Ya. Can see it now on another computer.
Rules for mobilizating new units
Narvik last edited by
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. Â 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