Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
8 Posts

Victory in Vietnam» Forums » Rules

Subject: A couple of questions and some thoughts rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Den U
msg tools
Hello everyone.

After reading the rules carefully and solo-playing for a couple of times I have some doubts I'd like to share.

1) Overstacking (rules 5.1.2 and 5.1.3). I presume that overstacked units cannot attack but may defend. Am I right?

2) Disruption (rules 3.8.1 and 6.1). Disrupted units can make a tactical (normal) movement or not?

3) Administrative Movement (rules 6.5 and 6.5.2). Since communist units can make overrun attacks and conduct set-piece land combat after administrative movement, it seems there is no reason for them to move normally. Except for the penalty caused by reaction bombardment. Or am I missing something?

4) Search and Destroy (rules 14.2 and 14.2.2). To conduct this type of H&M operation a unit must be unbesieged. I presume this is also true for pacification?

5) Air combat. Rule 16.3.1 says that air combat can affect paradrops or air transport movement. But there is no further information on this matter. It seems like some kind of omission.

6) Airfields bombing (rule 16.2.2). As far as I understand if, for example, the Allied player sucessfully bombs Communist airfield during Strategic phase, the airfiled gets disrupted, but the interceptor stationed there survives. Right?

7) Early NVA commitment card (rule 11.1.1). Already asked here, but still not clear to me. Does this card allow the basic 4 NVA recruits to be taken, or does it double that amount?

Redards, Den.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jakub Kircun
United States
Woods Hole
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm no authority on these rules, and yes they can be rather confusing. There is also not a lot of support for this game on BGG (you might have better luck on Consimworld). However I'll try to answer with my best guesses:

Lambo1987 wrote:
1) Overstacking (rules 5.1.2 and 5.1.3). I presume that overstacked units cannot attack but may defend. Am I right?

I believe only 3 units may defend.

Lambo1987 wrote:
2) Disruption (rules 3.8.1 and 6.1). Disrupted units can make a tactical (normal) movement or not?

Yes they can make normal movement, AFAIK.

Lambo1987 wrote:
3) Administrative Movement (rules 6.5 and 6.5.2). Since communist units can make overrun attacks and conduct set-piece land combat after administrative movement, it seems there is no reason for them to move normally. Except for the penalty caused by reaction bombardment. Or am I missing something?

There is a greater chance for hidden units being detected (a +1 DRM), but yes in general communist units will be very mobile.

Lambo1987 wrote:
4) Search and Destroy (rules 14.2 and 14.2.2). To conduct this type of H&M operation a unit must be unbesieged. I presume this is also true for pacification?

Probably so (it definitely makes sense), but the requirements for pacification seem to more lenient.

Lambo1987 wrote:
5) Air combat. Rule 16.3.1 says that air combat can affect paradrops or air transport movement. But there is no further information on this matter. It seems like some kind of omission.

I would take that as saying that if within range of intercepting assets (Migs and/or SAMs), then the paradrop mission would be subject to air-combat (I'm assuming the mission would have a air combat factor of 0?).

Lambo1987 wrote:
6) Airfields bombing (rule 16.2.2). As far as I understand if, for example, the Allied player sucessfully bombs Communist airfield during Strategic phase, the airfiled gets disrupted, but the interceptor stationed there survives. Right?

Good guess... but I would expect the air units would then be grounded, and unable to perform missions.

Lambo1987 wrote:
7) Early NVA commitment card (rule 11.1.1). Already asked here, but still not clear to me. Does this card allow the basic 4 NVA recruits to be taken, or does it double that amount?

You get the basic 4 units (2 infantry + 2 supply) regardless of Early NVA commitment (depended on strategic bombing of course). The biggest impact that Early NVA commitment seems to have is allowing more than 1 NVA unit to venture outside of North Vietnam (you can find the specific rule in the Campaign Scenario special rules).

+++

As you can see these rules could really use some clarifications, as I have found out in my own plays of the game. I'm unsure how involved Bruce Costello is with his older designs...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Den U
msg tools
Thanks, Kubaman! Your help is much appriciated.

The rules, in fact, are not bad, but some things are not 100% clear.

So, it seems that commmunist units have up to 12 movement poins. That's really something!

Concerning Early NVA commitment, I don't know what to think. Both options sound reasonable, but a little ambiguous.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Den U
msg tools
A few more questions about game cards:

NVA Final Offensive - gives the US player +3VP immediately. Should it probably give points to the Communist player (-3), the same way both Tet (-3/-5) and Easter Offensive (-3) card do?

Communist Ceasefire - gives the US player +2VP if NVA negates. But what's the point for the Communist player to play this card and negate it? It makes no sense.

US Invade Laos - before invading, the US player must roll for alliance with Royal Lao, which is achieved on a roll of 1-4. If VP is over 55, there is a +1DRM. So, the better the war goes for the US player, the more difficult to invade Laos?

the same card - if the alliance roll fails, the US player pays -3VP per turn. But what if the alliance was achieved? Is it free?

Any help is welcome.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jakub Kircun
United States
Woods Hole
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Lambo1987 wrote:
A few more questions about game cards:

I think a lot of the cards could use some serious errata, especially in terms of victory points, and I was oftentimes perplexed myself. With that said I haven't had this game on the table for a while, but I'll try and offer some insight the best I can.

Lambo1987 wrote:
NVA Final Offensive - gives the US player +3VP immediately. Should it probably give points to the Communist player (-3), the same way both Tet (-3/-5) and Easter Offensive (-3) card do?

Hmmm, not sure about this one. You probably are correct however.

Lambo1987 wrote:
Communist Ceasefire - gives the US player +2VP if NVA negates. But what's the point for the Communist player to play this card and negate it? It makes no sense.

From what I remember a Ceasefire is a prerequisite for other card plays. Historically wasn't it the US that would propose ceasefires for the sake of ending the war with some sort of politically agreeable position? Maybe the card is available to the Communist player for the sake of completeness?

Lambo1987 wrote:
US Invade Laos - before invading, the US player must roll for alliance with Royal Lao, which is achieved on a roll of 1-4. If VP is over 55, there is a +1DRM. So, the better the war goes for the US player, the more difficult to invade Laos?

I assume because there would be less official reason to violate Loatian neutrality?

Lambo1987 wrote:
the same card - if the alliance roll fails, the US player pays -3VP per turn. But what if the alliance was achieved? Is it free?

I was likewise very confused by that card, and I don't think I ever came up with a solution... other that avoid playing it haha

Lambo1987 wrote:
Any help is welcome.

Sorry if I can't offer any more definitive answers. Ultimately this is a sand-box kind of game, where both players have to look beyond the victory points (even though they do drive certain game mechanics). This is typical of Bruce Costello games, just look at the Operation Dropshot series! In my opinion it's more of a mental exercise, closer to how a wargame would be conducted by a defense think tank... at least that's how I view it. I think your best bet (especially in the terms of the VPs) is to adjust (and fine-tune) them as you see fit.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Den U
msg tools
Thank you for answering, Jakub.

I was thinking pretty much the same, except for the ceasefire.

There are two diplomatic cards in the game: Negotiations and Ceasefire. The first is the prerequesit for the second. Both sides have this two cards, which are almost equal, with only minor differences.

The US player can't negate neither the US nor the NVA Ceasefire cards. The NVA player can negate the US offer for ceasefire and receive +3 points penalty. But I can't imagine the situation when the NVA player offeres a ceasefire only to negate it and receive a +2 poins penalty.

So, my best guess that it is probably a typo.

Conserning the Dropshot, I love this game for almost endless variety of options.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jakub Kircun
United States
Woods Hole
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Lambo1987 wrote:
There are two diplomatic cards in the game: Negotiations and Ceasefire. The first is the prerequesit for the second. Both sides have this two cards, which are almost equal, with only minor differences.

Right! I knew if was something like that, but got it backwards.

Lambo1987 wrote:
The US player can't negate neither the US nor the NVA Ceasefire cards. The NVA player can negate the US offer for ceasefire and receive +3 points penalty. But I can't imagine the situation when the NVA player offeres a ceasefire only to negate it and receive a +2 poins penalty.

Maybe this simulates North Vietnam's "Talk-Fight" strategy? I imagine this would give the NVA the ability to temporarily restrain US military strength (for a small penalty) while gaining a longer term strategic advantage? Dunno though, it would have to be very situation specific.

Lambo1987 wrote:
Conserning the Dropshot, I love this game for almost endless variety of options.

Highly recommend it! There is (or was) a print-and-play expansion which added most of the Middle-East and Asia at a European-map scale (including the military units of those regions). I also remember Bruce was working on a contemporary version called WW4, but ended up dropping that project unfortunately.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Den U
msg tools
kubaman wrote:

Maybe this simulates North Vietnam's "Talk-Fight" strategy? I imagine this would give the NVA the ability to temporarily restrain US military strength (for a small penalty) while gaining a longer term strategic advantage?


Don't know why it didn't occur to me - it makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the idea!


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.