Iwo Jima doesn't feel like Iwo Jima

[Zack to the Future]

Iwo Jima is one of those iconic battles that carries a powerful legacy. Much like the D-Day landing at Normandy, Iwo is a battle that draws awe because the scale, intensity, and heroism that is hard to imagine. But this... just fails to capture that feeling like I was hoping it could. I think the atmosphere of the map feels right, but that's about it. beyond that, this feels more like a generic amphibious assault more than portraying the Battle of Iwo Jima. Specifically, I think the map fails to synthesize the conditions that make this standout as such a heroic effort for the Marines and Japanese. And I don't think many players will be able to put their finger on why the intensity seemingly doesn't live up to the battle's reputation, but I hope I can help shed some light on that with my perspective.

Brief historical context, despite ridiculously heavy naval bombardments to soften the island, when the Marines landed they recognized that the naval shelling did little to dismantle the Japanese artillery emplacements on Mount Suribachi (protected by man made tunnels). And those positions were placed and zeroed to cover the whole island. Everywhere Marines went, from the beaches to inland, they would be getting hammered non-stop until the mountain was secured. While capturing the island's airfield was the primary objective of the operation, the artillery on Mount Suribachi needed to be handled as a top priority first in order to secure a beachhead (even if they took the airfield first, planes couldn't land there if Suribachi still posed a threat. Or just as bad, the Japanese could still easily counter attack and displace the Marines from the exposed airfield).

The most major, glaring disappointment in Squad 44's interpretation is that there are no usable artillery positions on Suribachi. The key element that would ultimately shape the entire battle is seemingly unaccounted for? Battlefield 5 had a similar disappointment, but at least the mountain has some artillery pieces. Albeit it, they offered no meaningful impact to shape the battle, but they were there! For a WWII milsim to completely miss that point... well I think it speaks volumes about how you can't just copy and paste Squad's gameplay loop to a WWII backdrop. The only way historic battles carry any punch is if they introduce the challenges faced by those troops at that time. The whole setup feels like a side step around the core elements of this battle to preserve "balance" or a gameplay loop that doesn't change the core mechanics - but this approach effectively destroys the potential to connect with the experience beyond engaging in a gun fight with WWII weapons. Honestly, I think this portrayal of the Battle of Iwo Jima trivializes the experience. It makes it harder to connect with and understand what makes this battle standout.

I thought Squad 44 had a great opportunity to do something really cool by taking a stab at Iwo Jima as a more serious WWII shooter, and teach people about the battle through their own revelations. For example, many people think the flag raising on Suribachi was a sign of victory over the island, but in fact that moment is within the first weeks and it would take another month to secure the rest of the island. Now, imagine if the players felt the desperation to silence the artillery because of how impossible it feels to advance past pillboxes onto an airfield with a mountain constantly raining lead on you. If I only felt more immersed I would play Iwo Jima so much more because I love exploring the island, but my imagination does most of the heavy lifting. I really appreciate that the devs went for it, but this feels hollow to me and the experience doesn't ring true to the reputation Iwo Jima carries with it.

[JLPtheGreat]

Don't know the devs kinda f@cked it up a bit with the bugs.

[duckfliper]

yeh iwo is si boring and very laggy, and all of the servers are iwo jima, the beauty in the game is in fcking europe!

[nolaJeff]

Originally posted by Zack to the Future:

The most major, glaring disappointment in Squad 44's interpretation is that there are no usable artillery positions on Suribachi. The key element that would ultimately shape the entire battle is seemingly unaccounted for?

I disagree. When playing the Frontline 02 layer the other day (it's the sea landing closer to Suribachi), We came out the boats and were immediately pummeled by a 120mm gun firing from Suribachi area. My squad was obliterated in just a few shots. I later also saw a 20mm firing from that area.

[Zack to the Future]

Originally posted by nolaJeff:

Originally posted by Zack to the Future:

The most major, glaring disappointment in Squad 44's interpretation is that there are no usable artillery positions on Suribachi. The key element that would ultimately shape the entire battle is seemingly unaccounted for?

I disagree. When playing the Frontline 02 layer the other day (it's the sea landing closer to Suribachi), We came out the boats and were immediately pummeled by a 120mm gun firing from Suribachi area. My squad was obliterated in just a few shots. I later also saw a 20mm firing from that area.

To your credit, I know of the two guns at the base of the mountain. (I can't place the 3rd 20mm, but I'll take your word for it). So for me to say there are "no usable artillery" isn't entirely accurate.
But I had discounted mentioning these guns bc, in my experience, they hardly emulate the the artillery's ability to impact the battle ANYWHERE on the island. Like you say, you only noticed them when you were landing closer to the mountain. That's a far cry from feeling their constant presence, shaping the course of the entire battle.
So, I still stand by my broader point that this feels more like a generic beach landing more than the Battle for Iwo Jima. While 3 artillery pieces are technically at the base of Suibachi, they're hardly protected and too few in number to make Suribachi the colossal, imperative undertaking it should be.

[Elise the Indominus rex]

Originally posted by Zack to the Future:

Originally posted by nolaJeff:

I disagree. When playing the Frontline 02 layer the other day (it's the sea landing closer to Suribachi), We came out the boats and were immediately pummeled by a 120mm gun firing from Suribachi area. My squad was obliterated in just a few shots. I later also saw a 20mm firing from that area.

To your credit, I know of the two guns at the base of the mountain. (I can't place the 3rd 20mm, but I'll take your word for it). So for me to say there are "no usable artillery" isn't entirely accurate.
But I had discounted mentioning these guns bc, in my experience, they hardly emulate the the artillery's ability to impact the battle ANYWHERE on the island. Like you say, you only noticed them when you were landing closer to the mountain. That's a far cry from feeling their constant presence, shaping the course of the entire battle.
So, I still stand by my broader point that this feels more like a generic beach landing more than the Battle for Iwo Jima. While 3 artillery pieces are technically at the base of Suibachi, they're hardly protected and too few in number to make Suribachi the colossal, imperative undertaking it should be.

If you made Suribachi a "colossal, imperative undertaking", balance will suffer from it. I'm all in for historical accuracy, but the game should still be winnable for the US.

[SGT F. Wilkinson [3rd ID]]

Originally posted by Zack to the Future:

Originally posted by nolaJeff:

I disagree. When playing the Frontline 02 layer the other day (it's the sea landing closer to Suribachi), We came out the boats and were immediately pummeled by a 120mm gun firing from Suribachi area. My squad was obliterated in just a few shots. I later also saw a 20mm firing from that area.

To your credit, I know of the two guns at the base of the mountain. (I can't place the 3rd 20mm, but I'll take your word for it). So for me to say there are "no usable artillery" isn't entirely accurate.
But I had discounted mentioning these guns bc, in my experience, they hardly emulate the the artillery's ability to impact the battle ANYWHERE on the island. Like you say, you only noticed them when you were landing closer to the mountain. That's a far cry from feeling their constant presence, shaping the course of the entire battle.
So, I still stand by my broader point that this feels more like a generic beach landing more than the Battle for Iwo Jima. While 3 artillery pieces are technically at the base of Suibachi, they're hardly protected and too few in number to make Suribachi the colossal, imperative undertaking it should be.

Very compelling writing so far. Great points and historical context. I admire your writing ability!

[SGT F. Wilkinson [3rd ID]]

Originally posted by Elise the Indominus rex:

Originally posted by Zack to the Future:

To your credit, I know of the two guns at the base of the mountain. (I can't place the 3rd 20mm, but I'll take your word for it). So for me to say there are "no usable artillery" isn't entirely accurate.
But I had discounted mentioning these guns bc, in my experience, they hardly emulate the the artillery's ability to impact the battle ANYWHERE on the island. Like you say, you only noticed them when you were landing closer to the mountain. That's a far cry from feeling their constant presence, shaping the course of the entire battle.
So, I still stand by my broader point that this feels more like a generic beach landing more than the Battle for Iwo Jima. While 3 artillery pieces are technically at the base of Suibachi, they're hardly protected and too few in number to make Suribachi the colossal, imperative undertaking it should be.

If you made Suribachi a "colossal, imperative undertaking", balance will suffer from it. I'm all in for historical accuracy, but the game should still be winnable for the US.

At that point it raises the question, should they have implemented this map without the features that made the battle what it was? If it would effect the balance (which no doubt it would), one could simply do something like allow the Americans to have additional fire support in some fashion that would counter a more historically accurate Mt Suribachi. Besides, I'm fairly certain that the only reason they'd implement such a map is because of how legendary the battle became, in large part due to the struggle on the mountain! If OWI really want to have any sort of "time travel" effect on their players they gotta try to adhere to historical accuracy as much as they can while still maintaining core gameplay. On a side note, it's definitely a bummer to see how little remnants of shelling and bombing there is on the map... Mainly, I'm fairly certain there'd be hardly any foliage left, given all the shrapnel. The Japanese are also lacking in bunkers, considering they had been preparing for the invasion for several months and had built eleven miles of tunnels beneath the island's surface...

[Elise the Indominus rex]

Originally posted by An LRAS:

Originally posted by Elise the Indominus rex:

If you made Suribachi a "colossal, imperative undertaking", balance will suffer from it. I'm all in for historical accuracy, but the game should still be winnable for the US.

At that point it raises the question, should they have implemented this map without the features that made the battle what it was? If it would effect the balance (which no doubt it would), one could simply do something like allow the Americans to have additional fire support in some fashion that would counter a more historically accurate Mt Suribachi. Besides, I'm fairly certain that the only reason they'd implement such a map is because of how legendary the battle became, in large part due to the struggle on the mountain! If OWI really want to have any sort of "time travel" effect on their players they gotta try to adhere to historical accuracy as much as they can while still maintaining core gameplay. On a side note, it's definitely a bummer to see how little remnants of shelling and bombing there is on the map... Mainly, I'm fairly certain there'd be hardly any foliage left, given all the shrapnel. The Japanese are also lacking in bunkers, considering they had been preparing for the invasion for several months and had built eleven miles of tunnels beneath the island's surface...

The tunnels are a thing beneath Suribachi. And there are shelled crater-areas, but the island wasn't the black wasteland like Hollywood always depicts it to be.

[skrap101]

Originally posted by Elise the Indominus rex:

Originally posted by An LRAS:

At that point it raises the question, should they have implemented this map without the features that made the battle what it was? If it would effect the balance (which no doubt it would), one could simply do something like allow the Americans to have additional fire support in some fashion that would counter a more historically accurate Mt Suribachi. Besides, I'm fairly certain that the only reason they'd implement such a map is because of how legendary the battle became, in large part due to the struggle on the mountain! If OWI really want to have any sort of "time travel" effect on their players they gotta try to adhere to historical accuracy as much as they can while still maintaining core gameplay. On a side note, it's definitely a bummer to see how little remnants of shelling and bombing there is on the map... Mainly, I'm fairly certain there'd be hardly any foliage left, given all the shrapnel. The Japanese are also lacking in bunkers, considering they had been preparing for the invasion for several months and had built eleven miles of tunnels beneath the island's surface...

The tunnels are a thing beneath Suribachi. And there are shelled crater-areas, but the island wasn't the black wasteland like Hollywood always depicts it to be.

There are quite a few tunnels off the mountain also......still finding new ones every few days.

Recently had a match where we held the top of the mountain as Japan. Barely. We had MG nests set up everywhere. And our mortar guys were on point. I think that match was the intensity you're looking for. It can be done.

[tofohan barbecue]

CANT FORGET TUNNEL COMBAT SUCKS ON LAST POINT , MASSIVE LAG FOR SOME WEIRD REASON I THINK ITS BUG WITH LOTS OF PLAYERS DYING AND THE RAGDOLLS IN TIGHT SPACES , ASWELL AS GIBS FROM FRAG GRENADES + FAST STUPID TIE OR FAST CAP ITS REALLY JUST BORING GAMEPLAY WHAT COULDVE BEEN AN AWESOME LAST POINT ON MURIBACHI MT TURNS OUT JUST ♥♥♥♥

[nolaJeff]

Originally posted by Ray Charles:

CANT FORGET TUNNEL COMBAT SUCKS ON LAST POINT , MASSIVE LAG FOR SOME WEIRD REASON I THINK ITS BUG WITH LOTS OF PLAYERS DYING AND THE RAGDOLLS IN TIGHT SPACES , ASWELL AS GIBS FROM FRAG GRENADES + FAST STUPID TIE OR FAST CAP ITS REALLY JUST BORING GAMEPLAY WHAT COULDVE BEEN AN AWESOME LAST POINT ON MURIBACHI MT TURNS OUT JUST ♥♥♥♥

Best to stay out of tunnels until the hotfix comes out. Also, please do not type entire messages in all caps.

[Trigger]

Your first mistake was thinking this plays like squad

[Donkeyface]

Originally posted by Zack to the Future:

Iwo Jima is one of those iconic battles that carries a powerful legacy. Much like the D-Day landing at Normandy, Iwo is a battle that draws awe because the scale, intensity, and heroism that is hard to imagine. But this... just fails to capture that feeling like I was hoping it could. I think the atmosphere of the map feels right, but that's about it. beyond that, this feels more like a generic amphibious assault more than portraying the Battle of Iwo Jima. Specifically, I think the map fails to synthesize the conditions that make this standout as such a heroic effort for the Marines and Japanese. And I don't think many players will be able to put their finger on why the intensity seemingly doesn't live up to the battle's reputation, but I hope I can help shed some light on that with my perspective.

Brief historical context, despite ridiculously heavy naval bombardments to soften the island, when the Marines landed they recognized that the naval shelling did little to dismantle the Japanese artillery emplacements on Mount Suribachi (protected by man made tunnels). And those positions were placed and zeroed to cover the whole island. Everywhere Marines went, from the beaches to inland, they would be getting hammered non-stop until the mountain was secured. While capturing the island's airfield was the primary objective of the operation, the artillery on Mount Suribachi needed to be handled as a top priority first in order to secure a beachhead (even if they took the airfield first, planes couldn't land there if Suribachi still posed a threat. Or just as bad, the Japanese could still easily counter attack and displace the Marines from the exposed airfield).

The most major, glaring disappointment in Squad 44's interpretation is that there are no usable artillery positions on Suribachi. The key element that would ultimately shape the entire battle is seemingly unaccounted for? Battlefield 5 had a similar disappointment, but at least the mountain has some artillery pieces. Albeit it, they offered no meaningful impact to shape the battle, but they were there! For a WWII milsim to completely miss that point... well I think it speaks volumes about how you can't just copy and paste Squad's gameplay loop to a WWII backdrop. The only way historic battles carry any punch is if they introduce the challenges faced by those troops at that time. The whole setup feels like a side step around the core elements of this battle to preserve "balance" or a gameplay loop that doesn't change the core mechanics - but this approach effectively destroys the potential to connect with the experience beyond engaging in a gun fight with WWII weapons. Honestly, I think this portrayal of the Battle of Iwo Jima trivializes the experience. It makes it harder to connect with and understand what makes this battle standout.

I thought Squad 44 had a great opportunity to do something really cool by taking a stab at Iwo Jima as a more serious WWII shooter, and teach people about the battle through their own revelations. For example, many people think the flag raising on Suribachi was a sign of victory over the island, but in fact that moment is within the first weeks and it would take another month to secure the rest of the island. Now, imagine if the players felt the desperation to silence the artillery because of how impossible it feels to advance past pillboxes onto an airfield with a mountain constantly raining lead on you. If I only felt more immersed I would play Iwo Jima so much more because I love exploring the island, but my imagination does most of the heavy lifting. I really appreciate that the devs went for it, but this feels hollow to me and the experience doesn't ring true to the reputation Iwo Jima carries with it.

im curious

if the map gave you what you wanted, how many times/hours would you play it before moving on to something else?
and how many people do you think would be interested in a more immersive iwo jima compared to a more balanced take on the map?

i ask becouse i personnaly started hating utah beach because of the repetiveness it had

[Glory]

The thing about Post Scriptum, is that the best maps are ones that give both teams an even playing field with minimal obstructions.

People hate Utah, Dinant, and Rethymo because of the massive swaths of objects within the map that impede vehicles and funnel infantry for historical accuracy. Creating an accurate portrayal of Iwo tips the scales even further towards frustration, even though it would make a far more interesting and novel experience.

I'd say a much better solution is to focus on what battles would be more fun in the format of PS, like the Eastern Front. Kurks works amazingly for the format, Iwo does not.

[Zack to the Future]

Originally posted by skrap101:

Originally posted by Elise the Indominus rex:

The tunnels are a thing beneath Suribachi. And there are shelled crater-areas, but the island wasn't the black wasteland like Hollywood always depicts it to be.

There are quite a few tunnels off the mountain also......still finding new ones every few days.

Recently had a match where we held the top of the mountain as Japan. Barely. We had MG nests set up everywhere. And our mortar guys were on point. I think that match was the intensity you're looking for. It can be done.

It's not that the engagements on the Mt. or island in general lack 'intensity' per say. More so that they lack identity. Squad 44 gives a compelling toolkit for most WWII style engagements. However, one of the hallmarks of Iwo was the abundance of over-prepared positions to repel a numerically superior force. A thinned out defense force should be flowing through the tunnels popping up all around the Marines. However, the core gameplay loop that demands players organize to prepare fighting positions betrays the defenders ability to respond freely and fluidly to combat.
The map itself doesn't facilitate the conditions to war game a major counterfactual like, if the Japanese hold Mt. Suribachi do they repel the Marines outright? It's hard to explore outright bc there are so few artillery pieces aimed at such narrow fields of fires for it to dynamically impact the battle - that's if the defenders even make it a key component of their defense. Historically the guns weren't active after the first week, so they are a small part of the actual battle. But I would argue that makes it even MORE interesting to war game - maybe uncover some idea of if the defense was doomed, if the Marines prepared well, what insights do we get when we have to overcome the same concerns they had?