Actual USMC maps

[Vasily Chuikov]

I've posted about this multiple times over the past couple of years and it still seems like we're no closer to getting some actual love for the Marines.
Instead we're getting maps that belong more in the realm of fantasy, i.e the new DMZ map and the Saigon map.


The USMC did the bulk of the fighting against the NVA in the war, by a long shot at that.

Statistically, your chances of coming out of Vietnam alive and unscathed for your average American or Australian soldier were incredibly high. However for a Marine infantryman your chances of being wounded in the years '67-'69 were close to 100%.
The Marines didn't have the luxury of constantly being lifted in and out of the field by Hueys and resupplied as regularly as Army units. They lived on months long operations, with very little sleep and constant patrolling in the most hostile areas of the country, fighting against the North Vietnamese Army by the Laotian border and the DMZ. The combat they experienced was much closer to what you'd see in WWII or Korea, charging hills defended by well entrenched, battled hardened regular army units, then having to fight for their lives with very little outside support against much larger enemy forces trying to retake those hills.

Being stationed in I corps where the fighting was by far the most severe, Marine units saw more combat than any other allied unit at the height of the war. They were at the mercy of NVA artillery batteries in Laos and North Vietnam. They were the first line of defence for a constant stream of fresh troops pouring into the South from the North. From '67 on their role wasn't to fight the Vietcong, it was to go toe to toe with an Army just as well trained and determined than they were with even more combat experience.

Regular Army units, with some exceptions (101st Airborne for one), primarily went up against the NLF, until the very late stages of the war (where the ARVN were taking over anyway), the combat they experienced was a lot closer to what we saw recently in Afghanistan. A small enemy force ambushing an allied patrol and then leaving before air and artillery support could arrive. A frustrating combat experience, but one that is a lot harder to portray in a game like this.

This game is focused more on the traditional warfare type battles fought in Vietnam, so why is no love shown to the branch of service that were fighting those battles?

The only real USMC vanilla map we have is Hue. And the Marines hadn't even issued ERDL camo at that stage, so why have the Marines in game wear it..?

This game would greatly benefit from introducing a few maps depicting the operations of 1969 in I Corps (when they were wearing ERDL). Operations like Taylor Common in the infamous Arizona Territory.
Operation Dewey Canyon where the Marines were taking and retaking a constant stream of jungle covered hills inside and around the Laotian border.
Operation Purple Martin, a similar operation where Marines had to take hills from very well dug in PAVN units and suffered a great number of casualties.
Operation Oklahoma Hills, Operation Pipestone Canyon, Operation Idaho Canyon etc. etc.

There's more than enough to choose from here, and the Marines deserve way more love than they get in this game.

If anyone's interested in reading more about these operations, I suggest picking up a few books: Matterhorn, Fields of Fire, Sand in the Wind, Thirty Days Has September. These are all endlessly readable and a great place to start learning about a part of the war that gets much less attention that it should.

[batmack8989]

I always thought the riskiest job was Huey pilot or radioman, but apparently, when sorted by MOS, the worse were tank crews, IIRC, 27% were KIA, not counting wounded or missing.

[Vasily Chuikov]

X-BigDukeSix님이 먼저 게시:

and....

the Army might disagree with you about them only fighting the VC at places like Dak To and Hill 875, Pleiku and the Ia Drang, the A Shau valley and the Cambodian Incursion - to name a few.

As I said, there are exceptions, but as a general rule, your generic US Army soldier’s war in Vietnam was different to your generic US Marine’s. The Army’s much bigger, so they’re going to be involved in large battles of course, but the Marines from ‘68 onwards were involved in almost nothing but toe to toe engagements with a regular army enemy.

And I love the vanilla maps in this game, but it doesn’t change the fact that the devs have a faction in the game they never really let us use.

[Vasily Chuikov]

X-BigDukeSix님이 먼저 게시:

=(e)= Lemonater47님이 먼저 게시:

I mean the data I've seen puts Army deaths at double the amount of Marine deaths. And that's not counting Air Force.

The chance of being a casualty in the marines was significantly higher than the army. 22.5% of marines were casualties compared to 9.5% in the army.

the Army had significantly more people in country than the marines as well.

more combat troops doing the same stuff + more deaths but at a different percentage. the USMC combat zone was hotter being on the north south border , but dont make it like the Army did nothing but fight farmers with mosins.

That wasn’t what I was trying to say. The army fought in major battles as well. Just as a general rule though, fighting primarily in IV and III Corps the army saw much less of the NVA on average until late war, when Vietnamization was taking over, and were fighting a counter insurgency war, which doesn’t translate to a game like this.

[Wotek]

Puppers-Ah0y!님이 먼저 게시:

Wotek님이 먼저 게시:

a good thing, to start, could be to put USMC on every map where the US army can be deployed. There is no gameplay difference between them... so why not?

How about no?

Again, why not? There is no gameplay difference between USMC and US Army... why making such restriction?

[Vasily Chuikov]

Wotek님이 먼저 게시:

Puppers-Ah0y!님이 먼저 게시:

How about no?

Again, why not? There is no gameplay difference between USMC and US Army... why making such restriction?

USMC didn’t fight in Cu Chi, or on Hamburger Hill for example

[PFC Luu [29ID]]

Wotek님이 먼저 게시:

Puppers-Ah0y!님이 먼저 게시:

How about no?

Again, why not? There is no gameplay difference between USMC and US Army... why making such restriction?

Because the USMC only operated in I Sector in reality. To make the USMC fight in battles that only the US Army did is unrealistic.

[Wotek]

Puppers-Ah0y!님이 먼저 게시:

Wotek님이 먼저 게시:

Again, why not? There is no gameplay difference between USMC and US Army... why making such restriction?

Because the USMC only operated in I Sector in reality. To make the USMC fight in battles that only the US Army did is unrealistic.

It's a game where the south vietnam can win and where saïgon can be captured right in 65... having the possibilty to see USMC deployed elsewhere than their historical position doesn't seems that crazy.

[Vasily Chuikov]

Wotek님이 먼저 게시:

Puppers-Ah0y!님이 먼저 게시:

Because the USMC only operated in I Sector in reality. To make the USMC fight in battles that only the US Army did is unrealistic.

It's a game where the south vietnam can win and where saïgon can be captured right in 65... having the possibilty to see USMC deployed elsewhere than their historical position doesn't seems that crazy.

I don’t really wanna go full alternate reality here, where do we draw the line? Prototype weapons?

[=(e)= Lemonater47]

X-BigDukeSix님이 먼저 게시:

=(e)= Lemonater47님이 먼저 게시:

I mean the data I've seen puts Army deaths at double the amount of Marine deaths. And that's not counting Air Force.

The chance of being a casualty in the marines was significantly higher than the army. 22.5% of marines were casualties compared to 9.5% in the army.

the Army had significantly more people in country than the marines as well.

more combat troops doing the same stuff + more deaths but at a different percentage. the USMC combat zone was hotter being on the north south border , but dont make it like the Army did nothing but fight farmers with mosins.

It also seems the marines had a longer rotation period. So an individual Marine spent longer in combat than an individual Army soldier. Plus the army had greater access to choppers for things like medivac, insertion and extraction. Marines had to walk to their objective and walk all the way back. Plus yeah the marines held the majority of positions along the DMZ. Which was modtly NVA who had a lot of artillery. So a lot more casualties due to shelling compared to those facing the NLF who may only have access to mortars with the occasional smuggled rocket. The NLF didn't have batteries of 152mm howitzers lying around.

The Army performed a lot of helicopter search and destroy missions. They'd hear about an NVA unit, fly out, land, FSU then get out.

[Wotek]

Vasily Chuikov님이 먼저 게시:

Wotek님이 먼저 게시:

It's a game where the south vietnam can win and where saïgon can be captured right in 65... having the possibilty to see USMC deployed elsewhere than their historical position doesn't seems that crazy.

I don’t really wanna go full alternate reality here, where do we draw the line? Prototype weapons?

that would be a good line... stoping before such thing I mean. Does having marine in An Lao really change the experience? Personnaly, i don't think so... however, adding prototype weapon or firearm that didn't exist at the time, that would actually be a problem since it could impact the gameplay.
And if we don't want to put the marine on historical maps where they aren't supposed to be, we can at least put them on less historical map (if there is such thing).

[Viceroy]

Vasily Chuikov님이 먼저 게시:

And I love the vanilla maps in this game, but it doesn’t change the fact that the devs have a faction in the game they never really let us use.

You talking about the Aussies right?

[Vasily Chuikov]

Viceroy님이 먼저 게시:

Vasily Chuikov님이 먼저 게시:

And I love the vanilla maps in this game, but it doesn’t change the fact that the devs have a faction in the game they never really let us use.

You talking about the Aussies right?

The Aussies have more maps than the Marines

[Viceroy]

Vasily Chuikov님이 먼저 게시:

Viceroy님이 먼저 게시:

You talking about the Aussies right?

The Aussies have more maps than the Marines

Definitely doesn't feel like that though - especially in Campaign its nearly always USMC chosen i find

[Vasily Chuikov]

Viceroy님이 먼저 게시:

Vasily Chuikov님이 먼저 게시:

The Aussies have more maps than the Marines

Definitely doesn't feel like that though - especially in Campaign its nearly always USMC chosen i find

I think you’re thinking of US Army maps

[Viceroy]

Vasily Chuikov님이 먼저 게시:

Viceroy님이 먼저 게시:

Definitely doesn't feel like that though - especially in Campaign its nearly always USMC chosen i find

I think you’re thinking of US Army maps

I meant the faction played as rather than the map

TBF in map votes Hue probably brings the USMC into 2nd by itself lol

In terms of South factions I'd easily say most played to least played is US Army, USMC, ARVN, AUS


But I would be more than happy to get some more USMC maps!