Working on Infiltration Tactics

The days here are numbered (it's down to just 7). I only have one game left that I plan to get in (and hopefully log) over the span of a single day before I head overseas, so I'm really coming down to the wire here. I pulled out my copy of OCS Burma I last week, however, and I have to say, as far as adopting new doctrines, this one sure gave me a heck of a challenge. 

I set up short scenario #4 (which I will revisit in time) and it was readily apparent that my typical skillset for war games would not be compatible with the Japanese position in this scenario, let alone theater. After a careful read of the rules more than once, it's obvious how the Japanese players have to lean into the belligerent's infiltration doctrine if they have any hopes of pulling off a victory. As several "balls-to-the-wall" turns can attest to, my preference for amassing fire doesn't sit well with the options available to the Japanese.

In scenario #4, the Japanese have to stave off efforts by the Commonwealth forces to reopen the road to Imphal, which is cut off from the Allied supply source. Assuming a defensive posture for the Japanese is, I assume after one failed attempt, the stance to take, especially while trying to grasp the challenge of supply. I suppose exceptions, again only as they pertain to this particular scenario, are to be made where the Japanese grasp on the all-weather road to Imphal is at risk of being loosened and a diversionary effort elsewhere in the mountains north of the city needs to be made to retain control of the road. 

The risk of forage is also tricky to navigate and I'll probably try to follow other notes that I can find on how OCS players grapple with the Japanese forces in OCS Burma. 

Early action in the scenario in the Imphal sector -- the only successful banzai cut off elements of the 17th. Efforts to take Imphal by storm, though, were rebuffed.

One of the other issues that I found is that it doesn't seem like the Japanese forces converging on Imphal, at least in this scenario, are best deployed, except for maybe infiltration -- I suppose emphasis on infiltration and skirting around otherwise impassible avenues of attack is great for cutting off supply and forcing defenders to give up ground, but at the cost of otherwise preferable avenues of attack for more direct, obstacle-busting offensive doctrines. If I play this scenario again, for instance, I'll pay the high supply costs of moving the armor early to move them off of the south edge and bring them back on at Hengtam to take the advance along the west side of Logtak Lake instead of east towards Palel where the 20th and 23rd Indian Divisions are better entrenched. If the Japanese 33rd Division can keep the 17th Indians at bay for 3 turns, a combined infiltration-armor assault on Imphal from the SW might apply better pressure on the Indians. 

The attack west of Lake Togtak abandoned.

Of course, I didn't do any of this in my first few turns of this scenario. Instead, I slammed Sato's 31st Division into the relieve force occupying Kohima to Imphal's north which provided little in the way of keeping Imphal cut off. Within 3-4 turns, the road to Imphal was open and I'd lost half of the 31st and 33rd Divisions, primarily to the dogged efforts of the mixed British forces available in the scenario under the British IV Corps HQ, the air force out of Ledo, Cowan's 17th Indian Division, and a blind desire to test out the banzai mechanics. What I will say, though, is that commanding lots of 5 AR battalions is a lot of fun.

Needless to say, I played this a little too quickly, a little too recklessly, and with little concept of how OCS Burma should be played. I don't know when I'll find the time, but I'll be damned if Burma doesn't make it with me over to Heidelberg for the next several years. So, we'll be seeing more of this OCS title in time.

Turmoil, Turmoil Everywhere

I recently played two back-to-back games of Europe in Turmoil I to get a feel for the game's mechanics. I made some mistakes, so after getting through the trial run, I had the brilliant idea to play Europe in Turmoil I, followed by Europe in Turmoil II and then stitch together the narrative. I still made one or two minor mistakes in Prelude to the Great War, but none were uncorrectable. The final verdict: an enjoyable experience. Very refreshing from the usual war games on which I tend to spend the bulk of my time.

Prelude to the Great War

The Authoritarians had the upper hand early on in Prelude to the Great War, with a firm hold on Austria-Hungary and Germany. In fact, most of the European Monarchies were firmly within the Authoritarian's control. This was particularly the case in Russia, where Czar Nicholas II remained a firm supporter of the right-wing faction while Liberal hotbeds in St. Petersburg and Siberia were never snuffed out. Moscow routinely oscillated back and forth between Liberal and Authoritarian control. The rest of Nicholas's empire slowly turned Liberal. France went through a few successive waves of Authoritarian control, but too many liberal ideas flourished out of Paris to let the right-wing faction stay in power for long. By game end, the French Catholics were completely discredited and a majority of the conservative French officer corps liberalized too. 

Importantly, too, the Balkans were firmly within the Liberals' grasp the entire game as well. Significant efforts were made to flip control of Serbia and Bosnia, but both were failed attempts on the part of the Authoritarians.

Near game end, Franz Ferdinand's efforts to keep tension at bay -- while the Habsburgs had a strong hold on Vienna and Budapest -- were still largely successful. Authoritarian control of the North African colonies and alliances with the Swiss industrialists had them poised to come out on top during any soon-to-be conflicts. Their loss of wholesale Swiss support, however, proved disastrous at the outbreak of war, caused by the overthrow of the government in Moscow. Franz Ferdinand and Sophie were not, ultimately, assassinated, but they did live to witness the end of the Habsburg monarchy. With Russia out of the game, the conflict came down to France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, and Great Britain. With Italy firmly on the side of the Liberals, it was a blowout once the die were cast. Liberals rolled a 6, Authoritarians a 1. 

Europe at the end of the Great War.

Without a Schlieffen plan to follow (not that one was actually needed with Russia out of the picture), the Authoritarians were decidedly defeated in detail, but entrenched so effectively as they were in Central Europe, it was a tie at game end. Having won the Great War, the Liberals barely managed to effect a pyrrhic victory. This set the stage for the Interbellum period.

The Interbellum

The seeds of dissatisfaction and dissent were strong and the roaring twenties were punctuated by the popular rise of fascist movements in Great Britain, Italy, and Spain. With these early successes, the right-wing parties of Europe waged an effective campaign of international fascist socialization. Working to secure strong party support in Rome, London, and the political-social circles in Spain and also France, the right-wing factions were incredibly successful operating under the radar early on.

Left-wing support was overwhelming to start in a defeated, Weimar Germany, the USSR, and eastern Europe. As the game progressed, their support spread to Scandinavia and fought to regain strongholds in France -- something about those French Catholics seem strangely uber-conservative. At any rate, the left-wing factions and communists were on the retreat for some time in Germany and France. Early scoring in the Little Entente and France (once the left-wing was assured domination) did help score important early points. 

Their inability to regain control of Italy and the UK was a persistent problem. Luckily, due to a more reticent fascist foreign policy, the left-wing factions did manage to force Germany to abandon plans to rebuild their army to WW1 strengths (those efforts with the Germany Navy and Air Force were not so successful) and just as similarly, before the evacuation of the Rhineland, the liberals across Europe -- much a result of FDR's urging -- enacted a policy of active interventionism. This led to guarantees to protect Poland once the fascist Lebensraum doctrine was published. (Stalin's betrayal of Poland later rendered Poland's guarantee of security and utility to the left-wing factions of Europe null and void).

Following the collapse of Weimar and the '33 election, Hitler took the reins of government from the Reichstag but importantly operated with more reticence than the fascists expected. He forced a more moderate form of government. There was no military adventurism, no Anschluss, no annexation, no "incidents", nothing. The effect was superb. With no Fascist Duce in Rome, the Germans in Berlin represented a more measured and calculated (and thereby terrifying) form of fascist government. The result? More stable government than what the communists offered. 

In the USSR, Joseph Stalin's direction of all left-wing strategy proved (eventually) disastrous. Spain was gradually transformed into a communist bastion that never returned to the fascists and their control of the Little Entente was also assured, but the number of extremists in government was eventually nothing more than a double-edged sword. To make matters worse, the USSR's rearmament program was squandered once the officer corps was purged and the only other country with enough military build-up to counter to fascists in Germany was the UK, who were so swept up by the promises of Oswald Mosely that the northern left-wing factions never stood a chance of uniting the commonwealth. 

The Rearmament and Events Tracks at the onset of WW2.

It was the liberal boycott of the Berlin games, led by Stalin from Moscow, that touched off the second world war. When all was said and done, and the sanctions calculated, the VP score total was 0. With a more moderate government in power than their left-wing counterparts, the right-wing fascists managed to sneak in a victory. 

Game End -- Victory to the Right-Wing factions (not what we're looking for at all these days).

All-in-all, this was a great experience. It was clear in the first game that the Liberals were going to win, but the Interbellum game had a lot more to it that was up in the air.