '46, the big brother to the currently released game, which I believe is an excellent title as well.

David


Hi David:  Smoke7

Thank you for the missing play testing details and moving forward to correct the bunker values! Much appreciated!  Smile
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
09-25-2019, 11:09 AM, (This post was last modified: 09-25-2019, 11:13 AM by Sgt_Rock.)
#30
RE: Japan 45
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.
Quote this message in a reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)