Lewisgunner | 01 Jul 2013 2:52 a.m. PST |
I don't think that he is ranting on this occasion. Game design is very complex and I don't think that BF always get it right. The devil will be in the combination of arms and how they are used. A while back a clever player won a comp. with Cossacks. He used huge platoons and the recce move to get his mounted men across the board and drown an objective.. He had put together reasonable assumptions in the rules in a way that the writers had not tested or thought through because it interacted with scenarios in which you could only put on half the force. So a force design with a couple of tiny platoons enabled 80% of his hardware to be on table, but only half the platoons. Looking at the Japanese in WI , the Japanese player does not need to worry about the T34s etc, because his anti tank infantry throwing 4 dice per base and with a tank attack of four are going to take out the opposing tanks. As these appear to always make their attack regardless they will deal with 34s and KVsHe can save his own FV tanks that fire full effect on the move for going to get the opposing infantry. |
Gottmituns205 | 01 Jul 2013 2:56 a.m. PST |
..so the Japanese are more effective than the Germans in Barbarossa? |
Lewisgunner | 01 Jul 2013 4:07 a.m. PST |
I would suspect so, but that is based on the WI article which is Japanese versus Russians. In real life the Russians wiped the Japanese, and the Germans wiped the Russians. Its just the other way round in the rule writer's rabbit hole. In real life Japs are just Italians on an adrenalin rush. |
JungleRhino | 03 Jul 2013 7:28 a.m. PST |
I don't know if you guys have seen the WI article – most of the rules you can see here link Anyway the one I wanted to point out is Hip Shot: "If they moved in the Movement Step Japanese Tank teams may re-roll failed To Hit rolls when shooting with their main gun, provided the easiest team to hit in the target platoon is within 16"" So not only do they suffer no penalty from having a 1-man turret with commander/gunner pulling double duty – but miraculously this makes him MORE accurate on the move. LOGIC! |
Deadone | 03 Jul 2013 4:32 p.m. PST |
Wow, that is beyond stupid. It's bizarrre they talk about different doctrine for Japanese tanks, yet in reality it was a French doctrine. It's amazing that Japanese tank crews serving for an army that viewed infantry as paramount and armour as mere support is far better at tank warfare than the Germans who emphasised armour or the French who actually invented doctrine used by Japan and fielded a far larger tank force or the British. On WWPD they talked about it didn't matter that Japanese tankers were good because their tanks are poor.
Last time I checked, AT5 has an excellent chance of penetrating a FA0 BT or FA1 T-26, especially when hitting Conscript Russians on a 2+ and especially when re-rolling to hit dice within 16 inches. Also why no One-Man turret for Type 89?
Crew was - Commander/Gunner - Driver - Loader - Hull gunner One has to wonder is BF trying to rewrite history of Khalkin Gol? |
lcannard | 03 Jul 2013 7:50 p.m. PST |
The One-Man Turret rule is reserved for tanks that had, you guessed it, one man turrets. Type 89s had the loader in the turret too. |
Deadone | 03 Jul 2013 9:43 p.m. PST |
Thanks for the correcton. For some reason thought the loader was in the hull. |
Lewisgunner | 04 Jul 2013 2:29 a.m. PST |
Veteran just fails the feel test on Jap tanks. They were not hard to hit at all. German crews make exceptional use of ground and the tanks work cleverly together to take on better armoured opponents. Jap tanks might be brave, but they are just not good at the crafty bits of tank warfare. In Malay and Burma they always do the predictable and pay for it. If the classification holds for Mid War and the Jap tanks get some better guns as they do, they will be a major armoured opponent, racing up to and killing Shermans and particularly Stuarts. |
Deadone | 04 Jul 2013 4:15 p.m. PST |
If the classification holds for Mid War and the Jap tanks get some better guns as they do, they will be a major armoured opponent, racing up to and killing Shermans and particularly Stuarts.
That's kinda funny cause the Stuart swarm is an awesome Panzer III/IV killer – move 16 inches a turn, get into side armour range and open up with full ROF due to stabilisers. So we could have Type 97 > Stuart > Panzer III/IV. :P Oh and given availablility of T-35 in the new book for ops against Finland and Japan, that means there's a high chance BF will give late war Japanese Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 tanks, Tupe 3 tank destroyers and maybe even experimental Type 4 and 5 tanks. |
Starcorre | 07 Jul 2013 3:57 p.m. PST |
One thing none of you have thought of is the Japanese had the mental thought of be a samurai and it was unthinkable for them to run away for that caused them to lose face which make them more likely to fight harder and die in place. If you look at how many were taken prisoner vs how many died you might understand how them came to that rating. |
Deadone | 07 Jul 2013 4:21 p.m. PST |
Starcorre, mentality has nothing to do with how well they performed. In FOW "Veteran" rating signifies elite forces and usually well proven in combat. Japanese tank arm was anything but elite. They certainly were not up to the level of SS Panzer Corps or better than than Heer and late 44/early 45 Western Allied armoured formations. There is nothing so far to justify making Japanese tankers equivalent to elite Heer/SS divisions. Oh and experience doesn't count for squat – Iraqi military had 8 years of combat experience before 1991 and generally performed dismally even against the Iranians, let alone the Americans.
Pounding badly armed and often badly commanded Chinese troops is not the same as slugging it out with Russian armoured formations. And remember the Japanese lost Khalkin Gol. |
Deadone | 08 Jul 2013 10:26 p.m. PST |
In FOW stabilisers allow full rate of fire on move with a +1 to hit modifier. Russians and Brits don't get stablisers at all for their American tanks. I heard Brits often removed it (dunno if this is true). |
Poniatowski | 09 Jul 2013 12:14 p.m. PST |
Well said, both of you.. and it solves the problem too! You see
done as stated below.. we have accurate stats and ratings for the historic minded players and then fairly pointed lists for the tourney player to make a winable fore with.. itis win win all around! QFT: "If it's just a balance issue, then why not simply make those "quite crappy, quite ineffective" Japanese Tanks cheaper in points? Works well enough for other forces in FoW. If the sinister secret BF plan here is to make you buy more tank models, then creating a force structure where you buy less but better tanks seems rather counter to that goal. Brit Armoured Reg't. Historically accurate lists from the TO&E, but never apparently fought as the TO&E. Probably the best force in the entire EW
" |
Lion in the Stars | 09 Jul 2013 3:35 p.m. PST |
Veteran just fails the feel test on Jap tanks. They were not hard to hit at all. Japanese tanks may have been sitting ducks for Americans and Brits. How well did the Soviets shoot? Couldn't hit the broadside of a barn from inside? |
Deadone | 09 Jul 2013 3:45 p.m. PST |
Soviet shooting ability is irrelevant in BF's eyes – they base their stats on how good the target is at hiding, exploiting cover etc. They have explained this numerous times and it is one of the fundamental principles behind the game. And further more Soviets tankers will still have the same level of accuracy against Finns (who are also in book) and whose tankers generally exhibited far more ability than Japanese. Japanese tanks should've been Fearless Trained at best.
|
VonBurge | 11 Jul 2013 3:11 a.m. PST |
Before formulating any response I'd like to understand 1) are all Japanese tankers FV or are there other flavors as well and 2) if only some are FV what unit or units are they trying to represent with them. You were wise to wait. The BF web page update just posted had a design notes article on the upcoming book. Depending on the unit chosen, Japanese tanks can be either Fearless Trained or Fearless Vetern. |
jameshammyhamilton | 11 Jul 2013 4:40 a.m. PST |
I love the way that Soviet tanks captured and pressed into service by the Finns change from Confident Conscript to Confident Trained. "Due to being a new branch of service, Finnish tank platoons are rated Confident Trained." So what were the Soviets doing in their tank training schools in the 30s? |
myrm11 | 11 Jul 2013 8:28 a.m. PST |
Purging them? Seriously – how much did the 30s purges of the officer corps of the Russian forces affect tank training units – did the purges focus on any of infantry, artillery or armoured units, did they go low enough to affect structure and did the return to duty of what 1/3rd of the purged officers at the onset of war allow recovery? |
Deadone | 11 Jul 2013 4:17 p.m. PST |
Russian tank units were also badly trained and suffered from big logistics and maintenance issues. You're not getting much training when the tank is up on blocks somewhere awaiting spares that never arrive. I don't mind CC for Russian tank crews. I do mind FV for Japanese (which is completely unjustified) and I do mind that every Soviet unit is CC. We'll see once Barabarossa comes out whether any of the better performing units (including Guards, some NKVD and some Airborne) get anything better than CC. As someone on another board said: "Flavour the game designers chose for Soviets, simple as that" Inclusion of T-35s is sad though – they were not used in 1939-40 fighting.
In the past BF lists have excluded equipment not used in actual fighting – e.g. Finnish Panzer IVJ's which were kept in reserve. Now they're disregarding this too. Though the model is very nice and very appropriate for Barbarossa where they can breakdown as much as you like. |
myrm11 | 12 Jul 2013 3:14 a.m. PST |
I do agree with you on the FV point, Fearless I have no problem with but the Vet just doesnt stick for me, either (OK Ok it makes me shudder and Im looking at it from a non-expert point of view and still feel confident thats a correct view). As to reserve units, I personally prefer to see them if they were in the situation of could have been needed and were operational, a la PzIV for Finns. There are reserve and 2nd line units in FoW and have been for a while. I run a Hungarian Reserve Corps force that was put in game years ago, same with a bunch of 2nd line German units although they did see a tad more action
.in the same way I would mind seeing Danish forces, or Swedish On the other hand if the T35s were on the chopping block and scheduled to go then they'd fall into a different category – as I understand it thats essentially what happened, they were all put into Kiev's units to be expended in combat vs the Germans (and mostly blew themselves up – not sent anywhere else. OK Im going to commit a wiki sin here and point out that wiki comments that its Soviet sources that say no T35s in Finland – that presumably means there are other sources citing T35s in action. While Im inclined to belive Soviet sources over others, it does mean someone is going to be able to point to sources that say they were used and we all know how messy 'my source is correcter than your source' arguments get. |