[PatG]

Perhaps this needs its own thread. Chuck, I wasn't just referring to the stereotypical last ditch banzai charge but the general tactic of infiltrating the enemies position then charging to get into close combat range. The "easier to kill" idea comes from the Japanese willingness to accept casualties to get into close combat. By the American accounts I have been reading, the Japanese would just keep coming - taking horrendous casualities - but not breaking.

Snipers up trees falls into a similar line of thinking. A sniper who ties himself into a tree has accepted he will die once he opens fire thus is hard to break but has also comitted himself to a fixed firing post that allows him to be easily located and destroyed.

Removal of the 10 supression would be one way to go as would adding the hand to hand bonus. However until I have played a lot more with the Japanese, I will assume that any egregious errors have been caught and the Japanese behave reasonably historically. Note that if we start giving the Japanese a probably deserved bayonet bonus then we might have to do the same for the Brits - the other kings of infantry close combat. What we would then have to do for the Ghurkhas is frightening.

Slow snipers - not really needed. They do not need to maintain cohesion like a full section does and are relatively lightly equipped so the speed bonus is deserved. Now if you want to have sniper sprinting races in enemy line of sight.... As for snipers being deployed in static situaions - I have to disagree. Snipers can be used very agressively and were often used for information gathering and scouting - not shooting- by all sides in WWII. This is even more so in modern conflicts. Their lesser brethren - the marksman - is ideal for simulating small patrols, single sentries and point-men.