CoC Bunker Busting on Nunshigum Ridge mini campaign (updated 14 10 24)

[TacticalPainter]

We've made a few tweaks to the second scenario which we think make a difference and allow the British a more reasonable chance of success. It was quite the vicious game in the end. Full AAR here: http://thetacticalpainter.blogspot.com/2024/09/bunker-busting-on-nunshigum-ridge.html

[brunei35]

Enjoyable read as always - thanks for taking the time to post.

[Belligerentparrot]

Great report as always! Those Japanese are proving very difficult to dislodge.

A quick question: how is the Japanese player finding things? You convey the sense that the British are up against it - this is a hard scenario for them to win. The flipside of that should be your opponent going into the scenario feeling confident that he can get the win. But is that the case? Without knowing all the details, it looks like the British have some very useful advantages (armour, semi-automatic weapons, for example), so I'm wondering if your opponent is also feeling somewhat up against it - does he plan feeling confident for a win, or does he plan feeling that he's going to need a misstep from you (or some unusually good luck with the CoC dice) to get away with a win?

[TacticalPainter]

A quick question: how is the Japanese player finding things? You convey the sense that the British are up against it - this is a hard scenario for them to win. The flipside of that should be your opponent going into the scenario feeling confident that he can get the win. But is that the case?

Keep in mind this is a play test, so we are trying to work out what is or isn’t possible to achieve. This scenario links the two bunker busting scenarios together and is intended as a game where the Japanese player has other options other than hunkering down and holding a defensive position. Historically they mounted a series of counterattacks aiming for the tanks and had some success. I wanted to give the Japanese player scope to play aggressively and have some fun mounting those attacks. They shouldn’t expect to win these games necessarily it’s more about inflicting as much damage as possible to limit the forces the British have available for the final table. In this context Japanese casualties are irrelevant, the survivors of this table don’t fall back to the next one, so all Dave is doing is waiting for the optimum moment to attack and then do as much damage as he can.

[Belligerentparrot]

Thanks for the reply, yes that makes a lot of sense. In asking my question I'd sort of lost sight of the wider picture, getting immersed in the specific scenario.

From the reports the scenario certainly seems to work as far as giving the Japanese player aggressive options. That moment in the last game when the tank went up in smoke and then all hell broke loose was a great cinematic moment, as well as being historically apt.

Looking forward to the next report 

[.:Gunslinger:.]

Absolute nailbaiter once again! I really thought all the balancing changes in favour of the British would make a significant difference...

It shows well how difficult such operation must have been to conduct in real life, between terribly tough terrain, confusion, ambushes and ruses.

[jon_1066]

Great reports but … the British seemed to try the same thing each time.  Lead with the tank and close rapidly with infantry to put them in close assault range of fresh Japanese sections.

[CapnJim]

Dang.  So close, yet so far for the British...

[TacticalPainter]

Great reports but … the British seemed to try the same thing each time.  Lead with the tank and close rapidly with infantry to put them in close assault range of fresh Japanese sections.

It the danger of reporting a play test. My intention is this scenario would be played once or twice, certainly no more. It’s designed to be an interlude between two bunker busting games where the Japanese player has an opportunity to counterattack. Historically the British had little choice but to escort the tanks along the ridge spine, so tactical choices are quite limited. I guess our testing has been to see how feasible this is as a game and obviously it’s required a few changes. It’s not intended to be played this many times but we decided we would just share the journey on the blog regardless.

[Ragnar]

This is such an interesting looking PSC.  I will enjoy seeing it unfold and maybe playing it one day.

[jon_1066]

It the danger of reporting a play test. My intention is this scenario would be played once or twice, certainly no more. It’s designed to be an interlude between two bunker busting games where the Japanese player has an opportunity to counterattack. Historically the British had little choice but to escort the tanks along the ridge spine, so tactical choices are quite limited. I guess our testing has been to see how feasible this is as a game and obviously it’s required a few changes. It’s not intended to be played this many times but we decided we would just share the journey on the blog regardless.

Are there no other possible tactics?  Eg lead with infantry, select mortars, mmg base of fire?

[TacticalPainter]

Are there no other possible tactics?  Eg lead with infantry, select mortars, mmg base of fire?

Oh certainly, although historically no MMGs were present. We are adding a free pregame barrage and a few other tweaks. Certainly my tactics have been a bit flakey - letting the tanks get too far ahead of the infantry being one of them and that's given a sense of deja vu to the games. We're moving on to the final scenario next so won't play this one again.

[TacticalPainter]

We reach the final map and I think this is the real test - does the campaign work and have we fully grasped the bunker rules in the FE Handbook. Many lessons learned (often the hard way) which I try to summarise toward the end of the article. The full report is here http://thetacticalpainter.blogspot.com/2024/10/bunker-busting-on-nunshigum-ridge.html

[jon_1066]

Another great AAR.  I think you should swap sides for your next test game.  You will both have gained insights playing as the opposition and it will also allow you to test if it is unbalanced or just simply Dave might be better at the game

In terms of the attack you managed to force him to deploy but thereafter it all went wrong.  You need to isolate each Japanese section in turn and concentrate all your force on that.  The smoke will help and careful positioning of your JoPs and sight lines from the cover of the trees.  Also what is the line of sight rules for the trees?  Having a handy route to run away out of sight is always very useful if a section is caught in a losing firefight.

Is a mortar barrage an option in this game?  Whilst it won't hurt the occupants of the bunkers it will again help isolate them to be defeated in detail.

I would also focus on the more exposed sections that are deployed, ie the ones in hard cover.  Tanks firing at them should pile up shock if nothing else.

One other idea is change it to 6ft wide by 4ft long.  This will give the Japanese more frontage to cover and allow more ability to outflank and manouevre for the British.  Ultimately their main advantage is mobility, having it as an attack down the table restricts that dramatically..

[Belligerentparrot]

Fantastic read once again, as you can tell I've got quite invested in this campaign. Also, dunno if I remember saying this earlier, but what a lovely looking table.

What you say about the correct British approach to take sounds promising. To politely disagree with Jon above, there is something to be said for playing longways. It is a nice way of modelling how the Japanese, as a general rule, got pretty good at setting up mutually supporting positions that restricted possible lines of attack. As I was thinking of the scenario, in the wider picture there is another well-set-up complex of bunkers either side of the complex on the table - go too far either side and the British walk into another trap.

Also, to politely disagree with someone commenting on your blog, the higher Japanese morale looks right to me. I guess it depends what you want morale to model. Overall, yes, the British were in the ascendency and confident and the Japanese resigned and starving. But on the actual morning of the engagement, I imagine Japanese morale would have been high - "Finally, this is the moment we've been waiting for!" sort of thing - and the morale of the British perhaps lower, "Oh no, here we have to go again" sort of thing. Confidence that overall victory is assured is not the same as confidence that you'll survive the task in front of you.

Finally, and sorry for waffling, I wondered if there was something in the structure of the campaign that favoured the Japanese. Can't really explain this thought very well, but here goes. From the Allied perspective, you could imagine a nice three game campaign for e.g. Peleliu: beach, airfield, ridges, where what happens at each stage has some effect on what could happen later. But from the Japanese perspective, at least if they follow the historical option and concentrate force in what they think as the optimal location, it isn't quite like that, is it? Only the last of those games is important. It sort of looked like Dave had done that here. Does that unbalance things, because the Japanese can choose to pack the final table in a way that makes it fiendishly difficult without sacrificing anything in overall campaign terms?