Category Archives: Sessions

Drive on Washington – GBACW

Christmas is over and company’s gone.  First opportunity to get back to Drive on Washington for about a week.

This is a simulation of the Battle of Monocacy, where, depending on who you read, a Confederate attack on Washington DC was stopped by General Lew Wallace of (later) Ben Hur fame.

This SPI game is supposedly hard to find judging by the price out on EBay.  I picked up a copy on the cheap a couple of years ago, and like most things, it was a little too good of a price to be true.  The box was badly battered, and the rules looked like they had been last used to house train a dog.  Still, the map was in great shape and all the counters appeared to be present.  Wrong again.  Missing three counters; one Confederate leader and two Union units.  Still, I can play the game.

Union forces are deployed at fords or bridges along the Monocacy River in an attempt to guard approaches to Washington DC.  Four separate Confederate divisions are placed in general areas, poised to attack, but must first by activated by their overall commander, General Jubal Early.  Early’s arrival is rolled for each turn, with a roll equal to or less than the game turn placing him on the map.  Division activation occurs when Early passes within ten hexes of a division commander.  The division may move the turn after it is activated.  The Confederates may also search for a ford on the Union left.  The discovery of the ford is handled  by a random chit pull.  The Union may destroy the “Wooden Bridge” denying the Confederates one crossing point by rolling a one or two, but cannot destroy the Railroad Bridge.  The bridge to the right of the Union line is weakly defended, but some distance from the Washington turnpike.

It took four turns to find the ford, six turns for the entire Confederate force to be activated and moving, and three turns to  burn the Wooden Bridge.

The stage is set for a series of sharp and vicious fights to force the bridges and known ford, or to quickly locate the ford on the Union right, and envelop the forces deployed along the Monocacy River.

As with my other games playing the Great Battles of the American Civil War (GBACW) system, fire combat is not always  bloody, but in most cases will stop an attack through either a rout or pin result.  By 1864, Union cavalry units had carbines.  Their 5x adjacent hex firepower stopped Rebel cavalry from seizing key terrain on the Union left, allowing Truex more time to react to Gordon’s division moving across the now discovered ford.

By Turn Six, the game was really moving.  Here’s a few photos showing the situation before and after the turn.

Confederate Forces Approach The Ford Near the Union Center
Confederate Forces Approach The Ford Near the Union Center
Union Center. Wooden Bridge burned, with Truex moving to stop Gordon's Confederates. McClean dug in to defend the Railroad Bridge
Union Center. Wooden Bridge burned, with Truex moving to stop Gordon’s Confederates. McClean dug in to defend the Railroad Bridge
Confederate Attacks Stall. Bridge on Union Right at Right of Photo
Confederate Attacks Stall. Bridge on Union Right at Right of Photo
Confederate cavalry repulsed. Gordon poised to cross the now discovered ford as Truex begins to deploy.
Confederate cavalry repulsed. Gordon poised to cross the now discovered ford as Truex begins to deploy.

I’ll pick up the narrative after Turn 7.

 

Battle of Cedar Mountain – GBACW

Finished up Cedar Mountain yesterday.   Took awhile, and that was a problem.  Tended to lose focus during sporadic 1+ turn sessions. Finally got serious and cranked out a number of successive turns to maintain momentum.

Still, a good game and enjoyable.  A classic encounter battle, with each side fighting to seize and hold four hexes representing key terrain.  Victory points are awarded for each turn a side controls a hex, as well the standard GBACW points for inflicting casualties on brigades and leaders.

Here’s a detailed account of the historical battle with an map from the excellent Obscure Battles website, recently featured in Web Grognards.

The rules are generally the same as Wilson’s Creek and Stonewall.  However, there is no ammunition depletion, and extra rules are added for artillery overshoot and target density in each hex.  Neither of these new rules had any material impact on gameplay.  Both sides were happy that rolling a one no longer involved the possibility of running out of ammunition.

Union forces deploy some distance from the victory hexes, with Confederate units entering the map throughout the game beginning with Turn One.

The Union units had the most favorable terrain for a quick advance, and established possession of the victory hexes.  Confederate entry speed was hampered by the lower stacking and movement rates in woods.  All of the fighting took place in the center of the map, in the area bounded by Cedar Run and the turnpike.

After the failure of an initial Confederate assault, arriving troops were sent on a flanking march around the Union left.  Although the initial assault by the flanking units was repulsed, the weakened Union units fell back under pressure, both in the center and left, establishing a horseshoe shaped perimeter in an attempt to conduct an orderly retreat.

Newly arrived Confederates, supported by the tattered remnants of units that had been fighting throughout the day, were able to cutoff any Union retreat.  The result was a decisive defeat for the Union, mitigated in Victory Points for the number of turns the Union had controlled the victory hexes.

This was a bloody game, with the aggressive Federal army suffering significant casualties.  Confederate units were also badly battered.

Why?

This spate of GBACW games piqued my interest in the Civil War.  One of my favorite military historians is the late Paddy Griffith.  Although he died (way too soon) several years ago, you can still access his website.  He once did me a very kind favor years ago.  But that’s the subject of a separate post.

Back on topic.  This spate of games (like to use spate) motivated me to buy two of Paddy’s books.  One I had owned years ago, but made the mistake of lending it to a Civil War enthusiastic colleague of mine, and as usually happens in that situation the book was swallowed up into the great void of “I can’t remember that”. This book, “Battle in the Civil War“, is an illustrated and very accessible version of his text heavy, and far more detailed,  “Battle Tactics of the Civil War“.  I decided to employ one of Paddy’s theses in this game.  BTW, both books are well worth the cost.

This thesis is that shock tactics were rarely used in the Civil War, but not because of the popular idea of the deadliness of rifled musket fire, but that the armies lacked the ability to coordinate this type of attack, and that by the time they did have the experience, both sides shied away from assaults during open battle (and this does not include the catastrophes of Cold Harbor, The Crater, et al) and were content to engage in lengthy fire-fights.

Confident that I am better than Franz Sigel or Dan Sickles, I launched a series of maniacal John Hood like melee combats.  For the most part, Richard Berg’s rules led to a bloody shambles.  Because…….Berg’s rules (and he is a wonderful game designer), allow low value musket and rifle fire, doubled, to either pin or rout units in the adjacent hex.  This especially benefits the defender, who can conduct defensive fire before the attackers can fire and move into the hex for melee.  An attack in depth is a possible solution.  Stack three attacking units in the hex, put your lowest valued unit on top because it will take the fire hit,  and hope that two of the three survive a morale check.  If the attackers are not pinned or routed, they may cause the defender to break and rout before contact is made.  This is somewhat consistent with Griffith’s observations that units would  break if faced with the threat of a melee.  My conclusion:  Paddy would have had a different design take on GBACW.

Anyway……….

Another enjoyable game, and I am putting “Drive on Washington” on the table for another (and probably my last) round of GBACW.

Here’s a series of photos to give some vague concept of what happened in the game.  I take a solemn vow that I will never, never, ever, use an IPhone for photos, and if for some reason I break this vow, I will always, always, always, turn on more lighting.  Not impaired, just pathetic.

Advancing Union Forces Occupy Victory Hexes
Advancing Union Forces Occupy Victory Hexes
Confederates Flank the Union Left
Confederates Flank the Union Left
Confederates Increase Pressure on Union Left
Confederates Increase Pressure on Union Left
Union Left Collapses
Union Left Collapses

 

 

 

War of Resistance – Tim’s Observations

Here are Tim’s comments….We plan to play this scenario one more time, hopefully between Xmas and New Year.

Weather was an issue. The rain, with the accompanying -1 die roll modifier and increased movement costs was a real problem for me. I was having to use units to cart supply to the front when I needed every body at the front.

I should have attacked your river transports much, much sooner. I was pleasantly surprised at how effective the one raid was.

I understand better why it is hard to use the factional units as cannon fodder. Even with their stacking limits, I still wonder if it would be possible to use them in good defensive terrain (rice paddies, or behind a river) hoping for an exchange or to buy time. I know its not really an issue in the context of the scenario but the Central Army 4-6 divisions can’t be replaced and the 3-5 divisions can be only replaced very slowly.

I hope you handed out lots of medals to your aviators. They gave their all and suffered accordingly! I wonder if the Chinese would be well advised to adopt a ‘fleet in being’ strategy for their air force. Having said that, I was sweating when your one naval patrol attack got through…

NGS is really important to the Japanese. I actually could have used it more than I did– I forgot that TFs can sail up the Yangtse as far as Nanjing.

Infantry having an exploit phase is nice. I often would launch an attack and then use the exploit phase to regroup my troops for your turn. I would create a big stack and then split them back up during the exploit phase.

 

War of Resistance – Fate of Nanking

Had another War of Resistance (WOR) session with Tim over the weekend. Once again, it was the Fate of Nanking scenario, with Tim as the Japanese commander, and the Chinese committed to a forward defense of Shangai. This scenario starts with an abbreviated August I (1937) turn, and ends with the Jan II (1938) turn. By eschewing strong drink, and limiting our football viewing, we were able to play through the Dec II turn.

I had studied the logistics rules since our last session, and was much more comfortable allocating resource points and moving them from off map to where they could be used. Chinese engineers were kept busy building forts and repairing rail line hits. The limited rail net moved attack points to the theater headquarters, and strategic river movement was employed to augment the supply effort. As a result, I was able spend less time muddling through  logistics, and more time on operational challenges.

Tim provided plenty of challenges. He quickly exploited a gap in my river defenses, and established an amphibious beachhead threatening my left flank. As a result, I had to pull back forces dug-in in Shangai, abandon my factories (which can create resource points) and establish a main line of resistance (MLR) in the suburbs. This was an important early move, since the Chinese player’s mission is to delay and defend, and Tim’s landing probably cost me at least one turn.

Tim’s operational problems are to utilize naval transport to move troops from Japan to China, while juggling the problems of limited port capacity and possible damage to his landing craft used for ship to shore movement. Taking advantage of the clear weather, smooth seas, and experience gained in our last session, he rapidly built up his combat power and began a series of attacks supported by strong naval gunfire and aviation assets.

The Chinese Airforce attempted to thwart this naval movement and also shoot down Japanese ground support aircraft. Their efforts were futile, and almost every Chinese air unit was eliminated or aborted.

As the methodical Japanese moved west, they encountered successive defensive lines built by engineers augmented with civillian labor. This increased manpower allows the construction of a fort in one turn. With narrow avenues of advance, and four construction capable units, the Chinese forces enjoyed consistent -1 modifiers when attacked. The Chinese defenders were also aided by flooded rice fields, which halved Japanese attack strength. However, by October, the rice growing season had ended, and the impact of intensely cultivated terrain was much reduced.

Tim was able to consistently create high odds attacks, taking advantage of the inability of the Chinese to mass combat power in any single hex. This is a function of the low strength Chinese divisions, and lack of regimental or brigade troops to augment the combat power of the divisions within stacking rules. In addition, the Chinese player has only four (4) artillery units, which I used to support stacks of unsupported divisions, which otherwise would defend at half strength, rather than augment the stronger, supported, divisions.

This attritional combat took a heavy toll on the Chinese, who are unable to rebuild lost supported divisions during this scenario. I didn’t help matters by failing to feed the lower strength elminiated units back into the fighting.

By November, Tim had split my defense, and established a beachhead on the north side of the Yangtze.  He also destroyed my riverine supply capabilities along with their cargo in a devastating aerial attack.  As a result, many of the Chinese units were un-supplied for a turn which, fortunately, did not effect their defensive capabilities.   However, this slowed the Chinese withdrawal north of the Yangtze.  At this point, China’s greatest ally was time.  A patchwork defense in depth  continued to slow the Japanese advance.

The game came down to a final roll of the dice by Tim to activate his two headquarters during the reaction phase of the Dec II turn. Had he made these rolls (1 or 2, d6), he would have had a chance to break through my last ditch defense of Nanking. Fortunately for the Chinese, this didn’t happen.

We’ll never know what the outcome would have been if the game had been played for one more month to the scenario’s conclusion.  Our consensus is that it would have been a toss-up.

Here’s a series of photos to augment my narrative.  I’ll hold off on any analysis until Tim forwards his thoughts on the game.

Initial Japanese Landing by A Corps on Yangtze.
Initial Japanese Landing by A Corps on Yangtze.
Japanese Arrive and Move Into Contact
Japanese Reinforcements Arrive In Shangai and Move Into Contact
Japanese Breakthrough Center, Split Chinese Forces
Japanese Breakthrough Center, Split Chinese Forces
Japanese Penetration Sealed Off
Japanese Penetration Sealed Off
Effect of Naval Patrol Attack on Chinese Supply
Effect of Naval Patrol Attack on Chinese Supply
Situation At Game's End
Situation At Game’s End

Wilson’s Creek – GBACW

Finished up Wilson’s Creek just before I left for the weekend.

Opted for the rules’ historical Union entry points and task organization.  The bulk of General Lyon’s Union army enters from the north, with General Siegel’s reinforced brigade attacking the encamped Confederates from the east.  Here’s a map of the historical battle.

The opening of the game is something.  As soon as Union units are sighted, each Confederate unit has to pass a morale check.  Since many of the Confederate regiments have a morale factor of two (2), and the roll must be equal to or lower in order to pass, things become rather chaotic.  Confederate leaders scurry about trying to  rally routed troops, and then get them moving towards the two Union threats.  The two senior Confederate leaders, McCulloch and Price, cannot cooperate.  So, I had Ben’s brigade, which had the better soldiers, take on the Union main body, and Price try to handle Siegel’s smaller force.

Meanwhile, the Union troops were moving slowly towards the Rebels.  The entire battlefield is covered in brush, which reduces trail movement to a single hex per movement point, and 1/2 movement point if off trail.  No lightning thrust here.  Surprisingly, a number of Confederate militia units on pickett duty survived their initial morale check, and did yeoman work delaying the Union main body.  On top of it, I failed to read and incorporate the special rule that gave the Union forces two (2) extra movement points per turn.  Slowly, and more slowly than they should have, the opposing sides were able to form battle lines and engage.

Siegel's Union Force Engages Confederates
Siegel’s Union Force Engages Confederates
Union Main Body Begins To Deploy As Rallied Confederates Converge To Form A Defensive Line
Union Main Body Begins To Deploy As Rallied Confederates Converge To Form A Defensive Line

The game became a series of firefights, with each side feeding in new troops as they arrived.  Lyon’s main body had moved in column, and took quite some time to fully deploy in the brush.  McCulloch had similar problems, and, given pressure from Lyon’s attempts to envelop, I added some of Price’s regiments to his left flank, even though they could not combine fire against Union targets.  Nonetheless, this was a bloody business, with three (3) brigade commanders killed.

I added to my rules transgressions by consistently misreading the CRT, using the less bloody artillery grapeshot results, rather than the small arms results.  Also, I misinterpreted the P/R result which does not allow the receiving unit to escape either a Pin or Rout through a favorable die roll.  The only mitigating factor was that these mistakes were effecting both sides, and not just one.

By game’s end, Siegel’s force was withdrawing, but not under any pressure from the battered Rebel units.   McCulloch’s brigade was grimly holding the Confederate right, while elements of Price’s forces were slowly giving way on the left.

Federal Main Body In Firefight
Federal Main Body In Firefight

To top it all off, my reading of the victory conditions was flawed.  The Confederates gained VIPs by cutting off Union units from their supply source.  As you can (maybe) see in the photo above, I had Confederate cavalry units poised to envelope Lyon’s left.  Had I done this, perhaps it would not have been a Union victory.

All these screwups aside, a good game, with plenty of tension and lots of replayability due to the variety of entrance hexes for the Union forces as well as the randomness of the Confederate response after sightings.

An alternative historical setup can be found over at the spi.net website.

I want to play a couple more games in this series.  So, once the Airstream unfreezes (temps in single digits here), I’ll get going on Cedar Mountain.

 

 

Stonewall: Battle of Kernstown

Played through my first game of Stonewall: Battle of Kernstown. As stated in my previous post, this 1978 game was the second game to use the Terrible Swift Sword system developed by Richard Berg. The first game was a monster game of the Battle of Gettysburg entitled, strangely enough, Terrible Swift Sword.

While the system rules have gone through a number of permutations, here is quick and dirty overview of the basic rules for the first several games published by Simulations Publications Inc. Each game comes with its own special rules.

Turn Phase Sequence: Initial Command, Movement, Defensive Fire, Offensive Fire, Retreat Before Melee, Melee, Ammunition Resupply, Rally, Final Command.

Movement: Consistent rates for each unit type. Cavalry has mounted/unmounted; Artillery, limbered/unlimbered, Infantry, line/column.

Facing: Used and critical. Limits firing arc, zone of control (ZOC) and rear three hexes allow opponents to fire in enfilade.

Stacking: Limited to 8 strength points, with maximum of two units. Only top unit can fire, or take incoming small arms fire. Both units take incoming artillery fire. Both units count for melee, and both units are pinned when that combat result occurs. If top unit routs, second unit must roll for rout.

Fire Combat: Units can only be fired on once, firing units combine strengths. Artillery fires separately and at half strength against infantry. Line of sight rules are common sense, but beat to death in the rule book. Combat Results Table (CRT) uses firing strength points. Result are loss of strength, pin, or roll for rout.

Zones of Control (ZOC): Infantry, dismounted cavalry and artillery ZOCs extend to three frontal hexsides. Mounted cavalry all six. Supply wagons, and leaders none. Effect withdrawl fire, retreat fire, block both supply and command radius paths.

Withdrawl Fire: Takes place when unit leaves (typically retires before melee) a ZOC. Retreat fire occurs when a unit retreats into a unit’s ZOC.

Ammunition Supply: When small arms units roll to fire, either one (1) or six (6) die roll (depending on game) results in ammunition depletion. Unit cannot fire for rest of game unless re-supplied by a supply wagon (if available). Artillery units have a limited amount of ammunition. Hits on artillery units by other artillery units can explode cassions, resulting in ammunition depletion. Artillery batteries can redistribute ammunition. Infantry/Cavalry cannot.

Melee: Attacking unit ends movement phase in enemy ZOC. Takes fire, then advances into hex in melee phase. Melee CRT uses differential in strength points between units.

Rout: Based on morale rating. Three hexes, reduced movement and combat capabilities.

Rally: By leaders that are within their command radius. An expenditure of one rally rating point.

Brigade Combat Effectiveness (BCE): Each unit has a designated effectiveness strength. If it falls below that designated strength, it’s combat capabilities are dramatically reduced. BCEs are presented as a playing aide in the individual game rules.

Leadership: Units organized by brigade, with designated brigade commander. Brigade commander has an effectivenss rating, or hexes through which he can control his brigade, and a rally rating, which is used to rally units. One rally point rating automatically rallies one unit that is within its effectiveness rating. Divisional commanders have same ratings, but their effectiveness extends to their subordinates.

The game’s scenario is an interesting one. Jackson’s force is outnumbered, and has the mission of moving north from the south edge of the map. His three brigades can enter anywhere along the south edge of the map, east of (inclusive) of the turnpike. Objectives (for victory points) are securing a series of hills north of Kernstown, and/or exiting the map with as many units as possible.

The four Union brigades, while superior in strength, are spread out. An understrength cavalry brigade and an infantry brigade guards the river fords east of Kernstown, one brigade holds Pritchard’s Hill, which commands the town and turnpike providing a direct and rapid route for south-north movement, with another brigade in reserve near the north edge of the map. Here’s a link describing the historical battle.

Of course, I had to try something completely different and, as always, when given the opportunity, attempt to disregard at least one of the Principles of War. In this case, my most aggregious error was ignoring the principle of Mass.

I split the Confederate forces in three. The cavalry brigade was tasked to force the fords to the east, and make a run for the northern map edge. Garnett’s Brigade’s mission was to support the cavalry brigade to its right, force the fords immediately east of town, and advance along the turnpike placing pressure on the Union forces there. The remaining two Rebel brigades, along with Jackson, swung west of Kernstown (not has far west as historically) to outflank the forces on Pritchard’s Hill, to engage and destroy the northernmost Union force. Hopefully, the strong Union force on Pritchard’s Hill could be bypassed, and inflict minimal damage on the bypassing Confederate forces.

It was a Dog Fight.

The Confederate cavalry brigade wore down its weaker opponent, forcing the ford and eventually destroying the Union cavalry brigade. As ordered, it moved to the north.

Garnett’s Brigade engaged in a slugfest with its Union opponents east of Kernstown, forcing the ford, pinning them, while taking long range fire casualties from Pritchard’s Hill. Two Union regiments had the misfortune of suffering ammunition depletion on their very first turn! Resupply did occur, but the supply wagon was captured by the marauding Confederate cavalry brigade. Despite these mishaps, the Union forces stopped Garnett’s advance, with both sides suffering heavy casualties.

Jackson’s two brigade flanking force engaged elements of the Union’s reserve brigade which had moved south to prevent a flanking attack on Pritchard’s Hill. As this fight developed, the advancing Confederate forces were attacked in the flank by units from Pritchard’s Hill, barely beating off these attackers during the melee phase.

After these attacks, which disordered but failed to stop Jackson, the Union forces continued to hold Pritchard’s Hill, with the now depleted Union reserve units beginning a slow withdrawl to their original position, under some pressure from a beat-up Confederate force.

I didn’t go to the effort of counting up victory points, but I’m pretty sure this was, at least, a Union tactical victory.

More thoughts on the game and system in my next post. Have to set up Wilson’s Creek!

War of Resistance – The Other Side Of The Hill

Tim posted up about our WOR session.  As always, astute and spot-on.  Here they are…….

Logistics are a major constraint for both sides. While the Japanese get more resource points than the Chinese, they have to pay RPS to buy extra naval transports and landing craft units. I spent at least one RP per turn for more shipping and still had extra units in Japan at the end of the game. You did a better job of using your HQs for suppy than I did– I kept forgetting that you can use HQs when you are attacking. I should have remembered– the same rule is in March to Victory.

I think we both fell into the old trap of using our air forces for either Ground Support or Defensive Air Support. Looking back, I should have started attacking your railroads sooner, especially the one high volume rail line. I’m not sure what the Chinese should do, but I think it wouldn’t hurt to try some naval patrol missions or port strike attacks. While their bombers aren’t very good making their chances of sinking Japanese naval units pretty small, this isn’t Second Front and the Japanese don’t have very many Naval Repair Points (especially if they are having to repair damanged LCs), so any hits hurt. Attacks on port capacity might be a good idea, too. I know I ran into issues with port capacity.

Weather plays a big role in the game. The rainy weather really hurt you in the Hong Kong scenario and the clear weather helped me. I think in the longer scenarios, the Chinese would be well advised to try to run out the clock until the arrival of the monsoon.

I need to spend some time looking at the interactions of various naval units. The Chinese might be able to use their naval units to impede Japanese movement along rivers.

I think you put too many of your good troops in Shanghai and neglected your flanks. I think it would be worth using your factional or unsupported units in the full or partial city hexes, in the hopes of getting some exchanges and trading easily replaced units for Japanese casualties. Like we talked about, it would be very worthwhile putting some supported units along the rivers to discourage amphibious landings (I also realized after the game that you can’t move along rivers if the enemy controls both sides of the river– I don’t think this would have changed our game).

Having said that, you did do a good job of defending Shanghai. I launched the amphibious invasion because it was going to take a lot of time to dig out your troops. I don’t remember how many factional units you had, but it would have been worthwhile to have left some of them behind in Shangai to act as a rearguard when you pulled out.

Using engineers to negate or reduce negative modifiers for city hexes is really important. As usual, neither side has as many engineers as they would like…

I misunderstood the international concession rules, thinking that the hex was off limits for all combat…It also functions as a port, that would have really helped the Japanese. I don’t know if the Chinese could get enough strength to make an attack on it, but it might be worthwhile to try.

I probably should have landed north of the Yangtse sooner. Opening up a second front helps to stretch the Chinese.

Whampa (the port NE of Shanghai) is a really important hex. I don’t know if you can set up troops in it or if you can use the first turn to move troops to defend it, but making the Japanese fight for it is a good idea. Taking that port really simplified my logistics.

War of Resistance – Hong Kong and Fate of Nanking Scenarios

Tim and I were able to get in three sessions of War of Resistance (WOR) on Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday. It’s amazing how some level of moderation in beer consumption, and  lack of viable evening movie options, can increase the time spent gaming.

We played two sessions of the Attack on Hong Kong scenario, with full Chinese intervention, and one using the Fate of Nanking scenario. I’ll use the “old” spellings throughout.

Hong Kong is referred to as the game’s introductory scenario. That’s true if you have never played the Europa system before. The Fate of Nanking involves all aspects of the Glory rules system used in WOR. I hoped my playing of The Damned Die Hard (TDDH) would prepare me for WOR.   That was not the case, as the supply/logistics,  guerilla, reaction and command rules are far more detailed and extensive than those featured in TDDH.

I played the Japanese in the first session, limiting the forces committed to attacking  Hong Kong to the OB’s designated assault force. Too many troops were allocated to defend the assault force’s flanks and rear from the two Chinese armies situated to the east and north, as well as the guerrillas located to the west. In addition, I left out one attack supply factor, which limited my full strength assault attempts to two (2).  The result was failure to take the city in the time allocated.

We switched sides for the second session. Tim loaded up his assault force and with a successful role for his reaction phase – which allows the non-phasing player to move and attack – during my first turn was able to take Hong Kong in two (2) complete game turns (because of the Reaction Phase and the Japanese player plays first, he had three (3) attack turns). My Chinese attack on his forces to the north had an initial success, but the game was over before they could attack again.

Japanese Take Hong Kong (Why Have I Circled The Wagons in the North?)
Japanese Take Hong Kong (Why Have I Circled The Wagons in the North?)

The Fate of Nanking was another matter.

The Japanese must land, assualt and secure Shangai, and then move west and take Nanking. The Japanese have significant, but management intensive, naval resources. The Chinese player has strong forces near Shanghai, but weaker forces in the Nanking area.

Supply management is critical for the Chinese player, he must juggle the need for attack and general supply, as well as utillizing resource points for construction and repair. This is a typical challenge in Europa.  But in WOR, the very limited number of resource points – which can be converted to attack suppy which, in turn, can be converted to general supply (yes, this is confusing… it confused the hell out of me) – combined with a problematic transportation network, has a direct and significant effect on what the Chinese player can and cannot do. Unless the player is thoroughly comfortable with these rules and their application, a disproportionate amount of time and effort is spent with logistics, with combat operational planning adversely affected.

Guerilla bases and units are another aspect of WOR that is a challenge. While these units were included in both scenarios, we didn’t use them. One reason was that we had our hands full with other aspects of the game. Another was that our games, for the most part, involved urban combat, and guerillas cannot enter cities. As we play longer scenarios, I’m sure we will start using bases to recruit guerillas, for attacking lines of communication.

Reaction can only be used if there is a Army (Japan) or War Zone (Chinese) command unit available. Each Army or War Zone has as command radius, and success die roll. If the die roll is successful, then all units within the command radius can move and fight in the reaction phase. This allows the non-phasing player to maintain momentum generated in his phase of the turn. Tim did an excellent job of applying continual pressure on my units defending Shanghai.

Attack and general supply points can also be stacked with a command unit. This is an effective way of efficiently using supply points, as the ratios needed are far less than the one (1) point per regimental equivalent (RE) typically used. Neither of us consistently took advantage of this capability to improve our logistical support.

With the exception of a small contingent stationed in the international section of Shanghai, all Japanese combat and logistics assets must be transported from Japan to China. The number of naval transports and landing craft vary from turn to turn. In addition, landing craft can be damaged during operations, and removed from further play. Tim said this was a constant concern, and limiting factor, in his operational planning.

I decided to hold Shanghai in strength, which is what happened in 1937. Tim built up combat power in Shanghai and methodically attacked my units at odds of 3:1 or greater.

Initial Chinese Forces
Initial Chinese Forces

 

Stalemate in Shanghai
Stalemate In Shanghai

As the fighting in Shanghai developed into a battle of attrition, Tim launched an amphibious assault along the Yangtze River.  This prompted a long discussion on the rule limitations on naval transport, river movement, and amphibious assault. We’re still thrashing this out.

Amphibious Landing Along The Yangtze
Amphibious Landing Along The Yangtze

The game ended with Tim consolidating and building up his beachhead, and with me starting a fighting withdrawl from Shanghai to the west.

Japanese Advance Along The Yangtze & Chinese Withdraw From Shanghai
Japanese Advance Along The Yangtze Force Chinese Withdrawal From Shanghai

Lots of good game play and challenges. A fun time!  We’re planning another go at the Nanking scenario in early December.

Red Actions! Second Try

Really windy here, gusts up at 30 mph.  Riding out of the question, college football schedule marginal, and World Series doesn’t start until 1700.  Decided to get another game in.  Same scenario, and tactics, but with Reds being more aggressive.

An aggressive wargamer really needs good die rolls.  That happened for the Soviets.

There was the usual push and shove between the Soviet company providing the base of fire and the Chinese regulars entrenched on the ridge.  However, the Soviet Sailor company advanced quickly  out of the woods and effectively attacked the Chinese Conscripts in reserve.

The Conscripts acquitted themselves well, maneuvering when called upon (they consistently rolled higher than two (2)),  shrugging off terror markers like regulars.  However, over time they were pushed back, losing one platoon.

Stolid Conscripts Supporting The Regulars
Stolid Conscripts Supporting The Regulars

With the Chinese Regulars also pushed back, and with two (2) terror markers halving their fire strength, the Soviet Regulars advanced towards the ridge, supported by the Cheka company,  engaging in a firefight with the now weakened Chinese.

Cheka In Support
Cheka In Support

The overwhelmed Chinese had no choice but to conduct a fighting withdrawal, with the retreating Regulars covered by the Conscripts!

Soviet Leadership Comes From The Barrel Of A Gun
Soviet Leadership Comes From The Barrel Of A Gun
Chinese Withdrawl
Chinese Withdrawl

Good and quick game with plenty of action.

Next time, machine guns and artillery.

 

Mission Impossible?

Finished up my last play thru of the Luzon Scenario in The Damned Die Hard. Earlier sessions are described in a previous post. I played this scenario at least six (6) times, and in each playing the Japanese fail to make any appreciable progress towards Manila. Seems ahistorical.

However, there are administrative reasons for the first few failures.  Which is a polite way of saying I displayed some, well, incompetence.

I neglected to thoroughly read the scenario rules. Not the first time this has happened. For the first couple of games I missed the mandatory US setup adjacent to the Japanese lodgment at Lingayen Gulf and then the mandatory two (2) regimental equivalents (RE) “within two (2) hexes of 1718”.  These constraints prevent any initial defense in strength along terrain blocking the axis of advance towards Manila,

OK, tried it again, assuming that “within” was inclusive of 1915. Once again, the Japanese made little progress. However, in the middle of the night it dawned (no pun intended) on me that maybe “within” wasn’t inclusive. In these situations I go to Experten, and the Experten in this case is Tim. His response was that “within” was not inclusive.

OK, tried it again, this time with 2 REs of units back from the MLR. Same bloody result.

OK, tried it again, this time making the assumption that units shown in T/O as “Battalion Groupings” were not “Small Battalions” that have lower RE strengths and reduce possible GS air strikes.  Same damn result.

There are several reasons for this. One, the best odds the Japanese can get are 4:1 on 1915, the hinge of the US defenses. This assumes that none of the Japanese forces are disrupted in the mandatory check before combat. Second, the impact of airpower is minimal since the rules limit ground support (GS) to one unit per two (2) REs, excluding artillery. Given the scale of the game, the Japanese have only 4.5 REs (exclusive of artillery) in their hex. Third, while the Japanese movement advantage in rough translates to a +1 to their die roll, it is negated by the -1 for the rough.  So, it takes a six (6) to blast a hole in the US line.

 

Initial Dispositions - See Next Photo For "Corps" Composition
Initial Dispositions – See Next Photo For “Corps” Composition

 

Corps Composition - OK, It Was Dark And I Was Using My Iphone
Corps Composition – OK, It Was Dark And I Was Using My Iphone

So, why the angst?

A successful disruptive Japanese attack during the first critical turn is highly unlikely.  Any result less than a DE allows the US Reserve Force (two (2) hexes north of Manila) to move up after the attack and plug any gaps as well as reinforce the MLR. The ability of the US player to begin assembling Philippine divisons and a light armor cadre further reduces the chance of any Japanese success.

According to The Fall of the Philippines, the official history of the campaign. The Japanese made significant progress before Jan 1, forcing the US forces to retire to Bataan. I confirmed this in the West Point Atlas of American Wars, which has several maps on the campaign. Based on my experience and reading of the scenario and rules, there is just no way this can happen.

Oh Well……My, My….

All told it was time well spent. I enjoyed the opportunity to really dig into the rules and replay a scenario several times rather than a more typical “one and done”.

I’m hoping this familiarity with The Glory game system will hold me in good stead when I travel to Portland next week to play the Hong Kong Scenario in War of Resistance with Tim.