[Abandoned] - Second Indochina War

[natty dread]

Ah, ok.

So, let me get this bombing thing straight...

Linebacker bombards the northern part of north vietnam, the area with Hanoi, 6 territories.
Rolling thunder bombards the southern part of north vietnam, 4 territories.

Right?

Are Guam and Yankee Station separate territories?

[Victor Sullivan]

There are no bonuses associated with the bombing missions.
Those numbers in the legend at the lower right hand of the map represent example values for starting neutrals on the bombing missions. The legend explains that regions with plane icons one-way assault the bombing missions (which start neutral). The bombing missions then bombard the color coded regions.

I'll try to make it more clear. Maybe moving the numbers to the left and making them look like neutral army digits would help.

Size of Neutrals for the Bombing Missions

* Rolling Thunder - 3 (-1 every round due to air defenses)
* Linebacker - 7 (-1 every round due to air defenses)
* Barrel Roll - 2
* Steel Tiger - 2
* Arc Light - 1
* Menu - 6

I guess I was way off-base Thanks for clearing that up.

[MarshalNey]

I'm waiting to have access to the Foundry forums again before making any definitive comments. I think the regional power centers to avoid problems on the drop was a good idea, although it does add a complication. You should update the info on the first post... please! See Natty_Dread's map threads for examples, he generally does wonderful first posts. I don't think that it's an accident that his maps tend to go through fairly smoothly, even with more complex gameplay invovled.

If it got lost in all of my words (very possible), this was my request:

OK, looked this over in some detail. First, while I love the clean graphics and all, what I love even more is... an informative First Post. It helps us mods digest the map info quickly, but more importantly it helps community newcomers to the thread, especially on more complex gameplay.

So, as soon as you guys get a chance, could you update the first post with all of the relevant gameplay information? I like the historical overview, it gives a decent backdrop for the theme. What I would like to see is:

# of total regions
-- # of regions that are 'open deployment' (deployed randomly at the drop)
-- # of regions that are starting positions
-- # of regions that are neutral
(by my count, there's 60 for open deployment, plus 8 starting positions plus 6 neutral bombing missions)
Names of any neutral regions and their starting values
Gameplay framework and current ideas... this is basically this post:

Regional Bonuses

As the continents are otherwise too big and too hard to defend given a standard bonus structure, I think we could use something like Berlin or England. It would also help every starting location have a near equal chance of growing at the same rate.

This is my initial idea:


Cambodia, Laos, North Vietnam, South Vietnam


hold any 4: +1
hold any 6: +3
hold any 9: +6


Thailand


hold any 5: +1
hold any 7: +3
hold any 10: +6

I think this adjustment for Thailand evens out the advantage of not being able to be bombarded and having neighbors who might not go for Thailand. Though the US Army likely will go for U Tapao, they may have no pressing need to venture deeper into Thailand.

I've purposely assigned the value of just +1 army for the lowest level of bonus in order to minimize the advantage one would get by dropping it, which would happen a lot in 4-player and even 6-player trips. So it's like Poker Club, you can drop a pair but you only get 1 more army than a High Card would.

Starting Positions

We've shifted our starting positions to the leaders - each player gets one leader. Each leader would start with, say 6 troops and assaults its corresponding region. To protect them from being attacked before a player's turn, the territories they assault could start neutral.

In addition to adding to the historic feel of the map, this new arrangement protects the starting positions of Kaysone Phomvihane and Pol Pot from bombardment. Now we don't need to worry about creating a small territory within a territory in Houaphan to represent the Pathet Lao caves which sheltered the Pathet Lao HQ from bombardment, as Kaysone is quite safe from bombardment under the new arrangement.

Bombing

The numbers in the legend refer to the neutral armies you need to go through before you can execute the bombardment. Territories with planes one-way assault the color-coded bombing missions (each color has two missions it could assault).

I chose the neutral starting values for the bombing missions to match the actual chronology of the war(s). Initially it is easy to bomb Laos and South Vietnam and North Vietnam below Hanoi. It should take a bit of time before violating Cambodian neutrality (Operation Menu) and the more comprehensive bombing of North Vietnam including Saigon and Hai Phong (Operation Linebacker). For the same reason we want Tet Offensive to have a high neutral starting value....

Tet Offensive

For an added gameplay twist (which should please the history-minded) I want to allow Ho Chi Minh to conduct the Tet Offensive. He could one-way attack a large neutral "Tet Offensive" which can one-way attack any South Vietnamese region except Mobile Riverine Force and 1st Cavalry Division. Based on the below map and from what I've read, it seems that every region we have except for those two was attacked during the offensive.

Ho Chi Minh Trail
Attacks range 2 down the Ho Chi Minh Trail (from North to South). So one could attack directly from Khammouane to Quang Tri or from Quang Binh to Xepon to North Central Highlands.

And, even though you might not use traditional continent bonuses, it will help me if you include a breakdown of each bonus continent like so:
N. Vietnam
10 regions, 4 borders, all bombardable

Laos
14 regions, 7 borders, 6 bombardable

Thailand
10 regions, 3 (4?) borders, none bombardable

Cambodia
10 regions, 5 borders, 5 bombardable

S. Vietnam
16 regions, 5 borders, 4 bombardable

If you can keep the First Post tidy and regularly updated, this map should have a smooth ride through gameplay.

The reasons are not only for myself but also for newcomers to the thread, and cases like the one just above me with Riskismy.

-- Marshal Ney

[FarangDemon]

I can't edit the first post as it was posted by grifftron, and he is no longer active on this project. So if it's necessary to edit the first post, and I can't be given rights to edit grifftron's post, I guess we'll need to make a new thread.

[FarangDemon]

Ah, ok.

So, let me get this bombing thing straight...

Linebacker bombards the northern part of north vietnam, the area with Hanoi, 6 territories.
Rolling thunder bombards the southern part of north vietnam, 4 territories.

Right?

Are Guam and Yankee Station separate territories?

Yes, both correct. Sorry for delayed response.

[FarangDemon]

Since grifftron is not working on the project right now, I'm creating a new thread so I can keep the initial post updated as map goes through gameplay.



(image updated March 22, 2010)

Regions

62 regions on map (52 distributed to players, 10 neutral)
8 Faction Leaders (these are starting locations, with 6 armies instead of 3, each player gets one)
6 Bombing Missions (neutral)
9 Political/Military Bonus (neutral)

Total Starting Regions Per Player

2,3 players: 18 regions
4 players: 14 regions
5 players: 11 regions
6 players: 9 regions
7 players: 8 regions
8 players: 7 regions

BONUSES

In this section, numbers in parentheses with +/- denote bonus armies.

• Regional Bonuses
  
  
  hold 1 Regional Power Center and a total of x regions in respective bonus area:
  4 regions for (+1)
  6 regions for (+3)
  9 regions for (+6)
  
  
  
  • Thailand - 10 regions
  • Cambodia - 10 regions
  • Laos - 14 regions
  • North Vietnam - 10 regions
  • South Vietnam - 16 regions
  • Yankee Station and Guam not part of any Bonus
  
  
• US Army Bonus
  
  Hold all 4 regions (1 in Thailand, 3 in South Vietnam) for (+5)
  
• Political/Military Support
  
  These are single territory bonuses assaulted by one or more Faction Leaders.
  Each leader has access to one positive bonus.(connectivity explained in Neutrals section)
  
  
  • Chinese Aid (+1)
  • Russian Aid (+1)
  • North Vietnamese Aid (+1)
  • CIA Backing(+1)
  • Ravens (FACs)(+1) - means Forward Air Controllers
  • US Airbase-building (+2)
  • US Military Advisors (+2)
  • US Public Opinion (+2)
  • Tet Offensive (-1)

Neutrals

In this section, numbers in parentheses denote starting neutral armies.

• Regional Power Centers
  assault and are assaulted by Faction Leaders (3):
  • Bangkok,
  • Vientiane,
  • Houapanh,
  • Saigon,
  • Ho Chi Minh City,
  • Quang Tri,
  • Phnom Penh,
  • Ratanakiri
• Other neutral (2)
  
  • Champasak,
    (note: Champasak is a Regional Power Center for Laos that does not assault and is not assaulted by any Faction Leader)
  • 1st Cav Division
• Political/Military Support
  Regions That Are One-way Assaulted by Faction Leaders only
  
  • Chinese Aid (3) assaulted by Pol Pot
  • Russian Aid (3) assaulted by Ho Chi Minh
  • North Vietnamese Aid (3) assaulted by Kaysone Phomvihane
  • Ravens (FACs)(3) assaulted by Vang Pao
  • CIA Backing (3) assaulted by Lon Nol
  • US Airbase-building (6) assaulted by Kittikachorn
  • US Military Advisors (6) assaulted by Nguyen Van Thieu
  • US Public Opinion (5) assaulted by Westmoreland and Tet Offensive
  • Tet Offensive (8) assaulted by Ho Chi Minh
    Tet Offensive one-way assaults all South Vietnamese regions except Mobile Riverine Force and 1st Cavalry Division
• Bombing Missions
  
  • Barrel Roll (2),
  • Steel Tiger (2),
  • Arc Light (2),
  • Menu (5),
  • Linebacker (6),
  • Rolling Thunder (2)

Bombardment

• Each colored bomber symbol one-way assaults two different Bombing Missions, which start neutral.
  Bombing Missions bombard the designated regions of the same color.

Ho Chi Minh Trail

• There is no bonus associated with Ho Chi Minh Trail. But you get range of two attacking in the direction of the Ho Chi Minh Trail, designated by red arrows. This is generally North to South.

[Industrial Helix]

Back to the drafting room again to wait for Benn or Nobodies to row us across the river Styx into gameplay? I'm really hoping we can play this map, so see it through!

[natty dread]

Well, I think the green bombing missions and Arc light could be at least neutral 2:s. 1:s are a bit too easy...

Is the only function of the faction leaders that they give a +1 autodeploy? Seems like they could be made a bit more useful...

[FarangDemon]

Well, I think the green bombing missions and Arc light could be at least neutral 2:s. 1:s are a bit too easy...

Good suggestion. I think increasing the lowest values from neutral 1 to 2 would be an improvement.

Is the only function of the faction leaders that they give a +1 autodeploy? Seems like they could be made a bit more useful...

Maybe we can take away the leader's autodeploys in favor of something more interesting and historical:

Neutrals Bonuses for Military Aid and American Popular Opinion (all start neutral and provide following bonus)

-> means one-way assault

Pol Pot -> Chinese Military Aid (+1)
Ho Chi Minh -> Russian Military Aid (+1)
Kaysone Phomvihane -> N. Vietnamese Military Aid (+1)
Lon Nol, Vang Pao -> US Military Aid(+1)
Kittikachorn, Nguyen -> US Investment in Base Infrastructure (+2)
General Westmoreland, Tet Offensive -> American Popular Opinion (+2)

[FarangDemon]

Thanks, IH. I do intend to see it through, so rest assured that all of our hard work will not have been in vain.

[FarangDemon]

I've created a new thread where I can modify the first post to keep up to date with changes.

Please refer here for the latest version of Second Indochina War. Please read the first post, all is explained.

viewtopic.php?f=583&t=140208&p=3061339#p3061339

[FarangDemon]

The map image and first post is up-to-date with all proposed changes. If you would like to contribute feedback, please read the first post of this thread, I believe it explains everything clearly enough. I have also added gray digits on the map to clearly indicate some of the starting neutrals (added for all Bombing Missions and Political/Military Support regions).

I know there are a lot of criss-crossing lines with the introduction of the Political/Military support bonuses. Everything will be moved around later once we finalize the gameplay. So please keep your feedback restricted to gameplay at this time, which I believe should be clear. If anything is not clear, please let me know and I'll modify the first post or the map as necessary.

[Riskismy]

Hey FarangDemon,

I don't like how you've set up the Political/Military Support territories. It seems to me that some leaders will have quite massive advantages over the others.
Take Pol pot or Ho Chi Minh, they each have their own private bonus area which isn't contested by other leaders. As far as I can tell, there's no way for the other leaders to assault these Support territories unless they go through the leader first.

I think you should consider perhaps reducing the amount of support territories to 4 and have two leaders fight over each. Alternatively, make 8, but somehow accessible - perhaps via the power centers?

In any case I like it all in all, but I think you have to take a closer look at that arrangement.

[FarangDemon]

Hey FarangDemon,

I don't like how you've set up the Political/Military Support territories. It seems to me that some leaders will have quite massive advantages over the others.
Take Pol pot or Ho Chi Minh, they each have their own private bonus area which isn't contested by other leaders. As far as I can tell, there's no way for the other leaders to assault these Support territories unless they go through the leader first.

I think you should consider perhaps reducing the amount of support territories to 4 and have two leaders fight over each. Alternatively, make 8, but somehow accessible - perhaps via the power centers?

In any case I like it all in all, but I think you have to take a closer look at that arrangement.

Thanks very much for stopping by and providing feedback!

You raise a very good point, the access to each bonus is not exactly equal. But from what I understand, it is actually preferable to have things be unequal, as long as the opportunities are all well-balanced between risk and reward. It follows that if I make the accessibility equal, I would necessarily then have to make the bonus values equal as well. However, I prefer to use different accessibility and bonus values, as it adds to the historical flavor and makes it more interesting, so hopefully we can achieve a fair balance by tweaking neutrals in each case.

I do like having US Base-building yield more than US Aid, as Thailand and South Vietnam received much more money from the US compared to Laos or Cambodia, which went directly to improve their infrastructure and boost local economies near the bases. I also like having the element of US Public Opinion, which is also a big bonus, and threatened by the Tet Offensive.

So let's examine the balance under the current settings.

Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Kaysone Phomvihane each have an uncontested +1 bonus that starts neutral 2. Let's use this as a baseline.
Vang Pao and Lon Nol share a +1 bonus (they can contest it among themselves) that starts neutral 2.
Thanom Kittikachorn and Nguyen Van Thieu share a +2 bonus (they can contest it among themselves), that starts neutral 4.
Westmoreland has an initially uncontestable +2 bonus, that starts neutral 4.

So the leaders at a disadvantage under the current scheme are Vang Pao and Lon Nol who share US Aid. Let's examine all the scenarios in which they may be split by teams:

• A) one team has both
  
  Here, the team controlling both of them is disadvantaged, getting a max of +1 compared to the +2 baseline (from +1 baseline per leader)
  
• B) one team controls one, one team controls the other
  
  Here, if there are only two teams, this does not affect balance between the two teams, as each team is affected equally - they each have chance to get +1. If there are more than two teams, those teams with split control of Vang Pao and Lon Nol are disadvantaged, having to go through same number of neutrals as baseline but with possibility to lose the bonus to the other team.
  

So one way to mitigate the disadvantage from Scenarios A and B is to reduce the number of neutral armies on US Aid as compared to the baseline, so teams going for US Aid at least have less neutrals to go through to get their bonus than the baseline, mitigating the relatively lower bonus output.

Consider the following adjustment of starting neutrals.

• Private
  
  • Pol Pot -> Chinese Aid(3), (+1 bonus)
  • Ho Chi Minh -> Russian Aid(3), (+1 bonus)
  • Kaysone Phomvihane -> North Vietnamese Aid(3), (+1 bonus)
• Shared
  
  • Lon Nol, Vang Pao -> US Aid (2), (+1 bonus)
  • Thanom Kittikachorn, Nguyen Van Thieu -> US Base-building (4), (+2 bonus)
  • Westmoreland, Tet Offensive -> US Public Opinion (5), (+2 bonus)

I've increased the neutral starting armies on the private bonuses from 2 to 3 and US Public Opinion from 4 to 5. The increase of neutrals on US Public Opinion should help balance it compared to US Base-building, as both yield same bonus (+2), whereas US Public Opinion is essentially Westmoreland's private bonus at the start of the game (until Tet Offensive is carried out).

[Riskismy]

I appreciate your comprehensive addressing of my concern, but I still don't think this will do at all.

First of all, I don't think there's much reason to address the team scenarios. IF the map will be balanced with 8 individuals, I don't see why it shouldn't be so in team games. There's gonna be more or less lucky drops in team games, but as long as we can't designate starting position in various types of game, it'll have to do.

I understand how you'd want to portray history as accurately as possible (re US base-building vs. US aid), but I think gameplay is paramount here. We must make certain the map is fair, and then we can look into how history can be incorporated.

As for the bonuses, you have the three private support territories of Pol Pot, Ho chi Minh and Kaysone at a simlar bonus as the one contested by Lon and Vang. That won't do at all IMO.

Then you have the contested US base-building at +2 which seems like it's probably too low as related to the private ones. Either the privates should have significantly more neutrals, or the bonus should be +3.
Meh. Maybe +2 is alright, but the neutrals should be tweaked.

I'm not sure about US public opinion. Do I understand it right that Ho chi Minh is the only one who can use the Tet Offensive?

[FarangDemon]

As for the bonuses, you have the three private support territories of Pol Pot, Ho chi Minh and Kaysone at a simlar bonus as the one contested by Lon and Vang. That won't do at all IMO.

It sounds like you are saying it will not do for Chinese Aid and US Aid to both provide +1, regardless of the different numbers of neutral armies guarding the bonuses. But consider if US Aid was reduced to a single neutral. Now the players going for US Aid have almost nothing to fear from losing troops to the neutral, the only risk is from each other. The players going for private bonus are going against 3 neutrals, will lose some armies up front and might not even succeed in taking it the first try. Maybe now it's fair.

Based on your input, I've also changed US Base-building to be just 3 neutrals. I agree with you that at 4 neutrals it was too risky to take. We could even reduce it to 2 neutrals, but I'll wait to here your thoughts first.

So here is the revised suggestion:

Private

• Pol Pot -> Chinese Aid(3), (+1 bonus)
  
• Ho Chi Minh -> Russian Aid(3), (+1 bonus)
  
• Kaysone Phomvihane -> North Vietnamese Aid(3), (+1 bonus)
Shared

• Lon Nol, Vang Pao -> US Aid (1), (+1 bonus)
  
• Thanom Kittikachorn, Nguyen Van Thieu -> US Base-building (3), (+2 bonus)
  
• Westmoreland, Tet Offensive -> US Public Opinion (5), (+2 bonus)

One thing we need to keep in mind before lowering the neutrals too far for the shared bonuses - in games with fewer than 8 players, it will sometimes happen that there will only be a Lon Nol player while Vang Pao starts neutral. In this case, Lon Nol will have an advantage over Pol Pol - Lon Nol has a +1 bonus guarded by a single, whereas Pol Pot has to go through a 3 stack to get the same reward.

In a 7-player game, it's a 1/8 chance that Lon Nol is absent and 1/8 chance that Vang Pao is absent. That means 3/4 chance that either Vang Pao or Lon Nol is absent.

I'm not sure about US public opinion. Do I understand it right that Ho chi Minh is the only one who can use the Tet Offensive?

Yes. So it's a private bonus until Ho Chi Minh (if he exists) launches the Tet Offensive.

[grifftron]

I've created a new thread where I can modify the first post to keep up to date with changes.

Please refer here for the latest version of Second Indochina War. Please read the first post, all is explained.

viewtopic.php?f=583&t=140208&p=3061339#p3061339

This thread can be moved to the bin now, FD started his own thread. Thanks mods.

-griff

[Riskismy]

It sounds like you are saying it will not do for Chinese Aid and US Aid to both provide +1, regardless of the different numbers of neutral armies guarding the bonuses. But consider if US Aid was reduced to a single neutral. Now the players going for US Aid have almost nothing to fear from losing troops to the neutral, the only risk is from each other. The players going for private bonus are going against 3 neutrals, will lose some armies up front and might not even succeed in taking it the first try. Maybe now it's fair.

Well, maybe, but I don't think so. The neutrals does play a part, but having another player directly contesting your bonus while others have a private bonus is a big deal, and I don't think a mere 2 additional neutrals make up for it. I thinking at least 5 to the 1 neutral on the contested territs.
I want to repeat that I don't like the general set-up at all. Would make it much simpler to balance out if you reconsidered the paths of attack.

Based on your input, I've also changed US Base-building to be just 3 neutrals. I agree with you that at 4 neutrals it was too risky to take. We could even reduce it to 2 neutrals, but I'll wait to here your thoughts first.

IF that change was based on my input, I didn't make it clear at all. I called for an increase in the neutrals at the private territs, or an increased bonus at US Base-building - not a decrease of neutrals at US Base-building. Again, I think the major issue is not the neutrals, but rather whether the territory is contested or not. It really makes a world of a difference.

One thing we need to keep in mind before lowering the neutrals too far for the shared bonuses - in games with fewer than 8 players, it will sometimes happen that there will only be a Lon Nol player while Vang Pao starts neutral. In this case, Lon Nol will have an advantage over Pol Pol - Lon Nol has a +1 bonus guarded by a single, whereas Pol Pot has to go through a 3 stack to get the same reward.

Games with less than 8 player is an issue, I agree - these games are, in fact, a strong argument in favour of making the paths of attack more similar.

In a 7-player game, it's a 1/8 chance that Lon Nol is absent and 1/8 chance that Vang Pao is absent. That means 3/4 chance that either Vang Pao or Lon Nol is absent.

Math is not my strong point, but I think you got it the wrong way around here. If one player is missing, then that empty spot would have a 2/8 chance of appearing in one of those two territories, right?
In other words, there's a 25% chance of that occuring, not 75%.
Sorry if I mixed it up, I blame my education

Yes. So it's a private bonus until Ho Chi Minh (if he exists) launches the Tet Offensive.

Then that another problematic issue IMO. Not only is Ho chi min the only one who can gain all those wonderful paths of attack, but William also gains a +2 private bonus until Ho Chi gets around to using the Tet offensive (which may well be late in the game).

I really think you should evaluate the scheme you have going with these support territories, especially whether it's fair and fun that leaders have private bonuses.

[FarangDemon]

Ok, thanks for keeping at this, the indefensibility of the shared bonuses has finally sunk in with me. They are not defensible as the attacks are only one-way from the leaders to the bonuses. So the person trying to hold the bonus will always be losing more armies in the defense due to attackers advantage.

So I agree now with your recommendation to either raise the bonus values of the shared bonuses or increase the neutrals on the private bonuses in order to balance the risk with reward.

However, there will be a bad side effect if there are 5 neutrals behind the private bonus and just 2 neutrals behind the shared bonus of the same value. The side effect is that if Lon Nol is neutral, then Vang Pao has a private bonus that is much easier to acquire than Pol Pot. 25% of 7-player games would have US Aid be uncontested (you were right, I had written the wrong figure before). Another 25% of 7-player games would have US Base-building uncontested. The figures increase with fewer players. So more than half of most games would start with a shared bonus that ends up being de facto private due to absence of human player in a starting location.

The drop will always grant advantages to certain players, but I think the perception of iniquity from the beginning of the game would be greater if the presence of neutrals on certain start locations conferred a clear advantage to a certain player from the beginning.

So maybe it would be best to do away with the shared bonuses altogether and make them all private (except for US Public Opinion).

Then that another problematic issue IMO. Not only is Ho chi min the only one who can gain all those wonderful paths of attack,

I still want Ho Chi Minh to have Tet Offensive that can one-way assault US Public Opinion and South Vietnam. I think it is fair that Ho Chi Minh has this avenue of attack. Consider that North Vietnam is the only bonus region that can be completely bombarded. The other disadvantage is that Ho Chi Minh gets a -1 for the remainder of the game after taking over Tet Offensive. We can tweak this.

Please let me know what you think of the following scheme (I've updated original post to contain this, though map not yet updated):

Private

* Pol Pot -> Chinese Aid(3), (+1 bonus)
* Ho Chi Minh -> Russian Aid(3), (+1 bonus)
* Kaysone Phomvihane -> North Vietnamese Aid(3), (+1 bonus)
* Lon Nol -> CIA Backing(3), (+1 bonus)
* Vang Pao -> Ravens (FACs)(3), (+1 bonus)
* Thanom Kittikachorn -> US Airbase Construction(6), (+2 bonus)
* Nguyen Van Thieu -> US Military Advisors(6), (+2 bonus)

Shared

* Westmoreland, Tet Offensive -> US Public Opinion (5), (+2 bonus)

Note: Westmoreland's US Public Opinion has 1 less neutral to go through than the other +2 private bonuses. This is to balance the additional risk that Westmoreland has to lose it due to the Tet Offensive.

[FarangDemon]

I've updated the info in the first post and reworked the image of the map to show everything more clearly.

For those that have not been tracking the progress:

I added a private bonus for each faction leader, either +1 or +2 with commensurate neutrals. If a player does not have a good drop for consolidating his leader's bonus region, he still has the option to go for his leader's private bonus. If a player does have a good drop for consolidating his faction leader's bonus region, he can go for that.

I chose neutral army levels such that the player will not always want to go for these private bonuses, it will depend on the drop.

I.e. On the first turn, if a player thinks they can take Regional Power Center and 6 total regions of the same country, the player may go for that (+3) instead of private bonus (+1 or +2).

I also simplified the regional bonus system. Now all countries require the same number of troops for each tiered bonus.

Ready for more feedback.

Please move this thread to Gameplay to replace the original Second Indochina War thread. I created this thread to replace it, as I cannot edit the initial post of the original thread.

[thenobodies80]

I can't edit the first post as it was posted by grifftron, and he is no longer active on this project. So if it's necessary to edit the first post, and I can't be given rights to edit grifftron's post, I guess we'll need to make a new thread.

I've created a new thread where I can modify the first post to keep up to date with changes.

Now you can edit the first post

The 2 threads were [Merged] , so please remember to update the first post with the latest version.

Nobodies

[FarangDemon]

Thanks! I've updated the first post.

Thanks, everybody for contributing to this map so far.
To contribute further, please check the first post for latest details about this proposed map including latest map image.

[TaCktiX]

If you could also start posting your latest map image at the end of the topic when you note updates, it'll help people from needing to have two windows open to comment on the map. Thanks.

[FarangDemon]

Done and done. Here tis. BigImaged this time.

Click image to enlarge.

[natty dread]

Also, please use [bigimg] tags instead of [img], so the image won't be covered by your avatar & medals.