Vietnam '65 Next Month

Matrix Games announces March 5th is the release date for Vietnam '65, the upcoming strategy game which takes players into the Vietnam War before it jumped the shark. They plan to celebrate the news today with a livestream on the Slitherine Twitch channel at 1:00 pm EST. Word is the game is now in the late beta testing phase:
Early 1965 – the Cold War turned hot in Southeast Asia. The US Army dispatches men and military equipment to prevent Vietnam falling under communist dominance. It was the beginning of an unconventional conflict in which technology and resources were not enough to ensure victory. By mastering the jungle terrain and conducting guerrilla operations such as ambushes and raids, the Viet Cong managed to disrupt US plans and resist this giant superpower!

Vietnam ’65, the new counter-insurgency strategy game by Every Single Soldier, aims to capture the essence of the Vietnam War. At the head of the US forces, the player will have to forget what they have learnt from other strategy games and think differently to achieve victory. Building a safe logistics chain, gathering intelligence from the local villagers, calling in air support on time, revealing the Ho Chi Minh trail, and minimizing casualties will be crucial to securing political support and eliminating the invisible Viet Cong threat!

Thanks to fruitful weeks of in-depth testing, the game has now entered its late beta phase. So the time for traditional war will come to an end on March 05th, the official release date of Vietnam ’65!
View : : :
20 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older
20.
 
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month
Feb 12, 2015, 11:19
20.
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month Feb 12, 2015, 11:19
Feb 12, 2015, 11:19
 
Then the same rule applies, and if you can't fix it because the people view you as a white-faced Crusader, then there's likely nothing you can do at all. Many of the countries there are the direct results of colonialism, and their boundaries are completely arbitrary. This is an especially serious problem because fundamentalism is so strong in that region, and people will hate each other and kill over it. It's a region in a state of massive imbalance. Iraq is a perfect example of this; Saddam's violent rule kept the lid on many groups who would otherwise kill each other.

The only people capable of rebalancing the power structure are the people who actually live there - and by "rebalance," I mean it will have to happen with much bloodshed. Jordan and UAE getting involved in fighting ISIS was promising until Obama ensured that the face of the Coalition over there will remain a white "Crusader" face. I worry that that will have the effect of keeping Arab nations from getting too angry at the extremists and instead be able to direct their hate and anger toward the West.
19.
 
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month
Feb 12, 2015, 02:37
19.
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month Feb 12, 2015, 02:37
Feb 12, 2015, 02:37
 
Trainwreck wrote on Feb 12, 2015, 02:24:


The way to end an insurgency is to remove the culture that allows it to grow. If military occupation is what's pissing off the locals, then the solution is to remove the military. If it's something else (ruined infrastructure for example), then change that specific condition to the benefit of the locals. At any rate, you're essentially correct that the military can't do much to end it with direct action.

*The Afghans were especially "disparate" compared to the Iraqis.

What if the 'insurgency' had nothing to do with the US, and the reason you were sent there was bogus? How do you fix it then? I mean Afghanistan (and Iraq) were invaded for all the wrong reasons. Everyone conveninetly forgets that militant Jihadis in Afghanistan were propped up and financed almost exclusively by the US during the Soviet Afghan war. Politics is never ever black and white, and especially the aftermath of 911 is murky shit that no one really wants to take an honest look at. Im sorry for all the young men and women who bought into the propaganda hook line and sinker and lost their lives for what exactly?? For their country? For revenge? The results of that Iraqi 'WMD' adventure are also really stellar as we can all see the minute we turn on the news to see another beheading by the Caliphate...

This comment was edited on Feb 12, 2015, 03:47.
I have a nifty blue line!
Avatar 46994
18.
 
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month
Feb 12, 2015, 02:24
18.
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month Feb 12, 2015, 02:24
Feb 12, 2015, 02:24
 
Cutter wrote on Feb 11, 2015, 13:47:
Said by someone with obviously no knowledge of history. And what, pray, do you think precipitates all these Revolutions to begin with?

What in the actual fuck did you proceed to ramble on about here? You started talking about the 1%, social inequality, and other crap that did not address the history of Vietnam directly. I'm not addressing abstract concepts, unless you consider "reeducation" camps and government-imposed famine to be abstract.

Quboid wrote on Feb 11, 2015, 15:06:
Handle with care ... or exploit for cheap publicity. Get kicked off Steam for 24 hours, that should get people listening.

That's the real problem with I have with any games (or movies) based on war. Or hell, just talking to people on the street about war. They never get it quite right, and it's infuriating.

jdreyer wrote on Feb 11, 2015, 17:35:
The South Vietnamese government and military was rotten and corrupt. It was a military dictatorship. So there really was no good option for the people of Vietnam.

Fair enough, although I don't believe they would have been quite as bad as the communists had they won, but no one can say with certainty. However, even accepting for the sake of argument that they would have been as bad as the North Vietnamese government, I just have a problem with folks saying that the communist forces "deserved" a victory. Regardless of how the revolution to kick the French out began and its initial intent, I just can't celebrate communist victory.

As an Afghanistan veteran, and as a husband to the daughter of Vietnamese refugees, I admit I can be a little sensitive when it comes to depictions of war in the media/games (as I said above). This is especially true with regards to the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Vietnam. For whatever it's worth, I challenge anyone to find an older Vietnamese immigrant in America who is not angry at the communists and who isn't a fan of the US military in general (and yes I know this is a personal anecdote and not a big enough sample to apply a single worldview to an entire ethnic subpopulation). That said, even when I listen to my older in-laws tell stories of the Vietnam War or its aftermath, I know there are more sides to it.

Mostly I grow tired with polar depictions of each side; combatants on either side are not all barbarians OR noble heroes serving a higher cause. They're all just normal people who join the military or join a group for as many reasons as there are troops in the service. Some a great people (on both sides) and some are terrible people (on both sides).

Flatline wrote on Feb 11, 2015, 18:01:
If you have a Roku, PBS has a Frontline episode on the clusterf*ck that is Iraq and how we basically screwed up as badly as you could imagine there. We almost literally grabbed the first Iraqi who didn't want to spit on us and said "hey how'd you like to lead the country?"

But yeah, we're terrible at counter-insurgency. Part of it I think is that we're a culture that doesn't understand that other cultures are so oppressed, or in such a crappy quality of life, that dying fighting is culturally preferable to rotting in misery. We think that inflicting an obscene amount of casualties will win wars, but as we saw in Vietnam that doesn't always work. We killed well over a million people in that war and it didn't achieve strategic victory.

I honestly don't know if there *is* a military solution to insurgency. The popular thought is that there only is within the scope of giving a government time to establish itself and develop infrastructure and a military. Which, you know, works on paper, but finding someone to lead a government, relatively fairly, who is friendly to us, and is liked by the people, and isn't corrupt, is something we really haven't learned how to do yet. If it can be done at all.

Edited because I looked up casualties for Vietnam.

The main correction I'd like to make here is that our strategy in Afghanistan had been to AVOID inflicting massive casualties. Rules of engagement were specifically designed with this in mind, and the approach we took was to leave infrastructure in place (while building and improving it) and to generally tend to the needs (for security, for resources, etc.) of the disparate* local populations in the hopes of gradually building a coalition. For most of the war, US and Coalition forces didn't roll into villages looking to raid, but rather to build relationships. Those that were targeted specifically for raids (most going down without shots even being fired) or for airstrikes were higher-ranking terror network leaders and such. And we did a good overall job keeping civilians out of it when possible.

The way to end an insurgency is to remove the culture that allows it to grow. If military occupation is what's pissing off the locals, then the solution is to remove the military. If it's something else (ruined infrastructure for example), then change that specific condition to the benefit of the locals. At any rate, you're essentially correct that the military can't do much to end it with direct action.

*The Afghans were especially "disparate" compared to the Iraqis.
17.
 
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month
Feb 11, 2015, 18:27
17.
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month Feb 11, 2015, 18:27
Feb 11, 2015, 18:27
 
@Flatline

Well said. And I'll check out that Frontline series.
If Russia stops fighting, the war ends. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ends. Slava Ukraini!
Avatar 22024
16.
 
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month
Feb 11, 2015, 18:05
16.
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month Feb 11, 2015, 18:05
Feb 11, 2015, 18:05
 
Prolonged war has a way of producing ruthless psychopaths on both sides of the conflict.

If you want to go back far enough, just keep France out of there from the beginning. Catholic missionaries in Vietnam around in the 1770's requested French military support for a civil war. That entrenched French interests and eventually made Vietnam a colony over hundreds of years. Fast forward to the end of WW2 and you've got various groups fighting for independence from France, eventually that coalition is dominated by communists. China throws in their support eventually. By the time the war is really cooking for us in the late sixties and seventies you've got Vietnamese who've been fighting a guerrilla war for decades... they are some cold brutal fuckers at that point.
Avatar 17249
15.
 
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month
Feb 11, 2015, 18:01
15.
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month Feb 11, 2015, 18:01
Feb 11, 2015, 18:01
 
jdreyer wrote on Feb 11, 2015, 17:35:
Trainwreck wrote on Feb 11, 2015, 13:10:
Task wrote on Feb 11, 2015, 09:52:
Only US side? If I can't play as the Vietnamese who won their deserved victory, then its a no go.

Dude, if you had any idea what the communists who "deserved victory" were actually like, you'd know how completely fucked up that statement is. I'm not saying America should have got involved (we shouldn't have) or that we didn't blunder our way through a lot of it with high cost to life (we did), but the communist unification of the country in the 1970s was absolutely nothing to celebrate.

Better idea for a game: take America and its other non-Vietnamese allies and make them tangents to the story at best. Focus on Vietnamese protagonists from both sides and show how fucked up a civil war really can be.

The South Vietnamese government and military was rotten and corrupt. It was a military dictatorship. So there really was no good option for the people of Vietnam.

As an intellectual exercise, playing a strategic game of the Vietnam war sounds interesting. How could it have been done differently? Still, even if the North had been defeated (and I don't see how you do that without invading the North and triggering a Chinese counter-invasion) the result would have been a clusterfuck, just like we're seeing in Iraq currently.

The main problem with the US' Vietnam strategy was "search and destroy." You need to take and hold territory. You can't win by trying to kill enemy soldiers (then retreat) until there are no more when the North has basically an endless supply.

This is actually a problem that we haven't solved yet. Insurgency from both nationals and foreign entities is something that even after 40 years America hasn't learned how to deal with. We have a strategy we *think* will work but hasn't yet: Shore up the government and then GTFO and let them deal with it for the next 20 years or so. But we're spectacularly bad when it comes to creating a government out of whole cloth.

If you have a Roku, PBS has a Frontline episode on the clusterf*ck that is Iraq and how we basically screwed up as badly as you could imagine there. We almost literally grabbed the first Iraqi who didn't want to spit on us and said "hey how'd you like to lead the country?"

But yeah, we're terrible at counter-insurgency. Part of it I think is that we're a culture that doesn't understand that other cultures are so oppressed, or in such a crappy quality of life, that dying fighting is culturally preferable to rotting in misery. We think that inflicting an obscene amount of casualties will win wars, but as we saw in Vietnam that doesn't always work. We killed well over a million people in that war and it didn't achieve strategic victory.

I honestly don't know if there *is* a military solution to insurgency. The popular thought is that there only is within the scope of giving a government time to establish itself and develop infrastructure and a military. Which, you know, works on paper, but finding someone to lead a government, relatively fairly, who is friendly to us, and is liked by the people, and isn't corrupt, is something we really haven't learned how to do yet. If it can be done at all.

Edited because I looked up casualties for Vietnam.
14.
 
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month
Feb 11, 2015, 17:46
14.
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month Feb 11, 2015, 17:46
Feb 11, 2015, 17:46
 
Quboid wrote on Feb 11, 2015, 15:06:
Trainwreck wrote on Feb 11, 2015, 13:10:
Better idea for a game: take America and its other non-Vietnamese allies and make them tangents to the story at best. Focus on Vietnamese protagonists from both sides and show how fucked up a civil war really can be.

When there was a poll circulating about future Far Cry settings and Vietnam was mentioned, this is what came to mind for me. I don't think Far Cry's fairly whimsical presentation (even if the content can be dark) is suitable for a real conflict but regardless of the name there could be a fascinating game.

Don't make the U.S., the Russians, the South Vietnamese Army, the North Vietnamese Army, the Vietcong or any of half a dozen other factions the main ones or the good guys. You play as a villager, or you control a village in an RTS, and your allies and enemies are for you to choose.

One problem with this - speaking of real conflicts - is village massacres like My Lai. Portraying this in game could easily be tasteless but ignoring it isn't a whole lot better. Handle with care ... or exploit for cheap publicity. Get kicked off Steam for 24 hours, that should get people listening.

The opposite side of My Lai is when the Communists captured Hue during the Tet Offensive and summarily executed hundreds of civilians there.
If Russia stops fighting, the war ends. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ends. Slava Ukraini!
Avatar 22024
13.
 
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month
Feb 11, 2015, 17:35
13.
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month Feb 11, 2015, 17:35
Feb 11, 2015, 17:35
 
Trainwreck wrote on Feb 11, 2015, 13:10:
Task wrote on Feb 11, 2015, 09:52:
Only US side? If I can't play as the Vietnamese who won their deserved victory, then its a no go.

Dude, if you had any idea what the communists who "deserved victory" were actually like, you'd know how completely fucked up that statement is. I'm not saying America should have got involved (we shouldn't have) or that we didn't blunder our way through a lot of it with high cost to life (we did), but the communist unification of the country in the 1970s was absolutely nothing to celebrate.

Better idea for a game: take America and its other non-Vietnamese allies and make them tangents to the story at best. Focus on Vietnamese protagonists from both sides and show how fucked up a civil war really can be.

The South Vietnamese government and military was rotten and corrupt. It was a military dictatorship. So there really was no good option for the people of Vietnam.

As an intellectual exercise, playing a strategic game of the Vietnam war sounds interesting. How could it have been done differently? Still, even if the North had been defeated (and I don't see how you do that without invading the North and triggering a Chinese counter-invasion) the result would have been a clusterfuck, just like we're seeing in Iraq currently.

The main problem with the US' Vietnam strategy was "search and destroy." You need to take and hold territory. You can't win by trying to kill enemy soldiers (then retreat) until there are no more when the North has basically an endless supply.
If Russia stops fighting, the war ends. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ends. Slava Ukraini!
Avatar 22024
12.
 
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month
Feb 11, 2015, 17:22
12.
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month Feb 11, 2015, 17:22
Feb 11, 2015, 17:22
 
NetHead wrote on Feb 11, 2015, 10:59:
..aims to capture the essence of the Vietnam War. At the head of the US forces, the player will... to achieve victory.

lol Okay, also wonder if "calling in air support" lets you choose between Agent Orange and Napalm.

"Come in, I'd like to drop Agent Orange all over that area so they can have crazy deformed babies for 40 years and counting, over" America Fuck Yeah! Lets celebrate this shit.

This is kind of sick.

This is the case with all war games, and even most games in general. Are you just playing racing and adventure games or something?
If Russia stops fighting, the war ends. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ends. Slava Ukraini!
Avatar 22024
11.
 
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month
Feb 11, 2015, 15:06
Quboid
 
11.
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month Feb 11, 2015, 15:06
Feb 11, 2015, 15:06
 Quboid
 
Trainwreck wrote on Feb 11, 2015, 13:10:
Better idea for a game: take America and its other non-Vietnamese allies and make them tangents to the story at best. Focus on Vietnamese protagonists from both sides and show how fucked up a civil war really can be.

When there was a poll circulating about future Far Cry settings and Vietnam was mentioned, this is what came to mind for me. I don't think Far Cry's fairly whimsical presentation (even if the content can be dark) is suitable for a real conflict but regardless of the name there could be a fascinating game.

Don't make the U.S., the Russians, the South Vietnamese Army, the North Vietnamese Army, the Vietcong or any of half a dozen other factions the main ones or the good guys. You play as a villager, or you control a village in an RTS, and your allies and enemies are for you to choose.

One problem with this - speaking of real conflicts - is village massacres like My Lai. Portraying this in game could easily be tasteless but ignoring it isn't a whole lot better. Handle with care ... or exploit for cheap publicity. Get kicked off Steam for 24 hours, that should get people listening.
Avatar 10439
10.
 
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month
Feb 11, 2015, 14:28
10.
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month Feb 11, 2015, 14:28
Feb 11, 2015, 14:28
 
Task wrote on Feb 11, 2015, 09:52:
Only US side? If I can't play as the Vietnamese who won their deserved victory, then its a no go.

I bet that's coming as DLC.
9.
 
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month
Feb 11, 2015, 13:48
9.
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month Feb 11, 2015, 13:48
Feb 11, 2015, 13:48
 
Trainwreck wrote on Feb 11, 2015, 13:10:
Task wrote on Feb 11, 2015, 09:52:
Only US side? If I can't play as the Vietnamese who won their deserved victory, then its a no go.

Dude, if you had any idea what the communists who "deserved victory" were actually like, you'd know how completely fucked up that statement is. I'm not saying America should have got involved (we shouldn't have) or that we didn't blunder our way through a lot of it with high cost to life (we did), but the communist unification of the country in the 1970s was absolutely nothing to celebrate.

Better idea for a game: take America and its other non-Vietnamese allies and make them tangents to the story at best. Focus on Vietnamese protagonists from both sides and show how fucked up a civil war really can be.

Not a bad idea.

My favorite piece of Vietnam trivia is to ask people how Ho Chi Minh started his inauguration address.

Nobody really knows

History be complicated yo.
8.
 
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month
Feb 11, 2015, 13:47
8.
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month Feb 11, 2015, 13:47
Feb 11, 2015, 13:47
 
Trainwreck wrote on Feb 11, 2015, 13:10:
Task wrote on Feb 11, 2015, 09:52:
Only US side? If I can't play as the Vietnamese who won their deserved victory, then its a no go.

Dude, if you had any idea what the communists who "deserved victory" were actually like, you'd know how completely fucked up that statement is. I'm not saying America should have got involved (we shouldn't have) or that we didn't blunder our way through a lot of it with high cost to life (we did), but the communist unification of the country in the 1970s was absolutely nothing to celebrate.

Better idea for a game: take America and its other non-Vietnamese allies and make them tangents to the story at best. Focus on Vietnamese protagonists from both sides and show how fucked up a civil war really can be.

Said by someone with obviously no knowledge of history. And what, pray, do you think precipitates all these Revolutions to begin with? That people have it so good they're just bored and decide to revolt for shits n' giggles? At the rate NA and Europe is going with the redistribution of wealth to the top it won't be too long before we're revolting as well. We've already seen the beginning steps of it over the last 10 years. Income equality, social justice, etc. aren't just abstract concepts to be debated. They're things people actually want and need. Hence the Magna Carta, the Constitution, and every red revolution around the globe over the last century.


Tom Breaker:
Look, Bill, if this is about reliving the 60's, you can forget about it, buddy. The movement is dead.

William Strannix:
Yes, of course! Hence the name: movement. It moves a certain distance, then it stops, you see? A revolution gets its name by always coming back around in your face. You tried to kill me you son of a bitch... so welcome to the revolution.
7.
 
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month
Feb 11, 2015, 13:10
7.
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month Feb 11, 2015, 13:10
Feb 11, 2015, 13:10
 
Task wrote on Feb 11, 2015, 09:52:
Only US side? If I can't play as the Vietnamese who won their deserved victory, then its a no go.

Dude, if you had any idea what the communists who "deserved victory" were actually like, you'd know how completely fucked up that statement is. I'm not saying America should have got involved (we shouldn't have) or that we didn't blunder our way through a lot of it with high cost to life (we did), but the communist unification of the country in the 1970s was absolutely nothing to celebrate.

Better idea for a game: take America and its other non-Vietnamese allies and make them tangents to the story at best. Focus on Vietnamese protagonists from both sides and show how fucked up a civil war really can be.
6.
 
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month
Feb 11, 2015, 12:08
6.
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month Feb 11, 2015, 12:08
Feb 11, 2015, 12:08
 
There's a lot of room for grand strategy in a Vietnam war game. I'll be interested to see if this one captures a lot of the idiosyncrasies of that war.

There's a board game that came out recently, Fire in the Lake, that does pretty well. But even then it misses some of the bizarre shit like how hands-on the staff at the white house were in the day to day tactical aspects of the war. They'd pick bombing targets, then dictate for "political reasons" the direction of the attack, altitude, etc etc... Sometimes it seemed like completely arbitrary bullshit.

We have eleventy billion grand strategy games for WW2 I'd like to see Korea and Vietnam get some attention finally. It'd be worth it.
5.
 
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month
Feb 11, 2015, 10:59
5.
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month Feb 11, 2015, 10:59
Feb 11, 2015, 10:59
 
..aims to capture the essence of the Vietnam War. At the head of the US forces, the player will... to achieve victory.

lol Okay, also wonder if "calling in air support" lets you choose between Agent Orange and Napalm.

"Come in, I'd like to drop Agent Orange all over that area so they can have crazy deformed babies for 40 years and counting, over" America Fuck Yeah! Lets celebrate this shit.

This is kind of sick.
4.
 
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month
Feb 11, 2015, 10:43
4.
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month Feb 11, 2015, 10:43
Feb 11, 2015, 10:43
 
SirKnight wrote on Feb 11, 2015, 10:06:
Task wrote on Feb 11, 2015, 09:52:
Only US side? If I can't play as the Vietnamese who won their deserved victory, then its a no go.

WTF?

He's right. The colonialists had no business being there in the first place.
3.
 
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month
Feb 11, 2015, 10:06
3.
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month Feb 11, 2015, 10:06
Feb 11, 2015, 10:06
 
Task wrote on Feb 11, 2015, 09:52:
Only US side? If I can't play as the Vietnamese who won their deserved victory, then its a no go.

WTF?
2.
 
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month
Feb 11, 2015, 09:52
2.
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month Feb 11, 2015, 09:52
Feb 11, 2015, 09:52
 
Only US side? If I can't play as the Vietnamese who won their deserved victory, then its a no go.
Avatar 37119
1.
 
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month
Feb 11, 2015, 09:34
1.
Re: Vietnam '65 Next Month Feb 11, 2015, 09:34
Feb 11, 2015, 09:34
 
for moment i thought this was related to Shellshock: Nam '67 ahh too bad its not,.
"On 2646.215 I myself attacked & destroyed TCS Tiger's Claw in my Jalthi heavy fighter"
Bakhtosh Redclaw Nar Kiranka
Avatar 7413
20 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older