RE: Victory Games Vietnam

RE: Victory Games Vietnam (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> Mods and Scenarios

Message

Grymme -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (9/26/2011 9:29:55 PM)
Hi V218 has to wait to be uploaded untill tomorrow because i hit a wall on the supply/readiness system. The lower rank vietnamese leaders are not featured at all in the scenario (as i said before). The main reason having to do with limitations of the the editor. I couldnt only lower the readiness of SVN troops or one HQ in one area. Also HQs in the computer game are not at all locked to their subordinate units as they are in the boardgame. So i did do a generall readinessloss instead. The chances of a readinessloss happening is based on wether the government is stable, there is unrest or a coup has happened. It is also lower for augmented units and SVM marines are never innefective. See section 3 in the manual for details. The readiness loss/supply are actually one of the things i am looking at right now because it doesnt work exactly as i would want it to. But dont expect any miracles.

Grymme -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (9/26/2011 9:44:10 PM)
BTW. You say you have gotten well into 1968. Thats a lot of rounds played in a short while. Can you describe the situation. What is Free World morale and commitment. How is the border area against North Vietnam holding up etc? It would be very interesting to hear how its going.

Goodmongo -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (9/26/2011 11:10:48 PM)
I have mainly played with US commitment being relatively high on the first two seasonal turns. On the average 45 and 40 for the first two turns. I also heavily favor artillery and get two US 175mm units and have one or two 155mm for ARVN units. My strategy is for the ARVN is defend IV Corps area with marine, para and 2 ARVN divisions. The Iron Triangle is defended by the US 25th Division. North of that and along the coast I use the US 101st and 1st Air Cav disivions. There are two ARVN divisions concentrated along the coast. The airmobile take the war to the VC. I use a full division to surround and then destroy each VC unit. In I Corps I have the 3rd Marine and 23rd US divisions. They are artillery heavy and are super strong on defense. I don't use ARVN units till after I get augmented ones. Near DaNang and into the mountains I use the 4th Marines plus the 173rd Airbone brigade to supress and eventually destroy VC units. There are 2 ARVN divisions to pin and hammer with artillery any VC units. Basically I have around a 20 to 25 to 1 kill ratio. Against the NVA I hammer them with artillery till all readiness is gone then attack with ground units. I end up destroying them with little losses. Artillery is the key against the enemy. Hit them and do not attack till there is 90% or more losses in readiness and kills. Then destroy the unit so it can't reinforce. I completely destroyed at least one NVA division (and most likely two) doing this. For VC let them appear and then cut off their movement till superior forces are brought in. I attack with a minimum of one regiment/brigade per batallion. On turns before seasonal interfaces I try to garrison capitals but it's better to let some go and not get my units destroyed. (See the bug about missing Rf-Pf forces). BTW this leads me to a question. Because the NVN and NLF commitment and supplies only happen during seasonal turns doesn't it make sense to ONLY bomb these NLF bases on those turns? You can ignore the bases and use your air assets on units for the other two months right? I may have to test this. The above strategy means you have to kill ALOT of units. The AI is good at placing units where you are weakest. This means you need to have mobile forces and airmobile are the answer. Get all of them. But I'm thinking a much better strategy is to limit the US commitment to 25 per season till you hit 4 seasons (100 commitment) and then lower to 15 and finally 4 with 15 every 3 or 4 seasonal turns. The NVA has such a multiplier on morale that going 45 or 40 results in probalby close to 100+ extra morale from years 1969 to 1975. EDIT: I forgot to actually answer your question. In October 1968 US morale is 462 and my commitment is 203. But SVN morale is only at 95. And the population is 748 so I think I'm winning. I think I overproduced units in this game. I probably could live with a much lower commitment.

Goodmongo -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (9/27/2011 1:37:10 AM)
I found more bugs. There are no augmented ARVN mech units. The card is there but nothing appears if you try to build them. And non-augmented tank and mech units have 50 morale instead of 40. The augmented tank units have 45 morale. The infantry units seem OK. The manual mentions augmented HQ's but there is no difference in the game. Also, it is really easy to reproduce the missing playing card for US divisions and birgades. Just start a game and produce a few US divisions. Then select the strategic choices and pick economic aid. Now produce a few ARVN units. Go back to strategic choices. You should now see that the US division card and brigades is missing. Also, the picture of many of the other cards is not in sync with the actual card when you click on it. EDIT: I was also able to reproduce the bug where no Rf-Pf forces appear in a capital. This happens if the VC force is next to the capital at the start of the NVN turn. I have a save game where this happens in two or three cities. If you want the save let me know where I can load it up to.

Grymme -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (9/27/2011 7:47:41 AM)
I have to admitt i read your last post yesterday a little hastily. So i didnt really respond to your comments on the readiness loss etc. I would actually prefer to have the innefectivness only cause loss of AP, not loss of readiness per se. But the editor has no modifyAPbyPeople check or exec. It does have a ReduceReadinessByPeople. So i went with that. It would be possible to make an loss of AP event by checking for specific SFTs that only SVN units have, but that wouldnt apply to certain units that dont have those SFTs. And most SFTs are common. Anyway i do think the readinessloss is as an realistic effect as the AP loss since its more versatile. As for the % i have to admitt i winged it a little and didnt do as close calculations as you did. But i did put it lower than in the boardgame by choice since loss of readiness is a more severe penalty than to just loose AP. As to your other bugs/questions. 1) Fixed the non-existing mech unit in 218. 2) I have adjusted some Morale values that were faulty in the new 218 version. But morale in a unit also changes ingame because of battlefield losses/victories. This is hardcoded into the ATG game. So it could be that you have seen something that was wrong, but that should be corrected in 218. But units will eventually have different morale than the base morale. 3) Did a quick search on "Augmented" in the manual. Didnt find any reference to Augmented HQs. I might have missed it, if so can you show where it is. Anyway the only units that can be produced augmented in the scenario are infantry battalions, regiments, tanks and mechanized battalions (and Rangers are always augmented). 4) I tried to reproduce the missing US cards. I deployed the 1st Cav, 4th & 9th infantry US. Then i played a US economic aid card. Then i deployed one each of all ARVN units. Then i went into the strategic choices. Then i deployed New Jersey. The cards were still there. But to your point. What version of ATG are you playing? Because the "Cards in sync" thing is a ATG bug that i think was fixed in the 208 version of ATG (or maybe it was fixed in the hotfix that is yet not released by Vic). Anyway, check so that you have the latest version of ATG. 5) You can send the savegame to my emailaccount. I will check the rf-pf thing it out. 6) About the bombing of NLF bases. It seems your opponent has a lot of engineers/sappers that repair the bases imediatly. But lets say that he didnt, or only had some small engineers. Then you could bomb the base in a non seasonal turn and if it wasnt repaired it would have the same effect. But to your point. If you can get the location down to be damaged during the seasonal round then that is what counts and it doesnt matter which round the damage was caused.

Grymme -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (9/27/2011 8:38:29 AM)
I have uploaded version 218b of the campaign scenario to my website. Bugs fixed - Detailed reports bug - ARVN mechanized battalion bug - Withdrawing cruiser bug - Cruiser Bombardment bug - ARVN cards not mentioning augmented units cost - ARVN locations not being able to produce helicopters - AI doesnt do research - Rangers patrolling bug where even hexes occupied by communist units became free world - Fixed a name & sprite issue with engineer vehicles. - Fixed some faulty morale values Changes/improvements - Gave a message when rangers fail to deploı so the player will know what has happened. - Changed some base morale values. - Redid the ARVN innefectivness system and made it a little easier for the ARVN units. - Created a new scenario variant called "No ambushes". If this variant is selected NLF Battalions, Regiments and Division HQs will get a -50% offensive modifier for the round they are created (VC companies still can do ambushes). I did this variant because it felt kind of gamey to create 5 battalions around an enemy unit and then get +100% bonus when imediatly attacking. Updated the manual accordingly. As for your game. Looks like its going quite well. Your commitment is well below the historical. Will be interesting to see what happens around 1972-73. But with such low loss rate maybe the US will be able to stay the war out. Have you managed to score any morale bonus from killing units? Have you had any losses from loosing units? Have you bombed North Vietnam anything? How much have you used replacements? If you do win the campaign and want to play again you can always set the AI to AI+ or AI++. It will give the AI a hefty production bonus. This might make it a little more difficult. On the possible "to do list" is (all this will likely not be done) - A Communist advantage scenario variant - Improving the communist AI somewhat - Fortifications and special forces camps - Improving the SVN leader system (possibly including corps leaders) - Free Fire rules - McNamara line rules - Easter Offensive scenario - Fall of South Vietnam scenario - Campaign Game after tet scenario

Goodmongo -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (9/27/2011 3:17:03 PM)
I did more research on the Rf-Pf issue and I think I know the cause. It happens based on one of two possibilities and you can also easily test this out. On turn one you place the VC unit and the Rf units are in the capital as expected. Now move the VC unit next to the city but do not attack it. The Free World turn comes and the RF unit disappears. Do not move any units next to or near the VC unit (this simulates troops being out of range). Then on the next NVN turn the Rf unit does not appear and the VC unit can easily move through the city. This happens because either the Rf unit can not be placed in a ZOC of the enemy or because the ZOC on the change in turns causes the city to switch sides and be controlled by the VC. I have not done enough checks to see which is the true cause but I did verify that this happens. The augmented ARVN HQ was my fault in poor reading comprehension. As for the cards I will check to make sure I have the correct ATG version. On bombing bases is there a way for the US side to check the status each turn? Can we see the damage level of enemy bases? And I'm not sure the AI rebuilds them (this needs to happen and AA units need to be forced to be placed there) which leads to a balance issue which I touch on below. Now for some potential balance issues. In looking at the combat stats the VC units seem to have the same capabilities as US M-16 units. This might be true but it implies that a VC battalion could stand toe to toe with a US one. Now maybe the reason the US did so well in actual fights is because of support artillery, air etc but it just seems wrong. While this actually helps play balance in AI games it really hurts H vs H play balance. Why would anyone want to build VC regiments over battalions? The supply cost is 4 more yet the combat stats are not that much higher. And the purpose of the VC is to move and take ground, not to fight unless they had a huge advantage. Maybe 1-2 more supply point but 4 seems escessive I think. The starting supply for the VC seems high. My version of the manual (I forgot to check the actual game) says 90. That is 45 VC battalions. For the AI this might be fine but in a human vs. human game it would kill it. Especially since there is no restriction on placement (see below for an idea). But your new variant of no ambushes might fix it for human play. On NLF supplies a quick study would reveal that the NVN side should never build the trail or send supplies that way. The cost of a naval blockade is 4 US commitment which is way too high to actually do (2 would be more fair and get 1 + 50% chance for a second back when you withdraw). That means each NVN commitment nets 9.5 NLF supplies. The trail starts with 2 bases and either 8 or 9 supplies if not bombed. The manual says (I have not yet confirmed this) that a damaged base is not counted. So a US bombing run on the two bases means 6 or 7 supplies. Take into consideration that it takes one or more commitment to expand the trail and you have a hard time ever breaking even with just using naval supplies. I would also adjust the AI to only use naval unless there are 3(?) or more intact trail bases and then just use the trail (unless naval is raised). Can you also force the AI to position AA units on the bases? Of course the trail adds locations that can make things so using commitment to open bases is still a good idea especially for the AI as they get a bonus. I think this explains the VC artillery units that I see. I need some clarifications on VC draft. I have not play tested long enough on the VC side to check this out. The manual implies that VC units can be produced till the NVN controlled population is reached. You can also use commitment to raise the NLF population. But what throws me off is section 4.5 where it mention 400% up to 800% draft to population. I am not sure what is right. If you build VC forces up to 100% of the controlled population and say that's 350, then lose controlled population it would have to drop all the way down to 88 to have a draft of 400% of controlled population. I just don't see this as even possible. Even 200 would need to go down to 50. Or is there no restriction on VC units to population? Of course your intent might simply have been to almost always give 12 population per commitment which is fine but makes the resst of the table useless as it will never happen. I don't recall the starting population numbers for both sides but the NVN side is around 300 to 350 I think. That means 100 to 116 VC battalion equilvalents (10 divisions if HQ's are built) before reaching the population cap. This might be fine for human vs human play as a human can dissolve the unit and will retreat. But against the AI it means that the war will start off with a big bang and flash of VC units all over the south. The US side eventually (1 year or so) destroys all these troops. All of a sudden no more VC except for two companies. This means a human vs AI would always start with a very large commitment to force the AI to reach the population cap early (1966). I know in the real war this sort of happened (loss of VC units) but that was because they did stupid offensives that cost the lives. The war then settled down into a more conventional NVA vs US/ARVN war. For the AI I think you limit the commitment to 50% VC and 50% NVA each season which is a good start. But I would also allow you to go to say 150% population for the AI if this is possible. Otherwise what you do as the US side is hold I Corps and only do artillery to attrit them. Kill all VC till they can't produce more units. Then invade the bases (taking the morale hit) and it ends up turning into a standard war where conquered territory remains yours. Only a small force is left to fight the two VC companies and the rest move on a line up to the DMZ for an easy win. I think this would be very ahistorical but inevitable in a human vs AI game. Right now for the NLF the limiting factor is population and not supplies and that balance is off. I disagree with lowering the percentage chance for readiness loss for ARVN units, especially against the AI. For play balance you really should increase it. In fact what makes sense is to increase it even in a human vs human game but limit the NVN side to placing no more than one VC division (HQ, 9 batallions or 3 regiments plus artillery) in a single corps zone on a single turn. They can place more on the border or in Cambodia/Laos (unlimited there) but this prevents the 45 batallions in a single zone to completely wipe it out which is also very ahistorical. I am not sure if this is possible or not but would really help balance the game in H vs H play. I see you might try the Free Fire rules. If done this would definetly change the balance and will require adjustments on other things. But overall I think its a good thing to do. That 1968 game was based on the version before 217 so I haven't gone back to it. I start new games all the time especailly when there is a new verision to try out. But to answer your questions I did get moral gains I think. I never had a coup so US morale also went up due to the original SVN leader. My losses are very tiny especially the US ones. I use artillery heavily (free fire would impact this strategy) and only attack units heavily hit. The NVA is forced to attack full US regiments and suffer accordingly. I have used replacements and made many errors with them. I used them on air units and they ended up having ground troops. I wonder if this impacted their bombing which I could still do. I mainly used them for the ARVN units which take a beating as they are usually the anvil portion or are scattered to hold ground till reinforments (airmobile for the win) arrive. I have not bombed the north and did not do enough economic aid, hence my low SVN morale (or lower than it should be). I hope you don't mind my feedback. I really want to support this effort but know that doing this means more work for you. I can donate more if you want as I would LOVE and really LOVE a Free World AI version also. And if you want me to test out specific things just let me know. I will be ahppy to do it for you.

Grymme -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (9/27/2011 4:50:22 PM)
I dont mind feedback. I like it, even if the amount of text sometimes exhausts me. But my time is kind of limited since i am on parental leave with twin 1:year olds. So i will not all the time have an option to answer and correct everything. And eventually i will move on to another project. I do have a wellpaying job (public prosecutor) so i am not that motivated by money (unless you have a couple of 1 000$. But you can support me by eventually looking into and getting some of my other scenarios (although i kind of fear the amount feedback i will get on them :) ). 1) The RF-PF thing. Got it, fixed it. It was the ZOC getting the hex. Will be in the next upload. 2) You can check the status of the locations by scouting the locations with aircraft or ground troops (recon missions). I am not sure the AI can be forced to place AA on the locations. 3) Not only was the VC able to stand toe to toe with US small units. I believe they in at least part had better weaponry when it comes to personal weapons. I know there were a multitude of small arms but in the beginning of the war i believe some VC/NVA had AK-47s while the US were still fighting with M14 Carbines. The US had better crew served weapons, airsupport, artillery and APCs. This accounts for most of the difference in casualties. But above all they had better medical support. The US death toll in vietnam was very low compared to VC. But an wounded or sick soldier is still a casualty. Adding the wounded increases US casualties from 58 000 to something like 213 000. So far i think the number is justified. But if you look at a typical NLF battalion it will have something like 107 powerpoints. A US battalion ingame will have something like 220. A NLF regiment has something like 290. This still means that a US battalions in the game is roughly twice as powerfull as a VC and can almost go toe to toe with a regiment. 4) The cost of the VC regiment is based on the cost in the boardgame. Actually i dont think they were very popular to build in the boardgame. I have added some incentives for the VC player to build regiments in the form of some sappers, light AA and heavier antitank weaponry. 5) The starting supply for the VC is according to the boardgame. 6) As for your argument over the supply i think its somewhat contradictory since you say A) that sea supply is too good and then B) the cost of naval blockade is too high. But If the sea supply is so good then the value of increasing the naval blockade goes up. Anyway. The numbers and costs are based on the boardgame. Although not exact. In the boardgame people were complaining that sea supply was too costly. I think sea supply is better in the beginning here. But Trail supply can net a total of 12 military supplies. Sea supply can never do this. And you want to build the trail anyway because of the bases. Also interdicting the trail can be very costly for the Free World player tying up air units that can be killed if the Communist player uses AA. Time will tell if this is balanced. But i think there needs to be a lot of games to see that. The AI does change its use of Sea Supply vs Trail Supply according to Free World strategy. The cost of upping the blockade is taken from the boardgame. It might seem high, but remember you can always withdraw points from the naval blockade once commitment gets high. They are never spent, only tied up. 7) The draft level. The manual might not be clear here. But say you have 300 controlled SVN population and the draft level is 300. You cannot buy units so you will have to start raising the draft. Eventually the total available population to 1200. But SVN population is still only 300. So the draft level is 400% of the population. The net gain will be smaller. This might sound like a lot. But i played 11 rounds of the game for 4 seasons. In a full game there would be 40 seasons. In those four seasons i had raised the draft to something like 180. In that pace i would be well above the 400% line eventually and i was doing well. Had i beeen doing worse and lost some population down to 300 that would put me into the 600% collumn. Also remember that the effect is cumulative. So the more SVN population is lost the easier it is to reach the 600% or 800% collumns. You say you had 778 population in your 1968 game. That would mean the NLF player only had something like 272 population. For him to reach the 400% level would only require 1 088 in draft level. That would mean that he would reach the 400% draft level after ca 24 seasons (6 years) somewhere in 1970-71. After three more years (73-74) he would reach the 600% draft level. But this is with my very moderate losses and draft raise of 45 population per season. I imagine that with higher casualties it would go much faster. Anyway the numbers are from the boardgame. The might need to be tweaked. But that is well into the future. 8) The AI does not abide by the constraints of population. That is an exception from that rule. So you dont have to worry about running out of guerillas. As for the other suggestions i will consider them. But they are unlikely due to the constraints of the editor. Generally where i have used the values from the boardgame i am not lvery ikely to change them unless proven unbalanced since they together provide a rough playbalance from the boardgame playtesting that i myself have no opportunity to do myself.

Goodmongo -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (9/27/2011 6:05:08 PM)
Sorry about my walls of text but in trying to help it is sometimes necessary. Point 6) What I'm saying is that the US will always bomb the trail as it only needs to be done one a season and the return in commitment/supplies higher than what you get in unit kills. So the NVN AI formula you use should be modified. You basically split it between the two but modify this somewhat. I'm saying use 100% of one or the other based on results. If there is one naval blockade that means 1 coomitment = 9.5 supplies. That means trail should only be used if there are 4 or more functional bases (10 supplies). If naval blockade is 3 that means 8.5 supplies via naval and use trail if there is 3 or more functional bases, etc. Point 7) I think I understand now. Point 8) Good to know but then why ever spend commitment on population as per point 7? I think the AI needs more but unlimited? Now for some more analysis (sorry but I do this often). There are basically three US strategies. One is a big full and realtively fast US commitment. The other is to build 25 US commitment per seasonal turn till the 150 level or so (6+ divisions). And the last is to stay very small. Here is one analysis. To buy every US named unit, have 11 ARVN divisions (6 augmented with a HQ, 2x155, 3xReg, 2xtank) the Para, marine (with 2x155), 5 rangers, 6x175 (US). 4 extra air would cost a total of 163 commitment. Add to this some economic aid, replacements and other Free World units and you get to 200-250 or so commiment (plus 26 for the at start). That is one powerfull force and US morale should still be 375-400 or more. Of course doing this means that each seasonal turn you face 2 and then 3 full NVA divisions. A massive war for sure. In a human vs. human game the key is how soon the VC get killed. That means the US can go defensive against the NVA. Invade Laos and cut the line so no NVA troops could ever be sent further south. Then hunker down. I think this turns into a artillery duel as the attacking force takes the larger casualties. So where I'm going with this is I think it will be very hard for the Free World to exceed morale and have a forced withdrawl unless they suffer horrendous losses or really bad coups/stability. I will have to play a game to 1975 to really test this out but the numbers are telling me that this might be the way to go. Imagine if you invade NVN and take all thier land. There is no place to put those NVA units anymore! Or can you place them on occupied territory? Makes for an interesting test game. BTW I know the boardgame has certain values that many think are way out of balance (blockade for one). But that doesn't make them right. Take the New Jersey. It costs 3 commitment. But for that same cost you get 2 units (8 guns) of 175MM artillery whcih can fight anywhere. And the 175's can receive more from building them so it makes no sense to get the cool BB except for flavor. Now if it cost 2 committment it would be worth it. So staying 100% true to the boardgame results in less choice in this version. Finally, I'm not familier with the AT modeling rules but have done stuff for the HOI games (Hearts of Iron). So I'm sure I can learn it. That means I might be able to help out if you ever want to try a Free World AI version.

Grymme -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (9/27/2011 7:01:21 PM)
6) The US always bombing the trail thing is valid as long as the US can count on never loosing any aircraft in the bombings. Aircraft are expensive in commitment and if you bomb one location, loose 3 aircraft and then the engineers repare the location before next round then the investment is -1 commitment for no gain. But i get the point about sea supply vs trail supply. The first thing i did in the testgame was to buy a couple of Air defense regiments and send down the trail. 8) The population rules apply to a human player who will use dispersment and have much smaller casualties than the AI. As i felt that the AI has such massive casualties (he doesnt play the tactical game very well) the AI wouldnt be able to handle the casualties which is the point you were making in a previous statment. As for your analysis about a forced withdrawal. I get your point and its actually one of those things i am worried about being unbalanced. But i will wait a little and see. Your calculation does need a couple of adjustments. For one thing the force you describe is massive. But it also prepsupposes that the force will have no casualties during the war. Just keeping the ÚS/USM marine bases open (which nets a maximum of 100 infantry/round but no tanks, artillery, helicopters) costs 2 replacments/round. In a 120 round game that is 240 replacements or 80 commitment. I also think that the air values are very low. Spending 4 commitment on airpoints gives you 12 extra airplanes (for a total of 33). In the boardgame version of Tet offensive there is 120 airpoints (for an extra 33 commitment). I dont think this is unreasonable at least for the entire game. That would give something like 25+163+80+33=301 commitment and that is without anything spent on economic aid, extra replacements, naval blockade etc. But i do think the key here is casualty levels. If the casualties are high enough the player will need to spend more replacements which will force a withdrawal. One change i am thinking about is to have the Free World player pay 3 replacments to keep US/USM bases open. I agree that the boardgame thing does have some flaws. Some things have already been altered and more might come. But i am just saying that if unsure i go with the tested values. New Jersey does have some advantages. It cannot be killed and can move anywhere (in the boardgame). I think you should try out the editor. Its great. There is actually a tutorial in the modding section that lets you create an entire (small scenario) with a walkthrough. I did it. If you get into modding ATG i am sure you could help out.

Goodmongo -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (9/27/2011 7:03:06 PM)
I am going to playtest the v218 version starting tonight. I plan to go super big where by the 8th season (2 years) I have ALL US units and commitment is about 240 at that point. This includes a standard 2 economic aid plus 3 for replacements each turn. That leaves 8 years (32 seasonal turns) and base only replacements of 64 more commitment. Add on to this some commitment for battle losses and a few more economic aid and 9 for other Free World units. I figure I should max out at 350 grand total commitment. It should be a great test to see if you need to change some values. My projected US morale (not counting losses would be 494 at seasonal turn 8 and an average of -4 per seasonal turn after that since no more builds are required and I should be able to get by with 4 commitment per turn (no US morale loss on new commitment). Every so often I'll go 15 commitment and stock up on replacements for just -1 morale loss. That means my ending morale will be 366 plus battle losses and gains which gives me a cussion of about 16 morale. At least this is how Excel fought the war. [:D]

Grymme -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (9/27/2011 7:47:21 PM)
It will be interesting to follow. It migh very well be doable. Say you win the game. And you have an interest in calculations. What would be a projected sollution for balancing the scenario? For example if i made the 2 following changes 1) instead of 1 commitment buying 3 replacments 2 commitment buy 5 replacments together with 2) the upping of base cost from 2 replacments/round to 3 replacments. In my calculations that would give an extra cost of something like 60+ commitment for the entire game (for base supply only). How many rounds do you do per day on average? I will be very interested to hear how it goes. One suggestion is that you might play the game on AI+ to give the AI an edge. I do think that your 1968 game suggests that you can beat the normal AI already. EDIT: Maybe you could do an AAR out of it. Also i would be interested to see what work you have done on HOI.

Goodmongo -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (9/27/2011 8:18:46 PM)
I have done 2 AAR's and the biggest issue is time as you most likely know. It takes time to record the units lost, screenshots and to give something other than a boring statistical dump. Maybe in the future after we work through play balance issue. Having said that I will keep track of perodic data like commitment levels, morale and kill ratios. Not every month but maybe twice a year. Weekends are my best time (naturally) where I can do up to 3 and 4 years per day. But more units also means more time to move and use them. Plus with this large of a US commitment I expect massive enemy units. I will still stick with straight AI for now. I want to test the standard game to see where it goes and how it plays out. I think that by 1970 or so we should have a good read on things. I'll keep track of replacment points purchased for this purpose. The key might also rest with battle losses. My gut is telling me artillery is too strong right now but I need to play more to make sure.

Goodmongo -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (9/28/2011 2:52:27 PM)
I forgot to mention this several before but the starting US commitment is 26 in the game and 25 in the manual. So this needs to be updated. Anyway I downloaded the v218 and started a new game. It was some bad luck right at the start as I had a coup in SVN. I got a decent guy in Minh but morale took a hit. I also had political unrest in September 1966. Here are the numbers so far: Date US Morale SVN Morale Commit Population Draft Supplies Replacement Start 517 56 26 645 6 A coup really hurt morale 7/1/65 511 70 75 645 83 3 16 A big initial US commitment 9/1/65 509 70 100 640 108 10 18 Poor rolls on economic aid and unrest 12/1/65 506 76 125 662 122 7 21 Stocking up on replacements, Got augmented units now 1/1/66 504 80 125 662 122 7 19 I bought two economic aid packages each turn but had some poor rolls. On the battlefield the VC deploy in full division strength since the NVN has so much commitment to do it. But I have been wiping them out each quarter. In I Corps there is a massive NVA force but I've used artillery from 2 US marine division, 1 US infantry division and 4x175mm artillery units to really hurt them. Here are some of the losses for both sides so far: NVN Losses Irregular Rifle 1070 Rifle 458 machinegun 460 Engineer 111 60mm Motar 182 Plus many other types but these are below 110 US Losses Light Rifle 125 Rifle 53 Machinegun 41 Militia 51 81mm Motar 43 Plus some others that are under 40 In PP's the NVN have lost between 580 and 1000 per month while US lossees range between 85 and 200 per month. So you can see that I really put a big dent into the enemy forces. The reason is artillery. I'll keep you posted on this game as it progresses. I plan to get US commitment up to 240 by around mid 1967 which represent the go big option. One possible bug is that so far I don't think the US morale has increased at all due to enemy kills. I should have hit that by now but if you look at the US morale it tracks coups, unrest and commitment only. This may be a bug and I should know for sure tonight after playing a few more turns. Or maybe it takes 1200 PP in kills in a single month to get +1. EDIT: I reread the manual and it does only apply to kills for a specific month. That is alot of kills. So far my high was around 980 or so. I guess I need more 175's to do it. A final thought for this post. How much control do you have over the AI? And is it possible to program in the reaction movement phase that is in the boardgame? I thought about the no limits for the AI on VC drafts and that I think solves the dispertion issue (not the best way but I think it works). The next step is reaction movement.

Goodmongo -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (9/28/2011 5:13:51 PM)
I was looking at the graphics mod and was wondering if your scenario is compatible with it or if you could use that mode for the graphics.

Grymme -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (9/28/2011 6:34:28 PM)
When you say 3-4 years in a day. Are you sure you dont mean rounds or seasons? Because 3 years is 36 rounds. That is a lot for one day. More than one/hour all hours of the day? Interested to see the results of your test. I do think you would get completely different casualty numbers if you were playing a human player. During my testgame the VC/NLF side frequently scored higher kills than the Free World. But in anticipation of the testresults i have actually included my proposed changes in the eventual uppcoming 219 version. But as a scenariovariant. Getting US morale bonus from kills is really tough. But i think in the boardgame you had to kill 30 battalions to get a killbonus. So it should be steep. As for the reaction movement. Unfortunatly ATG is a very IGo-UGO computergame so there is little interaction by the non-turning player. That is also the reason for the Air Defense Points sollution. What i would have liked to do is to have a ground support combat intercept. But that doesnt exist in ATG. So there is no reaction combat. What a human player can do is set the retreatloss level so that a unit either retreats after a light skirmish or fights till death. But thats pretty much it. There are an abundance of graphic mods out there. It could be implemented but it would have to be edited in which would be a lot of work. And i am quite happy with most of the graphics (with a couple of exceptions).

Goodmongo -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (9/28/2011 7:20:15 PM)
Last Saturday I played one game till almost the end of 1968 and started another and got to early 1966. On Sunday I started three games and got to 1967 in one and late 1966 in the other two. So it's possible to do 3 years and maybe 4 on a weekend day where I'm off. Unfortunately this Saturday I have other obligations so my time will be limited. The longest turn is the first where you have to place all those units and in a game where the US goes big that means lots of them. I plan to get to sometime in 1967 tonight which would be a full year or so from where I'm at now. As for your test game I really think the US player did a poor job. I don't leave single battalions around so if you attack you have to attack one and more likely a full regiment. What will most likely happen in a good two player game is lower kills for both sides. The NVN player would pull back into NVN territory and out of range of US artillery. So the big set piece battles would be less frequent. I don't know the full mechanics of how AT treat retreating units yet. For example if a retreating unit suffers readiness losses then retreating VC units at 20% losses would only result in killing it faster I think. But if the retreating unit is not severly hurt then lowering it to something like 15-20% might be something to test. Only for the VC not NVA troops.

Goodmongo -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (9/29/2011 2:53:58 PM)
Here is the update from last nights playing. Category Previous Current Dates 1/1/66 8/1/66 US Morale 504 498 SVN Morale 80 97 Commitment 125 175 Population 662 669 Draft Lvl 122 178 Supplies 7 16 Replacement 19 23 I can verify that I did in fact gain a morale level as US. I had a high kill of 1556 in a month and only lost 1 morale instead of two due to commitment. As for losing morale due to losses I seem to have had that happen to me. But since my highest losses for a month was just under 300 that could only have been done if the AI called an offensive. Can the AI do this? Does the AI do this? And is there anything in the game that can tell me when the NVN has done this? With all the counters it is taking almost twice as long to play a single month as before. Basically each seasonal turn around 3+ complete NVN/NLF divisions appear all over the map. That means many battles, lots of counter movement to contain them and additional time for planning. Right now I have 8 complete US divisions, 2 US brigades, additional air and support units, 5 ARVN divisions, 5 augmented ARVN divisions with artillery and tank support, 5 ranger battalions, the Para division, the Marine division, plus a Korean division in play. Yes that is alot of forces. Up in I Corps I'm losing population fast as the NVA has like 3 or 4 divisions in the first province alone. But I have a plan to get control of it. Oh the NVA mech brigade had one PT-76 (I think that was it) in it. I hit it with 5 US battalions including 1 armoured and 2 mech and I lost 8 to its none. What is that PT-76? A stealth M1A2? For my remaing builds I still have 2 US divisions, 4 US brigades, 1 augmented ARVN division and 15 or so independent ARVN battalions to build before I reach my goal. This takes me to around 240 US commitment. As for some observations, with the huge US commitment the NVN has built up all cities on the trail. When the AI places VC forces it does so in division sized pockets which is good. But I'm not sure there is a real sound strategy behind the province choices. If I was playing the VC I would consider two data points. First is what the current population is and the second is what are the US/ARVN force placements. The primary targets would be provinces with population split almost 50/50 and very little FW forces in it. This gives me the best chance to have a population shift. After this comes more SVN controlled population provinces with little or no forces. Then low (but not zero) provinces with little FW forces. Finally, are 50/50 provinces with more FW forces but here you need a large VC footprint. Another tactic is if the province has a border with Loas or Cambodia. In that case if the population is 30-70% FW controlled and FW forces are present I place the VC units in the other country and wait till my last turn before the seasonal turn to move them into the province. It doesn't matter if the FW has lots of forces as the VC gets a good modifier just for having units in the province. But I doubt the AI will ever be able to pull that one off. Basically, the goal of the VC forces are to shift population points. They will never be able to win a fighting war to control a province. If a province is 0 to 3 SVN controlled population then the VC can ignore this province as it already has a nice negative modifier. For a NVN player you use your VC forces to shift population and NVA forces to do the actual fighting. Having said this how does the AI handle placements? If there is logic and its based on numbers I can give some formula to help you out. I would need to know the comparrison PP levels of each unit since these are used for the population shifts and for damage morale shifts. At least I think its PP values for damage and perhaps you can confirm this. EDIT: Is there an updated manual? The one on your site still shows September 10th. EDIT #2: The drop in US morale is probably due to a third capital being captured by the VC in a single month and might not be due to US losses. I will have to pay careful attention to US morale to see what the cause was.

Goodmongo -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (9/30/2011 3:06:36 PM)
Before I get to some results I found what I think is a major issue. Namely supply. In this test game I've been building massive forces but for a few turns they were lacking readiness. I first thought it was due to the leader being inneffcient rule. However, this was not the case as the same units were being hit each turn. It turns out to be lack of supplies. I even changed the poduction in the cities to mostly supplies and am producing 12,000 per month but it's still not enough. In the MACV HQ the required supply number is 20166 and the sent out number is 17130. For the ARVN HQ the required number is 27069 and sent out is 18082. This supply issue makes a go big option impossible and I bet it would impact the medium option come 1970 or 1971. I like that units cut off from supply go down in ability. But I think you need to have some super huge number of base supply (like 10 million) in the starting HQ's. Another topic to discuss is augmented units. On their face they are cool and do fight better. But here's the downside. Regular ARVN battalions can move through terrain much faster and can attack in rough terrain easier than the augmented ones. This makes them great as a blocking force and followup attack force. But the augmented troops are just like the US troops. So to be honest the disadvantages outweigh the advantages big time. It is possible to change the troops to M-16's but not change the transportation? Or check into why the augmented troops as so bad at moving through terrain and then not change that item. I might have to go back and check on how the orginal game treated them. Was there a restriction in movement in exchange for better equipment? Oh, and the SVN cities can't produce augmented equipment to replace losses but I kind of agree with this point as the augmented equipment is US produced anyway. As for the test game, I'm not sure how much longer I can go down this path with the supply issue being what it is. I didn't get as many turns in because I spent time trying to figure out why the units were in such a bad shape which was due to supply. That said here are some results from last night. Category Previous Current Dates 8/1/66 12/1/66 US Morale 498 492 This is just 4 below my projection due to the coup on turn one and losing 3 cities in a turn. SVN Morale 97 108 This is 4 below my projection due to coup and instability and bad economic rolls. Commitment 175 225 I got the Korean and other Free World troops, but still short 2 US brigades for full commitment. Population 669 658 A drop recently due to the massive forces that the NVN get due to large US commitment. Draft 178 194 I actually want to build more ARVN troops but can't due to supply issues. Supplies 16 16 I still have a full ARVN division to go plus some independent batallions. Replacement 23 33 For the first time I will be using some for battle losses. Speaking of kills/losses I hit a whopping high of 1996 NVN PP killed in a single turn. My highest amount of losses was around 350 so far. For the last few months the NVN PP losses have been 900+ per month while Free World are 300 to 350. Artillery is starting to take a real toll on the NVA regiments in I Corps. Let me know about the supply issue as I'm really not sure I can continue this specific game and it's goals of going all in to see when morale and commitment finally clash.

Grymme -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (9/30/2011 6:05:44 PM)
I have uploaded v219 to my website It should fix the supply issue (i hope). I coded it so each regime gets what they need + 50000 each round. As for the augmented units. If you dont want to use the APCs you can just transfer them to a HQ, another unit or just ditch them(disband them). There is a rulewar in ATG where you get some supply back for disbanding a SFT so you might even get some supply. As for the current game. You can always set units you dont use to 0% supply (or what the lowest variant is in ATG. For example the US transport navy. 'But i am afraid there is no better workaround than that. Changelist v219 - Fixed reinforcement event bug - Fixed RF-PF battalions zoc event bug - Added a Communist advantage scenario variant it gices the following changes. Communist base morale is upped from 100 to 110. Free World replacments cost 2 for 5 replacements and US bases cost 3 to keep open. - Changed movement cost for ship at sea from 4 to 1 AP. - Changed rules for Offensive so that during a offensive round the Free World does not get any morale bonus for kills. - Communist AI will now consider buying offensives. - Fixed supply issue. - Starting commitment is now 25.

Goodmongo -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (9/30/2011 6:44:09 PM)
The changes sound great. I'm going to restart the test. I can either play solo human vs human or go human vs NVN AI. If against AI I would probably try out the super big footprint once again. If playing myself I would do a more medium level. Which would you rather me test out? Edit: Have you updated the manual? If so where can I find it.

Grymme -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/1/2011 9:14:04 AM)
I uploaded a new version of the manual to my website. I am currently quite busy with real life. My twins turned 1 years old yesterday. But in what little ATG coding time i have i am working on the 1972 Easter offensive scenario. There will basicly be four different setups for this scenario. Historical (semi) setup for both sides. Free setup for the Free World side only. Free setup for the Communist side only. Free setup for both sides. Its going slowly mainly because the remaining coding is kind of boring. As for the AI placement scripting. There is a scripted priority but its only on a large scale level. The AI will prioritize Corps II and III slightly and will also priotize the Corps areas with the least Free World forces. It will not try to place units on defended hexes. will also only place units (except companies) in the areas where it is possible to place them (close to the trail or sea). Other than that the AI will prioritize to capture Provincial capitols and especially Saigon, Hue and Da Nang. Goodmongo: Actually if you want especially to help with something i would be interested to know the average statistical likelyhood of a Military Coup/and or Unrest happening. If you ever get into the editor (which i think you should) there are lots to work on. I would recommend that you read and play out theese two tutorials (and eventually the other two). http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1605901 http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1609701

Goodmongo -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/1/2011 9:37:50 PM)
Version 219 has an issue with US morale. I don't thing it is dropping at all for new US commitment. April 1966 and after a failed induced coup (-3 us morale) and 25 uc commitment per seasonal tun US morale is still at 517. I'll keep track of coups and unrest. I've had a coup in 3 or 4 games out of about 10 that I've started. Two were on the very first turn. I've not succeeded with a US induced one but have only tried twice. I've had unrest about the same number of times as coups and had both on the same turn once. But I'll keep more details records on it. In the last two game starts with v219 I noticed almost no NVN troops being placed in IV Corps. This is very much reduced from the other versions. My setup and force allocation has been consistent so I doubt if it was due to forces in the zone. I'll also try to start learning the editor. My next test is going to be playing both sides. I'll be able to give better reports on NVN mechanics.

Goodmongo -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/2/2011 12:39:35 AM)
I did a human vs. human play through (v219 no optional variants in use). There are some major play balance issues I think. First a bug report. When the Free World lost more than 600 PP there was a message stating this so that seemed to work. And the morale did drop. But when the US had over 1500 PP in kills there was no message. So it seems only half of it is working. In a human vs. human game the unit balance is way off especially compared to the game. Six VC battalions easily defeat an ARVN regiment. This is just a 2-1 superority and the VC were attacking so they should not have won so easily, if at all. The NVA seem almost equal to US even when attacking. A NVA division of 3 regiments and 2 tank battalions attacked a US Marine force of 3 infantry battalions and a tank battalion (reinforced regiment). The US force took massive casualties, and would have been completely wiped out if there were follow on attacks. A VC force of 9 battalions attacked an ARVN force of a para regiment, 2 battalions and a 155 art batallion and completely destroyed it after the followup attacks. So in a human vs. human game you are forced to keep full divisions together on a single hex and build regiments instead of battalions. Also anti-air for the NVA is way too powerful compared to the boardgame. A single AA unit can destroy a B52 force in 3 or four turns, losing 1 to 3 planes per turn. I think in the game each airpoint was multiple planes and not single planes. I'm not sure the Free World could ever win the game right now as ARVN forces are way too weak compared to VC and US forces get defeated to coordinated attacks by NVA forces. And the thing is that in the actual war lone ARVN battalions got defeated but US forces never did and regiment sized ARVN forces never did. It should take 5-1 odds for VC to defeat ARVN and 3-1 or even 5-1 for NVA to defeat US. VC should take 10-1 to defeat US forces.

Rosseau -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/2/2011 1:34:46 AM)
You guys are a great team, and your work is appreciated, Grymme. The scenario package on your website is a must for fans of the game. Also, great thread Goodmongo. As an amateur, it will help ease me into the campaign. Thanks again.

Grymme -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/2/2011 8:19:55 AM)
Goodmongo. I think that when you talk about unit balance you really mean if the scenario is a realistic simulation of the war. But a game can be very balanced in the sense that both sides have an equal chance of winning even if things happen that would never happen in the real conflict. So this is really two different issues. Play balance and wether its a realistic simulation of the conflict. As for play balance. I think that you previously said that the Free World was too powerfull and would never have to withdraw any US commitment because it wouldnt have any losses. But now the VC/NVA is too powerfull in battle and causes too big losses. I think (and hope) that the answer is somewhere in between. The US did have casualties amounting to almost 12 full divisions of manpower during the war and the ARVN much much more. So i dont think overall play balance has to be off. If the Free World side looses a lot of battles it means they will need to go for replacements/single battalions more which will actually make the game more balanced compared to the graph you made about US never having to make withdrawals. Either the Free World player can never win or never loose. You cannot have it both ways. As to the issue of realism (which is what i think you are really talking about). It is true that some things never happened in the real war that will certainly happen in the game (Although i think that 6 battalions of VC could easily rout an ARVN regiment). And Free World units were not allways superior. In the Fire Base Mary Ann battle 50 VC sappers attacked against 231 entrenched US soldiers and ARVN forces which resulted in 116 casualties for the Free World for 15 VC dead. But the game is an abstraction. There were very few 1 month long set piece battles in the real conflict but the game plays in 1 month rounds. You have to look at it through that lense. There certainly were times where even large US forces had to retreat from an area because the enemy pressure was becoming to large. I wouldnt defend against such a tactic by putting full divisions in a single hex. I would instead cluster the division in several hexes to deny the enemy full concentric bonuses, give them generous air support and then put them on 25% retreat. Then the NVA division might hit one battalion, but it would retreat into another hex with another battalion there leaving the NVA vulnerable because they would have used up their AP and then it would be the Free World turn. Ill look into some of the issues you mentioned (the morale thing). But i think a lot is due to the roll of the dice. A couple of the things you mention hasnt been changed since the first version released. Rosseau: Thanks. If you got the scenarios (i dont keep track of which people do or do not) i hope you enjoy it. Otherwise i would encourage you to try it out. EDIT: I tested the morale issue and it was the US induce coup morale effect that didnt work. Uploaded a v219B to my skydrive to fix this issue.

Goodmongo -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/2/2011 1:30:24 PM)
Hi Grymme. There are two play balance issues. One is human vs AI and the other is human vs human play. In human vs AI the AI attacks with single battalions and rarely coordinating more than two at the same time. As the human player against the AI I always left my stacks with 2 and usually 3 battalions in a single hex. The AI outside of I Corps would only have single battalion VC stacks that I would attack with 6-9 Free World units. This resulted in the destruction of the VC unit with little losses to FW and that is why the US morale would last. Going to a human vs human game I kind of knew that the free world would keep their stacks together 3 strong. So I did the same on the VC side. But when attacking a regiment of ARVN with 6 battallions (2 regiments) they anialated the ARVN units. SO in a second try I kept things stacked at the division level! This turned into a cat and mouse game. The FW side would move 2 and usually 3 full divisions toward those VC controlled hexes. Now the VC might just be a lone company or a full VC division. But a clue is if a capital city fell. A company or lone battalion can't do that. So what happens is the VC either escape to Cambodia or after drawing in 3 divisions to surround it, it dispersers. Then on a NVN offensive it goes on almost suicide attacks and clobbers US morale. This is a little more to the actual war except that you are moving full divisions together instead of battalion or regiments. In ATG there is a battlestack rule that stops constant attacks against the same unit. The thing that really hurts is that the attacker (either side take your pick) starts off with 2 or 3 to one odds (which is low IMO to really succeed for VC attacking) and causes a retreat. The retret causes readiness losses and they attack again and do tons of damage if not outright destroying the defender. If necessary do it a third time. So to sort of sum up in human vs AI the human attacks and suffers little losses and hence might never hit the US morale cap. In human vs human you are foced to keep things at division level or you will get completely destroyed and hit the US moral cap in 1967. Air and AA is not balanced for commitment costs and effectiveness. If you increased airplanes per commitment this would unbalance it against other units so I think the real answer is to greatly tone down how good AA is. Make it so it has at most a 5-10% chance of killing a plane. I again lost 7 B52's to a single AA unit in the course of 6 months. A smart human player NEVER buys air and NEVER hits the trail. Why waste the commitment? In reading through the editor I thought I read that you can make some forces much less effectivve in fighting compared to other forces (The North Africa compaign does this with Italion rifle forces poor compared to British and German much better than British). So for a human vs human game only make VC forces about 85% the combat effectivness of a normal ARVN unit which is only 75% the comabt effectivness of an augmented or NVA unit which is only 60% of US units. Then increase the benefit of defending units by 50% more. What this means is on a scale of 1 to 100 the US unit would be rated a 100, the NVA/Augmented 60, ARVN 45 and VC 38. But the VC unit defending would jump to 57 and the NVA would jump to 90 while defending. On a turn that declares a NVN offensive you can give a 25% increase to all units. BTW 1 morale per 60 US losses will result in way too much morale lost. I did a Tet like suicide attack and got 850 US PP lost which would end up being a drop 14 morale! I think that is way too high for the cost of the commitment. Let me finish that I think you have a great thing going here. I'm really just trying to help in both the human vs human and human vs AI games. A game can be balanced but if its too ahistorical many won't play it. With a little more work I think this one can get both balance and flavor. Oh on the US morale gain for enemy kills. When the US loses morale due to losses there is a message to both sides stating this. But I've never seen a message for US morale gains. I am pretty sure in previous version I have gained the morale point but no message. And checking the statistics I see where the Free World killed 1900+ PP in a single turn. I sometimes do things to test it out and leave lots of single units just ripe to be killed in these tests.

Goodmongo -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/2/2011 2:45:07 PM)
Using the latest v219B I conducted a test and can confirm that the US is NOT receiving the +1 morale of kills. I destroyed just over 2000 PP of VC/NVN units on turn 2 and there was no change in US morale. US losses were around 600 PP (hard to tell exact numbers from the graph) so it is possible that the US gained AND lost a morale point. However, in the past when the US loses a morale point a message appeared. I am going to test this once again but this time make sure US losses are below 500 PP and then test it the next turn wil US losses over 600 PP.

Grymme -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/2/2011 2:47:13 PM)
Goodmongo. I really appreciate your effort and it has been truly helpfull. You seem very engaged and i think you would become a great modder if you just got into it. I might sound (and be) a little irritated sometimes. But thats just me. I think the game/scenario can be played in many ways and the spectrum goes from expert human vs AI to crappy human vs AI and the same can be said for human vs human player. So everyone will not have the same abilty and a good human player will imo beat a bad human player whatever side he plays. What is interesting is what happens when 2 equally matched humans meet. Did you do your human vs human player against another person or yourself? As for the air balance thing. I am not saying yes or no, we will see. I made a small experiment. If you buy an air defense regiment and put in each location in NVN and the trail thats 30 commitment for the NVA side. If you spend the same amount on airpoints you get ca 90 aircraft. I tried this and attacked a air defense regiment (but in the open) with the 30 commitment of aircraft. This resulted in the destruction of 3 aircraft (1 commitment) for 7 out of 8 aircraftguns (2,65 commitment). The next turn the US attacks another location and kills of that airdefense regiment and so on. Of course it might have been a completely different thing if 3 commitment of aircraft had attacked 3 commitment of air defense (then i think the air defense would have won. But my point here is that the flexibility of aircraft is worth a lot because the US can attack anywhere and the air defense can only be in one place. And say that the NVA spends enough to and succeeds in forcing the US player to stop attacking his locations. The US can just elect to stop attacking the trail/NVA and just use his airforce to attack tactical targets inside SVN and then the NVA sits there with 30 or so commitment of troops that are of no use to him while the US can still use its aircraft. But i think you need to go big to attack defended locations with aircraft, it cannot be done with just small amounts. EDIT. I looked through the event and i do think it worked. But the activation of the message was based on an actual change in Free World morale. So what i think happened is that the two cancelled each other out. Now this is no fault in the event itself, but it might be more fun if you get a message that there were both intensive kills and losses so i rewrote the activation of the event and uploaded it as a new version with the same name. EDIT2. I also did the same experiment with the Air defense regiments in urban terrain and only lost 2 aircraft to 7 dead flak.

Goodmongo -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/2/2011 4:27:52 PM)
I did an extensive test of combat kills and losses to morale gains/losses. In the first test the US had kills of 1575 PP and 2489 PP. This should have results in morale gains of 1 and 2 for the US. The US losses were under 400 for both turns. No message came up and no morale gains happened. US morale stayed at 513 which was the morale at the start of the turns. For NVN kills of US it worked perfectly. The NVA killed 2052 PP of units and on the next turn a message came up saying that US lost 3 morale which is correct. So there is a bug when it comes to US killing NVN troops. No message and no morale gains. My final test will be for US kills to be above 1600 and losses to be high. I'm curious to see if the message appears showing the US morale loss and a zero for the pluss for kills. As for modeling I'm slowly getting into it. I appreciate the event file you sent and will go through it. I did create a small scenario following the tutorial. The real meat however is in the events and rule bvariations which will take time to learn. BTW in the human vs human games it was me playing both sides. I triedd to be extremely fair in my strategy for both sides and what I would and would not do, especially for US side tracking down VC and trying to find them. I am going to test some air defense vs air commitment to see the results. First off the range limits impact "going big" so in reality you will most likely use 2 or maybe 3 air groups against a single target. For the 3 commiment you get 2 AA units. I am going to test using only one unit and using both units in the same hex. EDIT: I finished the test where in a single turn the US killed 2489 PP of NVN units and the ARVN then lost 1942 PP on the very next NVN turn. The message box appeared but only showed the loss in US morale. It was zero for US gains. So this is a definate bug. BTW I found another bug. If you save the game during the NVN turn and then reload it there are double the RF-PF units in cities.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.281006