veitnam

[Mystiverse]

is there anyone out there that thinks this game engine could be used for a veitnam game? i know that the full version of cm isnt even out yet but planning for the future cant hurt.it seems to me that the conversion to nam would be a fast project(compared to starting an engine from scratch).lets put our vote in now!nam fans dont have but a very small choice to pick from as is.is there an audience out there?

[Benny]

You spelled "Vietnam" wrong.

[Doug Beman]

I think the CM base engine could be admirably adapted for any era of war. I'd like to refight Gettysburg with this game, or maybe even the great struggles of the early Renaissance.

DjB

[This message has been edited by Doug Beman (edited 12-31-99).]

[Guest Capt_Manieri]

The reason they didn't pick Vietnam for the first CM was that WWII was the last war with truly tactical warfare. Vietnam was filled with confusion and it wasn't very tactical. My father would have went to Vietnam....but he lied and said he was medically excempt. (He worked at a hospital at the time) However, years before, my grandfather joyfully and full heartedly joined WWII as a Sgt. If you look at Vietnam from a historical stand point, basically Vietnam had tons of "little" skirmishes that ended in a lot of Americans getting killed. One "Charlie" in a tree would pick off 8 Americans before biting it himself. Sure, there were a few big blown out battles in Vietnam.....like, Hamburger Hill. But, the reason I'm saying this is because I think Vietnam should go to the back of the line of being made by BTS.....in comparison of wars like WWII in the Pacific and Eastern Front.

Hey, look at it this way man, as soon as CM comes out....tons of Software development companies are gonna copy CM's format and make rip-off games. I'm sure in the future, some company will make a game like this in Vietnam format.

[Mystiverse]

sorry about spelling. i wasnt sure but didnt have a dictionary around.makes me sound like a newbie,doesnt it?intentions are good though.

[Mystiverse]

i didnt mean to suggest that nam would come out before cm(im waiting for it with great anticipation)but the bad situation that the US faced could be addressed with the possibility that the tide could turn either way.to play a war game and have the outcome the same as history would be a waste of time as far as stategy is concerned.there should always be the possiblity of one side winning over the other.hence the possibility of changing history.can you do someting timely about that sniper?when is a good time for a napalm strike?can you stay down in the tree line or are you forced out by artillery strikes?my point is that the outcome doesnt have to be what really happened but a variation on what you do.

[Goanna]

Captain, I think perhaps you should to a bit more reading before you go popping off with comments about Vietnam, or perhpas talk to some veterans of that war. David Hackworth, who wrote a very good book on his experiences "About Face" would tell you that the fighting, even in "small skirmishes" was very tactical in Vietnam, but the overall strategy of the war was not very coherent.

I would suggest that BTS, or someone else, could adapt their engine to mast any war, as Doug Beman suggests, but they have chosen to start with WWII becuse they have a historic interest.

I didn't fight in Vietnam, so I am not going to make any definitive statements about it, as you seem ready to do at the ripe age of 16. I would shy away from these if I were you so as not to risk offending actual veterans that are more than likely represented on this BBS.

------------------

desert rat wannabe

[Monk]

Great topic! I've been thinking about this.

This beautiful engine could be adopted to a dynamic campaign. The player is an old man assigned to an new AO and new battalion (possibly a division). But not only is the commander to fight the division there -- the villes and smaller hamlets need attention, also.

Small unit patrols would play a large role, as well as snipers. Terrain would decide most battles, as dug in fighters with superior ground tend to inflict heavier losses to unprepared attackers.

A grid of 9 of these large, beautifully drawn maps would be watched for intel, movement, and supply. The game would recognize and reward force projection rather than forward defense.

Of course having the massive amounts of firepower would be wonderful, though not as a deciding factor for controlling the battlefield as is well known.

I think the game would be fun and involving.

[Mystiverse]

im happy that the topic is heating up.over and out fot the moment.(the fans are out there)

[Aacooper]

I've said a similar thing on another thread, but I think Vietnam would be perfect for CM, and vice versa. Vietnam was a series of tactical fights with only a few "standard" operational-level battles (An Loc, 1972 Easter Offensive, etc...).

Vietnam is problematical for wargaming because it was decided by the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese and Americans as much as any military result. Also, the desire to limit the war and keep China and USSR directly out led to alot of strategic restrictions (bombing of N Vietnam, mining the harbors, going into Cambodia, etc...) that would be frustrating and arbitrary to play with. Lastly, when the US withdrew in 1973 the Viet Cong were a non-factor, and the NVA could not conduct large operations due to losses suffered in Gen Giap's Easter Offensive. So the US won? Once we left, we failed to support S Vietnam with arms and munitions, and USSR and China poured supplies into Hanoi. The end result was a lost war in 1975 (or maybe we took the long view, much like Ho Chi Min, and once Vietnam becomes a capitalist democracy, our victory will be complete! ).

Due to the morass of politics that interfere with the "good clean fight", there haven't been a lot of wargames devoted to the conflict. CM's FOW would suit a firefight very well. The disadvantage is that the scale would tend to be smaller - there would be fewer battalion vs. battalion fights than in CM WW2. Also, scenario designers would have to ensure the scenario doesn't hinge too heavily on air or artillery support.

However, Vietnam needs a good wargame, and the CM engine would be perfect.

I have an editorial directed to people with the misconception that US troops commited atrocity after atrocity. While incidents like My Lai DID happen, remember the Viet Cong targeted town elders, doctors, teachers, and other leaders for murder throughout the war, and the Communists murdered about 3500 (?) civilians while they occupied Hue during the Tet offensive. Also, Communist guerrilla tactics like using children to throw grenades and firing from occupied hamlets led to civilian casualties. Nobody knows what the "score" is of atrocity vs. atrocity, but I am confidant the US soldiers (as a group) have nothing to be ashamed of.

[Guest MantaRay]

Ya to even suggest that Vietnam had no tactics is not a smart thing to say. And to sit there and brag that your dad dodged the draft while others went there and died, it is sickening. I fought for my country, and I had a brother who served two tours in vietnam. There is always a price for freedom, and it pisses me off to hear someone who doesnt know his ass from a hole in the ground, disrespect people who went over there(AND THEY DIDNT WANT TO GO EITHER ) but did so because it was their duty to go. I hate democrats...hehe

Ray

------------------

[Guest MantaRay]

Also by they way, the estimated kill ratio was 3-1 anyway. Get some facts before you post.

Ray

------------------

[Guest Mikeman]

See July 30 thread entitled "Vietnam" for Steve's opinion on Vietnam version of CM. I distinctly remember more detailed threads, but can't find them. I'm not willing to search more than 10 minutes, ever.

Mikeman out.

[Guest Capt_Manieri]

I can make "BOLD" statements because I have a great knowlege of warfare on the 20th century...WWI, WWII, The Korean War and Vietnam. I have impressed my history teachers a lot and I have read countless books and watched many programs. Don't discount me because I'm 16. The "Ted Offensive" and Hamburger Hill were very important to the batle history of Vietnam. But, these type of battles were not common.

The standard group of American soldiers were sent into the jungle in small platoons to "search and destroy" the enemy..whenever they found them. However, since the Viet Cong were guerillas and had set booby traps and put snipers in the trees...there was confusion and lots of American casualties.

Goanna, I guess these "tactical" battles you refer to would fall under the category of the ted offensive. But you have to understand that these types of tactical battles were few and far between in the Vietnam conflict. Most of the time, American soldiers would have to wander through the jungle literally, "looking" for a fight. That was there mission. What would happen, would be a platoon of Americans would come under fire in a rice paddie and the Americans would take cover and shoot back. Then, the small amount of Viet Cong guerillas would sneak back into the jungle.

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Don't discount me because I'm 16.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think most people would discount you for your age... however, arguing with someone who was there is grounds for questioning your credibility.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have impressed my history teachers a lot<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From my experience, impressing high school history teachers is not an amazing feat. Understand that history teachers tend not to focus on military history and their knowledge of it is usually the politically correct version of history.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Ted Offensive"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tet

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I guess these "tactical" battles you refer to would fall under the category of the ted offensive. But you have to understand that these types of tactical battles were few and far between in the Vietnam conflict.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Battalion and higher level ops were far more common than you seem to think. What sets Tet apart is the fact that the fighting was much more of a stand up fight. Hue was in many respects similar to fighting during WWII.

If this response seems harsh, I apologize. I've been up for over 24 hours because of Y2K (Madmatt, I'm with you on your opinion of Y2K)

------------------

---

Dan Brown

dbrown@owc.net

[Spook]

Well, first off, Capt, it was "Tet", not "Ted".

And really, the Tet Offensive and Hamburger Hill can't even be compared to the same level of significance. Hamburger Hill (or Ap Bia?) was a fight over one piece of terrain with the goal to eliminate the defenders on that ground. Tet was a nationwide offensive throughout South Vietnam by the NLF & NVA which basically wrecked the NLF as a battlefield force, thus requiring greater involvement by the NVA later on.

Hamburger Hill is easy to recognize by name because a movie was done about it, and that it was politicized in a Ted Kennedy speech as a "needless dying." But what the Ia Drang of '65? "Junction City" & Dak To of '67? The riverine operations in the Mekong Delta? Khe Sanh, Bien Hoa, & Hue during the Tet attacks? All of these eclipsed Hamburger Hill in scope, with Dak To being the bloodiest to US forces for any one operation or battle.

And contrary to the image you seem to be giving here, US ground forces in Vietnam didn't just sit there and take it, they dished it out too, and quite a bit over their own losses. However, it ultimately didn't matter how many times the US grunts distinguished themselves TACTICALLY, when on the STRATEGIC level the leadership in Washington DC (both the White House & Pentagon) acted as not having a clue.

[Guest Capt_Manieri]

I knew I was gonna attract a lot of negative attention..............

proved my point

[Heavy Bomber]

Capt_M You have made an impression… Week at best if your going to sound off at least make sure you spell historical battles correctly. The TED… I mean come on!

I have to agree with Berlichtingen, high shool teachers are impressed when you sound like you know what your talking about, as long as you say it with athority and they do not know the facts. Your take on Vietnam seams a bit on the hollywood side.

As for a GAME about that WAR, I do agree with Capt_M. I would rather play the CM Eastern front or see the Pacific side of WWII including the navy's involvement.

[Berlichtingen]

Christ! I just woke up... there is a keyboard pattern on my forehead I need a new job. To address the original point... If BTS came out with a Vietnam version, I would buy it... however, I think the Vietnam war would be fairly boring compared to other conflicts such as Korea or any of the Middle East conflicts. Rhodesea might be interesting, but I'm not really sure (don't really know much about that conflict). I would certainly hate to see a Vietnam version before all of WWII was covered. If there is to be a Vietnam version, I would hope it would go back to before US involvement... Indochina seems more interesting to me. Well, thats my 2 cents... gonna go back to sleep now

[Berlichtingen]

One more point for those of you who think Vietnam is just dense jungle... I spent some time near the border with the Thai Marines, and I can tell you there is a look of diverse terrain in that part of the world.

[Mystiverse]

i would like to add to this topic as it is taking a turn for the nasty(which is almost a given anytime nam comes up).to be proud of dad not serving his country adds a very serious lack of credibility to any military argument.i can see it from a young perspective but if you are older person i think you should have a larger view of military operations in our country.how would you like to be under chinese rule right now?this whole thing leads me to a true story.i was to young to have been sent to vietnam but i have a friend who served as gunner on a pt boat.while on ops he had a young child that kept crawling around on the munitions.he repeatedly told the kid to get off.he wouldnt.the child died the hard way.under the conditions they were in it was too much of a risk for them.and yes they were in cambodia.short sightedness can be common in history when you were not there.i would like to wrap this up by saying that if a game is made of vietnam(and i feel like an idiot for spelling it wrong in the heading)that the inclussion of civilians would be vital as they were a part of the war as much as anybody.and if the scenarios were picked properly,the game could be varied and exciting to play.heres hoping for the future.

[paullhr]

About Nam, the real think that Nam proved was that war can only be won if the political power i.e you,we,us want to make that war, and if I rebember well (I'm french so the political history of the USA isn't that clear to me)Nixon was elected on the promise that he would end the war. The second point that was proved by Nam,by Algeria, Rohdesia etc... is that you can't win a colonial war - well, you can if you exterminate the natives of course or if you park them in reserve - even if you win military on the ground as the USA won in Nam or the french in Algeria.

My wish for a CM3 would be Europe 39-40, then the french could win some engagement with their thanks B1, B1 bis ....after all we had the best tank in the world, but the worst high command leadership

[Guest kevi]

I dont think it would end up a Vietnam

only extension of the CM engine. Perhaps

a flexible game to include Post WW2 actions.

Numerous nations would need to been included

with many differnet squad and equipment types. I would play it for Korea and NAM alone.

I have a book called "Infantry in Vietnam - Small unit actions in the early days 1965-66"

It describes and studies over 50 CM scale battles. So there's a lot of scenarios

right there in just 2 years. Many are interesting and unique tactical situations.

I think the CM system lends itself to countless tactical situations ranging

from WW2 to even a SWAT team trying to subdue terrorists in a large urban city.

SWAT = Special Weapons And Tactics. We just have to pick those that interest us the most. WW2 EF/WF certainly lead the list.

But there is a lot of information

Korea and (yes) NAM to help design great historical and hypothetical battles. Tactics = intel, fire, movement, support etc. Its all there in NAM too. You just have to figure out how best to employ that era's

particular weapon systems. And there in lies

the fun.

- Kevin

[Doug Beman]

I agree with Berlichtigen's post on the terrain of Vietnam. I believe it was in Macksey's _Tank vs Tank_ that I read that the US Army studied the terrain during 1970 and discovered that about 65% of the country could be traversed by tanks during the non-rainy season, and like 75% was passable by APCs year round (I guess cause they have lower ground pressures and are more maneuverable, maybe other factors played a part)

DjB

[Los]

Captain Manieri displays a profound lack of understanding on warfare in Vietnam (and probably in general based on the body of his other posts on matters military, but then again when you are young you "know" everything.) Not that it merits comment but I'll be foolish and make one anyway. First, the bigger picture of Vietnam, why's, politics, strategy, policy is above the scope of CM and this board and should be left out since that's what leads to flame war (and Steve eventually shutting down the thread). But on the subject of CM modelling tactical engagements in Vietnam. There is a rich body of engagements to be modelled in the war. Manieri's characterization of the war as he describes them is the typical crap you get when you read a paragraph out of an encyclopedia. Fior instance North Vietnam's PAVN had hundreds of thousands of regular army troops, they wore uniforms, carried regular weapons, dug fighting positions, conducted company, battalion and ocasuiionally even regimental level attacks and defense, had artillery and in the later years even tanks.

Heck even against local or main force VC units there are many opportunities for good battles. Sure the squad on patrol vs two or three VC traipsing down a trail are below the scope of CM (though wold make for good Rainbow Six/Rogue Spear type action) but larger actions would work just fine.

Captain says...

"I have a great knowlege of warfare on the 20th century...WWI, WWII, The Korean War and Vietnam. I have impressed my history teachers a lot and I have read countless books and watched many programs."

You obviously don't have a great knowledge. (BTW what makes you think your history teachers know anything much about WW2 other than a general knowldege of the subject. I have a degree in both history and political science with teaching certification from a good teaching university and the level of study in WW2 was at best cursory.) Maybe you've seen a lot of cool movies on war. If it was worth the effort, (and it's not since anyone who has more than a casual knowledge of 20th century military matters can plainly see from your posts that your misconcepions are legion), it would be easy to line list your erroneous assumptions and beliefs in embarrassing detail. But why bother? Already on this BBS there has been listed in detail a number of very good books to be read. If you really are interested on the very rich and satisfying study of military histroy, then you have a lifetime's worth of reading to do so get started.

More importantly there's reading and there's understanding.,Reading between the lines, bouncing what you've read off of other things you've read, checking sources, and more importantly bouncing what you read off your own experiences and common sense. That will come if you stick with it.

Los

[This message has been edited by Los (edited 01-01-100).]