AGEOD Vietnam War?

[arsan]

"Rise of Sparta" would immediatly sell a few thousand copies when FPS gamers would buy it just for the name

Cool idea!
"AGEOD's This is Spartaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" title woudl probably sell still more

[PhilThib]

I'll ask Zeus' opinion on this

[Nikel]

I'll ask Zeus' opinion on this

No, no you must consult the oracle, listen to the ephor

http://www.dailywav.com/0907/consultoracle1.wav

[Beren]

Zeus will answer you in an affirmative way :P. Even Zeus has made you a map

[Nikel]

Hmm. Time for a Peloponnesian War thread


Beren with so many tiny islands a WitP map style would be fine, in this case Navarch's Edition

[Generalisimo]

Great map... from which game is it?

[Beren]

From one i´m designing, a multiplayer card driven game, boardgame... classic greece, from the medic wars to Filipo II

[Generalisimo]

From one i´m designing, a multiplayer card driven game, boardgame... classic greece, from the medic wars to Filipo II

Well, great work then!

[Rafiki]

Cool idea!
"AGEOD's This is Spartaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" title woudl probably sell still more

"AGEOD's "

I like it

[bobbob]

Has AGEOD ever considered the Vietnam conflict for a game. Pesonally i think it would be a big hit. Game engine seems to be well suited for it.

[Carrington]

Has AGEOD ever considered the Vietnam conflict for a game. Pesonally i think it would be a big hit. Game engine seems to be well suited for it.

I've thought that myself.

And the VG Vietnam game was one of the reasons... it was a game that suffered from the designer's decision to bolt on a good campaign game of 100+ turns to a fundamentally solid, very interesting operational game.

I say suffered, at least in my experience, because I was never able to will myself to play something other than the campaign game, and that campaign game was never finished.

[Rafiki]

Has AGEOD ever considered the Vietnam conflict for a game. Pesonally i think it would be a big hit. Game engine seems to be well suited for it.

I've thought that myself.

[color="Blue"]You're not the only ones; I've now merged your posts into a previous thread on the subject [/color]

[Anthropoid]

Anyone smell petrol?

I love the smell of napalm in the morning . . .

I would love to see a really good Vietnam game that was purpose built to focus on that conflict. However, I would note that: it would seem to be a very challenging game to do well, for the simple reason that political, journalistic, diplomatic, cultural/social, and other 'non-military' factors played such a deciding role in the conflict.

I have in the past petitioned Western Civilization Software, who do games like Forge of Freedom, and Crown of Glory Emperor's Edition through Matrix Games, to consider using their engine to develop a Vietnam Game [I don't think they had an interest]. I do believe that the AGE engine would be good for Vietnam.

Here are some ideas I posted in the "Unsung Reports" thread in the FoF forums:

I really hope that [the FoF] game design will be used for additional sorts of subjects. In particular, I think it could be extremely useful for a Vietnam war game in which all the U.S. states, perhaps key Univesity campuses, newspapers and major broadcasters, Senators, Representatives, and Governors, and oh yeah, the police action in Southeast Asia too! could all be brought together into a Vietnam War game that did not just focus on the military strategy and tactics with force levels, and deployment patterns more or less presumed to go along with actual history. Instead, you could try to influence domestic events, and thus change how the military part of things was able to occur. Then you'd also have the Province-Container strategy map, and the tactical battle maps too in which military units would be deployed

Below, is a playful taunt I launched at Erik Rutins in the Distant Worlds forums not too long ago. I keep bugging him about Matrix publishing a Vietnam game over the years

Okay, Erik, now that I helped your business yet again, when are you guys going to build a Vietnam era master strategy + tactical battles game for me!? I want politics, mass media, the hippy movement, military policy (i.e., the draft, free-fire zones or not, strategic bombing or not, etc.), wiretapping, technological development (i.e., contract with Boeing or Volkswagen?) to all be major factors in win-lose or draw. Victory conditions should NEVER be apparent until the end, and should vary between about 30 or 40 alternatives.

I want China, North Vietnam, USA, Thailand and Cambodia to be playable. In fact, actually, why don't you just go ahead and make it so the game can be played from 1946 until 1980? That way we could play the French too! Please include all important statesmen/women, scripted semi-random historical events, as well as potentially some non-historical events that COULD have happened, and significant political social figures of the era. Assassinations, coups and sexy Playboy bunny girls should all play an important part in the strategy.

Just think of the possibilities in terms of the soundtrack!?!

Note for AGEOD: you should get hold of TOAWIII, published by Matrix, and look at the Vietnam scenarios that come in that game. There are also one or two usermade "mod/expansions" that go into great detail and are the single best Vietnam war games I've ever seen. I think one was called Boonie Rats (the maker's screen name IIRC) and the other was something like "Vietnam 1965-75." There was a great hex-map paper boardgame by that same name that is what I compare any computer game to. The thing with a computer game is that, you could model in so much more of the influential non-military stuff.

More ideas on what I think would be neat to include in a Vietnam game:

I was thinking that a Southeast Asia map with off map boxes for US, China, Russia, etc. (sort of like the WWI main map right now) could be the primary gaming level, and then there would be a highly detailed hex map of Vietnam and adjoining areas (turned sideways so north is to the right) similar to the one in the TOAWIII scenario, 10km hexes I think?

Units would manifest much like they do in the COGEE Detailed Brigade level maps, but could be stacked to combine separate Brigades back into Divisions or divided into Battalions, so you could have as small as one battalion per hex. Apart from that, the FoF/COG engine would allow the game to be played much like it can be played with the existing TOAWIII mod/scenario, BUT, with allow national policy, politics, technology, propaganda, govt. public-relations, media-policy, diplomacy, economic policy, etc., etc. to also be simulated AND allowing for Army-Corp-Division level organization as in FoF, AND allowing for 'promotions/upgrades' of particular units as in FoF, AND allowing for supply distribution to be more accurately simulated, AND allowing for assignment of commanders at as low as the Division, maybe even Brigade level?

There could be certain events/victory developments/opportunities/constraints that were more or less hard-coded, and then a whole lot more of them that would in part depend on other events (some random, some highly probable) and/or player actions. What if Free Fire zones were never declared? What if the draft was never instituted? What if Kennedy were not assassinated? What if more effort was put into blocking media freedom of reporting body counts, etc.?

There are MANY subtle geopolitical, technological, operational type 'what ifs' that an engine like COG/FoF would faciliate and which an engine like TOAWIII requires be coded as fairly simple hiearchical event trees. Not to mention the ability with CoGEE for the player to custom promote, and custom organize his military, and to pursue particular tech/organizational developments in preference to others.

ADDIT: I'll have to check out the Advanced Tactics one thanks for that lead! The main problem I have with most all Vietnam simulations (including the wonderfully detailed paper and chit board game that takes up a bout a king-sized bed table to set it up) is that the standard paper-chit strategy game design has a pretty challenging time simulating all the social, political and policy factors that weighed so heavily, and force players to use only the units that were historically used.
. . .

One more quote of a plug I posted on the Matrix forums to develop a Vietnam game:

Here is an idea for you guys to mull over: "Vietnam: The Anglo-French Campaigns in Southeast Asia."

There are already a couple of very good Vietnam 'scenarios' for TOAWIII, but they are a pretty much operational military engine only. Moreover, since the TOAWIII engine is a general one, in the last incarnation of the Vietnam scenarios I played, there were some historical and military dimensions to that conflict which had to be scripted in through events and victory rules and such which just seemed a bit awkward.

A good Vietnam game, one which actually allowed for alternate historical outcomes, highlighted the importance of military policy, social foreign policy, domestic policy, public relations, etc., would have to be just about the most innovative, genre-busting game ever.

Imagine a game that is: part BoB (for airborne, airmobile, air-to-ground and air-to-air ops), part TOAWIII (for basic operational level combat), part Civilization [but MUCH better by being focused on only one historical period] (for espionage, diplomacy, resource acquisition and utilization, and unit and infrastructure building), part Hired Guns (for Tactical level battles), part Crown of Glory/FoF (diplomacy model, container model, promotions model).

Imagine if you are in the shoes of Eisenhower, playing the "Post War Period" campaign. The French (AI) is bogged down in Indochina against the Vietminh forces of Ho Chi Minh. The engine would need to be cleverly balanced so that a player in any given campaign would have a small to medium-sized array of at least slightly differing options in terms of decisions for policy (military size and training, technologies on which to focus, diplomatic relations, espionage and foreign policy actions and statements, transparency with the press, and speeches [ohh! imagine if something like the CoG diplomacy engine was used to create a cut-n-paste "public statement" engine . . . mapping out all the various permutations and pieces would be a bit complex, but I have no doubt with all the brain power at Matrix it could be done!]. What general path do you want to take for the next four years Ike? What piece will your Vietnam policy play in your overall policy? Will you get reelected? Decide to cryptically send in a team of Green Berets to try to assassinate Ho Chi Minh? Take control of the operation in either/or the Tactical or Operational level engine. Be careful in case a covert op you authorize gets exposed and you take the negative PR hit and risk not getting elected for a second term!

So you managed to win the election for that second term? How do you change your policies now? Do you think in terms of a long-term vision that will set up your predecessor for long-term victory (but perhaps cause you to achieve only a "Stalemate" victory condition for this campaign section?) or do you go for broke and try to change the course of history dramatically and early in the conflict. The engine would need to weigh things like troop deployment levels, operational doctrine effects (e.g., free-fire zones, full-scale bombing, etc.), psyops and propaganda as well as military-press relations and in-country diplomatic actions and weigh these against casualties in generating media reactions, public and congressional reactions, and the ratio of victory points.

As a very important conflict which COULD have gone either way, and was exceedingly complicated in involving larger foreign policy issues, domestic issues, a myriad of different political and military historical figures, fascinating military technology, doctrine, and hardware, etc., I think a game that _really_ tried to convey the Vietnam era would be an absolutely incredible game. I bet if Matrix got behind a project, and harnessed the knowledge, enthusiasm and expertise of some of the forum regulars who are modders for Vietnam scenarios for TOAWIII (e.g., Boonierats, but there are other guys too I know) in a year or two you guys could make an astoundingly good game.

Whats more, I think we are far enough past that era that the world might be ready for it. There are still a lot of living Vietnam vets; many of whom were very traumatized by their experiences, but I think many of whom would LOVE the chance to 'redo things the right way' and not forsake victory. I'm not saying it should be a game in which the US playe can make whatever decisions he needs to make to achieve victory. The give-and-take and the constraints of being a Democratically elected commander in chief in a spooled rotten nation with a hyper-active press and media should mean that it is ALWAYS a challenge to achieve a victory, or for that matter even to do as well as the historical leaders did. What is more, the transition from leader to leader, and the chance that you get alternate Presidents (as well as alternate S. Viet. leaders) would absolutely need to be modelled in there. But even if it was very hard to 'win' a big campaign, it would be an awesome game.

Not to mention the younger generation guys like me who were just being born as the war was winding down. We all grew up sitting on the living room carpet watching the last few images of that conflict on the news when we were toddlers, and our whole lives we have been inundated wtih rhetoric about that war. Plus the even younger Generation Y and Netgen segments of the market . . . WWII is true "history" to almost all of us, and CW, Nappy, WWI, etc. is definitely full-fledged history to all of us.

Vietnam is something we all (or at least Gen X and prior) have some realworld connection to. Granted, there remain quite strong opinions, and quite probably tender wounds that have never fully healed, and probably never will. But I don't think that that is a reason NOT to make a great game. Indeed, I think it is an even bigger reason to make a great game. I think if done as good as Matrix can do a game, if all the best ideas and best resources at your disposal were carefully marshaled, and you started with a visionary "break with convention and let the nature of the topic define the 'rules' for the engine and game design" kind of strategy, you guys could make a game that would cause an Earthquake in the gaming industry and quite likely revolutionize strategy wargaming. Plus, you'd probably make a bundle of $$ . . .

The industry/hobby is getting a bit full of hacks and cliche pulp fiction at this point (which was the original point of this thread), and I think that this is what it needs.

In sum, there are a number of games (either scenarios or user mods) that do a good job of modeling the actual combat dynamics. Briniging in some Civ style national/cultural elements so that the sequence and timing of the non-military history that was so important in shaping the actual military efforts is where I think a game could be very innovative, and attract a broad customer base.

[tagwyn]

Jim: How about droping Agent Orange on Hanoi? or Paris? t

[Carrington]

Jim: How about droping Agent Orange on Hanoi? or Paris? t

Whatever for?

As a very important conflict which COULD have gone either way, and was exceedingly complicated in involving larger foreign policy issues, domestic issues, a myriad of different political and military historical figures, fascinating military technology, doctrine, and hardware, etc., I think a game that _really_ tried to convey the Vietnam era would be an absolutely incredible game. I bet if Matrix got behind a project, and harnessed the knowledge, enthusiasm and expertise of some of the forum regulars who are modders for Vietnam scenarios for TOAWIII (e.g., Boonierats, but there are other guys too I know) in a year or two you guys could make an astoundingly good game.

I agree that the conflict is quite interesting -- I've spent a good amount of time with Victory Games' 65-75 campaign. And there's no question that the conflict was important for Vietnam and in exacerbating American domestic divisions. I'd just caution that the the war may not have been particularly important in a classical, geopolitical sense. This reality is suggested by the fact that the United States lost the war only to see its strategic position in East Asia improved.

That all said, I do believe the war is a very interesting subject for simulation because. It highlights the Clausewitzian trinity: i.e. the relationships between people, government, and army on each side, and does so far more clearly than more conventional conflicts.

[Anthropoid]

. . . I'd just caution that the the war may not have been particularly important in a classical, geopolitical sense. This reality is suggested by the fact that the United States lost the war only to see its strategic position in East Asia improved.

That all said, I do believe the war is a very interesting subject for simulation because. It highlights the Clausewitzian trinity: i.e. the relationships between people, government, and army on each side, and does so far more clearly than more conventional conflicts.

It is true that, in the longer-term (say by about mid 1990s) the real importance of the Vietnam War for geopolitics seems to have been revealed to have been negligible. In short, "The West" won "The Cold War" despite "losing" Vietnam. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the US "strategic position in East Asia improving" though?

US influence in Taiwan, Japan and Korea doesn't seem to have fluctuated as a result of Vietnam one way or the other. I think it is true that U.S. global influence has increased despite "losing" that war, but then I don't see that as being necessarily so contradictory or perplexing either. Vietnam was not a war in the same sense that even Korea was a war, but rather more of a protracted "police action" that gradually morphed into a true war in scale and content if not in true diplomatic structure. The U.S. and their South Vietnamese allies were effectively fighting Russia and China via the proxy of North Vietnam. In that sense, it was an exceedingly important conflict.

ADDIT: and one other thing that makes it an intriguing conflict to model in a game, there have always been plenty of proponents who have claimed that "victory could have been achieved" (e.g., the recent book "Triumph Forsaken" by Mark Moyars is a good example) had things been done differently. As arguably one of the first and most notable examples of 21st century Insurgency warfare if not a particular type of Fourth Generation Warfare, the conflict is arguably instructive of some of the future trends that Free World Powers will face in diplomacy and warfare, most notably, an apparent dimunition in their capacity to effectively use military force to impose their influence around the globe.

Geeze, I didn't realize I was this verbose when it came to this topic!

This quote from the Vietnam War Wiki: Effect on the US page is from the oficial history of the U.S. Army, and I think it shows the significance of the conflict in broader historical terms:

Some have suggested that "the responsibility for the ultimate failure of this policy [America's withdrawal from Vietnam] lies not with the men who fought, but with those in Congress..."[222] Alternatively, the official history of the United States Army noted that "tactics have often seemed to exist apart from larger issues, strategies, and objectives. Yet in Vietnam the Army experienced tactical success and strategic failure... The... Vietnam War('s)... legacy may be the lesson that unique historical, political, cultural, and social factors always impinge on the military... Success rests not only on military progress but on correctly analyzing the nature of the particular conflict, understanding the enemy's strategy, and assessing the strengths and weaknesses of allies. A new humility and a new sophistication may form the best parts of a complex heritage left to the Army by the long, bitter war in Vietnam."[223]

[Carrington]

US influence in Taiwan, Japan and Korea doesn't seem to have fluctuated as a result of Vietnam one way or the other. I think it is true that U.S. global influence has increased despite "losing" that war, but then I don't see that as being necessarily so contradictory or perplexing either. Vietnam was not a war in the same sense that even Korea was a war, but rather more of a protracted "police action" that gradually morphed into a true war in scale and content if not in true diplomatic structure. The U.S. and their South Vietnamese allies were effectively fighting Russia and China via the proxy of North Vietnam. In that sense, it was an exceedingly important conflict.

Geeze, I didn't realize I was this verbose when it came to this topic!

This quote from the Vietnam War Wiki: Effect on the US page is from the oficial history of the U.S. Army, and I think it shows the significance of the conflict in broader historical terms:

Good points. I owe one of my first real jobs -- and repeated re-readings of Clausewitz -- to the military's self-evaluation after Vietnam. As a civilian coming in from the academy, I was surprised at how little controversy cropped up in my classes on Vietnam. (Conversely, it was suggested to me that discussions of the American Civil War might well become quite heated, especially if I made the mistake of referring to it as such).

You're right about Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea. The big change was Sino-American rapprochement. I think it would be hard to overstate the strategic significance of Sino-Soviet estrangement and increased Sino-American cooperation.

I suppose the most interesting thing about "victory could have been achieved" argument are its implications for game design. It's fairly possible we could have doubled-down to win in Vietnam, while losing the Cold War.We left Vietnam in great part because decision-makers realized that we couldn't afford the strategic distraction it entailed. (There is an interesting argument that the Arab-Israeli conflicts heated up in '67 and '73 in great part because the U.S. had left the region on its diplomatic back burner). As such, game-wise, a portion of the 'commitment game' for the U.S. player would be about how much 'rope' to take, with a potentially uncertain effect on final victory.

Thinking of it, that was one of the most interesting aspects of the VG Vietnam 65-75 game -- it was terribly difficult for the U.S. player to figure out the final impact of accelerated commitment in the early years.

[Anthropoid]

Victory Games "Vietnam 65-75" yep, that is the same board game I was thinking of. Beautifully done strategy and tactics game . . . well operational level strategy, though with no influence over national or international strategy.

[Montana Brigade]

I would be in favor of Vietnam Strategy game

[Narwhal]

I might buy such a game if it includes the Indochina War. Not the game I would like the most, but I believe AGE engine would emulate it rather well :

Actually, the number of "wars" that can be played on a "Vietnam" map with "Vietnamish" rules is good :

Franco-Thai war (1940)
Indochina war (Grand Campaign)
Vietnam war (Grand Campaign)
Vietnam - Cambodia War

[PhilThib]

A lot of things in the AGE engine would be missing in such a conflict. I'll name at least three obvious ones:

* The propension of VM and VC to make mostly night attacks

* The use of Helicopters and airmobile warfare

* More generally Air War

[Narwhal]

Well, for air war you would have to include a module.

Each player has "Air Ressource" (like EP, money, conscripts,...).

On a specific regional map, the player assign his ressource on this map.
For instance :

Air Superiority Mission (in a region) : 5 AR
Wild Weasel Mission (in a region) : 10 AR
Bombing (specific zone) : 5 AR
Transportation from airport to airport : 1AR per 10 units of weight
...

When the turn is resolved, the game checks the opposite AR usage. If you send an Air Sup. Mission somewhere your opponent has sent nothing, 90% or the AR lost is recovered. If there are air battle, or you send a bombing mission somewhere without Air Sup, well, you will only recover 20% to 50% of your AR.

People's General had this system (more or less).

Alternatively, it could be more fun because you would "see" the plane, instead of AR, both players have a pool of "planes", not "based" anywhere visible on the map, and attribute each "planes" to a mission. Planes in this case would have "cohesion" and "hits".

As for night attack, well ... find a way. Maybe a special move call "night action" : slower move, but if the Vietmin stacks find a US / Southern Viet stack, the starting range of the battle is 1 and no arty can be used.

Well - I don't REALLY want a Vietnam war game. I just believe that it would go OK with the AGE engine (with 1 turn = 1 week)

[Goeland]

Night attacks may be simulated by DRMs, as a lot exist in ACW for different situations and abilities.
Airmobile may be simulated as rail or strategic moves are in ACW.
For air war, I would say the same thing as Narwhal.


Franck

[Jorje Vidrio]

This discussion reminds me of the great but complex game Vietnam from Victory Games. A game nearly impossible to play solitaire so a PC version may here reveal all its superiority.



http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/5620

This is exactly the game that I thought of regarding the subject of a strategic Vietnam wargame for computer. Its the best Vietnam board wargame ever made! [but very complex]

[Goeland]

This is exactly the game that I thought of regarding the subject of a strategic Vietnam wargame for computer. Its the best Vietnam board wargame ever made! [but very complex]

And not playable in solo !...

[rsallen64]

And I think I still have that on a shelf in a closet somewhere in the house. Yes, not playable solo, because I tried, and it just didn't work. If some company could secure the license and make it work for PC, it would be great!

[caranorn]

And not playable in solo !...

I played VG's Vietnam solo for some time (until I lost the photopiable charts and tracks in the middle of the rule book and could no longer play the game at all). I never had any problems with it...

[TheDoctorKing]

Like playing any board game solo, it requires a little creative schizophrenia.

I'm playing La Grande Guerre solo now, on two computers. Very interesting and I'm much better than the AI.

[donaldbracy]

The Vietnam War was the source of many conflicting political and social opinions, especially in the years leading up to its conclusion.
Militarily speaking, the Vietnam War was the result of North Vietnam and the Vietcong attempting to overthrow the South Vietnamese government.

[caranorn]

The Vietnam War was the source of many conflicting political and social opinions, especially in the years leading up to its conclusion.
Militarily speaking, the Vietnam War was the result of North Vietnam and the Vietcong attempting to overthrow the South Vietnamese government.

That's a politically weighted opinion that I will try to ignore ;-) ...