Campaign for South Vietnam v.5.0

[Hyding]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

Curt Chambers has produced a new version of Campaign for South Vietnam, version 5.0, and Thomas Harvey and I decided to playtest
it. We needed a break from the Pacific At War we were playing. Maybe we'll do both of them at the same time. I'm playing the Allies
and Thomas is the NVA. We're using version 3.6.0.88 of the game engine so the AAA bug is fixed and so on.
Thomas has been busy blowing bridges and moving into the hinterland where I'll have to go to chase him down. We've got the
No Borders option turned on so he's having much success hiding from me. I find myself searching the same hexes over and over
again. A hex cleared of enemy hexes in one turn may not be cleared 5 turns later say. It's an ongoing operation.

One of Curt's suggested optional rules is that in PBEM games the local VC battalions are restricted to their home province until the can
take they provincial capital. This offsets the fog of war problem a bit for you for hunting guerillas. Since converting hexes is one of
the ways to get victory points in this game both sides will find themselves hunting for hexes to convert or reconvert. If the VC have to
spend extra moves finding these locations they will take more air interdiction hits. Hidden hex control is not all to the advantage of the VC.

[Hyding]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

The good news is that there's an airlift battalion near Saigon but the bad news is that it's down to it's last helicopter. That's good for
just about one ARVN airmobile unit to reposition to the field somewhere. So I'm seeing some potential but the airmobile troops may
have to wait for more lift before they do any search and destroy missions. Usually the VC hang out to the north of Saigon in the
forest / jungle or they loiter just outside the border in Cambodia. Near Tay Nihn. So I'll have to use some motorized units to patrol
near there.

Well that will put you over 15 EEV very quick. Once that happens you should immediately get another ten to twelve
commitment points worth of troops. I always try to get a few turns in before crossing the 15 EEV line. Like some your
turn two images show however NVA deployment has been speeded up again in this version. It will make the rapid commitment
penalty you get more worthwhile.

[Hyding]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

Okay..........Thomas and I did a re-start and it's turn 1 again. These are the theater options available and I'm going to chose the
first two of them. I want to play the strategic bombing by ear and use it only if I'm already losing. And I've chosen the last TO before
but I don't remember what the effects are.

I remember you playing these options early in another AAR. You did not complete that AAR though. I have never seen anyone take
a game very far using these both early (Except AI vs AI). You are going to get a lot of VP's and a lot of South Vietnamese replacements
and units. BUT long term use of the aid program and early Vietnamization costs you as much EEV as the commitment of eight
US infantry divisions. You can never recoup any of the EEV value during the eventual drawdown either like you could by
withdrawing US forces. I'd luv to see such a game play out though.

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: Narses
One Curt's suggested optional rules is that in PBEM games the local VC battalions are restricted to their home province until the can
take the provincial capital. This offsets the fog of war problem a bit for you for hunting guerillas. Since converting hexes is one of
the ways to get victory points in this game both sides will find themselves hunting for hexes to convert or reconvert. If the VC have to
spend extra moves finding these locations they will take more air interdiction hits. Hidden hex control is not all to the advantage of the VC.

Sounds good. I had neglected to remember that. Thanks.

ORIGINAL: Narses
Well that will put you over 15 EEV very quick. Once that happens you should immediately get another ten to twelve
commitment points worth of troops. I always try to get a few turns in before crossing the 15 EEV line. Like some your
turn two images show however NVA deployment has been speeded up again in this version. It will make the rapid commitment
penalty you get more worthwhile.

You talk like you've played this scenario before. I should probably pay attention to you then. I needed the Marines to
contain the NVA near the DMZ and I'm hoping a lot of air power can enable the ARVN to handle the VC in the south.
It's either that or get some American boots on the ground.

ORIGINAL: Narses

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson
Okay..........Thomas and I did a re-start and it's turn 1 again. These are the theater options available and I'm going
to chose the first two of them. I want to play the strategic bombing by ear and use it only if I'm already losing. And
I've chosen the last TO before but I don't remember what the effects are.

I remember you playing these options early in another AAR. You did not complete that AAR though. I have never seen anyone take
a game very far using these both early (Except AI vs AI). You are going to get a lot of VP's and a lot of South Vietnamese replacements and units. BUT long term use of the aid program and early Vietnamization costs you as much EEV as the commitment of eight US infantry divisions. You can never recoup any of the EEV value during the eventual drawdown either like you could by
withdrawing US forces. I'd luv to see such a game play out though.

Yeah, but that earlier AAR......was that against a human or the AI, I can't remember that far back.I do know that Curt Chambers
and I played two mirror games once, playing each side, and I don't remember who won either one. I've got to start taking memory
vitamins or something. Thomas Harvey and I are playing CSV and PAW both at the same time and it seems to be
working out. I produce a file called LBJ1 or LBJ2 etc. and he sends me a file that is named VC1 or VC2 etc.

Curt sent me an email saying that he's going to start using 3.6.0.88 for his development of the scenario so that will help out
a lot. So here in a little bit we'll be getting an updated copy of the scenario and we'll do a re-start. Stay tuned.

[ogar]

Larry,

You truly are amazing. How you can rapidly play through complicated scenarios like this, or PAW, or ... AND post AARs about them, is remarkable. [&o] (You do deserve this smiley.)

About that AAA level --
I wondered if the changes in 3.6.0.88 were different than the changes in either AAA-fix or 3xB. I think Curt's switching to 3.6 for further work may help that discrepancy. (And after all the work, I put in trying to balance the air/AAA in Op Kutuzov, I am not thrilled to think I get to do it all over again, when/if a new release rolls out.)

I also wonder about the map and calendar. Isnt this using one week turns and calling them one month ? I wonder if the time-scale has a scale effect on air losses ? (If so, why didn't that show up in earlier versions ? Is it showing up in ground losses as well ?)

Kudos to all for their efforts.

Esp. to Curt. I dread all the work just getting one scenario into stable enough shape to ship. I cannot imagine going back to re-do all that fun when the engine changes on the designer. Thank you for your hard work.

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: ogar
Larry,

You truly are amazing. How you can rapidly play through complicated scenarios like this, or PAW, or ... AND post AARs
about them, is remarkable. [&o] (You do deserve this smiley.)

I'm retired and don't have anything else to do besides playtest scenario's and so on. I take a break to eat and sleep etc. but
the rest of the time I'm usually at my computer about 14+ hours per day.

ORIGINAL: ogar
About that AAA level --
I wondered if the changes in 3.6.0.88 were different than the changes in either AAA-fix or 3xB. I think Curt's switching
to 3.6 for further work may help that discrepancy. (And after all the work, I put in trying to balance the air/AAA in Op
Kutuzov, I am not thrilled to think I get to do it all over again, when/if a new release rolls out.)

In addition to the fix for the AA problem there's also the addition of the new Naval Rules although that might not be a feature
that gets used a whole bunch in CSV.

ORIGINAL: ogar
I also wonder about the map and calendar. Isnt this using one week turns and calling them one month ? I wonder if the
time-scale has a scale effect on air losses ? (If so, why didn't that show up in earlier versions ? Is it showing up in ground
losses as well ?)

That's a really good question. I'll have to set up some test scenarios and run some attacks to see the differences. Good
thought.

ORIGINAL: ogar
Kudos to all for their efforts.

Esp. to Curt. I dread all the work just getting one scenario into stable enough shape to ship. I cannot imagine going
back to re-do all that fun when the engine changes on the designer. Thank you for your hard work.

When the engine changes on the designer is probably the only change that needs be made on those scenario's that
are good and stable for every other reason. I'm guessing this is just a one-time thing and we won't have to go through
this again. Fingers crossed.

[Hyding]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

You talk like you've played this scenario before. I should probably pay attention to you then. I needed the Marines to
contain the NVA near the DMZ and I'm hoping a lot of air power can enable the ARVN to handle the VC in the south.
It's either that or get some American boots on the ground.

I've played it more than any other scenario. But all my PBEM's were pre- TOAW 3.4. I'm still waiting for my copy this new version from Curt.
But I believe that it like the version that came with 3.4 has a much slower NVA start than you remember. Notice there was no first turn
attack on Tay Ninh and Hoi An that used to be a part of almost every game. Your commitment costs are higher but the NVA buildup is a little
slower. Of course when your commitment increases so does their's. God I love this game.

I like running the Newer versions with the old rules (pre 3.4). I think the scenario straight off the disk made it too easy for a good US player
to control the EEV rate if the NLF was not very successful early. At least against everybody I played except Curt. He could force me past 45 EEV quicker
than anyone. The higher commitment costs for US units frankly make me very nervous since I have not had a PBEM game since they were introduced. My last PBEM with this was
2008 or 2009.

Curt sent me an email saying that he's going to start using 3.6.0.88 for his development of the scenario so that will help out
a lot. So here in a little bit we'll be getting an updated copy of the scenario and we'll do a re-start. Stay tuned.

Since I do not have 3.6 it makes me wonder which patch I would be best running this with. Of course he sending me the current test version not the 3.6 project.

[Raindem]

ORIGINAL: ogar

...I also wonder about the map and calendar. Isnt this using one week turns and calling them one month ? I wonder if the time-scale has a scale effect on air losses ? (If so, why didn't that show up in earlier versions ? Is it showing up in ground losses as well ?)...

The time scale has always been one month and the "calendar" in the upper left displays the correct game time. TOAW's internal calendar is max'd at 1 week intervals so there's nothing I can do about that display other than recommend that players ignore it.

Air losses, combat losses, reinforcements, replacements, supply rates, and everything else I could think of was balanced for 1 month turns.

[ogar]

@Raindem,

Thanks, I was wondering about the effects of calendar turn-length (half-week, week, etc.) on internal engine calcs. In a day turn scenario, the furball at hex 12,34 represents one-day's worth of air combat in that area, versus in a one week turn, it represents a week's worth of combat.

Air losses, combat losses, reinforcements, replacements, supply rates, and everything else I could think of was balanced for 1 month turns.

That is the important thing !

[Raindem]

ORIGINAL: ogar
Thanks, I was wondering about the effects of calendar turn-length (half-week, week, etc.) on internal engine calcs. In a day turn scenario, the furball at hex 12,34 represents one-day's worth of air combat in that area, versus in a one week turn, it represents a week's worth of combat.

Good point. IIRC when I started this project years ago I conducted some experiments on time scale effects on combat and found they had minimal impact. A company of infantry attacking another company resulted in similar losses whether it was 1 week turns or 1 day turns. Air attacks were almost identical at any time scale. At the smaller scales I did notice that units used up supply a lot quicker, and thus were not able to attack as many times in one turn.

Of course now TOAW designers have many more tools to work with, so I pay close attention to things like the attrition divider, movement multiplier, and supply rates. In the end, I think that the success of a 1-month turn simulation depends more on the specific conflict being modeled than it does achieving a particular combat outcome.

[Tcao]

Hi, is there a download link for CSV 5.0?
Thanks

[Hyding]

You would have to get that from Raindem. (Curt)

It is still in teating and probably won't be finished since he is working on versions for upcoming TOAW versions.

[judah]

Hi Larry, why your color is so strange?

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: judah
Hi Larry, why your color is so strange?

I'm running a mod that I got from here:
https://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com/ ... phic-mods/

You may want to go there and take a look around. You might find one you like better than what you
have now.