Recommend
5 
 Thumb up
 Hide
11 Posts

Vietnam 1965-1975» Forums » Rules

Subject: Free Fire, Air Support, and Strategic Movement rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Mark Evans
United States
Berlin
New Hampshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I am hoping to get some feedback on this question.
Mark D'Agosta
United States
Massapequa Park
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
was quoted in my Q&A compendium. (Thanks for your defacto permission to quote you). In my editorial of his answer I disagreed with his assessment. So I want to take a look at the following question in more detail.

Quote:
For Strategic Movement (or Naval Transport) operations, is there a "Support Declaration Segment" allowing the US player to allocate air support and declare free-fire zones?


My original response was essentially 'NO'. I cited the flow chart to support my answer.

Mark D'Agosta essentially says 'YES'.

We agree that a unit on a Strategic Movement Operation can be forced into incidental attack.

Mark D. cites this passage from 3.2

Quote:
"The combat odds are determined normally (5.4). Artillery and Air Support may be called in (naval gunfire may not; 7.2)".


I think we can all agree that the Strategic Movement rules section could be a bit more thorough, but lacking any guidance on the topic, what opinions to people have?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Petri P
Finland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
It is clear that incidental attacks can happen, and those allow air and defensive artillery support, but it is not clear if Free Fire zones can be declared.

I have no strong feelings concerning Free Fire zones. They mostly matter when NLF wants to strategically move NVA divisions over ARVN stacks to reach the target areas - and even then US has had opportunity to make symbolic security operations at turn start to place Free Fire wherever he wishes.

The same is true for US strategic movement - Free Fire can be arranged before the first strategic move, when necessary.

I'd say that this is one of the grey areas of the rules.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark McG
Australia
Penshurst
NSW
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
According to 3.3, Strategic Movement is an Operation. It seems to me that therefore the Operations Phase sequence would apply [2.1 (4) A-I ]
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Petri P
Finland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Minedog3 wrote:
According to 3.3, Strategic Movement is an Operation. It seems to me that therefore the Operations Phase sequence would apply [2.1 (4) A-I ]


That is true. We just need to decide if the "see the flowchart for variations" gives the flowchart precedence, removing the support declaration from strategic movement.

I remember that the flowchart was proved to be so buggy in several places, years ago, that it should not override the rules ever.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark McG
Australia
Penshurst
NSW
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
petrip wrote:

I remember that the flowchart was proved to be so buggy in several places, years ago, that it should not override the rules ever.



I generally find that flowcharts so impede actual understanding that I never use them for any purpose.. ever. Same as organisational structures, they capture a small spectrum of the actual inter-relationships.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Evans
United States
Berlin
New Hampshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Minedog3 wrote:
According to 3.3, Strategic Movement is an Operation. It seems to me that therefore the Operations Phase sequence would apply [2.1 (4) A-I ]


According to 2.2 Strategic Movement is an Operation. 3.3 doesn't really say that. But we get to the same place. Strategic Movement is an Operation.

2.1 (4) is an excellent citation. Combine that with the last sentence on using flow charts and we can confirm that 2.2 (4) supersedes the flow chart.

I think I may have been wrong. I want to see what others have to say before I recant.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randy Knight
United States
Westerly
Rhode Island
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Minedog3 wrote:
According to 3.3, Strategic Movement is an Operation. It seems to me that therefore the Operations Phase sequence would apply [2.1 (4) A-I ]


I wholly agree with this.

I believe every operation has a Support Declaration Phase.

I'd go with the rule text operations sequence (2.1) before any restrictions set by the player aid flowchart.

The rules anticipate & mention that units using Strategic Movement Operations can be forced into incidental attacks (3.3).

Both the incidental attack rule (3.2) and "supporting incidental attacks" (7.2) rules allows Air Points to be called in to the operation (if they have been assigned to the operation).

Therefore Air Points must be able to be assigned to Strategic Movement Operations in a Support Declaration Segment.

Makes decent sense to me in all respects.

Enjoying the Game!
Randy
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark McG
Australia
Penshurst
NSW
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
drmark64 wrote:
Minedog3 wrote:
According to 3.3, Strategic Movement is an Operation. It seems to me that therefore the Operations Phase sequence would apply [2.1 (4) A-I ]


According to 2.2 Strategic Movement is an Operation. 3.3 doesn't really say that. But we get to the same place. Strategic Movement is an Operation.



Actually it says exactly that. 4th sentence.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Evans
United States
Berlin
New Hampshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, you are correct. My mistake. I don't know how I missed that.

I also recant my earlier assertion that there is no support declaration segment during a strategic movement operation. I am going to withdraw my challenge to your answer in my Q&A compendium. Next time I upload you will see the revision. If anybody wants to see the live copy send me an email and I will share my Vietnam Dropbox with you.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. We have been playing this wrong for 9 years. (1965 to 1974).

Edit: I got my Mark's mixed up. There are three of us now. Mark McGilchrist is clarifying the issue. Mark D'Agosta challenged my original editorial in my errata compendium. And I am Mark Evans, editor of the errata compendium.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randy Knight
United States
Westerly
Rhode Island
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
drmark64 wrote:
Yes, you are correct. My mistake. I don't know how I missed that.

I also recant my earlier assertion that there is no support declaration segment during a strategic movement operation. I am going to withdraw my challenge to your answer in my Q&A compendium. Next time I upload you will see the revision. If anybody wants to see the live copy send me an email and I will share my Vietnam Dropbox with you.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. We have been playing this wrong for 9 years. (1965 to 1974).


Not that I would have ever wasted Support Points on any of my Strategic Movement Operations anyways

But I'm sure we will find a way to exploit this new condition!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark D'Agosta
United States
Massapequa Park
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Although the note under item 4 in the "Sequence Outline" (page 5, top right) does seem to point to the Operations Flow Chart as the authoritative source for "variations" among the different operations, I agree that including a Support Declaration Segment during a Strategic Movement operation is the most reasonable way to proceed. And I will be using that method in all my future games.

A unit embarking on a strategic move would certainly be able to have support assigned to it, particularly if they knew there were enemy units in their intended path.

Mark E., Mark M. - Thanks much,

Mark D.
5 
 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.