Anti-Tank & Cavalry

[abukede]

Anti-Tank

I feel the anti-tank units should be eliminated from the game or modified. Modification should be like an arty defense when an armor unit (only armor) attacks an adjacent unit the anti-tank fires a defensive shot, kinda like lending supporting elements. Otherwise I feel they are useless.

Cav

Also... I think the game should include cavalry units for Japan, China and Russia as these were used during the war. The russians utilized cavalry up until the end of the war.... though not sure about the japanese though I suspect they had at least one cav unit left in china. The Japanese cavalry was small in comparison to the other combatants. China had a considerable number of cav divisions.

Supporting evidence of Japanese and Chinese Cav units/divisions in China

http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=9174

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Battle_Anti-Japanese_Allied_Army_Campaign_of_1933

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/J/a/Japanese_North_China_Area_Army.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=ToA5wuDiqnAC&pg=PA224&lpg=PA224&dq=japanese+cavalry+division&source=bl&ots=xKqFeLrwnA&sig=OZ_r6ufUuFnRni21-ahatwmCRIY&hl=en&ei=JxeTSeD0CeH8tgeqlIThCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result

Japanese OOB (a pretty good one)

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/oob/jap.php?unit=5_Division

Cavalry were able to move during the rainy season when not much else could. I think it would add a little dimension to the game and allow players to move around and behind the enemy in difficult to move places... like the russians and chinese did during the war.

[Happycat]

Anti-Tank

I feel the anti-tank units should be eliminated from the game or modified. Modification should be like an arty defense when an armor unit (only armor) attacks an adjacent unit the anti-tank fires a defensive shot, kinda like lending supporting elements. Otherwise I feel they are useless.

Cav

Also... I think the game should include cavalry units for Japan, China and Russia as these were used during the war. The russians utilized cavalry up until the end of the war.... though not sure about the japanese though I suspect they had at least one cav unit left in china. The Japanese cavalry was small in comparison to the other combatants. China had a considerable number of cav divisions.

Supporting evidence of Japanese and Chinese Cav units/divisions in China

http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=9174

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Battle_Anti-Japanese_Allied_Army_Campaign_of_1933

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/J/a/Japanese_North_China_Area_Army.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=ToA5wuDiqnAC&pg=PA224&lpg=PA224&dq=japanese+cavalry+division&source=bl&ots=xKqFeLrwnA&sig=OZ_r6ufUuFnRni21-ahatwmCRIY&hl=en&ei=JxeTSeD0CeH8tgeqlIThCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result

Japanese OOB (a pretty good one)

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/oob/jap.php?unit=5_Division

Cavalry were able to move during the rainy season when not much else could. I think it would add a little dimension to the game and allow players to move around and behind the enemy in difficult to move places... like the russians and chinese did during the war.

Good information here Abu. I knew that cavalry figured into operations in China and Manchuria (as well as Soviet Far East) but had not appreciation of the degree.

Like you, I wonder why the anti-tank units exist. The only reason I ever build them is to use as garrisons, or to hold non-critical portions of the line (or, if I'm just truly desperate and can't afford anything betteer). In Blitzkrieg and PDE I found them of some utility on the Russian front, but they seem fairly useless in SCPT (although I guess the Japanese could ship them to the islands).

I think it would be good to have cavalry for the appropriate nations, and that they NOT suffer a movement penalty in mud/rain.

So Hubert, make that two votes for the cav!

[Hubert Cater]

I think Bill would have the final say on this one as Operation Z really is his baby

[abukede]

Hubert,

What are your thoughts on this though?

[Bill101]

I did seriously think about cavalry, but decided to give the Japanese a chance to build some anti-tank units instead to help bolster their forces in Manchukuo for when the T-34s eventually come rolling over the border. In such a situation anti-tank units would probably be more useful than cavalry.

I also wasn't really sure what strategic role cavalry would have if we deployed them instead, and wasn't convinced that deploying them would have the right feel. It wasn't an easy decision to make as I am very interested in the role of cavalry in early 20th century warfare, but giving the Japanese some potential to dent a few T-34s seemed more appropriate.

[SeaMonkey]

Bill, since OpZ is your baby, if I did a redesign of the Pacific, leaving Asia and the immediate waters alone, would there need to be a lot of script adjustments for position changes of the islands?

And....what are your thoughts at reducing the CAGs to a more effective single naval strike vs the current double strike capability(is this possible in the editor)? Mainly I'm thinking that TAC and Fighter landbased groups would get the double strikes with a subsequent reduction in their build limits, ie. fewer units available.

Did you do any experimentation with a change like this?

[scottsmm]

SeaMonkey,

It is possible in the editor and the game as well. You could simply set it to only to one strike in the combat target data for CV's, and in game you could set it to mix. Hope this helps.

[SeaMonkey]

Thanks scotts, you know this brings up an interesting thought. Since we can choose different modes for the CAGs, wouldn't it be nice to get back to our old SC AFs?

There would only be a need for a single air counter, like an airwing, luftflotte, fleigerkorps, etc. You would choose its mode, fighter, TAC, or SAC and of course each selection would be subject to enhancement through research.

Advanced Air for fighters, Ground Attack for TAC, and Heavy Bombers for SAC. The Long Range option would be included automatically in costs and the range feature upon each advancement in tech level, no need to actually select it.

This would help with air deployments vs land units usage of map tiles and be a great addition for Global SC.

[scottsmm]

Your welcome SeaMonkey.

[Bill101]

Bill, since OpZ is your baby, if I did a redesign of the Pacific, leaving Asia and the immediate waters alone, would there need to be a lot of script adjustments for position changes of the islands?

And....what are your thoughts at reducing the CAGs to a more effective single naval strike vs the current double strike capability(is this possible in the editor)? Mainly I'm thinking that TAC and Fighter landbased groups would get the double strikes with a subsequent reduction in their build limits, ie. fewer units available.

Did you do any experimentation with a change like this?

Hi SeaMonkey

Yes, I did indeed do quite a few experiments!

When you first suggested giving land based air 2 strikes sometime last year, I did give it some serious thought, but a number of reasons made me think that keeping them to 1 strike worked better:

1) A fighter that intercepts twice might be easily destroyed in air combat, if having taken hits when it first intercepted, it is down to strength 5-6 when it intercepts the second time. But a carrier can intercept twice and still probably make it home, as the flattop may be intact even though it has lost all its planes.

2) I was a bit wary of giving tactical bombers 2 strikes, as I feared that it would make airpower far too powerful against ground troops. Cutting down on their numbers would go some way to addressing this, but it would also limit the strategic possibilities the players, especially the Japanese, have to deploy air units at a wide variety of places, often there "just in case" the enemy appears that way.

I am always experimenting and testing things out with a view to improving things, so while I don't always comment on every suggestion made on this forum, rest assured that all are considered.

As to the scripts, if you only plan to use the mod for HvH play then removing all the AI scripts would be a good idea. Otherwise you will have a whole lot of work to fix things there (it will be possible, but a bit time consuming, so it depends on what you really want the mod for). For HvH, you will have to remove or amend some of the scripts, but the editor will prompt you when you either try to save the scenario, or when you go into the scripts and hit update.

[The K Man]

I wouldn't like the idea of Tac bombers having 2 strikes. I already thought they were way too powerful in PDE & WAW. I like the fact that in Pacific, they are max of 2 on the AT, so they are not the powerhouse of PDE/WAW.

I wouldn't mind the idea of going back to the single air as Seamonkey mentioned. But using that idea, couldn't you set up the land air units like the carriers. The carriers are currently set up as: Carrier 10, planes 10. Could u do the land based as Fighter 10, Tac bomber 10? And depending on what mode (like the carriers) you use, would initiate what planes fly. Tactical, all the 10 strength tac's would fly. Mix, 5 of each. CAP, only the 10 fighters.

Agree on the AT, as far as eliminating it. I would also add the AA and Artillery. But only if those three units could be combined somehow with your others. I had mentioned this before, but I would like to see the AT, Art & AA added to your corps/armies etc., again similar to how the carriers work. The AT & AA would be a separate upgrade to your normal unit. For example a 10 strength army, could have a 10 strength AT & 10 strength AA attached to it. I'm sure if the cost was similar to now or more, you would have to pick and choose which units in strategic areas you would want to spend the money on upgrading. But I think that would be more realistic than now where you have one AT and one Artillery taking up on 50 square mile space. I think those units are fine for a small scale, but for these big scales, just not realistic. I know that was the complaint of some of the diehards from the original to WAW/PDE as far as the extra units/scale.

[The K Man]

Oh, and one other note on Cavalry. I think of them just as the AT, AA, and Art. (see previous reply.) To have one unit of only Calvary, seems alittle unrealistic for this scale. I would just assume that a corp or army has them contained within itself.

[SeaMonkey]

Excellent idea Kman, the combining of the AA, AT, Art into a single unit as an attached asset has lots of possibilities. You could still leave it as a stand alone counter and just select the mode from the menu you wish to initiate.

Research could likewise be applicable to the selected mode and in this way each player can customize their "asset" unit.

Remember I did suggest a reduction in the effectiveness of strength losses due to TAC attacks to a realistic loss of mobility, morale, supply and subsequent efficiency where land units could more easily remove them.

A good point on the fighter intercept quandary Bill, but it seems to me our programmer could code the "auto" mode for just one intercept, and the "intercept" selection designates the unit sorties until a certain strength value, say 5(?), where the fighters would discontinue the action.

The basic idea here is to create a situation, applicable to Global SC also, where land based air is more effective vs island garrisons(in a less numerous circumstance then CVs) and deadly to naval units in a likewise capacity.

I'm not advocating the replacement of CVs, just more parity where 4 CVs would equal one TAC unit. This makes the islands more attractive to basing.