Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => The Conflicts that came in from the Cold => Topic started by: Terryb on January 24, 2021, 08:45:06 PM
-
Hi chaps, just trolling through Caliver books new offerings and I noticed a new set of rules by Wayne Bollands called ‘The Nam’. Any one have any further information on these rules?
-
I have been waiting for that to go on sale to give it a read.
-
No, nothing more
-
They are from Caliver Books.
They are due out in the next few weeks. They are just waiting for them to arrive according to Dave at Caliver.
I am told that Wayne, the author is doing a forum / FB page to support them.
-
Just saw this ;
DUE END OF THIS WEEK : - THE 'NAM : Squad level rules for gaming the War in Vietnam / Bollands, Wayne 60p. large format full colour. By using simple to understand mechanics, such as playing cards and 'dice shifting', it is possible to simulate any of the troops who did the fightin` and a-dyin` a long way away from home or amongst their own cities and villages. The rules attempt to embrace all the combatants who played a part in the war on both sides, from the Viet Cong guerrilla to the contributions made by Australia, South Korea and others (see 'Falling Dominoes' supplement). The aim is the use of 28mm-sized figures, but 15 - 20mm miniatures may also be used with no real changes needing to be made. The game is focused upon platoon level actions, although it should be possible to scale up or down as required (company to rifle squad).. £18.95
www.caliverbooks.com. click on pic on Splash page
-
Just saw that as well. Here is the link https://www.caliverbooks.com/bookview.php?id=28708
I think I will have to wait tell pay day to put in a order. :D
-
Thanks for the info Paul, funnily enough I was just about to place an order to you for some SCW stuff.
-
I tried to buy this but the Paypal link on Caliver is not working so I could not complete the purchase.
-
Me too couldn't finish a PayPal order.
-
Would like to join the FB page so if anyone finds it or hears it’s up and running could they pop a message on this thread
Ta
-
I emailed them and got a quick reply.
Dave from Caliver asked me to use a credit card rather than Paypal.
-
OK, thanks for the info Mick!
-
Ordered the book
-
And order sent.
-
Just got my copy and had a quick flick through during lunchtime. One question The book gives info about armament weapons and passenger number for vehicles but not for choppers. did I miss something? or am I supposed to come up with my own values?
-
Hi All,
I am responsible for The 'Nam rules, and have re-joined LAF after being away for a while.
The helicopter rules are optional, but will be revised in the first supplement, Fallen Dominoes, which I'm starting work on this month. This will cover the ANZACs, Montagnards, South Koreans and some other force org lists, plus the French Indo-China Wars and the British, Japanese and French War in 1945.
However, what I'll also be doing is adding a new reference sheet for some of the transport and AFVs that are relevant to the above, plus stats based upon the various helicopters used by the different forces.
Hope that helps,
Wayne
-
Yes that would be of help indeed!!! anyway really nice rules!!!
-
Very interesting future for this ruleset!
-
I did read there was going to be an FB page set up for the rules, is that correct? Thanks in advance.
-
I asked about rules for the Vietnam / 2nd SE Asia War about a year ago and recall Paul saying he knew of three forthcoming sets, though he declined to divulge further details, even when subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques.
12 months on the first of these appear to have emerged. Is any further intel available as to the other two, or indeed any further contenders?
In the intervening period all I have heard is that a Battlegroup set may be devoted to the conflict, but this has not been confirmed, at least to my knowledge.
-
Well thats two.
I also know of two others being worked on. No idea when or if they will be published but if so probably later in the year.
-
Thanks, Paul. I shall take that as a confirmation of Battlegroup ‘Nam.
There has also been Black Sun aka Weird War ‘Nam, which initially appeared interesting but from a review I read online seems a little half baked.
-
Thats not on my list as I know nothing about it ;)
-
There’s little more frustrating than low grade intel, particularly when it looks like your HumInt asset may be working for Charlie. Nothing for it but to send out another LLRP and hope it makes it back.
-
Hi, from what I know Warwick Kinrade is writing a set called “Nam 68”. It seems to have been under play test for about a year and indeed think there have been some pictures of test games on this forum. I don’t know if these are part of the “Battlegroup” series sold by Plastic Soldier or will be sold by Warwick’s company.
“Black Sun” published by Crucible Crush is more “Weird Nam” and I have seen them referred to as “Cthulhu ‘68”. I think Northstar stock them together with an accompanying range of Bob March’s Pulp Figures.
-
Thanks for the clarification re Warwick Kinrade’s rules. I haven’t seen any specific posts about them, but I’ve been away from LAF - and the internet - for about six weeks, in addition to being generally unobservant.
-
“Black Sun” published by Crucible Crush is more “Weird Nam” and I have seen them referred to as “Cthulhu ‘68”. I think Northstar stock them together with an accompanying range of Bob March’s Pulp Figures.
They are "only" sculpted by Bob Murch for Crucible Crush. So, Northstar sell them, but under the Companie called Crucible Crush. They also have this range of Pre-European Woodland Indians in the Murch-Style (Made by Bob Murch).
-
Thanks for the clarification re Warwick Kinrade’s rules. I haven’t seen any specific posts about them, but I’ve Ben away from LAF - and the internet - for about six weeks, in addition to being generally unobservant.
Have a look here, maybe it helps: http://warwickkinrade.blogspot.com/2020/07/nam-68-wip.html
-
Thank you for that. The test games described seemed to have the flavour of Vietnam firefights that we’re familiar with from books and films, and the rules will definitely be worth looking out for.
-
Thank you for that. The test games described seemed to have the flavour of Vietnam firefights that we’re familiar with from books and films, and the rules will definitely be worth looking out for.
We have to wait very long for it, I'm afraid... :'(
-
I take it you have high grade intel. I don’t expect you to put your asset at risk. He / she’s doing good work.
-
I take it you have high grade intel. I don’t expect you to put your asset at risk. He / she’s doing good work.
I will order it, sure. Warwick Kinrade is always doing great rules. And one of his good work is the playtesting. So you get nothing untested. In C19-times this is very hard to do, I‘m afraid
-
So you get nothing untested.
Words that Robert McNamara would have done well to bear in mind when procuring the M16, I feel.
-
Words that Robert McNamara would have done well to bear in mind when procuring the M16, I feel.
But without this problem half of the vietnam-movies wouldn't be that good, I think
-
True enough. Which reminds me to repeat my hope that we’ll see more US Marines with M14s and ARVN with M1 carbines. This is relevant to rules as well, these being very different weapons, which shouldn’t be lumped together at the tactical level as generic assault rifles.
-
True enough. Which reminds me to repeat my hope that we’ll see more US Marines with M14s and ARVN with M1 carbines. This is relevant to rules as well, these being very different weapons, which shouldn’t be lumped together at the tactical level as generic assault rifles.
Do you think that so many gamers can see the difference between a M14 and a M16 in 28mm??? In the moment I try to come back to Disposable Heroes and the Long road South (without the modern supplement). In this rules the M14 and the M16 will handled quiet simular, which works good. Often to much love for the details from reality kill the fastness and the flow of a game. I think for more detailed game it would be better to use a ruleset like Skirmish Sangin, which is more a roleplay system.
-
Given the quality of the best of the current 28mm ranges I feel the difference would be very apparent, and I’d be very surprised if customers and manufacturers alike didn’t think it worth representing. Empress and Gringo 40s both seem intent on making their ranges as comprehensive as possible, though the latter currently is focused on one particular phase of the war.
As far as representing the differences in a rule set is concerned, of course it largely depends on the command level of the scenario being played. There’s enough discussion of the effects of various weapon types in histories - even those covering the entire war at the strategic and political as well as operational levels such as Max Hastings’ book - to make me feel it’s a factor to be taken into account, though how granular the treatment should be is another matter altogether. Nobody wants games depicting firefights to be slowed down to a crawl by constant reference to charts, but I think modern game design is sophisticated enough to portray at least the psychological effect of troops depending for their lives on what they perceive to be an inferior weapon to the opponent’s, whether or not that perception could be backed up by technical analysis.
-
I must admit I would think it worth showing M14s and M16s as “different” in any scale above 1/300. I certainly remember having USMC figures with M14s and US army with M16s with my Platoon 20 figures 30+ years ago.
As for differentiating in rules...another kettle of fish entirely.
-
You are right, the different between m14 and m16 should be recognized. When you see all these Vietnam-movies you feel like m16 is the only weapon... my fault, sorry
-
And don’t forget poor Marvin the ARVN with his feeble M1.
-
And don’t forget poor Marvin the ARVN with his feeble M1.
The only one without jamming, I think. And a good rifleman is very fast. We know it since sharpes rifles...
-
I think the argument for M14 vs M16 is valid, but based on first hand info from guys like Dale Dye, the M14 was not in WIDESPREAD use by 1967 (having gone out of production in 1964 and largely replaced by the M16), and while realism and accuracy is great, modelling a single or pair of guys in a squad with M14s and everyone with M16s is going to bog down all but the most elegant of rulesets.
-
I was thinking mainly about the Marines, who were still issued with the M14 for quite some time after the adoption of the M16. As the latter was plagued with problems it also seems likely that many would have preferred to stick with a weapon they trusted when possible, though I don’t know what statistical support there is for this supposition. Incidentally a version of the M14 is still in use today as a sniper weapon, or at least has been used in Iraq and, I would assume, Afghanistan.
I agree that attempting to depict the mixed use of M14s and M16s within a squad would have the effect of over-complicating the rules, at least when fielding more than a platoon, but it would also seem odd not to reflect the considerable variety of weapon types used by the NVA and VC. As I’ve mentioned before, the issue is not in any case just about technical performance.
-
Hi All,
I am responsible for The 'Nam rules, and have re-joined LAF after being away for a while.
The helicopter rules are optional, but will be revised in the first supplement, Fallen Dominoes, which I'm starting work on this month. This will cover the ANZACs, Montagnards, South Koreans and some other force org lists, plus the French Indo-China Wars and the British, Japanese and French War in 1945.
However, what I'll also be doing is adding a new reference sheet for some of the transport and AFVs that are relevant to the above, plus stats based upon the various helicopters used by the different forces.
Hope that helps,
Wayne
Looking forward to seeing these expansions.
-
I was thinking mainly about the Marines, who were still issued with the M14 for quite some time after the adoption of the M16. As the latter was plagued with problems it also seems likely that many would have preferred to stick with a weapon they trusted when possible, though I don’t know what statistical support there is for this supposition. Incidentally a version of the M14 is still in use today as a sniper weapon, or at least has been used in Iraq and, I would assume, Afghanistan.
I agree that attempting to depict the mixed use of M14s and M16s within a squad would have the effect of over-complicating the rules, at least when fielding more than a platoon, but it would also seem odd not to reflect the considerable variety of weapon types used by the NVA and VC. As I’ve mentioned before, the issue is not in any case just about technical performance.
Worth keeping in mind, depicting whole squads issued with M14s covers only the first year or two of the full US ground involvement. M14s went out of production by 1964 because McNamara killed the procurement of them based on a report that sold the M16 as superior. Realistically, you can have them for 65-67, but if you look at the photos and footage from the fighting in '67 and later, you're almost exclusively seeing an M16 in the hands of Marines and Army. Dale Dye tells a story about marines trying to hide the M14s when the switch over order came down.
The M14 in use today was reintroduced in the early 2000s, with a metal or composite receiver and other bits of modernization, but you're absolutely correct - the US Navy and Coastguard used the M14 throughout the 80s and 90s too.
Getting back on topic a bit - I think effectively, it's an either/or for M15 or M14s for a squad, depending on the year of the war. The M14 is going to have a longer effective range and accuracy, slower rate of fire vs the M16.
-
Thank you for that information which essentially tallies with my understanding. I’m reminded of the marines in Full Metal Jacket training with M14s, while in the battle scenes in Hue they have M16s.
A previous post seemed to suggest that both weapons might coexist within the same squad, which would indeed complicate matters and leave the choice of either averaging the effect out to depict the squad’s firepower - presumably taking into account the small number of grunts who would actually fire their weapons in the typical firefight - or having each man fire individually (or not). In either case, however, or for that matter when the same rifle is in use, the really devastating fire would come from the M60, and in some situations the grenade launcher, so perhaps the type of rifle isn’t so significant after all. My reading leads me to believe that at least before its flaws were fixed, US troops with M16s - and perhaps M14s too - felt they had an inferior weapon to the AK47, though in reality the Communist forces had a wide variety of firearms, many of them antiquated. It’s a possibly analogous situation to late WWII in the west, where every sound or glimpse of a German tank heralded a Tiger.
-
While browsing Dishdash Games’ site in a search for their Ultracombat Modern rules, of which, typically, I have only just become aware, I noted some notes in the downloads section for a set of Vietnam rules called, I believe, Ultracombat Quang Tri. I may well be the last interested person to have heard about these, and it certainly seems likely that they are among the prospective sets previously mentioned - though not named - by Paul of Empress Miniatures.
I’m not familiar with any of Dishdash Games’ rules, whether in the Ultracombat or Skirmish series. I’d be interested to hear opinions from anyone with experience of these as to their potential suitability for gaming in the very different environment of Southeast Asia.
-
Re: DishDash Ultracombat - it might be worth asking ChargeDog of this parish about the rules.
-
Really it comes down to the level of granularity (not realism) that you seek.
What are the principal differences between an M14 and an M16, leaving aside things like weight, length and the weight of ammo? I’m also going to jettison the ballistic effects of 7.62mm vs 5.56mm, that’s almost certainly too granular.
Really it comes down to range and cyclic or theoretical rate of fire. Practically speaking effective range isn’t going to be a factor in most Vietnam games and the capacity for the average punter to effectively engage beyond 300 metres, without modern day optics is generally not that flash so range is a moot point.
Theoretical or cyclic rates are pretty irrelevant too. Unless you have unlimited ammo and multiple weapons or a quick change barrel maintaining sustained automatic fire is impractical and it’s not what the weapon or the doctrine supporting it is designed for. Then there’s the issue of effective suppression of well placed aimed shot vs automatic fire.
The record of US doctrinal, materiel and actual experience lends weight to this. Theoretically in each US fire team of the period there was an automatic rifleman. The M14 was essentially uncontrollable in automatic fire, to the extent that the US developed and introduced, on a limited basis, the M14E1 which came with a pistol grip and bipod. It wasn’t a success. It’s replacement in Vietnam was a mickey mouse clip on bipod for the M16, also not a roaring success. This lead to quite a number of units attaching M60s directly to the squads, something that had been suggested in trials conducted before and after the Vietnam War.
In all but the most theoretical sense I doubt that there’s much difference betwixt M16 and M14. The old saw in the Australian Army was that the machine gun (M60) made up 90% of the weight of fire available to the section. The Australian Army also had a mixture of SLRs and M16s in each section, typically 6-7 of the former and two of the latter.
The VC and NVA also would also often have mixes of weapons, AKs and SKS, so if you are going to faff about with having different stats for US squads, you nee to do so with the opposition and also some of their allies.
Bottom line, it really isn’t a distinction worth drawing. The only distinction that is worth drawing at least for squad and platoon based games is that made on the function of the weapon. In that sense a different set of figures for a machine gun capable of putting down sustained fire vs rifles that aren’t.
Modelling wise, in 28mm definitely there’s a noticeable difference in the look of the bang stick the figure is holding.
-
By the by the Yanks considered the AK a better weapon for a variety of reasons. Firstly there was the issue of fouling, caused by shit quality ammo and poor maintenance. That was largely fixed with upgrading the ammo, modifying the weapon with a chromed chamber and bolt-assist and actually teaching their troops to maintain their weapons. This was done by issuing a fucking comic book to their troops. ::)
Oddly enough, apart from initial shortages of cleaning kits and the fact that many of the first batch of M16s fielded by 1RAR were worn out by the time they were handed on to 5RAR, you find relatively few complaints by Australians about the M16 apart from some typical soldier grumbles. * Of course the Australian Army is, quite rightly, a bit OCD about maintaining your weapon in the field.
Just as importantly IMO is ‘the enemy’s weapon is always cooler’ factor. Worth noting that the VC never turned their noses up at captured M16s. In practical terms both the AK and M16 have their pros and cons but are functionally about the same.
* By the 1980’s some of the M16A1s were totally clapped out. I can remember more than one that required an elastic band to hold the magazine in its well.
-
While browsing Dishdash Games’ site in a search for their Ultracombat Modern rules, of which, typically, I have only just become aware, I noted some notes in the downloads section for a set of Vietnam rules called, I believe, Ultracombat Quang Tri. I may well be the last interested person to have heard about these, and it certainly seems likely that they are among the prospective sets previously mentioned - though not named - by Paul of Empress Miniatures.
No it was not on my list.
I still know three rule sets being produced.
The Battlegroup set by Warwick and Piers.
A set that we are developing at Empress which is based upon the Danger Close mechanisms but very heavily developed. That's still being written although already play tested internally. Aimed at Platoon to company sized actions including full support such as artillery aircraft etc.
And another set that I am not at liberty to say but they are a development from existing Moderns set and that worked well so its Vietnamese development has lots of promise.
-
Thank you Paul, that’s....intriguing. As it happens, I’ve just ordered The ‘Nam from Caliver which should scratch the itch for the time being.
-
Thank you Paul, that’s....intriguing. As it happens, I’ve just ordered The ‘NM from Caliver which should scratch the itch for the time being.
Yes it will and it was on my initial list of impending rules and as you will see when you open it the pictures are from Empress Miniatures so we were kinda involved.
Wayne is currently working on the first supplement so more to come on that front. ;)
-
A set that we are developing at Empress which is based upon the Danger Close mechanisms but very heavily developed. That's still being written although already play tested internally. Aimed at Platoon to company sized actions including full support such as artillery aircraft etc.
[/size][size=78%]Hmm, I had a look at my copy of DC2. There are stats for Nam, so what do we need more??? It is the simple way why I love the rules, please don’t boost it too much[/size]
-
There are no vehicle rules in DC as I recall. That would be a minimum requirement for anything beyond a patrol or ambush scenario, I’d have thought, as would heavy weapons.
-
There are no vehicle rules in DC as I recall. That would be a minimum requirement for anything beyond a patrol or ambush scenario, I’d have thought, as would heavy weapons.
Yes there are in DC2 ;)
-
Is DC2 currently available? I can’t even find my copy of v 1 anyway so I might buy it.
Belay that - I can see it on the site. £8 in hard copy - two laminated sheets, I assume?
Are the vehicle rules the only additions or changes?
-
By the way, thanks Carlos, that was an interesting read. It is useful to get a non American view of the conflict.
-
I fully agree, and accept the arguments about the relative unimportance of technical differences between M14, M16, and AK47, though there’s little question that many US troops, at least, felt otherwise.
It may not apply much to Vietnam, but I was struck by a comment I heard yesterday in a YouTube review of the Contact Front rules - of which, incidentally, almost 18 months after release, one still hears very little - in which the reviewer said that those rules’ lack of differentiation between different models of assault rifle or light machine gun was perfectly sound, but he felt quite strongly that this should not apply to the sniper rifles employed by the US Army and Marines (respectively M14 and M107, I think). He seemed to know what he was talking about.
-
A sniper team is effectively a support weapon so, in a sense it is a different case but I would question what rules differences, different models would require. Range? Accuracy modifiers? there might be an argument for a different approach for a designated marksman within a section as opposed to a dedicated sniper team.
-
It was rather frustrating that the reviewer didn’t expand on his comment as I would have liked to know why he, together with his co-presenter, felt this.
In case anyone’s interested the review is on the Miniature Wargaming Labs channel. In fact it appears to be the only review of Contact Front on YouTube, the only other videos I could find being a flip-through by Wargames Illustrated and an AAR on another channel which I haven’t watched due to its three hours’ duration. (I now see this is actually a podcast, so I should have said I haven’t listened to it).
-
Is DC2 currently available? I can’t even find my copy of v 1 anyway so I might buy it.
Belay that - I can see it on the site. £8 in hard copy - two laminated sheets, I assume?
Are the vehicle rules the only additions or changes?
Yes two sheets of A4 so four sides of A4.
https://www.empressminiatures.com/danger-close-rules-47-c.asp
-
[/size][size=78%]Hmm, I had a look at my copy of DC2. There are stats for Nam, so what do we need more??? It is the simple way why I love the rules, please don’t boost it too much[/size]
By all means stick with the current version. Its what we have used for really large games as well as small and have actually used them for demo games. However having got heavily involved with the Vietnam project I made huge amounts of specific amendments and friends pushed me to publish them in a book sized format. Therefore I am working on them really for my own use but with the good possibility of publishing. They do not stray too far but do add a huge amount of details on all aspects of the conflict. including FIC, but actually work for much larger games specifically. If you enjoyed DC as it is I really think you would enjoy these but if not stick to the current version which we still use for all other modern games. ;)
And glad you like them :-*
-
By all means stick with the current version. Its what we have used for really large games as well as small and have actually used them for demo games. However having got heavily involved with the Vietnam project I made huge amounts of specific amendments and friends pushed me to publish them in a book sized format. Therefore I am working on them really for my own use but with the good possibility of publishing. They do not stray too far but do add a huge amount of details on all aspects of the conflict. including FIC, but actually work for much larger games specifically. If you enjoyed DC as it is I really think you would enjoy these but if not stick to the current version which we still use for all other modern games. ;)
And glad you like them :-*
Sounds great, hope you involve the mountain tribes (montegard). So it will come close to Apocalypse Now
-
I am re-reading Plaster's book Secret Commandos: Behind Enemy Lines with the Elite Warriors of SOG, and am wondering whether there are rules that could represent such missions, or would stealth and breaking contact from effectively random and sometimes much larger PAVN forces be more the preserve of video games? Likewise from the PAVN perspective, or the other side of the COIN, pun intended, in terms of detecting and ambushing US infiltrators?