Armored trains over gunned. Jap Maritime bomber

[HarrySmith]

It is always good when playing the Russians and utilizing the effectiveness of armored trains. My thoughts are they seem to be unrealistically over gunned per sae. As they don't take any possible damage except for possible defensive artillery , they tend to get experience very quickly if used well. On getting elite upgrades they can destroy armies by up to 3 points per strike. In reality as used historically in the war were they actually that effective??? My thoughts are perhaps instead of being in infantry they should be switched to artillery with a range of 1. I am guessing that they had cannons, machine guns with some troops so short range. They would definitely have a weakness as being confined to tracks so I assume they moved in, fired cannons and got out. I would be interested to hear others thoughts. I know the others can produce one too, but Russia gets 2 and one initially.
On another issue I do feel with Japan the change of Strategic bomber to maritime is a noticeable deficit for Japan. Historically what was the situation? Did the Japanese have a number of strategic bombers at the start or were there more maritime ? I think the game should be based historically as much as possible at the start in as far as units etc.

[Platoonist]

I've always felt armored trains are out of place in a game of this scale. I could see them working in a tactical level game at regimental or company level but slugging out it out with corps and armies, no. Being stuck to the width of a rail line kinda limits your ability to influence what's going on throughout a huge hex. They do add a certain eastern front flair I suppose.

The Japanese never built a four-engined strategic bomber, just four-engined flying boats, which were mainly for maritime patrol purposes. In Japan as in Germany, the belief that the next war would be a short and violent affair led to a concentration of effort on destroying military targets on the battlefield, and the weapons provided were optimized for that role. Furthermore, in Japan's Asian neighborhood, really worthwhile industrial targets were just not in range (China's industrial plant was puny and was simply destroyed by using Japanese tactical bombers) and seriously damaging such targets would take too long in the context of a short war, which reduced the interest in strategic bombers.

[HarrySmith]

I've always felt armored trains are out of place in a game of this scale. I could see them working in a tactical level game at regimental or company level but slugging out it out with corps and armies, no. Being stuck to the width of a rail line kinda limits your ability to influence what's going on throughout a huge hex. They do add a certain eastern front flair I suppose.

The Japanese never built a four-engined strategic bomber, just four-engined flying boats, which were mainly for maritime patrol purposes. In Japan as in Germany, the belief that the next war would be a short and violent affair led to a concentration of effort on destroying military targets on the battlefield, and the weapons provided were optimized for that role. Furthermore, in Japan's Asian neighborhood, really worthwhile industrial targets were just not in range (China's industrial plant was puny and was simply destroyed by using Japanese tactical bombers) and seriously damaging such targets would take too long in the context of a short war, which reduced the interest in strategic bombers.

Thanks for reply Platoonist and explaining the bomber situation. Then the change is definitely correct with swapping out the Strat bomber for a maritime one. We will see what others say and the developers in re to armoured trains but by what you have said here they probably should be omitted even from the game but at least reduced in hit power.

[Platoonist]

We will see what others say and the developers in re to armoured trains but by what you have said here they probably should be omitted even from the game but at least reduced in hit power.

I can still see armored trains in the game as useful anti-partisan units. But them working the same frontage as a multi-divisional corps or army just seems a stretch.