German ranks

[wulfir]

narwan said:
Edit:
Still a difference though, the kampfgruppe was formed from regiments 6, 7 and 9 (so not 5). And these appear to be regularly raised waffen-SS, so VT and not totenkopf units.

I have a source* stating that the 9th Regiment was formed from the Totenkopfstandarte "Kirkenes" - a fully motorised formation deployed to the desolote northern Finnish regions. It participated in the fighting around Salla and Kiestinki and performed with a serious lack of profesionalism, suffring heavy losses in these early fighting (something that was true for NORD as a whole).

Gyllenhaal, L - Slaget om Nordkalotten

[narwan]

The 9th was originally part of the kampfgruppe but when they went to Finland the 9th was detached. The rest formed the division, perhaps the 5th was added then to fill out the division with a 3rd regiment?

The 9th went on as an independent regiment and was send to Finland not much after the rest. It seems all of these were very undertrained. I read a quote on another board to the effect that they weren't much more than civilians in uniforms when they were send into action.

Narwan

[chuckfourth]

Hi Narwan

Just for interests sake, do you think the Japs should get a "no surrender" bonus?
Best Chuck.

[PatG]

chuckfourth said:
Hi Narwan

Just for interests sake, do you think the Japs should get a "no surrender" bonus?
Best Chuck.

Not Narwan it would be better to make them very hard to break but easier to kill. This would reflect the samurai spirit behind the Banzai charge and putting snipers up trees.

Also from recent reading, all true snipers - not marksman - should get a "no surrender" bonus.

[chuckfourth]

Hi Pat
Im not sure why they should be 'easier' to kill. Banzai is usually done when ammo is out and is a charge using swords, grenades and bayonet. So you dont need to model this you just need to 'play' it, ie wait until your out of ammo and rush the opponent Im sure the result will be satisfyingly realistic (ie easy to kill). With regards to 'hard to break' maybe the 10 suppression that units suffer when down to less than half man squads could be removed or lessened for the Japanese?
If you really wanted to 'model' banzai then I think it would be best modeled with a melee bonus.
Snipers I dont really like I seem to meet so many in PBEM. maybe they should get a lesser speed to model creeping around? they are after all a specialist type like engineers mainly employed in static situations, ie defensively.
I wouldnt worry to much about them being up trees.
Best Regards Chuck.

[wulfir]

chuckfourth said:
Banzai is usually done when ammo is out and is a charge using swords, grenades and bayonet.

hmm..., the Japanese did believe in the offense, it was not until the final battles in the Pacific they abandoned this for a protracted war of attrition meant to bleed US forces as much as possible before perishing.

Following a US landing the Japs would often quickly mount a banzai at night, and get slaughtered, with whatever was left melting into the jungle. Not even at Okinawa were they able to break free from this idea of the one decicive attack and got good parts of the 24th Division and the 44th Mixed Brigade shot up for no gain.

[DRG]

The "no surrender code" is based on nationalities. In the case of the USMC it's only the Japanese they won't surrender to. The Japanese will not surrender to anyone. The game has been this way for over 8 years now and has been noted in the game guide in ever release since then. However sometime in the past 5 years or so the surrender code for the USMC was refined to only not surrender to the Japanese. Previous to that it was everybody.

Don

[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.

[chuckfourth]

Hi Pat

I dont accept that the japanese had "general tactic of infiltrating the enemies position then charging to get into close combat range". or that their tactics made them "easy to kill"
The Japanese were regular infantry and used exactly the same tactics as every other countries infantry in battle, ie based on artillery and machine guns. As for "willingness to accept casualties to get into close combat" Im sure they were just as happy to kill their enemies at long range as at close range. They had no fear of close quarters fighting but didnt abandon normal infantry tactics so they could stab an opponent rather than shoot him.

Unlike the Allies the Japanese had extensive jungle warfare training. They had also had a war going in China for 10 years proir to entering WW2 during wich the troops became battle-hardened and their staffs extremely competent.
Infiltration is a jungle warfare/night fighting method. It is not neccessarily followed by a 'charge' but by whatever infantry type tactics that is deemed neccessary, setting up a MG or a sniper in the enemies rear or slashing the throats of sleeping troops and then retiring to your own lines etc.

If you read accounts of the Japanese in Malaysia, Burma, Dutch East Indies, China, Phillipines etc you will see descriptions of normal infantry combat. However the Japanese were happy to take "horrendous" casualties just like the SS and the Russian infantry. However one doesnt need to model this just run your counters forward without any artillery support, or against a numerically superior opponent.

You missed the Australians from the close quarter fighters.

As for snipers tied to trees this sounds a little like Hollywoods interpretation of the excellent, imaginitive and effective camoflage used by the Japanese. Snipers can be used aggressively but were they in WW2? A sniper obviously gathers information whilst sitting in position but this isnt scouting. It is a waste to use an expensive, trained shot to scout or on point duties they are very likely to get shot, captured or step on a mine, much better to have a sullen recalcitrant trouble maker on point and a normal but alert infantryman as part of a scouting party. I think sentry and patrol are jobs best left to cheaper normal infantry. Just as you wouldnt use engineers as normal infantry or a truck driver to command the company.

I must say I prefered the Japanese infantries with their origional 8 movement points configuration in the earlier versions of the game. When you see pictures of them in action they are always moving at the double and look extremely fit and tireless. It goes some way in modeling there astounding ability to go through "impassable" terrain when flanking defensive positions.
Best Regards Chuck.

[narwan]

chuckfourth said:
Hi Narwan

Just for interests sake, do you think the Japs should get a "no surrender" bonus?
Best Chuck.

Good question. I'm not sure. The japanese were very different from other soldiers. They did tend to go on where others did not. Even though SS troops were often shot when captured, that statement itself shows that they did indeed surrender. Some, on the western front even most, survived surrendering. It did happen and with some regularity. Even on the eastern front.
And while the occasional surrender did happen amongst the japanese, that was quite exceptional. So there is ample reason to distinguish here. Whether that means a complete 'no surrender' option or whether surrendering (including disbanding when losses are too high) should simply be much, much rarer amongst them is a more of a code issue I think. If the choice is between the same surrender mechanic as other nations have or none I'd say none as that would be a closer approximation of the historical truth in my opinion. Having said that, there is another factor that obscures this even more. While the japanese tended not to surrender, that does NOT equal fighting to the end. Fighting to the end implies dying at the hands of the enemy. There is ample evidence to show that suicide was often preferred over (possible) capture. In game terms the effect would be similar though. Still the point remains whether it was common enough to justify treating the japanese the same as the other nations with regards to surrendering. I feel special circumstances are warranted and prefer the current set-up over treating all the same.

I feel that the USMC's no surrender is more problematic. I understand the reasoning there, but I think it is a much 'greyer' area than with the japanese. For instance, if marines had been deployed to the european theatre of operations, would they have shown the same reluctance to surrender facing the germans or italians as they did opposing the japanese? In my view the surrender record of the USMC in the war is more testament of the behaviour of their opponents (so a reaction) that it was something inherent to the corps itself. Don't get me wrong, I'm not implying in any way that the USMC surrender(ed) easily. Just that it has more to do with circumstances.
As the game is a historical game and the USMC does mainly face the japanese and they did rarely surrender to them there is justification for the current situation. But it remains a judgement call (and I'm not the one who has to make it).

Narwan