Trying to adapt CoC to the Vietnam Conflict

Moderators: Laffe, Vis Bellica

dwtaylor0
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:21 am

Re: Trying to adapt CoC to the Vietnam Conflict

Post by dwtaylor0 »

Random thoughts:
How different were the VC vs the NVA? My impression is that the division between the two was porous at best at least in terms of NVA vs 'main force' VC. I'd imagine the VC would have better fieldcraft but worse equipment. Perhaps no distinction is needed, and a VC force is simply one that put more support points into 'sneaky stuff' rather that heavy weapons and the like.


A version of the Soviet UHRAAAAH! rule might make sense VC and/or NVA.
UHRAAAAH!
As the Red Army infantry closed with the enemy supported by MMG’s and tanks the last push would be made with an overwhelming assault. At their leaders command, the soldiers would charge the enemy, their bayonets fixed and their battle‐cry rising over the battlefield. These wave attacks were effective when they caught the enemy by surprise or without proper support weapons but many times they made little or no gain for terrible cost in men.   A Soviet Senior Leader may by using all his Command Initiatives order all the sections within his Command Distance that haven’t been activated yet in that Phase, to assault the enemy. Any troops so activated will move with 4D6 straight towards their chosen enemy, each squad dicing for its own movement.  They halve their Shock for the Movement purposes (rounding up).  Any Squad or Squads which gets within 4” from enemy initiates Close Combat.



Earlier in the thread I wondered if some sort or US Marine special rule was needed based on how the Marine Junior Leaders 'should' be directing the M79 gunners fire. However, the way the force is structured may provide that since the M79 gunner would be a separate team from the riflemen. This means that the JL could spend one initiative to direct the M79 fire at one target, and another initiative to have the riflemen fire at another target. This gives the Marines a nice bit of flexibility.

It was funny to realize that between the base rules and the force structure, no extra rules are really needed.

User avatar
Arlequín
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 11:29 pm
Location: King's Vale Royal

Re: Trying to adapt CoC to the Vietnam Conflict

Post by Arlequín »

Indeed CoC works very well for most things with little to have to bolt-on to them. Barring a few idiosyncrasies, how troops were organised and how they fought, is often enough to provide 'the difference' between eras. ;)

The VC operated a 'school' system, in that members graduated up the levels. So they would begin their career as teens operating as lookouts, messengers and carriers of supplies. The best would graduate to the Local Forces, where they would learn how to use weapons, plant booby traps and act as scouts for Main Force units. Local Forces would supplement MF units when they operated in their area. The best of the LF would in turn graduate to the MF.

This is all relative however and if MF units took heavy casualties, the bar would be lowered to make numbers up from the LF.

The NVA was a conscript army, so you would have a mix of conscripts and junior NCOs with little or no experience, under senior NCOs and officers with some. The relative experience of a NVA unit would depend on how long they had operated in the South, how many casualties they had taken (i.e. how many replacements they had received).

On the whole the NVA were better equipped, with the VC MF units coming a close second. VC LF equipment varied as to how close they were to supply routes. In the early '60s the VC was almost wholly equipped with US and French weapons, which had been captured, stolen and even bought from the ARVN.

I would use the 'Uhraah!' rule for the NVA, but perhaps not for the VC... personally at least.

dwtaylor0
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:21 am

Re: Trying to adapt CoC to the Vietnam Conflict

Post by dwtaylor0 »

I've still been grinding my brain against the ARVN. Not sure what special rules (if any) to give them. If they don't get any rules how would they been balanced against forces that do.

Put another way, what makes ARVN interesting? Outside of historical rigor, what would make people want to play them? Perhaps they'll be a bit like the Russians in that their strength is their weakness. I guess if you love M24 Chafees, take one of the low strength early ARVN platoons and you can take two or three!

Unrelated thought: if US gets the rule allowing any Leader to call down barrages assuming they are in a squad with a radioman, would it make sense to add radiomen to the Support List? Maybe List One?

Peter
Posts: 1170
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:41 pm

Re: Trying to adapt CoC to the Vietnam Conflict

Post by Peter »

Not all 'special rules' are beneficial, of course (eg a special rule for the French downgrades their senior NCOs to JLs), as not all forces are created equal. If a given doctrine has definite advantages or disadvantages then that should be reflected in their points value - or in the scenario.

Peter

c0cky30
Posts: 224
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 12:15 pm

Re: Trying to adapt CoC to the Vietnam Conflict

Post by c0cky30 »

A couple of thoughts I've had for discussion comment.

US National Characteristics

Excellent Communications
US may spend any Chain of Command pips accrued to increase any rolls on their command dice during a phase. The value of any dice may not be increased beyond 4.

Chain of Command Dice
US may use a Chain of command dice to call in an air strike. The US player nominates a target point within LOS of one of their units and rolls a dice. Roll on the following table to determine where the Air Strike hits.

Air Strike ROLL EFFECT
1 Move Aiming point 6” to the right of the target
2 Move Aiming point 6” to the left of the target
3 Move Aiming point 6” up from the target
4 Move Aiming point 6” down from the target
5–6 Strike Hits Target.

From the target point each target along any line of a 12”x 6” beaten zone are hit with 3D6 ‘Regular- Effective Range’ firepower attacks each. Roll on Table 5 ‘to hit’ and Table 6 ‘for effect’. Allocation of Shock and Loss effect is the same as all normal rules.

Casualty and Medic rules

Medics are included as part of a US platoon
US forces ignore the first casualty inflicted on a unit in a phase. Instead this is treated as a point of shock. Any subsequent casualties beyond this cause the usual effects. A unit which suffers a casualty will be temporarily pinned. This pinning effect may be removed immediately by moving a medic to within 4” of the effected unit or by a Leader spending 2 initiative points to rally the unit from the pinned effect or at the end of a turn.

Huey Transports
Allow a Squad to deploy within 12 inches of a jump of point. Must land in an appropriate area. Are deployed on a 3 as a vehicle with the helicopter and troops all deployed on table within 12 inches of a jump off point. Huey must be activated on a subsequent phase on a 3 to be removed from the table. May be shot at until removed from table.

ANZACS
ANZAC National Characteristics
Cautious patrolling, maximum security
To reflect this emphasis, an ANZAC team may move with 2D6 and then assume a Tactical stance when
activated by a Leader using two Command Initiatives.

ANZACS may call Airstrikes using the same methods as US and use the US medic and casualty as well as huey transport rules.


NVA
NVA National Characteristics

NVA Patrol Markers use 14” as both their move distance and the distance from a friendly Patrol Marker within which they must remain. Other than this additional 2” they operate as normal Patrol Markers. When deploying from a Jump‐Off Point, regular NVA troops must deploy within 9” of that point and elite troops within 12”.

NVA Troops who receive shock from firing or combat ignore the first point received.

Chain of Command Dice
Use Dice to remove 1 unit within 12” of a jump off point off table to be redeployed at a later stage. Unit being removed cannot currently be pinned or broken. Units shock markers are removed when unit is removed.

Sappers treated as DIEHARDS.

VC
Use irregular troop rules per Spanish Civil war supplement however treat a Small Unit as 1-3 Figures, A medium unit as 4-6 figures and a Large Unit as 7+ figures.

VC Patrol Markers use 14” as both their move distance and the distance from a friendly Patrol Marker within which they must remain. Other than this additional 2” they operate as normal Patrol Markers. When deploying from a Jump‐Off Point, Green VC troops must deploy within 6” of that point and regular troops within 9”.

VC Troops who receive shock from firing or combat ignore the first point received.

Centralised Leadership
To reflect this doctrinal embracement of the importance of central command, the VC Platoon Leader is rated as a Junior Leader, although he is able to influence any troops within the Platoon.

Chain of Command Dice
Use Dice to remove 1 unit within 12” of a jump off point off table to be redeployed at a later stage. Unit cannot be pinned or broken. Units shock markers are removed when unit is removed.

Treat booby traps as Russian WRATH OF THE GODS rule.


http://www.live365.com/stations/wanderlust2k3

sid
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2013 9:32 am
Location: Sunny Swansea

Re: Trying to adapt CoC to the Vietnam Conflict

Post by sid »

Its all good stuff and the only thing I would have a serious issue with is the medics for the US. This effectively lets the US 'shrug off' casualties whereas in actual fact casualties would result in the unit switching focus to casevac them, much as in the latest lardies 'fighting season' being developed.

c0cky30
Posts: 224
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 12:15 pm

Re: Trying to adapt CoC to the Vietnam Conflict

Post by c0cky30 »

The casualty medic thing was something I was most unsure about. Any suggestions on how best to reflect it. Also do you think allowing NVA/VC to ignore first shock point each time is too powerful.

User avatar
Arlequín
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 11:29 pm
Location: King's Vale Royal

Re: Trying to adapt CoC to the Vietnam Conflict

Post by Arlequín »

Without coming across as negative, I would be inclined to wait until Fighting Season comes out before going down this route. Some of the parts of that should be able to be adapted to Vietnam quite easily... particularly the CASEVAC and medic rules.

With the expansion of CoC beyond WWII, you will already have a number of new rules and new ways of doing things as it is. 'Rule fatigue' can easily set in if each period or sub-period has its own rules, then what holds for one and not another becomes a real problem.

CAS is a problem with the ground scale of CoC too. the smallest GP Bomb, the 250kg Mk. 80, has a lethal fragmentation radius of some 400 yards. A napalm cannister covers a rectangle of around 2,500 square yards. Mk. 44 AP blanketed an area of 320,000 square feet and a CBU-14 covers an area 150 x 25 yards. Circular error for air to ground ordnance was usually around 40 yards (so 12" and not 6") around the target point, so expect some friendly fire incidents.

Even the humble UH-1B Hog could clear the typical 6' x 4' table of all living things, including most vegetation with little effort. Added to that, the time taken for CAS to be called in and it arriving, would be beyond the length of the typical CoC game.

I have also never been a fan of 'national characteristics'. The assumption that 'every' unit of a particular nation displays the same characteristics all of the time, belongs to 'that other game'. ;)

c0cky30
Posts: 224
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 12:15 pm

Re: Trying to adapt CoC to the Vietnam Conflict

Post by c0cky30 »

Appreciate the comments Arlequín and no negativity taken. I love the CoC rules and have a stack of 28mm NAM gear and table itching to get a run so I'm keen to play NAM asap.

Could I seek your advice on any suggestions for National characteristics for the forces involved?

Would you dump close air support completely?

Would you suggest using the casualty fatigue rules as per CoC until fighting season comes out or can you suggest an alternative?

User avatar
Seret
Posts: 4074
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 7:45 pm
Location: Kent UK
Contact:

Re: Trying to adapt CoC to the Vietnam Conflict

Post by Seret »

Arlequín wrote: CAS is a problem with the ground scale of CoC too. the smallest GP Bomb, the 250kg Mk. 80, has a lethal fragmentation radius of some 400 yards.
That sounds like a safety distance rather than a practical lethal radius. They're generally pretty conservative. I've been about that far from Mk82s going off and the risk is manageable.

Circular error for air to ground ordnance was usually around 40 yards (so 12" and not 6") around the target point, so expect some friendly fire incidents.
CEP also only accounts for 50% of weapons, so the other half will be falling even further away. It depends on the type of weapon and attack profile, but misses of 100m or more shouldn't be unusual. That's assuming that the FAC and the pilot are even on the same wavelength in the first place and he's attacking the right target.

I'd be inclined to leave fixed wing CAS out entirely for a platoon level game. If you had a mechanism for off table supporting fires then rotary wing could slot into that.

Post Reply