Yesterday, I played a couple of solo games of scenario A of Combat Commander: Pacific, mainly in order to familiarize myself with the new rules before Randy and I have a game or two on Thursday.

The game is still Combat Commander, but the little tweaks to the system gave quite a different feel to the game. I got to see Japanese infiltration and (American) Air Support in action, and they're interesting additions to the game. Neither proved key to the result in either game, which both ended up in Japanese victories, although the Yanks did better in their second attempt.

Strangely enough, the biggest difference I found in the play of the game was the removal of the Concealment action. There really aren't many cards you can play when you're attacked - especially if you're not in the "Defender" posture. Instead, there are bunches of the Enfilade action which gives bonuses on the attack to larger fire-groups. Not that larger fire-groups are a feature of this first scenario, which is very light on the available troops.

Movement is also greatly restricted, thanks to the horrible grass in the scenario (movement cost 4!) For the US to win, they're going to need to take objective 5, something that their main troops weren't able to even get near. Guerrilla forces? Yes, they helped the US mightily and were especially good at taking out the fortifications of the Japanese. Reconnoiter - one of the new cards - was especially good for this, as it allowed the US to look for high dice values on their card for taking out those pesky bunkers.

The net effect of these changes it to make the game quite a different experience than Combat Commander: Europe. I look forward to playing it on Thursday and seeing how playing against a real live opponent goes!

Basic rundown of the scenario:
An open victory condition makes objective 5 worth 10 VPs. The Japanese begin in control of all five objectives with the Yanks entering from the far side of the map. Most of the terrain in the middle of the map is tall saw-grass, which gives a -3 modifier to firepower through it, and costs a massive 4 MP for each hex.

American forces entered and called for radio back-up (Asset Request) and were lucky enough to be assigned a 105mm OBA. This they used to pound the nearby Japanese outpost whilst their on-board mortar also hit it. Both Japanese outposts couldn't hold out for long, and back in the Japanese bunker, the Japanese officer was beheading his technical staff as their big gun was eliminated (two Asset Denied cards from the Americans).

Guerrilla forces entered and captured the mid-map objectives and then crept around to the Japanese strongholds. Time was growing short, and although they were able to destroy the bunker, they didn't have the firepower to overcome the remaining forces. The scenario ended with the greater bulk of the American troops stuck amongst the saw-grass and hemp fields.

Nice summary and hope you enjoy your game with Randy. A couple of items of the most inconsequential sort...

While the defender has very few cards to play - how did you like the Revive command? Granted some of them are limited (ie Revive-1), but I like the confidence of knowing that I will rally broken units rather than relaying on a die roll.

As for the American advance....they can move a lot faster if they avoid the grass. The high movement cost and lack of cover make the saw grass something I prefer to avoid in this scenario. Those two demerits outweigh the hindrance in my mind. I realize that there are a few open spots on the flanks...just have the smoke ready (or the revives) as you dash across them to close upon the Japanese.

Revive was interesting. Again, it favoured the attack IMO - nothing like being able to revive all your units after a pair of "move" orders.

That grass was everywhere! You had to advance up the left side to avoid it completely, and there was a lot of open ground there. It'll probably be more aggressively prosecuted on Thursday, whoever ends up with the Yanks.

Cheers!

That's true. They will never made it through the grass. The left approach is the only solution. Sure there are some open grounds but that's something the American player can deal with.

You can also advance up the right. There is some grass, but you can get through it.

That's funny.

I don't like the new Revive order for the very same reason that you do: The fact that you can rally any unit under the most difficult circumstances (i.e. a supressed unit with no cover, no leader bonus and in LOS of the enemy) doesn't work for me as well as the old Recover order (that in a way seems more realistic as forces the units to search for cover and/or leader support when rallying).

I've won as the Americans by advancing up the middle, so it's possible!

That being said, I do think the flank approaches are superior.

I am sure you did but I have chosen instinctively the security of the woods .
I didn't like a heavy weapon -and a mg - targeting me. I was lucky and silenced it with 2 assets denied .

Next time I would like to play the Japanese.

Well, we played the first two scenarios last night, (which Merric will likely report about shortly). So, without stealing any of his thunder I think both the scenarios were heavily slanted towards the Japanese.

Sure they may be possible to win as the Americans, but you'd have to be very lucky. Although, I'm sure there are other scenarios slanted the other way.

I don't see any discussion on "Japanese" strategy above, which suggests you don't have to do much to win as the Japanese on this one. It reminds me of the first Memoir '44 Scenario (Pegasus Bridge), which has an 80:20 win ratio (after over 1000 logged plays). Possible to win, but not likely.

I think the general impression formed in this forum over the last few months is that scenario A is harder on the Americans, but definitely winnable and probably a fairly close contest between two players with a lot of CC:P experience. With relatively new players, the record has been heavily slanted in favor of the Japanese (even if the players have good CC:E experience). Whether this counts as "balanced" or not depends on your definition of "balanced"!

I've played A nine times now and think the scenario is close to balanced, with a slight tilt for the Japanese side.

I've only played scenario B once, but it was a complete rout with ANZAC dominating from turn 1 and winning by over 20 points. My one play didn't leave me with any significant impression about play balance of the scenario.

This very same question about balance has come up several times before, most notably about Scenario 20, A March in December. My experience of that scenario (detailed on my blog here, here and here) essentially echoes Drake's comments about scenario A.

I think that this reflects 2 basic features of CC scenarios. First: each scenario is something of a tactical puzzle. The scenarios are all very replayable, but each still has a limited range of solutions to the problems posed by the balance of forces and objectives. And second: some scenarios pose significantly more difficult problems for one side than the other.

In my experience, obvious tactics is what most often confounds players when first faced with these novel tactical problems. That is to say: success depends on breaking the familiar rules of how to conduct your engagements. This is not something you have to do blindly, because the scenario special rules usually hint at the solutions.

In the present case, I would say that the obvious tactic to be avoided is the decision to take the easy route up each flank. This tactic is doubly obvious because of both the terrain and the reinforcements. I've already noted that I think this tactic is a mistake. I'd have to add that hard-won experience has led me to the conclusion that the cover on the flanks of CC maps is often a trap for an unwary commander. It's almost as if Chad and his team have designed things this way!


Yes, you can't judge a scenario's balance from 1 game, however overwhelming a victory it might've been. Not only are more data points needed by defintion, there is also the matter of the learning curve, as I have tried to explain. Your experience of scenario A shows that this can level out the balance after a few games. (Can you recognise a man who needs another game of CC, and quickly?!)

Yah, me too. Fortunately I recently infected, er, taught the game to a local friend and I get to play tomorrow night

I think scenario A favors the Japanese but I'm sure it's not 80-20.

I recently got in 4 games of scenario A (details @RD/KA!). The learning curve was obvious. And I think I take back my comments about going up the centre. The battalion gun would just slaughter GI's with no cover. And my opponent's play of the Americans demonstrates exactly the tactics Richard suggests.

Fun read John. Hard to relate to my various plays of Scenario A due to the very-different Japanese strategy you two adopted. Exciting!

Thanks for your kind words Drake. The forward defence is definitely viable for the Japanese in this scenario although, as the last game in particular showed, the outflanking guerillas can make life difficult for the Japanese covering the crucial objective 5. I'd probably try sitting further back another time just to see how it works out.