Matrix Games Forums

They have lots of firepower. They inflice lots of damage and casualties. But they have few infantry. And the formula for base capture is a comparison of surviving participating infantry.

Perhaps a player would do better with a normal intantry LCU. I don't know. Probability expert wanted!

I do not know of any specific rule citation from memory (if one exists). I can make an educated guess as have played the series of Gary Grigsby naval simulations. Pacific War is mid series, followed by Uncommon Valor, ending with War in the Pacific: Struggle vs Japan. The latter was which was the basis for WITP Admirals Edition. In the latter 3, all LCUs have an assault strength. Armor tends to have a high assault strength ratings and are best used in combination with infantry rather than alone. However in the Pacific, not a lot of great places for a tank combat [usually mainland areas or large islands with multiple bases]. In general Allied armor was greatly superior to IJA armor, which is historical. Stuart light tanks were good enough to take out IJA tanks whereas Shermans dealt with bunkers and gun positions.

Yes, there are a lot of terrain levels where tanks wouldn't have much use.

I'm not certain the combat strenght of a tank or armored LCU really represents its strenght as far as taking or holding a base since the calculation is on surviving infantry.

Yes, there are a lot of terrain levels where tanks wouldn't have much use.

I find the best way to use armored units is as blocking forces. If you don't need to take the base, but just prevent the other side from advancing further, they can bleed the attackers nicely. It also helps to do this in heavy terrain, so you're not forced to retreat (which makes armored units even more useful for the Japanese, since it's harder to make them retreat).

ORIGINAL: bradk

They have lots of firepower. They inflice lots of damage and casualties. But they have few infantry. And the formula for base capture is a comparison of surviving participating infantry.
...
I'm not certain the combat strenght of a tank or armored LCU really represents its strenght as far as taking or holding a base since the calculation is on surviving infantry.

Is it, really?

10.1.2 COMPUTE ODDS:
Compare Surviving Attacker Participating Infantry and AFVs x 4 to Surviving Defender Participating Infantry and AFVs x 2 Check for Base Capture Check for Defender Retreat/Surrender?

Do you know something that I don't?? Why do you think it's surviving participating infantry only?

Wow. I missed the AFV reference.

First question though. Is it both infantry and AFVs times the multiplier or just the AFVs?

Without reductions for non-participating and combat losses, we have the following gross initial strength.

Mutliplier applies to both

Division 243 Inf + 18 AFV = 261 x 2 = 522
Division 243 Inf + 18 AFV = 261 x 4 = 1044
Armored Brigade 36 Inf + 156 AFV = 192 x 2 = 384
Armored Brigade 36 Inf + 156 AFV = 192 x 4 = 768

Mutliplier applies only to AFVs

Division 243 Inf + (18 AFV x 2) = 279
Division 243 Inf + (18 AFV x 4) = 315
Armored Brigade 36 Inf + (156 AFV x 2) = 348
Armored Brigade 36 Inf + (156 AFV x 4) = 660

As in the original post, I admit I don't have the skill to go further with this analysis.

I do think however, that because of the nature of the theater, armored LCUs don't belong on atolls, in the jungle, in fact, at most of the terrain levels in the game.

I'll try to find a definitive answer to this question.
For the time being, I favor the latter rule.

Test: Rising Sun PBEM scenario - Historical Turn.

Japanese amphibious force landed at Singora, which was empty of Allied troops.
46 Japanese tanks, 197 Japanese squads participated in that battle. Odds were 381.

197 + (46 x 4) = 381

The latter rule is the correct one - Multiplier applies only to AFVs

Good test! So we have that answer.

I don't know if testing or calcuations are better to determine combat effectiveness.

I will make some time to work on that. I'm almost done with a project I'm working on for my cousin, Old Time Baeball.