CM Vietnam

[argie]

Originally posted by Kitty:

Dorosh is Canadian. Why would he be embarrassed by a post aimed at Americans?

Kitty

Oh, no! Canada managed to fall out from America! Must be that Commonwealth thing...

[30ot6]

Well, I don't know about Vietnam, but Israeli-Palestinian wars? What are you guys thinking? That war really is still alive and kicking, and as such, I would almost consider it immoral to desenitize it in a computer game. Some things are better left alone; this conflict is definitely one of them.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Zarquon:

I don't exactly know why, but I find Vietnam extremely interesting. I've read some books about it and even tried to design my own small infantry unit board game about jungle warfare (not that I know much about it, being mostly a caouch/office creature. Perhaps that's why...).

"Comanche 6 - Company Commander in Vietnam" (James Estep) was nice reading. Based on this, I think the typical VN scenario could look like this:

You command a US infantry company. Patrol the area for a couple of days.

You have your platoons spread about the valley, marching through the underbrush. Distance between them is varying, but it could be a couple of miles.

If you're lucky, you encounter a couple of VC/NVA troops, marching in pairs, carrying rice or other supplies, and blast away at them.

If you're unlucky, you run into boobytraps on the path without ever seeing one enemy soldier.

That doesn't mean that a VN setting couldn't be interesting. Hot landing zones, bunker clearing, 'bomb damage assessing' (running from crater to crater) or Hue-style house fighting could make for fine scenarios.

But the problem is IMHO that all this calls for a slightly different game engine. The CM scale just isn't right.

In CM, you have infantry squads and HQs as your game pieces. You can stage a bataillon fight if you want to. But a 'typical' VN scenario isn't about a set-piece battle, it's about ambushes. It includes smaller forces, with perhaps not even a company on each side. It would be more about individual soldiers than platoon-sized units. Half-squads should be the biggest maneuver units IMO. The engine must support realistic helicopter operations and that is quite different from ground vehicles ops. Command & Control issues should be more complex than they are in CM, if only the get that 'movie feeling' I guess most participants in this thread are thinking about (OK, this includes me).

And the 'I'm here' feeling is what such a game is all about, isn't it?

I'm not asking for Jesus Christ-death poses, slaughter of civilians (by both sides) or anything Hollywood. Only the scale should be focused much more on the individual than what is possible with CM.

But Zarquon, think about it - how is any of what you said different from WW II? Most infantry battalions went days on end without making contact, or made contact only through the various patrolling activities - snatch patrols, contact patrols, fighting patrols, reconaissance patrols, etc. CM models the actual company and battalion actions that resulted in contact - these were a minority for most units involved most of the time, even in a place like Stalingrad.

The Vietnam War was characterized as you say by fewer of these formal "company actions" but they did happen when the enemy came out to play, such as at Ia Drang, Tet, Hue, Khe Sanh or in the last months of the war during the final invasion of the South.

[second amendment]

A vietnam game could be mighty interesting!

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Zarquon:

But the problem is IMHO that all this calls for a slightly different game engine. The CM scale just isn't right.

Yes, well the call was for the *new* and *upcoming* engine to tackle Vietnam, not the old engine. So they would have the opportunity to fit the scale to the subject.

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by 30ot6:

Well, I don't know about Vietnam, but Israeli-Palestinian wars? What are you guys thinking? That war really is still alive and kicking, and as such, I would almost consider it immoral to desenitize it in a computer game. Some things are better left alone; this conflict is definitely one of them.

No one said anything about a CM of the Intifada. They were talking about the Arab_Israeli wars, that is to say, the full scale land wars between Israel and Syria/Egypt/Jordan.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Really, why on earth would anyone be interested in Vietnam? :confused: The US involvement in that war can be presented with those already available for CMBB, they all were the same. Thick jungle, some G.I's and lots of Charlies. The tactical situation was very lopsided and it was because of the strategic problems that the US couldn't win. If I had to point out some of the most uninteresting conflicts of 20th century for a squad level game, that would be one. If BFC decides to go post-WW2, then I'd expect them to pick something interesting, like the Ethiopia-Eritrean conflict, Arab-Israeli wars, Korean war, Iraq-Iran war and of course the Indian-Pakistani wars. Even the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan would be tactically more interesting and varying, there you'd at least have heavily armed but poorly trained soldiers against lightly armed but experienced guerrillas.

Errrr... Kitty's asking for the first Indochina war... No US involvement... yet

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Aha, didn't know Berli also made one. As for mine, on the way.

Mine isn't really the Vietnam battle... just has some of the flavorings of it. It is 500. SS-Fallschirm-Bataillon's attack on Tito's HQ. Similar situation

[Pinetree]

Really, why on earth would anyone be interested in Vietnam?.... Even the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan would be tactically more interesting and varying, there you'd at least have heavily armed but poorly trained soldiers against lightly armed but experienced guerrillas.

Hmmm.. You've just described the Vietnam war there.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Pinetree:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Really, why on earth would anyone be interested in Vietnam?.... Even the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan would be tactically more interesting and varying, there you'd at least have heavily armed but poorly trained soldiers against lightly armed but experienced guerrillas.

Hmmm.. You've just described the Vietnam war there. </font>

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Originally posted by CMplayer:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 30ot6:

Well, I don't know about Vietnam, but Israeli-Palestinian wars? What are you guys thinking? That war really is still alive and kicking, and as such, I would almost consider it immoral to desenitize it in a computer game. Some things are better left alone; this conflict is definitely one of them.

No one said anything about a CM of the Intifada. They were talking about the Arab_Israeli wars, that is to say, the full scale land wars between Israel and Syria/Egypt/Jordan. </font>

[Los]

"Mine isn't really the Vietnam battle... just has some of the flavorings of it. It is 500. SS-Fallschirm-Bataillon's attack on Tito's HQ. Similar situation"

Berli,

If you are designing that battle I have some material for you, let me know.

Los

[Le Tondu]

Yes, CM does filter out much of what happened in WWII, but is that a good thing overall? I don't know. We won that war. Maybe it is easier to make a CM about a war we won. I wonder how many WWII vets play CM? I bet the number is very, very, very small.

What I don't agree with is doing the same thing with Vietnam.

I present here only a perspective that is lacking, IMO. No lies. Just the truth.

Hal Moore's book "WE WERE SOLDIERS ONCE, AND YOUNG" was very good indeed. It was a great snapshot of the early war and it helped to give some balance to the conflict.

IMO, Don Johnson's more recent film "Word of Honor" and other films like "The Boys in Company C" give a different view of Vietnam that should never be forgotten, lest it all happen again.

I enlisted before the end of Vietnam. It was a time when my family members were running away to Canada. I admit that I didn't see combat, but I sure met many that did. Some are dead today from Agent Orange. Some bragged about and then express great shame for what they did.

I'm talking about interrogation techniques like taking three suspected VC sympathisers up in a chopper. You ask the first prisoner what you want and if he doesn't answer the way you want, you toss him out the chopper w/o a parachute. The by the time you get to the third prisoner, you know all that you want. Will that be in CMV???

I'm talking about children who had their arms cut off by the VC because a Corpsman inoculated them against polio.

I'm talking about the collection of ears. I've seen the photographs of it. It did exist!

I'm talking about proud men reduced to wasted addicts because of what they learned to do over there.

Vietnam allowed corporations to exploit the natural resources that exist there and make HUGE profits. That is a well known FACT.

Good men shivered at night in foxholes while the American Red Cross sold wool blankets but would not give them out to those that needed them who happened to be just a short distance away from a warehouse that stored them.

Yes, Vietnam should be embarrassing. To push forward the idea that all of Vietnam was like it was in Hal Moore's book OR the view of some higher level commanders is revisionism pure and simple. It is the same as saying the Holocaust never happend.

Our grandkids will still be paying for Vietnam years from now. 58,000+ dead. What did all of it get us? Nothing of value. It made some men real rich, but it got the men who fought it nothing. IMO, that mistake should never, ever be made again.

Some have said that the Vietnam war was nothing more than a massive wargame with live ammo that we took second place in. You can claim how many battles were won by us, but it all boils down to the end result. We got kicked out when we tried to kick out communism in Vietnam.

And you guys want a computer game of that?? It boggles the mind.

Vietnam is too recent and too sensitive a subject. Maybe in the future when more history can be blurred, a CMV might happen.

[Los]

Whatever, enough with the horsesh*t preaching. The issue is whether Vietnam would make for interesting CM battles. It's the same argument cast against every other non-WW2 european theater that's come up, (Pacific, Modern, Vietnam, whatever.) In each case it's a clear issue of those against the idea having an apparently "dim" understanding of what tactical combat in those theaters was all about, or hanging their hat on one type of battle. I suppose when CMx comes out and (if) it's not about WW2 in Europe there's going to be a few unhappy campers.

Los

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Le Tondu:

And you guys want a computer game of that?? It boggles the mind.

You can make the same arguments about WW2. War is a sensitive subject per se, whatever the era. And there were similar arguments here about Somalia and games.

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Le Tondu:

And you guys want a computer game of that?? It boggles the mind.

I'm sorry but your post makes no sense. I assume you play CMBO, BB, AK.

Let's discuss horrible atrocities during WWII. Firebombings, extermination camps, summary executions, torture, rape, profiteering (both by small-timers and by industry), men brutalized by combat to where they behave like animals, women forced into prostitution, orphans, epidemics, drug addiction, body parts collected as trophies, starvation... It's all there and more.

Tactical wargames are about playing the tactical challenges of the weapons systems and troop organizations that met on the field of battle. They rightly leave that other stuff out.

Vietnam is not essentially different in that regard, and is a suitable subject to wargame, at tactical, operational and strategic scales. There are already good treatments out there on all those scales in the board wargame industry, though there's plenty of room for improvement.

[ December 22, 2003, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Los:

Berli,

If you are designing that battle I have some material for you, let me know.

The scenario isn't an accurate depiction, or even an attempt at it (it actually started as kind of a joke). I wouldn't mind seeing what you have to see if a serious scenario might work out.

[argie]

Originally posted by V- Die Hand die Verletzt:

The Iraq-Iran war was not very interesting at the tactical level as well, unless you consider defending against the Persian human child-wave attacks to be interesting.

Agree. What could be fun is to play an Iranian Logistic Simulator: trying to make USA stuff work, from small arms to F14s, without spare parts or technical assistance.

[Kitty]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Los:

Berli,

If you are designing that battle I have some material for you, let me know.

The scenario isn't an accurate depiction, or even an attempt at it (it actually started as kind of a joke). I wouldn't mind seeing what you have to see if a serious scenario might work out. </font>

[Mace]

Originally posted by Le Tondu:

And you guys want a computer game of that?? It boggles the mind.

Vietnam is too recent and too sensitive a subject. Maybe in the future when more history can be blurred, a CMV might happen.

In response:

i) Was Vietnam anymore terrible a war than any of the others of the 20th century?

ii) There have already been Vietnam based computer wargames released, some even way back in the 1980s.

Including

Battlefield Vietnam (electronic Arts)

Conflict in Vietnam Microprose 1987

Squad battles: Vietnam (HPS)

Squad battles: Tour of Duty (HPS)

Nam 1965 – 1975 Metagraphic Software 1994

Platoon (PC) (Strategy First)

Vietcong (take w interactive)

Vietnam War: Ho Chi Minh Trail Epic Games

In addition, there is an extremely large number of boardgames and miniature rules, as is listed at grognard

So if battlefront does publish a game that is Vietnam based then it wouldn't be the first to do so.

And personally, if a CM Vietnam generates some thought and discussion about what happened...then that's a good thing.

Mace

[ December 22, 2003, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: Mace ]

[Mark Gallear]

I confess to being English and also having a big interest in the Vietnam war. (9th Cav - Aero Rifles and air mobile tactics! I'm published - well in the British wargame magazine anyway!)

I think the fascination is how a little poor and divided country beat the rich and all powerfull Americans. Now that I have said that it won't happen - Battlefront will never get the money - you cann't have a game/film about that! Only very recently would Hollywood do a Vietnam movie and most of those are not really about the Vietnam War ! Oh Battlefront self publish!

[ December 22, 2003, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Le Tondu, all of that happened (I hope Marlon Brando isn't your only source for the arms quote) but what does any of it have to do with a tactical simulation?

There are still concentration camp victims alive; I bet they hated "Hogan's Heroes" with the funny Nazis in it.

But then again, at least one of those same concentration camp inmates was one of the co-stars of the show.

People choose to remember and experience in their own ways. There are guys living in Russia right now that do US Army Vietnam-era "re-enactment." Takes all kinds.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Mace:

i) Was Vietnam anymore terrible a war than any of the others of the 20th century?

Forget limiting it to the 20th century. Any war period. There has never been a 'clean' war

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Really, why on earth would anyone be interested in Vietnam? :confused: The US involvement in that war can be presented with those already available for CMBB, they all were the same. Thick jungle, some G.I's and lots of Charlies. The tactical situation was very lopsided and it was because of the strategic problems that the US couldn't win. If I had to point out some of the most uninteresting conflicts of 20th century for a squad level game, that would be one. If BFC decides to go post-WW2, then I'd expect them to pick something interesting, like the Ethiopia-Eritrean conflict, Arab-Israeli wars, Korean war, Iraq-Iran war and of course the Indian-Pakistani wars. Even the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan would be tactically more interesting and varying, there you'd at least have heavily armed but poorly trained soldiers against lightly armed but experienced guerrillas.

Well there would be some very good post WWII games to pick from but Vietnam is one of the more diverse areas to pick and would probably offer a better mix than any of the others. There is I Corps with the Marines, the Highlands, the Jungle, Delta, not to mention Special Forces of all kinds and multiple small engagements that are well documented with maps available. There aren't that many vehicles to model and the combat ranges are similair to what we use now. So Vietnam gets my vote. Now after that we can discuss...

Panther Commander

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Panther Commander:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sergei:

Really, why on earth would anyone be interested in Vietnam? :confused: The US involvement in that war can be presented with those already available for CMBB, they all were the same. Thick jungle, some G.I's and lots of Charlies. The tactical situation was very lopsided and it was because of the strategic problems that the US couldn't win. If I had to point out some of the most uninteresting conflicts of 20th century for a squad level game, that would be one. If BFC decides to go post-WW2, then I'd expect them to pick something interesting, like the Ethiopia-Eritrean conflict, Arab-Israeli wars, Korean war, Iraq-Iran war and of course the Indian-Pakistani wars. Even the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan would be tactically more interesting and varying, there you'd at least have heavily armed but poorly trained soldiers against lightly armed but experienced guerrillas.

Well there would be some very good post WWII games to pick from but Vietnam is one of the more diverse areas to pick and would probably offer a better mix than any of the others. There is I Corps with the Marines, the Highlands, the Jungle, Delta, not to mention Special Forces of all kinds and multiple small engagements that are well documented with maps available. There aren't that many vehicles to model and the combat ranges are similair to what we use now. So Vietnam gets my vote. Now after that we can discuss...

Panther Commander </font>