soul_warrior
Termite!
was that a blitzkrieg?
i was sort of hoping to do more than 3 turns
all.
i was sort of hoping to do more than 3 turns
all.
El J-01 North Viet Nam ~ Full Metal Jacket The Ho Chi Minh Trail
- Thread starter Whomp
- Start date
gmaharriet
Ancient Crone
lurker's comment: I noticed in El Justo's original general thread the following:
victory conditions: VP win (no culture, domination, conquest etc - just straight VPs)
Have you satisfied the number of VPs required?
That was most definitely a blitzkrieg to end 1965. The power of rails and the extra move points for arty and foot soldiers is devastating.was that a blitzkrieg?
i was sort of hoping to do more than 3 turns
We have not.lurker's comment: I noticed in El Justo's original general thread the following:
victory conditions: VP win (no culture, domination, conquest etc - just straight VPs)
Have you satisfied the number of VPs required?
I'm not sure how we'll get more VPs. El J!?!! 
It appears to be 2 from this post:
We didn't technicly win but we knocked out the north Vietmanese. So I'd still play if you want to. Also i have units going to every victory point.
El Justo
Deity
holy schnykies! well done fellas!
as it turns out, i shut off the conquest/domination victory condition. i think this was a mistake on my part. nonetheless, capturing all cities like both teams seem to have done most certainly registers as a 'win' despite it not saying so in-game.
i should probably clarify it some more though:
my intent was to sort of restrict the SV player - or more precisely - highly discourage the SV player from venturing into North Vietnam (so as to stay historically accurate). of course, this would be a type of 'house rule'. but i did not mention it here nor in the scenario thread. and i erred on disallowing conquest vicotry for the NV side. no biggie i guess...since it is a de facto victory.
now - the real way to win would be to accumulate the VPs via the tile occupations. this would take quite a while of course and i'd guess that if we were to continue w/ this game and have each and every VP under our sway that we'd garner a VP win in the late 60s.
as for the Thai air bases - they are inaccessible to the NV player b/c there's a ring of impassable terrain around the perimeter. this was done b/c it is very innaccuare in terms of history to allow for Charlie to march across Laos and Cambodia and into Thailand anc capture the American air bases there. so my intent was to set these up as 'sanctuaries' for the SV player.
i reckon that i'll need to adjust some things after reading the reports in both threads. i mean, it really shouldn't be all that easy to get the win. so i'm gonna have to conjure up some roadbloacks to victory i guess
as it turns out, i shut off the conquest/domination victory condition. i think this was a mistake on my part. nonetheless, capturing all cities like both teams seem to have done most certainly registers as a 'win' despite it not saying so in-game.
i should probably clarify it some more though:
my intent was to sort of restrict the SV player - or more precisely - highly discourage the SV player from venturing into North Vietnam (so as to stay historically accurate). of course, this would be a type of 'house rule'. but i did not mention it here nor in the scenario thread. and i erred on disallowing conquest vicotry for the NV side. no biggie i guess...since it is a de facto victory.
now - the real way to win would be to accumulate the VPs via the tile occupations. this would take quite a while of course and i'd guess that if we were to continue w/ this game and have each and every VP under our sway that we'd garner a VP win in the late 60s.
as for the Thai air bases - they are inaccessible to the NV player b/c there's a ring of impassable terrain around the perimeter. this was done b/c it is very innaccuare in terms of history to allow for Charlie to march across Laos and Cambodia and into Thailand anc capture the American air bases there. so my intent was to set these up as 'sanctuaries' for the SV player.
i reckon that i'll need to adjust some things after reading the reports in both threads. i mean, it really shouldn't be all that easy to get the win. so i'm gonna have to conjure up some roadbloacks to victory i guess
What would you do El J?
One thing I can think of is it may help to adjust the power of arty. If they didn't have double move capability it would allow for more severe counterattacks. Honestly, the combo of rails and double move arty along the coast was overpowering. I didn't even use sappers on the turn I wiped out 7 cities. It was almost exclusively VC rifles.
One thing I can think of is it may help to adjust the power of arty. If they didn't have double move capability it would allow for more severe counterattacks. Honestly, the combo of rails and double move arty along the coast was overpowering. I didn't even use sappers on the turn I wiped out 7 cities. It was almost exclusively VC rifles.
El Justo
Deity
i don't know for sure bud. i'd have to put on the 'modder's cap' and try to come up w/ something. but the options you mentioned a certainly near the top of the list...
El Justo
Deity
adjusting the base unit of time is a good option i'd think...as per dgfred's suggestions from earlier.
cubsfan6506
Got u
I think you should simply halve the unit costs and make them spawn twice as fast.
ThERat
Deity
I tend to agree with Whomp, artillery with movement 2 made the game a breeze. Not necessarily bad, but the time line was certainly a bit off
Similar threads
