Well, I have it but the instructions made me want to gouge my eyes out. The maps are friggin HUGE! This is one of those games that would require six months and a seperate room to play. In a word NO I have not played it but maybe someday
there's a vassal edition of this game...i recommend you google it and give it a whirl to see if it gets your attention enough to purchase it...well, i guess you might need a rulebook first...
_____________________________
Kirk Lazarus: I know who I am. I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude! Ron Swanson: Clear alcohols are for rich women on diets.
Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004 From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: Halsey
Irrelevant and I have played it.
Complex, with a pretty good representation of the conflict.
If it's a monster game. Irrelevant and I have played it.
1989 I think it was. I was the VC/NVA. Got my a$$ kicked, ran out of boys. Tough game. I think there may be some problems with the way combat on the Ho Chi Minh Trail is handled. It was lots of fun though. Seasonal turns. The VC/NVA player's game is like 90% planning and deployment, while the US player's task is operations oriented.
< Message edited by irrelevant -- 12/6/2006 1:37:36 AM >
Any one ever played it?? what do you think about it??? is it worth purhasing
Having played most of the "monster" board games, I can say that this one is "unusual". It is not a traditional YUGO-IGO type system. Movement and combat happen under the control of "operations" which involve one or more battalions/brigades on each side. Airpower is abstract consisting of "points" those these can be used for tactical support as well as more "strategic" purposes. The US (or whatever the side the US is on is called) has a lot of flexability, you can try to bring a lot of stuff in fast or you can try to trickle things in and stay for the long haul. Everything you bring in costs political points and the faster you bring things in (country) the more you pay in terms of PP. Bringing things in too slowly gives the VC/NVA player a good chance to get ahead in terms of province control and province control is what determines victory. Bringing lots of stuff in quickly can stem the tide in terms of VC/NVA but will run the US side out of PP and trigger an early withdrawal, resulting in losing the game. So that is the fundamental trade-off. The one time I did play the campaign game (as the US). My opponent eventually "quit" though he was winning. I think he was just frustrated that he couldn't "do" anything (except win). So if the VC/NVA try to get fancy, and the US player is geared up, then the VC/NVA will not win on the battlefield, but, they can still win the game. But the full campaign is a very long game. If the Vietnam era is of long term interest to you, then yes I'd say pick this up. There are not many titles out there that cover the whole campaign at this level of detail. It is a game I would consider playing again. But I would not recommend it, if you are not pretty strongly interested in this conflict. Also, it is not something that could be played solitare, at least not the campaign game.
Posts: 213
Joined: 12/23/2001 From: Maine (USA) Status: offline
Solo play was not bad for me - in fact made it through half the game once - but then I was rather schizophrenic and had no problems playing both sides - ymmv
Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003 From: Vancouver, Washington Status: offline
As US Player one could have an interesting time working through a particular operation but once you went beyond that in scope the game got unmanageable.
Posts: 3274
Joined: 3/29/2000 From: Staten Island NY Status: offline
I was at Victory Games when they released this game. I think this is one of the best designs on very hard topic that is even harder to convert to a game. I felt you really see how hard it was to get a handle on things for the US. This to me was one of Victory's Games best.
David
< Message edited by David Heath -- 12/6/2006 8:34:45 AM >
Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003 From: Kansas City, MO Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: David Heath
I was at Victory Games when they released this game. I think this is one of the best designs on very hard topic that is even harder to convert to a game. I felt you really see how hard it was to get a handle on things for the US. This to me was one of Victory's Games best.
David
I would agree. I played it three times (finding an opponant with the patience to do so is a challange) and found it a great representation of the hurdles facing both sides. The US has all these wonderfull "toys" to work with..., but often even well-planned operations result in the VC "slipping away". On the other hand, if the VC/NVA get too cocky, that massive US firepower will "melt them away" rapidly. It's a game of patient strategic planning, constant tactical hit and run, and slow overall political progress. You have to be interested in the subject, and ready for a long haul, but if you are it's the best thing ever done on the War.
Well i think you can buy it for something like 20$ on E-bay but i got a problem becouse i do not own a credit card so i cant pay for it via PayPal and the shipping cost's to Poland are deadly but i will get it sooner or later
_____________________________
Pinky: Hey Brain what are we goeing to do this evening? Brain: The Usual Pinky we will try to take over the World;)
Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003 From: Kansas City, MO Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sardonic
I have played it many times. The hardest part is to keep track of province loyalties.
The air support is overwhelming.
Early Vietnamization doesnt really work. You will need to commit something on the ground.
If Dave was actually at VG when it was released I am surprised that he has not considered making it a computer game. That would be a damn good game.
ARVN simply is almost useless, and the musical chairs of SVietnam government is a grind.
I'm going to say it's because no-one thinks they can design an AI competent to play either side---and game companies are reluctant to try a PBEM only Title.
I have played it many times. The hardest part is to keep track of province loyalties.
The air support is overwhelming.
Early Vietnamization doesnt really work. You will need to commit something on the ground.
If Dave was actually at VG when it was released I am surprised that he has not considered making it a computer game. That would be a damn good game.
ARVN simply is almost useless, and the musical chairs of SVietnam government is a grind.
I'm going to say it's because no-one thinks they can design an AI competent to play either side---and game companies are reluctant to try a PBEM only Title.
Well certainly it would be hard to AI the United States operations...that cannot be minimized. But the NVA/VC component would not be all that hard. Could likely use heuristic code of some type. After all most of the Commie move is unit placement and supply infiltration. It is very rare to do multi-unit moves or attacks because of US airpower making it suicide to remain in contact. I agree it is difficult to get sufficient supply to the delta as the NVA.
It is more likely that you break contact instantly when the US player declares an Op. I can only remember one epic battle where I simply got dammed tired of not fighting. And I delibretly burned like 50 RPL just to irritate the US player. It didnt matter. His die mods got so high that he didnt even need to roll.
I loved the 'free-fire' rules. In fact I must say that game is the most accurate game I have ever seen on the topic. The OB was an eyeopener. Someone at VG loved that game.
Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> OT: Victory Games "Vietnam" boardgame 
OT: Victory Games "Vietnam" boardgame - 
RE: OT: Victory Games "Vietnam" boardgame - 
and the shipping cost's to Poland are deadly but i will get it sooner or later
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread