Game Science Viet Nam (2)

Previous:
Next:
Tags

After almost a year and a half, my usual Vietnam opponent ventured up to Dos Palmas for game day. He wanted to do something Vietnam, but I didn't really have much on my mind for that at the moment. We ended up going through some of the boxes of my Vietnam games, and the Game Science Viet Nam struck our fancy, so we set it up! I was stoked to get this back on the table. I believe there is a pretty good game in here, especially since it's from 1965!

We played 3 rounds, January through March, then called it a draw. As I recalled, the game is pretty cool. He liked it as well. He's even interested in redoing the map in Autocard, which would be pretty cool. If he does that, I'll spring for a bunch of wooden bits from Speilematerial.de to upgrade all the components. I'm also going to keep the game out and the rules handy to see if I can answer some of the following questions:

  1. How do the numbers on the side of the index tracks work? Supposedly these are for controlling the number of Insurgent and Counter Insurgent pieces, but the start of the game says to fill all the spaces. This is ambiguous.

  2. How are attackers and defenders established? We did not find anything in the rules to define what constitutes an attacker versus a defender. This is a problem as combat resolution depends on the difference.

  3. How many different ways are reinforcement units brought in and for which sides? The index track for sure, Infiltration for the VC, but there has to be other ways.

  4. How do Irregular forces get emplaced for each side?

Here's the game set up in Turn 1:

Game Science Viet Nam Game 2 Turn 1

A Study In Emerald

I'm writing this on December 12, 2021, months after the fact. I very distiinctly recall playing this, but I did not log it at the time, but I'm pretty sure it was after this game. It's such a great game! Would like to play it more.

Previous:
Next:
Tags

What to play next?

Deciding what to play next is always a tough call when faced with a closet full of games, all of which were purchased with intent to play. Here's one I'm dealing with the decision.

  • Something New: this means both something new to me and a game which has been published recently, within the last two or three years.
  • Something Classic: I've acquired a number of games properly considered "classic" which haven't yet been played. The current example would be PanzerGruppe Guderian.
  • Something Again: mastery requires constant practice, which means playing games many, many times to allow nuance to appear.
  • Something Vietnam: as I'm on a Vietnam binge. I don't have all the Vietnam games ever published, but I can say that I have a lot of them, and probably more than most people.
  • Something Obscure: as it's fun to poke around in the dustier corners of game design.
  • Something Different: break away from the same old publishers and try a game from one of the new kids on the block. Or, conversely, dip into legacy with a classic tried and true.
  • Something Light: once in a while it's nice to actually finish a game all the way through in one sitting, in an hour or two.
  • Something Heavy: if possible, it's nice to set up something big and complicated which can be left out for days or weeks or even months, for a leisurely stroll through a very large or long game.

There are surely many more ways to choose, but the above method keeps me busy enough, helps me get both breadth and depth into my play, and provides me with a sense of progress.

The odd man out

When there is an odd man out:

  • Have a solo game ready to play.
  • Keep score or advise on a game in progress.
  • Referee a game in progress.