What is the actual difference between ARVN and the US/USMC

[Dr. Chaplain]

I ask cause in my experience majority of people vote for it and then the round becomes annoying to participate in from the southern team cause people make it about their k/d, thats just my experience and its made playing as south vietnam pretty borring.
Just asking out of curiosity if there is a difference or if its just personal preference for the sake of conversation.

[Jack Clock]

The Republic of Vietnam has different weapons, artillery, cosmetics, and has access to 30-round magazines in late-war campaign.

The similarity the factions have is that both fought for freedom from oppression and tyranny.

-Z

[Dr. Chaplain]

Originally posted by El Zorro I:

The Republic of Vietnam has different weapons, artillery, cosmetics, and has access to 30-round magazines in late-war campaign.

The similarity the factions have is that both fought for freedom from oppression and tyranny.

-Z

I cant complain about that answer, spot on, though it does seems that they do fundamentally work the same short their weapons hitting harder, at least thats the difference i've found.

[Lain]

Their weapons tend to be more focused around the 30-06 and .45 ACP calibers, meaning they pack a bit more punch. As for fire support, their napalm is delivered by a propellor driven A-1 Skyraider, their artillery is mortars, which have a large radius, but smaller explosions and more of them firing than the regular US / AUS artillery. They also have access to ERDL and Tigerstripe camos, and uncovered M1 helmets.

I'm not 100% sure what could cause your issue of your teams picking them to focus on K/D. If I had to guess, I'd say the M1 Garand, it's a very, very, good weapon. One shot kill, light recoil, and rather fast reload. There's that, and the M1A1 Thompson, same deal.

[Jack Clock]

Originally posted by Dr. Chaplain:

Originally posted by El Zorro I:

The Republic of Vietnam has different weapons, artillery, cosmetics, and has access to 30-round magazines in late-war campaign.

The similarity the factions have is that both fought for freedom from oppression and tyranny.

-Z

I cant complain about that answer, spot on, though it does seems that they do fundamentally work the same short their weapons hitting harder, at least thats the difference i've found.

The Thompson and 1919 are quite fast-firing, and can be extremely punishing at any range due to it's power. It doesn't help for the NVA that the ARVN have a fighting spirit to protect the freedoms of all of west Asia on their side.

-Z

[Dr. Chaplain]

Originally posted by Rootin Tootin Putin:

I'm not 100% sure what could cause your issue of your teams picking them to focus on K/D. If I had to guess, I'd say the M1 Garand, it's a very, very, good weapon. One shot kill, light recoil, and rather fast reload. There's that, and the M1A1 Thompson, same deal.

Not sure myself, its just a weird thing i keep running into and was curious if the hub said anything different.

[Tracy]

In bare bones term, ARVN are the faction with the most weapons (past late 1968) and never give up any during the course of the campaign, at the cost of trading artillery for mortars. While the US Army & Marines get proper artillery, but are extremely limited on weapons selection.

I understand why people pick the latter option 90% of the time in campaign prior to late war; but it doesn't make me less inclined in wanting to smack them with a piece of heavy mining equipment when they do pick U.S. Army for the 4 billionth time.

[3 Ducks In a Man Suit]

Originally posted by El Zorro I:

The similarity the factions have is that both fought for freedom from oppression and tyranny.

-Z

They fought for freedom from Communist oppression and tyranny, anyway... The RVN government was enormously corrupt and incompetent. It was basically Communist zealots vs. the mafia. The ARVN itself was kind of an infamous shi tshow too.

[Jack Clock]

Originally posted by 3 Ducks In a Man Suit:

Originally posted by El Zorro I:

The similarity the factions have is that both fought for freedom from oppression and tyranny.

-Z

They fought for freedom from _Communist" oppression and tyranny, anyway... The RVN government was enormously corrupt and incompetent. It was basically Communist zealots vs. the mafia.

No government is perfecto when it first starts. Our own United States violently put down many armed revolts before adapting and changing how it's system works, and South Korea was a borderline dictatorship for the longest time, but now is prospering since the 1980's. South Vietnam was far from perfecto, but it wasn't a cruel, malevolent communist threat.

-Z

[Boii Fan]

Since NO ONE mentioned it, the ARVN engineer, unlike the US/USMC DOES NOT HAVE THE FLAMETHROWER. instead he has access to the BAR from very early on in the campaign, which increses the number of MG gunners in your team by almost double ( i think mg gunners and engineers have the same numebr if i remmeber) . The BAR has some problems medium range, but short range and even long range it is a very useful weapon, so useful that even the farmers use it early on for their sapper class.

[Herr Flick]

I've played maps were us/usmc don't have flamers for engineers is that a server edit choice? Eg Hill map doesn't have them selectable although it would be perfect flamer map to clear bunkers and tunnels

[Raszak]

I choose the ARVN just for the garand, I love it

[Frenchy56]

Originally posted by El Zorro I:

Originally posted by 3 Ducks In a Man Suit:

They fought for freedom from _Communist" oppression and tyranny, anyway... The RVN government was enormously corrupt and incompetent. It was basically Communist zealots vs. the mafia.

No government is perfecto when it first starts. Our own United States violently put down many armed revolts before adapting and changing how it's system works, and South Korea was a borderline dictatorship for the longest time, but now is prospering since the 1980's. South Vietnam was far from perfecto, but it wasn't a cruel, malevolent communist threat.

-Z

Sure, Vietnam was such a malevolent communist threat that it liberated Cambodia from the Khmer Rouge. Everything with a red star slapped on it isn't out there to destroy the world, you know.

[=(e)= Lemonater47]

Originally posted by Frenchy56:

Originally posted by El Zorro I:

No government is perfecto when it first starts. Our own United States violently put down many armed revolts before adapting and changing how it's system works, and South Korea was a borderline dictatorship for the longest time, but now is prospering since the 1980's. South Vietnam was far from perfecto, but it wasn't a cruel, malevolent communist threat.

-Z

Sure, Vietnam was such a malevolent communist threat that it liberated Cambodia from the Khmer Rouge. Everything with a red star slapped on it isn't out there to destroy the world, you know.

Well it was a bit more geopolitical than that. Vietnam and china had never really liked each other. Ever. The soviets didn't like china at the time. Soviets backed Vietnam. The Chinese backed the Khmer Rouge.

Not to mention the Khmer Rouge started the whole thing with Vietnam. Attacking them multiple times before Vietnam eventually got fed up with it and rolled over Cambodia. And at the end of the day the Khmer Rouges fears were unfounded. Though the Chinese may have had something to do with that.

[Jack Clock]

Originally posted by Frenchy56:

Originally posted by El Zorro I:

No government is perfecto when it first starts. Our own United States violently put down many armed revolts before adapting and changing how it's system works, and South Korea was a borderline dictatorship for the longest time, but now is prospering since the 1980's. South Vietnam was far from perfecto, but it wasn't a cruel, malevolent communist threat.

-Z

Sure, Vietnam was such a malevolent communist threat that it liberated Cambodia from the Khmer Rouge. Everything with a red star slapped on it isn't out there to destroy the world, you know.

It also tortured it's own citizens with re-education camps, caused mass famines by re-loacating South Vietnamese citizens to barren parts of Vietnam with no food to be found, they encouraged neighbors to spy on one-another for any "treasonous" speech, and they treated the Montegnards appalingly.

Besides, the Khmer Rouge fought with them. And as señor Lemon said previously, they only fought them for political reasons, not out of anything humanitarian like the United States did.

-Z

[Frenchy56]

Originally posted by El Zorro I:

Originally posted by Frenchy56:

Sure, Vietnam was such a malevolent communist threat that it liberated Cambodia from the Khmer Rouge. Everything with a red star slapped on it isn't out there to destroy the world, you know.

It also tortured it's own citizens with re-education camps, caused mass famines by re-loacating South Vietnamese citizens to barren parts of Vietnam with no food to be found, they encouraged neighbors to spy on one-another for any "treasonous" speech, and they treated the Montegnards appalingly.

Besides, the Khmer Rouge fought with them. And as señor Lemon said previously, they only fought them for political reasons, not out of anything humanitarian like the United States did.

-Z

Doesn't change the fact that Vietnam didn't practically genocide its own people, and took down a government that was genociding its own people, even if that wasn't the reason in the first place. It's different shades of grey.
I'd rather have been living in Vietnam than in Cambodia at that time if I had to choose between the two.