Airborne Assualt: Vietnam

[Fallschirmjager]

I wish Panther would give a long hard look at adopting this engine for use in the Vietnam war.
The Pacific idea does not excite me at all, and frankly WW2 has been picked to death for the last 7-8 years. It is getting a bit stale.
Vietnam would be a fresh new are for the series and to me at least, the engine is perfect for use with Vietnam battle.
Ia Drang, Khe Sahn, Tet, assaults on SF camps, fictional battles in Laos and Cambodia, Hue, etc
Wargaming nirvana

If only it would come to pass

[wodin]

Well though there are loads of WW2 games out there very few are good and non as good as this engine.

I really looking forward to CoTA far more than I did for HTTR. There are loads of battle's in WW2 that havent been covered much.

I'd like to see this engine for WW1 and also at squad/platoon level.

PAcific and Vietnam dont hold uch interest for me. Also I'd imagine Vietnam more suited to Platoon/squad sized games.

[sterckxe]

Hi,

The Panther engine is basically a conventional ground warfare engine with the air aspects highly abstracted, ideal to simulate operational combat on the battalion and regimental level with companies as smallest units and with a grand maximum of about 2 divisions on each side.

Vietnam was basically an endless series of platoon level engagements with air-mobility and air-power being crucial. Ia Drang was a btl with unlimited airpower vs. an NVA division - a bad fit for the engine. Actually, every engagement bar the Tet-offensive is a bad match, and that one was a crushing NVA military defeat turned into a pr victory. How on earth do you model that ?

Short : unless the engine is completely re-written I really can't see a game in there. Not saying that a serious Vietnam game might not make an interesting and fun game, just that the Panther engine isn't really suited for it.

I share your view that WWII is a bit overdone at the moment, but if the Panther engine is to look beyond it, it might be better to look at Korea or even a Nato vs Warsaw pact setting which are imho better matches.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[wodin]

WW2 had been swamped but we need to look at the games that have swamped the War. ((% are either arcade RTS games or FPS games.

Very few are decent wargames. SO many batles on the Esat Front that Id love to play out using this engine. Its a dream game.

CoTA I also feel is an excellent choice. Its a battle that hasnt been done to death and will feel new and interesting. Im not fussed about the bulge as that is a campaign that has been done and done to death. I like a game where the Germans are at their prime or they are starting their rtreat against the Soviets.

[Agema]

I think you need to ask what parts of WW2 have been swamped. There are plenty of large scale simulations where you can run the entire war or a whole theatre. There are zillions of squad-based games. After that, there are games that look at operations, Battle of the Bulge being an obvious example, some of which are swamped. I think there's still a huge amount of mileage in lesser-covered battles, which are just as good food for thought and, I'd imagine, for most wargamers unknown territory.

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: Agema

I think there's still a huge amount of mileage in lesser-covered battles, which are just as good food for thought and, I'd imagine, for most wargamers unknown territory.

Agree totally

[jrcar]

Why doesn't the Pacific exite you?

What is your expectation of a Pacific battle?

Cheers

Rob

[Fred98]

Due to the heavy going there isn't much in the way of manouver.

-

[Agema]

That's a good point. It's nice to play a game where there's cut and thrust. Substantially all those island hops were just tons of Japanese fortifications which had to be ground down. Covering the land battles from India to Singapore I think there's much better scope for fun.

[hank]

There are numerous battles on the Russo-German front.

- along the Dnepr - 1941
- from Orel to a hundred kilometer south of Kharkhov ... many many battles in this area from '41 to '43
- in 42/43 the area north, northwest and west of Stalingrad ... along the Aksay and Chu Rivers
- Cherkassy aka Korsun
- Leningrad and area around Lake Lagoda
- ... back through the dnepr river - Poland - etc during the collapse of the reich

- ... The crimea campaing by Manstein ... in fact any battles Manstein was involved it
- ... try a general's campaign - Manstein, Rauss, Balck, Hoth, Guderian, etc. etc.

... there's so much on the eastern front to use ... its mind boggling

Hank

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Agema

That's a good point. It's nice to play a game where there's cut and thrust. Substantially all those island hops were just tons of Japanese fortifications which had to be ground down. Covering the land battles from India to Singapore I think there's much better scope for fun.

India? There were grand total of two battles in India - Imphal and Kohima, both basically being suicidal assaults of undersupplied Japanese fanatical infantrymen, under command of mentally deranged commander. Hardly something attractive for a HTTR-like game.

I maintain (what I think I posted elsewhere) that Malay campaign would be the only semi-interesting campaign in the Pac theatre worth modelling in COTA/HTTR engine, and I won't personally be overly excited even by that one.

O.

[Fallschirmjager]

Vietnam was basically an endless series of platoon level engagements with

That could not be farther from the truth. If you wanted, you could break any war down into platoon to company sized firefights.

There are hundreds upon hundreds of batallion sized engagements and up, that you could model using the excellent infantry combat system.
Operations most of the time consisted of entire regiments or divisions over an area doing a varity of missions from search and destroy to defense of an outpost.
Only those who have a moments worth of study of the conflict would think it was a series of small firefights for 13 years.

I still contend the engine is perfect for Vietnam. Infantry combat is perfect. No offense to Panther but I think armour combat is the weakest part of the game and unless it gets an overhaul battles on the eastern front of involving large armour forces would be too abstracted for my taste.
The artillary model is also perfect and would translate right into Vietnam.
Air strikes would need some work but not much. Basicly all you would have to do is model different fligths of CSA with different weapon systems.
Helicopters would take some work also but could be done. They could simply act as APCs do now except they would ignore terrain and move at a much much higher pace. Gunships would act in this way except they would be armed.
You could get around the air mobility problem using two methods. First you could simply make helicopters like APCs are used now and make them part of a unit.
Or you could simply have units 'appear' on the map as they do in the current games.
The best way would be for helicopters to act like real helos. That is make them a seperate units capable of carrying units that they would drop off and then you could have the helos exit the map (sort of like the operational art of war games). But if that is too hard to model you could use either of the other two methods I mentioned.

But anyways, looks like im preaching to a uninterested group. Just a shame, finaly an engine that is capable of doing justice to the Vietnam war and there are no plans to use it for that conflict. Hopefully this won't stay grounded in WW2 forever. As I said before, im getting quite sick of the conflict and wish developers would branch out a little.

Saying that, im very excited for CotA and eagerily awaiting its arrivial. Don't take thois thread as criticisim of Panther. I am simply throwing out an idea for them to comment on.

[Hertston]

I think 3 WW2 games (including the original AA) is probably enough for the time being, too - although I'd certainly buy an Eastern Front game.

I agree Vietnam would suit the engine well enough if scenarios were carefully chosen, but my choice would be the `67 and `73 Arab-Israeli Wars.

[Bil H]

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

Infantry combat is perfect. No offense to Panther but I think armour combat is the weakest part of the game and unless it gets an overhaul battles on the eastern front of involving large armour forces would be too abstracted for my taste.

This is an interesting comment. I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning behind saying Armor combat is weak in this series, and then to turn around and say that the artillery model is perfect shows a lack of understanding as that aspect IMO is the weakest of all the combat arms represented (not including air support which is too abstract to get excited about either way) in the game.

Sound like uninformed conclusions to me. [&:]

This game is not perfect, but with each release it is going to get closer and closer to reality.

Re: a Vietnam game.. I agree with most here.. though there were indeed larger sized maneuvers in that war the interesting stuff happened at a lower level (Brigade and below, much better represented by a lower echelon game).

Don't worry, this series is not going to be stuck only in the WW2 period indefinitely. [;)]

Bil

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Bil H

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

Infantry combat is perfect. No offense to Panther but I think armour combat is the weakest part of the game and unless it gets an overhaul battles on the eastern front of involving large armour forces would be too abstracted for my taste.

This is an interesting comment. I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning behind saying Armor combat is weak in this series, and then to turn around and say that the artillery model is perfect shows a lack of understanding as that aspect IMO is the weakest of all the combat arms represented (not including air support which is too abstract to get excited about either way) in the game.

Sound like uninformed conclusions to me. [&:]

My thoughts exactly.

[jungelsj_slith]

ORIGINAL: Bil H
This is an interesting comment. I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning behind saying Armor combat is weak in this series, and then to turn around and say that the artillery model is perfect shows a lack of understanding as that aspect IMO is the weakest of all the combat arms represented (not including air support which is too abstract to get excited about either way) in the game.

I would have to agree with his original comment about armor. There may be a very detailed system running under the hood, but the way in which armor works in the game isn't very apparent to the player.

The armor that I've used in the game seems to get liquidated fairly quickly by means that I'm not totally aware of - which is another gripe I have with the system - I can't tell specifically what weapon systems are doing the killing and which ones are just making noise. As it is in the game right now, armor doesn't seem to be the valued asset that it was in real life. Armor + accompanying infantry in halftracks tends to be turned away very easily and I've never found a good use for them that's any different than regular infantry.

[Arjuna]

molotov_billy/Fallschirmjager,

Re Armour. Part of the problem in HTTR lies with the way armour reacts ( or doesn't ). There is a tendency for armour in HTTR to charge forward when it would be better to sit back and fire. We have overhauled this aspect of the game in COTA and I think you will find it more to your liking. In part it required use of a higher fidelity analysis of the terrain, which it now employs. As Bil says we know that the system is not perfect. No command simulation ever can be. But we are refining it with each release.

[Fallschirmjager]

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

ORIGINAL: Bil H
This is an interesting comment. I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning behind saying Armor combat is weak in this series, and then to turn around and say that the artillery model is perfect shows a lack of understanding as that aspect IMO is the weakest of all the combat arms represented (not including air support which is too abstract to get excited about either way) in the game.

I would have to agree with his original comment about armor. There may be a very detailed system running under the hood, but the way in which armor works in the game isn't very apparent to the player.

The armor that I've used in the game seems to get liquidated fairly quickly by means that I'm not totally aware of - which is another gripe I have with the system - I can't tell specifically what weapon systems are doing the killing and which ones are just making noise. As it is in the game right now, armor doesn't seem to be the valued asset that it was in real life. Armor + accompanying infantry in halftracks tends to be turned away very easily and I've never found a good use for them that's any different than regular infantry.

I could not have said it better myself. My comment may of been a little unfair. The model may be very good, but I can't really tell since it is so abstracted that I never know whats going on.
All I hear is sounds and then see 1 less vehicle. I never know why or how my unit died.
I know nothing about the armour pen model or the firepower model.
It seems to work more like horse mounted cavlary than anything else. It charges forward to come to gripes with the enemy. But if what your attacking is in a good defensive posistion your units die quickly.
It just does not act like real world armour. It would be much better served if it was to creep forward slowly and use its considerable firepower and range to pound away before again creeping forward.


But anyways, we are straying off topic. Maybe since Panther sees this thread they can comment in Vietnam...

[Fallschirmjager]

As for the artillary model. I find nothing wrong with it, it is one of the better models I have seen. The AI handles it very very well and since you can tell exactly what is going on it makes for a good experience.
Why do you think it is the weakest of everything represented?

[Agema]

I was never hugely convinced that the AI used long-range artillery well. I found it tended to pick on certain units and try to flatten them, but often not in conjunction with a direct assault. Thus I was often to be able to replace the unit with a fresher one at night with little trouble, thus keeping my perimeter secure.

As an example, a few times on the Arnhem historical game I'd take the rail bridge, and just leave a company with AT support covering it to stop German units sneaking through, reinforcing if a substantial assault was made. I found that the computer tended to have a militia unit or two around on the south bank doing very little, but would quite happily expend vast quantities of artillery ammunition pounding my company on the north bank. Meanwhile it would be throwing troops at me in Arnhem with mostly only local mortar support.

I did notice my tanks would occasionally stray a little close to infantry probably packing panzerfausts or whatever, but they mostly seemed to sit back and pound away which was fine by me.