RE: Vietnam and modern combat

G'day,

> I've been thinking about how to answer this one for a
> couple days.	It ain't easy.	I'm sorry I brought it
> up in the first place.

How can you avoid it when discussing a Nam application of SG?

> Primarily because you're dealing with amateurs who do
> have have the edge that adrenaline gives their RW
> equivelants.	

I'm not doubting you have the advantage on me here Jon, but just from
talking to my relatives and other vets from earlier wars (WWII, Nam,
Korea etc) it can and does happen. I wasn't trying to say this will
happen every time and this is exactly the way you should do it every
time I was tossing up examples of ways you can do it.
 
> Terrorist incidents:	Suicide bombings, single IEDs or
> mines, attacks against unarmed civillians.  These are
> not suitable for gaming purposes, but make up the
> primary component of the fighting in Iraq, and were a
> constant "background noise" in Vietnam....

And this is exactly how I have had them in games in the past, background
noise not the main feature.

> Conventional Forces operating with infiltration
> tactics:  These are PAVN and NLF Main Force units
> operating as batallion and larger elements using
> terrain and ambush tactics to their advantage.  I do
> not believe this is possible any longer, but it was
> the major thrust of the Vietnam War...

Without any access to classified stuff its also what the Aussies
APPARENTLY did at least in the early stages of their involvement in the
latest round of Middle eastern hostilities. Also thinking on to sci-fi
and the potential for a wide range of potential conditions (economic,
technological and physical) they are still justified in a sci-fi
setting.

> Guerilla War:  Everything inbetween.	This is what I
> mean is nearly impossible to game in a manner that is
> both realistic and even remotely balanced....

This may be were my view on gaming diverges from others. I don't mind
exceptionally unbalanced games, even ones where I will more than likely
lose regardless. Its the challenge of what I can pull off with what I've
got that I enjoy. When framed in the right way a lot of people can
actually enjoy it, but it does take some design skill I'll admit.

> Then he either had unrealistic limits on his
> firepower, or the disparity was far less than it is in
> Real Life (or any reasonable approximation thereof)
> between professionals (or conscripts with professional
> leadership) equipped by a first or second rate power
> and guerillas.

I had D4 armour, crap weapons, green and yellow troops, mostly 2s and
3s. It can be done. He assumed I would have done one thing and I had
done something else. That happens in war... ask the French in Indochina
how likely it was the Vietnamese would have man handled artillery pieces
through the jungle to the top of hills.

> I hope that's a pre-2000 scenario.  Thermal imaging
> makes this sort of thing nearly impossible nowdays. 
> And we are finally getting thermal imagers down at the
> infantry platoon/squad level.  Let's also simply say
> that aerial surveillance (manned and unmanned) dealing
> with anything less than triple canopy jungle is going
> to screw that plan.  Besides which, guerillas
> generally don't have the discipline to do this.

I had to pass tests to make sure it didn't happen... bit like the ghost
soldier example given in another post. As to the tech justification, he
didn't use his drones, they didn't spot effectively. Not everything goes
the way it should every time. The other possibility is that something in
the enviro screws it up, foliage might contain blocking agents or put
out warm gases or some such, not common in terrestrial foliage but not
unknown either. Its science fiction so there could be many reasons and
maybe I'm just perverse but I tend to think toward the scenario and
what-if situations rather than assume technology will be infallible.

> I have three words for the senior NCO and the
> commander of that force:
> RELIEF FOR CAUSE.

Does that mean you wouldn't have let it happen? Given that the players
knew an attack would come (its a game after all), but "in reality" it
was a surprise attack why would the troops not have been letting their
hair down, we've seen plenty of pics of Brits and Iraqi children playing
soccer, for example.
 
> Not really.  Somalis can't shoot for shit and have
> very primitive tactics.  What you need is about a 50
> or 100 to 1 figure ratio.  That's what it took in
> Mogadishu.  Conventional training exists for a reason.
>  It makes troops far better than the linearity of the
> Stargrunt troop quality system represents.  Your
> average Fedayeen is probably rolling a d2 for troop
> quality at best.

I agree the average rabble would be, but I respectfully disagree that it
will apply to all individuals, you don't grow up in that situation
without getting some smarts. Have 10 squads of Yellow-2 with improvised
or basic guns and then the single "body guard" group that are much
better "trained" (by life). I have read a lot about various situations
now and in the past and I'm yet to find one that breaks the pattern. 
 
> On either side?  I can't legally or ethically get into
> a detailed ROE discussion.  Sorry.

I'm not asking you to mate, it was a simple example of potential
objectives. My philosophy in this hobby is play what you want at the
level of detail and using the type of scenarios that you want. Its
supposed to be fun after all ;)

Have fun

Beth