Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So a friend of mine, and I are thinking of creating our own lists for our own FOW: Pacific. We are currently trying to think of rules/lists to give/do. Any feedback/advice would be appreciated.

For the Imperial Japaneses Army National rules.

For the Emperor!:

Japanese soldiers often fought to the bitter end. Rarely ever retreating, or surrendering.
Japanese Companies and platoons can re roll failed morale checks

Jungle Fighters

Japanese soldiers are experience soldiers in jungle fighting. Moving through dense jungle with ease.
Japanese Infantry teams may move at the double through difficult terrain.

Banzai Charge:

IJA units can assault 6' inches away instead of the usual 4" inches. it also gives them the quality of quantity rules.

For the USMC:

Every Marine is a Rifleman:

"Every Marine is a rifleman", a focus of Commandant Alfred M. Gray, Jr., emphasizing the infantry combat abilities of every Marine. All Marines, regardless of military specialization, receive training as a rifleman; and all officers receive additional training as infantry platoon commanders.
This grants Marines the "Mission Tactics" rule, and lets all Rifleman teams re roll failed hits.

Amphibious landing:

Marines doctrine included heavy training for amphibious landings.
Marine units automatically ford a river when adjacent to it, and receive a3+ save if shot at while fording.

Automatic Rifles

No change, just the same the one in the rulebook

[b][u]No tresscot trot/u][/]

The USMC doesn't receive the tresscot trot special rule.

I would suggest giving the Japanese some kind of bonus in assaults, hitting infantry and gun teams on a 3+ for instance (I assume that you are making them fearless trained?).

Palindrome wrote:I would suggest giving the Japanese some kind of bonus in assaults, hitting infantry and gun teams on a 3+ for instance (I assume that you are making them fearless trained?).

That Idea sounds good, we might use a modified version of that. But it might be a little OP as it sounds now. Also so far we just coming up with just the National Rules, but we do have a rough idea for specific lists.

As for list specifics we are making it so that both are forces are mid war based.
I'm thinking of doing a generic Marine list, like the ones in the V3 rule book I am thinking of making them FT. My friend is doing the Japanese list. He is going to make them as a generic list as well, and was going to make them FV. He was justifying this as the Japanse forces have had experience fighting the US/Philippians/French/Chinese/British/etc.

Very interesting.

Makarov wrote:
I'm thinking of doing a generic Marine list, like the ones in the V3 rule book I am thinking of making them FT. My friend is doing the Japanese list. He is going to make them as a generic list as well, and was going to make them FV. He was justifying this as the Japanse forces have had experience fighting the US/Philippians/French/Chinese/British/etc.

I'm not an expert on this period but what I have read suggests that the individual Japanese infantryman was not very well trained and didn't make use of good tactics. I think that a standard Japanese list doesn't warrant more than FT. They did have good field craft though so how about a rule to allow 1 additional infantry/manpacked gun platoon to ambush?

The other reasons why I think that they should stay FT is that they will be relatively cheap in terms of points so that you can make a proper Banzi! charge in a standard game.

The Japanese will need some kind of national rules to make them effective in assaults, they simply don't have the firepower to win long range fire fights and that wasn't really Japanese doctrine anyway. I would probably give them a quality of quantity type rule at the very least.

Palindrome wrote:

Makarov wrote:
I'm thinking of doing a generic Marine list, like the ones in the V3 rule book I am thinking of making them FT. My friend is doing the Japanese list. He is going to make them as a generic list as well, and was going to make them FV. He was justifying this as the Japanse forces have had experience fighting the US/Philippians/French/Chinese/British/etc.

I'm not an expert on this period but what I have read suggests that the individual Japanese infantryman was not very well trained and didn't make use of good tactics. I think that a standard Japanese list doesn't warrant more than FT. They did have good field craft though so how about a rule to allow 1 additional infantry/manpacked gun platoon to ambush?

The other reasons why I think that they should stay FT is that they will be relatively cheap in terms of points so that you can make a proper Banzi! charge in a standard game.

The Japanese will need some kind of national rules to make them effective in assaults, they simply don't have the firepower to win long range fire fights and that wasn't really Japanese doctrine anyway. I would probably give them a quality of quantity type rule at the very least.

Banzai Charge:

IJA units can assault 6' inches away instead of the usual 4" inches. it also gives them the quality of quantity rules.

Makarov wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

Makarov wrote:
I'm thinking of doing a generic Marine list, like the ones in the V3 rule book I am thinking of making them FT. My friend is doing the Japanese list. He is going to make them as a generic list as well, and was going to make them FV. He was justifying this as the Japanse forces have had experience fighting the US/Philippians/French/Chinese/British/etc.

I'm not an expert on this period but what I have read suggests that the individual Japanese infantryman was not very well trained and didn't make use of good tactics. I think that a standard Japanese list doesn't warrant more than FT. They did have good field craft though so how about a rule to allow 1 additional infantry/manpacked gun platoon to ambush?

The other reasons why I think that they should stay FT is that they will be relatively cheap in terms of points so that you can make a proper Banzi! charge in a standard game.

The Japanese will need some kind of national rules to make them effective in assaults, they simply don't have the firepower to win long range fire fights and that wasn't really Japanese doctrine anyway. I would probably give them a quality of quantity type rule at the very least.

Banzai Charge:

IJA units can assault 6' inches away instead of the usual 4" inches. it also gives them the quality of quantity rules.

Are you planning on running Japanese forces at battalion level, like Soviets and Italians? Otherwise Quality of Quantity wouldn't be very helpful.

Hordini wrote:

Makarov wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

Makarov wrote:
I'm thinking of doing a generic Marine list, like the ones in the V3 rule book I am thinking of making them FT. My friend is doing the Japanese list. He is going to make them as a generic list as well, and was going to make them FV. He was justifying this as the Japanse forces have had experience fighting the US/Philippians/French/Chinese/British/etc.

I'm not an expert on this period but what I have read suggests that the individual Japanese infantryman was not very well trained and didn't make use of good tactics. I think that a standard Japanese list doesn't warrant more than FT. They did have good field craft though so how about a rule to allow 1 additional infantry/manpacked gun platoon to ambush?

The other reasons why I think that they should stay FT is that they will be relatively cheap in terms of points so that you can make a proper Banzi! charge in a standard game.

The Japanese will need some kind of national rules to make them effective in assaults, they simply don't have the firepower to win long range fire fights and that wasn't really Japanese doctrine anyway. I would probably give them a quality of quantity type rule at the very least.

Banzai Charge:

IJA units can assault 6' inches away instead of the usual 4" inches. it also gives them the quality of quantity rules.

Are you planning on running Japanese forces at battalion level, like Soviets and Italians? Otherwise Quality of Quantity wouldn't be very helpful.

Not sure yet. We are still working on the national rules. That said we are doing more for the 10+ hits to pin down, rather than the support.

Im not that focussed on the Far East, but is this not all a little stereotypical in its portrayal of the Japanese fighting man?

Im presuming you are looking at the late-war Pacific period, as you mention USMC and having previously fought a variety of opponents.

This then leads you to conducting fights against largely entrenched Japanese forces who would launch local counter-attacks where they could, or rather felt, they could achieve local superiority, often doing so at night to avoid Marine CAS.

The superiority of the Japanese as superior in jungle warfare, may have been true in 1941/42 but was not the case by the latter half of the Pacific war, indeed it would be very likely that many of the Japanese Island garrisons would have never fought before.

Japanese were rather masterful at concealment and ambush, plus the digging in of heavy weapons and sighting them for devasting close fire from concealed positions, often waiting till the enemy had passed and then pop up behind them. Their defences were well planned and laid out.

Japanese soldiers were fairly average in terms of training and the myth of their superiority in close combat was just that - a myth. In the majority of close range encounters, Allied forces generally came off far better, due to the higher volume of close range firearms (SMGs and Automatic Pistols) and also according to SLA Marshal, the larger physique of Western soldiers... Though Im not sure I go with that, its a little too close to the racial stereotyping that 1930s and 1940s propaganda liked to portray.

Japanese forces were adebt at striking and hiding on invaded islands. Just about every islands taken, takes months to finally subdue as Japanese forces retreated into the interior and conducted raids and ambushes for weeks. They would live off the land and lay booby traps when their strength left them too weak to mount attacks. In some cases though, the remains of garrisons would launch last ditch 'Banzai' charges, which generally led to the wiping out of the charging force. It was not a very successful tactic when faced with the sort of firepower a Marine battalion could dish out.

Really you want a force that is variable in quality (SNLF Marine units for example were very high quality formations), lacks the ability to adequately coordiate both attacks and close fire support due to the lack of good communications unless in defences. They should gain some benefit when operating in groups on the offensive, though I wouldnt give them any bonus in close combat, though perhaps the ability to ignore 'pins' or however FOW handles suppression. They should be allowed to virtually ignore morale effects if in fortifications and have some ability to ambush and hamper an enemy advance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and there seems to tons of FOW Pacific lists available on the net...

Big P wrote:Im not that focussed on the Far East, but is this not all a little stereotypical in its portrayal of the Japanese fighting man?

Im presuming you are looking at the late-war Pacific period, as you mention USMC and having previously fought a variety of opponents.

This then leads you to conducting fights against largely entrenched Japanese forces who would launch local counter-attacks where they could, or rather felt, they could achieve local superiority, often doing so at night to avoid Marine CAS.

The superiority of the Japanese as superior in jungle warfare, may have been true in 1941/42 but was not the case by the latter half of the Pacific war, indeed it would be very likely that many of the Japanese Island garrisons would have never fought before.

Japanese were rather masterful at concealment and ambush, plus the digging in of heavy weapons and sighting them for devasting close fire from concealed positions, often waiting till the enemy had passed and then pop up behind them. Their defences were well planned and laid out.

Japanese soldiers were fairly average in terms of training and the myth of their superiority in close combat was just that - a myth. In the majority of close range encounters, Allied forces generally came off far better, due to the higher volume of close range firearms (SMGs and Automatic Pistols) and also according to SLA Marshal, the larger physique of Western soldiers... Though Im not sure I go with that, its a little too close to the racial stereotyping that 1930s and 1940s propaganda liked to portray.

Japanese forces were adebt at striking and hiding on invaded islands. Just about every islands taken, takes months to finally subdue as Japanese forces retreated into the interior and conducted raids and ambushes for weeks. They would live off the land and lay booby traps when their strength left them too weak to mount attacks. In some cases though, the remains of garrisons would launch last ditch 'Banzai' charges, which generally led to the wiping out of the charging force. It was not a very successful tactic when faced with the sort of firepower a Marine battalion could dish out.

Really you want a force that is variable in quality (SNLF Marine units for example were very high quality formations), lacks the ability to adequately coordiate both attacks and close fire support due to the lack of good communications unless in defences. They should gain some benefit when operating in groups on the offensive, though I wouldnt give them any bonus in close combat, though perhaps the ability to ignore 'pins' or however FOW handles suppression. They should be allowed to virtually ignore morale effects if in fortifications and have some ability to ambush and hamper an enemy advance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and there seems to tons of FOW Pacific lists available on the net...

Like I have been saying this is between a friend of mine, and me. We are just spit balling ideas for National rules.We are thinking of making it so that the Japanese forces are very good in ambushing/jungle fighting. Be we are doing mid war lists, and I said that the Japanese forces have had experince fighitng not the USMC.I was also thinking of making it so that the Japanese forces can shoot, and be go to ground to represent their field-craft. But, in regards to their weakness in assault is why I didn't give them a 3+ to hit in assault. As for their being tons of lists out there we are't at that point yet. We are just trying to come up with some national rules. I know of the yahoo group for FoW pacific, and we are in the process of joining.

Makarov wrote:

But, in regards to their weakness in assault is why I didn't give them a 3+ to hit in assault.

@Palindrome But, you said that they all should hit on a 3+ as a national rule, not just Vets. But conscripts and trained units as well. Maybe I should make it so that any Japanese unit can re roll failed hits in assault..

On a side note, would anyone have any good books to recommend about the USMC itself from 1939-1942? About their doctrine, training, organization, etc.

You could always look at the way Two Fat Lardies or Victory Decision et al handle these things.

marielle wrote:You could always look at the way Two Fat Lardies or Victory Decision et al handle these things.

Victory Decisions rules don't seem to have a Japanese faction, and Two fat lardies is too expensive for my tastes for a pdf.

Look I get that you and Big P don't like FOW/BF, but I just prefer their game, and the Company. Its just what I like.Thank you though and I appreciate the help. But I like FOW, and its the biggest historical minis game in my area.

With that said I might buy Victory Decisions' physical rule book, as it does look interesting.

Makarov wrote:

Look I get that you and Big P don't like FOW/BF, but I just prefer their game, and the Company. Its just what I like.Thank you though and I appreciate the help. But I like FOW, and its the biggest historical minis game in my area.

In this case, I think Big P was giving you some very good background information on what to base your national characteristics on, not trying to take a dig at FOW.

He's certainly right that Banzai charges were normally not very effective, so I doubt a bonus to assaults would be warranted. Perhaps a rule that Japanese platoons that aren't under 50% strength take 10 hits to pin if they're dug in would make sense. You could also allow extra Japanese platoons to ambush, even if the mission doesn't normally allow it. Maybe Japanese platoons get +1 or +2 ambushing platoons on top of what the mission allows? Or allow Japanese platoons to purchase extra ambushes by paying an increasing number of points. You could also allow Japanese immobile gun teams to ambush normally to represent the well prepared and well hidden defensive positions.

Makarov wrote:@Palindrome But, you said that they all should hit on a 3+ as a national rule, not just Vets. But conscripts and trained units as well.

I don't see a problem with that, Ghurkas can do the same thing. The Japanese simply don't have the fire support required to be an effective shooting army and as such they need to be made nasty in assaults, trained troops hitting as veterans is not unbalanced. It would require play testing to ensure that what ever morale boosting rules you give them don't make them unstoppable in assaults though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hordini wrote:[
He's certainly right that Banzai charges were normally not very effective, so I doubt a bonus to assaults would be warranted. Perhaps a rule that Japanese platoons that aren't under 50% strength take 10 hits to pin if they're dug in would make sense.

In a more historically correct game then banzi charges would end in failure most of the time, but which would be used frequently. FoW is a more cinematic view of history though which has a tendency to have 'cool' rules.

One other possiblity is to give the Japanese player an extra turn after they have failed their company morale check in which every infantry and man packed gun team must move at the double towards the nearest enemy and must lanch an assault. If they manage to force a failed company morale test on the enemy during this turn they win. That would be more realistic but won't be much use in the game

Makarov wrote:

Look I get that you and Big P don't like FOW/BF

Just remember, assumption is the mother of all f*ck ups.

I have never played FOW to know if I like it or not. Please dont put words in my mouth with your vague perceptions of what you think are my personal views.

I offered you some historical thoughts that I hoped might help you apply FOW mechanics too. You obviously dont want that and trot out the tired old 'you dont like FOW' line instead of, and its just an idea, trying to research the subject and find a historical basis for the mechanics you are applying, instead of relying on old vauge historical stereotypes of a historical army. I was merely offering some comments as how you may gain a more historical flavour, sadly I dont know the FOW mechanics to do it for you.

Its not FOW I take issue with... Its poor history that I dislike.

So far, from what I have seen, most FOW players seem to have a keen interest in history as well as their game, which to me is a good thing.



And thank you Hordini.

Makarov wrote:

marielle wrote:You could always look at the way Two Fat Lardies or Victory Decision et al handle these things.

Victory Decisions rules don't seem to have a Japanese faction, and Two fat lardies is too expensive for my tastes for a pdf.

Look I get that you and Big P don't like FOW/BF, but I just prefer their game, and the Company. Its just what I like.Thank you though and I appreciate the help. But I like FOW, and its the biggest historical minis game in my area.

With that said I might buy Victory Decisions' physical rule book, as it does look interesting.

I wasn't suggesting you change games. Rather that by looking at how other games handle a faction currently not covered by FoW might be more useful than relying on racist stereotypes. As for Fat Lardie pdfs being too expensive... aren't you the guy that described history as Open Source?

@BIG P - Agreed, I love History and do get a bit annoyed with FOW, but in reality FOW is entry level WWII Wargaming.

Off the back of this I bought COLD WAR GONE HOT, and now am wargaming Cold War scenario's with 20mm and 15mm Cold War armour.

So it really does act as a draw to bring people and wargamers into other spheres and periods.

On Topic - It's Hard to do Pacific really, Japanese equipment and manning was not really like the USSR or UK or USA. From my own knowledge the US Marine Corps were bottom of the pile for Equipment, they had all kinds of problems in the earlier period, (I'm thinking prior to and during Guadalcanal) before they got the US more modern Rifles and MG's. In many respects the US Marines were the poor Cousins of the US Armed forces, until later in the War.

marielle wrote:

Makarov wrote:

marielle wrote:You could always look at the way Two Fat Lardies or Victory Decision et al handle these things.

Victory Decisions rules don't seem to have a Japanese faction, and Two fat lardies is too expensive for my tastes for a pdf.

Look I get that you and Big P don't like FOW/BF, but I just prefer their game, and the Company. Its just what I like.Thank you though and I appreciate the help. But I like FOW, and its the biggest historical minis game in my area.

With that said I might buy Victory Decisions' physical rule book, as it does look interesting.

I wasn't suggesting you change games. Rather that by looking at how other games handle a faction currently not covered by FoW might be more useful than relying on racist stereotypes. As for Fat Lardie pdfs being too expensive... aren't you the guy that described history as Open Source?

Depending on the game the cost for a pdf rule book is $15 to start with. IMHO I wouldn't pay that much for a pdf file for a relatively unknown game in my area. I appreciate the help, its just not worth it in my IMHO. Also what is open source?

Open Source, means freely available (not paid for) in the public domain. It can be used as prefix for many things, Open Source Information (e.g Wikipedia), Open Source Code (e.g Linux), Open Source Intelligence (BBC News Websire).

If you are ever in doubt about a term, Open google enter it, click on definition.

In production and development, open source is a philosophy, or pragmatic methodology that promotes free redistribution and access to an end product's design and implementation details[citation needed]. Before the phrase open source became widely adopted, developers and producers used a variety of phrases to describe the concept; open source gained hold with the rise of the Internet, and the attendant need for massive retooling of the computing source code.[citation needed] Opening the source code enabled a self-enhancing diversity of production models, communication paths, and interactive communities.[1] The open-source software movement was born to describe the environment that the new copyright, licensing, domain, and consumer issues created.

Palindrome wrote:

Hordini wrote:[
He's certainly right that Banzai charges were normally not very effective, so I doubt a bonus to assaults would be warranted. Perhaps a rule that Japanese platoons that aren't under 50% strength take 10 hits to pin if they're dug in would make sense.

In a more historically correct game then banzi charges would end in failure most of the time, but which would be used frequently. FoW is a more cinematic view of history though which has a tendency to have 'cool' rules.

One other possiblity is to give the Japanese player an extra turn after they have failed their company morale check in which every infantry and man packed gun team must move at the double towards the nearest enemy and must lanch an assault. If they manage to force a failed company morale test on the enemy during this turn they win. That would be more realistic but won't be much use in the game

It's true that FOW tends to have national rules with a certain cool factor, but with only maybe one or two exceptions, they tend to be based on at least some level of historical evidence, and they pretty much never contradict it completely, which is what a large Banzai charge bonus in assaults would do. The only main exception I can think of right now is the "Unknown Hero" rule for the Italians, which isn't really that huge of a factor in the scope of the game as a whole. I don't see any reason why a "Banzai charge" rule wouldn't also follow a historical model (that is, that it was normally a last ditch effort that was usually not successful). To be honest, if any army would warrant a bonus in assaults in the Pacific theater it would be the USMC, although I don't know that that would really be warranted if Marines were rated as veterans (although I'm sure someone could make an argument for their experience rating to only be trained).

Big P wrote:
And thank you Hordini.

No problem man, just calling it like I see it. I'm generally not one to discourage people from playing historically accurate lists and the more good historical information we can get on Dakka, the better (especially when coming up with new rules)!

Hordini wrote:


It's true that FOW tends to have national rules with a certain cool factor, but with only maybe one or two exceptions, they tend to be based on at least some level of historical evidence, and they pretty much never contradict it completely, which is what a large Banzai charge bonus in assaults would do.

A +1 assault to hit modifier is not a huge bonus, as I said Ghurkas already get it.

I would suggest making Banzai charges something that does insane damage if it hits home, but that also will likely result in the destruction of the unit conducting the charge.

They were always suicidal charges into the teeth of the enemy in an attempt to cause maximum damage before death.


How about the following,

Banzai Charge: When a IJA unit conducts a charge. It may, before defensive fire is conducted, declare a Banzai charge. Units conducting a Banzai have an assault move of 6" instead of 4", cannot be pinned by Defensive Fire, and each stand rolls 2 dice in the assault instead of 1. However, any Defensive Fire conducted against the unit ignores concealment penelties and all successful saves against it must be rerolled.

It essentially doubles the damage output of a unit that is Banzai charging, but it also makes them much more vulnerable to being completely gunned down before they hit home.

I think the German Stormtrooper move is probably the most contentious of all the national traits. The ability for a Heavy Tank to fire at full ROF, and then pass a roll allowing it to move behind a building etc so the enemy cannot fire on it. It is a kind of a crazy catch all rule which applies to Vehicles and Infantry. I shouldn't moan as I play as Panzer Grenadiers, however i do feel it's a bit too much and needs toning down a tad.

I have been working on this same project and would be eager to see any materials that were created for this. Mine is very far advanced and I have over 100 hours of research on the Pacific theatre in, in trying to create a list. I began with the Malayan invasion as that was a highly successful example of the kind of warfare the Japan forces were trying to execute and it was a microcosm for their thinking and ideas.

Since I began my research has spiraled me outwards and I have come to appreciate that the japanese were a Late War army entirely and so you can really include almost all of their equipment in the armory and then parcel it according to theatre or just leave it as is.

Anyways, Just saw this in the course of yet MORE research and thought I'd respond.