Remove this ad
avatar

mrinku

superstar

Posts: 212

#21 [url]

Apr 26 13 2:32 PM

 You could of course limit the action to US soldiers with personal weapons only (and make it a fair fight) but that does seem unrealistic.

-zedeyejoe

No less unrealistic than most pick up, points based wargames. We very often game the exceptions, because the norm would be either boring or pointless.

But I respect your opinions.

Mark Dewis

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#22 [url]

Apr 27 13 2:05 AM

Yes, a point based game for vietnam is good, i played with a friend NVA(me) vs ARVN(friend) on based Operation Squad game(only was adapt weapons) and was good

Quote    Reply   

#23 [url]

Apr 27 13 3:20 AM

everyone,

It is older than dirt, just like me, but my favorite Vietnam game is Hue by John Hill.

Here is a link I found for more information. I lost my copy during one of the many interstate business moves I made, but this game is a classic.

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/7609/hue

If you are going to try a Vietnam game, my suggestion is take a look at how John did his game.

Jim


Quote    Reply   
avatar

macasm

superstar

Posts: 327

#25 [url]

Apr 27 13 3:36 AM

I think some are all missing the point I was trying to make.
I was not concerned about "points" to make a game of it, I am concerned about the rules, and for the US player in a game, to follow the actual simulation of the times, i.e. historically accurate", with a set of rules that basically say, if you show up, you lose would not be "fun".
I play to have fun, so historically accurate numbers of participants do not bother me, I find it adds more to the game itself.
The rules make or break the 'game'.

Quote    Reply   

#26 [url]

May 1 13 4:55 AM

Hello everyone. I have a few thoughts if everyone will indulge me for a moment.

@bryon31 - Dien Bien Phu is also near and dear to my heart and would be a really fun game if done correctly and you only have to use some French since the French Foreign Legion made a heroic last stand at the fort. :)

@zedeyejoe - How do you judge the strengths and weaknesses of a particular army? In this case you mention the Vietnamese being a vastly inferior force to the US but they won the conflict and united the country. Although, ironically if you ask some Vietnamese today they will say the US won the 'war' because of the huge influence America has on its culture. If you look at casualty reports and in some instances the types of weapons the VC used compared to the US then I would say you might be right but their ability to adapt and use the resources they had forced the US into a prolonged conflict which resulted in the US withdrawing.

@potter - I only speak for myself when I say that wargaming for me is a way of showing respect for all parties involved in the conflict. I spend hours and hours researching the wars, collecting the appropriate miniatures, assembling them, and ensuring they are painted correctly. My reward is getting together with my friends and playing a game but we never insult the people, places, and things that are involved in our games. I also reenact the American Revolution and American Civil War, which again to me shows a huge amount of respect for the people involved in those wars.

What a Vietnam War game offers is a completely different look at how we wargame historical conflicts. Yes, there are some straight up fights that could be played out and some rather large tank battles as well but if you want to get the feel of Vietnam then you have to play a different game. I think Charlie Company by RAFM has the right idea but having played it several times some of the rules mechanics just don't play well. When you are playing at a patrol (platoon) level game wandering in the jungle looking for the enemy there needs to be an element of roleplay. Charlie Company does that well with the "Game Master" playing the role of the Vietnamese (VC & PAVN) establishing the overall strategy, booby traps, etc. before the players even hit the dirt. If you have a poor GM then you have a poor game. I personally think that Vietnam has a huge potential for gaming ideas just not your traditional stand up and shoot.

Thanks for reading

--Joe

Quote    Reply   
avatar

macasm

superstar

Posts: 327

#27 [url]

May 1 13 4:02 PM

I pretty much agree with most of your points Joe, save the US losing the war. We didn't lose, we quit, and long before the the troops came home.

Quote    Reply   

#28 [url]

May 1 13 5:24 PM

I'm still not sure anybody has come up with good definitions for winning or losing that one.  Especially when you consider the mess that was there when America first went in.  If you have no idea what winning is... well it is pretty hard to get there isn't it.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

potter

superstar

Posts: 519

#29 [url]

May 2 13 1:50 AM

@Kronenterprises-Great points well written.

I've met a good few re-enactors from various conflicts. WII, WWI, Napoleonics, AWI, Romans, ECW, Saxons, Vikings and WotR.

The people I have met have all been approachable, knowledgeable and thoroughly enthusiastic about their subjects. I was almost tempted to get involved but it can be very expensive for the most part and possibly would have meant choosing between miniatures and re-enacting.

The South West of England however, where we hope to get back to asap, is a very rich source for re-enacting societies.

One of the smaller, but certainly most enthusiastic groups I met in the South West were a bunch who were uniformed as Queens Rangers. Great bunch of guys and superb attention to detail.

Is there anything you can't combine with the Persian figs?

Quote    Reply   
avatar

macasm

superstar

Posts: 327

#30 [url]

May 2 13 3:10 AM

And therein the problem jerepp, when you change the definition of winning, and keep changing it, you set yourself up for failure.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#31 [url]

May 2 13 5:09 AM

This may be semantics but I never said the US lost the war. I only said that Vietnam won the war. :) When the PAVN entered the Presidential palace in Saigon in 1975 the Americans have long pulled out (although 2 Americans did die during the attack on Saigon). So, essentially it was the South Vietnamese forces left holding the bag and essentially losing the war.

It is a very humbling experience to walk the streets of Saigon and visit the Presidential Palace. I went to the war museum in Saigon and on the first floor, very first exhibit is the war atrocities section performed by both US and South Vietnamese forces. When I was standing in that section I had a Vietnamese student walk up to me and very directly ask me how this section of the museum made me feel. We had a very respectful conversation about the war and I think she found my opinions very interesting.

--Joe

I pretty much agree with most of your points Joe, save the US losing the war. We didn't lose, we quit, and long before the the troops came home.

-macasm

Quote    Reply   

#33 [url]

May 21 13 3:52 PM

Sorry I have GOT to say it.     Tet 67-68 ended with  North Vietnam and the VC on the ropes. One BIG trouble then....The politicians and the press gave up. The troops were NOT allowed to fight and WIN.  Memory/lecture over...Sorry

I am therefore I think....OR....I think therefore I am...OR...I think I am therefore I am!!

Quote    Reply   
avatar

macasm

superstar

Posts: 327

#34 [url]

May 22 13 1:07 PM

The war was not fought by the US military, it was fought by the US politicians. And anyone who is up on US government knows that everything the government touches, fails.
The US Military was not allowed to win by the US government.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

jack

fanatic

Posts: 1,429

#35 [url]

May 22 13 6:58 PM

Pres. Truman once quoted someone else who said "War is far too serious to be left up to the Generals." 
I THINK it was supposed to have been Pres. Lincoln who originally made that statement. And I agree with the principle, but the only thing far 'worse' than leaving it solely in the hands of the generals, is having wars being Left in the hands of Politicians.

"You see old friend, I brought more soldiers than you did." 'King Leonidas - 300'

Quote    Reply   
avatar

macasm

superstar

Posts: 327

#36 [url]

May 23 13 2:53 AM

War is diplomacy by another means.
Lincoln also said of Grant, responding to a remark: "A drunkard? Well, he wins."
Back in the day war was thought so horrible it was not entered into lightly, and when it was, it was serious; UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER, they have sown the wind, now they shall reap the Whirlwind.
War is still horrible, but the politicians have set "rules" for it. Both illogical and ignorant of what the world is now like.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

potter

superstar

Posts: 519

#37 [url]

May 23 13 4:11 PM

"To Jaw-Jaw is always better than to War-War" Winston Churchill.

"If you don't know where you are going, every road will get you nowhere." Henry Kissinger.

 

Is there anything you can't combine with the Persian figs?

Quote    Reply   
avatar

bryon31

superstar

Posts: 686

#38 [url]

May 24 13 5:41 AM

              
"If you don't know where you are going, every road will get you nowhere." Henry Kissinger.
  

-potter

How appropriate... Kissinger was always good at the one liners I'll give him that.  Sums up Vietnam pretty well methinks.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

macasm

superstar

Posts: 327

#39 [url]

May 24 13 11:48 AM

Winston would know, as his predecessor did jaw jaw leaving him to war war.
Naw, not Henry. He was Sec State, not Sec Def, he had no business in War War!!

Quote    Reply   
avatar

potter

superstar

Posts: 519

#40 [url]

May 24 13 2:48 PM

Lord Haw Haw liked to Jaw Jaw during the War War.

Is there anything you can't combine with the Persian figs?

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help