Erik's Korean War

[GabeKnight]

"Kiri-Ni" needs more RP at scen start IMO, the Chinese attack is overwhelming.

And BTW, the sec. obj. is "useless" in my case as I've undeployed those commanders from the willy's since the first scen and bought Rangers instead to fill the command points.

[Erik2]

...
Erik, in the first scen, my forces go right into undersupply after the NKPA takes the first town with the Refugees on the first turn. You should either increase supply or maybe it would be best to change the Refugees to a "nosupply" unit? What do you think?

And now that I see the screenshot it's kinda strange that the US captured towns have the SK flag? Is that a setting in the editor or an error in the mod?

And we'll need the spec tree revised to the new years. Tell me which specs you need for the US/Marines (all?), NK, SK, China, Turkey and I'll get to it.

EDIT: Second scen: I need one more LCP to deploy all my units. And the sec. "don't lose tanks" obj. doesn't fail. But the overall balance seems alright so far. I like the Ranger units!

The Refugees should be 'nosupply'.

I noticed the issue about the South-Korean flag as well. Strange...

I don't think there's a need for a spec-three in the mini-campaigns, they only have 4-5 scenarios each.
Adding ie air specs pr scenario should suffice.
I will revisit the specs when I start working on a 'standard' Korean campaign. Then we'll probably transorm ie German/Japanese specs to Allied/Communist ones.

[GabeKnight]

The Refugees should be 'nosupply'.

Will do

I noticed the issue about the South-Korean flag as well. Strange...

Maybe because the cities "started" with the SK flag? But then it's a bug in the game.

I don't think there's a need for a spec-three in the mini-campaigns, they only have 4-5 scenarios each.
Adding ie air specs pr scenario should suffice.
I will revisit the specs when I start working on a 'standard' Korean campaign. Then we'll probably transorm ie German/Japanese specs to Allied/Communist ones.

OK, I'll make some preliminary tests.

[GabeKnight]

That was a nice mini-campaign. Short 15-20 turn limits on small maps. Played quite good.

But I would strongly suggest either more RP for the last two scens or less Chinese units. It's manageable with enough #warbonds, else I'm being overrun. Thanks, Erik!

[Erik2]

That was a nice mini-campaign. Short 15-20 turn limits on small maps. Played quite good.

But I would strongly suggest either more RP for the last two scens or less Chinese units. It's manageable with enough #warbonds, else I'm being overrun. Thanks, Erik!

Noted!
I'll probably double the RP income.
I like to keep the number of Chinese units as this depicts the kind of battles in Korea quite well.
I usually give the Communits factions zero RP income and xero unit-experience to help simulate their human-wave tactics using masses of low-quality units.

[TheFilthyCasual]

I like to keep the number of Chinese units as this depicts the kind of battles in Korea quite well.
I usually give the Communits factions zero RP income and xero unit-experience to help simulate their human-wave tactics using masses of low-quality units.

This is a bit of a mischaracterization of Communist forces. Generally, their troops did become more human-wavey the less experience they had, but to start with, both the KPA and the PLA were experienced forces that were tactically adept. Before being smashed after Operation Chromite, KPA frontline divisions (though not coastal defence/reserve units) were about as competent as the Soviet ones they were modelled on, though with WW2 hand-me-down equipment (though unlike the Chinese they actually had an armoured division and motorized infantry; the Soviets kept them well-supplied even if the supplies were old). Many KPA troops, having fled to China after Korea was conquered by the Japanese, had joined the PLA and fought in WW2. With the Incheon landings, however, they were actually outnumbered severely, and the loss of most of their experienced troops left them in a sorry state from there on-out in terms of tactical competence.

The PLA had been in continuous combat for a couple decades at that point. Their troops were far from low quality, they simply lacked firepower. In game terms, the best way to present that might be to have their army have virtually no artillery, tanks or even Heavy Infantry, rather than just having masses of 0 XP units. It wasn't until after the Second Phase Offensive that the Chinese outright out-numbered UN forces in Korea; however, the losses they suffered during the Second, Fourth and Fifth Offensives gradually killed off most of their experienced personnel.

[Zekedia222]

The PLA had been in continuous combat for a couple decades at that point. Their troops were far from low quality, they simply lacked firepower. In game terms, the best way to present that might be to have their army have virtually no artillery, tanks or even Heavy Infantry, rather than just having masses of 0 XP units. It wasn't until after the Second Phase Offensive that the Chinese outright out-numbered UN forces in Korea; however, the losses they suffered during the Second, Fourth and Fifth Offensives gradually killed off most of their experienced personnel.

We could use a similar argument for the KMT forces in the Second Sino Japanese War. They had basically been fighting since their conception, sometimes with massive military campaigns (reconquering the North). They SHOULD have experience, but much of that experience is concentrated in a handful of divisions. I’d imagine the same is somewhat true for PLA. I’d imagine some units are formed from straight conscripts, Volksturm style, some time during their consolidation, while others have high experience, and had been fighting as guerrillas for years. I think the best way is to look at each unit’s history, and measure their experience, and thus tactics, from there.

[TheFilthyCasual]

We could use a similar argument for the KMT forces in the Second Sino Japanese War. They had basically been fighting since their conception, sometimes with massive military campaigns (reconquering the North). They SHOULD have experience, but much of that experience is concentrated in a handful of divisions. I’d imagine the same is somewhat true for PLA. I’d imagine some units are formed from straight conscripts, Volksturm style, some time during their consolidation, while others have high experience, and had been fighting as guerrillas for years. I think the best way is to look at each unit’s history, and measure their experience, and thus tactics, from there.

The initial PLA force in Korea was made up of divisions originally slated to invade Taiwan. They were veteran units. They ended up being degraded after about 6 months since they had to rely on mass infantry assaults as they lacked the firepower to compete in a stand-off fight.

Funnily enough, by 1952/3 the PLA troops were often raw recruits, but compensated somewhat by building up more firepower, as seen by the much heavier use of artillery and katyushas in the last year, and the presence of tank regiments around Pyonggang (though they were never used as the Americans never attacked Pyonggang).

[Mascarenhas]

5th Tank Btl First Mission Nakong River

Still a problem with the objectives. Killed 3 tanks but received an objective failed result, so, I'll get a minor, wrongly.

[Erik2]

5th Tank Btl First Mission Nakong River

Still a problem with the objectives. Killed 3 tanks but received an objective failed result, so, I'll get a minor, wrongly.

Finally fixed for 89th Tank

[Mascarenhas]

About the second mission (Race), may I suggest that you number the existent minefields as you did with structures and units? I think I cleared all, but only got a draw. Such result, even for failing a secondary objective, is not supposed to be.
Regards

[Erik2]

About the second mission (Race), may I suggest that you number the existent minefields as you did with structures and units? I think I cleared all, but only got a draw. Such result, even for failing a secondary objective, is not supposed to be.
Regards

Fixed. I had simply forgotten to add a miniefield trigger
Thanks for reporting.

[Mascarenhas]

Suwon

1) No arrows indicating the objectives;
2) No exit hexes for aircraft.

Regards,

[Mascarenhas]

Suwon bis

1) About aircraft exit hex, there's no warning about fuel depleting. The exit mark could be inverted in order to show clearly what it means.
2) You've adopted a quite flexible concept of únits", comprising foxholes - which is somewhat habitual since at least New Britain - and even minefields. Well, one has to guess it, just after clearing the map from any other opponent and checking that there are still 11 "enemies" remaining. Because minefields are so an important element of this mission, I'd suggest you include a couple of engineers or Seabees on it.

[Zekedia222]

We could use a similar argument for the KMT forces in the Second Sino Japanese War. They had basically been fighting since their conception, sometimes with massive military campaigns (reconquering the North). They SHOULD have experience, but much of that experience is concentrated in a handful of divisions. I’d imagine the same is somewhat true for PLA. I’d imagine some units are formed from straight conscripts, Volksturm style, some time during their consolidation, while others have high experience, and had been fighting as guerrillas for years. I think the best way is to look at each unit’s history, and measure their experience, and thus tactics, from there.

The initial PLA force in Korea was made up of divisions originally slated to invade Taiwan. They were veteran units. They ended up being degraded after about 6 months since they had to rely on mass infantry assaults as they lacked the firepower to compete in a stand-off fight.

Funnily enough, by 1952/3 the PLA troops were often raw recruits, but compensated somewhat by building up more firepower, as seen by the much heavier use of artillery and katyushas in the last year, and the presence of tank regiments around Pyonggang (though they were never used as the Americans never attacked Pyonggang).

As I said, look at their history and define their tactics via that.
I never contested their experience, I merely said to consider each unit’s experience individually. Conscripts are far different from hardened soldiers, and thus should be treated as such, when defining their combat characteristics.
Seeing as these divisions were experienced, treat them as such. However, an army is not defined by a single division. The Soviets had hardened, experienced soldiers in WWII, however, they also had millions of conscripts, with little to no training. Each unit is different.

[Mascarenhas]

Han River and else

1) The supply drop for the UN forces added much fun, I think it balances lack of supply for PLA.
2) Mustangs here and before are the first models, back to the 40's, almost useless for ground attack. At least P51D's should be used, in my view.

Anyway, still some trimming needed, but is going to be great.

[Erik2]

Suwon

1) No arrows indicating the objectives;
2) No exit hexes for aircraft.

Regards,

1) Added map markers
2) There's an air exit and air deployment hexes at the bottom of the map, next to the road.

[Erik2]

Suwon bis

1) About aircraft exit hex, there's no warning about fuel depleting. The exit mark could be inverted in order to show clearly what it means.
2) You've adopted a quite flexible concept of únits", comprising foxholes - which is somewhat habitual since at least New Britain - and even minefields. Well, one has to guess it, just after clearing the map from any other opponent and checking that there are still 11 "enemies" remaining. Because minefields are so an important element of this mission, I'd suggest you include a couple of engineers or Seabees on it.

1) Not sure what you mean by 'inverted exit mark'.

air.jpg (132.78 KiB) Viewed 2436 times

2) I need specific examples/scenarios where the minefields cause issues. Generally you can just work your way around them.
Note that these mini-campaigns are more 'historical' than many other campaigns, using pre-purchased/deployed units. This is what the commanders had available at the time.

[Erik2]

Han River and else

1) The supply drop for the UN forces added much fun, I think it balances lack of supply for PLA.
2) Mustangs here and before are the first models, back to the 40's, almost useless for ground attack. At least P51D's should be used, in my view.

Anyway, still some trimming needed, but is going to be great.

There were still a number of piston-engined aircraft used in Korea. But some of the fighters (ie the F4U Corsair) used napalm bombs, maybe GabeKnight could add some more power to the ground attacks...

[Mascarenhas]

Suwon bis

1) About aircraft exit hex, there's no warning about fuel depleting. The exit mark could be inverted in order to show clearly what it means.
2) You've adopted a quite flexible concept of únits", comprising foxholes - which is somewhat habitual since at least New Britain - and even minefields. Well, one has to guess it, just after clearing the map from any other opponent and checking that there are still 11 "enemies" remaining. Because minefields are so an important element of this mission, I'd suggest you include a couple of engineers or Seabees on it.

1) Not sure what you mean by 'inverted exit mark'.
air.jpg

2) I need specific examples/scenarios where the minefields cause issues. Generally, you can just work your way around them.
Note that these mini-campaigns are more 'historical' than many other campaigns, using pre-purchased/deployed units. This is what the commanders had available at the time.

1) What I mean about the exit hex is that the aircraft are always showed as unsupplied, as if there was no exit. It's weird since the exit is clearly marked. I don't know why it happens, I'm just reporting.
2) Minefields as "enemy units" are just unusual, not a design problem. I'm only suggesting that you include this clarification, just as you and bru did when referring to those foxholes in New Britain.
3) I think it's a good idea to increase Mustang's ground attack capabilities which, I believe, are present in the version 'D", but not in the early issue.