In the original BKC-II, there was only a single Japanese army list, labelled as Japanese Army - Far East, July '37 - August '45.
For BKC-III, this was expanded to provide 6 Japanese army lists:
China: July 1937 - Sept '45
French Indo-China: - Sept '40 - Jul '41
SW Pacific: Dec '41 - Aug '45
SE Asia: Dec '41 - Jul '45
Iwo Jima: Feb '45 - Mar '45
Okinawa: Apr '45 - Jun '45
So the question is, if we're reverting back to the BKC-II army lists, are folks happy to go back to a single Japanese list? Or do you want us to try and keep all 6 lists using the stats from BKC-II? Or a compromise where we combine some of the BKC-III lists to make 2 or 3 new lists, each covering a wider range?
Let us know what you'd prefer and we can get these final army lists finished off and move onto the rules revisions.
Hi Leon
One woks for me.
Cheers Paul
How about 'Islands', 'To India' and ' Manchuria'?
One works for me, as I did not think the kit varied that much, but I am far from an expert on the Japanese. Perhaps Lemmy's idea is a good one.
Quote from: mad lemmey on 01 August 2017, 09:22:16 PM
How about 'Islands', 'To India' and ' Manchuria'?
This sounds sensible.
Erm... that never happens! ;D
Quote from: mad lemmey on 01 August 2017, 09:22:16 PM
How about 'Islands', 'To India' and ' Manchuria'?
Sounds clever.
Quote from: Orcs on 01 August 2017, 11:01:47 PM
One works for me, as I did not think the kit varied that much, but I am far from an expert on the Japanese. Perhaps Lemmy's idea is a good one.
+1
One list works for me, but I can see the sense in Lemmey's suggestion.
I'd suggest 2 lists, a "Mainforce" one covering all the sectors on the main land and a generalised Island Garrison list.
I like Lemmy's idea
Cheers
Ian
I'd have thought that one list would do it. If it were to be split I'd suggest that it makes more sense to have an early and a late list to reflect the degradation of their forces over time as the Allied naval blockade took effect.
I suppose, to be fair, there are some local differences. The Kantogun (aka Kwantung Army) for example had access to more conscript class troops from the Manchukuo Imperial Army than island garrisons had but as 1st General Army it also had a higher number of veterans. It also had a larger number of tanks. Still can't help feeling that selecting from the existing list lets you model any of the variations.
I would like to see non-fanatic conscripts to represent the local forces like the Manchukuo Imperial Army (a rabble of Han, Manchu, White Russians, Mongols and Koreans)
one list
The one list would work for all theaters. As noted in BKC2 tanks were not used in mass even though one of the two armored divisions was in 'China. IRRC the other was in the Philiippines. The list also notes that they use fanatical doctrine though I haven't located the rules for that in the BKC2 book. I think they are in Future War Commander, but would have to check. There was a large divide between officers and men. There was one instance during the island fighting where a unit of Japanese infantry had infiltrated and cut off a supply road. When the Americans came to clear the roadway they found the unit had committed suicide because their officers had died allowing the road to be cleared without a fight.
In the BKC-Errata .pdf it has this for the Japanese Fanatical tactical doctrine:
Page 112-113. Japanese Army
Change the cost of Medium Tank Unit (Type 1 Chi-He) to 75 points.
Fanatical tactical doctrine is as follows:
• 25cm initiative distance
• units may fall-back any distance without being knocked-out
• do not roll for fall-back when dug-in
• add one to the breakpoint per 1000 points
• HQs can only issue orders to units in their own formation
Hope this helps :)
OK with one list.
One list is fine, as long as the individual entry dates are well represented.
Otherwise lemmey's suggestion is good too.
I think you'll find the Japs did use tanks en masse, it's another common myth that they couldn't. They may have not massed them in corps and divisions like Soviets did, but certainly whole battalions/regiments together. The two regiments deployed in Malaya in 1941 were the key to their success in getting to Singapore as quickly as they did.
Circumstances of terrain (jungle and islands) prevented further masse use of tanks throughout the rest of the war. They held an armoured division in Manchuria for most of the war but it had been split up before the Soviets arrived. Japan itself was home to at least one armoured division. But even when only a company was deployed, it wasn't doled out with individual tanks being relegated to infantry support assigned to infantry companies and battalions, but they tried to use them as cohesive formations.
As regards lists, you have to decide whether you are going to include the what-ifs of Russians (or UK-US?) fighting in Manchuria in 1943-mid 1945, and/or the invasion of Japan in 1945-46, both of which would see weapons fielded that never saw combat (Japanese panzershreck and panzerfaust clones, slightly better tanks).
Quote from: sultanbev on 04 August 2017, 12:30:56 PM
As regards lists, you have to decide whether you are going to include the what-ifs of Russians (or UK-US?) fighting in Manchuria in 1943-mid 1945, and/or the invasion of Japan in 1945-46, both of which would see weapons fielded that never saw combat (Japanese panzershreck and panzerfaust clones, slightly better tanks).
Let's keep the unbelievable sci-fi options for FWC and stick to history.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 04 August 2017, 01:29:59 PM
Let's keep the unbelievable sci-fi options for FWC and stick to history.
I agree, I think that Leon and the team have enough to do making sure the lists are a good historical representation without going down the "What if scenario", Otherwise where do you stop?
thanks, Roy
Islands and Manchuria sounds right 8)