Major John Plaster talks about bringing the realism of the Vietnam War to Elite Warriors: Vietnam
By Michael Lafferty

“…we had surprisingly free reign in the design of this game.”

Vietnam was an ugly war – in the sense that it was fought in a most hostile environment by those mostly unprepared for it, and the war itself had tendrils reaching far beyond what most people saw on the evening news. This is not meant to diminish the valor, the sacrifice and the adherence to duty that so many gave to accomplish what their country asked them to.

However, among the scrubbed-faced youngsters looking way too young for the weapons they were carrying, there were also the elite corps of warriors who undertook the missions that challenged their prowess and underscored the deadliness of warfare. They went behind enemy lines, sometimes into the neighboring countries, to paint targets for air strikes, to rescue downed pilots, to gather intelligence and, sometimes, to kill key members of the enemy or take prisoners.  

Major John L. Plaster, U.S. Army Special Forces, was one of those elite warriors, a member of the Green Berets, who went places never talked about on the news.

For whatever reason, Vietnam has become a gaming area in war-based shooters. Who better to bring to a game the wealth of knowledge and background, and detail of the war zones, than someone who actually was there. That is where Major Plaster comes onto the scene. 

Destineer Studios and nFusion Interactive are the publisher and developer behind Elite Warriors: Vietnam. To create a viable atmosphere of the time and place, they asked Major Plaster for some help. He agreed.

Major Plaster talked with GameZone about working with the development team on creating Elite Warriors: Vietnam. But before we get to those questions and answers, the Major did wish to make something clear:

“While I've answered all the GameZone questions, I'd like to emphasize that my expertise is not in programming or coding or graphic design – I’m a Special Forces SOG recon vet and former sniper instructor who only learned to play videogames to assist the design of this game, Elite Warriors: Vietnam. My responses will be (hopefully) understandable and detailed, though they'll lack the technical depth and language of the game's producer, Steve Ellis at Destineer Studios, or the programmer, Jeff Birns of nFusion. 

“The game resulted from melding their superb technical skills and knowledge with my practical experience.” 

GameZone question: What aspects and elements did you contribute to the creation of this title? How important do you think it is to give an added sense of realism to games of this type?

Maj. Plaster: After initial discussions with Steve Ellis and Jeff Birns, I spent about five weeks studying several first-person shooter games that they recommended, so I could understand how such state-of-the-art games work. I was amazed at how far games had come since "Pong" and "Pac man," but I also noted that the way some of these things are done still wasn't very realistic. 

For instance, one popular game allowed hits out to 450 meters with a (suppressed) MP-5 submachine gun, the same maximum range it allowed for a PSG-1 sniper rifle. Both ballistically and marksmanship-wise, that was ridiculous. Still, this exposure gave me a feel for how to bridge the gap between the reality of SOG recon and how to depict it in a videogame medium.

With Steve and Jeff's encouragement, I started with a clean slate – any idea was at least worth considering. So, I spent another two months jotting down details on how the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) operated against us, using trackers and counter-recon forces while many more enemy troops defended almost anything worth finding or bombing along the Ho Chi Minh Trail. At the high point of the war, the NVA dedicated between 40,000 and 60,000 rear area security personnel to counter our SOG teams, although we never had more than about 12 teams (with only about 50 Green Berets) in Laos at any time. How they detected us and how we detected them mattered, too. And the crucial role of air support when our teams got in trouble.

I actually drew up the parameters for each of the game's eight missions, complete with elaborate descriptions of the target area or objective, enemy forces in and around it, and ways in which the team could find it. Anyone who reads my books, "Secret Commandos" or "SOG" will see how closely the game's missions parallel real ones. Of great interest to me, for the sake of reality, was that complications arise during most missions that require you to adjust, as you must in real life. (Von Moltke said, "All plans change when the first shots are fired.") In the end, I handed to Steve and Jeff a 191-page (single-spaced) plan for the game, which they did their absolute best to make a reality. I think players will find that they succeeded superbly. 

As to the value of realism - I think any time you go to a theater and see a motion picture that suddenly turns "unrealistic" you can feel it, and you lose a degree of interest. Today's videogames provide an exciting interaction in ways that movies cannot – so I think a game should strive to be as compelling as a motion picture. The other aspect of realism is that this game correctly reflects a REAL unit, with a REAL history and REAL tactics and techniques, and REAL equipment and weapons. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first game to have done so.

Q: Do you think there is a tendency in some games to treat the subject of warfare too lightly or to trivialize the experience? How does "Elite Warriors" deal with this, in your opinion?

Maj. Plaster: On the Internet I've come upon some chat rooms and bulletin boards whose posters don't seem to get it – that some of their games involve serious historic events in which good men died or came away scarred for life. However, it's a mistake to expect everyone "to get it." Think of all the motion pictures in which – for purposes of dramatic license or artistic effect – violence is depicted in trivial ways. Or even comedies that make light of serious issues.

As much as anything, this question will have to be answered in the mind of the beholder. Back in the mid-1950s, every young red-blooded American boy wore an imitation coonskin cap, just like Fess Parker wore in the hit show, "Davy Crockett." Were those young boys (including myself) trivializing Davy's life and death, or were we paying him the great honor of trying to emulate him? Some players of this game will find "Elite Warriors" an interesting game and only that, but I sincerely believe, many more players will come to understand and respect the REAL SOG warriors in ways that no historian could begin to understand. Especially if they also read, "Secret Commandos," and "SOG." There's nothing trivial whatsoever in those books.

Q: What do you think sets "Elite Warriors" apart from other FPS-type shooter titles?

Maj. Plaster: "Elite Warriors" is distinguished by its structure, its content and the fact that it's REAL. While on real SOG recon missions, we felt tremendous psychological pressure because even as we were using stealth and stalking to discover and infiltrate enemy installations, NVA trackers and counter-recon forces were hunting for us. The game recreates this well, compelling the player to be both part wolf (to aggressively penetrate enemy locations) and part jackrabbit, (to employ caution where required.) Thus, you must stalk carefully to accomplish missions – but if you move too slowly, trackers and counter-recon forces will find your trail and catch up with you. That's only one example.  

Further, the game offers integrated elements of a first-person shooter, along with Tactical RCS and role-playing – therefore, you can go to "high camera" and position your teammates for an ambush along a road or trail. I especially emphasized – and Jeff Birns achieved it – that for each play, even on the same type mission, enemy forces and locations shift about, so there's an unending challenge, and different potential outcomes.

When it comes to air strikes, they're not simply interesting graphic depictions, but airdropped ordnance that you employ to help ward off the enemy, just as we did. And talking about reality – the callsign for the A-1 Skyraiders is "Spad," just like we had, while the Cobra gunships have the callsign, "Panther," identical to the unit that flew for us over southern Laos. Here's another structural example: On the downed pilot recovery mission, even as you search for him, the pilot is evading enemy searchers, so he's moving – you have to get to him before the enemy does, even if you have to fight your way through the enemy. Or you'll come home empty handed.

Q: Does this game recount your exploits solely, or does it put gamers into similar situations and allows them the ability to determine their own course? Is this a linear game?

Maj. Plaster: I should emphasize that this game is not linear – it’s about as free-play as current technology allows. When your team lands in southern Laos (on any of a variety of landing zones), you can go in any direction. And (hats off to Jeff and nFusion), you won't be impeded by the typical "maze" style obstacles that steer you in a particular direction. That was one of my pet peeves from evaluating other games – that most of them were elaborate mazes that "steered" you in restricted directions until you made line-of-sight contact with bad guys, and had to shoot. The setting may be dressed up in beautiful graphics, but it's still just a maze – and where's the tactical judgment in that? Further, in "Elite Warriors" the fact that each time you play, the enemy is shifted about, means that (by structure) it's dramatically non-linear.

 Ref the first part of your question, the eight missions in the game authentically recreate real missions, drawn right out of my books, performed not just by my teams but by most SOG recon teams: Indeed, we did search for downed pilots; we did our best to find hidden enemy truck parks and supply dumps, and major river fords, etc.

On 29 March 1970, my team did ambush an enemy truck convoy on Highway 110 in southern Laos, then called air strikes to cover our withdrawal. It could be said that the eight missions generically represent many operations, performed by a variety of teams at CCN, CCS and by my SOG unit, CCC.

Q: Does it allow for multiplayer gaming or is it a solo experience?

Maj. Plaster: "Elite Warriors" allows solo play, plus cooperative play between two people, or one-on-one "deathmatch" play.

Q: What do you think makes the Vietnam War a viable arena for combat-related games? 

Maj. Plaster: I don't think any aspect of the Vietnam War makes it inherently a more viable subject than other conflicts, although the terrain and foliage – with lush, triple-canopy jungle – is an excellent setting for free-play, open-ended maneuvering. Beyond that, any conflict (if recreated realistically with true attention to detail) offers possibilities for gaming – but I also think that "game" is an unfortunate misnomer.

The term, "Game" fails to distinguish between yesteryear's "Pac man" and today's cutting-edge games, such as "Elite Warriors," which more accurately should be called a "Simulation" or "Re-Creation." This nuance creates a great deal of misunderstanding – I did not spend 18 months working with Destineer and nFusion to make a "game." However, I did my utmost to help Destineer and nFusion re-create the reality of SOG recon, so that interested people could share that experience, and better understand the unit and the men who risked their lives on these missions.  

Destineer and nFusion did it in such a way that – like a motion picture – it will be entertaining. That's the way I see "games" – as a way of sharing experiences and reaching understandings beyond reading books or even seeing a motion picture. Through such a game, you can be IN the motion picture.

Q: Does this game employ the weaponry, both personal and on a larger scale accurately, and will players be able to swap out weapons or call in aerial strikes, or even use motorized vehicles during a mission in the game?

Maj. Plaster: Players will find quite an array of unusual weaponry because, as a covert or "black" Special Forces unit (and the need for deniability) SOG required many specialized firearms. From suppressed submachine guns to CAR-15s and AKs and RPGs (yes, many of our teams carried captured RPGs) and LAWs, light machine guns, explosives, grenades, even SOG's unique "recon knife" is available.

This great variety realistically reflects what we really carried. For example, I personally carried a suppressed Swedish K submachine gun on several operations, and AKs on others, although my favorite weapon was a CAR-15. Many teams disguised their indig (Montagnard) point man in an NVA uniform, while others armed him with a suppressed submachine gun – both techniques for handling unexpected (chance) contacts with the NVA. Just like a real SOG team leader, you may arm your men any way you wish – it’s your mission, and it's up to you to determine how to accomplish it.

And, yes, you can call in air strikes, from realistically depicted A-1 Skyraiders, that drop cluster bombs and napalm, to Cobra helicopter gunships firing 2.75-inch rockets and miniguns. Even the aircraft callsigns are correct. Players won't be driving any vehicles, but that's because our teams did not drive enemy vehicles although we blew up a few of them. 

Q: How many missions does the game have and does the AI ramp up automatically or adjust for the player's experience?

Maj. Plaster: "Elite Warriors: Vietnam” has eight distinct missions, but because of how the game is structured (cited earlier) each time a mission is played, it shifts from the previous time, so that enemy forces and some locations may have repositioned automatically. Missions include recovering a downed pilot; locating and destroying an important enemy radio transmitter; finding and attacking road-building equipment along a hidden section of highway; finding and observing a secret river ford site; rescuing American POWs from a POW camp; finding a concealed enemy base from which a Russian helicopter has been operating; and ambushing trucks along a stretch of Laotian highway.

During all missions, you must avoid/evade enemy trackers and counter-recon forces searching for you, bypass or infiltrate local security around key enemy sites, and, if practical, destroy important enemy facilities and equipment with air strikes. 

Yes, the AI ramps up by adjusting for player experience on three levels. Further, team members' skills increase with the "experience" of training after successful missions – in the areas of marksmanship, infiltration skills and first aid, for example. You, the player, select which skill areas that each of your men must build. To keep it realistic, no team member achieves 100% perfection in any skill area and again, reflecting reality, when a wounded team member is medevaced or rotates home, his replacement will not arrive with the same experience level as the man he replaces.

Q: The game description says that you journeyed to places we don't even acknowledge. Were there any elements considered for this game that would have been too sensitive from a government standpoint to discuss or portray in the game, or did you basically have free reign to depict the environments as you experienced them.

Maj. Plaster: All SOG operations were highly classified – Top Secret, Limited Distribution, No Foreign – meaning that only a handful of people outside SOG had access to SOG information. In Vietnam, only three of the highest-ranking officers in Saigon had full access – General Westmoreland, (the Commander of U.S. forces), his J-3 Operations Officer and the J-2 Intelligence Officer.

Actually, SOG worked directly for the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon, with some missions (due to political sensitivity) requiring White House approval. This great sensitivity was because SOG's existence, and our missions, were officially denied – if you checked in Saigon, you would have learned that there was a "SOG" but (as per our cover story) that SOG was simply a collection of analysts and historians collecting lessons learned from the Vietnam War. Although many people think SOG stands for "Special Operations Group" it actually stood for our cover name, the "Studies and Observations Group."

Even the relationship between SOG and Special Forces was classified, "Secret" – officially the Green Berets in SOG were assigned to the 5th Special Forces Group. SOG was so secret that when a Chief SOG (the title for the SOG commander) rotated home, he never again received any further SOG information – it was that close-hold, that well compartmented. The fact that we were covertly operating across the borders, into the Ho Chi Minh Trail corridor in Laos, and into Cambodia's hidden sanctuaries, was known to but a handful of people in Washington – on Capitol Hill, only the ranking members of the Senate Intelligence Committee were aware of SOG's existence.

The U.S. Government officially denied any such operations were underway, with even the President sometimes denying it - although he was briefed frequently on SOG missions. When SOG operators received valor awards, their citations did not say Laos or Cambodia, instead describing the location as, "deep behind enemy lines."  

For a quarter of a century, until the early 1990s, almost nothing was known publicly about SOG or its operations. Then, when the 25-year reviews began, SOG information became declassified. Like most SOG veterans, I did not expect much to be declassified – however, probably because the Cold War had ended and it seemed like no enemies or conflicts loomed on the horizon, the Defense Department was surprisingly liberal in clearing SOG information. When I submitted my first manuscript for "SOG" to the Department of Defense, their censors did not cut a thing – and for "Secret Commandos," I did not even submit the manuscript. Just about nothing is still classified. So, yes, we had surprisingly free reign in the design of this game.

Share Glink It

---