The changes sound great. I'm going to restart the test. I can either play solo human vs human or go human vs NVN AI. If against AI I would probably try out the super big footprint once again. If playing myself I would do a more medium level. Which would you rather me test out?
Edit: Have you updated the manual? If so where can I find it.
Victory Games Vietnam
Moderator: Vic
RE: Victory Games Vietnam
I uploaded a new version of the manual to my website.
I am currently quite busy with real life. My twins turned 1 years old yesterday. But in what little ATG coding time i have i am working on the 1972 Easter offensive scenario. There will basicly be four different setups for this scenario. Historical (semi) setup for both sides. Free setup for the Free World side only. Free setup for the Communist side only. Free setup for both sides. Its going slowly mainly because the remaining coding is kind of boring.
As for the AI placement scripting. There is a scripted priority but its only on a large scale level. The AI will prioritize Corps II and III slightly and will also priotize the Corps areas with the least Free World forces. It will not try to place units on defended hexes. will also only place units (except companies) in the areas where it is possible to place them (close to the trail or sea). Other than that the AI will prioritize to capture Provincial capitols and especially Saigon, Hue and Da Nang.
Goodmongo: Actually if you want especially to help with something i would be interested to know the average statistical likelyhood of a Military Coup/and or Unrest happening. If you ever get into the editor (which i think you should) there are lots to work on.
I would recommend that you read and play out theese two tutorials (and eventually the other two).
tm.asp?m=1605901
tm.asp?m=1609701
I am currently quite busy with real life. My twins turned 1 years old yesterday. But in what little ATG coding time i have i am working on the 1972 Easter offensive scenario. There will basicly be four different setups for this scenario. Historical (semi) setup for both sides. Free setup for the Free World side only. Free setup for the Communist side only. Free setup for both sides. Its going slowly mainly because the remaining coding is kind of boring.
As for the AI placement scripting. There is a scripted priority but its only on a large scale level. The AI will prioritize Corps II and III slightly and will also priotize the Corps areas with the least Free World forces. It will not try to place units on defended hexes. will also only place units (except companies) in the areas where it is possible to place them (close to the trail or sea). Other than that the AI will prioritize to capture Provincial capitols and especially Saigon, Hue and Da Nang.
Goodmongo: Actually if you want especially to help with something i would be interested to know the average statistical likelyhood of a Military Coup/and or Unrest happening. If you ever get into the editor (which i think you should) there are lots to work on.
I would recommend that you read and play out theese two tutorials (and eventually the other two).
tm.asp?m=1605901
tm.asp?m=1609701
My Advanced Tactics Mod page
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com
30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com
30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G
RE: Victory Games Vietnam
Version 219 has an issue with US morale. I don't thing it is dropping at all for new US commitment. April 1966 and after a failed induced coup (-3 us morale) and 25 uc commitment per seasonal tun US morale is still at 517.
I'll keep track of coups and unrest. I've had a coup in 3 or 4 games out of about 10 that I've started. Two were on the very first turn. I've not succeeded with a US induced one but have only tried twice. I've had unrest about the same number of times as coups and had both on the same turn once. But I'll keep more details records on it.
In the last two game starts with v219 I noticed almost no NVN troops being placed in IV Corps. This is very much reduced from the other versions. My setup and force allocation has been consistent so I doubt if it was due to forces in the zone.
I'll also try to start learning the editor.
My next test is going to be playing both sides. I'll be able to give better reports on NVN mechanics.
I'll keep track of coups and unrest. I've had a coup in 3 or 4 games out of about 10 that I've started. Two were on the very first turn. I've not succeeded with a US induced one but have only tried twice. I've had unrest about the same number of times as coups and had both on the same turn once. But I'll keep more details records on it.
In the last two game starts with v219 I noticed almost no NVN troops being placed in IV Corps. This is very much reduced from the other versions. My setup and force allocation has been consistent so I doubt if it was due to forces in the zone.
I'll also try to start learning the editor.
My next test is going to be playing both sides. I'll be able to give better reports on NVN mechanics.
RE: Victory Games Vietnam
I did a human vs. human play through (v219 no optional variants in use). There are some major play balance issues I think. First a bug report.
When the Free World lost more than 600 PP there was a message stating this so that seemed to work. And the morale did drop. But when the US had over 1500 PP in kills there was no message. So it seems only half of it is working.
In a human vs. human game the unit balance is way off especially compared to the game. Six VC battalions easily defeat an ARVN regiment. This is just a 2-1 superority and the VC were attacking so they should not have won so easily, if at all. The NVA seem almost equal to US even when attacking. A NVA division of 3 regiments and 2 tank battalions attacked a US Marine force of 3 infantry battalions and a tank battalion (reinforced regiment). The US force took massive casualties, and would have been completely wiped out if there were follow on attacks. A VC force of 9 battalions attacked an ARVN force of a para regiment, 2 battalions and a 155 art batallion and completely destroyed it after the followup attacks.
So in a human vs. human game you are forced to keep full divisions together on a single hex and build regiments instead of battalions. Also anti-air for the NVA is way too powerful compared to the boardgame. A single AA unit can destroy a B52 force in 3 or four turns, losing 1 to 3 planes per turn. I think in the game each airpoint was multiple planes and not single planes.
I'm not sure the Free World could ever win the game right now as ARVN forces are way too weak compared to VC and US forces get defeated to coordinated attacks by NVA forces. And the thing is that in the actual war lone ARVN battalions got defeated but US forces never did and regiment sized ARVN forces never did. It should take 5-1 odds for VC to defeat ARVN and 3-1 or even 5-1 for NVA to defeat US. VC should take 10-1 to defeat US forces.
When the Free World lost more than 600 PP there was a message stating this so that seemed to work. And the morale did drop. But when the US had over 1500 PP in kills there was no message. So it seems only half of it is working.
In a human vs. human game the unit balance is way off especially compared to the game. Six VC battalions easily defeat an ARVN regiment. This is just a 2-1 superority and the VC were attacking so they should not have won so easily, if at all. The NVA seem almost equal to US even when attacking. A NVA division of 3 regiments and 2 tank battalions attacked a US Marine force of 3 infantry battalions and a tank battalion (reinforced regiment). The US force took massive casualties, and would have been completely wiped out if there were follow on attacks. A VC force of 9 battalions attacked an ARVN force of a para regiment, 2 battalions and a 155 art batallion and completely destroyed it after the followup attacks.
So in a human vs. human game you are forced to keep full divisions together on a single hex and build regiments instead of battalions. Also anti-air for the NVA is way too powerful compared to the boardgame. A single AA unit can destroy a B52 force in 3 or four turns, losing 1 to 3 planes per turn. I think in the game each airpoint was multiple planes and not single planes.
I'm not sure the Free World could ever win the game right now as ARVN forces are way too weak compared to VC and US forces get defeated to coordinated attacks by NVA forces. And the thing is that in the actual war lone ARVN battalions got defeated but US forces never did and regiment sized ARVN forces never did. It should take 5-1 odds for VC to defeat ARVN and 3-1 or even 5-1 for NVA to defeat US. VC should take 10-1 to defeat US forces.
RE: Victory Games Vietnam
You guys are a great team, and your work is appreciated, Grymme. The scenario package on your website is a must for fans of the game. Also, great thread Goodmongo. As an amateur, it will help ease me into the campaign. Thanks again.
RE: Victory Games Vietnam
Goodmongo. I think that when you talk about unit balance you really mean if the scenario is a realistic simulation of the war. But a game can be very balanced in the sense that both sides have an equal chance of winning even if things happen that would never happen in the real conflict.
So this is really two different issues. Play balance and wether its a realistic simulation of the conflict. As for play balance. I think that you previously said that the Free World was too powerfull and would never have to withdraw any US commitment because it wouldnt have any losses. But now the VC/NVA is too powerfull in battle and causes too big losses. I think (and hope) that the answer is somewhere in between. The US did have casualties amounting to almost 12 full divisions of manpower during the war and the ARVN much much more. So i dont think overall play balance has to be off.
If the Free World side looses a lot of battles it means they will need to go for replacements/single battalions more which will actually make the game more balanced compared to the graph you made about US never having to make withdrawals. Either the Free World player can never win or never loose. You cannot have it both ways.
As to the issue of realism (which is what i think you are really talking about). It is true that some things never happened in the real war that will certainly happen in the game (Although i think that 6 battalions of VC could easily rout an ARVN regiment). And Free World units were not allways superior. In the Fire Base Mary Ann battle 50 VC sappers attacked against 231 entrenched US soldiers and ARVN forces which resulted in 116 casualties for the Free World for 15 VC dead. But the game is an abstraction. There were very few 1 month long set piece battles in the real conflict but the game plays in 1 month rounds. You have to look at it through that lense. There certainly were times where even large US forces had to retreat from an area because the enemy pressure was becoming to large.
I wouldnt defend against such a tactic by putting full divisions in a single hex. I would instead cluster the division in several hexes to deny the enemy full concentric bonuses, give them generous air support and then put them on 25% retreat. Then the NVA division might hit one battalion, but it would retreat into another hex with another battalion there leaving the NVA vulnerable because they would have used up their AP and then it would be the Free World turn.
Ill look into some of the issues you mentioned (the morale thing). But i think a lot is due to the roll of the dice. A couple of the things you mention hasnt been changed since the first version released.
Rosseau: Thanks. If you got the scenarios (i dont keep track of which people do or do not) i hope you enjoy it. Otherwise i would encourage you to try it out.
EDIT: I tested the morale issue and it was the US induce coup morale effect that didnt work. Uploaded a v219B to my skydrive to fix this issue.
So this is really two different issues. Play balance and wether its a realistic simulation of the conflict. As for play balance. I think that you previously said that the Free World was too powerfull and would never have to withdraw any US commitment because it wouldnt have any losses. But now the VC/NVA is too powerfull in battle and causes too big losses. I think (and hope) that the answer is somewhere in between. The US did have casualties amounting to almost 12 full divisions of manpower during the war and the ARVN much much more. So i dont think overall play balance has to be off.
If the Free World side looses a lot of battles it means they will need to go for replacements/single battalions more which will actually make the game more balanced compared to the graph you made about US never having to make withdrawals. Either the Free World player can never win or never loose. You cannot have it both ways.
As to the issue of realism (which is what i think you are really talking about). It is true that some things never happened in the real war that will certainly happen in the game (Although i think that 6 battalions of VC could easily rout an ARVN regiment). And Free World units were not allways superior. In the Fire Base Mary Ann battle 50 VC sappers attacked against 231 entrenched US soldiers and ARVN forces which resulted in 116 casualties for the Free World for 15 VC dead. But the game is an abstraction. There were very few 1 month long set piece battles in the real conflict but the game plays in 1 month rounds. You have to look at it through that lense. There certainly were times where even large US forces had to retreat from an area because the enemy pressure was becoming to large.
I wouldnt defend against such a tactic by putting full divisions in a single hex. I would instead cluster the division in several hexes to deny the enemy full concentric bonuses, give them generous air support and then put them on 25% retreat. Then the NVA division might hit one battalion, but it would retreat into another hex with another battalion there leaving the NVA vulnerable because they would have used up their AP and then it would be the Free World turn.
Ill look into some of the issues you mentioned (the morale thing). But i think a lot is due to the roll of the dice. A couple of the things you mention hasnt been changed since the first version released.
Rosseau: Thanks. If you got the scenarios (i dont keep track of which people do or do not) i hope you enjoy it. Otherwise i would encourage you to try it out.
EDIT: I tested the morale issue and it was the US induce coup morale effect that didnt work. Uploaded a v219B to my skydrive to fix this issue.
My Advanced Tactics Mod page
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com
30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com
30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G
RE: Victory Games Vietnam
Hi Grymme. There are two play balance issues. One is human vs AI and the other is human vs human play. In human vs AI the AI attacks with single battalions and rarely coordinating more than two at the same time. As the human player against the AI I always left my stacks with 2 and usually 3 battalions in a single hex. The AI outside of I Corps would only have single battalion VC stacks that I would attack with 6-9 Free World units. This resulted in the destruction of the VC unit with little losses to FW and that is why the US morale would last.
Going to a human vs human game I kind of knew that the free world would keep their stacks together 3 strong. So I did the same on the VC side. But when attacking a regiment of ARVN with 6 battallions (2 regiments) they anialated the ARVN units. SO in a second try I kept things stacked at the division level! This turned into a cat and mouse game. The FW side would move 2 and usually 3 full divisions toward those VC controlled hexes. Now the VC might just be a lone company or a full VC division. But a clue is if a capital city fell. A company or lone battalion can't do that. So what happens is the VC either escape to Cambodia or after drawing in 3 divisions to surround it, it dispersers. Then on a NVN offensive it goes on almost suicide attacks and clobbers US morale. This is a little more to the actual war except that you are moving full divisions together instead of battalion or regiments.
In ATG there is a battlestack rule that stops constant attacks against the same unit. The thing that really hurts is that the attacker (either side take your pick) starts off with 2 or 3 to one odds (which is low IMO to really succeed for VC attacking) and causes a retreat. The retret causes readiness losses and they attack again and do tons of damage if not outright destroying the defender. If necessary do it a third time.
So to sort of sum up in human vs AI the human attacks and suffers little losses and hence might never hit the US morale cap. In human vs human you are foced to keep things at division level or you will get completely destroyed and hit the US moral cap in 1967.
Air and AA is not balanced for commitment costs and effectiveness. If you increased airplanes per commitment this would unbalance it against other units so I think the real answer is to greatly tone down how good AA is. Make it so it has at most a 5-10% chance of killing a plane. I again lost 7 B52's to a single AA unit in the course of 6 months. A smart human player NEVER buys air and NEVER hits the trail. Why waste the commitment?
In reading through the editor I thought I read that you can make some forces much less effectivve in fighting compared to other forces (The North Africa compaign does this with Italion rifle forces poor compared to British and German much better than British). So for a human vs human game only make VC forces about 85% the combat effectivness of a normal ARVN unit which is only 75% the comabt effectivness of an augmented or NVA unit which is only 60% of US units. Then increase the benefit of defending units by 50% more. What this means is on a scale of 1 to 100 the US unit would be rated a 100, the NVA/Augmented 60, ARVN 45 and VC 38. But the VC unit defending would jump to 57 and the NVA would jump to 90 while defending. On a turn that declares a NVN offensive you can give a 25% increase to all units. BTW 1 morale per 60 US losses will result in way too much morale lost. I did a Tet like suicide attack and got 850 US PP lost which would end up being a drop 14 morale! I think that is way too high for the cost of the commitment.
Let me finish that I think you have a great thing going here. I'm really just trying to help in both the human vs human and human vs AI games. A game can be balanced but if its too ahistorical many won't play it. With a little more work I think this one can get both balance and flavor.
Oh on the US morale gain for enemy kills. When the US loses morale due to losses there is a message to both sides stating this. But I've never seen a message for US morale gains. I am pretty sure in previous version I have gained the morale point but no message. And checking the statistics I see where the Free World killed 1900+ PP in a single turn. I sometimes do things to test it out and leave lots of single units just ripe to be killed in these tests.
Going to a human vs human game I kind of knew that the free world would keep their stacks together 3 strong. So I did the same on the VC side. But when attacking a regiment of ARVN with 6 battallions (2 regiments) they anialated the ARVN units. SO in a second try I kept things stacked at the division level! This turned into a cat and mouse game. The FW side would move 2 and usually 3 full divisions toward those VC controlled hexes. Now the VC might just be a lone company or a full VC division. But a clue is if a capital city fell. A company or lone battalion can't do that. So what happens is the VC either escape to Cambodia or after drawing in 3 divisions to surround it, it dispersers. Then on a NVN offensive it goes on almost suicide attacks and clobbers US morale. This is a little more to the actual war except that you are moving full divisions together instead of battalion or regiments.
In ATG there is a battlestack rule that stops constant attacks against the same unit. The thing that really hurts is that the attacker (either side take your pick) starts off with 2 or 3 to one odds (which is low IMO to really succeed for VC attacking) and causes a retreat. The retret causes readiness losses and they attack again and do tons of damage if not outright destroying the defender. If necessary do it a third time.
So to sort of sum up in human vs AI the human attacks and suffers little losses and hence might never hit the US morale cap. In human vs human you are foced to keep things at division level or you will get completely destroyed and hit the US moral cap in 1967.
Air and AA is not balanced for commitment costs and effectiveness. If you increased airplanes per commitment this would unbalance it against other units so I think the real answer is to greatly tone down how good AA is. Make it so it has at most a 5-10% chance of killing a plane. I again lost 7 B52's to a single AA unit in the course of 6 months. A smart human player NEVER buys air and NEVER hits the trail. Why waste the commitment?
In reading through the editor I thought I read that you can make some forces much less effectivve in fighting compared to other forces (The North Africa compaign does this with Italion rifle forces poor compared to British and German much better than British). So for a human vs human game only make VC forces about 85% the combat effectivness of a normal ARVN unit which is only 75% the comabt effectivness of an augmented or NVA unit which is only 60% of US units. Then increase the benefit of defending units by 50% more. What this means is on a scale of 1 to 100 the US unit would be rated a 100, the NVA/Augmented 60, ARVN 45 and VC 38. But the VC unit defending would jump to 57 and the NVA would jump to 90 while defending. On a turn that declares a NVN offensive you can give a 25% increase to all units. BTW 1 morale per 60 US losses will result in way too much morale lost. I did a Tet like suicide attack and got 850 US PP lost which would end up being a drop 14 morale! I think that is way too high for the cost of the commitment.
Let me finish that I think you have a great thing going here. I'm really just trying to help in both the human vs human and human vs AI games. A game can be balanced but if its too ahistorical many won't play it. With a little more work I think this one can get both balance and flavor.
Oh on the US morale gain for enemy kills. When the US loses morale due to losses there is a message to both sides stating this. But I've never seen a message for US morale gains. I am pretty sure in previous version I have gained the morale point but no message. And checking the statistics I see where the Free World killed 1900+ PP in a single turn. I sometimes do things to test it out and leave lots of single units just ripe to be killed in these tests.
RE: Victory Games Vietnam
Using the latest v219B I conducted a test and can confirm that the US is NOT receiving the +1 morale of kills. I destroyed just over 2000 PP of VC/NVN units on turn 2 and there was no change in US morale. US losses were around 600 PP (hard to tell exact numbers from the graph) so it is possible that the US gained AND lost a morale point. However, in the past when the US loses a morale point a message appeared. I am going to test this once again but this time make sure US losses are below 500 PP and then test it the next turn wil US losses over 600 PP.
RE: Victory Games Vietnam
Goodmongo. I really appreciate your effort and it has been truly helpfull. You seem very engaged and i think you would become a great modder if you just got into it. I might sound (and be) a little irritated sometimes. But thats just me.
I think the game/scenario can be played in many ways and the spectrum goes from expert human vs AI to crappy human vs AI and the same can be said for human vs human player. So everyone will not have the same abilty and a good human player will imo beat a bad human player whatever side he plays. What is interesting is what happens when 2 equally matched humans meet. Did you do your human vs human player against another person or yourself?
As for the air balance thing. I am not saying yes or no, we will see. I made a small experiment. If you buy an air defense regiment and put in each location in NVN and the trail thats 30 commitment for the NVA side. If you spend the same amount on airpoints you get ca 90 aircraft. I tried this and attacked a air defense regiment (but in the open) with the 30 commitment of aircraft. This resulted in the destruction of 3 aircraft (1 commitment) for 7 out of 8 aircraftguns (2,65 commitment). The next turn the US attacks another location and kills of that airdefense regiment and so on. Of course it might have been a completely different thing if 3 commitment of aircraft had attacked 3 commitment of air defense (then i think the air defense would have won. But my point here is that the flexibility of aircraft is worth a lot because the US can attack anywhere and the air defense can only be in one place. And say that the NVA spends enough to and succeeds in forcing the US player to stop attacking his locations. The US can just elect to stop attacking the trail/NVA and just use his airforce to attack tactical targets inside SVN and then the NVA sits there with 30 or so commitment of troops that are of no use to him while the US can still use its aircraft.
But i think you need to go big to attack defended locations with aircraft, it cannot be done with just small amounts.
EDIT. I looked through the event and i do think it worked. But the activation of the message was based on an actual change in Free World morale. So what i think happened is that the two cancelled each other out. Now this is no fault in the event itself, but it might be more fun if you get a message that there were both intensive kills and losses so i rewrote the activation of the event and uploaded it as a new version with the same name.
EDIT2. I also did the same experiment with the Air defense regiments in urban terrain and only lost 2 aircraft to 7 dead flak.
I think the game/scenario can be played in many ways and the spectrum goes from expert human vs AI to crappy human vs AI and the same can be said for human vs human player. So everyone will not have the same abilty and a good human player will imo beat a bad human player whatever side he plays. What is interesting is what happens when 2 equally matched humans meet. Did you do your human vs human player against another person or yourself?
As for the air balance thing. I am not saying yes or no, we will see. I made a small experiment. If you buy an air defense regiment and put in each location in NVN and the trail thats 30 commitment for the NVA side. If you spend the same amount on airpoints you get ca 90 aircraft. I tried this and attacked a air defense regiment (but in the open) with the 30 commitment of aircraft. This resulted in the destruction of 3 aircraft (1 commitment) for 7 out of 8 aircraftguns (2,65 commitment). The next turn the US attacks another location and kills of that airdefense regiment and so on. Of course it might have been a completely different thing if 3 commitment of aircraft had attacked 3 commitment of air defense (then i think the air defense would have won. But my point here is that the flexibility of aircraft is worth a lot because the US can attack anywhere and the air defense can only be in one place. And say that the NVA spends enough to and succeeds in forcing the US player to stop attacking his locations. The US can just elect to stop attacking the trail/NVA and just use his airforce to attack tactical targets inside SVN and then the NVA sits there with 30 or so commitment of troops that are of no use to him while the US can still use its aircraft.
But i think you need to go big to attack defended locations with aircraft, it cannot be done with just small amounts.
EDIT. I looked through the event and i do think it worked. But the activation of the message was based on an actual change in Free World morale. So what i think happened is that the two cancelled each other out. Now this is no fault in the event itself, but it might be more fun if you get a message that there were both intensive kills and losses so i rewrote the activation of the event and uploaded it as a new version with the same name.
EDIT2. I also did the same experiment with the Air defense regiments in urban terrain and only lost 2 aircraft to 7 dead flak.
My Advanced Tactics Mod page
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com
30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com
30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G
RE: Victory Games Vietnam
I did an extensive test of combat kills and losses to morale gains/losses. In the first test the US had kills of 1575 PP and 2489 PP. This should have results in morale gains of 1 and 2 for the US. The US losses were under 400 for both turns. No message came up and no morale gains happened. US morale stayed at 513 which was the morale at the start of the turns.
For NVN kills of US it worked perfectly. The NVA killed 2052 PP of units and on the next turn a message came up saying that US lost 3 morale which is correct. So there is a bug when it comes to US killing NVN troops. No message and no morale gains.
My final test will be for US kills to be above 1600 and losses to be high. I'm curious to see if the message appears showing the US morale loss and a zero for the pluss for kills.
As for modeling I'm slowly getting into it. I appreciate the event file you sent and will go through it. I did create a small scenario following the tutorial. The real meat however is in the events and rule bvariations which will take time to learn.
BTW in the human vs human games it was me playing both sides. I triedd to be extremely fair in my strategy for both sides and what I would and would not do, especially for US side tracking down VC and trying to find them.
I am going to test some air defense vs air commitment to see the results. First off the range limits impact "going big" so in reality you will most likely use 2 or maybe 3 air groups against a single target. For the 3 commiment you get 2 AA units. I am going to test using only one unit and using both units in the same hex.
EDIT: I finished the test where in a single turn the US killed 2489 PP of NVN units and the ARVN then lost 1942 PP on the very next NVN turn. The message box appeared but only showed the loss in US morale. It was zero for US gains. So this is a definate bug.
BTW I found another bug. If you save the game during the NVN turn and then reload it there are double the RF-PF units in cities.
For NVN kills of US it worked perfectly. The NVA killed 2052 PP of units and on the next turn a message came up saying that US lost 3 morale which is correct. So there is a bug when it comes to US killing NVN troops. No message and no morale gains.
My final test will be for US kills to be above 1600 and losses to be high. I'm curious to see if the message appears showing the US morale loss and a zero for the pluss for kills.
As for modeling I'm slowly getting into it. I appreciate the event file you sent and will go through it. I did create a small scenario following the tutorial. The real meat however is in the events and rule bvariations which will take time to learn.
BTW in the human vs human games it was me playing both sides. I triedd to be extremely fair in my strategy for both sides and what I would and would not do, especially for US side tracking down VC and trying to find them.
I am going to test some air defense vs air commitment to see the results. First off the range limits impact "going big" so in reality you will most likely use 2 or maybe 3 air groups against a single target. For the 3 commiment you get 2 AA units. I am going to test using only one unit and using both units in the same hex.
EDIT: I finished the test where in a single turn the US killed 2489 PP of NVN units and the ARVN then lost 1942 PP on the very next NVN turn. The message box appeared but only showed the loss in US morale. It was zero for US gains. So this is a definate bug.
BTW I found another bug. If you save the game during the NVN turn and then reload it there are double the RF-PF units in cities.
RE: Victory Games Vietnam
Hi
- You were right it was indeed a bug in the US kills/losses event. Seems the program cannot handle large fractions very well. I believe i have fixed it but it did require a small change in functionality. Basicly its the same but the maximum bonus for the Free World player for a single round is +3 for 3600 powerpoints or more. I think its all that is realistic anyway. Hopefully nobody would be able to kill 4800 powerpoints in a single round.
- Also fixed the RF-PF thing. The same issue could possibly haunt other openturn events so i will have to look out.
- I also made a small but not unimportant change in functionality. In the boardgame you draw a head of state on round 1. In my scenario you always started with Bao Dai (which is one of the better leaders in my opinion). Well i changed it so that the starting leader is randomized. So now you could end up with Thieu as starting leader if you are unlucky.
Uploaded these changes as v220 to my skydrive.
On another note i am almost finished with my Easter Offensive scenario. Have some issues to sort out but the basic coding is done. Now i just have 5-6 issues to fix, a briefing to write, a description for the website etc and it can be up and running. This scenario will be donationware but with the same passeword as for the Grand Campaign so if you get that you get all of them.
- You were right it was indeed a bug in the US kills/losses event. Seems the program cannot handle large fractions very well. I believe i have fixed it but it did require a small change in functionality. Basicly its the same but the maximum bonus for the Free World player for a single round is +3 for 3600 powerpoints or more. I think its all that is realistic anyway. Hopefully nobody would be able to kill 4800 powerpoints in a single round.
- Also fixed the RF-PF thing. The same issue could possibly haunt other openturn events so i will have to look out.
- I also made a small but not unimportant change in functionality. In the boardgame you draw a head of state on round 1. In my scenario you always started with Bao Dai (which is one of the better leaders in my opinion). Well i changed it so that the starting leader is randomized. So now you could end up with Thieu as starting leader if you are unlucky.
Uploaded these changes as v220 to my skydrive.
On another note i am almost finished with my Easter Offensive scenario. Have some issues to sort out but the basic coding is done. Now i just have 5-6 issues to fix, a briefing to write, a description for the website etc and it can be up and running. This scenario will be donationware but with the same passeword as for the Grand Campaign so if you get that you get all of them.
My Advanced Tactics Mod page
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com
30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com
30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G
RE: Victory Games Vietnam
By the way.Goodmongo. Arent you afraid that all this testing might turn you off from playing the scenario from start to finish eventually? I can tell you that i rarely play my own scenarios becuase i have started them over so many times and always feel responsiblé if my opponent fails. Just a caution.
My Advanced Tactics Mod page
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com
30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com
30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G
RE: Victory Games Vietnam
I've done some pretty extensive tests of air units against AA and then compared that to the effectiveness of air vs artillery. There are 4 AA types in the game. When you buy an AA unit you get 2 units of AA and each unit has 2x85mm and 2x75mm. There are alos 37mm AA guns and dual AA guns that you can actually produce. In my tests I've conducted 1 to 2 (air commitment to AA commitment) bombardments, 1 to 1 bombardments, 2 to 1 bombardment and 3 to 1 bombardments. I also conducted air attacks against AA on a 1 to 1, 2 to 1 and 3 to 1 basis.
For the above air attack tests air loses out to AA in a single turn when done at anything less than 2 to 1. At 2 to 1 the air unit is usually destroyed in 3 or 4 turns unless you reinforce. Only at 3 to 1 does air end up destroying the AA unit. I did this with both majority A-4 and majority B52.
On the bombardment tests the AA units rarely take any damage. After all you are attacking the location and not the unit. On bombardments of less than 2 to 1 the air units took more damage. Not sure why this was the case unless the bombardment supresses the defender. On 3 to 1 the location always was destroyed (1000 points). On 2 to 1 it was destroyed in 2 out of 3 tests. At under 2 to 1 it was never destroyed. But even with 3 to 1 ratio's I still suffered a couple of lost planes during the three tests.
I also conducted bombardments against a HQ unit with 2x37mm and 4 to 6 dual AA. My 3 planes had 2 losses and 1 retreat. Using 9 planes (a full 1 point commitment) destroyed the location but suffered a plane loss in one test and 2 planes in another test run.
I then decided to compare how planes do against a VC batallion and a NVA regiment. I used 6 A4's and 3 B52's against 2 units of 175mm artillery. Both were worth 1 commitment. In all cases the artillery did much better. I even tried changing it to 9 A4's and 9 B52's, but the artillery was still much better at killing and forcing retreats. All tests were in jungle, hills or forested hills. I did not try urban, cultivated or mountain but I really doubt it would have mattered.
So my conclusions are that a comitment in US air is a bad idea. You eventually lose the unit. Artillery (175mm) does much more damage. Also, air vs. AA is too weak. I can see air retreating but unless you have 3 to 1 advantages you lose the air unit. In looking at the real war there were just 17 B52's shot down by enemy action during the entire war. Ten were lost to SAM's during Linbacker II. Looking at all fixed wing aircraft there were just over 1600 lost during the whole war. But they flew over 5 million sorites which translates to .4 losses per 1000 sorties. Anyway you look at it the game has way too high air plane losses.
I'm not sure what the right answer should be. There needs to be a balance of commitment costs, damage done and losses. But I'm convinced that the air losses are too high when compared to historical losses, commitment ratios, and compared to damage done. Maybe the answer is to cause the air unit to retreat much more often and not be shot down.
EDIT: I'm not afraid of losing interest at all. When the scenario is balance and finished I think it will offer many replays. The thing I loved about the boardgame was that you could do it over and over and never use the same strategy. Besides I think this scenario has some great potential to fill a niche that the whole industry has missed. To that event I plan on devoting much more time to it and eventually even trying to code a US AI variant. (If you don't and you don't mind).
EDIT2: I also did a test where I declared an offensive as NVN player. I played it where the NVN player ran away and dispersed units to avoid combat as much as possible. Now to speed things up I wen big super fast to get to 150 US commitment. But I tried to compensate and held back lots of NVN units (3 full NVA divisions) to balance out the excess commitment received. I then attacked all over the place and even did a few suicide attacks. There were 922 PP kills which resulted in -15 to US morale. I think this was way too high, especially if you consider that ARVN units suck compared to NVA and that the NVN gains commitment every turn no matter what the Free World does.
This means that doing three offensives I can basically force US withdrawl to start in 1968! This is based on a solid US build up of 25 commitment per seasonal turn where 150 nets you 6 US divisions, 1 US brigade, some Free World, and 12 ARVN (5-6 augmented). Once the US hits 150 commitment the NVN player will get 25 an up commitment. That means every half year I launch an offensive and have 4 new NVA divisions to do it with. No way the Free World player can ever win. I bet if you programed the AI to just build NVA units and launch a full offensive every 9 months once US commitment hits 150 the AI would win every game.
For the above air attack tests air loses out to AA in a single turn when done at anything less than 2 to 1. At 2 to 1 the air unit is usually destroyed in 3 or 4 turns unless you reinforce. Only at 3 to 1 does air end up destroying the AA unit. I did this with both majority A-4 and majority B52.
On the bombardment tests the AA units rarely take any damage. After all you are attacking the location and not the unit. On bombardments of less than 2 to 1 the air units took more damage. Not sure why this was the case unless the bombardment supresses the defender. On 3 to 1 the location always was destroyed (1000 points). On 2 to 1 it was destroyed in 2 out of 3 tests. At under 2 to 1 it was never destroyed. But even with 3 to 1 ratio's I still suffered a couple of lost planes during the three tests.
I also conducted bombardments against a HQ unit with 2x37mm and 4 to 6 dual AA. My 3 planes had 2 losses and 1 retreat. Using 9 planes (a full 1 point commitment) destroyed the location but suffered a plane loss in one test and 2 planes in another test run.
I then decided to compare how planes do against a VC batallion and a NVA regiment. I used 6 A4's and 3 B52's against 2 units of 175mm artillery. Both were worth 1 commitment. In all cases the artillery did much better. I even tried changing it to 9 A4's and 9 B52's, but the artillery was still much better at killing and forcing retreats. All tests were in jungle, hills or forested hills. I did not try urban, cultivated or mountain but I really doubt it would have mattered.
So my conclusions are that a comitment in US air is a bad idea. You eventually lose the unit. Artillery (175mm) does much more damage. Also, air vs. AA is too weak. I can see air retreating but unless you have 3 to 1 advantages you lose the air unit. In looking at the real war there were just 17 B52's shot down by enemy action during the entire war. Ten were lost to SAM's during Linbacker II. Looking at all fixed wing aircraft there were just over 1600 lost during the whole war. But they flew over 5 million sorites which translates to .4 losses per 1000 sorties. Anyway you look at it the game has way too high air plane losses.
I'm not sure what the right answer should be. There needs to be a balance of commitment costs, damage done and losses. But I'm convinced that the air losses are too high when compared to historical losses, commitment ratios, and compared to damage done. Maybe the answer is to cause the air unit to retreat much more often and not be shot down.
EDIT: I'm not afraid of losing interest at all. When the scenario is balance and finished I think it will offer many replays. The thing I loved about the boardgame was that you could do it over and over and never use the same strategy. Besides I think this scenario has some great potential to fill a niche that the whole industry has missed. To that event I plan on devoting much more time to it and eventually even trying to code a US AI variant. (If you don't and you don't mind).
EDIT2: I also did a test where I declared an offensive as NVN player. I played it where the NVN player ran away and dispersed units to avoid combat as much as possible. Now to speed things up I wen big super fast to get to 150 US commitment. But I tried to compensate and held back lots of NVN units (3 full NVA divisions) to balance out the excess commitment received. I then attacked all over the place and even did a few suicide attacks. There were 922 PP kills which resulted in -15 to US morale. I think this was way too high, especially if you consider that ARVN units suck compared to NVA and that the NVN gains commitment every turn no matter what the Free World does.
This means that doing three offensives I can basically force US withdrawl to start in 1968! This is based on a solid US build up of 25 commitment per seasonal turn where 150 nets you 6 US divisions, 1 US brigade, some Free World, and 12 ARVN (5-6 augmented). Once the US hits 150 commitment the NVN player will get 25 an up commitment. That means every half year I launch an offensive and have 4 new NVA divisions to do it with. No way the Free World player can ever win. I bet if you programed the AI to just build NVA units and launch a full offensive every 9 months once US commitment hits 150 the AI would win every game.
RE: Victory Games Vietnam
Goodmongo. There are other things you get for purchasing airpoints instead of artillery. Flexibility, addional functionality, recon, defensive air support points, forcing your opponent to purchase single use units etc. Air units are also better att destroying enemy tanks, artillery and APC than artillery. You cannot just compare combat values. Also Air units do not suffer the experience loss that US ground troops have. So those that survive will eventually have a much better experience rating and the kill/loss ratio will become better and better.
I am not saying that there couldnt be any adjustments made. But i think you are a little singleminded here. And i think testing with ratios like 2-1 is pointless because thats way to low to attack if you play the normal ATG game and its way to low here.
Anyway. There is a tool in ATG for doing combat simulations. Basicly the computer does an attack 200 times and shows the results. I did an 3-1 attack (9 points of air against two air defense regiment).
_________________________________
Here are the results
We did 200 simulations. and these are averages:
COMBAT OUTCOME:
Attack succeeded: 3
Standoff: 0
Attack failed: 197
DEFENDER AVERAGES:
*Engineer:
Death: 2.345
Retreat: 2.3
Live: 15.355
Rdn: 85.1155
Mor: 48.93375
*75mm AA Gun:
Death: 1.865
Retreat: 1.475
Live: 0.66
Rdn: 53.96
Mor: 46.3025
*85mm AA Gun:
Death: 1.745
Retreat: 1.69
Live: 0.565
Rdn: 52.09625
Mor: 46.11625
*Truck:
Death: 2.79
Retreat: 2.425
Live: 0.785
Rdn: 51.35917
Mor: 46.07833
ATTACKER AVERAGES:
*A-4 Skyhawk:
Death: 1.02
Retreat: 10.815
Live: 0.165
Rdn: 79.53416
Mor: 47.95042
*B-52 Stratofortress (late):
Death: 0.95
Retreat: 13.83
Live: 0.22
Rdn: 83.91734
Mor: 48.801
Structural Damage = 547.315
______________________________
Now that is on average 3,6 of the 4 flak casualties for 1,97 of the aircraft. Since the 4 flak represents 3 commitment its almost a 3 commitment loss (say 2 commitment because you get to keep some engineers and trucks). That is compared to less than 0,66 of commitment loss for the attacker.
EDIT. Actually i miscalculated since there are actuálly four of each AA in the units. So it would be 3,6 of 8 flak. or ca 1,4-5 commitment against 0,66 commitment.
I am not saying that there couldnt be any adjustments made. But i think you are a little singleminded here. And i think testing with ratios like 2-1 is pointless because thats way to low to attack if you play the normal ATG game and its way to low here.
Anyway. There is a tool in ATG for doing combat simulations. Basicly the computer does an attack 200 times and shows the results. I did an 3-1 attack (9 points of air against two air defense regiment).
_________________________________
Here are the results
We did 200 simulations. and these are averages:
COMBAT OUTCOME:
Attack succeeded: 3
Standoff: 0
Attack failed: 197
DEFENDER AVERAGES:
*Engineer:
Death: 2.345
Retreat: 2.3
Live: 15.355
Rdn: 85.1155
Mor: 48.93375
*75mm AA Gun:
Death: 1.865
Retreat: 1.475
Live: 0.66
Rdn: 53.96
Mor: 46.3025
*85mm AA Gun:
Death: 1.745
Retreat: 1.69
Live: 0.565
Rdn: 52.09625
Mor: 46.11625
*Truck:
Death: 2.79
Retreat: 2.425
Live: 0.785
Rdn: 51.35917
Mor: 46.07833
ATTACKER AVERAGES:
*A-4 Skyhawk:
Death: 1.02
Retreat: 10.815
Live: 0.165
Rdn: 79.53416
Mor: 47.95042
*B-52 Stratofortress (late):
Death: 0.95
Retreat: 13.83
Live: 0.22
Rdn: 83.91734
Mor: 48.801
Structural Damage = 547.315
______________________________
Now that is on average 3,6 of the 4 flak casualties for 1,97 of the aircraft. Since the 4 flak represents 3 commitment its almost a 3 commitment loss (say 2 commitment because you get to keep some engineers and trucks). That is compared to less than 0,66 of commitment loss for the attacker.
EDIT. Actually i miscalculated since there are actuálly four of each AA in the units. So it would be 3,6 of 8 flak. or ca 1,4-5 commitment against 0,66 commitment.
My Advanced Tactics Mod page
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com
30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com
30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G
RE: Victory Games Vietnam
Here is the result from attacking AA in a provincial capitol (urban terrain)
We did 200 simulations. and these are averages:
COMBAT OUTCOME:
Attack succeeded: 7
Standoff: 0
Attack failed: 193
DEFENDER AVERAGES:
*Engineer:
Death: 2.81
Retreat: 2.17
Live: 15.02
Rdn: 84.6245
Mor: 48.88075
*75mm AA Gun:
Death: 1.8
Retreat: 1.575
Live: 0.625
Rdn: 51.21625
Mor: 46.065
*85mm AA Gun:
Death: 1.755
Retreat: 1.535
Live: 0.71
Rdn: 53.71875
Mor: 46.28
*Truck:
Death: 2.75
Retreat: 2.435
Live: 0.815
Rdn: 51.68583
Mor: 46.06833
ATTACKER AVERAGES:
*A-4 Skyhawk:
Death: 1.015
Retreat: 10.585
Live: 0.4
Rdn: 80.44041
Mor: 48.06375
*B-52 Stratofortress (late):
Death: 0.925
Retreat: 13.57
Live: 0.505
Rdn: 84.15967
Mor: 48.64267
Structural Damage = 551.605
We did 200 simulations. and these are averages:
COMBAT OUTCOME:
Attack succeeded: 7
Standoff: 0
Attack failed: 193
DEFENDER AVERAGES:
*Engineer:
Death: 2.81
Retreat: 2.17
Live: 15.02
Rdn: 84.6245
Mor: 48.88075
*75mm AA Gun:
Death: 1.8
Retreat: 1.575
Live: 0.625
Rdn: 51.21625
Mor: 46.065
*85mm AA Gun:
Death: 1.755
Retreat: 1.535
Live: 0.71
Rdn: 53.71875
Mor: 46.28
*Truck:
Death: 2.75
Retreat: 2.435
Live: 0.815
Rdn: 51.68583
Mor: 46.06833
ATTACKER AVERAGES:
*A-4 Skyhawk:
Death: 1.015
Retreat: 10.585
Live: 0.4
Rdn: 80.44041
Mor: 48.06375
*B-52 Stratofortress (late):
Death: 0.925
Retreat: 13.57
Live: 0.505
Rdn: 84.15967
Mor: 48.64267
Structural Damage = 551.605
My Advanced Tactics Mod page
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com
30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com
30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G
RE: Victory Games Vietnam
I actually read the calculations wrong since there are a total of 8 AA units not 4 in the units. So 3,6 flak would be something like 1,35 commitment losses against the US 0,66 commitment losses.
My Advanced Tactics Mod page
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com
30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com
30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G
RE: Victory Games Vietnam
And here are the values for a 4-1 attack (12 commitment vs 3). This is probably what i would advocate using as a minimum in the game if you dont want to wear out your aircraft too soon.
We did 200 simulations. and these are averages:
COMBAT OUTCOME:
Attack succeeded: 196
Standoff: 0
Attack failed: 4
DEFENDER AVERAGES:
*Engineer:
Death: 13.48
Retreat: 6.485
Live: 0.035
Rdn: 45.52225
Mor: 44.882
*75mm AA Gun:
Death: 2.23
Retreat: 1.77
Live: 0
Rdn: 45.2075
Mor: 45.10875
*85mm AA Gun:
Death: 2.365
Retreat: 1.635
Live: 0
Rdn: 47.04125
Mor: 45.325
*Truck:
Death: 3.58
Retreat: 2.42
Live: 0
Rdn: 46.28833
Mor: 45.15083
ATTACKER AVERAGES:
*A-4 Skyhawk:
Death: 0.415
Retreat: 0.83
Live: 19.755
Rdn: 94.32452
Mor: 49.68428
*B-52 Stratofortress (late):
Death: 0.495
Retreat: 1.205
Live: 31.3
Rdn: 95.05878
Mor: 49.72273
Structural Damage = 1227.77
We did 200 simulations. and these are averages:
COMBAT OUTCOME:
Attack succeeded: 196
Standoff: 0
Attack failed: 4
DEFENDER AVERAGES:
*Engineer:
Death: 13.48
Retreat: 6.485
Live: 0.035
Rdn: 45.52225
Mor: 44.882
*75mm AA Gun:
Death: 2.23
Retreat: 1.77
Live: 0
Rdn: 45.2075
Mor: 45.10875
*85mm AA Gun:
Death: 2.365
Retreat: 1.635
Live: 0
Rdn: 47.04125
Mor: 45.325
*Truck:
Death: 3.58
Retreat: 2.42
Live: 0
Rdn: 46.28833
Mor: 45.15083
ATTACKER AVERAGES:
*A-4 Skyhawk:
Death: 0.415
Retreat: 0.83
Live: 19.755
Rdn: 94.32452
Mor: 49.68428
*B-52 Stratofortress (late):
Death: 0.495
Retreat: 1.205
Live: 31.3
Rdn: 95.05878
Mor: 49.72273
Structural Damage = 1227.77
My Advanced Tactics Mod page
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com
30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com
30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G
RE: Victory Games Vietnam
As for the offensive thing. 15 morale loss is actually pretty good numbers for the Free World player. There is a boardgamesession on the boardgamegeek where an inexperienced Communist player caused a 33 point drop in morale during his offensive. That being said there could be a valid concern that offensives could be too powerfull and if playing them every season is a good strategy then its obviously so. I know some boardgamers had restrictions on how many offensivs you could play during a game. But again i think that it has to bee tested more before coming to any conclusions. Also i guess it depends on what happens to the NVA/NLF troops that attack. If you burn out all your forces during the offensive then obviously buying a new one next season migh be less good since you will not have any units to use in the new offensive. NVA units are pretty expensive.
My Advanced Tactics Mod page
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com
30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com
30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G
RE: Victory Games Vietnam
Hey Grymme. I actually spent the last hour or so searching my storage for my old Vietnam game. I found it and will read the rules over once again. I'll back off on both the offensive and air issues for now. After reading through the boardgame rules I'll be more refreshed in how air was used in the game, its relavant power and why in the game you went for 20-25 commitment in air power.
One other thing that I'll be paying close attention to is the relative combat power of the different forces.
One other thing that I'll be paying close attention to is the relative combat power of the different forces.
RE: Victory Games Vietnam
I was reviewing the morale impacts and I think some adjustments are needed. First off offensives by the NVN forces. It costs 10 commitment as you have but the amount of US morale losses are much lower then what you have. As you are probably aware it is -4 morale for 26-30 NLF attacks with -1 for each 3 attacks abouve that. For the boardgame a high amount would be a morale drop of -7 with a more reasonable drop of -3 or -4 (up to 30 attacks which is alot). So I really think this needs to be adjusted as a strong NVN attack can kill 1500 PP. So maybe a -1 for every 250 PP?
On the US side it works differently. You get nothing for 29 battalions and then -1 for the 30th and -1 more for every fifth after that. So its a high threshold but a rapid rise after that. Not sure what 30 battalions equate in PP but let's assume that it's 1200 PP (40 PP per battalion). The US morale should then be +1 for 1200 PP and + 1 more for every 200 additional PP above 1200. This formula would more closely match the manual. Of course if a battalion is more than 40 PP the numbers should be adjust accordingly.
One last tidbit. I know that you have the VC companies to represent the political sections. The problem is that the VC companies you use are pretty strong. The political sections are destroyed without a fight. I know the tradeoff is in the game you have no clue if the unit is a battalion, regiment or political section. So you have to attack accordingly. What I'm saying is that a full battalion attacking a VC company will suffer losses and still not destroy it. I think this is wrong. Heck an entrenched VC company in a mountain hex held out against two ARVN battalions attacking it. I think you should reduce these to 5 soldiers and no support and give the NVN player the 4 units that the game has. It would still take a battalion (or regiment if thats you force size) to attack and defeat it but at least the Free World side wouldn't be wasting precious replacements and commitment against a unit that should never have caused any losses.
On the US side it works differently. You get nothing for 29 battalions and then -1 for the 30th and -1 more for every fifth after that. So its a high threshold but a rapid rise after that. Not sure what 30 battalions equate in PP but let's assume that it's 1200 PP (40 PP per battalion). The US morale should then be +1 for 1200 PP and + 1 more for every 200 additional PP above 1200. This formula would more closely match the manual. Of course if a battalion is more than 40 PP the numbers should be adjust accordingly.
One last tidbit. I know that you have the VC companies to represent the political sections. The problem is that the VC companies you use are pretty strong. The political sections are destroyed without a fight. I know the tradeoff is in the game you have no clue if the unit is a battalion, regiment or political section. So you have to attack accordingly. What I'm saying is that a full battalion attacking a VC company will suffer losses and still not destroy it. I think this is wrong. Heck an entrenched VC company in a mountain hex held out against two ARVN battalions attacking it. I think you should reduce these to 5 soldiers and no support and give the NVN player the 4 units that the game has. It would still take a battalion (or regiment if thats you force size) to attack and defeat it but at least the Free World side wouldn't be wasting precious replacements and commitment against a unit that should never have caused any losses.