Game: Vietnam 1965-1975

Thread: Re: My Impression

davido — 2008-11-09T06:56:57+00:00

Word. I can recall games where the US/SVN were just kicking arse all over the place, only to learn that it resulted in a marginal NLF victory. good simulation, and since we didn't play 'games', we expected nothing else out of our simulations-e.g. armchair generalship vs. 'balance' etc.

Thread: Re: My Impression

bluekingzog — 2008-11-09T00:20:02+00:00

Armed with the knowledge that a total military victory is virtually impossible to achieve,

Welcome to the world of guerilla warfare , Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine/Israel even Northern Ireland you always need a political solution in the end.

Thread: Re: My Impression

gvchief — 2008-11-09T00:19:12+00:00

I've only played the first part of the campaign game. First couple of years or so, never the whole thing until the bloody end. But from what I've noticed, isn't it possible to hold the NVA in check and go hard after the VC in the central and southern parts of the country? It takes a quick buildup of US forces, as the ARVN is just about useless, which is not good for the US player, though.

Holding the NVA in check in the north isn't difficult, at least in the beginning. A Marine division and you've got it covered. Bring in the airborne troops to go after the VC, and it wears down the VC supply to where it is difficult for them to build up.

Mike

Thread: My Impression

Rammstein69 — 2008-11-08T21:57:26+00:00

This fine product can best be described as a simulation of the conflict, as opposed to a game. As the U.S./FWA player, you will constantly face frustration at the hands of the political and social aspects that the game system imposes upon you. As Sgt. Barnes said in Platoon, you feel like you're fighting this war with one hand tied around your *alls.

SVN population pacification is the crux of the campaign game system, and is crucial to morale and committment levels of the major participants. Once the NLF forces gain a foothold in a province, population loyalty will quickly shift to the Communist favour for each turn that a sizeable NLF presence exists. Even when NVA/VC forces are ousted, it will take a long time for the populace to revert back to SVN loyalty.

As the U.S. player, virtually every action you take will result in a drop in morale (and popular support for the war) back home. You generally feel like there is no victory to be achieved. You achieve a pyrric if the NLF hasn't won by spring 1975. In other words, you play not to lose.

As such, I hesitate to call it a satisfying gaming experience. Armed with the knowledge that a total military victory is virtually impossible to achieve, it's difficult to justify another play of the VERY long campaign game. I've played the full campaign game three times in the 20+ years I've owned the game. Being into my late 30's now, my liesure time is more limited than in my teen years. I don't have much incentive to invest the 100+ hours to play out a war when I know how it will end. This is why I still give World in Flames/DoD campaign game the odd playing...

Thread: Re: assign support, political sections

deepC — 2008-10-31T17:41:45+00:00

Thank you very much.

To be sincere, the rulebook would be better with more examples or if the example were more detailed.

Thread: Re: assign support, political sections

nyhotep — 2008-10-25T19:18:19+00:00

It is somewhat confusing.

HQs can fire offensively and defensively (ground support) any number of times, but only to support units of their formation (same brigade or division, depending on the HQ).

It can do this because it does not need to be part of the operation in order to fire. The HQ can fire and still be in an operation later, or could already have been in an operation and still fire.

Units can only be involved in 1 operation per turn, but HQ support doesn't count as being part of the operation (unless you want them to be, so they can move). It can still fire, if supporting units of its own formation and it is in range.

It must already be in range though. If it needs to move, it must be in an operation.

Don't forget, all support points can be used for the whole operation, and can change their role (eg. from support to interdiction and back again) in each round.

Bombardment is different. That is a whole operation all by itself, an HQs can only do that once per turn.

Thread: Re: assign support, political sections

deepC — 2008-10-25T14:26:45+00:00

Thank you very much, that helped a lot to make more sense on the combat sequence.

Regarding the artillery, if I understood correctly the rules, and HQ can support defensively units of his same brigade unlimited number of times, as long as they are in their range, but only once offensively. Am I correct?

Thread: Re: Campaign Game Completed

mdagosta — 2008-10-24T00:55:05+00:00

Hi Juan,

I think I understand your logic. The idea of executing a quick attack and maybe being able to quickly destroy an American unit is a good one, because that would cause the American to lose the scenario. But, for reasons I will list below, I don't believe the idea has much chance of success.

Let's walk through the scenario you suggest; a VC attack on the 3/7 Marine unit and the 7th Marines HQ:

* The American player has 3 Ground strength points in the target hex. Add +1 ground strength for Regional Forces, due to the target hex being a Cultivated hex (see rule 11.2). So, the total defending ground strength will be 4.

* The Marine HQ can provide 8 support points and there are 4 Air Points available, which we will assume he will commit, for a total of 12 support points. No Free Fire zones are allowed in the scenario, so this will be cut in half, for a final total of 6 support points.

* The final American strength will be 10 (4 ground + 6 support).

* The VC regiment has 6 ground and 2 support points, so the final VC strength will be 8.

* The combat ratio will therefore be 2 to 3, for a -1 modifier to the VC die roll.

In order to calculate the row of the Combat Results table that will be used by the VC, we add the VC ground strength (6) to the American Support strength (6), for a total of 12. The VC will be using the "8 to 13.5" column on the combat table.

The 3 American ground strength points (you don't count the regional forces) are added to the 2 VC support for a total of 5. The American will be using the "4 to 7.5" column on the combat table.

Considering the -1 modifier, the modified combat die roll will be between 0 and 5. Checking the "8 to 13.5" column on the combat table, we see that the VC is very likely to lose 1 or more replacement points (can be as many as 3!). Only a roll of 6 (reduced to 5) will allow for zero VC losses.

The American, on the other hand, only has a 33.3% chance of taking a 1 point loss. Otherwise his loss will be zero.

Why is this a bad choice for the Viet Cong? Let me count the ways...

1. The VC are likely (as explained above) to take greater losses than the American.

2. After the 1st round of combat, the American player can call for Defensive Reserves. So, the artillery unit (that you hoped to avoid) can be drawn into the battle. This means you'll only get one shot at the Marine Battalion, and that won't be enough to destroy it.

3. By attacking, the VC player is forced to expose his Regiment. Remember that the American victory objective is to destroy the VC regiment (or force it to break down) while keeping his own units from being eliminated. Why volunteer the location of the regiment? It would be much better to force the American player to waste a battallion or two trying to figure out which unit is the regiment.

4. The 2/7 Marine Bn and the HQ will still be eligible for Search & Destroy operations after your attack is done. Your attack will not neutralize them.

5. In order to attack, the VC regiment will have to occupy a hex next to the Marine units (or in the same hex), which leaves the VC regiment farther away from those valuable Forest and Mountain hexes that are so helpful to a defending unit.

-----------------------------

Anyway, this is my opinion. Maybe you (or someone else) will have a different opinion, and I look forward to reading it.

Thanks for the post! Enjoy the game.

-Mark

Thread: Re: assign support, political sections

nyhotep — 2008-10-23T19:42:08+00:00

The US player can use airpoints when attacked, but not naval.
He allocates them in the support phase (just like he does when attacking). Artillery is done at the same time, as is free-fire zone declaration.

Check the limited intelligence rules (10.0): VC units are only revealed when bombarded or calculating combat odds, which occur in the combat phase (long after the support phase).

Political sections can do search and destroy operations, and, yes, the US player must declare any support before they are revealed. Once revealed, the political section is immediately destroyed (and no combat takes place).
It's a bit of a waste, though, as the US could beat up any single VC unit without bothering with air support anyway. You are better off getting the US player to hunt them down. If the political section attacks, the US might waste a few support points. If the US attack, they will waste support points and will have activated units, which can't be used for other operations.
Remember, they still count for pacification rolls, so keeping them alive (in a campaign) is a better use.

Thread: Re: on line rules?

billyboy — 2008-10-21T07:26:58+00:00

I don't remember for sure but I think I got them off Grognards.com .

Thread: Re: Campaign Game Completed

deepC — 2008-10-21T06:35:53+00:00

Wow, I've always wanted to play this game since I was young, and recently got it on Ebay, I wish I can play the whole campaign game once, because the political rules are great and I think the system itself work really good.

Please if you can answer one question I placed on the rules section I would really appreciate, because I havent find any problems with the strategic rules (for the campaign) but the operational rules seems a little confused to me.

For example on the first scenario (operation starlite) what do you think about attacking with the VC to the two US units on the South? at least they wont be able to use their second artillery unit and only one marine unit its there.

Thank you very much for your report.

Best regards

Thread: Re: on line rules?

deepC — 2008-10-21T06:23:41+00:00

No that I know, but when I got back home I can try to scan them and send them to you.

Best regards

Thread: assign support, political sections

deepC — 2008-10-21T06:22:13+00:00

Hi, I would like to know how assigning support exactly works. When declaring a search and destroy mission its pretty clear that the active player has to assign the support points before moving his units.

But when for example the US player its attacked by VC units, ?can he assign air or naval support points? and if the answer its yes ?has the VC player reveal his counter before or after the assignation of support by the US player?

?Can political sections be given search and destroy missions? in order to lure support points from the US player (in case he can assign it before revealing the political section)

Thank you in advance

Thread: Re: Vietnam review

pbar1469 — 2008-08-16T10:29:02+00:00

alsandor wrote:
The Guru wrote:
...Even though it would be more accurate to replace "we knew what was best for the world" by "we knew what was best for America"...

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

Pas d'accents...merde. Un autre imperialisme

Thread: Re: Handling Allied losses in the Campaign game

mdagosta — 2008-08-14T20:06:05+00:00

Perry,

Yes, I was able to hang on for quite some time by taking losses with the ARVN armor battalions, but was constantly giving up real estate to buy time.

Fortunately for me, the vast majority of NVA were coming down from North Vietnam through I Corps (then II Corps, III Corps, etc). If he had simultaneously sent a large NVA force through Cambodia as well, there just wouldn't have been much real estate to trade and the game might have ended sooner.

Of course then he would have had to delay his offensive by a season or two in order to get the Cambodia force in place, so who knows how it would have turned out!

Always an interesting dilemma for both sides, but I think that huge amounts of ARVN replacement points are the best insurance against the NVA during the end-game, and that means you have to be very judicious with how those replacement points are spent during the early years.

-Mark

Thread: Re: Handling Allied losses in the Campaign game

Perry — 2008-08-07T21:14:17+00:00

mdagosta wrote:
Think how disappointing it would be to survive most of the way through 1974 only to run out of ARVN replacement points and watch the whole enterprise crumble in less than a year!

-Mark

This is the thing I've been thinking about....It just feels like it can go really REALLY fast, when you run out of Repl points.....!

Of course, if you take the losses through losing ARVN battalions, you don't loose Pop Pts, only the US Supply Pts....

Thread: Re: Handling Allied losses in the Campaign game

mdagosta — 2008-08-05T15:20:38+00:00

Vietnam strategy questions are tough to answer because not too many people play enough full campaign games to really test out all the options. Given that caveat, I think it will work out best to allow the Americans to take the brunt of the losses. At least that's the strategy I'm going to try next time I play the US/ARVN side...

First of all, the ARVN (when effective at all) are just terrible at hunting the Viet Cong. Their low pursuit modifiers just don't allow the build up of momentum that you need in order to successfully kill VC. So they end up taking small losses, and then watching the VC escape.

I do realize, however, that you can't have the Americans take ALL the losses or they won't last very long, so assign the ARVN the task of keeping the roads and cities clear. They can also aggressively defend against the NVA when they move into the coastal areas or along the road net. In such terrain, their low pursuit modifier is not such a disadvantage.

Of course there's no one "correct" answer for this question. If the pacification effort is going well, there will be more SVN controlled population subject to the draft. In such cases, you can afford to take more ARVN losses.

But the fact remains that the U.S. will be leaving long before 1975. Even if they can extend the stay of significant combat forces until 1972 or 1973 (not likely), that still leaves 2 to 3 years that the ARVN will have to fend for themselves, and that's a LONG, LONG time to have to survive against the NVA, even with strong residual U.S. Air Support. The more replacement points you have, the better. Think how disappointing it would be to survive all the way to 1974 only to run out of ARVN replacement points and watch the whole enterprise crumble in less than a year!

-Mark

Thread: Re: Handling Allied losses in the Campaign game

billyboy — 2008-08-01T22:14:17+00:00

I took ARVN losses whenever possible.The U.S. are going to be taking enough when there are no ARVN involved.

Thread: Handling Allied losses in the Campaign game

Perry — 2008-08-01T21:56:57+00:00

I've heard two schools of thought, as how to handle Allied losses in the Campaign game.

1. Let ARVN take next to ALL the losses! That way you won't take Morale-expensive US Casualties.

2. Let the US take the brunt of the losses, so you don't spend the ARVN Population too quickly!

There's a downside to either method.
ARVN losses = ARVN will have difficulty standing the distance to 1975
US losses = Morale-expensive

What's your thought? How do you balance the losses as the Allies?

Thread: Looking for online opponents!

Perry — 2008-08-01T21:18:07+00:00

Hi!

I own a copy of VIETNAM 1965-1975, but gaming days are few and far between!

Now I look for people interested in playing online.

If you're up for it drop me a PM! We could start out with one of the scenarios, like Iron Triangle, Cedar Falls , for example, just to try out the gaming utility and get a feel for how the game flows , when playing online.

I use Vassal for gaming utility (and Skype or inhouse chat function for communicating while gaming), and I'd be happy to instruct as to the usage of Vassal, if need be!

Cheers / Perry

Vassal Homepage
http://www.vassalengine.org/community/index.php

You need to download both the Base Utility and then the Vietnam Module.

Thread: Re: Vietnam review

Ronin7 — 2008-08-01T03:06:20+00:00

WOW!

For what was supposed to be a review, this has almost turned into a full-fledged flame war.

As an American who once lived in Paris, I enjoy France and the language, people and culture. I also enjoy the United States and the variety that life here has to offer. From experience, my feeling is that most French and Americans do not dislike each other... and that those who express open dislike for one another rarely have examined the issues with an unbiased eye.

The U.S. made political and psychological blunders in Vietnam. The French did the same in Indochina. The most surprising part to me is that the unified country of Vietnam welcomes both countries as tourists and visitors. I, for one, might not be so forgiving.

Having said all of this, VIETNAM (the game) is almost an educational tool and leans away from the "game" category and more into the simulation arena.

This game requires a lot of work and is frustrating for both sides. More than one person has mentioned the complexities and length of the campaign game. Little decisions made early can and do affect you later. The thought provoking decisions and mechanics help convey the Vietnam experience. I suspect that it will not appeal to all wargamers due to the nature of the game and the conflict but it is worthy of praise for what it does portray.

Thread: on line rules?

Calxx55 — 2008-07-22T17:12:00+00:00

Does anyone know if and where the rules are posted on line?

Thread: Re: Campaign Game Completed

garysax — 2008-07-07T07:30:54+00:00

This is a great point-counterpoint. Really makes me like a million times more interested in this game than I ever was before. Thanks guys.

Thread: Re: Campaign Game Completed

Steelkilt — 2008-07-07T00:23:33+00:00

Hi! I was one of Mark’s opponents in our recently completed Vietnam game.

Developing a strategy for playing this game as the NLF can be difficult. Since they won historically, there is a tendency to do what they did but that’s not necessarily a good idea since the Allies will most likely be expecting that & will have their own strategy primed to defeat it. But going with something different risks ignominious defeat as there is likely some reason your “good” ideas weren’t followed by the real NLF!

What I eventually decided to do was to follow a much more passive path than the NLF had historically. I would try to maintain & build up my armies & replacement points, using them to get population shifts, while forcing the Allies to come after me. Historically, the NLF launched repeated offensives which were devastating to Allied morale but also led to massive NLF losses & gave the Allies breathing space to recover their population levels. I wanted to maintain an army for the entire game, keeping a constant downward pressure on the population, while forcing the Allies to come after me. And I wanted to be able to keep units in heavy terrain, in Hold status if I could, to force maximum losses when they did. As his population slipped away he would be forced to attack me & the extra units he’d have to buy & the replacement points he would lose would somewhat offset the morale points he wouldn’t lose to offensives. The I-go, You-go, I-go sequence of the game was a big help here since it would allow me to run units out of the mountains down into the rice paddies at the end of a season where possible & then run them right back out again at the start of the next season. I also wanted to concentrate my “population offensive” on individual provinces, rather than spread out & diffuse the effect. It’s much better to run a few provinces down to 0- than it is to try to get a lot of them down to the mid-range. Once they’re at 0-, they tend to stay there & then the units can be moved to another province to start degrading the population there. So eventually, the map will be checkerboarded with provinces at 0- & others at the maximum with a few “battleground” provinces which are flooded with NLF units & which are headed for 0-. Lastly, I positioned as many VC battalions adjacent to roads as I could, putting them into “Patrol” where possible to keep the Allies from being able fully to use their advantage of mobility.

Mark made a couple of mistakes that tended to play into my strategy but they are both mistakes I had made myself in my previous attempts to play this game. As he noted in his review, he overlooked the importance of sending economic aid to SVN in the early going to drive their morale up. This would have put him on a better column of the population chart & greatly slowed the shifts of population, although at a cost in commitment. He also degraded the effectiveness of the ARVN, using them as cannon fodder for American attacks, something else I’ve tended to do myself in my attempts at playing this game. I think there’s a tendency to disbelieve that you’ll ever get to the point of American withdrawal, since the game is so long, & so you tend to ignore what the ARVN will be like in 1970 because who expects to still be playing then? On the other hand, I have to give him a lot of credit for hanging on so long. The game looked to be over in 1970 with the Americans leaving & the ARVN down to a handful of replacements while several divisions worth of NVA & a big stack of artillery moved inexorably down the coast. But he found a way to slow us down & made it to 1972 & was even picking up population at the end! He ran his search & destroy operations very effectively & was usually able to kill what he went after, or at least make us pay in replacement points. I think the only really important error he made was the one he mentioned about leaving IV Corps after having pacified it. At the end of that turn, with the Corps area flooded with Allied units & with only a scant few VC hiding in the weeds, I was pretty depressed since I foresaw a war that could last till 1975. It would be hard to put any NLF units into IV Corps with all that Allied strength there & the population would gradually shift back to him over time. Had he stayed there, even for a year or so, things could have turned out differently since the NLF would have been almost forced to come out of the hills & start confronting him for territory & I might have had to start the big offensives I was trying to avoid. But instead Mark transferred most of the units out of IV Corps to battlefields in the north & the VC came back right away. Of course, this is what the Americans did historically, at least early in this war--not to mention early in the Iraq War(!), so he had some good company in doing it!

The political rules didn’t play much of a role in our game. SVN was lucky to have few coups & mostly decent leaders. They had the “?” guy for a long time & followed him with Big Minh & Bao Dai. His commanders were very loyal &, in fact, at the end of the game, it would have required a roll of box cars to have a coup. But he was greatly hampered by the utter incompetence of his Chief of Staff. I think Mark did a very good job of moving his divisions around to keep the incompetent commanders in military backwaters or in areas where they could defend in place while the good commanders could attack the bad guys. He always seemed to have lots of ARVN units to throw at us no matter where we were. But his Chief of Staff was a millstone that helped to thwart all of the best efforts of the ARVN.

One thing I disagree with in Mark’s review is about the ARVN Rangers. Even though they’re expensive, I think they’re worthwhile. The +2 movement across the border was a big annoyance throughout the game & definitely had an effect on NLF strategy. Without it, there would have likely been more units in IV Corps & more battles there as well.

I think we all had a good time & I’m already missing playing the game (Vietnam withdrawal!). Victory Games was one of the best game companies ever & this was one of their best games & it was a pleasure to have had the experience to have played it all the way through at least once. Thank you to Mark for suggesting it & to Ron, my co-general, for helping to lead our side to victory. Mark, count me in the next time you want to play it.

Thread: Re: Campaign Game Completed

garysax — 2008-07-05T16:35:20+00:00

Awesome report.

Thread: Re: Campaign Setup Questions

jtovb — 2008-07-05T15:37:52+00:00

Thanks for the response to both my questions Mark. My post was a little while ago. We were just getting started with a campaign game. Due to work loads it is now on hold. Great game though. We were playing live via vassal and skype.

Thread: Re: Campaign Game Completed

mdagosta — 2008-07-04T04:01:07+00:00

Bob,

I think I have persuaded my NLF opponent (Scott) to do a brief write up from the NLF perspective. Naturally he doesn't think he did ANYTHING wrong (after all, he won), so it may end up just being a critique of MY performance...

One thing he faulted me for, and I partially agree with him, is the fact that I had IV Corps cleared of VC units by the end of 1966 (and I do mean CLEARED), using the entire US 1st Cav division, detachments from the US 23rd (Americal) division, plus generous artillery support, and backed up by several effective ARVN divisions. The IV Corps population points I was earning during Pacification were more than compensating for the Pacification losses I was taking elsewhere.

Then I redeployed two of my most effective ARVN divisions, plus the US 1st Cav division to I Corp to help crush the NVA who were starting to move down from the mountains toward the coast. This allowed the VC to re-establish a solid presence in IV Corps. I probably should not have allowed this.

But on the other hand, he learned a valuable lesson about the dangers of bringing the NVA down from the mountains in I Corps!

Thanks for the feedback,
Mark

Thread: Re: Campaign Game Completed

mdagosta — 2008-07-04T03:44:41+00:00

No, this was face-to-face; we were able to leave it set up the whole time. We belong a gaming group on Long Island, NY and meet every Wednesday. There were originally 4 of us in the game, but my ARVN commander couldn't take the pressure of commanding largely ineffective troops and bailed out after a few months. So I had to command both the US and ARVN myself for the duration of the game. I had played 3 full campaign games previously (the last in 1994, however), so this started out as an introductory exercise where I was going to show the other guys (Scott and Ron) the basic flow of the campaign game. I hoped that they would get caught up in the game and want to continue, and that's exactly what happened.

I highly recommend this game to anyone who has the stamina to see it through. There are not many game experiences that can be described as "rewarding", but this one surely is. There's no single roll of the dice, or flip of a card, that's going to irrevocably change the direction of this game. It's a grind... just like the Vietnam War. You become totally immersed in the game. When you complete a campaign game, you really feel like you've DONE something... even if you lost :~)

Thanks for the feedback.

Mark

Thread: Re: Campaign Game Completed

Pete Atack — 2008-07-03T17:39:35+00:00

I kept loose track of time spent and figure it took about 125 hours to complete this game (over the course of 13 months!).

Damn...

Did you leave this set up somewhere that long or was this via VASSAL?

And yes - congrats on finishing. I've played several years (2-3 I think) into a campaign game but did not finish.

Thread: Re: Campaign Game Completed

billyboy — 2008-07-03T03:45:42+00:00

Congrats on playing it out!I played the campaign game 3 times years ago.I still have trouble believing a US win is possible in this game.I love this game anyhow and the time I spent on it (15-20 years ago)was well worth it.I plan on playing this at least once more someday.I downloaded the vassal mod. a while ago and looked at it.Maybe someday.

Thread: Re: Campaign Game Completed

IronMoss — 2008-07-03T01:13:12+00:00

Congratulations on finishing the campaign.

Thread: Re: Campaign Game Completed

lupi — 2008-07-02T23:02:07+00:00

One of first half dozen games I picked up, yet have to play it though...

Thread: Re: Campaign Game Completed

stampdog316 — 2008-07-02T22:35:33+00:00

Thanks for the write up and I commend you for completing a wargaming holy grail quest. I have owned this game since high school but have never finished even a small scenario. I also look forward to your opponent's report.

Thread: Re: Campaign Game Completed

kixdsky — 2008-07-02T21:58:04+00:00

Wow, just incredible. I don't think I've ever run across anyone that's finished the complete campaign game. I own this game and I don't think I've even finished one of the smaller scenarios.

Definitely looking forward to the NLF point of view on this.

Thread: Campaign Game Completed

mdagosta — 2008-07-02T20:47:38+00:00

Another campaign game in the books!

The NLF rolled into Saigon in the Spring of 1972. Unfortunately, I was the US/ARVN player...

Some Lessons Learned (for the US Player):

1. Watch ARVN Morale! - US allocations in the very beginning of the game (Summer of '65) are critical. It is imperative that SVN morale be raised above 70 as soon as possible. Allocate Economic Aid, bomb the North, inject new commitment... whatever it takes to get the SVN Morale above 70. Otherwise, you'll receive a detrimental column shift on the Pacification Table. This can leave you with a Pacification deficit that might be difficult bring back into balance.

2. Let the ARVN Slack Off! - I know it's tempting to try to make the ARVN stand up and fight for themselves right from the beginning, but I think it's a terrible mistake. No matter how judicious you are with your US allocations, there's no doubt that the US will be leaving SVN long before 1975. Once the US is gone, the ARVN must have enough reserves left to duke it out with the NVA. I made the mistake of putting the ARVN to work, turn after turn, starting right from 1965, but they're just not effective against the VC. So hundreds of ARVN Replacement points were squandered, for very little return. Let the Americans win the Pacification battle, build up ARVN replacement points to as close to 200 as possible, and then go home. 200 ARVN Replacement points can last a LONG time. I actually lasted over a year with about 25 ARVN Replacement points; I kept rebuilding the ARVN armor/cav battalions, which cost Supply but no Personnel, and used them to absorb losses.

3. Don't let your large American EGO influence your decisions! - I can think of at least a dozen occasions when I stayed in a battle far too long just because I didn't want to leave the enemy in command of the battlefield, and it cost me quite a few precious US Replacement points. Fighting the NVA in the mountains is a brutal business. If that first round combat die roll does not go your way (leaving you with a negative pursuit modified), just let it go and live to fight another day.

4. "Special" Forces, my ass! - The ARVN Rangers are a waste of resources in the early stages of the game. You can get 100 ARVN Replacement points for the same Personnel cost as 5 ARVN Ranger Battalions. The Rangers are primarily useful in helping hunt VC, but if you let your ARVN slack off (see #2, above), you won't need them for that purpose. If, during the later stages of the game, you find that you can spare the resources, the ARVN Rangers actually perform a more valuable service by inflicting a +2 movement point penalty on NVA units entering a SVN national boundary hex (if all 5 Rangers are present; only +1 for 3 Rangers). In many cases this forced the NVA units to use strategic movement to get from Cambodia/Laos into SVN, meaning that they could not attack in the same turn they crossed the border. This small heads up comes in handy since the US has considerable capabilities for quickly redeploying units to meet any new threat.

I'm going to see if I can convince my opponent to post some lessons learned, from the NLF point of view.

I kept loose track of time spent and figure it took about 125 hours to complete this game (over the course of 13 months!). All involved thought it was time well spent.

Regards,
Mark

Thread: Re: Recruitment Process

mdagosta — 2008-07-02T19:38:50+00:00

John,

You cannot build VC unless you have the supplies and personnel. Other than that, there is no limit (other than the countermix) to the number of VC units that can be created. If the VC Draft Level exceeds the population controlled, then the personnel points must come down the Trail as well as the supplies. As long as these requirements are met, any number of VC units can be built in a single Recruitment Phase.

In addition to Regional Maximums, the source of the supply limits the placement of new VC units. If you wish to use Sea Supply to build a VC unit which is more than 5 hexes from an all sea hex, then you must spend double the supply cost (i.e. 4 supply points instead of 2 for a VC battalion). Same thing if you want to use Trail Supply to construct a VC unit more than 8 hexes away from a South Vietnam border hex.

Any Trail or Sea Supply not used immediately is placed in the overall VC Supply Pool. Supply from the pool can be saved as long as desired, and can be used to build VC units anywhere on the map without penalty (but still subject to Regional Maximums).

Mark

Thread: Re: Campaign Setup Questions

mdagosta — 2008-07-02T19:04:25+00:00

John,

Yes, because the Recruitment Phases occur after the Morale Adjustment phases, the "New Commitment" refers to the total new commitment from the prior season. Same thing with the Economic Aid: the ARVN get the morale benefit from the Economic Aid allocated in the prior season.

Mark

Thread: Re: Vietnam review

alsandor — 2008-06-29T14:59:52+00:00

castiglione wrote:
The French were arrogant in Vietnam but America was not?

Quite right, the French were supremely arrogant. That was one of the reasons, along with the Vichy government permitting Japanese bases, that motivated Roosevelt to work towards the decolonization of the former European holdings, but specifically IndoChina. That was also why Ho Chi Minh was convinced that the US was the Viet Minh's natural ally as they were both working towards decolonization. How wrong he was, but not by any fault of his.

The US was arrogant mostly in thinking money and superior firepower would win a war against a determined people (ring any bells for one or two current conflicts). Vo Nguyen Giap had warned them in 1968 that the North would fight until the war was won, no matter how long it took and they failed to heed that warning. As it turned out, 30 years to the day since the US first made contact with Ho, the war was over and the big bruiser was cowed, but still denying it.

The North won the war with two pickup trucks a day of what amounted to baling wire and bamboo sticks against the most sophisticated and unlimited (for all intents and purposes) arsenal the world had at that point. The corrupt southern government and its US ally were beaten fair and square. And yet there are those who still whisper paranoid delusions about the dolchstoss-legende.

Now *that* is the next level of arrogance, that it wasn't the enemy who beat you, but elements within your own nation. What a crock.

Thread: Re: Vietnam review

castiglione — 2008-06-29T03:14:11+00:00

If by "arrogant", it was meant that the US forces underestimated the enemy, I'd say the US military was arrogant (at least initially). Interpreting "arrogant" as having a "can-do" attitude is incredibly delusional.

Why is it that Americans get riled up and shift into knee-jerk reaction mode when someone makes a pretty objective observation about America or things American and yet they make the same sort of observations about other countries/peoples?

The French were arrogant in Vietnam but America was not?

WTF?

Image

Fantas — 2008-03-06T15:27:33+00:00

Rulebook front art

Image

KokoLeMakak — 2008-03-06T00:06:29+00:00

the Map

Thread: Multiplayer Vietnam

Minedog3 — 2007-12-06T09:23:22+00:00

The multiplayer Vietnam game is designed for 4 players, though more or less can be used by agreement.

US Player 1. - controls all US, FWA and ARVN units in I ,II Corps, Laos and Cambodia north of 3447,3347 inclusive
US Player 2. - controls all US, FWA and ARVN units in III ,IV Corps, Cambodia south of 3447, 3347
NLF Player 1. - controls all VC & NVA units in I , II Corps, Laos, Cambodia north of 3447,3347 inclusive, & the first 12 boxes of the Ho Chih Minh Trail (from the north end)
NLF Player 2. - controls all VC & NVA units in III , IV Corps, Cambodia south of 3447,3347, & the remainder boxes of the Ho Chih Minh Trail (the south end).

Game play
- generally speaking, it is anticipated that Player 1 and Player 3 will be adversaries and Player 2 and Player 4 will be adversaries. These couples will play against one another, conduct operations in turn without regard to the other players with the exceptions below. As a general rule, there will be two operations underway on the map simultaneously, one for each pair of players.

Operational Control
- the controlling player retains control of active units, even if they pass outside their area of geographic control, until the end of that particular operation. After the start of each operation, control is decided by geographic location.

Delegated Control
- by agreement between the players on a side, control may be delegated to the other (or even another) player. e.g a unit in III Corps could be delegated to an operation by Player 1.
An enduring delegation of units or area could be made to include an extra player. e.g. Player 1 delegates control of 1st Cav Div to fifth player. Player 2 delegates control of III Corps to sixth player.

Play Through
- in the event of two active operations in close proximity, one operation will be suspended until the first in completed. To trigger this suspension, active units of different players on the same side must be within 10 hexes of each other. Precedent is set by the Player order, so Player 1 completes his declared operation, followed by Player 2 etc. Active units of one operation cannot target units of the other operation, but incidental attacks may be declared. Units of a suspended operation may not make reaction moves.

Unusual Operations
- in the event of unusual situations, where a player may be involved in two different operations not in close proximity, it is the preogative of the highest numbered player to conclude one operation before concluding the next, e.g. Player 1 launches a S&D op on units under Player 4's control, at the same time as Player 4 is conducting his own S&D on units of Player 2, Player 4 may choose to resolve the S&D of Player 1 before his own S&D on Player 2.

Turns
- players continue to conduct operations until all players have declared end of operations. At the start of each turn, players on the same side may re-allocate replacement and support points, including naval units, between themselves.

Seasonal Interphase
- each side (i.e US Players 1 & 2 and NLF Players 1 & 2) conducts their seasonal interphase as a group. Allocation of units and resources is entirely up to the players to negotiate.

Thread: Re: cyberboard gamebox

Minedog3 — 2007-12-06T09:10:11+00:00

http://www.boardgaming.info/Cybergamers/victorygames.php

Thread: cyberboard gamebox

xxmagex — 2007-12-05T02:53:38+00:00

Is there a cyberboard gamebox module for Vietnam?

Thread: Re: Vietnam review

okie gamer — 2007-11-28T04:18:16+00:00

Had my French cousins taken care of business in 1946-54, there would have been no need for arrogant Americans in Vietnam.

Y'all need a "shrug" smilie here....

Thread: Re: Vietnam review

okie gamer — 2007-11-28T04:14:37+00:00

Had my French cousins taken care of business in 1946-54, there would have been no need for arrogant Americans in Vietnam.

Y'all need a "shrug" smilie here....

By the way, the Guru's review is quite accurate. It is only worthwhile to play the campaign game (much like AH's 1776), but it takes a long, long time to get through it.

Thread: Re: Vietnam review

alsandor — 2007-09-22T14:58:08+00:00

The Guru wrote:
...Even though it would be more accurate to replace "we knew what was best for the world" by "we knew what was best for America"...

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

Pas d'accents...merde. Un autre imperialisme

Thread: Re: Vietnam review

mrbippy — 2007-09-21T21:39:09+00:00

Can't we all just get along?

Thread: Recruitment Process

jtovb — 2007-09-16T20:18:27+00:00

Want to make sure I understand Replacements and Reinforcements correctly. I get a little confused mostly for the NLF. US and SVN seem pretty straight forward.

US: Can’t spend commitment points (buying US Units and/or sending SVN supply points) above US current morale.

SVN: Need Supplies from US

Draft Level can’t exceeded SVN population (personnel points) available and cant spend more than the current supplies provided.

VC: Can spend personnel points as long as draft level is less than the VC controlled population level. If you want to increase your draft level (spend personnel points) over controlled population you must expend NVN commitment points.

Can only build units up to the Trail/Sea supply provided by NVN? This is what I am fuzzy on. Previous posts here seem to indicate no real limit to the number of units that can be built?

The allocated Trail and Sea supply numbers seem to me to be a limit unless I am misunderstanding those.

Once supply is expended there is a restriction on where those purchased units can be placed based on Regional limits.

NVN: Can spend commitment points (building NVN units, trail/sea supply, VC draft ect…) up to morale.

I am a little unclear on the VC process. Do I have this right?

Image

gvchief — 2007-08-27T16:20:06+00:00

Delta region firmly in ARVN hands, late 1965

Image

gvchief — 2007-08-27T16:18:09+00:00

Fighting in the Iron Triangle, late 1965

Image

gvchief — 2007-08-27T16:16:24+00:00

Fighting on the border, late 1965

Thread: Re: User Review

keethrax — 2007-08-27T03:42:42+00:00

wetwebwork wrote:
Great review of a game that completely lost me when it came out. I later got into the likes of Platoon, Firepower, and a Vietnam game that came with S&T magazine (I think) that were far more approachable, and more what I was expecting from Victory's Vietnam. It was not a good game for a new gamer to begin with. But you've inspired me to see if I can find it and tackle it now with a bit more experience!

It was the first wargame I ever bought. Talk about shell shock...

Thread: Re: Play the Campaign Game

keethrax — 2007-08-27T03:39:22+00:00

Calxx55 wrote:
100 hours is a bit much. has anyone played by email? does it work well? I would like to try with vassal if anyone is willing.

IF nobody has responded yet, and if you don't mind someone quite new at the game (played a few operations years ago, then moved away from my opponent), I'd love to give it a shot.

Thread: Re: Campaign Setup Questions

jtovb — 2007-08-25T15:14:08+00:00

Another question:

I am confused about when the "US new commitment" or "US Economic Aid" gets counted in to the SVN Morale.

During the Seasonal Interphase the SVN Morale adjustment occures during the Political phase. The Phase that any US commitment or aid is declared is after this phase (Recruitment Phase). How then is there ever any "new commitment"? Is the figure used in the moral phase figured from the previous Interphases Recruitment phase?

Thanks

John

Image

mbizboy — 2007-05-15T04:03:17+00:00

Game Turn screenshot of winter 1966 turn

Image

Ozvortex — 2006-11-28T12:14:06+00:00

The two maps and contents of the game

Image

Rince — 2006-09-23T16:50:03+00:00

Image

Rince — 2006-09-23T16:33:33+00:00

Image

Lawrence Hung — 2006-07-06T15:55:41+00:00

The virtual game in play