Tags
1968, Battle for Hue, Boston, Cold War, SGS Battles, Tet Offensive, Vietnam
This is the hundred-sixty-fourth in a series of posts on the Vietnam War. Go back to the previous post in the series or return to the master post.
That previous post on Battle For: Hue was written after playing only one of the four included scenarios. It was, at four turns, the shortest of them and (as I learned) intended to be instructional. After a little bit of self-orientation, I found it fairly easy to be successful with it. The scenario’s parameters model the beginning of the breakout of the U.S. Marine force, expanding from their stronghold at MACV headquarters. Given the setup and scope, it is hard for a player to get things entirely wrong.
Its simplicity, combined with its smaller size, helps me understand why the documentation has designated it as a learning scenario. I explained both where it falls short but why it, even so, seems to be good enough. But does that truncated experience really say enough about the game as a whole? Did that introduction, as much as I enjoyed it, really indicate whether this game is a worthwhile purchase?
To try to answer those questions, I’ll start by returning to a subject I broached before; the past record of Avalon Digital. One major issue is that Avalon’s AI just didn’t seem to understand the game. In the case of their block game adaptations, familiarity with the format and a quick study of the game-specific rules put me at a substantial advantage over the AI. Maybe it took me one game to notice what the AI was especially prone to doing wrong but, from there, I could reliably crush the programmed opponent time-and-time again.
This flaw was particularly noticeable in that the Columbia Block Game conversions, being board games, have been designed for balanced play between two human players. This means that if the computer opponent isn’t up to snuff, there is not much left to enjoy in a single-player game. Add to that how even an expansive board game often seems much smaller when ported to the computer, and the Block conversions just didn’t seem like they held much value – certainly held up against a full-priced game on Steam.
Everything is just the way it seems
Herein lies one natural advantage when it comes to Hue; one one that I’ve talked about many times before. This game models asymmetric warfare. While the game’s opposing armies may be suitably matched, they are by no means balanced. In key points within the game’s month-long scope, one side or the other has a clear advantage in numbers or firepower (or both). Better still, that advantage shifts to one side and then the other during the month-long battle, allowing scenarios to focus on that advantage as needed.
Even if the computer component is less than capable, an asymmetry on the battlefield can give you a good game anyway. And if the AI has at least some ability, all the better! For the Hue battle, managing the NVA’s inevitable loss of captured territory is probably an easier task than taking territory in the first place, but the opposite is true in the opening week when the NVA’s attacking forces is overwhelming the city with surprise. In that phase, the computer can probably handle the ARVN forces when the task is to hold on to what they can despite being outnumbered. Conversely, AI can resist the Marine’s onslaught when the U.S. finally has enough force to retake the city. Or, at least, it is going to be better at that then it would be managing a one-sided offensive.
I’m dwelling on this because, before I resumed my playing, I read a Reddit thread about the SGS games having a weakness in terms of AI. With my limited experience in-game, I am not going to try to tell you whether or not it is true. I can tell you that it is likely; it would be shocking indeed to find an industry-beating strategic algorithm hidden away in an indie title. The real question is; does it matter? Does enjoyment of this game require finding a willing human opponent? Or do the nature of the battle and the design of this game match up to offer a reasonable solo-play experience?
To judge this, I needed to take on a more meaty scenario. My choice was obvious; I played the dozen-turn Marines to the Rescue, the 12-turn scenario which covers the American’s offensive to retake the area south of the Perfume river.
Perhaps I am reading too much into the setup… Urban Battle and Marines to the Rescue are both, by default, set for the player to take the U.S. side. This is, of course, configurable. The player can choose to take on either side or even both sides. By way of contrast, the two remaining scenarios are set up to be played as the NVA as the default. In one, the NVA fight against the ARVN only. The final scenario represents the full, 30-turn game and all three combatants. Point being, I am assuming that the default configuration represents the game makers’ recommendation.
I played through Marines to the Rescue twice in fairly short order. In and of itself, this highlights one of the advantages of this game. It is no monster; it can easily be knocked off in a few, short sessions. In any case, on my first play through, I didn’t do so well. I learned a little bit about how supply works and what it takes to get the upper hand in battle. On the second run through, I won solidly on points.
If you take a look at the situation on the second-to-last turn (see below), you can make out how far I advanced on that second run through. It may be a little hard to tell, if you don’t already know what you’re looking at, but white text on black background shows the American-held objectives and white text on red background indicate regions still held by the NVA. The large red squares are known enemy unit positions.
Compare this to the map from Combat Operations: Staying the Course shown in this linked article. I’m very close to the historical lines in terms of captured territory and in several respects I’ve done better. My fight, this second time through, was still fun and interesting. I am convinced that once you get the hang of the scenario, though, you’re no longer likely to “lose” to the AI.
Given my theories about single player being enhanced by the natural asymmetry of battle’s situation, I am inclined to suspect (even with scant evidence) that playing the preferred side for these scenarios will result in the best experience. I briefly tried to test the theory by playing the “wrong” side of the full scenario. I found the experience awkward, including running into UI glitches that I hadn’t before. I’d have to put in more time, though, to render a fair verdict. It is an important question, though. If the scenarios are truly one-sided from the single player experience, then that leaves Marines to the Rescue as the only real single-player option for a player wanting to command the U.S. forces. If so, that is not a lot of content value for the solo-player customer.
Before I wrap up for today, I’m going to stray way off into the weeds. In my first post about this game I said I’d talk more about breakthroughs so I figure I probably should, even though it doesn’t fit the flow of what else I wrote for you today. So be it.
The game uses a mechanic that, I am going to assume, was developed for another SGS game set at a different scale. I’ve not explained the way battles work in detail but I’ll just say that, in addition to the phased resolution (see, for reference, the first screenshot) which can occur automatically as the combat plays out, there are multiple phases falling under player control. As I explained last time, combat is actually initiated in a series of movement phases before being resolved in a mostly-automatic combat phase. That movement involves “air movement,” ground unit activation, and then the movement of ground units themselves. At the end of all of this, battles occur where enemies share a location.
If a player occupies a fortified structure, shown as white buildings in the second screenshot, above, combat is not automatic. Instead, the attacker chooses whether or not to assault the enemy position. If he does not, further resolution is postponed to a later phase (a “siege” phase).
In any other case, after a battle has been resolved, the player might get an additional option. Units with remaining movement capacity are given the option to exercise a “breakthrough.” For old school gamers, such as I consider myself to be, we remember rules allowing post-combat movement of armor, modeling the “blitzkrieg” warfare on World War II’s Eastern Front. In Hue, the situation modeled is very different. Practically speaking, this phase represents the practical ability of (mostly infantry) units to assault multiple enemy locations within the same day (i.e. in one turn).
If breakthrough movement is allowed, the player is given a view where the current map location and adjacent, reachable locations are highlight and the player must click one. Clicking the place where you already are ends the battle and the turn for those units in question. Clicking an adjacent area will move your forces (or a subset thereof) into the new location and, if occupied by enemy forces, add a new battle to the current turn’s resolution cycle.
I’ve added a lot of words to illustrate a rather mundane mechanic. I think, though, it illustrates some of the points I made about this game and this series. The way it has integrated “engine” and “chrome,” in several such cases, comes together to give just the right feel. I feels “realistic” that, in some cases, a successful advance could be followed up with orders to go on and take the next block too. In other cases, having fought and won an enemy occupied position, all involved would be done for the day.
For me, I’m more interested in the historical experience of a game – the role-playing, if you will – that the mental challenge of matching wits against an opponent. On this score, I feel like the combination of historical research and unique play options has resulted in a game that successfully sheds some light on the details of this unique battle. Even though, as a single-player-only focused customer, the content feels a little light, I have to say I’m glad I picked this one up.
You can return to the master post. If you’re looking for some more commentary on Vietnam, I bring up the film Apocalypse Now and what it might be trying to say about the war in an otherwise unrelated post. The next true entry on Vietnam once again considers the Australian experience.