AGEOD Forums

Gentlemen,

I think that the AGE system would be perfect for a Vietnam War game. While I am only familiar with the AACW, it appears that having population loyalties and military control are key factors in any game on Vietnam. In addition, inactive leaders, riverine operations, gunboats (patrol boats), irregular forces, patrol and evasion ratings, etc., all should transfer over well to a Vietnam War game. Imagine a grand campaign covering from the French colonial period (1950's) into the US involvement (1960's) and, finally, the North Vietnamese victory (1970's). A twenty plus year campaign with bi-weekly turns!

So, when can I expect to see it?

Regards,
CptCav

That sounds really good. But the bad point is maybe the combat system for a Vietnam War wargame, don't you believe ?

Anyone smell petrol?

DarthMath wrote:That sounds really good. But the bad point is maybe the combat system for a Vietnam War wargame, don't you believe ?

I haven't completely thought this out, but I believe that it would be possible to work out the combat using the units capabilities. Maybe one could make it harder to engage the VC units by giving them a high evasion rating. And/or, giving them a high defense rating to simulate the difficult in destroying them in battle. Naturally, the bodycount would play an important part of the victory conditions.

And, of course, you would also have the NVA units, which would be regular combat units.

If I understood the game system better, I am sure that there would be other ideas that would come to me; however, I have only been playing the game around three months. But, what I have seen so far leads me to believe that it could be done.

Regards,
CptCav

I believe the Age Engine would be awesome for a Vietnam game.

Before engaging the VC, you have first to spot them anyway

We gave some thoughts about this subject as a candidate for a future game. Nothing decided right now, so don't start holding your breath, nobody knows what the future prepares for us

Spray some Agent Orange so they don't have a jungle to hide in

Pocus wrote:We gave some thoughts about this subject as a candidate for a future game. Nothing decided right now, so don't start holding your breath, nobody knows what the future prepares for us

However, I'm going to start holding my breath a little from now because that's a good news anyway. But don't forget to warn me if you change your mind once and for all about that. I don't have the vital capacity of a blue whale !!

cptcav wrote:I haven't completely thought this out, but I believe that it would be possible to work out the combat using the units capabilities. Maybe one could make it harder to engage the VC units by giving them a high evasion rating. And/or, giving them a high defense rating to simulate the difficult in destroying them in battle. Naturally, the bodycount would play an important part of the victory conditions.

And, of course, you would also have the NVA units, which would be regular combat units.

If I understood the game system better, I am sure that there would be other ideas that would come to me; however, I have only been playing the game around three months. But, what I have seen so far leads me to believe that it could be done.

Regards,
CptCav

Above all, I was thinking about the crucial respect of chain of command in the Ageod's game which cannot fit with a Vietnam War simulation. Not the spotting/hiding aspect. And they have to develop an aerial part in the engine, which isn't the easiest part of the works, and the most important in such a simulation.
But there is a precedent, which can be use as a base of working, the famous "Assault Balloons" and "Air Drop Supply" of Our Gracious Queen and her husband !!
All isn't already lost !! There is hope !! Believe, my friends !!

How would you model in Agent Orange into the game? What about having comletely different units on a side (French, then So. Vietnam and American) at different times? There are possibilities. But I don't know if we're ready for some of them.

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

I believe more and more that AGOED's engine can be translated into an excellent WWII campaign game. WEGO games are simply the best wargames out there (WITP, Combat Mission, Panzer Command, AGEOD).

I'd like to see an operational level WEGO system for World War II. You can go back to hexes as far as I care, but "planning" an operation beats the hell out of "pushing" units. WEGO also can simplify aerial operations as well.

This would not interest me at all and I would hate to see AGEOD use their valuable time on this when there are so many other military campaign/wars that demand the AGEOD treatment. I am sure that AGEOD could accomplish this with a modified engine if they decided to proceed, but anything post the VGN timeframe has little interest for me personally. Carpet bombing, agent orange, and tunnel rats. Yeech.

Adlertag wrote: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

Exactly what I was thinking when I posted this request.

Regards,
CptCav

Adlertag wrote: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

That Board game looks great

It was great, and very enjoyable to play...quite complex too, but so full of all those details that really "tell" a story...for sure a great game if ported on our engine

My two cents. As a Viet Nam era army veteran I have no desire to replay that conflict, or any modern scenarios post WW2.

oldspec4 wrote:My two cents. As a Viet Nam era army veteran I have no desire to replay that conflict, or any modern scenarios post WW2.

So, based on Sol Invictus and your responses, I guess game companies should just stop making games of any period after WWII because there is no market for it? Makes sense to me.

Regards,
CptCav

Guys, let's just focus on the game discussion, PLEASE.
This is not even a confirmed project to argue like this.

Comtedemeighan wrote:Spray some Agent Orange so they don't have a jungle to hide in

There'll be no spraying Agent Orange in these forums, thank you very much!

I think that a game on the Vietnam conflict would be a great idea - long overdue - and one I would certainly buy, play & promote to my friends.

There are not really any computer games available at all on the subject of the 50's-80's insurgency era, let alone covering Vietnam. That Vietnam boardgame by Victory Games that was pointed out - it went on to be one of their biggest selling titles; so there is a market for the subject, no question.

It sounds like Pocus & the team have at least entertained the possibility, and from what I can see of the AGEOD engine, there are a lot of aspects that could 'port' very well over to a Vietnam-type game. The fact that the complexities of the Vietnam conflict (popular support, control, leader activation, leadership effects, etc) are already IN the engine means that it would be easier to focus on the nuances of the time, like integrating air-power, politics, etc. Certainly the era-specific aspects would require some new programming; I for one would be happy to help with figuring out how to synergize these facets into the game; but I don't see them as being insurmountable.

Having said that, there are no actual 'air units' in the Vietnam boardgame; players expend 'points' from an airpower pool to a specific battle and that's it. I won't go into the nitty gritty details of all the particulars, but it all comes together pretty well, considering it is a bit abstract.

Likewise I don't believe that Agent Orange and the multitude of minor conflict-specific items such as defoliant, tunnels, etc. require much more than a combat modifier if anything, however. More research would need to be done to determine if these items actually played that significant a role in the Vietnam conflict, especially if the scale of the basic units was kept at Battalion/Brigade level.

At any rate, Kudo's to the idea! It's that kind of thinking outside the box that moves good game engines into greatness.

Ranger B

Generalisimo wrote:Guys, let's just focus on the game discussion, PLEASE.
This is not even a confirmed project to argue like this.

I completely agree with that !!

cptcav wrote:So, based on Sol Invictus and your responses, I guess game companies should just stop making games of any period after WWII because there is no market for it? Makes sense to me.

Regards,
CptCav

No..there may be a solid market for these games. I'm not saying stop developing modern wargames, I'm just stating my preference .

oldspec4 wrote:No..there may be a solid market for these games. I'm not saying stop developing modern wargames, I'm just stating my preference .

Exactly, I'm just stating my preferences. I much prefer games that are pre-1900's.

Ranger B wrote:...At any rate, Kudo's to the idea! It's that kind of thinking outside the box that moves good game engines into greatness.

Ranger B

Thanks; and, I agree. Looking at what can be done with a game system and expanding it beyond the initial concepts can lead to greatness. Otherwise, once the original game is produced, there would be no others to follow. For example, we would not be seeing VGN come about.

Regards,
CptCav

Guys: I advise: Stay out of 'nam!!

That is not what he is saying ... and, you know it. I guess some of us don't have fond memories, etc. I am certain the AGEOD engine would work. t apy:

oldspec4 wrote:My two cents. As a Viet Nam era army veteran I have no desire to replay that conflict, or any modern scenarios post WW2.

With all due respect and gratitude.I would like to ask at what point does it become OK to make a game out of war? Is it alright if the war is 100 years ago, but not 30?
I am not a vet,but my father served in WW2,and saw plenty of action and horrors from Normandy to the bulge and into Germany. When I got into wargaming in the early seventies,(Kriegspiel,blitzkrieg,battle of the bulge)He raised no objections and would sometimes even watch as my friend and I played the bulge. He would point out areas he fought in and relate stories of battle and the war. What I would like to understand is,Why is Vietnam so different? Is making a game about Nam,30yrs.later any different than making WW2 games 30 yrs. after that war?
I mean no offense to anyone and my questions are sincere. I'll take it further and ask if making a game out of any war,ancient or modern, and recreating the slaughter and destruction that goes with them, is morally acceptable?
Sometimes I wonder about the feelings of satisfaction I get when I simulate the killing of thousands of humans in my enemies armies.
Thanks

vonRocko wrote:With all due respect and gratitude.I would like to ask at what point does it become OK to make a game out of war? Is it alright if the war is 100 years ago, but not 30?
I am not a vet,but my father served in WW2,and saw plenty of action and horrors from Normandy to the bulge and into Germany. When I got into wargaming in the early seventies,(Kriegspiel,blitzkrieg,battle of the bulge)He raised no objections and would sometimes even watch as my friend and I played the bulge. He would point out areas he fought in and relate stories of battle and the war. What I would like to understand is,Why is Vietnam so different? Is making a game about Nam,30yrs.later any different than making WW2 games 30 yrs. after that war?
I mean no offense to anyone and my questions are sincere. I'll take it further and ask if making a game out of any war,ancient or modern, and recreating the slaughter and destruction that goes with them, is morally acceptable?
Sometimes I wonder about the feelings of satisfaction I get when I simulate the killing of thousands of humans in my enemies armies.
Thanks

Well, I think that the important point here is that we are here to make games... and so, a game according to the dictionary is:

activity engaged in for diversion or amusement

So, that's what we do!!
Try to have fun recreating old battles... but not with the horrors of war, they are simulations with plenty of ABSTRACTIONS in place, so we can have fun while playing a game.
That's why you do not command the "Einzatgruppen", or be an Auschwitz Concentration Camp major, etc... but how many games about WW2 you have out there?... I think that the list is enormous.

I do understand other opinions that do not want to recreate wars that touched them very near... it is their opinion and I respect it.

But in the end, we are talking about games. If you are not going to have fun playing a game, I understand that you do not want to play it.

vonRocko wrote:With all due respect and gratitude.I would like to ask at what point does it become OK to make a game out of war? Is it alright if the war is 100 years ago, but not 30?
I am not a vet,but my father served in WW2,and saw plenty of action and horrors from Normandy to the bulge and into Germany. When I got into wargaming in the early seventies,(Kriegspiel,blitzkrieg,battle of the bulge)He raised no objections and would sometimes even watch as my friend and I played the bulge. He would point out areas he fought in and relate stories of battle and the war. What I would like to understand is,Why is Vietnam so different? Is making a game about Nam,30yrs.later any different than making WW2 games 30 yrs. after that war?
I mean no offense to anyone and my questions are sincere. I'll take it further and ask if making a game out of any war,ancient or modern, and recreating the slaughter and destruction that goes with them, is morally acceptable?
Sometimes I wonder about the feelings of satisfaction I get when I simulate the killing of thousands of humans in my enemies armies.
Thanks

I would agree that there seems to a paradox here for some of us. Without me getting into beaucoup detail, Generalisimo's response above does a pretty good job of explaining why I play most wargames.

What I find confusing is that if you are not interested in playing a wargame stated in a particular post, why do you feel the need to even read the posts, much less to make a post expressing your lack of interest?

Is it to keep that particular wargame from getting made? For example, Sol Invictus post regarding "...I would hate to see AGEOD use their valuable time on this..." or is there some other motivation to raining on the parade?

I mean, I can understand someone questioning the viability of making the said wargame, but come on, why hang out on a thread talking about something that you supposedly have no interest in.

Regards,
CptCav