Battle of Anegawa

Post Reply
fitzpatv
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 7:54 pm

Battle of Anegawa

Post by fitzpatv » Sun Apr 02, 2017 9:13 pm

There are two versions of this scenario, allowing both sides to be played. A 50-unit host of the Nobunaga clan attacks a smaller Asai army across a river on one side of the board. On the other, Nobunaga's ally, Ieyasu Tokugawa, must defend across the same(Anegawa) river against a larger Asakura army allied to the Asai. Whichever side makes its numerical advantage count first can send troops to assists its beleagured allies and, probably, win the day.

Playing as the Asakura, it is relatively straightforward to defeat Ieyasu (don't know how he survived historically if this is accurate). Defending on the left is rather more fraught. As there's no terrain advantage anywhere else, I made a stand at the river. The Nobunaga missile troops proved quite effective and my left flank was vulnerable to a turning move. Nevertheless, it was probably the best option and, despite an eventual collapse on the left, reinforcements arrived from the other action and proved decisive. A 59-33 win first-time.

Both sides suffer from the restrictive command and control rules, with numerous units less effective if they move away from their Honjin command tent, which is immobile. A hazard when defending is having pursuing units running into the midst of the enemy army, whereupon the AI gleefully flank attacks them to death - it' s hard to do anything about this and the rules should allow the player more control in this respect (either no pursuit into tiles which can be flank-attacked or give the player a choice over where to move within a defined range of tiles). It's also irritating to be subject to disruption checks when attempting to pull back sensibly from a superior force.

Playing the Nobunaga side, you must win by a 31-point margin (or by scoring 60), while keeping losses to 37 or less. I withdrew the Tokugawa force on the left, abandoning the Honjin (which the AI obligingly left alone). Considered defending a hill in the no-man's land in the centre, but judged I'd still be at a disadvantage and was better concentrating forces, preferably within control range of Nobunaga's Honjin (8 tiles - BTW why doesn't the game use hexes ?).

Tried to keep the main force in its divisional command structure. Sent one large division to hold the line of the river, two around the Asai flank to the right and another large one to protect the left and reinforce the Tokugawa troops. That left a reserve, reporting directly to Nobunaga, which also got involved in support of the Tokugawa.

Holding the river wasn't straightforward against the strong enemy heavy yari samurai and it proved awkward to defend where I'd planned on the left (due to movement mechanics), leaving some units fighting up the right side of the hill. In the end, the flank move on the far right proved decisive and I was able to roll-up the Asai clan army while holding on elsewhere, for a 50-18 win.

I found both legs of this scenario more than a little stressful, as there's rarely any feeling of being in control.

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22737
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Battle of Anegawa

Post by rbodleyscott » Mon Apr 03, 2017 6:42 am

fitzpatv wrote:(8 tiles - BTW why doesn't the game use hexes ?).
Hexes are a hangover from board wargames, where they were originally used mainly because when using squares diagonal moves are nearly 1.5 times as long as straight moves. Most early computer wargames were developed by board wargamers, who were used to hexes, and this trend has continued largely through force of habit. They aren't really needed in computer games because the computer can adjust for diagonal moves.

Battlefield formations, especially chequerboard formations, look more realistic on squares.

Having 8 directions is more flexible than 6.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”