Vietnam war

@unrealius

Update:

The communication problem with Kickstarter has been resolved. Out of desperation I re-registered as a complete newbie and then everything worked properly. Kickstarter even recognized my backing of this project. Considering I had been getting Eric’s email updates this seems strange but it worked. It looks like some other backers may have had the same experience.

A big shout out to GEN MANSTEIN for offering to help! Thankfully it is resolved and good to go.

@barnee said in Hey Eric, we going to get our game or what?:

he already spent all our money in china. Were fckd

Ya him and Hunter went out to a business dinner.

Ya. Can see it now on another computer.

@crsluggo Why would you still defend him, in any event. You still don’t know what the product is, there are only limited ways to make something for a certain amount of money and time–much less a quality product. He may still deliver; what is delivered in that case is the question. I don’t know what will or will not happen, but he has my money–and I was a fool to give it to him. Whatever process has taken place, if it produces a quality game with the minis promised and playable rules, I’ll eat my hat.

He’s an endless stream of talk. If that generates work and money from thin air and beyond all reasonable explanations, it wont be the first time–and like I said–I dont predict the future only the past.

I cant find anything yet about how purchasing and mobilization of new units work. Only some combat examples, at Kickstarter and BGG. So, I am watching this documentary about the war in Nam, and have come to 1965, so my assumptions could be wrong. But fact is, the military advisors that have been asked so far, claim that the main problem was, that if you killed one enemy communist, then that one enemy would be replaced. But, and this is vital, if you killed one innocent, then 10 new people would join Viet Cong. To me this look like a zombie apocalypse. Kill one enemy unit, and your opponent can mobilize one new unit. But burn a civillian village and your opponent can mobilize 10 new units. Is this taken care of in the Rulebook ? Because about the Vietcong unit, it says on Kickstarter that its ability were to ambush, disperse, evade and control the rural population, and that this ability is what forced USA to keep sending units, and finally lose the war. This is wrong, it was the killing of innocents that turned people to join VC and then the growth of VC forced USA to keep sending troops.

I believe this case should be covered in the game mechanic. If one or more Red units is in a territory, you should have several options. You can bomb that territory and automatically kill every units in it, but then the Red team can mobilize 10 new Red units for each casualty, like you kill 2 Red units by bombing, and the Red mobilize 20 new units. Or, you can target the Red unit, but with low odds, like a 1 on a 6D is a hit. But if you succeed and roll a 1, and that one Red unit is killed, the Red team can not replace it. So basically carpet bombing is very efficient on the battlefield, but with huge backfire in the long run. Targeting is difficult and takes a lot of work, but it pays off in the long run.
�

The typical VC strategy was to let a VC sniper fire from an innocent village. If he hit anything or killed any US troops was not important. Then ARVN and US troops would always respond by burning that innocent village down. Then the surviving families and neighbors of that ruined village would join VC. It was basically this VC purchase and mobilize new units strategy that made USA lose the war, because we kept responding with wrong strategy. We should have targeted that VC sniper, not the entire population.  Its like when a brown-haired person steal a car, you dont hang every brown-haired persons in that neighborhood, because that is not justice, but it is a sure way to turn every brown-haired persons of the entire world against you. You can do it if you are Hitler and want to ethnically cleanse the world from brown-haired people, but if you do it by accident, like the leaders did back in the -60ies, and you dont have any strategies to deal with it, then you lose

Hi all,

I received some good advice here on A&A.org that I should remind anyone that’s interested that The War in Vietnam has been funded and WILL be made. If you’d like to make sure you get a copy, the kickstarter campaign is going to run for another few days only (ends Saturday).

As I say, the game is funded and is going to be produced, but kickstarter is the only chance to pledge for a copy if you want one. Here is the link:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1523186582/vietnam-war-miniatures-axis-and-allies-type-wargam?ref=discovery&term=The War in Vietnam

Eric

Narvik,

Sorry, I missed your post here.

As to the scope, either version would be essentially strategic. A central Europe setting would just be a bigger map of Germany and peripheral countries. Most of the fighting would be in West Germany and neighboring countries, so the map would segment central Europe into the same number of spaces as the other alternative, but for that reason the game would approach more of an operational level, you’re right.

That said, the polling seems clear that people want the other version, so that may answer that!

:-D

Yes, thank you Narvik, and thanks for your participation and discussion here on A&A.org.

As a gamer myself, I am just truly excited at the opportunity to deliver a totally perfect and handsome game with the best components.

I look at some of the Hasbro game pieces of the past, and I keep thinking how we can make better-looking and accurate game pieces, and we now get to do that!

Eric  :-D