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

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)

Great looking table.

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.

Really enjoy these AAR's. Following fanatically!

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

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

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!

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.

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.