CM in the Ia Drang?

[JasonC]

Unable to wait for CM modules far beyond Barbarossa, I have put together a scenario using CM to recreate a famous battle of the Vietnam war - the fight at Landing Zone X-Ray in the Ia Drang valley, made famous by Hal Moore's book "We were soldiers once... and young". I am looking for interested playtesters.

Naturally, CM can't do perfectly a fight that belongs to another era. But I have tried to get the relative effectiveness issues correct, even with the lower firepower WW II era weapons. Determining whether it can work is one reason I want playtesters. I'd prefer people with (1) an interest in the period, (2) interested in extending the capabilities of CM generally, or (3) who have read the book. (If I don't get any of those, however, anyone is welcome - LOL).

The scenario is fairly large, and runs 45 turns. It depicts a critical early phase of the historical fight. The terrain is quite "close", with more vegetation than you'd see on any WW II European battlefield, and limited lines of sight as a result. I doubt the AI can handle either force particularly well, so a head to head test would be best (although you could try it against the AI if you want, naturally).

If interested, email me for the file at -

jasoncawley@ameritech.net

P.S. I find a crack 81mm FO simulates Aerial Rocket Artillery quite well - if that gives a sense of what I'm doing here.

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: JasonC ]</p>

[JasonC]

One taker so far... I guess it hasn't been long yet.

[Ligur]

May I say thats a pretty wacky idea, to construct a Vietnam era scenario with this engine.

Well, the engine has nothing wrong in it, but the units and models in it DO have some differences with the 70s.

[JasonC]

It was 1965, not the 1970s. Yes, small arms firepower increased, but the terrain was quite bad. But downplaying the terrain somewhat (mostly scattered trees for woods, etc) and jiggering the force sizes and ammo slightly, I think a reasonable approximation of the right unit lethality is possible. (Opfor gets somewhat smaller squads than they had, too, etc). The motivation is obvious - CM has the best and most playable tactical engine there is, by miles. And you should see the map...

[Ligur]

Thats so weird I'd like to try it out, if you will.

akyronmi@welho.com

[JasonC]

On the way...

I am also running a test game against my first responder. He has the US Air Cav to my PAVN regulars. I'll let people know if it seems to work.

[Gpig]

Hey JasonC

please hook me up.

jon@pixar.com

Thanks

[JasonC]

On the way. And maybe you and Liguer can get together for a head to head game. Ought to be more fun than against the AI. My first responder and I just finished turn 3 (I'm the PAVN), and the place just exploded...

[Gyrene]

Jason, I'm willing to give it a try.

Gyrene

[JasonC]

Sent.

One thing I was interested in was whether the CM WW II small arms model would be deadly enough in the tight terrain. Boy is it ever. With only 5 turns run in my own game, it is abundantly clear the close ranges most encounters begin at, more than make up for any deficiency in that regard. The fighting is extremely fierce.

[Dogface21]

Ill give it a run as well, send it on over!

[Sarge Saunders]

JasonC

I have read the book and enjoyed it

No doubt the CM small arms model can handle the ferocity of that Vietnam era firefight.

Curiuos about how you handled the Intruder(?)

attack runs later in the fight...

...nevermind; I read where this models the early fight. Well aside from Veitnam era close air support, this should translate pretty well to CM.

Would love to try the game PBEM or aganst AI.

Send it to mckelvis@usstamp.com

Sarge

[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]</p>

[Gyrene]

Jason, I just finished playing the scenario against the AI and it was very intense.

Possible spoilers

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

I had lost about 5 or 6 squads by the 3rd turn and until my 105mm arty started falling I thought I was going to be overrun, the spotters made all the difference. I spent most of the fight shifting my defenses around, especially the MMG's (M60's), and I really liked the way I had no idea were the next wave of enemy troops would be coming from.

The AI did a pretty good job of attacking, and if it was not for the near constant barrage from the spotters I would have been in trouble.

This pure infantry fight in such close quarters made for some pretty dramatic moments very reminescent of many Vietnam battle accounts, such as the time I had to call artillery on my previous position as I pulled back, the incoming falling on top of many of my own eliminated squads.

Another incident was when my own fighter bomber dropped a 500 pounder square in the middle of my forces on the lower side of LZ XRay, eliminating two fresh paratroop squads, 3 MMG's, a HQ unit and killing 3 of my now empty spotters and nearly breaking my defenses in that side of the LZ. Talk about fratricide!

The other fighter bombers provided me with good intel as they strafe enemy units I could not yet see.

I also like the way the re-enforcements came in, with the following foot race to get out of the killing zone.

I managed to pull out a Major Victory, here's the score:

Axis(NVA): Casualties:655 (166KIA)

Men OK : 95 26 points

Allied: Casualties:278 (71KIA)

Men OK: 221 74 Points

Out of my 71 KIA I think that at least 10 of those came from the misdropped bomb on the near side of the LZ.

How did the Americans fare in real life by this point?

This scenario showed me that Vietnam era battles can be played in CM, with some simple mods, like unit portraits & sounds it could be pretty convincing.

Gyrene

[Armdchair]

Anyone interested in the battle can check out this site:

http://www.lzxray.com/

The definitive book on the battle is outstanding:"We Were Soldiers Once and Young" by Lt.Gen. Harold Moore and Joseph Galloway(NY, Random House, 1992).

I tried creating a Vietnam battle using CM a year ago:"Nam Mission". I have a revised version not yet playtested. If anyone's interested, let me know. Here's the general description:

Title: Nam Mission

Type: Attack (Fictional)

Date: 1967

Location: South Vietnam

Weather: Heavy Fog

Length: 40 turns

This is a crude attempt to replicate small unit

combat in Vietnam. Crude because so much is

missing: no helicopters, no air support, no tunnel

or bunker complexes, no confusion of combatant/

non-combatant; elements that more or less defined

infantry combat in Vietnam. I have had to make

many substitutions and adaptations: pine trees for

palm trees; marsh for paddies; small houses for

thatched huts. Communist forces are represented

by Axis forces: the Volkssturm as local Viet Cong;

Volksgrenadiers as Main Force Viet Cong units. I've used paratroopers to represent US infantry. Although the 101st, 173rd, and 82nd Airborne did fight in Vietnam, the use of paratroopers in this scenario is not an effort to portray one of their actual firefights but simply to try to give US infantry maximum firepower (there are no M-16s, no M-60 MGs, no grenade launchers, no AK-47s, etc).

A typical small unit action in Vietnam involved US

infantry lifted by helicopter to a LZ (Landing Zone) or LZs near a Vietnamese village or suspected enemy position. Enemy forces were generally forewarned of US movements, either from intelligence gathered by Vietnamese sources working in and around US bases, or by the standard MO of US helicopters assaults which were noisy affairs, often preceded by arty and gunship

preparatory fires in and around the LZs. VC/NVA forces had a choice of contesting US movements or fading away into the bush. They could if they chose, fight in a number of ways, utilizing small arms fire, booby traps, mines, and mortar fire: attacking US forces at the LZs themselves,

ambushing them as they moved, fighting them in the

villages using bunkers, spider holes and tunnels from which to fight. More often than not, little or no resistance was offered. US troops would land, endure a backbreaking march through thick jungle terrain looking for an enemy who failed to materialize, or who only materialized in the

form of occasional sniping and in the ever-present threat of mines. For American forces, it was a truly frustrating war.

In this scenario, Communist forces have chosen to stand and fight American forces landing nearby.

This may be played as either one-player or PBEM game. Preferably as Allied playing vs. AI, using default settings, setting computer bonus at +3. If playing as Axis vs. AI allow computer free setup, setting computer bonus at +3.

[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: Armdchair ]

[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: Armdchair ]</p>

[JasonC]

Gyrene -

Well, the real battle lasted 3 days and the US lost 79 KIA and 121 WIA in that period - about what you lost in just the morning fight. PAVN and VC total losses are not known, but are estimated at around 1800 men, roughly 1/3rd KIA. (1 full NVA regiment, plus 1 VC battalion, took part).

The historical participants also had a serious friendly fire incident with aircraft, so yours was not out of line with reality. Obviously the AI pressed home its attacks more fiercely and rapidly than the historical counterparts - which is saying something, because it was one of the bloodiest fights of the whole war (certainly to that point).

As for the comment about a few mods making it perfectly feasible to simulate other Nam era battles, I think that is correct. Mike Thompson has expressed some interest in such period mods (he's the guy that did the North Africa set). I'd love to see that. Naturally, the French portion of the war is another possibility, with battles based on Bernard Fall's books a likely starting point ("Street without Joy" and "Dien Bien Phu").

[Panther G]

JasonC and Armdchair,

Please send me those Vietnam scenario's. E-Mail's in the Profile.

Thanks,

Ryan

[Ligur]

Been a bit busy and just got finished with it now. Well, even if it is not MENT to be played vs the AI you can still get a fierce fight out of it (though I'm willing to bet most of us will get a major victory playing the US). The worst thing about the AI in this case (in any case...) might be not concentrating enough force at the same time, and carelessly using platoon and company leaders. I think that tends to blunt the AI's attacks. Artillery softening is also lacking.

In any event, I got scared for a few times, and it was a fierce and immersing battle. After reading the US briefing, I was so into mood I forgot I was playing with WWII troops at all!

AAR:

*SPOILERS*

*

*

**

*

**

*

**

After the battle I thought it happened in six phases. Now be patient as I am quite tired and probaply mumble incomprehensibly.

1) Herren's company comes under heavy attack:

Herrick and his platoon, in pursuit of the sniper and unable to locate him, links-up with the rest of the company who is waiting and ready to ambush the imminent attackers.

The company engages from a hiding position and is able to cut down several enemies, but are soon engaged in a very fierce firefight. The suddeness and savagery of the attack causes the artillery support to arrive late on, and poor Lt. Deal takes the blunt of the assault, losing most of his platoon, with the support of Montgomery's weapons platoon.

The Company is forced to withdraw, with Herrick's platoon covering. Herrick's men just barely save Lt. Deal's life (he was lying on the mud in panic). ARA's and artillery are used to destory the remainder of the attacking force and Herren forms a new defensive perimeter. The enemy disengages.

2) Aplha company is probed:

Nadal and his left flank get attacked, and just barely repel the assault with the help of

two gunships and the now continuous artillery bombardment. Probing attacks are made towards the whole of Alpha companys position. Intense artillery is dropped on the hapless enemy.

3) Charlie Company pacifies the LZ for three minutes:

Charlie company arrives and bolsters the defences, especially Alpha Company's left flank,

which forces the enemy to disengage. Alpha and Charlie companies take positions more deeper into the jungle, forcing the enemy to withdraw along the whole area, and control the small hillock just forward of the LZ.

4) Bravo Company's last stand:

Next, nearly two platoons from Charlie are transferred across the LZ to replace Bravo in the perimeter occupied by the remainders of Herren's men. Bravo has taken serious casualties and are low on ammo. But before Charlie can take the perimeter, the VC start another vicious attack, and regarldess of the status of the company it has to engage the enemy while Charlie deploys.

In a heroic stand, both Lt. Herrick and Deal are killed in action, but the right flank survives intact long enough for the men from Charlie to deploy. With the help of ARA strikes the enemy is forced to stop the attack.

5) The few remaining men of the Bravo company, Captain Herren the only surviving officer and the only member of the company HQ left standing, are taken to the other side of the field near the Battalion HQ, minus some M60's from the weapons platoon still holding the high ground in front of the LZ with Alpah company. A minor push by the VC is made towards the positions of Alpha company, but after some fighting and a few ARA strikes the enemy disengages.

Enemy sightings in the extreme right of the LZ lead to Lt Nicholson from Charlie company to take some of his platoon with him for a long sweep towards the right. Nicholson and his men are able to destroy several small enemy teams left in the area.

6) The Final VC push comes from the left flank of LZ-Xray, where a ragtag force of men from Alpha and Charlie companies are able to fend off the assault under the leadership of Cpt. Giesey. When an understrength platoon from Charlie is taken to the area to bolster the defence, with two of the battallions 81mm mortars supporting, the enemy disengages, and the fight is over for the morning.

(Enemy surrendered)

Casualties:

Allies: 276 (91 KIA)

VC: 666 (187)

Captured: 81

Mortars Destroyed: 12

[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: Ligur ]</p>

[Gyrene]

Nice AAR Ligur! Makes my battle description seem very dull by comparison.

Gyrene

[JasonC]

I can report an AAR of a human vs. human PBEM of this scenario. I had the PAVN. My opponent conceeded after about a third of regulation - the fight was certainly over. The deciding factor was my men breaking through to two sides of the landing zone before the first reinforcement lift arrived. When Charlie company got off the choppers, it was one hot LZ, with elements of two companies lining two sides of the clearing.

How we got there is the AAR itself. I sent one platoon after the known location of Herrick's men, hoping to tie them down if they didn't pull back immediately. Then the rest of the leftmost company headed somewhat south or right, toward the gully and the LZ. The idea was to cut off a larger force if others went to help Herrick and thus broke contact with the force by the clearing. And failing that, to just probe with a holding attack.

The main effort was on the right. The whole rightmost company steered to hit the south face of the LZ, in a right hook off the mountain. One platoon and the heavy weapons took a somewhat more direct route to the southwest corner, two platoons went wide in a right wheel. The last company was behind the center, ready to feed its platoons to either wing, but staying back at first - and the sapper platoon (pioneers) moved up to support on the right of this reserve.

The platoon sent after Herrick found the area rather hot - more like two platoons hot. He had sent somebody to help. This platoon shot it out for a couple of minutes from the rough "anthill" near the original sniper's position and the open woods to the right of it. They took some ARA too. They then broke contact westward, pulling back about 100 yards and rallying. They had lost about a squad but remained effective as a platoon.

The next question therefore was whether he kept a continuous line out to this two-platoon force, or left a gap between it and the LZ. Turns out he had a continuous front indeed, and my two platoon probe ran into it headlong. The ranges got down to 20 meters before the sides halted to fire. Losses were very heavy on both sides. I pulled back what was left, and it amounted to the strength of one platoon, but made more brittle by half-squads and some ! results. I had to immediately feed in one platoon from my reserve to bring this group back up to strength, even to hold let alone to renew the attack. Not great - but in the process I had found a full company well off the landing zone to the north and northwest, and pinned it there for the first five minutes or so.

I was hoping as a result that the rightmost platoon of my right hook might get clean around his flank, since he couldn't have much left to hold the west and south faces of the LZ. I was pleasantly surprised to find the entire company hit air, essentially. They overran one HQ set out as a tripwire patrol, and the leftmost platoon of this force of mine, with the heavy weapons behind them, hit less than a platoon of his north of the southwest corner of the LZ. They also started taking 105mm fire. But the other two platoons went straight to the edge of the LZ, unmolested. I added a 4th platoon here too, rapidly, on the principle of reinforcing success.

His FOs and command group, with not much more than a squad guarding them, were near the scattered-tree ant-hill on the southeastern part of the LZ - Moore's historical command post. My two platoons shot them up good, and the 105mm fire was silenced by the death of the FOs (the first ARA was already dry), after doing not much more than pinning one platoon and the heavy weapons with them, for a few minutes. He brought added firepower back to the LZ edge to contest the clearing, and the remainder of his command group made it to the east side of the LZ, safe for the moment. But his whole force was by now badly coordinated and without heavy support.

My remaining two platoons went in left of this successful right hook, rolling up his resistence along the west face of the LZ, from south to north. This meant those defenders could be hit from three sides - south face of LZ across it, southeast corner straight along the treeline, and the new guys coming out of the woods west of the LZ. They did not have a prayer. I kept it slow, creeping full platoons into LOS of 1-2 shooters before proceeding to the next, to minimize return fire and conserve ammo.

There was no way the guys off the LZ to the northwest could get back in time. I probed them again from the front, after tossing in my limited 81mm ammo, using the added platoon and the recovered original company, now about half strength but with their "breath" back morale wise. This was bloody again, as he defended the full woods along the dry creekbed stubbornly. But south of there, he fell apart, as the southern roll-up operation blending into the right side of this probe. That let my line the southern half of the western face of the LZ before Charlie came in.

Charlie was shot to pieces on the landing zone. Between half and two thirds of the men actually made it to cover, but some ran to the west face, and were quickly overwhelmed. They were not putting out enough fire back to suppress me, so their heads went down and stayed down. The guys along the west side just moved down to 20 meters and finished them. His remaining force was the third or so of Charlie that ran the right way, and less than two platoons remaining from the original force, who had pulled back to the north face of the LZ by then. My first reinforcement company was arriving overland from the west, and headed right behind the original probers there, ready to overwhelm whatever remained in front of them at the dead run.

He gave up, and I don't blame him.

The other AARs showed a challenge against a PAVN AI, but US victories. I think my own fight showed in head to head the PAVN is favored, pretty heavily. He could have made much better use of his 105s, and protected his FOs better, certainly. But the fact remains, the PAVN can maneuver through the open forest to other sides of the LZ quite rapidly, when acting to a definite human-conceived plan, and the original US force on the ground will find it very difficult to hold every direction.

I think, therefore, that the scenario as it stands is fine for US human vs. PAVN AI play. For head to head, I'd recommend handicaps on the PAVN side, such as - lower most PAVN qualities to green, delay their reinforcement stream 5 turns, give the US side 50% fanaticism for all units, or accelerate the US reinforcements 5 minutes. Or a combination of those, if just one proves insufficient.

It was a fun fight. The firefights in the woods (most of the map is scattered trees in continuous belts) can be extremely deadly, because the LOS is limited, making the engagement ranges typically 50 meters or less. Staying tight enough for mutual support becomes absolutely essential. And close infantry tactics also stand out - creeping many into LOS of one while avoiding all his buddies to gain fire ascendency, hitting an engaged enemy from a new angle, breaking contact if in a firefight you can't win, etc. They make a huge difference.

On the whole, I think it was a success, and proves the CM engine can duplicate Nam era fights with compelling realism and action. Some nice mods to go with the idea would ice the cake. I recommend anyone interested in the period give such attempts a try. The CM engine is so much better than anything else available, that a WW II game can produce better Nam wargames than stand alone Nam games can, IMO.

[Wild Bill Wilder]

I have always been an ardent student of the Vietnam War and have done my share of creating battles on that them in more than one Wargame. I intend to do more.

From the beginning I have urged BTS to consider using this fine game engine for combat beyond the frame of WW2. I don't know if I have been really heard on this issue.

Small unit combat can easily be mirrored with this game in almost any combat situation of the 20th century.

The story of the Ia Drang is one of the most moving in US history. It was the first major confrontation of US forces and the NVA. I've studied it extensively and written numerous articles on it.

There were really five battles of importance in the Silver Bayonet Operationi. I'd love to see all five done.

If any mods are available for this Nam project, please send them my way. I'm itching to do something with this. Love to have some choppers too. Is that possible?

This is exciting!

My congratulations to those working on this project.

Wild Bill

[Mr. Johnson--]

I've got a Vietnam scenario that needs playtesting. Not based on specific battle. American troops defend an Airbase from NVA sappers and regular infantry which have surrounded the airbase and placed a ring of guns around the base in the hills.

The NVA even bring 2 SU-85 assault guns to the fight (JPZ-IVs).

Its fairly large, about 7000 per side. Should make a very interesting PBEM fight.

[JasonC]

I'd love to help by playtesting new Nam scenarios and providing feedback, but I can already tell you that 7000 points, especially in tight terrain and with lots of it infantry, is to me completely impractical in CM. Even the LZ X-ray fight, with a total of three battalions present once all forces arrive on both side, is quite large for CM command.

I very strongly recommend that designers curb the tendency to giantism. Giant scenarios are indulgences for scenario makers, who get to play with putting all the toys here and there, but they are torture for commanders and playtesters. Scale can easily reduce the players to mere spectators at the designer's vision, which whatever the designer's ego may whisper about his lovely creation, isn't any fun at all for the players.

Stick to company sized fights, with battalions at the top end, and I think a lot more people will play your scenarios. I know that I for one won't even look at something as big as 7000, even with strong interest in the subject matter. A good rule of thumb is to keep the number of units on each side under 50, and in all cases under 100.

[Mr. Johnson--]

Giant would be 28,000 points. Big would be 14,000. Medium would be 7000. And everything under that is small or very small. At least in my book.

If you got a slow system then everything over 5000 is gonna be too big but I can't help that. I like my battles to have lots of action. And I like to model the schwerepunkt of a major attack. And that means lots of toys.

[JasonC]

It has nothing to do with system specs, it has to do with the burden on the commander and the realism of the game system. The level of micromanagement is fine for company and passable for battalion command in CM. Push the system much further, as single scenarios, and it will break.

Whenever you have one person making every decision of every sergeant in a regiment or division - decisions that in reality are distributed among hundreds of individuals - you are going to get fantasy roleplaying levels of unit coordination, not realism. Not to mention the multiplied effects of borg sighting on a divisional scale. And the player is going to sign up for a full time job playing one scenario at a time, if he doesn't need a staff system just to run things smoothly.

You can of course suit yourself with your own pile of silicon, but calling it realistic would be beyond what charity can grant.

If you want to conduct division level fights, I suggest you try running campaigns instead of packing everything into one scenario, under one commander. Break apart the engagements into sequences of related company to battalion level actions, assign operational commanders, etc. You can still use CM for the operational level, by using the map editor as a "sand table".

But whatever. I am just explaining why I am not going to look at your Nam scenario, despite being interested in Nam scenarios in general. As for what if anything that means to you, you can sit in the shade, you can pick bananas, you can do as you jolly well please.

[Mr. Johnson--]

I agree with you there. It does bog down as you get so many units on the map.

But if playing a pbem game I think its not as bad as a TCP/IP game. Also it comes down to playing style. There are some people who just have to micromanage every damn unit. And others, like myself, don't mind if I lose a few more men taking that hill because I did not check the elevations perfectly and have my troops lined up perfectly. As long as I take that damn hill I'm happy.