WWII Pacific Unit Stats- What the heck?

[impactblue]

Does anybody else think that the land unit stats in this conquest are just totally arbitrary? I mean, I understand that you try to have some balance, not make everything totally realistic, but some things just make no sense whatsoever. Was the guy who developed this scenario high on pharmaceuticals?

Combat engineers - they blow up stuff and build stuff, i.e. bridges, fortifications, but they have better offensive power than a G.I.? They can fight, but they're not trained and equipped like infantry. They're trained and equipped to blow up stuff or build stuff.(explosives, TNT, bulldozers, shovels, chainsaws,etc.)
A G.I. is Infantry, their main job is to kill. They train to clear trenches and manuever around an enemy that is shooting at them and they have grenades, machine guns, bazookas, flamethrowers - tools to kill. And yet they're not as good at fighting as engineers?
In WWII, they were called G.I.'s partly because there were so many of them. Why would there be so many of them? Because they would be doing the bulk of the fighting, and suffer the bulk of the casualties, and hardships of the war. Combat engineers have a vital job, but that job is not offensive attack.

And then light tanks, with this big cannon on a turret, only as good on the offense as a G.I., whose weapons are small enough to be carried by a single person? And not as good on the defense either. Why call it a tank? It's less armored than the fabric in the G.I.'s uniform.

Those two units are just totally illogical in every way I can think of.
Here are some more esoteric arguments.

MG Battalion. Yes, it is true, if you had a battalion of guys with nothing but machine guns, you would be very good on the defense and not so good on the offense. But MG Battalions don't exist. Not today, and not during WWII, to the best of my knowledge. You have machine guns in infantry units. Because they help to support an assault, or help repel an assault. But never would you have just a whole bunch of machine guns all by themselves.

Primacy of defense. Back in the old days with just melee (hand to hand) weapons, yes, it's possible for attackers to have an advantage over defenders(i.e. swordsman 3/2/1). But since the invention of the rifle, that is not the case. History has shown time and again in the last century and a half or so, the defender always has the advantage. Charging with a gun doesn't make the gun any more powerful. You have to expose yourself to attack, while the defenders do not. So any foot infantry unit having a higher attack rating than defense rating makes no sense.

Ok, maybe that qualifies as a rant. But I felt like I had to get it off my chest. No offense to the designer, this scenario may be based on something historical, but it is as fictional as Alice in Wonderland. (And frankly, to me, seems like a bad trip on LSD.)
Fin.

 

[BabyDragon]

need patch.

 

[Jaybe]

impactblue,
Play the scenario and look at the big picture. Play it a few times and you will get a feel of the situation and the potential alternate outcomes.

Read some more history. Your post came off with a feeling of arrogance coupled with ignorance, particularly regarding Combat Engineers, MG battalions, and the Japanese light tanks. In the desert (Iraq), it is VERY different from the jungle (SE Asia).

Sorry, I am not going to go into specifics. Do some research, talk to some WW2 Pacific vets.

 

[Terser]

It's just a game.

Besides, anyone dissatisfied with the unit attributes the game ships with can modify them using the robust editor. God knows I sure have....

 

[The Last Conformist]

Noting havin C3C yet, I don't know how big the A/D ratios are for these units, but bear in mind that defenders always get a combat bonus, while attackers don't. A hypothetical 12.11.1 unit would always have a greater effective strength on defense than on offense, because the minimum terrain defense bonus is 10%.

Re: primacy of defence. What you say would be unrestrictedly true if combat was only about objective firepower, accuracy and protection. In reality, it does also involve alot of applied psychology, which tends to favour the attacker. Japanese bayonet charges may "objectively" have been suicidal, and against well-drilled western troops they indeed typically failed, but against the Chinese they succeeded with embarassing regularity, since the usually undertrained and demoralized Chinese soldiers lacked the confidence to hold their ground.

 

[thestonesfan]

Engineers - You are mistaken here. Ever play Panzer General? Engineers were highly trained troops brought in to take out the most difficult objectives. A high offense makes sense. There weren't as many becuase they were expensive.

Light Tanks - Light tanks never packed the offensive punch a mass of infantry could muster. The benefit of light tanks is mobility. Also, a unit of armor can't dig in and fortify like infantry can, so of course they are easier to dislodge.

MG Battalions - You are right here. I think of it as a battalion WITH machine guns, not a battalion OF machine guns. More specialized in defense, I guess.

Primacy of Defense - Yes, the defenders have the advantage. But, there is a defensive bonus for even grassland, and fortifying grants a substantial bonus. I for one think that in the epic game, the infantry offense is too low. They never have a chance attacking, even on open ground. Anyway, I think the defensive bonuses of the terrain, cities, and fortification gives you sufficient defensive advantage.

 

[sgrig]

I only just got Conquests and started the Pacific War scenario! I actually think that unit stats are pretty well balanced - especially for the naval units.

I'm very impressed with AI amphibious assaults and AI's use of bombers - this is much better than PTW or vanilla Civ3.

The only glitch is that naval bombardment damages aircraft stationed in the city! I think that's a bit strange.

 

[Justus II]

Just a quick comment about the MG battalions, in WW2 there were in fact such units (often called Automatic Weapons battalions). They were primarily designed for Anti-aircraft, but were found to be more useful in the ground role (as an Air Defense officer, it is historically true that is usually the case, see the German 88mm gun, the Vulcan in Vietnam, etc). They were very effective on the defense, but obviously not very mobile, and not as effective on the attack.

The Soviets took this a step further, and used their MG battalions to stiffen their defenses. They would recruit a battalion of ethnic Russians, equipped with MGs, and establish them on high ground overlooking their own defenses, which would be mostly manned with conscript infantry of other ethnic backgrounds. The MG battalion was not only the last line of defense, they also had orders to open up on any front-line units that attempted to retreat/desert!

I will also echo the comments about engineers, although perhaps they need to be made even more expensive or require additional resources, so that you don't just build them exclusively. They were the "shock troops" needed to dig the Japanese out of bunker/tunnel systems, and were used extensively in Vietnam for the same purpose.

 

[Warspite2]

Originally posted by impactblue
Does anybody else think that the land unit stats in this conquest are just totally arbitrary? I mean, I understand that you try to have some balance, not make everything totally realistic, but some things just make no sense whatsoever. Was the guy who developed this scenario high on pharmaceuticals?

Combat engineers - they blow up stuff and build stuff, i.e. bridges, fortifications, but they have better offensive power than a G.I.? They can fight, but they're not trained and equipped like infantry. They're trained and equipped to blow up stuff or build stuff.(explosives, TNT, bulldozers, shovels, chainsaws,etc.)
A G.I. is Infantry, their main job is to kill. They train to clear trenches and manuever around an enemy that is shooting at them and they have grenades, machine guns, bazookas, flamethrowers - tools to kill. And yet they're not as good at fighting as engineers?
In WWII, they were called G.I.'s partly because there were so many of them. Why would there be so many of them? Because they would be doing the bulk of the fighting, and suffer the bulk of the casualties, and hardships of the war. Combat engineers have a vital job, but that job is not offensive attack.

And then light tanks, with this big cannon on a turret, only as good on the offense as a G.I., whose weapons are small enough to be carried by a single person? And not as good on the defense either. Why call it a tank? It's less armored than the fabric in the G.I.'s uniform.

Those two units are just totally illogical in every way I can think of.
Here are some more esoteric arguments.

MG Battalion. Yes, it is true, if you had a battalion of guys with nothing but machine guns, you would be very good on the defense and not so good on the offense. But MG Battalions don't exist. Not today, and not during WWII, to the best of my knowledge. You have machine guns in infantry units. Because they help to support an assault, or help repel an assault. But never would you have just a whole bunch of machine guns all by themselves.

Primacy of defense. Back in the old days with just melee (hand to hand) weapons, yes, it's possible for attackers to have an advantage over defenders(i.e. swordsman 3/2/1). But since the invention of the rifle, that is not the case. History has shown time and again in the last century and a half or so, the defender always has the advantage. Charging with a gun doesn't make the gun any more powerful. You have to expose yourself to attack, while the defenders do not. So any foot infantry unit having a higher attack rating than defense rating makes no sense.

Ok, maybe that qualifies as a rant. But I felt like I had to get it off my chest. No offense to the designer, this scenario may be based on something historical, but it is as fictional as Alice in Wonderland. (And frankly, to me, seems like a bad trip on LSD.)
Fin.

Ok what you are missing here is its not the "fabric" of a G.I.'s uniform. It is the defense of the unit. It represents a unit on defense, not the armor, the overall defense ability of a particular unit.

With Combat Engineers, their special equipment and explosives are all built into their attack factor. For example, say you attack an infantry position in a bunker, the 11 attack stat is basically simulating an explosive charge set near that bunker. You even mention they "blow" stuff up such as fortifications. Well this 11 attack stat is set just for that purpose. You really have to see the big picture here on a strategic scale, not tactical. CIV3 is all strategic scale.

The light tanks, are basically setup correctly. Maybe their attack should be higher then most infantry though. Of course it should not be as good on defense as infantry. Tanks are not and never will be an effective defense unit. Ok lets defend Bagdad with tanks only Easy, just hit them with artillery or fly in jets. Now infantry dug and fortified, forget it. Works similar in Battlefield 1942, tanks are not the best defenders for a villiage. Light tanks are made for fast manuvering and offensive attacks. Their advantage is mobility on the battlefield and they are able to attack more then once during a turn. I once mopped up 3 infantry with only one light tank. Those infantry were advancing and not on the best terrain which gave my tank an advantage.

At last, you can always change the stats if you want. Not to mention everything else you want, which is what is very good about CIV3. Change it all to your likings and just save it as a new WW2 Pacific version

 

[Mano3]

My Grandfather fought as a combat engineer in the Pacific during WWII. He was chosen for the job because he was very smart. During the draft, the US Army would segreate the 'smart guys' from the 'average guys'. Most average guys became infantry (the numerous GI's), while the smart ones became specialized soldiers (engineers, INTEL, pilots, etc.).

Compared to infantry units, engineer units received better training, equipment, and leadership, as they were tasked to take out large, heavily defended, prime targets. Hence the higher attack value in the game.

As for the light tanks, all must remember that the terrain in the Pacific Theatre was not adequate for medium & heavy armor. The light tanks had difficulty too, especially with their primary purpose being speed and RECON.

The MG battalion IS more of a WWI idea. In WWII, the German army changed its old tactics and inserted at least one light MG into each infantry platoon to enhance firepower. The US and British quickly adopted that idea as well. The poorer countries at the time (Japan, Russia, France, etc.) didn't have the resources to project that many MGs into the infantry, so special MG units were developed and attached to the infantry as needed, especially in defense.


BTW: I'm very proud of my Grandfather's WWII accomplishments. He survived Kamakize attacks during the invasion of Mindinaro in the Philippenes, which his unit helped liberate. He's still alive and kicking at 87, playing golf and fixing things!

 

[Evie]

Cool Mano3!

My general comments - the allied units early on are a bit stronger than they should be, and I'd imagine that toward the later game they are a bit weaker (in comparison to the japanesse ones) than they should be. Japanesse ships and planes had a large edge over what the world had in the Pacific early in the war, but by the end of the war the F6F and F4U had reversed that edge in the air, over the seas the radar (and effective torpedoes!) and such had done much the same, and of course in general allied troops improved drastically - much more so than one hit point could express.

Perhaps if the green-regular-vet-elite difference was higher (2-4-6-8?) it would work better for me *shrugs*.

 

[Justus II]

I agree with Oda's comments. In particular, the Japanese navy ruled the night early in the war, as they spent extensive time training on night gunnery, which led to several early victories in the Solomon Sea. But as allied ships became equipped with radar, the balance shifted pretty dramatically.

I don't have Conquests yet (waiting for my wife to give it to me on my Birthday Friday), but it sounds like there is only one type of fighter, bomber, etc for the allies. Perhaps they could add a tech and some upgraded fighters/bombers, and another tech for radars that would allow upgrades to destroyers, etc. This would simulate the investment the U.S. would have to make, but allow for the shift in power better than just cranking out more of the same units.

 

[dreadknought]

Originally posted by Mano3
My Grandfather fought as a combat engineer in the Pacific during WWII. He was chosen for the job because he was very smart. During the draft, the US Army would segreate the 'smart guys' from the 'average guys'. Most average guys became infantry (the numerous GI's), while the smart ones became specialized soldiers (engineers, INTEL, pilots, etc.).


BTW: I'm very proud of my Grandfather's WWII accomplishments. He survived Kamakize attacks during the invasion of Mindinaro in the Philippenes, which his unit helped liberate. He's still alive and kicking at 87, playing golf and fixing things!

That very cool, everyone should remember people like this and what they did for our country.

Also the combat engineer does use a flame-thrower in the game. I would be scared to face that and it certainly deserves some attack bonuses.

 

[impactblue]

Originally posted by Warspite2


Ok what you are missing here is its not the "fabric" of a G.I.'s uniform. It is the defense of the unit. It represents a unit on defense, not the armor, the overall defense ability of a particular unit.

With Combat Engineers, their special equipment and explosives are all built into their attack factor. For example, say you attack an infantry position in a bunker, the 11 attack stat is basically simulating an explosive charge set near that bunker. You even mention they "blow" stuff up such as fortifications. Well this 11 attack stat is set just for that purpose. You really have to see the big picture here on a strategic scale, not tactical. CIV3 is all strategic scale.

The light tanks, are basically setup correctly. Maybe their attack should be higher then most infantry though. Of course it should not be as good on defense as infantry. Tanks are not and never will be an effective defense unit. Ok lets defend Bagdad with tanks only Easy, just hit them with artillery or fly in jets. Now infantry dug and fortified, forget it. Works similar in Battlefield 1942, tanks are not the best defenders for a villiage. Light tanks are made for fast manuvering and offensive attacks. Their advantage is mobility on the battlefield and they are able to attack more then once during a turn. I once mopped up 3 infantry with only one light tank. Those infantry were advancing and not on the best terrain which gave my tank an advantage.

At last, you can always change the stats if you want. Not to mention everything else you want, which is what is very good about CIV3. Change it all to your likings and just save it as a new WW2 Pacific version

Reading the responses to my original message, I've become less zealous about what I first wrote.
My only problem with MG battalions was that I didn't think there actually were any, but apparently there were, so that's fine.

I agree combat engineers are absolutely wonderful as sappers, for breaching obstacles, fortifications, barbed wire, etc, and getting at the enemy IF they are in bunkers, tunnels, etc. And that is what I alluded to when I said they blow things up.(or build things)
But what if the enemy isn't doing all that? What if they just lay on grassland or forest and want to slug it out. In the simple case where they are not fortified, it is illogical for the combat engineer to be better on the attack than the G.I. The engineer can't use his bangalores, explosives, etc. He has no better way of dealing with them than a G.I. would. Here they are no better, if not worse, than the G.I. And they're certainly not better than tanks that could practically roll over them.
I guess my point is, they're better only in certain circumstances, and that does not mean a very high attack rating (better than light tanks, almost as good as medium tanks!). They should perhaps have a special advantage like marines(amphibious assault), but they should NOT be just infantry, only better and more expensive.


But about the light tanks...
And a light tank is a cannon and/or machine guns on a (somewhat) armored mobile platform. On the defense, it's at the least, a moving machine gun position. And if you get too close you run the risk of getting run over. (ever hear a tanker call the infantry 'crunchies'?) Why isn't that better than infantry in foxholes?

And yeah, I'll change the stats to my liking!
Fin.

 

[impactblue]

Originally posted by The Last Conformist


Re: primacy of defence. What you say would be unrestrictedly true if combat was only about objective firepower, accuracy and protection. In reality, it does also involve alot of applied psychology, which tends to favour the attacker. Japanese bayonet charges may "objectively" have been suicidal, and against well-drilled western troops they indeed typically failed, but against the Chinese they succeeded with embarassing regularity, since the usually undertrained and demoralized Chinese soldiers lacked the confidence to hold their ground.

I certainly agree with the psychology aspect. But I see this as being well represented by the hit points, and should not affect their ADM ratings. In your example, the fact that you have 2 hit points for conscripts(chinese), 4 for veterans or 5 for elite (the japanese), takes into account the psychology of their inexperience and lack of training/discipline.

Fin.

 

[Mano3]

Folks,

Thanks for the nice kudos about my Grandpa! If you ever met the guy, you'd never believe he fought in the war.

What I find most interesting about his stories relates to to the history of the American soldier = ingenuity! The US GI is one of the best scroungers, finder of things, fixer of things, and adaptable. All through history you can find good examples of this - just like Grandpa's stories...

 

[The Last Conformist]

Originally posted by impactblue

I certainly agree with the psychology aspect. But I see this as being well represented by the hit points, and should not affect their ADM ratings. In your example, the fact that you have 2 hit points for conscripts(chinese), 4 for veterans or 5 for elite (the japanese), takes into account the psychology of their inexperience and lack of training/discipline.

But no amount of HP rejuggling is going to create a unit that's "unreasonably" good on offense; the attack value must represent both material and psychological factors.

 

[Svar]

Originally posted by Justus II
II don't have Conquests yet (waiting for my wife to give it to me on my Birthday Friday), but it sounds like there is only one type of fighter, bomber, etc for the allies.

There are early versions of fighters that are specific for each country. Later you can research better fighters that are identical for everyone. The two versions of bombers are also the same for everyone.

 

[necrolyte]

About the Light Tanks; the Japanese light tanks in WWII were renound for sucking. Even the Sherman butchered the Japanese light tank. American light tanks, too, were well-known for well um performing like crap.