RE: Victory Games Vietnam (Full Version)

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



Message

Goodmongo -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/4/2011 2:58:22 PM)

Grymme, I have played the boardgame in full for six complete campaigns during the 1980's.  I played it solo once and had two other starts.  That is alot for that game considering the length of the campaign.  If I recall correctly I was US 3 times and VC 3 times.  I won as US once and as VC twice.  I played three different people in those six games.  I think I knew the game pretty well.  I broke it out of storage and am refreshing myself on it even now. I started a solo game to get the feel back.

I'm new to ATG.  I only got it 12 days ago.  But I've played tons of computer wargames (Matrix titles, Paradox titles plus others).

I did not intend to insult you but you constanly use terms inferring that I'm not informed, factually incorrect and others.

Take for example my suggestion about aircraft ranges.  How am I wrong in saying that a B52 should be able to reach any hex on the map?  They weren't even based in country.  Now there may be game mechanic reasons to base them there but there is no logical reason not to make them able to hit any hex. 

You want a strategy for the VC?  Here's a simple one.  After the US player buys his 10 commitment in air just use the VC to take the airbases.  You won't be able to pull that surround hex trick and in a single turn you just cost the US 10 commitment.  How is that balanced?

But let's look at a potential positive.  Here in me you have a very willing person to playtest and spend tons of time.  You even admitted that you don't playtest that much.  Now I don't know if its ego or maybe you have a soft spot for the VC.  or maybe the changes will just take too much of your time.  But as you know I offered to help out there.  I don't want money.  I don't want fame.  I don't want recognition.  I want a game that works.

I have a passion for the boardgame.  I did a search and your scenario turned up.  That's what brought me here.

On the very first VC turn I can destroy a full US division.  As the US player you move all of the newly placed US units to various places.  You keep them in regimental groupings.  BTW, if you just placed single battalions it's even easier to kill them off.  I now attack them by surrounding each one and hitting them with 11-12 VC battalions (plus the companies and NVA in Quang Tri).  The end result is a full US division of troops are gone from the map.  This can be done over and over again.  And on the second turn it gets worse since the NVN can pool and send down over 200 in supplies.

Let me repeat that.  On the second seasonal turn the NVN can create over 200 VC supplies which means over 100 battalions!  Am I factually wrong here?  Here are the numbers.  10 initial NVN commitment +5 for T1 NVN morale +7 for US commitment (50 which is a standard tactic).  On T2 you get 5 for morale +3 for total US commitment +5 for US (and that's if the US only did 25 commitment which is low as usually the US does two turns of 50).  That is a total of 30 commitment.  Using sea supply you get 9.5 average VC supply for each commitment.  That means if you went all VC you can get up to 285 VC supply or around 135 VC battalions (some commitment spent on draft).

Before you say that I'm ignoring the NVA forces I say yes I am.  The VC are just as strong and can be placed anywhere.  So why would I build NVA forces?

Now look at how close you came on turn one to taking Saigon with 45 VC battalions.  Just imagine what happens on turn 2 with 100 or more VC battalions.  Can you at least admit that something is wrong here?

I'm not here to insult you.  I'm here to help you. And for me to help you, you need to trust in my results.

But if you don't want it just say so.



Grymme -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/4/2011 2:59:45 PM)

At this point i dont want your help. Please stop.



Goodmongo -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/4/2011 3:23:28 PM)

That is so sad to hear.  The scenario could have been great.  But one last bug that I found.

You charge one population point for the ARVN armoured battalions but in the game the cost is zero population and one supply.

I doubt if you'll approve but can I at least have the opportunity to change my own scenario?  You don't have to change yours but I would really like to change the one I'm playing.  I will never repost it to any site.  I just want to use it for my personal games.



Grymme -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/4/2011 3:33:17 PM)

The scenario is great. It is in my opinion by far the best Vietnam computer scenario out there. And it will be a better scenario for your participation. I appreciate that. But i do not have the energy to keep arguying with you. And there is no way i will voluntarily let your hands on editing properties to it.

As for the change in cost for ARVN armored battalions. It is not a bug. Its a purposefull change. Armor in ATG is much stronger than in the Boardgame. I lowered the cost of ARVN Rangers for the same (but opposite) reason.

If you think the scenario really is unplayable then maybe the Vietnam scenarios here will suit you better.

http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenarii/browse_scenario.php



Goodmongo -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/4/2011 3:37:20 PM)

Thanks for the link.  I'll check them out.  Can I ask why I can't edit it?  I will only do it for my presonal games and I promise to never ever publish it.  And if you ever want any of my changes I'll gladly send them to you.  Besides I would like to take a stab at a US AI  and to refine the VC AI.

EDIT:
BTW concerning the ARVN armoured battalion there is a very important reason for the game doing it that you might not have been aware of. The game designers on purpose required zero population as these were the cannon fodder for Free World attacks. There are a huge amounts of these counters in the game. You placed them on every city and town on the map. You used them in every single US search and destroy mission. If you took a strength loss you picked that unit. This resulted in zero population and just 1/7th of a US commitment. If you had to use a US replacement that would be 233% more expensive.

EDIT2:
BTW I was going to suggest a way to have an actioncard that allows you to augment an existing unit. Something like this could be used as part of the event coding.

CHECK: Free World_Supply(#43) > 0
CHECK: Gameslot_Augmented units(#70) == 10
EXECUTE: ExecRemoveUnit(36, TempVar2, TempVar3, 0)
EXECUTE: ExecAddUnit(11, TempVar2, TempVar3, 0)
SETVAR: Free World_Supply(#43) - 1
END CHECK
END CHECK

Basically it removes the unit highlighted and replaces it with the augmented unit. I'm just starting to learn the coding and can't test this so not sure if it will actually work or not. I would first doube check to make sure the highlighted unit is a battalion or a regiment that can be upgraded. But it seems doable.



Goodmongo -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/5/2011 12:19:04 AM)

Not sure why I bother but I think its a coding bug to have a random leader and a coup on the very first game turn.

EDIT: and I was wondering if rule variable 140 could be used on defense to simulate the boardgames HQ artillery value being applied to all subunits when defending.



Goodmongo -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/5/2011 7:34:14 PM)

Grymme, I know you think I might be a #1 a-hole but I'm really not.  I would like to offer you a couple of services.

While still new to the ATG system I have a long background in programming and already have started to do some things in the editor.  So I would offer my services to work on some additional ideas I have for the scenario.  Things to implement the board game concepts such as hold operations, patrol operations, naval transport, US strategic movement, defensive fire and dedicated artillery support.  Because I'm new to ATG some may not be possible but I have some thoughts on how ATG might handle these things.  I also have thoughts on a US AI version.

Or you can choose to let me modify the base game.  I would give you complete rights to it to add and relsease it as you wish.  You can offer it as another scenario alternative.  It would be based on your current version with some changes and additional concepts added in.  But let me repeat that you would retain the ownership (except for my personal use).

So are you up for either of these two choices?



Grymme -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/8/2011 12:58:59 PM)

I have uploaded an early version of the fourth scenario in my Vietnam serie to my website. The 1972 Easter Offensive. This scenario has the same password as the other scenarios in the series so it is included for those that have the campaign scenario.

The Easter offensive details the 1972 Communist offensive. By that time there were very little US forces on the ground. But the airpower remained. This scenario is 7 months long and it uses the entire map. Screenshot shows Free World historical setup in Corps I area.

Have also uploaded an updated v222 grand campaign scenario with the following changes

- Changed airmovement of the A4 Skyraider from air5 to air4
- Changed airmovement of B-52 from air3 to air1
- Monsoonwather only reduces air offensive capacity by -25%, but still halves airdefensive support
- There is a small chance that an airpoint will include an A4 Phantom, an allround fighter/bomber reconplane.
- When bombing North Vietnam there is a 33% chance for each city bombed of a commitmentrise for the NVA player (limiting his resources).
- Adjusted values for air defensive points, making them somewhat stronger.
- A scenario variant limiting the number of offensives the Communist side can play to 4 in each game.
- Rules for Free Fire in provinces added. Choosing Free Fire in a province increases combat efficiency in that province for artillery units by +100% but also makes them immobile. This lasts for the current round only. Each round Free Fire is used in a province incurs a -5% modifyer in the pacification roll for a maximum of -15% for using Free Fire the entire season.
- Randomizing of VC battalions so that there is a chance that a created VC battalion will be a Rocket Launcher Battalion (20%) or a Sapper Battalion (10%).
- Adjusted values for VC regiments making them slightly stronger by adding 10 more sappers.
- Gave sappers/engineers & engineer vehicles higher entrench values.
- Added airfields to Okinawa and Hawaii.
- implemented the ATG battlestack rules for the scenario.
- Fixed a bug in VC supply expenditure
- Implemented true sea supply & trail supply. The scenario will now keep track of and display how many supplies have been created using trail supply and sea supply and each type of supply can only be used to create units in the sector related to that type of supply. So sea supply can only create VC battalions close to the coastline and trail supply can only be used to create units close to the trail.
- Updated and uploaded new manual. Including briefing for the Easter Offensive scenario.

There are a lot of new pictures to the new scenario so i uploaded it in the form of a new ATzip that needs to be installed.

[image]local://upfiles/27522/D27B83E859C94CCDBF592D9BEF2AE66B.jpg[/image]



Grymme -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/9/2011 10:44:03 AM)

Uploaded a new version of the Easter Offensive (v22)

- Fixed a bug in VC Division creating.
- Added airbases in Honolulu & Okinawa.
- Updated the SFTs to match the SFTs in the grand campaign.



Goodmongo -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/9/2011 2:04:56 PM)

Two bugs. First is a coup is still happens during the very first game turn. The second is the NVA forces seem to get upgraded artillery in free fire zones.

Can I assume your not answering my question means a no?



Grymme -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/9/2011 2:53:11 PM)

Yes you can.

Neither of those are bugs.
- The coup thing is intentionally left as is.
- The NVA/VC are getting a +100% offensive bonus. Thats a function of the exec i used in coding the event which doesnt have a choice for regime. It doesnt do them any good though since its an offensive bonus and it only lasts during the Free World turn (when they cannot use it). When the Communist turn begins the bonuns is gone. It looks estethicly wrong but has no practical effect in the game.



Goodmongo -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/9/2011 8:00:32 PM)

One other thing I noticed is that after I unzipped the scenario it listed it as "c222" instead of the Vietman name used earlier.

This might be my last report on testing for bugs. I'm exploring a totaly new version that sticks to the baord game in mechanics, feeling and flow.



Grymme -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/9/2011 8:04:44 PM)

Thank you. Good luck in exploring your new version.



lion_of_judah -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/12/2011 8:32:41 AM)

Grymme: any chance making the "Easter offensive" a stand alone scenario and maybe even making this one like your I Corps a freebee....[;)] just asking... Have you thought about doing one called " 55 days The Fall of Saigon" cannot remember if I have asked you this or not.

I was also curious if your thinking about doing anymore modern day conflicts, cause i would love to see what you could do with that "Near East" map i have made, that is if that area of the world peaks your interest. I have discovered that I'm more adept at map making than programming events so if you ever want to use any of my maps just let me know. I have several that I have not published on the ATG scenario site, but your welcome to any of them.



Grymme -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/12/2011 8:39:39 AM)

Uploaded the first version of the second campaign scenario starting with the Tet offensive in 1968 to my website (tet offensive campaign start v15). This scenario starts with both sides more or less fully deployed so it has some very intensive initial fighting.

The Tet scenario has a semihistorical setup. US HQ setup is historical and units have been placed in representative locations, same for ARVN. As for NVN and NLF units i have checked maps of where major combat took place and also checked a couple of sources for the number of units in each theater. Some named units are historical (mainly divisions) but most battalion numbers are not historical.

Also uploaded v223 of the campaign scenario with a couple of changes.
- Fixed a rare message bug in Kill/loss message.
- Adjusted strategic movement capacity for trucks,and added some strategic movement capacity for helicopters.
- Fixed a supply bug for VC Regiments.
- Fixed a bug in the offensive event and changed the message this event gives.

Also a comment on some of the design choices in my scenarios. These scenarios are based on the boardgame. That being said i do think boardgames have some limitations that are not present in computer games. So there definitly are things that can be simulated better in ATG then in the boardgame. One of those things is in my opinion combat which is incredibly complex and realistic in ATG. Where this possibilty exist i will use the best option available and i am not committed to any sollution. I dont think forcing the player to play an actioncard 100+ times every round to simulate something that could be done better automaticly in ATG makes for a fun game.



Grymme -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/12/2011 8:58:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lion_of_judah

Grymme: any chance making the "Easter offensive" a stand alone scenario and maybe even making this one like your I Corps a freebee....[;)] just asking... Have you thought about doing one called " 55 days The Fall of Saigon" cannot remember if I have asked you this or not.

I was also curious if your thinking about doing anymore modern day conflicts, cause i would love to see what you could do with that "Near East" map i have made, that is if that area of the world peaks your interest. I have discovered that I'm more adept at map making than programming events so if you ever want to use any of my maps just let me know. I have several that I have not published on the ATG scenario site, but your welcome to any of them.



Hi Lion

I am not sure what you mean with making the Easter Offensive a stand alone scenario. It doesnt make for a good campaign scenario since basicly 90 % of the choices players do during the campaign game have already been done by 1972. There is an Easter Offensive scenario. But its not a Freebie. Someone, i dont rememember whom asked if i was going to do a Fall of Saigon scenario. I am planning on doing it. But right now to be honest i am a little tired of this series of scenarios. Both because i have been working on them for a whíle (have made five of the six planned scenarios) and because of the somewhat unwanted attention drawn to them.

As for freebies i am actually thinking of making another 2 freebie variants for the Vietnam series. Basicly it would be the same scenarios as the Campaign scenario start and the Tet-Offensive scenario start but they would be limited to playing for a year (on round 13 the scenario would end). That would be very easy to do and it would provide an easy way for players interested in the scenarios to check them out.

As for planned projects i am thinking of i do have had some thoughts about modern scenarios. One of the projects i actually started on is based on the Victory Games boardgame Central America. I actually have a more or less finished scenario about the Soccer War. I am just looking for good pictures to use for the SFTs (not so easy to find). Other projects i have been at least considering are scenarios covering the Pakistani-Indian wars, the Etiophian-Eritrea war, projects based on the Sixth Fleet boardgame. Also i started making maps for a Tunisia 1943 scenario and Market Garden, As for the middle and near east it is actually on of the topics that has not interested me very much since those wars have been somewhat loopsided. But your map looks interesting. But what happened to your african wars mod? That is actually the project of yours that has interested me most.



lion_of_judah -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/12/2011 9:30:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grymme


quote:

ORIGINAL: lion_of_judah

Grymme: any chance making the "Easter offensive" a stand alone scenario and maybe even making this one like your I Corps a freebee....[;)] just asking... Have you thought about doing one called " 55 days The Fall of Saigon" cannot remember if I have asked you this or not.

I was also curious if your thinking about doing anymore modern day conflicts, cause i would love to see what you could do with that "Near East" map i have made, that is if that area of the world peaks your interest. I have discovered that I'm more adept at map making than programming events so if you ever want to use any of my maps just let me know. I have several that I have not published on the ATG scenario site, but your welcome to any of them.



Hi Lion

I am not sure what you mean with making the Easter Offensive a stand alone scenario. It doesnt make for a good campaign scenario since basicly 90 % of the choices players do during the campaign game have already been done by 1972. There is an Easter Offensive scenario. But its not a Freebie. Someone, i dont rememember whom asked if i was going to do a Fall of Saigon scenario. I am planning on doing it. But right now to be honest i am a little tired of this series of scenarios. Both because i have been working on them for a whíle (have made five of the six planned scenarios) and because of the somewhat unwanted attention drawn to them.

As for freebies i am actually thinking of making another 2 freebie variants for the Vietnam series. Basicly it would be the same scenarios as the Campaign scenario start and the Tet-Offensive scenario start but they would be limited to playing for a year (on round 13 the scenario would end). That would be very easy to do and it would provide an easy way for players interested in the scenarios to check them out.

As for planned projects i am thinking of i do have had some thoughts about modern scenarios. One of the projects i actually started on is based on the Victory Games boardgame Central America. I actually have a more or less finished scenario about the Soccer War. I am just looking for good pictures to use for the SFTs (not so easy to find). Other projects i have been at least considering are scenarios covering the Pakistani-Indian wars, the Etiophian-Eritrea war, projects based on the Sixth Fleet boardgame. Also i started making maps for a Tunisia 1943 scenario and Market Garden, As for the middle and near east it is actually on of the topics that has not interested me very much since those wars have been somewhat loopsided. But your map looks interesting. But what happened to your african wars mod? That is actually the project of yours that has interested me most.



I guess what I meant for the Easter Scenario was have it last longer, maybe combine the Easter offensive and fall of Saigon into one and the GVN player actions effect how it plays out. One can only hope that " Fall of Saigon" would be one of those variants. For some reason the period of the war from the Easter offensive till the fall of Saigon are my favorite areas. Your Central America idea is one to look forward to, I have this boardgame as well and it was and is one of my favorites.

My Africa war I have, just haven't messed with it in a few months but if you would like to use it just let me know and I'll send it to you. I also made another Africa scenario map, with Liberia, Ivory Coast with surronding border countries. As for your Ethiopia scenario, I have actually been thinking about making a map of this area. The map would have Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan, Somalia, and now South Sudan as well plus a small portion of the countries which border them. Even has a small portion of Saudia Arabia, and all of Yemen. If you would like once i complete it I'll send it to you, just let me know.



lion_of_judah -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/12/2011 9:50:09 AM)

Grymme, I forgot to mention the Ethiopia map is 30 Miles per hex, the Liberia/Ivory Coast is 15 miles per hex and the South Africa one is 30 miles per hex.



Grymme -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/12/2011 9:54:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lion_of_judah

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grymme


quote:

ORIGINAL: lion_of_judah

Grymme: any chance making the "Easter offensive" a stand alone scenario and maybe even making this one like your I Corps a freebee....[;)] just asking... Have you thought about doing one called " 55 days The Fall of Saigon" cannot remember if I have asked you this or not.

I was also curious if your thinking about doing anymore modern day conflicts, cause i would love to see what you could do with that "Near East" map i have made, that is if that area of the world peaks your interest. I have discovered that I'm more adept at map making than programming events so if you ever want to use any of my maps just let me know. I have several that I have not published on the ATG scenario site, but your welcome to any of them.



Hi Lion

I am not sure what you mean with making the Easter Offensive a stand alone scenario. It doesnt make for a good campaign scenario since basicly 90 % of the choices players do during the campaign game have already been done by 1972. There is an Easter Offensive scenario. But its not a Freebie. Someone, i dont rememember whom asked if i was going to do a Fall of Saigon scenario. I am planning on doing it. But right now to be honest i am a little tired of this series of scenarios. Both because i have been working on them for a whíle (have made five of the six planned scenarios) and because of the somewhat unwanted attention drawn to them.

As for freebies i am actually thinking of making another 2 freebie variants for the Vietnam series. Basicly it would be the same scenarios as the Campaign scenario start and the Tet-Offensive scenario start but they would be limited to playing for a year (on round 13 the scenario would end). That would be very easy to do and it would provide an easy way for players interested in the scenarios to check them out.

As for planned projects i am thinking of i do have had some thoughts about modern scenarios. One of the projects i actually started on is based on the Victory Games boardgame Central America. I actually have a more or less finished scenario about the Soccer War. I am just looking for good pictures to use for the SFTs (not so easy to find). Other projects i have been at least considering are scenarios covering the Pakistani-Indian wars, the Etiophian-Eritrea war, projects based on the Sixth Fleet boardgame. Also i started making maps for a Tunisia 1943 scenario and Market Garden, As for the middle and near east it is actually on of the topics that has not interested me very much since those wars have been somewhat loopsided. But your map looks interesting. But what happened to your african wars mod? That is actually the project of yours that has interested me most.



I guess what I meant for the Easter Scenario was have it last longer, maybe combine the Easter offensive and fall of Saigon into one and the GVN player actions effect how it plays out. One can only hope that " Fall of Saigon" would be one of those variants. For some reason the period of the war from the Easter offensive till the fall of Saigon are my favorite areas. Your Central America idea is one to look forward to, I have this boardgame as well and it was and is one of my favorites.

My Africa war I have, just haven't messed with it in a few months but if you would like to use it just let me know and I'll send it to you. I also made another Africa scenario map, with Liberia, Ivory Coast with surronding border countries. As for your Ethiopia scenario, I have actually been thinking about making a map of this area. The map would have Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan, Somalia, and now South Sudan as well plus a small portion of the countries which border them. Even has a small portion of Saudia Arabia, and all of Yemen. If you would like once i complete it I'll send it to you, just let me know.



Couldnt you upload your projects to the scenario bank as playtest version? Just hate to see good projects dissapearing because the designer quit AT. As for maps i like making them myself, its one of my favourite passtimes. That being said, maybe if i get to doing an african mod i might ask you where you got your overlays.

Uploaded a 1 year trial version of the grand campaign in the Vietnam series. It works exactly like the grand campaign scenario except that after 1 year it ends. I also sorted all VG:Vietnam series files into one folder.

As for the scenarios in the Vietnam series. The scenarios are based on scenarios in the boardgame, with changes of course. But changing scenarios significantly from the scope of the scope of the boardgame equivalents is beyond what i was planning to do and would nesscessitate a work effort that i couldnt do. But i understand and agree that it would be fun with more medium length scenarios.



lion_of_judah -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/12/2011 10:14:03 AM)

Grymme: I have been thinking about uploading them to the AT site, but just haven't had the time. Maybe this weekend if I can, is a possibility. I understand about the maps, cause that is what I love as well is map making. The Ethiopia map will, is based off my map that I made from Matrix version of TOAW 3, which was taken from a bitmap of the area using a hex map maker program that only worked on Windows 98, so that tells you how old the map is that I used as a template. I think I may still have the bitmap saved on disk, somewhere. If you like and I can find it, I'd be more than happy to send you the template.

As for the trial vietnam scenarios i will upload them later today......[&o]



Goodmongo -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/13/2011 5:04:09 AM)

Grymme did you make any big changes to NVN combat? I was playing with version 223 and it is way different then the last version I played (220?). Is that due to battlestack rules for ATG?



Grymme -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/13/2011 6:07:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Goodmongo

Grymme did you make any big changes to NVN combat? I was playing with version 223 and it is way different then the last version I played (220?). Is that due to battlestack rules for ATG?



Goodmongo. You cannot continue to lie and spew rants about how miserable my scenario has failed in other threads and realisticly hope to get polite answers to your questions in this one. And may i add that your verbal garbage rings particularly hollow considering that its only been a week or so since you were practicly begging me for the code to my scenario and that you have yet to deliver a single scenario of your own to the community.

Cant you just leave me and my scenarios alone and do your own thing.



Goodmongo -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/13/2011 2:44:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grymme

quote:

ORIGINAL: Goodmongo

Grymme did you make any big changes to NVN combat? I was playing with version 223 and it is way different then the last version I played (220?). Is that due to battlestack rules for ATG?



Goodmongo. You cannot continue to lie and spew rants about how miserable my scenario has failed in other threads and realisticly hope to get polite answers to your questions in this one. And may i add that your verbal garbage rings particularly hollow considering that its only been a week or so since you were practicly begging me for the code to my scenario and that you have yet to deliver a single scenario of your own to the community.

Cant you just leave me and my scenarios alone and do your own thing.


So I'm asking if something changed and I get this? If something changed then I'll change what I'm saying. If you did make a big change (which I think you might have), then doesn't that show your first attempts weren't balanced? There is NOTHING wrong with initial attempts not being balanced if they are corrected. In fact that is a GOOD thing. That is how TESTING works.

Take for example your changes to US air range. Basing the B-52's on the offshore base is a GOOD thing. You were all pissed off at me for even mentioning it but it resulted in an improvment. Why do you have such a thin skin and take everything so personally?

I did ask for access to the code. What is wrong with that? If I wanted to try out something different is that such an offense to do? Isn't that how the Global Domination scenario works?

Does this help? [&o]



Grymme -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/13/2011 3:02:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Goodmongo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grymme

quote:

ORIGINAL: Goodmongo

Grymme did you make any big changes to NVN combat? I was playing with version 223 and it is way different then the last version I played (220?). Is that due to battlestack rules for ATG?



Goodmongo. You cannot continue to lie and spew rants about how miserable my scenario has failed in other threads and realisticly hope to get polite answers to your questions in this one. And may i add that your verbal garbage rings particularly hollow considering that its only been a week or so since you were practicly begging me for the code to my scenario and that you have yet to deliver a single scenario of your own to the community.

Cant you just leave me and my scenarios alone and do your own thing.


So I'm asking if something changed and I get this? If something changed then I'll change what I'm saying. If you did make a big change (which I think you might have), then doesn't that show your first attempts weren't balanced? There is NOTHING wrong with initial attempts not being balanced if they are corrected. In fact that is a GOOD thing. That is how TESTING works.

Take for example your changes to US air range. Basing the B-52's on the offshore base is a GOOD thing. You were all pissed off at me for even mentioning it but it resulted in an improvment. Why do you have such a thin skin and take everything so personally?

I did ask for access to the code. What is wrong with that? If I wanted to try out something different is that such an offense to do? Isn't that how the Global Domination scenario works?

Does this help? [&o]



The fact that you had criticism against my scenario was never the point in the beginning. I can take criticism. If you go back and read this thread you will even se me posting that i was going to consider your opinions (even when you were being really annoying). Its the way you do it that irritates me. Saying the VC are supermen, critizising another players style of play, starting a mock AAR, offering money to people, saying the scenario is basicly unplayable, lying about the scenario, starting your own mod thread where you continually refer to how bad my scenario is and how yours will be much better.

I have repeteadly asked you to stop with this behaviour as politely as possible. It should be possible for you to have a presence here and work on whatever project you like without it feeding of me and my projects. Right?




Goodmongo -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/13/2011 5:20:15 PM)


Ok whatever.  Bottom line is that it looks like you took my advice/recommendations and changed the balance of units which is for the good.  And it seems you also made further changes to air power which is good.

You might consider an idea about ineffective ARVN units.  You previously said that you didn't really want to change their readiness.  What you can do is to add a SFT to the unit that has 0 AP.  Then using rule variable 518 prohibit the US side from removing it.  After each turn just remove the SFT and add to the new ineffective units.



Goodmongo -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/14/2011 6:33:34 PM)

People reading this thread know that I've been critical of this scenario for a number of reasons.  I think the bigggest issue and the one that caused the most friction was me saying that VC units were supermen and OP.  I did tons of testing and for previous versions I stood by that assesment.

My goal is not to bash but being too blunt it probably sounded that way.  It was to point out what I thought was right or wrong.  And I have always tried to be honest in my opinion and analysis.

So last night I loaded up the latest version (223) of the grand campaign scenario and conducted a number of tests.  I could not conduct every single test that I wanted to try but did a large number of them.  Here are the results.

Whatever was changed or done has fixed the VC balance issue.  I do not claim that I am some God type person when it comes to AT/ATG rules and gameplay.  Heck I've had the game for less than a month now.  So I'm not sure what or how the changes were made.  It might be due to battlestack rules or changes in the units or defense bonuses, or maybe a number of things.  But something drastic did change.  The comabt in my opinion is 1000% better.  In a human vs. human game you will no longer see one side completely destroying whole divisons on the first turn or capturing Saigon.

Even if playing as the NVN player you wait till turn 4 (seasonal turn 2) and create around 200 VC battalions you can't just place them, attack and place more to attack again eventually winning all the fights.  The number of attacking units needed to win has increased.  No more simplely surrounding a hex and conducting a 1-1 attack with all defenders being destroyed.  The game now requires a strategy and thought process.

These are great changes and have improved the game many fold.  I know that Grymme and I have gotten into it here.  But I aslo want to point out when what I was saying is no longer valid.  BTW this is my opinion only.  You the player don't need my stamp of approval.  My opinion is worth what it costs.  Nothing.  You were always the ones that needed to make your own judgements on the game.  And you still need to do that.  All I ever really wanted to accomplish was to test out the game and report my findings.  And right now those findings are a game that has resolved a number of issues that I felt was holding it back.  I also noticed other changes that resolves other issuess that I had or at least greatly diminished them.

So for whatever it's worth this version (223) is a big improvement over the previous ones and if you haven't tried it out yet, you may want to now.



Rosseau -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/15/2011 1:31:27 AM)

Not to be an idiot, but on Grymme's site, I downloaded "1965 to 1975...v2.23.

I guess the larger file "Battles for South Vietnam v2.22" is different scenario/campaign?

thanks



Grymme -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/15/2011 6:52:56 AM)

Rosseau; Its ok to be confused. My own AT folder confuses me a lot sometimes.

I moved all the VG vietnam series files to a special folder on my skydrive. It currently contains

- 1965-1975 the battle for South Vietnam v223 (this is the main grand campaign file, donationware)
- Battle for I Corps v2 (smaller freebie scenario, AT-zipform)
- Battle for South Vietnam v222 (Atzip file) this contains the graphics etc you need to play all the scenarios including the grand campaign, it also contains an older version v222 of the grand campaign)
- Battle for Vietnam - 1 year trial version - (this is a freebie scenario that plays exactly like the grand campaign except that it only lasts one year of ten)
- Easter Offensive v22 (full map scenario, donationware)
- Tet Offensive Campaign start (Campaign scenario starting in 1968, donationware)
- War Zone C (smaller freebie scenario in atzip form).
- Scenario briefing.

Basicly what you need to play the grand campaign is the atzipfile and the scenario file.

Also there is an much older Vietnam scenario (freebie) not to be confused with these scenarios. But its located outside the VG Vietnam folder.

Hope this clears it up for you.




Gresbeck -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/15/2011 6:16:07 PM)

Grymme, I've the impression that when deploying a combat unit in a hex containing a hq, the newly deployed unit is automatically reassigned to the hq located in the hex of deployment, even when the combat unit has a parent division hq, deployed together with the combat unit. The result is that I find the division hq empty, and the other on map hq (f.e. the MACV HQ in Saigon) overstacked. Each time I have to reassign the combat unit hq manually, which is rather annoying, and probably costs readiness. Bug or am I missing something? Thanks in advance.



Grymme -> RE: Victory Games Vietnam (10/15/2011 6:33:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gresbeck

Grymme, I've the impression that when deploying a combat unit in a hex containing a hq, the newly deployed unit is automatically reassigned to the hq located in the hex of deployment, even when the combat unit has a parent division hq, deployed together with the combat unit. The result is that I find the division hq empty, and the other on map hq (f.e. the MACV HQ in Saigon) overstacked. Each time I have to reassign the combat unit hq manually, which is rather annoying, and probably costs readiness. Bug or am I missing something? Thanks in advance.



No, that is unfortunatly true. I havent found a way coding around that - although there probably is. The most common issue is with deploying units in Saigon where the MACW HQ is and when deploying the Marine Divisions. A workaround is moving the HQ one hex away, deploy the Units you want one at a time and move them away immediatly, then move the HQ back to the hex. As for the Marine Divisions there isnt a workaround - those battalions just will have to be reassigned to their parent HQ manually. I did reduce the penalty for changing HQ down to -10% only.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.765625