Free Vietnam rules "Search & Destroy 1966"

[Damien]

I don't know if these rules have already been brought up but I stumbled onto them yesterday and thought I would bring them to everyone's attention:


http://search-destroy1966.blogspot.fr/

They are in both english and in spanish and the company also seems to be starting a vehicles line that is supposed to be "true" 28mm (1:55).

http://combatmodels.blogspot.com.es/


Cheers,
 Damien

[Mr. Peabody]

Hmmm... Those look interesting!

[Juan]

These rules are really good, and the vehicles from "Combat Models", very nice. And in a good size too!

In the "Breaking Wars" magazine (and web) it is possible to find some scenarios.

[Bravo Six]

Those do look interesting! The M48 looks pretty good as well and certainly affordable for 28mm.

-Todd

[Mr. Peabody]

Want to fire them up?

[Bravo Six]

Sure thing! 

[Mako]

Anyone had any success downloading them?

I tried with IE Explorer, and through Google, and can't get them to do it.

Not sure why, but suspect my search engines are blocking them for some reason, and Google gives the only hint, saying the connection isn't secure.

I am interested in checking them out, so was wondering if they were posted anywhere else where I might have a bit more luck, like say on a Yahoo Group somewhere.

[Legion1963]

That's very nice. And already downloaded and in my Nam filefolder. More rules to use with my recon game. Mako if you can not download them i can send you the rules by email.

[Arrigo]

I have looked at them, but I found them depressingly generic. I do not wish my comment to sounds too harsh, but I found them quite bland. Of course there is not a lot of difference between a squad action in Vietnam or somewhere else with comparable equipment, but I do not understand what make them Vietnam except a shallow dose of chrome. There is no order of battle, no real an analysis of the terrain,

When you compare them with products like Charlie Don't Surf (albeit aimed at a different level) you feel they are just cobbled together. I am sure they can give a good and enjoyable game but, well, they are not my kind of rules. A bit confused on what they actually want to represent, not a real understanding of the forces involved, wrong use of artillery, and a lot of other points I think are spurious. And do not have me started on how forces are treated...

The entire jungle movement thing is silly, classic Hollywood,, mixed with the weird urge of mixing together tactical, operational, and strategic considerations (plus the cheap myths) in the same package. There is no real evidence that in combat there was a difference in the way jungle affected movement of different forces. If you are moving fast and trying to avoid being killed obstacles are the same. Plus there is some doubt on what jungle is in the rules (if we are talking of triple canopy jungle why it is placed in the same table of a village?). I downloaded it, read it, deleted it.

On the other hand they are quick and easy, the English is readable (well I cut my teeth on DBA/DBM... I had even the weird experience to talk with mr. Barker in person and realize that there is a reason for the DBx rules language) and well presented (ok I would suggest to check the tables again to remove Spanish words). They are not my cup of tea but I am sure other players with different tastes will like them. At the moment I am still thinking Force on Force is much better (and treat Vietnam much better) and Chain of Command is a sounder base once the proper modifications will be out. 

After all, how many skirmish games we need? (open question)

[Legion1963]

Indeed, how many skirmish games do you need?

[Mr. Peabody]

Search & Destroy 1966 is trying to do some interesting, and theatre appropriate things. The challenge with gaming Vietnam will always be the asymmetry of the forces and S&D'66 definitely has an approach for that. S&D'66 is definitely trying to keep things simple, and I appreciate that. No walls of text to explain complicated concepts or systems.

I'm reserving judgement until I actually play the game. It may be over-simplified crap and it may be a gem in the rough, but I have learned that a read-through, no matter how comprehensive, is not the same as playing the game.

Sure, we bring our previous gaming experience to bear when we read a new set, but the flow of a game and the quality of its mechanics can often be misinterpreted if we only read the rules.

This set won't compare well to Charlie Don't Surf... That's very much apples and oranges. Ambush Valley, FNG and perhaps Charlie Co. would be better choices for comparison.

Above all, I really like the images and the enthusiasm the S&D'66 team bring to their game. Great minis and beautiful terrain. The Vietnam conflict, with its loooong duration and convoluted involvement of multiple nations, makes for some great gaming! I'm always happy to see something new that might encourage folks to give it a go.

[Arrigo]

Search & Destroy 1966 is trying to do some interesting, and theatre appropriate things. The challenge with gaming Vietnam will always be the asymmetry of the forces and S&D'66 definitely has an approach for that.

I respectfully disagree. There is nothing based on 6 years of wading through original AAR that looks 'theatre appropriate' to me. It is Hollywood/TMP Vietnam, nothing less, nothing more. Now there is nothing bad in it by itself. But do not tell me this new rules are this wonderful historical representation of the Vietnam Conflict. There is no PAVN, the distinction between Main, Regional, and Local forces is not there. The FWA forces are just hinted and glossed over. Ther portrayal of artillery is childish. Thus a squad had access to batteries of 105mm  It is a simple set, but Vietnam is awfully blue tacked on them. Asymmetry is an abused and misconstrued term. Here is out of place.

This set won't compare well to Charlie Don't Surf... That's very much apples and oranges. Ambush Valley, FNG and perhaps Charlie Co. would be better choices for comparison.

No, it is an appropriate comparison. CDS is probably the only set that is looking at actual forces rather than some sort of Hollywood Vietnam. Richard has to be commended to have done sound research on the topic. Piers too for Ambush Alley supplement.

Sure, we bring our previous gaming experience to bear when we read a new set, but the flow of a game and the quality of its mechanics can often be misinterpreted if we only read the rules.

I am an arrogant I know, but I know a bummer when I see one. Things like arty and other stuff pop outs immediately.

Above all, I really like the images and the enthusiasm the S&D'66 team bring to their game. Great minis and beautiful terrain. The Vietnam conflict, with its loooong duration and convoluted involvement of multiple nations, makes for some great gaming! I'm always happy to see something new that might encourage folks to give it a go.

Now we are in agreement no points of discussion here. But I am afraid that a new set of rules will not change the reality. In Vietnam you do not have uber panzers... said that if S&D66 give some fun to players I am for it, I will just not touch or play it, not my cup of tea.

To Legion...

Indeed, how many skirmish games do you need?

My first answer longtime ago was no more than 5... the rest are clones. Now I do not know... everyone seems to scream for new rulesets, then how many of them are played is debatable. Certainly there a some 'slight' variations on what constitutes skirmish and what you really want to find it... another answers would be there is the need of at least one different rule set per gamer... if not more, I have become unhappy with generic ruleset covering apple and oranges. I have set on the idea I need a different one per period because often I want to capture different elements for each period. sometime I even think a couple per period... but then how many time they are played?

On the negative side it seems everyone deem itself capable to write a new skirmish game these days... but often they look all the same... I know once Frank Chadwick said good designers steal but we are approaching the extreme...