[Rules] Service/Construction troops good in assault?

[plloyd1010]

A question that arose in a recent game was about Japanese service troops. The rules state that Japanese infantry, apart from heavy weapon units (HMG/WPN), receive a +1 in assault combat. Should this apply to service troops as well? We went with"no", because these units are not trained infantry (in fact are regarded quite lowly). Thoughts on that?

[larry marak]

In 1942 they ran. In 1944 they charged, attacking with sticks and stones if necessary. No for '42, yes for '44-45. They would be automatically lower morale, which should account for inferior training.

[plloyd1010]

That would be an interpretation. As admirable as courage and determination are however, I don't consider them to be substitutes for training and applied doctrine. In the '42 vs. '44 example, I would go with the high morale, low skill dichotomy.

[Schoenwulf]

That would be an interpretation. As admirable as courage and determination are however, I don't consider them to be substitutes for training and applied doctrine. In the '42 vs. '44 example, I would go with the high morale, low skill dichotomy.

I don't believe they should get the infantry benefit for the reasons stated, and have been playing it that way. The service units were pressed into actions that they were poorly prepared for as reflected in the lower morale from SNLF units.

[Coniglius]

I thought many of the service troops were Korean and Chinese 'Volunteers' .... more motivated to run at first opportunity than charge into an assault.