OK, I see now why US Public Opinion is lower, missed that under the Tet Offensive, whoops.
FarangDemon wrote:Taking these justifications into consideration, I hope you think we can include it, as this was a defining event of the war. In any event, can tweak the Tet Offensive neutral starting value as you see fit. So if you think Ho Chi Minh is overpowered, we can nerf it.
I agree that Tet was huge for the US involvement in the war, just as PPP Falls was for the French involvement.
Actually, at 8 neutral though, it might be a non-factor in many games. I like the -1 penalty, it shows how draining the Tet Offensive was to their forces, especially the experienced troops. How about getting rid of the Russian Aid altogether and lowering the neutral value for Tet?
Really, as it stands Ho Chi Minh can have two private bonuses (US Public Opinion and Russian Aid), plus one-way attack nearly all of S. Vietnam. That seems like too much, even considering the bombing missions, because Tet allows Ho Chi Minh to take areas outside of N. Vietnam anyway.
If you lower Tet to say 4 or 5 neutral, then Ho Chi Minh is the leader with no inherent bonus but lots of attack options. I like that because it brings Tet into play more, makes it more central to the map's gameplay, and at the same time without Russian Aid I think it's relatively balanced with the other leaders as long as it keeps that -1 penalty.
-----------------
For the Ho Chi Minh Trail, I realized another thing that was bothering me- arrows are traditionally used to indicate a one-way attack in CC maps. There's a potential for players to think that Atiapeu can attack the North Central Highlands but not vice versa, for instance.
How about this:
(1) Introduce a Compass Rose. They're never used, so this would be a first to have it a part of the gameplay. But you already used the terms "North" and "South" in the bombing missions, so why not? True, you could substitute the terms "Upper" and "Lower", but this wouldn't be useful for the Ho Chi Minh explanation.
(2) Make sure that all of the parts of the trail (intended attack direction of the trail) point at a downward angle, the more exaggerated the better. Certainly some of the areas where the trail is nearly horizontal there is room to bias it for a downward tilt; as long as it's noticeable it will do.
(3) Replace the arrows with something else, for instance trap doors, holes, caves, anything to indicate an endpoint without making it seem like a normal one-way attack symbol. Alternatively, if you can make the HCMT thicker, you may get away with squeezing arrows inside the tunnel, in which case I would use them copiously (every region if possible).
(4) Rewrite the explanation to say:
"Regions along the Ho Chi Minh Trail may assault each other at range 2 in a southern direction (towards trapdoors)."
)
Except for the "Territory they assault and are assaulted by" instruction which is still a bit of a non sequiter.
