Help support TMP


"CoC Last Stand on Opium Hill Scenario 3 (one more time)" Topic


9 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please don't make fun of others' membernames.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the WWII in the Pacific Message Board

Back to the 20mm WWII Message Board

Back to the WWII Battle Reports Message Board


Areas of Interest

World War Two on the Land
World War Two at Sea
World War Two in the Air

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Ruleset

Panzer


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Showcase Article

Victory as a Campaign System

Can a WWII blockgame find happiness as a miniatures campaign system?


Featured Profile Article

War at Sea First Game

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian tries the naval wargame in the Axis & Allies series.


Featured Movie Review


873 hits since 12 Nov 2020
©1994-2021 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?


TMP logo

Zardoz

Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
TacticalPainter0112 Nov 2020 7:53 p.m. PST

Here we go again. The Japanese return to Map 3 after being rebuffed in no uncertain terms by the doughty Malays in the last game. This is the fourth game in our Chain of Command campaign 'Last Stand on Opium Hill' published in Wargames, Soldiers and Strategy Magazine (issue 101). The full AAR is here: Last Stand on Opium Hill Scenario 3 (one more time)

picture

picture

picture

picture

saltflats192912 Nov 2020 9:01 p.m. PST

Great looking table.

BillyNM13 Nov 2020 3:58 a.m. PST

Great AAR as ever. The Japanese managed to apply overwhelming force pretty quick this time around – pulling out while the going was good was right call and the reason why campaign games are more satisfying than one off fights when there's no reason not to fight on. Eagerly anticipating the next clash.

lclapp13 Nov 2020 8:39 a.m. PST

Really enjoy these AAR's. Following fanatically!

Huscarle13 Nov 2020 12:18 p.m. PST

Good AAR, but I would have said if you left the flamethrower at home, then you wouldn't have it available to use grin

Personal logo Stosstruppen Supporting Member of TMP14 Nov 2020 7:07 a.m. PST

I had not seen the previous posts. A pleasure to read the whole campaign thus far. Some nice back and forth action.

TacticalPainter0114 Nov 2020 2:18 p.m. PST

Good AAR, but I would have said if you left the flamethrower at home, then you wouldn't have it available to use grin

LOL, Dave jokingly said the same thing, but seeing as all the terrain and figures are mine I told him he didn't have a leg to stand on!

TacticalPainter0114 Nov 2020 2:26 p.m. PST

Great AAR as ever. The Japanese managed to apply overwhelming force pretty quick this time around pulling out while the going was good was right call and the reason why campaign games are more satisfying than one off fights when there's no reason not to fight on. Eagerly anticipating the next clash.

Thanks. One criticism I've heard of the CoC scenarios is that they essentially pit one platoon against another and aside from a slight advantage in supports the attacker/defender ratio is a very unfavourable 1:1. However given players start hidden I think the attacker should always try to deploy in a way that they can apply superior numbers at a key point. That was certainly my aim here. Someone in another forum asked why I didn't use the flamethrower on the pillbox, but as I had flanked it that struck me as a diversion of firepower when my aim was to overwhelm the two infantry sections. Of course it's not always possible to concentrate like this but I think it should be the aim, especially when there is no viable option to manoeuvre the enemy from the position.

BillyNM16 Nov 2020 8:04 a.m. PST

I agree, there's also a limit to how much force you can apply simultaneously against a single platoon so the reinforcement / replacement rules effectively produce that concentration of force. The last campaign was classic case of that where the US could ignore the build up in casualties starting with a fresh platoon every time.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.