6mm Vietnam Game - Devblog

So the assets you get are fixed in number and type at the start, unlike in H&S where you bought the hidden assets with force points?

I think that is the best approach. During playtesting H&S many players felt their force points were better spent on troops as opposed to assets. I wanted to keep the assets, and encourage their use so I suggested each player get two automatically and could buy random ones very inexpensively or known ones (their choice) for about the original cost to purchase random ones.

I really like your asset concept and am glad to see them here and their assignment as automatic.

Making good progress over the past week, have pretty much sorted out the new casualty tracking rules, to fit the smaller new Platoon rosters, and did some very small scale play-testing to see how they worked:

Not even worth setting up a table, just needed to know how 2 platoons going head to head would 'feel' with the new casualty tracking.

I had to really force myself to get to a decision on how these rules would work - the main issue being how KIA and wounded results would work when both are trying to be tracked on the same "Casualty Track" (a track of 10 boxes). Its still not 100%, but I only have a few small decisions to make on it. I also made Suppression a bit more intense - preventing a unit from being able to fire back at all, rather than just making attacks more difficult to 'hit'. This is in line with the ethos on bob's wargame website (which has some superb articles on firepower and infantry combat - well researched from military reports)

Bob's Wargame website (the Essay section):
www.testofbattle.com/upload/bob/Essays.htm

And the specific article I'm referring to:
www.testofbattle.com/upload/bob/Rules%20of%20Infantry%20Combat.htm

His definition of Suppression is "not being able to fire", and while that's not always the case - it will be my definition for this game as well, for simplicity and because it feels right in-game - when a unit can still fire while "suppressed" it feels like suppression isn't doing very much.

After fixing up these rules, I found myself jumping around the rules (its about 50 pages long) and typing random sections - which is not good. So today I decided I needed milestones in order to get these rules ready for a potential playtest this sunday. I scrawled the following milestones:


And today, I've stuck pretty much exclusively to this list - working primarily on the how the new Support Asset system (drawing cards the correspond to a certain type of support) works with the old "You can request anything" system. I made Medevacs and Requests for Extraction "Always available" as a request, not relying on having the right Asset cards in your hand, while everything else like air strikes, artillery, supply drops etc, would be dependent on which cards you had. Artillery for the US is weighted slightly higher than normal, so it would be more common to draw, as it really was the backbone of most infantry operations.

I tested drawing 4 cards for each faction, and it felt right - so that's a good start.

Over the past week I've been porting Boocoo Fire Mission into Tabletop Simulator, which allows me to playtest with people on the other side of the world. It took some setting up, but with some help from a guy in our Game Design discord server, I was able to get it done within a day or so.

I got the rules typed up, all my re-writes and suchlike, ready for a playtest, and yesterday we actually got a playtest done, using Tabletop Simulator (TTS).

Setting up TTS:

Its hard to find the exact 3D moodels for Vietnam, but Black hawks and Apaches will do fine for Hueys and Cobras respectively.


Nearly complete set up, miniatures and markers imported, just needed to do the Terrain Points

And so with all my rules printed out and TTS set up, I was able to do a test with guy from the US (I'm in NZ) rather than my usual 'real life' playtesting:
The game panned out as follows
US airmobile landed to check a nearby village, and was immediately ambushed and thrown into chaos - most of the squads were pinned down by a combination of mortar and small arms fire (the NLF/VC initially suppressing their own men as well with area mortar fire), and while 1 US squad was able to outflank and hit the NLF pretty hard, the NLF wore down the US platoon, who were unable to call in support (especially after a sniper hit their radio man). The NLF used their opportunity to sprint out of the forest and overwhelm the US HQ, capturing them - A solid win for the NLF!

Some shots of the game:

US units are on the left, while VC/NLF units are on the right, in the treeline. At this point the US were starting to turn things around, suppressing some NLF squads, and outflanking (near the pile of suppression markers).


End of the game, the NLF squads rush the US HQ, capturing it.

As with any early playtest, I took a lot of notes and we made a bunch of changes on the fly. Mortars were toned down, being a bit too powerful, and helicopters were found to be far too unwieldy, so today I re-wrote their movement rules to be much more free form when they're not landing. The core mechanics worked pretty well - the fog of war and detection rules were fine, although some clarifications are needed, and the main attack / suppression rules worked fine.

Main concerns from the playtest is that the game is a bit bogged down with placing and removing multiple Suppression markers - I need to simplify this and get things flowing faster, but without losing the dynamics of how suppression works in real life. "Suppression" and "Disorder" both need to be examined and potentially collapsed into a single marker / condition.
The Asset system also needs tweaked to make assets easier to access, as in our game during 6 turns no one could use any support. It should also be simplified, as its overly complex.

Over the past week I've still been reading through Sons of Kolchak, and getting lots of good ideas about how a Company Commander thinks and acts - what kind of things they expect their platoons to do, and how they work to "unpin" platoons that are tied down. I also discovered I should probably distinguish between aimed fire (generally semi-auto) and area suppression (generally full automatic) - one will inflict more casualties, while the other will not, but will keep heads down more effectively.

Another thing I've had brought to my attention (by the same guy who helped me set up TTS) is that the "VC" label is actually derogatory, and that "NLF" - 'National Liberation Front' would be more suitable. I changed all the instances of VC in the ruleset to NLF, and you'll notice I've been trying to use NLF in these reports as well.

The same person also made a good case for including ARVN forces, perhaps as a 1960 - 1968 period force. While I initially wanted to keep things simple with the factions until the game was running smoothly, there's no harm in doing some research - as adding in ARVN and perhaps the various other US allies (As well as NVA) are good additions to the game, once its running well.
And so I skimmed through the Osprey ARVN book, took some notes on weaponry and vehicles used, and also ordered "Vietnam's Forgotten Army: Heroism and Betrayal in the ARVN", which I will read after I finish Sons of Kolchak. It will hopefully give me a good insight into ARVN operations, as its an aspect of the war that is often ignored in the west and a very important aspect of the war. As games are a good way to teach people, it is my duty as a game designer to get the names of factions correct (usually using their point of view, rather than the opponents), as well as representing important factions and giving players the ability to game important battles. The ARVN forces have enough difference to be distinguished from the US, as they generally used M-2 Carbines and WW2 era scout cars and half tracks until around 1968 when things started getting phased out in favor of M113s, Chaffees, and M-16s. They also had very limited Artillery and helicopter support at times.

Its been a good couple of weeks for these rules, typing up and editing, getting things straightened out and making sure things like capitalization are consistent.

I made some example firefight images, showing how things work, which is always a good idea:


I've started reading "Vietnam's Forgotten Army: Heroism and Betrayal in the ARVN", which is giving me some insights into the ARVN and their operations - lots of interesting information, although not too much on the actual battles, mostly on organization and the challenges involved with things like the "Struggle Movement". Interesting to note that the ARVN had a dedicated airmobile "Hac Bao" Company, which were elite and used US helicopters to get into battle, and that they could fit up to 12 solders into a Huey, rather than the US 6 or 7.

We also had our first real-life playtest since the lockdown, so it was good to get the miniatures out!

The game involved the "Cat & Mouse" mission, where 2 forces are stalking each other and on a direct collision course. The battle started at night, with both sides unsure where the enemy was. An NLF/VC light machinegun detachment stumbled into a US platoon in the dark, and was able to set up on their flanks, then open fire- causing chaos with the US platoon.

A 2nd NLF platoon then deployed nearby, but was having trouble working out where the US were due to night time and the terrrain.


The US platoon was able to work out where the fire was coming from, and starting directing mortar and small arms fire into the LMG teams on their flank, but snipers in the trees caused the entire platoon to be suppressed for a short time...


At dawn the US had a surprise of their own, with a heavily armed platoon outflanking the NLF platoon, getting close enough to throw grenades and causing a lot of casualties.


A 2nd NLF platoon then assaulted the rear of the US 1st platoon, running across open ground and taking some opportunity fire from the US in their forest night position. The US redeployed some squads to meet this new threat, while others were still trying to overcome the disorder of the initial attack.
US 1st platoon commander attempted to call in gunship support, but couldn't get through on the radio...


The game was very fun and interesting, both playesters enjoyed and it flowed nicely. Still some kinks to work out, and the terrain rules could use some clarifications, but I feel like we're getting closer to release. The game definitely needs a quick reference sheet, and now that the mechanics are pretty solid, I will look at doing that.

I will write up another mission (a rescue mission) and perhaps a Firebase assault mission, and the game should be pretty much good to go.

So far 5 people have contacted me about playtesting, I sent them the rules, but haven't had any replies about their thoughts (yet). This could be a good or a bad thing!

I will need to focus on my studies for the next few months, but I should still find time to type a few things up, and do playtesting every 2 weeks or so.

Did the VC cease to exist as a fighting force after the Tet offensive? would love to know people's thoughts on this, as my sources vary. Some say the VC ceased to exist, some mention them fighting alongside the NVA even after the US left the war...

Actually got quite a lot done over the past 2 weeks: I've typed up the ARVN lists, and added ANZACs, after some reading on the subject.
Very interesting to see how differently they operate to the US (being a New Zealander myself) and their stealth and hunting methods: learn the VC routes, then ambush them for maximum effect. I wrote their army list and assets to reflect this:




I believe having all ANZAC units as elite (around the quality of a US Recon or LRRP squad) makes sense, as their field-craft and discipline was pretty superb from what I've read (even a US recon soldier said he learned a lot from them, even just on a 10 day patrol).

I've also split all the army lists up into periods and factions, to more accurately match each period, so in the early years, there are only VC, while later they get more NVA support, and finally after Tet there are only NVA remaining (although as I mentioned above, I'm not 100% sure about that).

Along with the new lists and splits, come the more varied weapons:


I also added an "AT" column to more easily show a weapon's AT capabilities.

Planned over the next few weeks is to test out some alterations to Infantry attacks, such as causing a target unit to retreat away from the attacker, as well as some bonuses for flanking attacks. Both of these will hopefully give players incentive to move and outflank more, as gameplay tends to be quite static once battle is joined and all the units have deployed (although the terrain point system allows units to outflank nicely). Causing a target squad to retreat could also make for some interesting situations where you flush a unit into a waiting ambush - a tactic I know was used when possible.

Still reading Vietnam's Forgotten Army: Heroism and Betrayal in the ARVN, and learning a lot about the ARVN. Just finished reading about Operation Lam Son 719, which was fought primarily by the ARVN, and had one of the largest airmobile lifts of the entire war (210 helicopters If I recall correctly). It was a bit of a disaster due to the NVA knowing well in advance what was happening, and various ARVN generals losing initiative. Interesting to see the extent of the operations the ARVN conducted though. Their efforts on Hamburger hill also surprised me (ARVN 2/3 were first to the top!).

Now this sounds more like it. The original direction just seemed to pile more complexity into the system with no real return. Seems like you guys stripped it back to just what you need. Now to keep the rest of the game at this level and not to let the excesses of detail creep back in.

Have actually made some very good progress over the past week or so. Now that university is winding down, I have more time to work on these rules. Can't be far to go now!


I've been reading this book ^ and getting some good ideas about AH-1 Cobra capabilities, and the way they would work together with Loaches to form "Pink teams" (combination of Red for Attack Teams [Cobras], and White for Scout Teams [loaches]).
One of the main takeaways from the book has been the fact that Cobras could actually fire directly into bunker openings, while flying low and slow - something I will certainly represent. There is already a "hovering" mechanic for helicopters, representing them being low and slow, and all I need to do is say that when cobras are Hovering, their HE counts as Direct instead of Indirect (Direct HE being more capable at taking out Bunkers: weapons like LAWs and Recoilless rifles).
After reading 16 or 17 Vietnam books, it seems rare that new information comes to light, but in this case I did learn something new I can apply to the game!


My direction for the game over the past month has changed from my original "Accurately represent a day in the life of a Vietnam platoon", to "Lets have a fun game with these Vietnam miniatures".
I think this is a very important shift in my thinking for this game, away from simulating everything and lots of record-keeping, and towards streamlined mechanics and something that moves quickly and is fun to play.

I've had the main changes in my head for a few weeks, but over the past week I've been able to really work through the most important part of the rules - the first 15 - 20 pages - which deal with the terms used, detection and infantry combat.

First Hurdle: The Lexicon
The terms (or "Lexicon" to use the correct word) were giving me an absolute headache, what is a "unit", what's the difference between a Base, a Squad and a "unit", etc. So I had to really sit down and try to prune out any unnecessary terms, and see how the terms were used in the rules. I did some juggling and difficult soul searching (eventually resorting to pen and paper), and eventually settled on some hard rules for what things should be called.

This is what I came up with:


My main issue was that infantry squads can consist of multiple bases (squads and weapon teams), but they all operate together, and so are a single "unit", that always moves and attacks together. I needed to have the same term for an infantry squad as for a single vehicle or helicopter, so I decided to call them all "units" (before I had been using the word "unit" to mean a group of bases that activate together - such as a platoon or flight of helicopters).

Second Hurdle: Detection
With the lexicon sorted, I moved on to detection. The main issues with detection were having to track "awareness", and trying to remember who had detected what. The solution: remove both of these things. No more awareness (units assumed to be aware enough, unless they fail a detection check, in which case they're clearly not aware in the right places...), and no more having to track who had detected what: Targets within line of sight are assumed to already be detected if they have been suppressed last turn, or if there is a tracer marker pointing at them, from the unit attempting to detect. If neither of these are true, you must roll to detect. Once detected, everyone on your side is assumed to have detected the target, assuming they have line of sight.

This allows for the scenario I read over and over again in infantry combat books, where a unit fires at where they think the enemy is, then eventually stops and isn't sure if the enemy is still there - they need to detect them again before firing again.
I also finished typing up my terrain rules around this time.

Third Hurdle: Combat Rules
With detection organized, the last part that needed my attention was the Infantry combat rules, which would extrapolate out into the vehicle and helicopter combat rules - all using the same system.

Essentially when you attack an infantry unit, you roll a D6 for each weapon:
1-3 : No Effect
4: Suppressed
5: Suppressed + Casualties
6: Casualties + Forced to Retreat

Originally things like cover would cause this roll to be -1 or -2, but my main issue with this system was having to remember the modifiers: I didn't want to have to remember anything, or modify anything.
I tossed up ideas such as throwing more dice for each weapon, and having things like cover reduce the amount of dice, but the issue there was that a unit in heavy cover could be forced to retreat if you rolled a 6 when attacking them - completely unrealistic: A unit in heavy cover such as a bunker would often stay there until the bunker was destroyed and they were killed. Either that or they would sneak off during the night when you weren't attacking...

And so I came upon the solution of cover simply negating one of the results on the table. Light Cover would negate any rolls of a 6. So a unit in a trench or in a forest wouldn't retreat if you attacked them. They could still be forced to retreat by taking casualties, but not directly by the attack roll.

Then Heavy cover would negate any results of 5 or 6. So a unit in Heavy Cover like a Bunker would never take casualties from small arms or indirect HE, only become suppressed. (perhaps not exactly realistic, but it will work in the "game" sense).

The last part of the puzzle is how different types of weapons interact with this system: Small Arms, Large Caliber and Indirect HE treat these cover rules as normal, while Direct HE such as LAWs, RPGs, Recoilless Rifles, Grenades and Direct rocket fire from gunships would only ever allow a target to be in Light Cover - so you could always inflict casualties on a target, even if they were in a bunker. This would mean things like Direct HE are incredibly important for bunker busting, which was exactly what I read from Sons of Kolchak (where they busted bunkers with massed LAW fire or grenades), and Vietnam's Forgotten Army: Heroism and Betrayal in the ARVN (where they complained about the lack of Recoilless rifles and other direct HE weapons when city-fighting and bunker-busting in Hue.).

Right now I'm going through the infantry rules, cleaning things up (do you really need to be able to conduct "Cloverleaf Searches"?) and once the basics of infantry are sorted I will type up the combat rules.

All that remains after that is to get the vehicle and helicopter attack rules in line with the infantry (not much to change, just some wording and a table each), and then to apply the detection mechanics to the Hidden movement system - trying to keep them the same.


This last week has felt like trimming up a big beef rump: I know there's a good game in there, but I need to cut away a bunch of fat, and isolate the best parts, then cook them right.
Once this version is all typed up, I'll re-send it to those who have volunteered to playtest, and hopefully it will be much simpler and game-ready. I have 2 or 3 people ready to personally playtest with me, so I'll be putting the rules to the test both online and in person, hopefully in the next week or so.


ARVN in Saigon, 1968

Had a good playtest this weekend with an Australian Army veteran, we had a quick game and then talked about ANZAC tactics and formations in Vietnam, which was very helpful and I learned a lot from our discussion. This helped me crystalize my ideas about how ANZACs will work in the game, and we also came up with some interesting ideas for the main game mechanics, which I will test out over the next few weeks.

Here's a screenshots from the game (done on Tabletop Simulator). VC/NVA Ambush a US Platoon, while a US Mortar attempts to suppress an NVA HMG detachment, of which they can only see the tracers, so they're forced to fire inaccurately until the closer US platoon can call in adjustments.


In the weeks leading up to the playtest I typed up my edits from the last game, simplifying detection, and re-writing the "Attacking Helicopters" section to be simpler and more in line with infantry attacks.
We did expose a few issues with "eye of god" abilities of the player to target enemy HQ units, and so I'll have a think about how to prevent such a thing. One option might be an HQ can only be attacked if its the closest unit, or that the player being attacked can choose which squads / HQ are targeted or affected by fire.

Another interesting idea was having numbered tracer markers, where the longer a unit is firing (over multiple turns), the easier it becomes to detect - worth trying out although I need to weigh up the extra player load of tracking this with the effect in-game.

A few details needed such as units being able to re-establish comms, which is something they could certainly do - the whole "Comms down" effect isn't well documented in the rules, being combined with the "Lost" effect - so I'll need to clarify / separate those out.

All in all things are coming together, no game-breaking issues discovered, although I still would like to playtest helicopters and how they detect and attack / get attacked before making a judgement there.