Ahistorical OOBs in HPS SBs

[burroughs]

I have been playing HPS SB games for about a month now or something, "SAW" and "DBP" mainly and only recently I had a look at "Vietnam" and "Tour of Duty" or , be it - "The Pacific War" - to consider my future including them in my PBEM gaming.

Particularily in the previous two titles mentioned above I have found some quite shocking discrepancies in regard to what I know from my studies in military history of different periods and theaters.To give a quick example I would point to both "LZ X - Ray" and "LZ Albany" scenarios - in both engagements participated two sister batallions from 7th Cav Bde, 1st Cav Div ( airmobile ), 1/7th and 2/7th respectively , commanded by Lt Col Moore and Lt Col McDade - that part of operation "Silver Bayonet" was a part of a larger a few months long battle of the Ia Drang Valley in Cetral Highlands, RVN in 1965.

Nevertheless, in the game scenarios there's no such formations or figures ( with the exception of the scenario entitled "LZ X- Ray: First Contact". Moreover, throughout "ToD" appears such nonexistent division as 11th Air Cav ... What the ...?

That freaked me out; I have developed a strong fondness for military history and the exact knowledge of facts over the years and wargaming has become a part of my research hobby along with books and documentaries. In both "SAW" and "DBP" I haven't found such grave simplifications or omissions so far ( I am not going as far as to study the dates and combat deployments to such extent thus I allow some minor mistakes ... It's absolutely natural I think ... ) and I was surprised to see such well known subject treated in such lightheaded manner.

Has anobody playing other titles in the series traced any similar deliberate mistakes? ... I know it's only a game and the whole thing is about having fun, but we do not play dumb shooters,eh? Besides there are games who do not lack both the factual historic backgound and still provide the fun factor ... Why not create a hypothetic skirmish rather than give a false form to a historic event? As a history and realism freak I feel a bit disappointed and betrayed: I chose the games to be able to retrace some well known battles, operations and clashes only to find thet now the scenarios a sought for are a kind of ersatz ... That's unfair a little, isn't that?

What do You think? ...

[Wolfgang]

I'm not intimately familiar with the historical details of this battle or Silver Bayonet.

I think the scenario I played: The Battle at LZ X-Ray in ToD only covers a slice of the action starting at 2:45 pm 14 November 1965. At 9 turns it would only cover about 45 minutes of battle. The 2/7 didn't show up until around 5pm (wiki data) or just after the scenario ends.

It is curious that "11th Cav" [correction it actually says 11th Cav Division, sorry] is what I read in that scenario on my units though. Which I take to mean the 11th ACR or "Blackhorse" regiment (in Vietnam 1966-1972 which would be after this battle)?

============
Btw, If you have a scenario you'd like to try ill play ToD.

[-72-]

I don't know enough about the orbats in ToD, to say much definitively, but I had taken a look at the Long Tan scenario, and noted that the game map is fairly large for the average 12 turn SB scenario.

It also got me thinking that I need to learn more about that battle; mind you I had soem help from Tallin here... about maybe working within that title to see what I might be able to come up with.

I eventually got hold of some 1:50,000 scale maps of the area that I think according the the USGC site said were made during the Vietnam War period. So who knows, but I suppose this is sort of the start of an entire process.

For me, it isn't so much a question of "are the orbats wrong?", but rather, do I have access to modify them?

Then too maybe, if I get hold of a fan of the series, and see if I can get the map expanded (or modified a bit) if needed.

I think this map has some buildings on it that are not present on the game map.





Mind you both of those are zoomed out a fair bit - so it isn't actually an accurate image of the level of detail I found. I think that the game map might have enough room ( I created a larger stitch shot of the actual map to get an idea for about how far any relief forces would have to come ).

[TheBigRedOne]

If you read the liner notes in the manual for VN, Tiller discusses some of the details of the game, specifically the names of the leaders being randomized in Vietnam.

Since many of people who fought in the Vietnam War are still alive, he felt uncomfortable using real names and assigning leader ratings to these individuals, which is why if you look at the leader ratings, they might not necessarily be as accurate as you'd expect from a Tiller game. The Vietnam War was a very difficult conflict for America, and he chose to make the first game in the SB series respectful of that, and of the men who fought and died in the war.

I would assume that this is probably also detailed in the fact that the units might not necessarily match up with the historical units involved. I have seen that the X-Ray units aren't correct, but I've never gone back and looked at all of the scenarios to see if this is something general.

Every other game in the series should be fairly accurate in this regard, especially the last several releases. Joao, Mike and Oz made great pains to have the OOBs as accurate as possible, given the information they could find. Clearly, individual names of leaders can't always be found, so there is some latitude there, but major commanders should all be fairly accurate, as well as the units involved.

[Wolfgang]

A cursory glance at the historical data gave me insight into some battles and firefights surrounding the actions at LZ-Xray that aren't covered in ToD but would make for some great lil historical firefight scenarios.
With the OOB editor, new orders of battle can be created to support custom scenarios.
I think what TheBigRedOne said about naming conventions in the JT Vietnam titles was my first thought as to the reason why the unit names in the scenario don't match the historical record. But also if you look closely at some of the U.S. officers in that scenario you do see a sprinkling of historically accurate names (McCorkle is there).

[TheBigRedOne]

I've always thought that it was unfortunate that two of the first three games in this series were Vietnam related. Not because the conflict didn't deserve two games, but they came along so early in the evolution of the series that they seem a touch weaker than many of the newer games, even with the game engine getting continual updates.

SB now versus when VN came out seems almost like night and day. The level of scenario design has matured greatly, and the emphasis on balance, something many of the earlier games didn't have, really provide a rich gaming experience. The updates to the engine that have been incorporated for each new title have also given the game a greater depth, but those changes haven't completely impacted the oldest games because they weren't able to be taken into account during the initial design.

I'd love to see a total reworking of both of these games, but chances are that won't happen, and for understandable reasons. Someone doing it outside of the Tiller organization would make things tricky because unless everyone gets the newest versions, there would be potential PBEMing issues.

[Wolfgang]

Ok, all this Vietnam talk is getting me hungry for ToD pbem!!

Someone here owes me a file... somewhere...

[Dog829]

I've always thought that we were catching a small condensed version of what the battle was like with the historical scenarios. And while the actual ID's of the units involved wasn't critical to me it was certainly desirable. I feel accurate OOB''s for VN and ToD, for all SB games actually, should be used. If generic officer names were used that sure wouldn't bother me. Hasn't so far. Which games have accurate OOB's or is it a case of percentages? Does anyone know?

There are many things about the SB series of games that attracted me to it and have kept me coming back. Not the least of which is the modding capabilities that avail themselves to all of us.
I still lack much of the knowledge of how to do it but that's on me for not taking the time. Lately, it just so happens that one thing I have a lot of is time. Please, Stand by for questions.

Ironwulf do you have a preference for sides in TOD?

[burroughs]

At ease, Private.

Indeed a far more important thing in re-creating a historical engagement is the actual deployment of forces, TO&E used and applied and some other bits & pieces than whether the ballte at the LZ X - Ray was commanded by the 11th Air Cav ( Ambl ) Lt Col named Lopez( which it wasn't in fact ... ); thus if I have a lost platoon represented in a scenario that's alright with me from the tactical point of view, but ...

... we live in the data age where information is a weapon that can kill. Wars are waged without firing a single shot, they are lost & won in a moment because of the information management. We are fed with lots of information on a daily basis and gardually become overloaded with data. Wrong data creates a noise - that's how the theory has it and I think it can be observed in practice indeed - turn a few radios and TV sets at the same time, tuned them to the news chanels and see how long you can stand that ... I do not need noise and noise is not only potentially harmful so that needs to be selected and sorted.
Besides - much the way that Viking from "The 13th Warrior" movie has put that - once You consider what You can see, start thinking about what You can't and take it into consideration - when I see a mistake I start thinking about those that I couldn't have found and wheter I have not been deceived or mislead into wrong assumptions and conclusions.

I did not know about those Mr Tiller's apprehensions and as much as I can understand them I don't care about them; that's another example of that dumb political correctness which makes the things seen twisted & warped at times. Why that particular war should be a touchy subject and the other not? The only reason for I can come up with is that it is still a shameful and traumatic part of the US history, but that's the US citizens and authorities problem, not mine.
Finally, what about those people who did their best historically even if they were involved in fighting for the wrong or unlcear cause? Di d they not deserve their credit for the actions taken? And if that was wrong - the criticism? I saw "We Were Soldiers" movie and was informed that it paints a deprived and wrong picture of the events in the Ia Drang Valley '65. I read a book then so I think I know the fact, but still those are the facts of the authors - no two people give exactly the same account of the same situation they witnessed - but that's psychology - I only want to have the data correct and if that's not there should be a label "Historians' advisory; the product may contain information that is deceitful".

BTW, Ironwulf Sir, am I right to send the scenario file over to Your field HQ? ...

[Dog829]

What "We Were Soldiers" painted was an awful movie. As in Lone Wolf McQuade awful or "Wow, I cant believe people actually got paid for this". The book it was adapted from, We were soldiers once.. and young, while it was a hard read was much better.
I'm not going to venture into the how and why some of us Americans have or had difficulty with the Vietnam War other than to mention that to those of us who were alive then (I was thirteen in 1968) it was a confusing and trying time. For those who served during that time I can not speak at all since I am not qualified.
I do think this game is accurate if not in actual units by name involved than in force makeup for each side. There are many people here on this site who have been around these games a lot longer than I who I'm sure can attest to that. This includes some who have done the research and contributed to, or written many of the scenarios as I understand it.
And that my friend is plenty out of me..........