On April 5, Matt Geisler wrote:

In a second playtest, I used a scenario for the invasion of Japan (now on my web page).

Note: All of you really must check this one out . . .

One additional rule which I thought appropriate for this scenario was that Naval invasions should be treated the same way as Ground attacks. I allowed 2 blocks to attack across every full-sea hexside. I may write a proviso that Naval combatants in a ground support role may only attack in conjunction with a marine unit. Thus either 2 marines, or a marine and a Naval combatant may attack across each all sea hexside. This makes it possible to have the pile-on attacks like Normandy made on certian hexes with a lot of sea-frontage. Other hexes (say in fijords or bays) are not as easily accessable (having only 1 all sea hexside), and thus have a natural defensive advantage against sea invasion (like Galipoli).

The scenario went quite well, including a lot of hopeless (though historically accurate) japanese BANZAI attacks, where a bunch of 2 strength units would gang up on a landing hex, piling up to 6 ground units in an offensive. These would be quickly broken up by naval gunfire and air units (hardly any attack had more than 6CV after the air/naval segments). The scenario also showed how effective long range airpower is in removing the third echelon, and thus limiting counterattacks. In the final accounting, even though every japanese unit had to be destroyed, the US losses were nothing like those predicted by the post-bomb government.

Matt

Back to the Victory Playtest Page