Victory Games Vietnam

[Goodmongo]

Grymme did you make any big changes to NVN combat? I was playing with version 223 and it is way different then the last version I played (220?). Is that due to battlestack rules for ATG?

[Grymme]

ORIGINAL: Goodmongo

Grymme did you make any big changes to NVN combat? I was playing with version 223 and it is way different then the last version I played (220?). Is that due to battlestack rules for ATG?

Goodmongo. You cannot continue to lie and spew rants about how miserable my scenario has failed in other threads and realisticly hope to get polite answers to your questions in this one. And may i add that your verbal garbage rings particularly hollow considering that its only been a week or so since you were practicly begging me for the code to my scenario and that you have yet to deliver a single scenario of your own to the community.

Cant you just leave me and my scenarios alone and do your own thing.

[Goodmongo]

ORIGINAL: Grymme

ORIGINAL: Goodmongo

Grymme did you make any big changes to NVN combat? I was playing with version 223 and it is way different then the last version I played (220?). Is that due to battlestack rules for ATG?

Goodmongo. You cannot continue to lie and spew rants about how miserable my scenario has failed in other threads and realisticly hope to get polite answers to your questions in this one. And may i add that your verbal garbage rings particularly hollow considering that its only been a week or so since you were practicly begging me for the code to my scenario and that you have yet to deliver a single scenario of your own to the community.

Cant you just leave me and my scenarios alone and do your own thing.

So I'm asking if something changed and I get this? If something changed then I'll change what I'm saying. If you did make a big change (which I think you might have), then doesn't that show your first attempts weren't balanced? There is NOTHING wrong with initial attempts not being balanced if they are corrected. In fact that is a GOOD thing. That is how TESTING works.

Take for example your changes to US air range. Basing the B-52's on the offshore base is a GOOD thing. You were all pissed off at me for even mentioning it but it resulted in an improvment. Why do you have such a thin skin and take everything so personally?

I did ask for access to the code. What is wrong with that? If I wanted to try out something different is that such an offense to do? Isn't that how the Global Domination scenario works?

Does this help? [&o]

[Grymme]

ORIGINAL: Goodmongo

ORIGINAL: Grymme

ORIGINAL: Goodmongo

Grymme did you make any big changes to NVN combat? I was playing with version 223 and it is way different then the last version I played (220?). Is that due to battlestack rules for ATG?

Goodmongo. You cannot continue to lie and spew rants about how miserable my scenario has failed in other threads and realisticly hope to get polite answers to your questions in this one. And may i add that your verbal garbage rings particularly hollow considering that its only been a week or so since you were practicly begging me for the code to my scenario and that you have yet to deliver a single scenario of your own to the community.

Cant you just leave me and my scenarios alone and do your own thing.

So I'm asking if something changed and I get this? If something changed then I'll change what I'm saying. If you did make a big change (which I think you might have), then doesn't that show your first attempts weren't balanced? There is NOTHING wrong with initial attempts not being balanced if they are corrected. In fact that is a GOOD thing. That is how TESTING works.

Take for example your changes to US air range. Basing the B-52's on the offshore base is a GOOD thing. You were all pissed off at me for even mentioning it but it resulted in an improvment. Why do you have such a thin skin and take everything so personally?

I did ask for access to the code. What is wrong with that? If I wanted to try out something different is that such an offense to do? Isn't that how the Global Domination scenario works?

Does this help? [&o]

The fact that you had criticism against my scenario was never the point in the beginning. I can take criticism. If you go back and read this thread you will even se me posting that i was going to consider your opinions (even when you were being really annoying). Its the way you do it that irritates me. Saying the VC are supermen, critizising another players style of play, starting a mock AAR, offering money to people, saying the scenario is basicly unplayable, lying about the scenario, starting your own mod thread where you continually refer to how bad my scenario is and how yours will be much better.

I have repeteadly asked you to stop with this behaviour as politely as possible. It should be possible for you to have a presence here and work on whatever project you like without it feeding of me and my projects. Right?

[Goodmongo]

Ok whatever.  Bottom line is that it looks like you took my advice/recommendations and changed the balance of units which is for the good.  And it seems you also made further changes to air power which is good.
 
You might consider an idea about ineffective ARVN units.  You previously said that you didn't really want to change their readiness.  What you can do is to add a SFT to the unit that has 0 AP.  Then using rule variable 518 prohibit the US side from removing it.  After each turn just remove the SFT and add to the new ineffective units.

[Goodmongo]

People reading this thread know that I've been critical of this scenario for a number of reasons.  I think the bigggest issue and the one that caused the most friction was me saying that VC units were supermen and OP.  I did tons of testing and for previous versions I stood by that assesment.
 
My goal is not to bash but being too blunt it probably sounded that way.  It was to point out what I thought was right or wrong.  And I have always tried to be honest in my opinion and analysis.
 
So last night I loaded up the latest version (223) of the grand campaign scenario and conducted a number of tests.  I could not conduct every single test that I wanted to try but did a large number of them.  Here are the results.
 
Whatever was changed or done has fixed the VC balance issue.  I do not claim that I am some God type person when it comes to AT/ATG rules and gameplay.  Heck I've had the game for less than a month now.  So I'm not sure what or how the changes were made.  It might be due to battlestack rules or changes in the units or defense bonuses, or maybe a number of things.  But something drastic did change.  The comabt in my opinion is 1000% better.  In a human vs. human game you will no longer see one side completely destroying whole divisons on the first turn or capturing Saigon.
 
Even if playing as the NVN player you wait till turn 4 (seasonal turn 2) and create around 200 VC battalions you can't just place them, attack and place more to attack again eventually winning all the fights.  The number of attacking units needed to win has increased.  No more simplely surrounding a hex and conducting a 1-1 attack with all defenders being destroyed.  The game now requires a strategy and thought process.
 
These are great changes and have improved the game many fold.  I know that Grymme and I have gotten into it here.  But I aslo want to point out when what I was saying is no longer valid.  BTW this is my opinion only.  You the player don't need my stamp of approval.  My opinion is worth what it costs.  Nothing.  You were always the ones that needed to make your own judgements on the game.  And you still need to do that.  All I ever really wanted to accomplish was to test out the game and report my findings.  And right now those findings are a game that has resolved a number of issues that I felt was holding it back.  I also noticed other changes that resolves other issuess that I had or at least greatly diminished them.
 
So for whatever it's worth this version (223) is a big improvement over the previous ones and if you haven't tried it out yet, you may want to now.

[Rosseau]

Not to be an idiot, but on Grymme's site, I downloaded "1965 to 1975...v2.23.

I guess the larger file "Battles for South Vietnam v2.22" is different scenario/campaign?

thanks

[Grymme]

Rosseau; Its ok to be confused. My own AT folder confuses me a lot sometimes.

I moved all the VG vietnam series files to a special folder on my skydrive. It currently contains

- 1965-1975 the battle for South Vietnam v223 (this is the main grand campaign file, donationware)
- Battle for I Corps v2 (smaller freebie scenario, AT-zipform)
- Battle for South Vietnam v222 (Atzip file) this contains the graphics etc you need to play all the scenarios including the grand campaign, it also contains an older version v222 of the grand campaign)
- Battle for Vietnam - 1 year trial version - (this is a freebie scenario that plays exactly like the grand campaign except that it only lasts one year of ten)
- Easter Offensive v22 (full map scenario, donationware)
- Tet Offensive Campaign start (Campaign scenario starting in 1968, donationware)
- War Zone C (smaller freebie scenario in atzip form).
- Scenario briefing.

Basicly what you need to play the grand campaign is the atzipfile and the scenario file.

Also there is an much older Vietnam scenario (freebie) not to be confused with these scenarios. But its located outside the VG Vietnam folder.

Hope this clears it up for you.

[Gresbeck]

Grymme, I've the impression that when deploying a combat unit in a hex containing a hq, the newly deployed unit is automatically reassigned to the hq located in the hex of deployment, even when the combat unit has a parent division hq, deployed together with the combat unit. The result is that I find the division hq empty, and the other on map hq (f.e. the MACV HQ in Saigon) overstacked. Each time I have to reassign the combat unit hq manually, which is rather annoying, and probably costs readiness. Bug or am I missing something? Thanks in advance.

[Grymme]

ORIGINAL: Gresbeck

Grymme, I've the impression that when deploying a combat unit in a hex containing a hq, the newly deployed unit is automatically reassigned to the hq located in the hex of deployment, even when the combat unit has a parent division hq, deployed together with the combat unit. The result is that I find the division hq empty, and the other on map hq (f.e. the MACV HQ in Saigon) overstacked. Each time I have to reassign the combat unit hq manually, which is rather annoying, and probably costs readiness. Bug or am I missing something? Thanks in advance.

No, that is unfortunatly true. I havent found a way coding around that - although there probably is. The most common issue is with deploying units in Saigon where the MACW HQ is and when deploying the Marine Divisions. A workaround is moving the HQ one hex away, deploy the Units you want one at a time and move them away immediatly, then move the HQ back to the hex. As for the Marine Divisions there isnt a workaround - those battalions just will have to be reassigned to their parent HQ manually. I did reduce the penalty for changing HQ down to -10% only.

[Goodmongo]

In a recent game using version 223 against the AI I noticed that the NVN AI had a total of 178 trail and 222 sea supply not used. The game crashes soon thereafter. I think there might be a bug where the VC supply is not being reduced because I actually saw sea supply increase in a non seasonal turn. BTW sea supply went up from 114 to 222 even after placing about 30 battalions and 3 HQ's along the coast.

[Goodmongo]

I think I found two bugs. The first one is that when ARVN supply is down to two you are not allowed to build ARVN regiments which cost two supply. You can build 3 battalions but not the regiments.

The second bug happens vs. the AI. The VC supply is not being reduced. This may just be a reporting error but I can't tell. On the first game turn the VC supply is 64 trail and 26 sea (90 total). As the US I built no troops (only the ARVN from their supply). After the NVN AI went they built lots of VC units but the displayed supply stayed the same. At the next seasonal turn it was 91-36 even after building more VC troops. So something is wrong. Just not sure if it's only the display of supply or the actual supply that the NVN can use.

The above is using the latest version 223 of the grand scenario.

[Grymme]

The Communist AI thing is a reporting error. The AI doesnt differentiate between trail supply and sea supply so the black reporting boxes were not being updated.

This issue and the ARVN regiment thing will be fixed in 224.

I have slowly started on my final Vietnam War scenario "The fall of Saigon". I have also started a little on some other planned projects, i am thinking of a huge company level Market Garden scenario.

[Keunert]

good news!

[lion_of_judah]

now I'm looking forward to this new one " Fall of Saigon". i remember reading but cannot remember which book where the new President of South Vietnam wanted a cease-fire and hold onto the area of Saigon and south but this was rejected. maybe make a event where the U.S. threatend another bombing as in 1972 of Hanoi if the North did not accept this. that would be a very hypothetical but interesting at least in my opinion but just a thought.

[Grymme]

A short update.

I am almost finished with the "Fall of South Vietnam scenario". It will be pretty similar to the Easter Offensive scenario. 5-7 months long (havent decided yet). And it will come with semihistorical setup and the option to choose a free/semi-free setup for either side.

That would mean 4 different play modes
1) Both sides have historical starting positions
2) Free World has historical setup. Communist side has a semi-free setup.
3) Communist side has historical setup. Free World side has free setup.
4) Both sides have free/semi-free setup.

I have also implemented (at least on my computer) a cool system graphics change that makes counters a little more boardgamey. You have to look closely to see it, but i think it looks kind of cool.

Screenshot shows Kontum province. Historical setup.

I am getting ready to leave this series of mods now. Will update with bugs and possible minor changes, but the bulk of the work is done. Have started on a 200*60 hexes Market Garden map.

[Grymme]

Uploaded v224 of the grand campaign and v16 of the tet offensive grand campaign start.

Basicly its just fixing the two issues that Goodmongo pointed out and another similar issue for one of the ARVN artillery units.

I also packaged v224 of the Grand Campaign scenario as an ATzipfile.

Having some trouble with the Fall of South Vietnam scenario since it seem to contain a gamebreaking bug that i cannot get rid of. An early beta version of that scenario has been uploaded also, but that is mostly for testing purposes.

[Grymme]

I have uploaded a somewhat finished version of the sixth and last scenario in the VG:s Vietnam series.

The fall of South Vietnam (v10). This scenario is included in the VG vietnam Bundle.

This is a 7 round long scenario covering the final NVA offensive against South Vietnam beginning in january 1975 and ending at the start of july 1975.

All US ground units have left the war and both the NVA and ARVN is augmented with tanks and mechanized units.

I have also updated and uploaded a new version of the Briefing to include this scenario. There might still be some gamebugs in this version caused by ATG but theese should be fixed by Vic uploading v210 of ATG in a week or so. I have at least played historical setup against communist AI without any bugs.

Apart from bug fixes and the odd feature improvment this concludes my work on this series of scenarios. There are actually a number of people who have this, so it would be interesting to see some human vs human play.

[jomni]

What happened to grymme?  I contacted him because I want to obtain his scenarios and he hasn't replied yet.

[Jeffrey H.]

I think he's still "around" prolly busy since the new DC series will be similar to one of his scenarios, I'm sure he's involved somehow.