Victory Games Vietnam

[Grymme]

Hi

V218 has to wait to be uploaded untill tomorrow because i hit a wall on the supply/readiness system.

The lower rank vietnamese leaders are not featured at all in the scenario (as i said before). The main reason having to do with limitations of the the editor. I couldnt only lower the readiness of SVN troops or one HQ in one area. Also HQs in the computer game are not at all locked to their subordinate units as they are in the boardgame.

So i did do a generall readinessloss instead. The chances of a readinessloss happening is based on wether the government is stable, there is unrest or a coup has happened. It is also lower for augmented units and SVM marines are never innefective. See section 3 in the manual for details.

The readiness loss/supply are actually one of the things i am looking at right now because it doesnt work exactly as i would want it to. But dont expect any miracles.

[Grymme]

BTW. You say you have gotten well into 1968. Thats a lot of rounds played in a short while. Can you describe the situation. What is Free World morale and commitment.
 
How is the border area against North Vietnam holding up etc? It would be very interesting to hear how its going.

[Goodmongo]

I have mainly played with US commitment being relatively high on the first two seasonal turns. On the average 45 and 40 for the first two turns. I also heavily favor artillery and get two US 175mm units and have one or two 155mm for ARVN units. My strategy is for the ARVN is defend IV Corps area with marine, para and 2 ARVN divisions. The Iron Triangle is defended by the US 25th Division. North of that and along the coast I use the US 101st and 1st Air Cav disivions. There are two ARVN divisions concentrated along the coast. The airmobile take the war to the VC. I use a full division to surround and then destroy each VC unit. In I Corps I have the 3rd Marine and 23rd US divisions. They are artillery heavy and are super strong on defense. I don't use ARVN units till after I get augmented ones. Near DaNang and into the mountains I use the 4th Marines plus the 173rd Airbone brigade to supress and eventually destroy VC units. There are 2 ARVN divisions to pin and hammer with artillery any VC units.

Basically I have around a 20 to 25 to 1 kill ratio. Against the NVA I hammer them with artillery till all readiness is gone then attack with ground units. I end up destroying them with little losses. Artillery is the key against the enemy. Hit them and do not attack till there is 90% or more losses in readiness and kills. Then destroy the unit so it can't reinforce. I completely destroyed at least one NVA division (and most likely two) doing this. For VC let them appear and then cut off their movement till superior forces are brought in. I attack with a minimum of one regiment/brigade per batallion.

On turns before seasonal interfaces I try to garrison capitals but it's better to let some go and not get my units destroyed. (See the bug about missing Rf-Pf forces).

BTW this leads me to a question. Because the NVN and NLF commitment and supplies only happen during seasonal turns doesn't it make sense to ONLY bomb these NLF bases on those turns? You can ignore the bases and use your air assets on units for the other two months right? I may have to test this.

The above strategy means you have to kill ALOT of units. The AI is good at placing units where you are weakest. This means you need to have mobile forces and airmobile are the answer. Get all of them. But I'm thinking a much better strategy is to limit the US commitment to 25 per season till you hit 4 seasons (100 commitment) and then lower to 15 and finally 4 with 15 every 3 or 4 seasonal turns. The NVA has such a multiplier on morale that going 45 or 40 results in probalby close to 100+ extra morale from years 1969 to 1975.

EDIT:
I forgot to actually answer your question. In October 1968 US morale is 462 and my commitment is 203. But SVN morale is only at 95. And the population is 748 so I think I'm winning. I think I overproduced units in this game. I probably could live with a much lower commitment.

[Goodmongo]

I found more bugs. There are no augmented ARVN mech units. The card is there but nothing appears if you try to build them.

And non-augmented tank and mech units have 50 morale instead of 40. The augmented tank units have 45 morale. The infantry units seem OK.

The manual mentions augmented HQ's but there is no difference in the game.

Also, it is really easy to reproduce the missing playing card for US divisions and birgades. Just start a game and produce a few US divisions. Then select the strategic choices and pick economic aid. Now produce a few ARVN units. Go back to strategic choices. You should now see that the US division card and brigades is missing. Also, the picture of many of the other cards is not in sync with the actual card when you click on it.

EDIT:
I was also able to reproduce the bug where no Rf-Pf forces appear in a capital. This happens if the VC force is next to the capital at the start of the NVN turn. I have a save game where this happens in two or three cities. If you want the save let me know where I can load it up to.

[Grymme]

I have to admitt i read your last post yesterday a little hastily. So i didnt really respond to your comments on the readiness loss etc. I would actually prefer to have the innefectivness only cause loss of AP, not loss of readiness per se. But the editor has no modifyAPbyPeople check or exec. It does have a ReduceReadinessByPeople. So i went with that. It would be possible to make an loss of AP event by checking for specific SFTs that only SVN units have, but that wouldnt apply to certain units that dont have those SFTs. And most SFTs are common. Anyway i do think the readinessloss is as an realistic effect as the AP loss since its more versatile. As for the % i have to admitt i winged it a little and didnt do as close calculations as you did. But i did put it lower than in the boardgame by choice since loss of readiness is a more severe penalty than to just loose AP.

As to your other bugs/questions.

1) Fixed the non-existing mech unit in 218.

2) I have adjusted some Morale values that were faulty in the new 218 version. But morale in a unit also changes ingame because of battlefield losses/victories. This is hardcoded into the ATG game. So it could be that you have seen something that was wrong, but that should be corrected in 218. But units will eventually have different morale than the base morale.

3) Did a quick search on "Augmented" in the manual. Didnt find any reference to Augmented HQs. I might have missed it, if so can you show where it is. Anyway the only units that can be produced augmented in the scenario are infantry battalions, regiments, tanks and mechanized battalions (and Rangers are always augmented).

4) I tried to reproduce the missing US cards. I deployed the 1st Cav, 4th & 9th infantry US. Then i played a US economic aid card. Then i deployed one each of all ARVN units. Then i went into the strategic choices. Then i deployed New Jersey. The cards were still there. But to your point. What version of ATG are you playing? Because the "Cards in sync" thing is a ATG bug that i think was fixed in the 208 version of ATG (or maybe it was fixed in the hotfix that is yet not released by Vic). Anyway, check so that you have the latest version of ATG.

5) You can send the savegame to my emailaccount. I will check the rf-pf thing it out.

6) About the bombing of NLF bases. It seems your opponent has a lot of engineers/sappers that repair the bases imediatly. But lets say that he didnt, or only had some small engineers. Then you could bomb the base in a non seasonal turn and if it wasnt repaired it would have the same effect. But to your point. If you can get the location down to be damaged during the seasonal round then that is what counts and it doesnt matter which round the damage was caused.

[Grymme]

I have uploaded version 218b of the campaign scenario to my website.

Bugs fixed
- Detailed reports bug
- ARVN mechanized battalion bug
- Withdrawing cruiser bug
- Cruiser Bombardment bug
- ARVN cards not mentioning augmented units cost
- ARVN locations not being able to produce helicopters
- AI doesnt do research
- Rangers patrolling bug where even hexes occupied by communist units became free world
- Fixed a name & sprite issue with engineer vehicles.
- Fixed some faulty morale values

Changes/improvements
- Gave a message when rangers fail to deploý so the player will know what has happened.
- Changed some base morale values.
- Redid the ARVN innefectivness system and made it a little easier for the ARVN units.
- Created a new scenario variant called "No ambushes". If this variant is selected NLF Battalions, Regiments and Division HQs will get a -50% offensive modifier for the round they are created (VC companies still can do ambushes). I did this variant because it felt kind of gamey to create 5 battalions around an enemy unit and then get +100% bonus when imediatly attacking.

Updated the manual accordingly.

As for your game. Looks like its going quite well. Your commitment is well below the historical. Will be interesting to see what happens around 1972-73. But with such low loss rate maybe the US will be able to stay the war out.
Have you managed to score any morale bonus from killing units? Have you had any losses from loosing units? Have you bombed North Vietnam anything?
How much have you used replacements?

If you do win the campaign and want to play again you can always set the AI to AI+ or AI++. It will give the AI a hefty production bonus. This might make it a little more difficult.


On the possible "to do list" is (all this will likely not be done)
- A Communist advantage scenario variant
- Improving the communist AI somewhat
- Fortifications and special forces camps
- Improving the SVN leader system (possibly including corps leaders)
- Free Fire rules
- McNamara line rules
- Easter Offensive scenario
- Fall of South Vietnam scenario
- Campaign Game after tet scenario

[Goodmongo]

I did more research on the Rf-Pf issue and I think I know the cause.  It happens based on one of two possibilities and you can also easily test this out.  On turn one you place the VC unit and the Rf units are in the capital as expected.  Now move the VC unit next to the city but do not attack it.  The Free World turn comes and the RF unit disappears.  Do not move any units next to or near the VC unit (this simulates troops being out of range).  Then on the next NVN turn the Rf unit does not appear and the VC unit can easily move through the city.

This happens because either the Rf unit can not be placed in a ZOC of the enemy or because the ZOC on the change in turns causes the city to switch sides and be controlled by the VC.  I have not done enough checks to see which is the true cause but I did verify that this happens.

The augmented ARVN HQ was my fault in poor reading comprehension.

As for the cards I will check to make sure I have the correct ATG version.

On bombing bases is there a way for the US side to check the status each turn?  Can we see the damage level of enemy bases? And I'm not sure the AI rebuilds them (this needs to happen and AA units need to be forced to be placed there) which leads to a balance issue which I touch on below.

Now for some potential balance issues.  In looking at the combat stats the VC units seem to have the same capabilities as US M-16 units.  This might be true but it implies that a VC battalion could stand toe to toe with a US one.  Now maybe the reason the US did so well in actual fights is because of support artillery, air etc but it just seems wrong. While this actually helps play balance in AI games it really hurts H vs H play balance.

Why would anyone want to build VC regiments over battalions?  The supply cost is 4 more yet the combat stats are not that much higher.  And the purpose of the VC is to move and take ground, not to fight unless they had a huge advantage. Maybe 1-2 more supply point but 4 seems escessive I think.

The starting supply for the VC seems high.  My version of the manual (I forgot to check the actual game) says 90.  That is 45 VC battalions.  For the AI this might be fine but in a human vs. human game it would kill it.  Especially since there is no restriction on placement (see below for an idea). But your new variant of no ambushes might fix it for human play.

On NLF supplies a quick study would reveal that the NVN side should never build the trail or send supplies that way.  The cost of a naval blockade is 4 US commitment which is way too high to actually do (2 would be more fair and get 1 + 50% chance for a second back when you withdraw).  That means each NVN commitment nets 9.5 NLF supplies.  The trail starts with 2 bases and either 8 or 9 supplies if not bombed.  The manual says (I have not yet confirmed this) that a damaged base is not counted.  So a US bombing run on the two bases means 6 or 7 supplies.  Take into consideration that it takes one or more commitment to expand the trail and you have a hard time ever breaking even with just using naval supplies.  I would also adjust the AI to only use naval unless there are 3(?) or more intact trail bases and then just use the trail (unless naval is raised).  Can you also force the AI to position AA units on the bases?  Of course the trail adds locations that can make things so using commitment to open bases is still a good idea especially for the AI as they get a bonus.  I think this explains the VC artillery units that I see.

I need some clarifications on VC draft.  I have not play tested long enough on the VC side to check this out.  The manual implies that VC units can be produced till the NVN controlled population is reached.  You can also use commitment to raise the NLF population.  But what throws me off is section 4.5 where it mention 400% up to 800% draft to population.  I am not sure what is right.  If you build VC forces up to 100% of the controlled population and say that's 350, then lose controlled population it would have to drop all the way down to 88 to have a draft of 400% of controlled population.  I just don't see this as even possible.  Even 200 would need to go down to 50.  Or is there no restriction on VC units to population?  Of course your intent might simply have been to almost always give 12 population per commitment which is fine but makes the resst of the table useless as it will never happen.

I don't recall the starting population numbers for both sides but the NVN side is around 300 to 350 I think.  That means 100 to 116 VC battalion equilvalents (10 divisions if HQ's are built) before reaching the population cap.  This might be fine for human vs human play as a human can dissolve the unit and will retreat.  But against the AI it means that the war will start off with a big bang and flash of VC units all over the south.  The US side eventually (1 year or so) destroys all these troops.  All of a sudden no more VC except for two companies.  This means a human vs AI would always start with a very large commitment to force the AI to reach the population cap early (1966).

I know in the real war this sort of happened (loss of VC units) but that was because they did stupid offensives that cost the lives.  The war then settled down into a more conventional NVA vs US/ARVN war.  For the AI I think you limit the commitment to 50% VC and 50% NVA each season which is a good start.  But I would also allow you to go to say 150% population for the AI if this is possible.  Otherwise what you do as the US side is hold I Corps and only do artillery to attrit them.  Kill all VC till they can't produce more units.  Then invade the bases (taking the morale hit) and it ends up turning into a standard war where conquered territory remains yours.  Only a small force is left to fight the two VC companies and the rest move on a line up to the DMZ for an easy win.  I think this would be very ahistorical but inevitable in a human vs AI game.  Right now for the NLF the limiting factor is population and not supplies and that balance is off.

I disagree with lowering the percentage chance for readiness loss for ARVN units, especially against the AI.  For play balance you really should increase it.  In fact what makes sense is to increase it even in a human vs human game but limit the NVN side to placing no more than one VC division (HQ, 9 batallions or 3 regiments plus artillery) in a single corps zone on a single turn.  They can place more on the border or in Cambodia/Laos (unlimited there) but this prevents the 45 batallions in a single zone to completely wipe it out which is also very ahistorical.  I am not sure if this is possible or not but would really help balance the game in H vs H play.

I see you might try the Free Fire rules.  If done this would definetly change the balance and will require adjustments on other things.  But overall I think its a good thing to do.

That 1968 game was based on the version before 217 so I haven't gone back to it.  I start new games all the time especailly when there is a new verision to try out.  But to answer your questions I did get moral gains I think.  I never had a coup so US morale also went up due to the original SVN leader.  My losses are very tiny especially the US ones.  I use artillery heavily (free fire would impact this strategy) and only attack units heavily hit.  The NVA is forced to attack full US regiments and suffer accordingly.  I have used replacements and made many errors with them.  I used them on air units and they ended up having ground troops.  I wonder if this impacted their bombing which I could still do.  I mainly used them for the ARVN units which take a beating as they are usually the anvil portion or are scattered to hold ground till reinforments (airmobile for the win) arrive.  I have not bombed the north and did not do enough economic aid, hence my low SVN morale (or lower than it should be).

I hope you don't mind my feedback.  I really want to support this effort but know that doing this means more work for you.  I can donate more if you want as I would LOVE and really LOVE a Free World AI version also.  And if you want me to test out specific things just let me know.  I will be ahppy to do it for you.

[Grymme]

I dont mind feedback. I like it, even if the amount of text sometimes exhausts me. But my time is kind of limited since i am on parental leave with twin 1:year olds. So i will not all the time have an option to answer and correct everything. And eventually i will move on to another project. I do have a wellpaying job (public prosecutor) so i am not that motivated by money (unless you have a couple of 1 000$. But you can support me by eventually looking into and getting some of my other scenarios (although i kind of fear the amount feedback i will get on them ).

1) The RF-PF thing. Got it, fixed it. It was the ZOC getting the hex. Will be in the next upload.

2) You can check the status of the locations by scouting the locations with aircraft or ground troops (recon missions). I am not sure the AI can be forced to place AA on the locations.

3) Not only was the VC able to stand toe to toe with US small units. I believe they in at least part had better weaponry when it comes to personal weapons. I know there were a multitude of small arms but in the beginning of the war i believe some VC/NVA had AK-47s while the US were still fighting with M14 Carbines. The US had better crew served weapons, airsupport, artillery and APCs. This accounts for most of the difference in casualties. But above all they had better medical support. The US death toll in vietnam was very low compared to VC. But an wounded or sick soldier is still a casualty. Adding the wounded increases US casualties from 58 000 to something like 213 000. So far i think the number is justified. But if you look at a typical NLF battalion it will have something like 107 powerpoints. A US battalion ingame will have something like 220. A NLF regiment has something like 290. This still means that a US battalions in the game is roughly twice as powerfull as a VC and can almost go toe to toe with a regiment.

4) The cost of the VC regiment is based on the cost in the boardgame. Actually i dont think they were very popular to build in the boardgame. I have added some incentives for the VC player to build regiments in the form of some sappers, light AA and heavier antitank weaponry.

5) The starting supply for the VC is according to the boardgame.

6) As for your argument over the supply i think its somewhat contradictory since you say A) that sea supply is too good and then B) the cost of naval blockade is too high. But If the sea supply is so good then the value of increasing the naval blockade goes up. Anyway. The numbers and costs are based on the boardgame. Although not exact. In the boardgame people were complaining that sea supply was too costly. I think sea supply is better in the beginning here. But Trail supply can net a total of 12 military supplies. Sea supply can never do this. And you want to build the trail anyway because of the bases. Also interdicting the trail can be very costly for the Free World player tying up air units that can be killed if the Communist player uses AA. Time will tell if this is balanced. But i think there needs to be a lot of games to see that. The AI does change its use of Sea Supply vs Trail Supply according to Free World strategy. The cost of upping the blockade is taken from the boardgame. It might seem high, but remember you can always withdraw points from the naval blockade once commitment gets high. They are never spent, only tied up.

7) The draft level. The manual might not be clear here. But say you have 300 controlled SVN population and the draft level is 300. You cannot buy units so you will have to start raising the draft. Eventually the total available population to 1200. But SVN population is still only 300. So the draft level is 400% of the population. The net gain will be smaller. This might sound like a lot. But i played 11 rounds of the game for 4 seasons. In a full game there would be 40 seasons. In those four seasons i had raised the draft to something like 180. In that pace i would be well above the 400% line eventually and i was doing well. Had i beeen doing worse and lost some population down to 300 that would put me into the 600% collumn. Also remember that the effect is cumulative. So the more SVN population is lost the easier it is to reach the 600% or 800% collumns. You say you had 778 population in your 1968 game. That would mean the NLF player only had something like 272 population. For him to reach the 400% level would only require 1 088 in draft level. That would mean that he would reach the 400% draft level after ca 24 seasons (6 years) somewhere in 1970-71. After three more years (73-74) he would reach the 600% draft level. But this is with my very moderate losses and draft raise of 45 population per season. I imagine that with higher casualties it would go much faster. Anyway the numbers are from the boardgame. The might need to be tweaked. But that is well into the future.

8) The AI does not abide by the constraints of population. That is an exception from that rule. So you dont have to worry about running out of guerillas.

As for the other suggestions i will consider them. But they are unlikely due to the constraints of the editor. Generally where i have used the values from the boardgame i am not lvery ikely to change them unless proven unbalanced since they together provide a rough playbalance from the boardgame playtesting that i myself have no opportunity to do myself.

[Goodmongo]

Sorry about my walls of text but in trying to help it is sometimes necessary. 
 
Point 6) What I'm saying is that the US will always bomb the trail as it only needs to be done one a season and the return in commitment/supplies higher than what you get in unit kills.  So the NVN AI formula you use should be modified.  You basically split it between the two but modify this somewhat.  I'm saying use 100% of one or the other based on results.  If there is one naval blockade that means 1 coomitment = 9.5 supplies.  That means trail should only be used if there are 4 or more functional bases (10 supplies).  If naval blockade is 3 that means 8.5 supplies via naval and use trail if there is 3 or more functional bases, etc.
 
Point 7) I think I understand now.
 
Point 8) Good to know but then why ever spend commitment on population as per point 7?  I think the AI needs more but unlimited?
 
Now for some more analysis (sorry but I do this often).
 
There are basically three US strategies.  One is a big full and realtively fast US commitment.  The other is to build 25 US commitment per seasonal turn till the 150 level or so (6+ divisions).  And the last is to stay very small.  Here is one analysis.
 
To buy every US named unit, have 11 ARVN divisions (6 augmented with a HQ, 2x155, 3xReg, 2xtank) the Para, marine (with 2x155), 5 rangers, 6x175 (US). 4 extra air would cost a total of 163 commitment.  Add to this some economic aid, replacements and other Free World units and you get to 200-250 or so commiment (plus 26 for the at start).  That is one powerfull force and US morale should still be 375-400 or more.
 
Of course doing this means that each seasonal turn you face 2 and then 3 full NVA divisions.  A massive war for sure.  In a human vs. human game the key is how soon the VC get killed.  That means the US can go defensive against the NVA.  Invade Laos and cut the line so no NVA troops could ever be sent further south.  Then hunker down.  I think this turns into a artillery duel as the attacking force takes the larger casualties.
 
So where I'm going with this is I think it will be very hard for the Free World to exceed morale and have a forced withdrawl unless they suffer horrendous losses or really bad coups/stability.  I will have to play a game to 1975 to really test this out but the numbers are telling me that this might be the way to go.  Imagine if you invade NVN and take all thier land.  There is no place to put those NVA units anymore!  Or can you place them on occupied territory?  Makes for an interesting test game.
 
BTW I know the boardgame has certain values that many think are way out of balance (blockade for one).  But that doesn't make them right.  Take the New Jersey.  It costs 3 commitment.  But for that same cost you get 2 units (8 guns) of 175MM artillery whcih can fight anywhere.  And the 175's can receive more from building them so it makes no sense to get the cool BB except for flavor.  Now if it cost 2 committment it would be worth it.  So staying 100% true to the boardgame results in less choice in this version.
 
Finally, I'm not familier with the AT modeling rules but have done stuff for the HOI games (Hearts of Iron).  So I'm sure I can learn it.  That means I might be able to help out if you ever want to try a Free World AI version. 

[Grymme]

6) The US always bombing the trail thing is valid as long as the US can count on never loosing any aircraft in the bombings. Aircraft are expensive in commitment and if you bomb one location, loose 3 aircraft and then the engineers repare the location before next round then the investment is -1 commitment for no gain. But i get the point about sea supply vs trail supply. The first thing i did in the testgame was to buy a couple of Air defense regiments and send down the trail.

8) The population rules apply to a human player who will use dispersment and have much smaller casualties than the AI. As i felt that the AI has such massive casualties (he doesnt play the tactical game very well) the AI wouldnt be able to handle the casualties which is the point you were making in a previous statment.

As for your analysis about a forced withdrawal. I get your point and its actually one of those things i am worried about being unbalanced. But i will wait a little and see. Your calculation does need a couple of adjustments. For one thing the force you describe is massive. But it also prepsupposes that the force will have no casualties during the war. Just keeping the ÚS/USM marine bases open (which nets a maximum of 100 infantry/round but no tanks, artillery, helicopters) costs 2 replacments/round. In a 120 round game that is 240 replacements or 80 commitment. I also think that the air values are very low. Spending 4 commitment on airpoints gives you 12 extra airplanes (for a total of 33). In the boardgame version of Tet offensive there is 120 airpoints (for an extra 33 commitment). I dont think this is unreasonable at least for the entire game. That would give something like 25+163+80+33=301 commitment and that is without anything spent on economic aid, extra replacements, naval blockade etc. But i do think the key here is casualty levels. If the casualties are high enough the player will need to spend more replacements which will force a withdrawal. One change i am thinking about is to have the Free World player pay 3 replacments to keep US/USM bases open.

I agree that the boardgame thing does have some flaws. Some things have already been altered and more might come. But i am just saying that if unsure i go with the tested values. New Jersey does have some advantages. It cannot be killed and can move anywhere (in the boardgame).

I think you should try out the editor. Its great. There is actually a tutorial in the modding section that lets you create an entire (small scenario) with a walkthrough. I did it. If you get into modding ATG i am sure you could help out.

[Goodmongo]

I am going to playtest the v218 version starting tonight.  I plan to go super big where by the 8th season (2 years) I have ALL US units and commitment is about 240 at that point. This includes a standard 2 economic aid plus 3 for replacements each turn. That leaves 8 years (32 seasonal turns) and base only replacements of 64 more commitment. Add on to this some commitment for battle losses and a few more economic aid and 9 for other Free World units. I figure I should max out at 350 grand total commitment. It should be a great test to see if you need to change some values. My projected US morale (not counting losses would be 494 at seasonal turn 8 and an average of -4 per seasonal turn after that since no more builds are required and I should be able to get by with 4 commitment per turn (no US morale loss on new commitment). Every so often I'll go 15 commitment and stock up on replacements for just -1 morale loss. That means my ending morale will be 366 plus battle losses and gains which gives me a cussion of about 16 morale. At least this is how Excel fought the war. [:D]

[Grymme]

It will be interesting to follow. It migh very well be doable. Say you win the game. And you have an interest in calculations. What would be a projected sollution for balancing the scenario?

For example if i made the 2 following changes 1) instead of 1 commitment buying 3 replacments 2 commitment buy 5 replacments together with 2) the upping of base cost from 2 replacments/round to 3 replacments. In my calculations that would give an extra cost of something like 60+ commitment for the entire game (for base supply only).

How many rounds do you do per day on average? I will be very interested to hear how it goes. One suggestion is that you might play the game on AI+ to give the AI an edge. I do think that your 1968 game suggests that you can beat the normal AI already.

EDIT: Maybe you could do an AAR out of it. Also i would be interested to see what work you have done on HOI.

[Goodmongo]

I have done 2 AAR's and the biggest issue is time as you most likely know.  It takes time to record the units lost, screenshots and to give something other than a boring statistical dump.  Maybe in the future after we work through play balance issue.
 
Having said that I will keep track of perodic data like commitment levels, morale and kill ratios.  Not every month but maybe twice a year.
 
Weekends are my best time (naturally) where I can do up to 3 and 4 years per day.  But more units also means more time to move and use them.  Plus with this large of a US commitment I expect massive enemy units.
 
I will still stick with straight AI for now.  I want to test the standard game to see where it goes and how it plays out.  I think that by 1970 or so we should have a good read on things.  I'll keep track of replacment points purchased for this purpose.  The key might also rest with battle losses.  My gut is telling me artillery is too strong right now but I need to play more to make sure.

[Goodmongo]

I forgot to mention this several before but the starting US commitment is 26 in the game and 25 in the manual.  So this needs to be updated.

Anyway I downloaded the v218 and started a new game.  It was some bad luck right at the start as I had a coup in SVN.  I got a decent guy in Minh but morale took a hit.  I also had political unrest in September 1966.  Here are the numbers so far:

Date     US Morale SVN Morale Commit Population Draft Supplies Replacement
Start       517          56                26            645                                 6 A coup really hurt morale
7/1/65     511          70                75            645         83     3              16   A big initial US commitment
9/1/65     509          70               100          640        108    10             18   Poor rolls on economic aid and unrest
12/1/65   506          76                125           662        122     7             21   Stocking up on replacements, Got augmented units now
1/1/66     504          80               125           662        122     7              19

I bought two economic aid packages each turn but had some poor rolls.

On the battlefield the VC deploy in full division strength since the NVN has so much commitment to do it.  But I have been wiping them out each quarter.  In I Corps there is a massive NVA force but I've used artillery from 2 US marine division, 1 US infantry division and 4x175mm artillery units to really hurt them.  Here are some of the losses for both sides so far:

NVN Losses
Irregular Rifle    1070
Rifle 458
machinegun 460
Engineer 111
60mm Motar 182
Plus many other types but these are below 110

US Losses
Light Rifle 125
Rifle 53
Machinegun 41
Militia 51
81mm Motar 43
Plus some others that are under 40

In PP's the NVN have lost between 580 and 1000 per month while US lossees range between 85 and 200 per month.  So you can see that I really put a big dent into the enemy forces.  The reason is artillery.

I'll keep you posted on this game as it progresses.  I plan to get US commitment up to 240 by around mid 1967 which represent the go big option.

One possible bug is that so far I don't think the US morale has increased at all due to enemy kills.  I should have hit that by now but if you look at the US morale it tracks coups, unrest and commitment only.  This may be a bug and I should know for sure tonight after playing a few more turns.  Or maybe it takes 1200 PP in kills in a single month to get +1.
EDIT: I reread the manual and it does only apply to kills for a specific month. That is alot of kills. So far my high was around 980 or so. I guess I need more 175's to do it.

A final thought for this post. How much control do you have over the AI? And is it possible to program in the reaction movement phase that is in the boardgame? I thought about the no limits for the AI on VC drafts and that I think solves the dispertion issue (not the best way but I think it works). The next step is reaction movement.

[Goodmongo]

I was looking at the graphics mod and was wondering if your scenario is compatible with it or if you could use that mode for the graphics.

[Grymme]

When you say 3-4 years in a day. Are you sure you dont mean rounds or seasons? Because 3 years is 36 rounds. That is a lot for one day. More than one/hour all hours of the day?

Interested to see the results of your test. I do think you would get completely different casualty numbers if you were playing a human player. During my testgame the VC/NLF side frequently scored higher kills than the Free World. But in anticipation of the testresults i have actually included my proposed changes in the eventual uppcoming 219 version. But as a scenariovariant.

Getting US morale bonus from kills is really tough. But i think in the boardgame you had to kill 30 battalions to get a killbonus. So it should be steep.

As for the reaction movement. Unfortunatly ATG is a very IGo-UGO computergame so there is little interaction by the non-turning player. That is also the reason for the Air Defense Points sollution. What i would have liked to do is to have a ground support combat intercept. But that doesnt exist in ATG. So there is no reaction combat. What a human player can do is set the retreatloss level so that a unit either retreats after a light skirmish or fights till death. But thats pretty much it.

There are an abundance of graphic mods out there. It could be implemented but it would have to be edited in which would be a lot of work. And i am quite happy with most of the graphics (with a couple of exceptions).

[Goodmongo]

Last Saturday I played one game till almost the end of 1968 and started another and got to early 1966.  On Sunday I started three games and got to 1967 in one and late 1966 in the other two.  So it's possible to do 3 years and maybe 4 on a weekend day where I'm off.  Unfortunately this Saturday I have other obligations so my time will be limited.  The longest turn is the first where you have to place all those units and in a game where the US goes big that means lots of them.
 
I plan to get to sometime in 1967 tonight which would be a full year or so from where I'm at now.
 
As for your test game I really think the US player did a poor job.  I don't leave single battalions around so if you attack you have to attack one and more likely a full regiment.  What will most likely happen in a good two player game is lower kills for both sides.  The NVN player would pull back into NVN territory and out of range of US artillery.  So the big set piece battles would be less frequent.
 
I don't know the full mechanics of how AT treat retreating units yet.  For example if a retreating unit suffers readiness losses then retreating VC units at 20% losses would only result in killing it faster I think.  But if the retreating unit is not severly hurt then lowering it to something like 15-20% might be something to test.  Only for the VC not NVA troops.

[Goodmongo]

Here is the update from last nights playing.

Category   Previous   Current
Dates        1/1/66     8/1/66
US Morale    504         498
SVN Morale   80           97
Commitment 125         175
Population    662         669
Draft Lvl      122         178
Supplies         7           16
Replacement  19          23

I can verify that I did in fact gain a morale level as US.  I had a high kill of 1556 in a month and only lost 1 morale instead of two due to commitment.  As for losing morale due to losses I seem to have had that happen to me.  But since my highest losses for a month was just under 300 that could only have been done if the AI called an offensive.  Can the AI do this?  Does the AI do this?  And is there anything in the game that can tell me when the NVN has done this?

With all the counters it is taking almost twice as long to play a single month as before.  Basically each seasonal turn around 3+ complete NVN/NLF divisions appear all over the map.  That means many battles, lots of counter movement to contain them and additional time for planning.

Right now I have 8 complete US divisions, 2 US brigades, additional air and support units, 5 ARVN divisions, 5 augmented ARVN divisions with artillery and tank support, 5 ranger battalions, the Para division, the Marine division, plus a Korean division in play.  Yes that is alot of forces.  Up in I Corps I'm losing population fast as the NVA has like 3 or 4 divisions in the first province alone.  But I have a plan to get control of it.

Oh the NVA mech brigade had one PT-76 (I think that was it) in it.  I hit it with 5 US battalions including 1 armoured and 2 mech and I lost 8 to its none.  What is that PT-76?  A stealth M1A2?

For my remaing builds I still have 2 US divisions, 4 US brigades, 1 augmented ARVN division and 15 or so independent ARVN battalions to build before I reach my goal.  This takes me to around 240 US commitment.

As for some observations, with the huge US commitment the NVN has built up all cities on the trail.  When the AI places VC forces it does so in division sized pockets which is good.  But I'm not sure there is a real sound strategy behind the province choices.  If I was playing the VC I would consider two data points.  First is what the current population is and the second is what are the US/ARVN force placements.  The primary targets would be provinces with population split almost 50/50 and very little FW forces in it.  This gives me the best chance to have a population shift.

After this comes more SVN controlled population provinces with little or no forces.  Then low (but not zero) provinces with little FW forces.  Finally, are 50/50 provinces with more FW forces but here you need a large VC footprint.  Another tactic is if the province has a border with Loas or Cambodia.  In that case if the population is 30-70% FW controlled and FW forces are present I place the VC units in the other country and wait till my last turn before the seasonal turn to move them into the province.  It doesn't matter if the FW has lots of forces as the VC gets a good modifier just for having units in the province. But I doubt the AI will ever be able to pull that one off.

Basically, the goal of the VC forces are to shift population points.  They will never be able to win a fighting war to control a province.  If a province is 0 to 3 SVN controlled population then the VC can ignore this province as it already has a nice negative modifier.  For a NVN player you use your VC forces to shift population and NVA forces to do the actual fighting.

Having said this how does the AI handle placements?  If there is logic and its based on numbers I can give some formula to help you out.  I would need to know the comparrison PP levels of each unit since these are used for the population shifts and for damage morale shifts.  At least I think its PP values for damage and perhaps you can confirm this.

EDIT: Is there an updated manual? The one on your site still shows September 10th.

EDIT #2: The drop in US morale is probably due to a third capital being captured by the VC in a single month and might not be due to US losses. I will have to pay careful attention to US morale to see what the cause was.

[Goodmongo]

Before I get to some results I found what I think is a major issue.  Namely supply.  In this test game I've been building massive forces but for a few turns they were lacking readiness.  I first thought it was due to the leader being inneffcient rule.  However, this was not the case as the same units were being hit each turn.  It turns out to be lack of supplies.

I even changed the poduction in the cities to mostly supplies and am producing 12,000 per month but it's still not enough.  In the MACV HQ the required supply number is 20166 and the sent out number is 17130.  For the ARVN HQ the required number is 27069 and sent out is 18082.  This supply issue makes a go big option impossible and I bet it would impact the medium option come 1970 or 1971.  I like that units cut off from supply go down in ability.  But I think you need to have some super huge number of base supply (like 10 million) in the starting HQ's.

Another topic to discuss is augmented units.  On their face they are cool and do fight better.  But here's the downside.  Regular ARVN battalions can move through terrain much faster and can attack in rough terrain easier than the augmented ones.  This makes them great as a blocking force and followup attack force. But the augmented troops are just like the US troops.  So to be honest the disadvantages outweigh the advantages big time.  It is possible to change the troops to M-16's but not change the transportation?  Or check into why the augmented troops as so bad at moving through terrain and then not change that item. I might have to go back and check on how the orginal game treated them. Was there a restriction in movement in exchange for better equipment? Oh, and the SVN cities can't produce augmented equipment to replace losses but I kind of agree with this point as the augmented equipment is US produced anyway.

As for the test game, I'm not sure how much longer I can go down this path with the supply issue being what it is.  I didn't get as many turns in because I spent time trying to figure out why the units were in such a bad shape which was due to supply.  That said here are some results from last night.

Category   Previous  Current
Dates        8/1/66   12/1/66
US Morale    498       492      This is just 4 below my projection due to the coup on turn one and losing 3 cities in a turn.
SVN Morale   97        108      This is 4 below my projection due to coup and instability and bad economic rolls.
Commitment 175       225      I got the Korean and other Free World troops, but still short 2 US brigades for full commitment.
Population    669      658       A drop recently due to the massive forces that the NVN get due to large US commitment.
Draft           178      194       I actually want to build more ARVN troops but can't due to supply issues.
Supplies        16        16       I still have a full ARVN division to go plus some independent batallions.
Replacement  23        33       For the first time I will be using some for battle losses.

Speaking of kills/losses I hit a whopping high of 1996 NVN PP killed in a single turn.  My highest amount of losses was around 350 so far.  For the last few months the NVN PP losses have been 900+ per month while Free World are 300 to 350.  Artillery is starting to take a real toll on the NVA regiments in I Corps.

Let me know about the supply issue as I'm really not sure I can continue this specific game and it's goals of going all in to see when morale and commitment finally clash.

[Grymme]

I have uploaded v219 to my website
 
It should fix the supply issue (i hope). I coded it so each regime gets what they need + 50000 each round.
 
As for the augmented units. If you dont want to use the APCs you can just transfer them to a HQ, another unit or just ditch them(disband them). There is a rulewar in ATG where you get some supply back for disbanding a SFT so you might even get some supply. As for the current game. You can always set units you dont use to 0% supply (or what the lowest variant is in ATG. For example the US transport navy. 'But i am afraid there is no better workaround than that.
  
Changelist v219
 
- Fixed reinforcement event bug
- Fixed RF-PF battalions zoc event bug
- Added a Communist advantage scenario variant it gices the following changes. Communist base morale is upped from 100 to 110. Free World replacments cost 2 for 5 replacements and US bases cost 3 to keep open.
- Changed movement cost for ship at sea from 4 to 1 AP.
- Changed rules for Offensive so that during a offensive round the Free World does not get any morale bonus for kills.
- Communist AI will now consider buying offensives.
- Fixed supply issue.
- Starting commitment is now 25.