The bad thing about battlefield vietnam...

[Algam🍞🐝]

Hello! It's rare to see me criticizing my favorite game, but I think it's necessary. Since I started playing this game I became interested in history, first the Vietnam War caught my attention for obvious reasons, then the Cold War, then Korea, then the WWI, etc... One day I found you, it seemed to me It's amazing that there are people playing this game, I joined and the rest is history, wait a minute, while I was researching the battle of Khe Sanh, it reminded me of battlefield Vietnam, but I also asked myself a simple question

Why the hell does the NVA have helicopter gunships and air support?
This seemed strange to me, apart from the fact that there is also KA-25

Then I started researching the use of the Mi-8 in the Vietnam War and I didn't find anything, I went to Wikipedia and searched for combat history and I didn't find anything either, I was exhausted, so I started talking to Douglas, and he told me YES, they were used, but not as we know them in the game


I asked him about how they were used and I think he told me "as logistics vehicles" and although there is no way for me to verify, it is possible since a couple of Mi-8 helicopters have nothing to do with aviation. American so it was only a matter of thinking that they were not going to send him to the front line of combat

I started playing after that talk and I realized that the preferred vehicle for Battlefield Vietnam players is the helicopter, but not transport like the classic Huey or Chinook, they were gunship helicopters, making a large part of the games of open field will focus on the air.I don't like that, since in the game only the NVA has an anti-aircraft kit while the US does not have that, so I came to the conclusion that there should not be Mi-8 gunship helicopters nor should there be many airplanes. on maps such as Khe Sanh, Op. Hastings and Defense of Con Thien.
Another thing would be that our community only cares about making the most casualties, capturing the most flags... And the team? No, I want to win this game, which brings me to my next point.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF VEHICLES ARE UNUSED OR UNDERVALUED

I bet 5000 dollars that you have never seen players use a P.B.R as it should, in fact, let's not make it so difficult, I bet that you have never seen a UH-1 transport carrying its 5 soldiers, deploying them as it should (landing the helicopter) and evacuating the soldiers again to take them to a safer place, right? Well, that happens because the players do not cooperate. There is also the case of APCs, when there are APCs, only one player uses it for himself and the rest goes on foot.

IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE VIETNAM, IT LOOKS LIKE A WAR AGAINST THE USSR OR UKRAINE
I think that with everything I explained to you previously, it is not necessary to explain to you because it seems like WWIII against the USSR.







Conclusion: The game seems like they made it with their toes and the community thinks they are playing a WWIII game, that greatly ruins the experience of the Vietnam War

 

[Algam🍞🐝]

eso es realmente triste ya que el juego tiene muchisimo potencial, pero es desaprovechado por la comunidad y EA

 

[Blueheeler]

Very few players play as a team When we do it has great results.Very few are willing to play a defence role and only want to attack Not many will search a base after they take it as I for one hide waiting for the enemy to leave so I can take it back. You do have to remember it is a game and not accurate for its historical content. what I find takes away from it being a great game is the radar seeing blips on the map where a sniper or tunnel is but that just me as I like to do long range 400+mtr sniping and watch the enemy search within a 100 mtr range for me

 

[Algam🍞🐝]

Very few players play as a team When we do it has great results.Very few are willing to play a defence role and only want to attack Not many will search a base after they take it as I for one hide waiting for the enemy to leave so I can take it back. You do have to remember it is a game and not accurate for its historical content. what I find takes away from it being a great game is the radar seeing blips on the map where a sniper or tunnel is but that just me as I like to do long range 400+mtr sniping and watch the enemy search within a 100 mtr range for me

I know, but I'm not talking about errors that are not easy to notice, like the VC has an AKM (a more advanced rifle) while the NVA has older ones, I'm talking about historical errors that make you want to tear your eyes out, like there are helicopters. KA-25 in the game or how the VC in a map set in 1963 has helicopters, armored vehicles, although I am not going to fall into the stereotype of the Vietnam War, you know, a peasant with a rifle and half an American fleet, NO , but that already seems exaggerated. As far as it is a game, I forgive you, but let's remember that the game is based on a real historical event and although I do not ask for it to be so detailed that the kits are like in real life according to each map, no, I have only given my opinion . Obviously I'm not saying that the game is terrible and you shouldn't play it, as I said, I've only given my opinion as to why this game doesn't have that immersion of the Vietnam War.

greetings!

 

[Algam🍞🐝]

And even if you say "yes, but the helicopters are there to balance the game" I'm just telling you that it already is, even without helicopters since the red team has an anti-aircraft kit, so if they want they can have access to anti-aircraft weapons. -air in their hands but the U.S. Army does not, so if the opposing team steals all their helicopters they have no way to defend themselves, apart from the fact that I doubt they are going to put an M351 Nancy vehicle to balance it, that's where the publication comes from.

PD: @IceSkater er do you remember when I told you that the server was totally dedicated to the PoE mod? Well, it was for this reason, in the PoE mod everything is balanced since two equally strong forces face each other.

 

[x4|Al Gore]

A picture is worth a thousand words. This should put your concerns on ease @Algam🍞🐝 https://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/Museums/VietnameseAirForce/Helicopters/index.html @DiscoMagpie take a look at it as well.

 

[Blueheeler]

And even if you say "yes, but the helicopters are there to balance the game" I'm just telling you that it already is, even without helicopters since the red team has an anti-aircraft kit, so if they want they can have access to anti-aircraft weapons. -air in their hands but the U.S. Army does not, so if the opposing team steals all their helicopters they have no way to defend themselves, apart from the fact that I doubt they are going to put an M351 Nancy vehicle to balance it, that's where the publication comes from.

PD: @IceSkater er do you remember when I told you that the server was totally dedicated to the PoE mod? Well, it was for this reason, in the PoE mod everything is balanced since two equally strong forces face each other.

I think you're taking a game a little bit too seriously, Answer me this then, why aren't there any Australians in the game? The Australians were in nam from 1962 before the Americans, and did a fantastic job against much superior numbers. See battle of Long tan. Maybe just maybe the Australians aren't in BFV is because its a game made more for the American market than anyone else. Why cant you fix a bayonet to your rifle so you have a longer reach? Why don't some of the hueys have twin mounted m60s on each side?Why isn't there any CS grenades to throw down the tunnels to kill the VC?Why can't a sapper remove the enemy mines?Why aren't there any SEALS with tracker dogs? Why can a sniper only carry 30 rounds? Why aren't there any civilians that might be killed by indirect fire? Why can't the 105s be airlifted into battle? Oh and lets not forget its 20 years old. Do you see where I'm coming from?

 

[DenalDouglas]

A picture is worth a thousand words. This should put your concerns on ease @Algam🍞🐝 https://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/Museums/VietnameseAirForce/Helicopters/index.html @DiscoMagpie take a look at it as well.

This isn't as significant as you might think, for several reasons.

1. The Ka-25 wasn't even introduced into <Soviet> service until around 1972, despite being produced for several years before. I've been doing research on North Vietnam's weapons for almost twelve years now, and I've never seen even a single reliable source that could confirm the North used that helicopter during the Vietnam War.

2. The Mi-8 gunship we get in BfVietnam seems to specifically be the Mi-8TV, which wasn't even created until 1974 - for the Soviets. There's basically zero chance this model saw service in the Vietnam War. There's room for argument that it's instead simply an armed Mi-8T, but to that, see my next three points.

3. Even the Mi-8T, the transport version, wasn't introduced until 1968, again with the Soviets. Add a few years for them to start making their way to export nations, and you get an even later introduction into the Vietnam War.

4. Again, after almost twelve years of research, I can say this with certainty: the NVA virtually NEVER used helicopters in combat during the Vietnam War. Not the way the US, ANZAC, and ARVN did. They used them in exclusively logistics and support roles before 1972, and even from 1972 up until prior to the final NVA offensive in early 1975, NVA helicopters being used in an assault role was extremely rare. They only did that in the last few months of the war. In general, communist Vietnam's use of helicopters didn't become "conventional" until the end of the Vietnam War and in the years and conflicts that followed. The closest that NVA helicopters might have made it to the front lines prior to those dates were for base resupply - during the fights around Con Thien in 1967-1968, there were reports of "low, slow-moving lights" spotted at night in the sky on the north side of the demilitarized zone, believed, but never confirmed, to have been NVA helicopters supplying communist bases and artillery emplacements within North Vietnam.

5. In general, the North almost never sent aircraft of any kind over South Vietnam throughout most of the war. They even had several Il-28 "Beagle" jet bombers early in the war that the US was afraid they would use against the South, but they never did. MiGs were used solely for air defense of the North, never in an air support role over the South until after the US left. The North knew very well that the US had superior numbers of aircraft and better air defenses, and anything they sent over the South while the US was there, fixed wing or helicopter, wouldn't last long, and they couldn't afford to lose any more aircraft than they had to. Look up "Operation Bolo" and its effects on the North's air force - short-term, they had to ground their own jets from flying in their own skies because of what the US accomplished. That's how careful they were to preserve their aircraft.

Also, more in relation to the general topic, I think there's some misunderstanding here because of the language barrier. Algam started this thread after a conversation we had, and as I understand, his intent in this thread was to express his feelings to a more general audience. From our conversation, his complaints aren't simply the historical inaccuracies, but the attitude the community has today. Most people want to just zip around in helicopters and get big kill counts, instead of focusing on ground combat and working as teams. Blueheeler himself pointed out the lack of team cooperation above. What Algam really wants is to change the way people see the game, to which I said in our private talk, essentially, "Go ahead and try, but don't expect results. The days of people playing this game in a truly Vietnam-War-like fashion are probably over."

 

[DiscoMagpie]

A picture is worth a thousand words. This should put your concerns on ease @Algam🍞🐝 https://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/Museums/VietnameseAirForce/Helicopters/index.html @DiscoMagpie take a look at it as well.

Don't understand why I was mentioned, I know my stuff If the topic is air support, the Vietnamese used a lot less of it in the early war up until the US's withdrawal, due to number of reasons. Which is why the way RS2 Vietnam is made with only the US having support, and only the choppers being controllable makes more sense in multiple battles that both games have maps based on.

I think you're taking a game a little bit too seriously, Answer me this then, why aren't there any Australians in the game? The Australians were in nam from 1962 before the Americans, and did a fantastic job against much superior numbers. See battle of Long tan. Maybe just maybe the Australians aren't in BFV is because its a game made more for the American market than anyone else. Why cant you fix a bayonet to your rifle so you have a longer reach? Why don't some of the hueys have twin mounted m60s on each side?Why isn't there any CS grenades to throw down the tunnels to kill the VC?Why can't a sapper remove the enemy mines?Why aren't there any SEALS with tracker dogs? Why can a sniper only carry 30 rounds? Why aren't there any civilians that might be killed by indirect fire? Why can't the 105s be airlifted into battle? Oh and lets not forget its 20 years old. Do you see where I'm coming from?

A lot of the things you mentioned actually are included in RS2 Vietnam, which is why I love that game so much. There are of course things that are not included, but the game itself is build in such a way that teamplay and the commander doing his job well are 100% what determines the outcome of each fight.

If one wants accuracy, it's the best we have that's set in Vietnam. Bad Company 2 Vietnam was also a really nice game, too bad all servers got shut down.

Here's an example Fragga, since you love sniping so much:

 

[DiscoMagpie]

This isn't as significant as you might think, for several reasons.

1. The Ka-25 wasn't even introduced into <Soviet> service until around 1972, despite being produced for several years before. I've been doing research on North Vietnam's weapons for almost twelve years now, and I've never seen even a single reliable source that could confirm the North used that helicopter during the Vietnam War.

2. The Mi-8 gunship we get in BfVietnam seems to specifically be the Mi-8TV, which wasn't even created until 1974 - for the Soviets. There's basically zero chance this model saw service in the Vietnam War. There's room for argument that it's instead simply an armed Mi-8T, but to that, see my next three points.

3. Even the Mi-8T, the transport version, wasn't introduced until 1968, again with the Soviets. Add a few years for them to start making their way to export nations, and you get an even later introduction into the Vietnam War.

4. Again, after almost twelve years of research, I can say this with certainty: the NVA virtually NEVER used helicopters in combat during the Vietnam War. Not the way the US, ANZAC, and ARVN did. They used them in exclusively logistics and support roles before 1972, and even from 1972 up until prior to the final NVA offensive in early 1975, NVA helicopters being used in an assault role was extremely rare. They only did that in the last few months of the war. In general, communist Vietnam's use of helicopters didn't become "conventional" until the end of the Vietnam War and in the years and conflicts that followed. The closest that NVA helicopters might have made it to the front lines prior to those dates were for base resupply - during the fights around Con Thien in 1967-1968, there were reports of "low, slow-moving lights" spotted at night in the sky on the north side of the demilitarized zone, believed, but never confirmed, to have been NVA helicopters supplying communist bases and artillery emplacements within North Vietnam.

5. In general, the North almost never sent aircraft of any kind over South Vietnam throughout most of the war. They even had several Il-28 "Beagle" jet bombers early in the war that the US was afraid they would use against the South, but they never did. MiGs were used solely for air defense of the North, never in an air support role over the South until after the US left. The North knew very well that the US had superior numbers of aircraft and better air defenses, and anything they sent over the South while the US was there, fixed wing or helicopter, wouldn't last long, and they couldn't afford to lose any more aircraft than they had to. Look up "Operation Bolo" and its effects on the North's air force - short-term, they had to ground their own jets from flying in their own skies because of what the US accomplished. That's how careful they were to preserve their aircraft.

Also, more in relation to the general topic, I think there's some misunderstanding here because of the language barrier. Algam started this thread after a conversation we had, and as I understand, his intent in this thread was to express his feelings to a more general audience. From our conversation, his complaints aren't simply the historical inaccuracies, but the attitude the community has today. Most people want to just zip around in helicopters and get big kill counts, instead of focusing on ground combat and working as teams. Blueheeler himself pointed out the lack of team cooperation above. What Algam really wants is to change the way people see the game, to which I said in our private talk, essentially, "Go ahead and try, but don't expect results. The days of people playing this game in a truly Vietnam-War-like fashion are probably over."

The "Hormone" is a naval air vessel too, so it makes even less sense for one to appear in the game. The reason why there's air support for the NVA in the first place is because of balance. The maps are huge, and covering all that on foot while only the US having aircrafts would be way too unfair.

 

[DenalDouglas]

I think you're taking a game a little bit too seriously, Answer me this then, why aren't there any Australians in the game? The Australians were in nam from 1962 before the Americans, and did a fantastic job against much superior numbers. See battle of Long tan. Maybe just maybe the Australians aren't in BFV is because its a game made more for the American market than anyone else. Why cant you fix a bayonet to your rifle so you have a longer reach? Why don't some of the hueys have twin mounted m60s on each side?Why isn't there any CS grenades to throw down the tunnels to kill the VC?Why can't a sapper remove the enemy mines?Why aren't there any SEALS with tracker dogs? Why can a sniper only carry 30 rounds? Why aren't there any civilians that might be killed by indirect fire? Why can't the 105s be airlifted into battle? Oh and lets not forget its 20 years old. Do you see where I'm coming from?

While you do definitely have valid points, keep in mind that a lot of the things you've rightly noted as being missing or incorrect are better explained not by the idea that the game was deliberately meant to be inaccurate, but the fact that its development was extremely rushed, and conducted by a very small team who barely knew the engine they were working with. Anyone who's done extensive modding of the game can see that. The original developers simply didn't have the chance (or skills/knowledge, either) to put in everything they probably would have under optimal circumstances.

 

[DenalDouglas]

The "Hormone" is a naval air vessel too, so it makes even less sense for one to appear in the game. The reason why there's air support for the NVA in the first place is because of balance. The maps are huge, and covering all that on foot while only the US having aircrafts would be way too unfair.

Agreed on all points, but I would argue that the NVA/VC getting helicopters was nothing better than a "quick fix" for a problem that could have been addressed in better ways. But again, that goes back to what I said to Blueheeler about the game's development.

 

[DiscoMagpie]

Agreed on all points, but I would argue that the NVA/VC getting helicopters was nothing better than a "quick fix" for a problem that could have been addressed in better ways. But again, that goes back to what I said to Blueheeler about the game's development.

My guess is the game was supposed to be what it was - a Vietnam War-based FPS for a younger audience (teens,and young adults). We even see a few minor movie references in the game, which further proves that it was supposed to be something of a "cultural icon" rather than an actual war simulator or a history lesson in first person mode.

 

[DenalDouglas]

My guess is the game was supposed to be what it was - a Vietnam War-based FPS for a younger audience (teens,and young adults). We even see a few minor movie references in the game, which further proves that it was supposed to be something of a "cultural icon" rather than an actual war simulator or a history lesson in first person mode.

I wasn't necessarily saying that it was meant to be anything more than what it is, just that the developers probably would have added certain extra features if they could have. Because if you look at everything Blueheeler listed out, almost all of that can be done in the existing game via modding, with the exception of civilian bystanders and troops with dogs. It's all possible, it was just never done. And unfortunately, I think it might be another part of what's killing what's left of the game. As it stands now, it's falling into the genre of "generic FPS" rather than an authentic, unique experience. And worse, I'd say it's killing off attempts to upgrade the game. I would argue that Operation Remembrance is what BfVietnam could have been to begin with, and the main reason OpRem isn't more popular with what's left of the community is because it changes the gameplay to something they don't expect to get when they click on that "Battlefield Vietnam" icon on their desktop. You've got one large group of people who will never be interested in the game because of what it is, one tiny group of people who'll never accept an attempt to make it more than what it is, and a few individuals like Algam and me who want to turn it into what it could be. That's why I'm getting burned out on the game, and why I would much rather move on to developing Operation Remembrance as its own game.

 

[Algam🍞🐝]

A picture is worth a thousand words. This should put your concerns on ease @Algam🍞🐝 https://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/Museums/VietnameseAirForce/Helicopters/index.html @DiscoMagpie take a look at it as well.

I just saw the image and I only found the Mi-4, but even so it is impossible that a third world country can afford to lose an aircraft outside its territory, apart from the fact that it says right there "made to transport Ho Chi minh" so I doubt that Ho will go with his soldiers to the front line of combat to lose a vehicle worth more than 2M dollars, just look at the US Air Force, if they wanted they could have destroyed the entire NVA air force

 

[Algam🍞🐝]

I think you're taking a game a little bit too seriously, Answer me this then, why aren't there any Australians in the game? The Australians were in nam from 1962 before the Americans, and did a fantastic job against much superior numbers. See battle of Long tan. Maybe just maybe the Australians aren't in BFV is because its a game made more for the American market than anyone else. Why cant you fix a bayonet to your rifle so you have a longer reach? Why don't some of the hueys have twin mounted m60s on each side?Why isn't there any CS grenades to throw down the tunnels to kill the VC?Why can't a sapper remove the enemy mines?Why aren't there any SEALS with tracker dogs? Why can a sniper only carry 30 rounds? Why aren't there any civilians that might be killed by indirect fire? Why can't the 105s be airlifted into battle? Oh and lets not forget its 20 years old. Do you see where I'm coming from?

Of course not, but as I told you before, the game made exaggerated errors, as for why there are no civilians it is because I don't think it is fun to kill innocents, apart from the fact that it would just be a waste of bullets. The reason there are no dogs is because the engine does not allow it, unless you want to make a mountable dog and of course you can remove the mines (only the A-T ones), kill the one who placed the mine or take an enemy kit with the mine, you put a mine anywhere and you have a space left over to remove the mine. Oh, and sniper soldiers only carry 30 bullets because that's all they need, it's unnecessary to carry more.

 

[Algam🍞🐝]

And in case you show me that the Mi-8 were used in the Vietnam War, I'm just telling you that the version of the game (attack, more specifically a Mi-8TV) did not enter service until 1974, here are the sources https://www.16va.be/4.5_les_mi-8_part2_eng.html

 

[Blueheeler]

Of course not, but as I told you before, the game made exaggerated errors, as for why there are no civilians it is because I don't think it is fun to kill innocents, apart from the fact that it would just be a waste of bullets. The reason there are no dogs is because the engine does not allow it, unless you want to make a mountable dog and of course you can remove the mines (only the A-T ones), kill the one who placed the mine or take an enemy kit with the mine, you put a mine anywhere and you have a space left over to remove the mine. Oh, and sniper soldiers only carry 30 bullets because that's all they need, it's unnecessary to carry more.

You misunderstood my comment about the mines .As a sapper part of their job was to remove mines.So in the game a USA sapper should be able to remove NVA mines and visa versa.The bouncing betties or' Jumping Jacks' as Australians called them ONLY went off if triggered by touching the little prongs on the top of them, not walk 8 feet from them So a sapper should be able to LIFT those mines, while being very careful to notice if a frag grenade was placed under them so if the mine was lifted the grenade would detonate. Also While I'm on it, what about the tunnels? In real life you could be standing 2 feet from a concealed entrance and not know it was there. Yet in the game a Jet flying at 10,000 feet can see a tunnel entrance?As to a sniper carrying only 30 bullets a sniper could carry more some 140 is not unknown if he was on a 2 week long range seek and kill mission and if detected might have to fire fight his way to safety,He couldn't call in a re supply ammo drop, for one he didn't carry a radio secondly a resupply would give away what area he was operating in. I feel you are trying to pick out faults as to things not being real in a GAME, a 20 year old GAME! i don't pretend to know everything about all weapons used in the Vietnam war but I grew up in the 60s/70s and was trained in the use of The 7.62 L1A1 semi Auto SLR or SLUR as we called them,also the L1A1 full auto heavy barrel with bi pod foregrip the Sterling 9MM L34A1 SMG., the Browning HP 9mm side arm,the M60 GPMG 7.62,,and before that the SMLE 303, the 303 Bren LMG. I used to hunt pigs, Roos ,foxes and rabbits using a 6.5 x55 mm Youngman with 900 mtr iron sights, a SMLE 303 with sportsman stock, a MA Naughton fieldsman .22 magnum.The 6.5x55 with SS FMJ was a beast it would go through 3x qtr inch plates of steel and dent the 4th.No hiding behind a brick wall or car with that. now I've finished my rant I think most of us play the game as a game and to interact with each other from all parts of the world, even tease each other. DUCK!

 

[DiscoMagpie]

You misunderstood my comment about the mines .As a sapper part of their job was to remove mines.So in the game a USA sapper should be able to remove NVA mines and visa versa.The bouncing betties or' Jumping Jacks' as Australians called them ONLY went off if triggered by touching the little prongs on the top of them, not walk 8 feet from them So a sapper should be able to LIFT those mines, while being very careful to notice if a frag grenade was placed under them so if the mine was lifted the grenade would detonate. Also While I'm on it, what about the tunnels? In real life you could be standing 2 feet from a concealed entrance and not know it was there. Yet in the game a Jet flying at 10,000 feet can see a tunnel entrance?As to a sniper carrying only 30 bullets a sniper could carry more some 140 is not unknown if he was on a 2 week long range seek and kill mission and if detected might have to fire fight his way to safety,He couldn't call in a re supply ammo drop, for one he didn't carry a radio secondly a resupply would give away what area he was operating in. I feel you are trying to pick out faults as to things not being real in a GAME, a 20 year old GAME! i don't pretend to know everything about all weapons used in the Vietnam war but I grew up in the 60s/70s and was trained in the use of The 7.62 L1A1 semi Auto SLR or SLUR as we called them,also the L1A1 full auto heavy barrel with bi pod foregrip the Sterling 9MM L34A1 SMG., the Browning HP 9mm side arm,the M60 GPMG 7.62,,and before that the SMLE 303, the 303 Bren LMG. I used to hunt pigs, Roos ,foxes and rabbits using a 6.5 x55 mm Youngman with 900 mtr iron sights, a SMLE 303 with sportsman stock, a MA Naughton fieldsman .22 magnum.The 6.5x55 with SS FMJ was a beast it would go through 3x qtr inch plates of steel and dent the 4th.No hiding behind a brick wall or car with that. now I've finished my rant I think most of us play the game as a game and to interact with each other from all parts of the world, even tease each other. DUCK!

QUACK!

I think you meant the L1A2* Fragga, that's the "LMG" variation of the L1A1. Poor cobbler didn't even know what he was shooting

 

[DenalDouglas]

QUACK!

I think you meant the L1A2* Fragga, that's the "LMG" variation of the L1A1. Poor cobbler didn't even know what he was shooting

Apparently neither do you, my dancing, feathery friend. It's the *L2A1*. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L1A1_Self-Loading_Rifle#Australia