You are not logged in.

#1 07-Apr-2015 22:35:53

hammurabi70
Major
Registered: 01-Aug-2014
Posts: 337

Pacific Islands

I have seen very few games on the USMC campaign invading the Pacific Islands.  Does anyone have recommendations on rules or games dealing with the ground combat on this subject?


If you are such a great writer make me want to logon and respond! [Adapted]

Offline

#2 07-Apr-2015 23:53:34

deephorse
Corporal
Registered: 09-Nov-2014
Posts: 11

Re: Pacific Islands

Here's something you might find useful.  Posted on TMP.  I'm not interested in that theatre so haven't read his blog and therefore cannot say how good it is.  Sounds like he put a lot of work into it though.

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=377488

Offline

#3 08-Apr-2015 06:57:54

Fire-at-Will
Lieutenant Colonel
From: Chester, UK
Registered: 16-Mar-2012
Posts: 585
Website

Re: Pacific Islands

Crossfire perhaps


What's the point of doing one period, when you can do them all..........  In life most people specialise so gradually they know more and more about less and less so eventually they know everything about nothing.  I work on a broad front so eventually I'll know nothing about everything.

Offline

#4 10-Apr-2015 10:40:42

Dice Rustler
Warrant Officer
Registered: 29-Mar-2012
Posts: 126

Re: Pacific Islands

The one time I played this period we used Crossfire, which worked quite well, although as usual you need to think carefully about the terrain for these rules. Otherwise trying to reproduce this sort of island combat can produce a rather dull game due to the attritional nature of the fighting, i.e. minimal maneuvering, with lots of heavy firepower required to make any progress etc.

The most satisfying game of jungle warfare I've ever played made use of a small map area over which the battle took place in a form of mini-campaign. The players plotted the moves of their units on their own maps, and the umpire gave them details of any sightings or contact etc. Thus we were able to use hidden movement, outflank, and even spring the odd ambush, bringing the game to a successful close by the end of the club meeting. I've tried this in WW2 and Vietnam, the only issue being that when one side is in fixed positions there is a danger of no-one making any contact, and so the umpire has to 'intervene'!

Bernard

Offline

#5 16-Apr-2015 22:19:22

hammurabi70
Major
Registered: 01-Aug-2014
Posts: 337

Re: Pacific Islands

Seems like a neglected topic then.


If you are such a great writer make me want to logon and respond! [Adapted]

Offline

#6 24-Apr-2015 10:31:31

GregP
Colonel
Registered: 15-Dec-2014
Posts: 613

Re: Pacific Islands

I have kept looking at this as a scenario, and bought and read a lot of books on the subject. It is a tough one to write rules for, or rather rule mechanisms for, (any rule set will give you the nuts and bolts of firing and movement), but the very hidden nature of the Japanese, their ability to resurface on cleared positions, the morale issues for attacker and defender, the awesome firepower of the US etc are not easy to replicate. For what it is worth I think this has to be a solo game, with the Japanese being a 'programmed' force, and I suspect the tabletop will have to be a little 'artificial' or 'representational', if I ever manage to 'square the circle' on this one you guys will be the first to know!

Offline

#7 03-Oct-2017 20:11:47

hammurabi70
Major
Registered: 01-Aug-2014
Posts: 337

Re: Pacific Islands

I suspect the difficulty to be resolved is how to represent the choices of the Japanese in a way that they can win while losing from a conventional western viewpoint.


If you are such a great writer make me want to logon and respond! [Adapted]

Offline

#8 06-Oct-2017 11:57:04

GregP
Colonel
Registered: 15-Dec-2014
Posts: 613

Re: Pacific Islands

hammurabi70 wrote:

I suspect the difficulty to be resolved is how to represent the choices of the Japanese in a way that they can win while losing from a conventional western viewpoint.

I agree, but the problem is the Japanese just do not seem to have been bothered about winning from any viewpoint. Certainly 'delay' was an objective for them, so you could say that anything over a certain game length is a strategic victory, but my own thinking would be to have the Japanese as either a solo controlled, or umpire controlled force. The game then would be to see which 'American' player can make the most progress in a set time as what is interesting is how many US Commanders were sacked even as late as Okinawa for failing to make sufficient progress.

Offline

#9 06-Oct-2017 13:53:14

hammurabi70
Major
Registered: 01-Aug-2014
Posts: 337

Re: Pacific Islands

GregP wrote:

I agree, but the problem is the Japanese just do not seem to have been bothered about winning from any viewpoint.

At Iwo Jima the Americans suffered more casualties than the Japanese, albeit almost all KIA while the former included many WIA.  Nevertheless, it is widely seen as a 'success' that finished with a highly effective BANZAI attack that included the defending commander (who had banned them as a standard defence mechanism).  Time might indeed be a factor given the defence held for 36 days when the American expectation was 5 days.

Key elements:
(1) Casualties but with an element of including wounding that many rules miss
(2) Honourable conduct Bushido style
(3) Time

I know of no rules that has cracked the conundrum.


If you are such a great writer make me want to logon and respond! [Adapted]

Offline

#10 06-Oct-2017 16:21:32

GregP
Colonel
Registered: 15-Dec-2014
Posts: 613

Re: Pacific Islands

hammurabi70 wrote:
GregP wrote:

I agree, but the problem is the Japanese just do not seem to have been bothered about winning from any viewpoint.

At Iwo Jima the Americans suffered more casualties than the Japanese, albeit almost all KIA while the former included many WIA.  Nevertheless, it is widely seen as a 'success' that finished with a highly effective BANZAI attack that included the defending commander (who had banned them as a standard defence mechanism).  Time might indeed be a factor given the defence held for 36 days when the American expectation was 5 days.

Key elements:
(1) Casualties but with an element of including wounding that many rules miss
(2) Honourable conduct Bushido style
(3) Time

I know of no rules that has cracked the conundrum.

I like where your going with this, US WIA counting the same as Japanese KIA for victory points would work well, time we agree is an obvious factor, and Bushido could be almost a 'Role playing' style factor, but as you say I know of no rules that have even tried to start covering this type of scenario, unyet there are almost as many ranges of Japs and US Marines as WW2 Germans available!

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB