PG-HQ Forums

(06-04-2013, 02:48 PM)JayTownsend Wrote: [ -> ]One more pic of the same tank!

I prefer the first picture - the one with the centaur. Is there a counter for that!

(06-04-2013, 09:48 PM)petergarnett Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-04-2013, 02:48 PM)JayTownsend Wrote: [ -> ]One more pic of the same tank!

I prefer the first picture - the one with the centaur. Is there a counter for that!

Not for the centaur! haha

But for the Type 97 Shinhoto in picture, yes! Two counters in fact.

I am playing scenario 1. I am a newbie. Played a couple of scenarios from Airborne IE and now going for something bigger. I am wondering, from a strategic standpoint, how the Japanese can deal with the LTVs. It seems very difficult to destroy an AFV with direct fire (which makes sense) and the Japanese don't have a ton of AT fire weapons. The LTVs also appear capable of advancing inland, is that right? Any thoughts for the Japanese side? Arty? Assault? Thanks!

Atsgamer, Yes the LTVs can travel inland, this scenarios seems to favor the Japanese a bit according to the AARs, so if you want to win with them, defend in good locations with LOS, use AT fire on approaches and assault when the opportunity present its self. Terrain defended is the key for the Japanese in scenario #1. A nail biter to the very end.

To build upon Jay's response, kill the LVT's at sea. Put the AT guns in the entrenchments to cover all the approaches by sea. Also remember AT fire can fire 150% of their range. Given the LVT's armor there might be some good long shots to get them. Also a loss at sea will more than likely kill a MAR unit too. Bottom line just keep picking away at them.

Enrique posted an AAR of scenario 1 with lots of pictures at consimworld.

http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?7@@.ee6fd1c/6320

The AAR starts at post #6180.

Thanks for the advice. This is a beautiful game and I am really enjoying the system. Great design Jay! Love the maps too.

The Pacific War has caught my interest in recent months. I have been playing Guadalcanal and Jungle Fighting in the last few months and really like them. I also made up some custom scenarios for Burma in 1942 based on some books I have on that campaign. I am also saving up for Saipan 1944. Looking forward to when Tinian 1944 and Guam 1941 & 1944 come out.

I noticed that most of the one or two map scenarios get played a lot in Saipan and that was the idea to have many fast playing scenarios but the only two scenarios with only four maps to my surprise haven’t been played yet?

Both scenarios: #10 Tanks in the Jungle and #39 Desperation have lot of Japanese movement potential. Scenario 10 is loaded with Japanese tanks, 9 counters and Scenarios 39 the Japanese rush Army & Marine positions in the dark, so I thought both would get played a lot more, as they were a blast to play while testing them. But I understand they might take an hour or so longer than the shorter one or two map scenarios.

On some of the larger size scenarios, but with only two maps, I get comments on how gamers enjoy them, especially scenarios: 1, 2 and 7. The first two are the initial US amphibious landings and are very tense and #7 is smaller attempt than scenario 10 to push the US off the Island, including a Japanese amphibious tank unit that in many case cuts through the swamp/marsh where other vehicles can’t go. Another one I am surprise has not been played a lot in #15 the Japanese end around Counter Landing. This one is hard on the Japanese but fun to play at least once.

But overall the smaller scenarios seem to get more attention.

The number of small scenarios is why I believe this is a good introductory game to the series, on par with Elsenborn Ridge.

I would like to see one more introductory-type game on the East Front and with more open line of sight.