Recommend
11 
 Thumb up
 Hide
11 Posts

Vietnam 1965-1975» Forums » Sessions

Subject: Vietnam Campaign: Is there a Turning Point for the US? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Randy Knight
United States
Westerly
Rhode Island
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Is there a point in the Vietnam Campaign game where the US Morale stabilizes?

In my experience, the US player can effect a point in the game where his Morale stabilizes. The following conditions are necessary for this:

1.) I am starting to believe that when the ARVN-controlled population reaches the level 271 or more, and the US automatically receives +2 Morale each season, that a turning point can be reached in the Campaign.

2.) If the ARVN have achieved the goals I laid out in the ARVN Leadership Strategy file, then almost 90% of the ARVN will be fully effective at least two-thirds of the time (effectiveness roll 1-4). On a five or six, this drops to 50% and 33%, respectively. My ARVN are truly effective the vast majority of the time. Only a 6 can really slow them down.

3.) The ARVN must be fully upgraded and have full artillery support.

4.) The US must build up early enough to win the pacification battle and achieve the +2 seasonal morale bonus as soon in the campaign as possible.
This +2 bonus offsets so much when gained season after season.

5.) The US just cannot waste any morale early in the campaign.
Severely limit economic aid. Do not use unrestrained bombing. Limit restrained bombing. Don't invade Laos and Cambodia early in the campaign. Later in the campaign, use the US forces in S&D only when the ARVN are ineffective or the NVA are on the board. You must save, save, save, right from the Summer of 1965. Offensive will eat up US morale fast, and the US player must not give any morale away.

When conditions #1,2,3,4 and 5 above are met, then the US player can actually GAIN MORALE most seasons in the game. If the US player passes the fighting to the fully upgraded, very effective, and well supported (US Air and Airmobile) ARVN, then the US Player will be able to have the ARVN fight effectively against the (waning) VC and the NVA regulars.

I found that after these conditions were met in our campaign, that the US only needed to engage in Search & Destroy operations maybe one season a year…

This S&D activity was needed whenever an Offensive was declared, and during the occasional season when the ARVN effectiveness roll was a 6.

Otherwise, the ARVN fight and the US garrison the towns and capitols. I literally freed up the entire ARVN force by switching US units (one battalion per town and capitol) to garrison duty. The ARVN force is large, with 11-13 divisions and the 40-some independent units. This force (when upgraded) has proven capable of protecting and clearing Vietnam later in the campaign game.

This is what I am suggesting is a turning point in the campaign.

The US player GAINS morale about 3 out of 4 seasons.

When Mark launched his 1969 Offensive, the US lost about -19 morale.

However, the US GAINED +2 morale in the Summer 69, Fall 69, and winter 69.

This GAIN mitigated the effect of the Offensive, and will continue to do so.

The NLF is so slaughtered following the suicide offensives, that they chose/simply could not field a force that the ARVN couldn't handle. The US is just not needed to fight when the ARVN is capable of fighting off the reduced/rebuilding NLF forces following the offensives.

This is something that both Mark and I both felt has occurred in our current Campaign.

While the NLF builds up for the next offensive, the ARVN do the fighting, and the US GAINS 2 morale each season.

That is relative stability in morale, and the US will be around for a long time.

Enjoying the Game!
Randy


7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Petri P
Finland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The need for economic aid and bombing of the North is determined by the quality of SVN leadership in the early game.

If the leadership is horrible (Thieu) those are needed to the full extent. With better leadership, the less of those are needed.

The plan for US morale stability requires a mostly loyal SVN population, this can be achieved, given time, with the positive SVN column shift after SVN morale is 140 or more.

An early massive commitment, 50 a turn, makes this very possible (50 new commitment a season gives 10 SVN morale per season). This is the best way to increase SVN morale, so good that it can be considered unfair - thus a house rule has been proposed by Gary Gladik in the 80's to limit new US commitment to 25 per turn for the first four seasons.

I agree with that house rule - it allows NLF to get some progress before US smothers NLF progress with new commitment, making the game more fair.

If US ever gets to the turning point, US wins the game. Thus, NLF needs repeated early offensives, to the most damaging morale effect possible, to prevent that.

Without the limit of 25 US morale per season for the first year, the game could be decided by the quality of SVN leadership - a random roll. Also, the game could be decided for NLF by a horrible Chief of Staff, thus another excellent house rule proposed by Gary Gladik, to guarantee the Chief of Staff is passable. And, another masterpiece proposed by him, -1 to coup rolls for each previous coup, takes away the randomness which could cause US loss by repeated coups, from die rolls.

Those three modifications, together, should take away the random aspects which could determine the winner - I fully agree with those. The campaign game is such a commitment of time that it should not be decided by a few rolls of dice.

With those modifications, US still can, and must, try for reaching the turning point, but at least it will usually require economic aid and bombing of the North, meaning it will not automatically succeed, leaving room for the skill of the players.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randy Knight
United States
Westerly
Rhode Island
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
petrip wrote:
The need for economic aid and bombing of the North is determined by the quality of SVN leadership in the early game.

If the leadership is horrible (Thieu) those are needed to the full extent. With better leadership, the less of those are needed.



The plan for US morale stability requires a mostly loyal SVN population, this can be achieved, given time, with the positive SVN column shift after SVN morale is 140 or more.



An early massive commitment, 50 a turn, makes this very possible (50 new commitment a season gives 10 SVN morale per season). This is the best way to increase SVN morale, so good that it can be considered unfair - thus a house rule has been proposed by Gary Gladik in the 80's to limit new US commitment to 25 per turn for the first four seasons.



I agree with that house rule - it allows NLF to get some progress before US smothers NLF progress with new commitment, making the game more fair.

If US ever gets to the turning point, US wins the game. Thus, NLF needs repeated early offensives, to the most damaging morale effect possible, to prevent that.


Without the limit of 25 US morale per season for the first year, the game could be decided by the quality of SVN leadership - a random roll. Also, the game could be decided for NLF by a horrible Chief of Staff, thus another excellent house rule proposed by Gary Gladik, to guarantee the Chief of Staff is passable. And, another masterpiece proposed by him, -1 to coup rolls for each previous coup, takes away the randomness which could cause US loss by repeated coups, from die rolls.



Those three modifications, together, should take away the random aspects which could determine the winner - I fully agree with those. The campaign game is such a commitment of time that it should not be decided by a few rolls of dice.

With those modifications, US still can, and must, try for reaching the turning point, but at least it will usually require economic aid and bombing of the North, meaning it will not automatically succeed, leaving room for the skill of the players.


I have a very different perspective on this!


On your focus that SVN must quickly reach the 140+ controlled population level for Pacification to proceed:

I do not think there is anything at all magical about getting SVN morale to 140 early in the game.

Rather I believe the US player should not let it fall below 70.

This can be accomplished with a moderate US build-up alone.

No need at all for economic aid or bombing, which empty the US player's morale pockets too quickly and completely unnecessarily.

My South Vietnamese morale did not reach the level of 140 until the Spring of 1970. Eight coups meant that SVN morale bounced around a lot, slowly increasing over time, without any US aid or US bombing. But I refused to squander US Morale early in the game to prop up the SVN Morale.

Instead I saved my US Morale squandering for seven or eight invasions of Laos and/or Cambodia at critical times. These invasions, I believe, paid much larger benefits to my US/ARVN efforts than a pacification column shift ever could.

SVN Morale in 1965 ranged from 65-79
SVN Morale in 1966 ranged from 83-95
SVN Morale in 1967 ranged from 81-85 (see the Coup effects?)
SVN Morale in 1968 ranged from 85-96 (see the Coup effects?)
SVN Morale in 1969 ranged from 103-134
SVN Morale in 1970 ranged from 145-168 (FINALLY REACHED 140
SVN Morale in 1971 ranged from 169-187
SVN Morale in 1972 ranged from 193-210
SVN Morale in 1973 ranged from 204-213


______________________________________________________________________

On the US use of Commitment to "prop up" SVN Morale via economic aid and bombing:


In our Game, pacification proceeded without the SVN morale reaching the column shift. Much important than a column shift is the clearing of South Vietnam of VC each and every season early in the game, and continuing vigilantly. But equally important is saving the US morale necessary to provide the ARVN with the necessary early upgrades and artillery which they will need to perform effectively.

I cannot express well enough how important it is to save US morale from the opening Summer of 1965. Every point of Morale is precious, since it is limited.

Here are the levels of pacification (SVN controlled population) in our game, year by year:

1965 Summer 217
1965 Fall 216
1965 Winter 220
1966 Spring 227
1966 Summer 229
1966 Fall 230
1966 Winter 236
1967 Spring 240
1967 Summer 248
1967 Fall 254
1967 Winter 263
1968 Spring 263
1968 Summer 270
1968 Fall 272
1968 Winter 277
1969 Spring 280
1969 Summer 281
1969 Fall 284
1969 Winter 289
1970 Spring 292
1970 Summer 296
1970 Fall 300
1970 Winter 303
1971 Spring 305
1971 Summer 307
1971 Fall 309
1971 Winter 312
1972 Spring 314
1972 Summer 315
1972 Fall 312
1972 Winter 316
1973 Spring 320
1973 Summer 320
1973 Fall 322
1973 Winter 325

Notice the bonus of +2 Morale for the US was achieved when SVN population controlled reached the level of 272 in the Fall of 1968 .

At the same time, in the Fall of 1968, SVN Morale was only 96 (no where near the 140 column shift level.

So the Column shift is not necessary to have successful Pacification.

I believe that US spending to reach a SVN Morale level of 140 is not a good use of US resources.

Pacification will proceed on target by other means. That is my experience.

_______________________________________________________________________

On US Commitment Levels and "unfairness":

My US commitment was aggressive, but limited:

Summer 1965 New commitment +50
Fall 1965 New commitment +50
Winter 1965 New commitment +25
Spring 1966 New commitment +25
Summer 1966 New commitment + ZERO
Fall 1966 New commitment + ZERO
Winter 1966 New commitment + ZERO
All of 1967 New commitment +50 total for the year
All of 1968 New commitment +50 total for the year

I do not see what is at all "unfair" about such a modest build up by the US player.

How is increasing SVN morale through introduction of US Air, Airmobile, Naval, and Ground troops "unfair"?

While pumping up SVN Morale through the means of massive economic aid (you spend 50 commitment in one season on economic aid!) & Bombing of the North a "fair" way to pump SVN morale.

Both means are allowed by the rules and the design to accomplish the same purpose.

One of the beautiful things about the Vietnam Campaign game is the awesome "open-ended" choices provided to the players.

I say that to artificially limit US commitment to levels less-than-historical is no fun at all. I also do not believe the game needs any "balancing" or "tweaking". It seems to me to be an awesome game just as it is.

____________________________________________________________________

On the built-in Tension in the Game Design:

You point out one of the more stunning and clever design subtleties: The tension between the US increasing Commitment to 150+, which allows NLF Offensives, and the desire to keep US commitment below the 150 level, Preventing NLF Offensives but allowing the VC to work more effectively at Pacification!

This is an awesome game design point.

____________________________________________________________________


On Dice Rolls deciding the game, and House Rules:

A game of this length will never be decided by one, two , or three rolls of the dice.

I rolled Eight Coups early in the game, and the game wasn't decided by those rolls.

I went 13 seasons without a positive change on the SVN Leader Loyalty table, due to 13 rolls in a row of 7 or below, which slowly degraded all the loyalties of the SVN leaders, and that didn't decide the game.

I have a Loyalty 13 Chief of Staff who has is a +0 Two-Star Leader. The entire ARVN Artillery countermix is only Effective exactly 50% of the time, and that has not decided this game either.

This Game Design is not "fragile".

It is solid, and because of it's length, it will not be ruined by a lousy Chief of Staff or a string of Coups and instability. Nor by whatever leader sits on the Chair in Saigon.

It is the length and strength of the Campaign Game which keeps it stable.

The player choices will dominate the large indexes and effects which will determine how the game turns out.

Commitment Level over time, success at Pacification while at the same time preserving US Morale, and doing what can be done to minimize ineffectiveness and maximize artillery and firepower through efficient S&D Operations will win the day for one side or the other.

Consider these things before limiting the design through too many House Rules


On a personal Note:

Petri,

Thanks for your great thoughts on these things. Clearly I have a very different perspective from you.

I submit my thoughts with all respect due to you, my fellow gamer! Your thoughtful input into the Vietnam Game is brilliant, and I enjoy reading your wonderful thoughts, from across the world. May we continue to share and enjoy the intricacies of this masterful Vietnam Campaign Game.

Enjoying the Game!
Randy
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Petri P
Finland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
aslredbarricades wrote:

In our Game, pacification proceeded without the SVN morale reaching the column shift. Much important than a column shift is the clearing of South Vietnam of VC each and every season early in the game, and continuing vigilantly. But equally important is saving the US morale necessary to provide the ARVN with the necessary early upgrades and artillery which they will need to perform effectively.]


Thanks for the detailed morale tally and the kind words. I believe that NLF needs to hit US morale with repeated offensives as soon as possible.

This makes the population control a race - can it reach the peak population (at least 280) before US is forced to leave? Under this assumption, (i.e. that NLF actually can drive US out, by having enough morale targeting offensives, by the end of 1972 or so), the importance of reaching 140 SVN morale as soon as possible is increased.

In my current experiment, NLF has caused 115 US morale losses from 3 offensives. In those, 99% of the participating units were built within attack range of capitals - there was no way US could have prevented the attacks, beyond of retreating away from -6 VC attacks after the first round if the VC survived - but if that was done for more than 2 capitals per offensive, NLF could have got the benefits of captured capitals.

Now I am inclined to think, after considering my current experiment, that maybe 2-3 offensives with very heavy NVA presence (200 attacks per offensive) could be as useful as, and possibly more economic, than 4-5 mostly VC offensives. But in either case, those should be able to force US final withdrawal at some point in the end of 1972 - and that could be too soon unless SVN morale got to 140 early enough.

In your game, you got to 280 in Spring 69 - without a column shift. In this game, SVN will get to 259 in Spring 69, with a column shift.

This is, to a large degree, caused by the loss of Binh Dinh and Kanh Hoa in this game - both caused by limited US commitment in the first year and very inconvenient ARVN bouts of ineffectiveness.. and a determined VC attempt to get the high value provinces, by building inside of SVN, instead of building in Cambodia and Laos.

5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randy Knight
United States
Westerly
Rhode Island
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
petrip wrote:


In your game, you got to 280 in Spring 69 - without a column shift. In this game, SVN will get to 259 in Spring 69, with a column shift.

This is, to a large degree, caused by the loss of Binh Dinh and Kanh Hoa in this game - both caused by limited US commitment in the first year and very inconvenient ARVN bouts of ineffectiveness.. and a determined VC attempt to get the high value provinces, by building inside of SVN, instead of building in Cambodia and Laos.


Here is what happened in our game, that caused Mark to tack down a particular course:

1.) Mark, from the very beginning of the Campaign Game, decide that the VC (alone, without the NVA) would attempt to contest pacification. By this, the effort was to flood South Vietnam provinces with VC battalions and political sections with the dual goal that they would cause Free Fire zones, and that some would survive Game Turns 1 and 2 to cause die roll modifications to pacification in the following Interphase.

Mark did floor South Vietnam with VC.

This did cause many Free Fire zones.

But, the VC did not survive in any meaningful numbers!

2.) What Mark experienced was that his VC were not surviving, and in fact, were dying at the rate of 35+ battalions per season.

Thus, they were actually helping the US by providing a Morale Bonus, without maintaining a presence of units to provide die roll modifications to Pacification, other than Free Fire.

3.) Therefore, Mark shifted strategy to trying to cause death and resource loss to the US/ARVN. This he did by going on HOLD ops deep in the mountains, and experimenting with surprise VC regiments, and building up for a massive offensive in Spring of 1969.

4.) Mark's VC lost their "determination" (to use Petri's word) to affect pacification. Instead they shifted over to preparation for Offensives and to causing replacement and asset losses to the US player. This was the first time we saw the NVA artillery providing fire support to VC clusters.

5.) Indeed, the VC took to fleeing to the sanctuaries of Laos and Cambodia and had a very sneaky penchant for only dying by the convenient 28 or 29 battalion equivalents per season, denying the US their Morale gain from success, yet still causing the US to fight and the ARVN to take some replacement and asset losses.

So, looking back,

A.) Petri's VC were a bit more determined in those couple of provinces.

B.) Petri's VC were built within South Vietnam for Offensives instead of attacking primarily out of the sanctuaries.

Also, looking back:

C.) Randy was very willing to give up Province Capitols during Offensives to limit NLF attacks, while Petri was not willing to do so.

Example: In out most recent Offensive in our game, the NLF captured a total of SIX (6) province capitols during the Offensive, but scored ZERO attacks on GAME TURN 1 because the US/ARVN units fled those provinces completely using Strategic Movement prior to the NLF getting the chance to attack.
This primarily happened in Quang Tin, Quang Gnai, and Quang Nam. There were some 20 blue VC counters in those provinces at the start of the Spring Offensive.
By quick calculation, I temporarily abandoned the province capitols (indeed almost the entire provinces) in order to deny the VC there those 20-40 attacks. So naturally Mark sused strategic movement to move those VC into position to attack other occupied hexes in the upcoming GAME TURN 2.

D.) Then, when it was the US/ARVN time to do operations, I rushed back into those abandoned areas and used S&D and Security to kill well over 2/3rds the blue VC before they could even get the chance to participate in the Offensive in Game Turn 2.

Thus the US Player very much found abandoning the areas of high VC presence a valuable anti-suicide offensive tactic.

The formula for abandonment is basically that if a US/ARVN position can be attacked by three or more VC units preforming S&D ops (is in range of them), then it is best to abandon the capitol and deny those attacks.

One province capitol = 1/3 US commitment lost (effectively)

Three VC attacks = 1 full US commitment lost (effectively)

The math clearly says leave and send back your S&D buddies and reverse the Hunting Game.


Petri: How many seasons (if any) did the US get a morale boost from killing 30+ VC battalion-equivalents in your game? Just curious…

Randy
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Petri P
Finland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
aslredbarricades wrote:


The formula for abandonment is basically that if a US/ARVN position can be attacked by three or more VC units preforming S&D ops (is in range of them), then it is best to abandon the capitol and deny those attacks.

One province capitol = 1/3 US commitment lost (effectively)

Three VC attacks = 1 full US commitment lost (effectively)

The math clearly says leave and send back your S&D buddies and reverse the Hunting Game.


An intriguing strategy.

But, shouldn't NLF in that case just pass through the abandoned capitals (using their triple strategic movement), then continue to the mountains into good defensive positions.

US troops used the first turn to strategic move away, so they have only one turn left to attack NLF - and NLF could position rearguard battalions to protect the troop concentrations by having them patrol in the second turn of the season if needed. An offensive which was cancelled (worth 10 commitment), to get a bunch of captured capitals, which damage both SVN and US morale? And, if US somehow manages to kill a number of NLF units, at least US would not get morale from that, because that season was technically an offensive.

(unrelated: you wrote in some reply that I paid 50 for economic aid in a season - no, that was 25. A high one time price, but that was also the clear turning point for SVN population gains, see the charts I have posted).

aslredbarricades wrote:

Petri: How many seasons (if any) did the US get a morale boost from killing 30+ VC battalion-equivalents in your game? Just curious…
Randy


One season only, Fall 66, when US raised commitment significantly for the first time.

- First five seasons US was too weak to kill 30+ battalions (slow build-up, attempted to see if it is possible to prevent offensives).

- 6th season, Fall 66, US had 5+ divisions and 100+ air - I wanted NLF to try *not* going to the offensive route, as a baseline for attempting to keep full VC battalion countermix on the map against half-strong US. US killed 40 bn equivalents. (Also, ARVN was effective, and there were some NVA units on the map, those were hit too.)

Since then, VC has tried to keep the bn equivalents on the map at 29 or less at a time outside of offensives. About half of those have been patrolling on the roadsides, and the rest have tried to target one or two provinces a turn - provinces low in loyalty, shielded by patrolling units, far away from the previous turn's targets.

Most have died, but in most seasons VC has got some negative modifiers - in the worst column (2nd worst with the column shift), those are useful for VC.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randy Knight
United States
Westerly
Rhode Island
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
petrip wrote:
aslredbarricades wrote:


The formula for abandonment is basically that if a US/ARVN position can be attacked by three or more VC units preforming S&D ops (is in range of them), then it is best to abandon the capitol and deny those attacks.

One province capitol = 1/3 US commitment lost (effectively)

Three VC attacks = 1 full US commitment lost (effectively)

The math clearly says leave and send back your S&D buddies and reverse the Hunting Game.


An intriguing strategy.

But, shouldn't NLF in that case just pass through the abandoned capitals (using their triple strategic movement), then continue to the mountains into good defensive positions.

That is likely a good response by the NLF! However, it removes those 20+ VC from the Offensive. That is a definite victory for the US/ARVN, if their goal is to limit Morale Loss from Attacks.

In any case, the NLF player was not thinking in terms of hiding in the mountains during the season. Rather, because it was an Offensive, he was moving those blue VC in whatever direction they had to go to be able to participate in GAME TURN 2 Offensive suicide attacks.

It would have taken a great presence of mind to on-the-fly in the heat of battle to decide to remove those 20 blue VC counters from the Offensive attacking mode


US troops used the first turn to strategic move away,

Well, in the example in our game, the US moved the three stacks in the three abandoned capitol towns (in proximity to the 20 blue VC counters) out of attack range using one Security Operation and two Strategic Movement Operations.

These were only a few units, so most of the US & ARVN forces in Danang (stacked almost 15 counters high ) and other nearby firebases were available for both GAME TURNS to operate against the repositioned VC.


so they have only one turn left to attack NLF - and NLF could position rearguard battalions to protect the troop concentrations by having them patrol in the second turn of the season if needed.

I like that clever idea!

An offensive which was cancelled (worth 10 commitment), to get a bunch of captured capitals, which damage both SVN and US morale? And, if US somehow manages to kill a number of NLF units, at least US would not get morale from that, because that season was technically an offensive.

Mark did this in his 1969 Offensive, which lasted 3 seasons in a row! There was heavy fighting in the Spring, Summer, and Fall of 1969, and the US Player never got any credit for the many, many battalion-equivalents that were killed off in 1969.



(unrelated: you wrote in some reply that I paid 50 for economic aid in a season - no, that was 25. A high one time price, but that was also the clear turning point for SVN population gains, see the charts I have posted).

Sorry about goofing that detail. I just remember being shocked at the expenditure, which is so out of character for me the way I play the US…

aslredbarricades wrote:

Petri: How many seasons (if any) did the US get a morale boost from killing 30+ VC battalion-equivalents in your game? Just curious…
Randy


One season only, Fall 66, when US raised commitment significantly for the first time.

- First five seasons US was too weak to kill 30+ battalions (slow build-up, attempted to see if it is possible to prevent offensives).

I like the idea of keeping the US under 150 commitment (149 or less) to prevent early NLF Offensives. I wonder what the trade off is in the long term Campaign: Morale saved due to no Offensives vs pacification population lost due to not being able to effectively deal with the VC in South Vietnam ???

- 6th season, Fall 66, US had 5+ divisions and 100+ air - I wanted NLF to try *not* going to the offensive route, as a baseline for attempting to keep full VC battalion countermix on the map against half-strong US. US killed 40 bn equivalents. (Also, ARVN was effective, and there were some NVA units on the map, those were hit too.)

Since then, VC has tried to keep the bn equivalents on the map at 29 or less at a time outside of offensives.

Yes, a strategy that Mark employed also. I thought it a failure. A failure in the sense that the VC basically all died, and so had no effect on pacification. In our Game, I let the ARVN deal with the VC when the VC were playing the "29 or less vulnerable" game.

About half of those have been patrolling on the roadsides, and the rest have tried to target one or two provinces a turn - provinces low in loyalty, shielded by patrolling units, far away from the previous turn's targets.

I can see the logic in that. Focus on one or two provinces and shield them with the rest of the vulnerable VC…

But if the shield really works, the VC player should build all 70 battalions, and lose less that 30 defending the rest.

You might be onto something that would work with this strategy.


Most have died, but in most seasons VC has got some negative modifiers - in the worst column (2nd worst with the column shift), those are useful for VC.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Randy,

The problem is that in your game, you had an extraordinarily effective ARVN force. That skews your results because it practically triples your combat strength during the early phases of the game.

Without the "ARVN General Armored Battalion Leadership Course", you would have had the typical 75% ineffective rate that most of us enjoy. Since I roll only 6 or 1 for effectiveness, my ARVN either go crazy with bloodlust or they stay in their barracks playing cards.

I can't rely on the ARVN to operate on a regular basis, so I can't include the majority of them in my strategy in any capacity other than garrisons.

Signed,

General Westmoreland

4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randy Knight
United States
Westerly
Rhode Island
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
boyinblue1 wrote:
Randy,

The problem is that in your game, you had an extraordinarily effective ARVN force. That skews your results because it practically triples your combat strength during the early phases of the game.

Without the "ARVN General Armored Battalion Leadership Course", you would have had the typical 75% ineffective rate that most of us enjoy. Since I roll only 6 or 1 for effectiveness, my ARVN either go crazy with bloodlust or they stay in their barracks playing cards.

I can't rely on the ARVN to operate on a regular basis, so I can't include the majority of them in my strategy in any capacity other than garrisons.

Signed,

General Westmoreland





I think you should buy new dice (Ones that have all six NUMBERS printed on their faces ???) They look like this : 123456

Absolutely True, I suppose, about my ARVN. I wouldn't know any other experience. Just have to take your word for it about some "normal" ARVN...

My ARVN have led the fight. I believe literally they have done more to win the fight than the US forces, due in large part that my ARVN have operated offensively so much more than my US troops.

My ARVN are the bane of Mark's VC and of his NVA.



Thanks for pointing that out. Shrewd perspective on your part.

Next game, do what you can to improve their effectiveness. The leadership plan. It's not much, but it helps and gives you an illusion of control.

Randy

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
aslredbarricades wrote:
boyinblue1 wrote:
Randy,

The problem is that in your game, you had an extraordinarily effective ARVN force. That skews your results because it practically triples your combat strength during the early phases of the game.

Without the "ARVN General Armored Battalion Leadership Course", you would have had the typical 75% ineffective rate that most of us enjoy. Since I roll only 6 or 1 for effectiveness, my ARVN either go crazy with bloodlust or they stay in their barracks playing cards.

I can't rely on the ARVN to operate on a regular basis, so I can't include the majority of them in my strategy in any capacity other than garrisons.

Signed,

General Westmoreland





I think you should buy new dice (Ones that have all six NUMBERS printed on their faces ???) They look like this : 123456

Absolutely True, I suppose, about my ARVN. I wouldn't know any other experience. Just have to take your word for it about some "normal" ARVN...

My ARVN have led the fight. I believe literally they have done more to win the fight than the US forces, due in large part that my ARVN have operated offensively so much more than my US troops.

My ARVN are the bane of Mark's VC and of his NVA.



Thanks for pointing that out. Shrewd perspective on your part.

Next game, do what you can to improve their effectiveness. The leadership plan. It's not much, but it helps and gives you an illusion of control.

Randy



First of all, we're all having fun with a great game and I really appreciate all of the time you and Mark have put into the Session reports and analysis of the game. Kudos to both of you!


I am more of a simulationist ( that's a word, right?). I deploy ARVN divisions one at a time and I tolerate their poor leadership. For example, my Marine division commander is very loyal, but terrible at command. As a result, my Marines tend to guard stuff in I Corps.

This is just a difference between playing styles. Your ARVN leader selection technique is completely legal according to the rules, but would never have been possible historically. Your tactics and operational strategies/analysis are really brilliant, but I would have liked to have seen their results with a more historical ARVN component.

Bill and I will probably play several campaigns over our lifetimes. Right now we're running a "standard" campaign. In the end, we'll see how a Westmoreland campaign plays out before we start tweaking it with unorthodox strategies. This isn't a critique of your ARVN strategy. I just wouldn't use it because I wouldn't want Bill to use it on me when we switched seats.

Dave

4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randy Knight
United States
Westerly
Rhode Island
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
boyinblue1 wrote:
aslredbarricades wrote:
boyinblue1 wrote:
Randy,

The problem is that in your game, you had an extraordinarily effective ARVN force. That skews your results because it practically triples your combat strength during the early phases of the game.

Without the "ARVN General Armored Battalion Leadership Course", you would have had the typical 75% ineffective rate that most of us enjoy. Since I roll only 6 or 1 for effectiveness, my ARVN either go crazy with bloodlust or they stay in their barracks playing cards.

I can't rely on the ARVN to operate on a regular basis, so I can't include the majority of them in my strategy in any capacity other than garrisons.

Signed,

General Westmoreland





I think you should buy new dice (Ones that have all six NUMBERS printed on their faces ???) They look like this : 123456

Absolutely True, I suppose, about my ARVN. I wouldn't know any other experience. Just have to take your word for it about some "normal" ARVN...

My ARVN have led the fight. I believe literally they have done more to win the fight than the US forces, due in large part that my ARVN have operated offensively so much more than my US troops.

My ARVN are the bane of Mark's VC and of his NVA.



Thanks for pointing that out. Shrewd perspective on your part.

Next game, do what you can to improve their effectiveness. The leadership plan. It's not much, but it helps and gives you an illusion of control.

Randy



First of all, we're all having fun with a great game and I really appreciate all of the time you and Mark have put into the Session reports and analysis of the game. Kudos to both of you!


I am more of a simulationist ( that's a word, right?). I deploy ARVN divisions one at a time and I tolerate their poor leadership. For example, my Marine division commander is very loyal, but terrible at command. As a result, my Marines tend to guard stuff in I Corps.

This is just a difference between playing styles. Your ARVN leader selection technique is completely legal according to the rules, but would never have been possible historically. Your tactics and operational strategies/analysis are really brilliant, but I would have liked to have seen their results with a more historical ARVN component.

Bill and I will probably play several campaigns over our lifetimes. Right now we're running a "standard" campaign. In the end, we'll see how a Westmoreland campaign plays out before we start tweaking it with unorthodox strategies. This isn't a critique of your ARVN strategy. I just wouldn't use it because I wouldn't want Bill to use it on me when we switched seats.

Dave



I understand what you're saying. And I agree I'd let fate dictate that you have no control whatsoever (and I mean NO control whatsoever) over the ARVN leadership. The rules dont let you do anything to improve them. It is a dice game for the leadership.


That said;

If I had an ARVN Marine Commander who was rated -1, -2, or -3 and who was very loyal, I would feel I had played poorly. (that's not a judgement, just explaining the way I would feel!)

If there is a way planned for in the rules (in the player's control) to eliminate or withdraw such a leader, I feel obliged to do so.

I dont look at that as unorthodox.




The rules allow for the US player to encourage a COUP !?!?1?




They allow for a Division to be withdrawn, and demand that if a player withdraws the last unit of a Division, that the leader of that division go back into the pool.

Then when a unit of the Division is again introduced, a new ARVN leader is drawn from the pool.

The rules then state that there is "no limit to the number of times a unit may be withdrawn" and reintroduced.



I cannot imagine why those 3 very specific rules exist in the game unless the designers intentionally built them into the game to allow a player to have the means to remove a lame-duck ARVN leader.

Those rules serve absolutely no purpose except to allow (I say encourage) such play.



Only HQ cannot be removed. So I decide that when the ARVN Division in question gets an acceptable leader (zero, +1, or better), then it is obviously time to build that Division's HQ, to lock in the decent Leader.

Of course, such control only lasts until the vagaries of play then force his removal:


For example:

I have my ARVN Paratrooper Division sitting in Phouc Long and Tay Ninh.

It is impossible for them to EVER be effective.

The Paratroop Leader is rated a Zero. Morale 13. . .

My Chief of Staff is rated Zero. Morale 13 . . .


The game is tough enough on the poor ARVN as it is, dude

Dont add to your misery !

Good insights, and thanks for explaining your "simulationalist" thoughts.

Enjoying the Game!
Randy

2 
 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.