Guadalcanal: Jungle Rules

[armyduck95]

"Never let doctrine get in the way of clear thinking" - Army Planner's Axiom

Guys, admittedly AP failed to clearly say Jungle was limiting terrain per 8.2 in Guadalcanal rules. However, never let the rules get in the way of common sense in ALL ways, a Jungle is a Forest and hence will follow the same rules, Except as modified in the TEC (it is darker and thicker - hex 1 hex spot)

Personally - I never understood why AP base rules do not allow digging-in a forest or even a town. Believe me, as a Soldier, there is no problem in finding ways to improve cover and concealment in ANY terrain feature.... but I digress.

Luckily SAIPAN, as the latest Pacific Release, clarifies Jungle Rules (thanks Jay Townsend) much better and this should be used to clarify Guadalcanal. I have retyped here for Guad players to have the latest updates to the TEC.

Page 2, Saipan Special Rules - Jungle
"Spotting: Jungle blocks line of sight per 8.3. Jungle hexes are limiting terrain per 8.2, except units occupying a jungle hex cannot be spotted by enemy units more than one hex away. A leader in a jungle hex can only act as a leader to friendly unit and subordinate leaders that are in the same hex with him. Also, a leader who is not in a jungle hex cannot act as a leader to friendly units or subordinate leaders in adjacent jungle hexes. Units in a jungle hex without a friendly leader are leaderless for all purposes. Treat jungle as a 20-meter obstacle.

"Movement: The thick jungle proved quite a hazard to timely and accurate land navigation. Whenever a unit or leader moves from one jungle non-road/trail hex to another, and the move does originate adjacent to an enemy nor will the move place it adjacent to an enemy, the owning player rolss one die. On a result of 1-3 the move to the desired hex takes place; on a result of 4 it moves to the left of the intended hex; on a result of 5 it moves to the right of the intended hex. on a result of 6 the unit expends the MP for the move, but stays in the same hex. This procedure most be followed for each jungle hex into which the unit moves. Units that activate together in the same hex (not adjacent) may, at the player's option, all be affected by the same die rolls (the player must notify their opponent of his prior to rolling the die).

"The MP costs to enter a jungle hex while not moving on a road or trail are Foot 2, Mechanized 4, and Motorized Prohibited. In addition, each time a mechanized vehicle enters a jungle hex while not moving along a trail (Errata NOTE: does not say, but I believe implies a Road too), the owning player rolls one die (roll for each vehicle unit separately). On a result of 1 or 2 the unit suffers a step loss, must move back to the hex it just exited, ceases movement, and is marked with MOVED/FIRED. On a result of 3 or 4 the unit must move back to the hex it just exited, ceases movement, and is marked MOVED/FIRED. On a result of 5 or 6 there is no effect.

"Combat: Direct Fire and Bombardment Fire targeted a jungle hexes suffer a -1 column modifier, and attacks on the Assault Table that take place in jungle hexes suffer a -1 column modifier. Units cannot ig In (16.2) in jungle hexes."

(RULES QUESTION: SAIPAN rules DO NOT say defender occupying Jungle gets First Fire in assault. This is different from Guadalcanal. Is this a purposeful omission or error? - I will add that as a separate rules question. Because I can see two arguments.
1. Per my earlier common sense - jungles are woods and keep the same rules; it is defensive terrain that gives benefit to defender to shoot first against assaulters and should follow same rules as woods in this regard.
2. Counter argument; Per the nature of jungle and the thick and limited LOS- an assaulter can get in very close and infiltrate to negate "First Fire" Benefits. It happened constantly, and the Japanese were adept at it - early on in the war.

[Brett Nicholson]

I understand that perhaps the reasoning for prohibiting units from digging in town, woods and entrenchments is that all three already give a (-2) DF modifier and that allowing units to dig-in would push that up to a (-3) DF modifier. Jungles only provide a (-1) DF modifier and that doesn't seem right as in my opinion jungle terrain would be a lot more dense and concealing than woods; definitely not providing less cover than woods. So that is what leads me to believe units might be able to dig-in there. It's not a question of whether or not the actual ground is easier or tougher to dig-in to. Units are allowed to dig-in hills which would prove much more time-consuming than say 15 minutes/ 1 turn if they were literally using shovels to dig actual holes in the earth. I think it would be tough enough digging-in clear terrain in 15 minutes time but if bullets are whizzing past you and shells landing around then I suppose that would be motivation enough to dig faster! Another terrain feature that is perplexing are swamps; there is a difference between a swamp and a marsh. I believe swamps have a lot more concealing vegetation that provide cover whereas a marsh is pretty flat and clear but both would seriously slow down or prohibit some movement but as it sits, to my knowledge, nothing prohibiting digging in there but more like sinking in. In the 'Airborne IE' scenario book swamps are treated differently than the 3rd edition TEC; giving units a (-2) DF modifer opposed to a (+1). Though errata has been added to 'Airborne IE' prompting the use of 3rd edition TEC rules I could understand that in Normandy, France; in hedgerow country that these would provide a good deal of concealment and protection against DF but very flat, plain-like marshes, like the swamps on the 'Road to Berlin' maps would be more like clear hexes and actually be the last place you would want to be literally stuck in and understand the (+1) DF penalty. Again, nothing in the core rule book prohibits digging-in swamp hexes but don't know what the 'Road to Berlin' scenario book says as I don't own that game.

[armyduck95]

I understand that perhaps the reasoning for prohibiting units from digging in town, woods and entrenchments is that all three already give a (-2) DF modifier and that allowing units to dig-in would push that up to a (-3) DF modifier. Jungles only provide a (-1) DF modifier and that doesn't seem right as in my opinion jungle terrain would be a lot more dense and concealing than woods; definitely not providing less cover than woods. So that is what leads me to believe units might be able to dig-in there. It's not a question of whether or not the actual ground is easier or tougher to dig-in to. Units are allowed to dig-in hills which would prove much more time-consuming than say 15 minutes/ 1 turn if they were literally using shovels to dig actual holes in the earth. I think it would be tough enough digging-in clear terrain in 15 minutes time but if bullets are whizzing past you and shells landing around then I suppose that would be motivation enough to dig faster! Another terrain feature that is perplexing are swamps; there is a difference between a swamp and a marsh. I believe swamps have a lot more concealing vegetation that provide cover whereas a marsh is pretty flat and clear but both would seriously slow down or prohibit some movement but as it sits, to my knowledge, nothing prohibiting digging in there but more like sinking in. In the 'Airborne IE' scenario book swamps are treated differently than the 3rd edition TEC; giving units a (-2) DF modifer opposed to a (+1). Though errata has been added to 'Airborne IE' prompting the use of 3rd edition TEC rules I could understand that in Normandy, France; in hedgerow country that these would provide a good deal of concealment and protection against DF but very flat, plain-like marshes, like the swamps on the 'Road to Berlin' maps would be more like clear hexes and actually be the last place you would want to be literally stuck in and understand the (+1) DF penalty. Again, nothing in the core rule book prohibits digging-in swamp hexes but don't know what the 'Road to Berlin' scenario book says as I don't own that game.

Agreed. Saipan differentiates Marsh from Swamp. and of course you have the difference of wooded/swamp vs. open swamp/marsh. The Muskeg in Alaska war is something altogether lousy terrain.

[campsawyer]

With regard to digging in, there has been several issues with this. First, digging in town would just become too strong to attack per Brett's post. In the discussion of the 4th edition rules there was much back and forth about changing it, but in the end the best rule is the current. Granted reality might just be different, but in this model it works. Second Guadalcanal SSR's have quite a few gaps as pointed out with the original post. If possible I would look to some of the later Pacific games for clarifications. Pacific games have not had the attention that the Europe/North Africa has so I don't believe all the little SSR's have been properly vetted. As people play them they will with every interpretation.

[Brett Nicholson]

I just dug out the old and dusty 2nd edition rule book and found something that has been omitted in the 3rd edition rule book and annotated rules here; a section on bunkers. This states that that the maximum negative modifiers are ignored and a total of (-3) applies to DF against them. The term "cave" is not used. In the 'Guadalcanal' scenario book it states that caves recieve an additional (-1) DF modifier along with the benefits of an entrenchment but nothing about the maximum negative modifier. This is confusing as to how the 3rd edition rules sit with this since neither bunkers or caves are mentioned. I understand that 'Saipan 44' is a 3rd edition game and that caves are treated entirely different there as only assaults may be made; no DF or indirect fire allowed by either side. So how to treat a 2nd edition game, 'Guadalcanal' in accordance with 3rd edition rules; soon to be 4th edition? I've played the first three scenarios from 'Guadalcanal' uneasy about only allowing the maximum of -2 DF against caves but went ahead anyway but want to get it right before I go any further will the full Tulagi scenario. To the point -should 'Guadalcanal' caves and only 'Guadalcanal' caves be treated as bunkers with the exception of the standard maximum/minimum column modiers?

[campsawyer]

With regard to caves, they seem to be ever evolving in terms of how to treat them. I will say I believe the Saipan version has the better approach with assault being the only way to fire. Not sure about retrofitting back to Guadalcanal as I have not tried to compare and contrast.

With the use 2nd edition rules, you will probably make your head spin even more. Bunkers were completely dropped in the 3rd edition rules but many of the rules that played off of these were not revised, hence the larger confusion.

As for the 3rd edition rules and Guadalcanal SSR's for caves, I have treated the +3/-2 limitation of fire for the sum of all the modifiers, but individual modifiers would still apply in full. So if there was just a -3 then I would apply it, but if there was a -3, +1, -1 resulting in still a -3 then I would apply the cap. I know it is not perfect and there is some gamey issues that can be sorted out from this, but it still gets the -3 used somewhat within the DF cap.

I believe you will find that this will be different for all players up to Saipan and even then there was some clarification going one too. But it is the best approach to date.

[Brett Nicholson]

I suppose that the max/min modifier is the only way the Americans have a chance to weaken cave defenders in 'Guadalcanal' because then, without piling units 3 high you can still get DF in on the 7 column and hope for "snake eyes". I don't own 'Saipan 44' but from what I've read into it the Americans do have flamethrowing units to assist their assaults, which weren't available at Guadalcanal in 1942 as cave fighting was a new and unpleasant experiance for U.S. forces then. I do plan on eventually going further with the Pacific theater in PG and moving on to book supplements and 'Saipan 44' in due time. But for now I will go on with the 3rd edition rules concerning max/min DF column modifiers in handling further 'Guadalcanal' cave scenarios. As far as digging-in in jungle hexes goes I believe it is allowed now because some 'Guadalcanal' scenarios state units may begin dug-in in places where there are jungle hexes without any exceptions noted. Anyway, thanks for the input!