Greetings, and thank you for taking the time to read this post. Here I would like to list out the problems I have noticed while playing the Pacific Campaign, and provide possible remedies.
Apologies for any grammatical and/or typographical error.
Note that this article is written within less than a month of the release of the Pacific Theater. As such it is to be expected that there will be glaring problems within the campaign design. I would like to thank the developer for adding the Pacific Campaign in the first place.
First, the Armored Vehicles match up. The M13 Anti-Aircraft Half-Track; In comparison to the Ta-Se Anti-Aircraft Tank, the M13 has a much higher infantry clearing potential. Moreover, for an infantryman to eliminate the tank crew, the Ta-Se crew is far easier to kill than the M13, with their heads poking out quite far from the top, while the M13 gunner is well protected behind the gun placement. In a game where Infantry is the key to victory, this is heavily biased towards the US.
Now to be fair the developers, I donāt think there really is a way to fix this mismatch without changing too much of the tank line up, as the US .50 cal HMG is far superior to anything Japan can field in real life (in the context of being a highly versatile weapon for both anti-infantry and anti-air).
Secondly, Japanese weaponry. The Americansā basic rifle is the Springfield 1903 (7.62mm) while the Japanese gets the Type 38 Carbine (6.5mm). The American first purchasable rifle is the USMC variant of the Springfield; Very much the same fun with the addition of protected sights, while the Japanese gets the Type 38 Rifle.
I would suggest that the Japanese get the Type 38 Rifle as the basic rifle instead of a carbine in order to compete with the Americans. As for the first purchasable rifle, the Japanese should get the Type 99 Rifle (Late), not the Type 38 Rifle, as that would put the Japanese gun somewhat on par with the Americans in terms of bullet caliber (7.62 to 7.7, instead of 6.5).
Moreover, at Level 11, the US gets a Shotgun while Japan gets a sword. I think this is self explanatory. It would make sense for the Japanese to get an SMG at Level 11 to compete with the American Shotgun, as there is a precedent for two weapons of similar role but not equal in stats occupying the same level slot (Type-Hei Rifle and M1 Carbine at level 10). The sword could also be given at Level 11 alongside the SMG, I donāt think that is too much to ask.
To continue, letās talk about SMGs. The Japanese Type 100 SMG has two versions in real life, Early and Late. Their Rate of fire is as follows; Early-450 RPM, Late 800-RPM. Only the Early version is available in the game (at least for the moment). I would say that the Type 100 Late is comparable to the Thompson SMG in use by the US in the game, however for some reason the Type 100 Late is nowhere to be seen.
Next, Semi-Automatic Rifles. At level 13 the Americans get the M1 Garand. However, the Japanese got the Type 99 Rifle of late war construction. This is perhaps the biggest mismatch in armament seen in the campaign as of now. Speaking of which, in real life the Pedersen rifle (of which the Type-Hei rifle is based upon, also the Japanese version looks a lot different than depicted in the game) has 10 rounds, instead of five.
Smaller problem, but still noticeable; Sniper Rifles. The first Sniper Rifles that either side gets; US-Springfield with Unertl Scope (x8 Magnification) while the Japanese gets the Type 97 with 2.5x Magnification scope. However, this is somewhat offset by the Type 97 being able to accept Stripper clips while the Springfield Sniper Rifle cannot. Somewhat supported by real life examples as the Japanese does not field high magnification scopes
Now I understand that this campaign has only been online for less than a month, but that is precisely why I wrote this article, to correct these problems before it gets worse along the way. Hopefully it gets seen by a developer who cares enough to take a look into the balancing issue.
I feel as if this campaign is somewhat based on the Rising Storm Pacific Campaign. However, Rising Stormās asymmetrical warfare mechanics (Japan can use hand grenades as AP mine, Banzai Charge causes suppression on the enemy, etc.) helps to balance out the inferior equipment on the Japanese part, while here in enlisted there really isnāt anything comparable to that mechanic. Iām not sure where the developers would like to take this campaign; Balanced weaponry like the other campaigns? Or asymmetrical warfare based on Rising Storm? Either is fine, but thatās the point; pick one. As of now the campaign is somewhat in between with unbalanced weaponry, yet no āgimmickā for Japan to get a fair match against the US.
One more thing though. I have played on both sides, and from experience, though Japan gets worse equipment, they seem to win more. Most of the battles that I won as Japan (and lost as America) is solely due to objective play from the Japanese side. While I get more kills (and admittedly have a much easier time doing the killing) as the Americans, it seems that rarely does anyone play the objective. On the other hand, Japanese gameplay is quite difficult in the killing department, but often results in victory due to objective pushing. This is all personal experience though.
I hope you enjoyed reading this essay as much as I enjoyed writing it.
Thank you for your attention and have a wonderful day!
