Vietnam as a playable nation?

[EpicRice]

Just curious if that would be one of the playable nations in the game

[Geeves]

Why would it be? Vietnam is far out of the time period portrayed here.

[EpicRice]

Well the game is definately centered around the cold war theme type of warfare, and the Vietnamese War was definatey a major war during the Cold War era for the United States, and a landmark asian conflict in general. The Vietnam war starts only 3 years after Korea, so the time period isn't far at all. It would be hard to impletement with jungle warfare but if it was done right it would definately be amazing with how EE's game mechanics and graphics work.

"According to the announcement made on the official Wargame forums, the time frame will be extended from 1975 to 1991. There will be over 1200 units featured in Red Dragon, including ALB's nations.[2] "

http://wargame-series.wikia.com/wiki/Wargame:_Red_Dragon

From their official wiki

[Cullen's Hound]

No, Vietnam is not in the game. The game starts in 1980. The only nations not in alb being added are China, both Koreas, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. No other nations are planned.

[GunnarJoe97]

Vietnam could fit into the game, (I personally would like to see it included along with Taiwan, but that's just me.) but I guess it's too late to include Vietnam now. The game still looks great though.

[Tom]

Or you can say, the devs still honor balance of the game rather than pursuing as close as possible to the history. Just imagine the tech and units of Vietnam vs U.S in this game. Ignore the history, only take historical units of both sides; the result won't be nice.

[Kami]

this is a wargame between Warsaw Pact and NATO. And Vietnam was never a part of Warsaw Pact so there you have the reasons why vietnam is not included.

[Cullen's Hound]

Taiwan will never be mentioned in a game that intends to have a market in China.

[troublmaker]

During the Vietnam War, America suffered 58,000 losses... Vietnam suffered 2.3M losses. I would hardly call the Vietnamese army effective in a modern warfare. The main problem is that they didn't have an air force, riverline boats, or tanks. They had a ground army fighting a guerilla war... and it just wasn't all that effective. The story that played out in American media was far bloodier than the reality of the conflict. To say that America "lost" the Vietnam War is similar to saying the Russians lost WW2. The Americans abandoned Vietnam because popular consent shifted away from it... at no point did they ever lose the war though. The same is true in Afghanistan and Iraq where Afghan and Iraqi deaths are far higher than those of American soldiers.

Vietnam would make for a great campaign map because in a Cold War gone hot the Russians would actively get involved. The entire Vietnamese army could easily be broken down into one reservist platoon under a Mixed Soviet deck.

If you're interested there is a group that create a Vietnam War scenario to be played out with eight players.

[Six6]

So you went into the official wiki and vietnam wasn't listed, but you are still asking the question that the wiki already answered...

[Six6]

Originally posted by InsigniaPun:

this is a wargame between Warsaw Pact and NATO. And Vietnam was never a part of Warsaw Pact so there you have the reasons why vietnam is not included.

Japan, Korea, Australian and New Zealand Army Corps are not and were never part of NATO. China and North Korea were never part of the Warsaw Pact. It's time to drop the game and pick up a history book my friend :-)

[Geeves]

Originally posted by Flybboy:

Originally posted by InsigniaPun:

this is a wargame between Warsaw Pact and NATO. And Vietnam was never a part of Warsaw Pact so there you have the reasons why vietnam is not included.

Japan, Korea, Australian and New Zealand Army Corps are not and were never part of NATO. China and North Korea were never part of the Warsaw Pact. It's time to drop the game and pick up a history book my friend :-)

And is also why Red Dragon does not refer to them as "NATO" and "Warsaw Pact" anymore.

Still, Vietnam was over long before the events in this game (Red Dragon) take place, so they have no reason to be a part of the conflict. Besides, Last I checked Vietnam had no military of its own at the time aside from infantry. Everything else was either supplied by Russia/China, or just plain were Russia/China. So if Vietnam were included, they would be nothing but a far inferior China/Russia bringing nothing new to the table on their own.

Originally posted by troublmaker:

During the Vietnam War, America suffered 58,000 losses... Vietnam suffered 2.3M losses. I would hardly call the Vietnamese army effective in a modern warfare...

Whether America won or lost is definitely debatable (I dont believe we ever even had a clear objective), but the North Vietnamese/Cambodian perspective is not. They accomplished their objective of taking over South Vietnam (though short lived), extremely high casualty rate notwithstanding. I think if our government ever collapsed and China invaded (not saying such a scenario is the equivalent of what happened in Vietnam), we would consider it a "win" if we pushed them out for good even if it cost us half the population. But that is a debate for a different forum.

I will agree that a single player Vietnam scenario would be interesting though.

[Kami]

Originally posted by Flybboy:

Originally posted by InsigniaPun:

this is a wargame between Warsaw Pact and NATO. And Vietnam was never a part of Warsaw Pact so there you have the reasons why vietnam is not included.

Japan, Korea, Australian and New Zealand Army Corps are not and were never part of NATO. China and North Korea were never part of the Warsaw Pact. It's time to drop the game and pick up a history book my friend :-)

Actually those country are global partners with NATO and i looked this stuff up before i even said it. not some idiot that would put up false facts

[[-TLM-]PiratexCore]

With the new ability to build decks for the ai, you could build Vietnam themed decks. Cat C with as many units that served in the theater as possible and bam, Vietnam war. Perhaps not a Vietnam faction itself, you're still able to equip one like it was Vietnam.

[Six6]

Originally posted by InsigniaPun:

Originally posted by Flybboy:

Japan, Korea, Australian and New Zealand Army Corps are not and were never part of NATO. China and North Korea were never part of the Warsaw Pact. It's time to drop the game and pick up a history book my friend :-)

Actually those country are global partners with NATO and i looked this stuff up before i even said it. not some idiot that would put up false facts

ok, But the game is not about Warsaw Pact v. Nato, its RedFor v. BluFor

[Validuz]

lol.. The units that would be viable in the jungle would be M113. Huey and an absolute ♥♥♥♥-ton of soldiers.

Then we call in the napalm.

But no... Vietnam couldnt hold a candle to any of these powers.