Normally I bring base line infantry in the 5 point transport, and the upgraded versions in the IFV. They are best in their 5 point transport, the Nana-san Shiki, although they also get access to the Hachu-kyu Shiki, an interesting IFV - not particularly good however, since it doesn't fulfill any roles very well. Its basic line infantry, the Syoujyu-Buntai are distinctly mediocre, but at least they can provide for a swarm of cheap, expendable, line infantry that can be relied upon to well - hold the line. With these limitations in mind, what sort of units are worth taking? Again, in theory Japan has most everything covered. This hurts them far more than it does other nations which lack for an ultra-high AP launcher, like the United States.
#Wargame red dragon deck guide plus#
The solution to this in other nations would be to bring ones own heavily armored tanks into forests, such as the Americans with the M1 Abrams or the Soviet T-80s, plus units like the BMPT - but the Japanese don't have any units like this. But Japan's AP values for infantry cap out at a critical 18, which makes it terribly ineffective at fighting enemy heavily armored tanks with infantry, a great problem when against coalitions which can bring their medium tanks into forests or have a range of heavily armored killing options like the USSR. When one looks at the types of units that Japan has covered - line infantry, upgraded line infantry, light infantry for shocks, and commandos, one would think that Japan has most of what an essential army would need. There is no cheap and numerous shock infantry to make up for this.Ģ)Japan lacks for significant capabilities for infantry uses. Japan's problem is that its line infantry only get a base LAW, like the American Riflemen, but also don't get access to the great transports that the American Riflemen have, making them significantly worse.
Cost effective infantry tends to be cheap and capable of being deployed in large numbers, with decent weapons: the best examples are Finnish Jaakari '90, Israeli Roviat '90, American Riflemen, Chinese Zhanshi, and South Koreak Souchong-Su '85 line infantry, who all get good transports with at least 2 armor, and all except the riflemen (who also get a very good transport) get a 16 AP AT weapon or an RPG-7. Japanese infantry is terribly mediocre, for a number of reasons, which can be summed up by two key points: cost effectiveness and capabilities.ġ)Japanese infantry is not cost effective. This means there is no point to take it, and 1 armor APC CVs are just as good for the vast majority of purposes. Japan has a tank CV, but since it only gets 1 armor on top, it is just as vulnerable to artillery bombardment as any other unit. with more than 2 armor on all sides and on top. While there are the normal range of infantry CVs, with some acceptable wheeled transports and some helicopter transports, there are no CVs which are survivable - ie.