Questions: Unit Ratings - Interface Issues

It is 1965 and the US ground war in Vietnam is in full swing. As a US Army commander, wage a counter-insurgency (COIN) war to secure the Ia Drang valley, on the border with Cambodia.
Post Reply
Jessee
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:38 pm

Questions: Unit Ratings - Interface Issues

Post by Jessee » Mon Mar 28, 2016 8:12 pm

Howdy,

I've played the game a half a dozen times now. Even when I set ambushes, my US units get wiped out, this starts a big downward spiral as political support depleted. Tried a couple of time on veteran and was crushed, seems a totally different game.

Overall, It's a very interesting game --- One I'm certainly not ready to give up on. In a number of ways it does not match my preconceptions, mostly with regard to unit ratings and functions.

Conducting a battalion sized operation (ala 'We were Soldiers Once') takes your entire force. The game seems to reward dispersing combat power to cover more villages, and if you disperse you die. It's a PITA to hit a minefield when moving the turn after clearing mines.

Perhaps should separate Green Berets from LURPs? Using two different units for the different functions. I suppose training ARVN is COIN function of the GB unit?

It seems to me the firepower of the US units is way too low. The integral heavy weapons of a US infantry company do not seem to be reflected, especially relative to more lightly armed VC, and the supply requirements for the US units. Moreover, artillery/airpower do not contribute to defense. Perhaps a bump when units defending within artillery range of base? Perhaps have separate heavy weapons units for NVA?

What's up with the PT-76 having an equivalent rating to an M-48 (a M-48 is a King Tiger, a PT-76 more like an M-3 Stuart)? PT-76's do not seem to disappear after combat, but seem to stick around.

How come airstrikes only every 5 turns? Air and artillery should dominate US offensive plans. Every turn availability?

What's with RPG's hitting choppers in transit? Makes sense near a DZ, but in flight away from combat?

How come NVA units don't require their own supply?

Why can't the engineer unit clear mines? Why can't the US set mines?

Does defending a base give units a bump in combat power?

The map seems to scroll well up and down, but poorly left and right. You can't use the intelligence map to shift the view around the battlefield, without losing a lock on a selected unit.

Kind regards,


Jessee

Every Single Soldier
Vietnam ’65 developer
Vietnam ’65 developer
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:40 pm

Re: Questions: Unit Ratings - Interface Issues

Post by Every Single Soldier » Mon Mar 28, 2016 8:35 pm

Firstly , I appreciate your detailed email, shows you have given the model a real 'going over' before commenting ...

In essence V65 is an abstract game leaning more to conceptual rather than purely historical accuracy, it was full of tough decisions to make it fun and engaging and at the same time relevant.

Most of the questions you raised have been covered in previous posts eg LRRP/GB , US firepower, air strikes etc.

Balancing this game was far harder than producing it and a bit of license was needed in order to keep it engaging, having said that, I am not sure why you are experiencing continual losses of your forces, the combat algorithm is weighted in favor of US forces (infantry) and you should experience a greater success in combat with the enemy than less ?

Engineers do clear mines, automatically in adjacent hexes ?

If airstrikes were available every turn , the balance would be totally skewed towards the US, and the US certainly did not have air asserts available for every contact, so a bit of balancing again.

The PT 76 is more of a representation of an NVA offensive rather than an individual unit, so a direct comparison is not really ideal.

RPG strikes were introduced to prevent the US player romping all over the map with impunity, another balancing decision, none taken lightly btw

V65 is a 'first step' in trying to model COIN warfare, certainly not perfect nor at maturation. The upcoming sequel , Afghanistan'11 is a leap forward in the process, but we are continually learning and listening, so once again, thanks for the support and feedback :)

Jessee
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:38 pm

Re: Questions: Unit Ratings - Interface Issues

Post by Jessee » Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:05 pm

Thank you for your prompt reply - JAS

Jessee
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:38 pm

Re: Questions: Unit Ratings - Interface Issues

Post by Jessee » Sat May 14, 2016 5:32 pm

Howdy,

I've played a dozen more games. The US losses companies in combat in every game. Historically, the US lost patrols but never company sized units -- No US company ever overrun during Vietnam.

Earlier today, I had to attack an NVA base with armor three times plus and airstrike to eliminate it.

Based on the results I'm seeing, I continue to maintain the relative unit ratings are off. Moreover, there is no combined arms effect for the US. You can only attack an enemy unit over and over again, until you are fortunate enough to kill it.

Ponder on,


JAS

Every Single Soldier
Vietnam ’65 developer
Vietnam ’65 developer
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:40 pm

Re: Questions: Unit Ratings - Interface Issues

Post by Every Single Soldier » Sat May 14, 2016 5:47 pm

The combat strengths of the US infantry units in the game are much higher than VC and fairly equal to NVA. The bick kicker is experience(rank) for infantry and using fire support/CAS when attacking the NVA. If you attack NVA with only infantry you will probably have a 50/50 chance of victory.

Also remember, US infantry get a attack bonus if in close proximity to Green Berets (binoculars icon).

Appreciate the feedback.

Jessee
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:38 pm

Re: Questions: Unit Ratings - Interface Issues

Post by Jessee » Sat May 14, 2016 6:37 pm

Deleted message - JAS
Last edited by Jessee on Sat May 14, 2016 6:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Jessee
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:38 pm

Re: Questions: Unit Ratings - Interface Issues

Post by Jessee » Sat May 14, 2016 6:39 pm

Again, I appreciate your prompt replies.

I am frustrated when playing at the veteran setting. What am I missing?

I can beat the basic level routinely, but have yet to have any success at veteran.

Ponder on,


JAS

ErissN6
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 470
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2013 11:34 pm
Location: France

Re: Questions: Unit Ratings - Interface Issues

Post by ErissN6 » Sun May 15, 2016 4:52 pm

You have to set your own strategy. Then you'll win each time, but it's not that easy. And you'll ask for an official third difficulty level..
I don't know what's missing for you, I can already tell you my strategy:
I use my US infantry as defensive vanguard near compromised villages, while I train many ARVN to take care of back villages, so I build at least 3 'forward bases' in the rear/middle just to be sure I'm the big chief of more than half the villages.
So in the end of the game, I almost never go in the last west tier of the map, as I don't have time to become offensive, but I sent carefully some GBerret to found bases then to send bombs.

Every Single Soldier
Vietnam ’65 developer
Vietnam ’65 developer
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:40 pm

Re: Questions: Unit Ratings - Interface Issues

Post by Every Single Soldier » Fri Aug 19, 2016 2:11 pm

Anther great tip ' deploy to the West right from the start'. :)

Post Reply

Return to “Vietnam '65”