Jump to content

IDF vs NATO


BloodCat

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I've a good mind to send this thread to Hamas and say well done you've won!! For god's sake, you moralise about the IDF and how 'repugnant' it is, but play the Syrians! Please tell me a city the IDF have wiped clean from the map! I find the Arab-Israeli conflicts fascinating and a logical module for BFC to consider, if they do not I'm sure an enterprising person will buy the franchise, as the Russians have done. Oh, that reminds me how many people on this forum can not wait to play the Soviets in Afghanistan? Another army whose tactics and attitude were morally exemplorary, at least compared to the IDF.

Now I'm off the play some Latvian SS and I get a queer sort of tingle thinking about those 12th SS in Normandy, what lovely uniforms, what wicked weaponry!!!

Final point, perhaps we could have a forum poll. If BFC or a 'franchisee' were to produce a series of modules about the Arab-Israeli conflict 1948-2006 would you buy it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO NATO will be the last module for CMSF. After all, what's the point in investing additional effort in that game just to give n-options for the Blue side but keeping the Red side practically as it is? Considering also that the customer base is already asking for other CMx2 games.

I preordered CMSF and got both modules. Not exaclty my cup of tea but I have to admit that there's no better tactical computer wargame around, AFAIK, so I still found myself playing CMSF instead of other games I got in the meantime and that are collecting dust on the shelf after being on my HD for a week or so.

Nonetheless, I am almost sure that my gaming time with CMSF will drop abruptly after I'll get CM:N and will go to zero if and when a Central European version of SF will be done (I still mantain that Cold War would be the best option but it seems it won't happen).

So, for me, IDF module: no thanks. I'd rather play an historical CM Arab-Israeli wargame (possibly set in 1973 or 1982 rather than 1948 or 1956).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is ridiculous. You don't have to agree with, honor, or respect the real world IDF to play a game. And of course that goes for any other force represented too.

Personally, I think it makes for a richer experience to play with real world forces but it sounds like some should stick to Tactics II or chess. Less baggage huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given most of the equipment used by the IDF was NATO standard (give or take some fiddling with the AFV's) and the Arabs used mainly Warpac kit, the logical development schedule would be Cold-War gone hot, then an Arab-Israeli pack/module. I think the sheer range of tactical opportunities the conflict offers would allow limitless scenarios, from small scale skirmishes, Entebbe anyone, to set piece monsters, attacking in the Sinai or defending in the Golan.

Miggo, I suspect that some peoples objections to the IDF are based on more than concerns about any controversy the module might generate or supposed infractions, by the IDF, of 'international law'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vark,

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

...based on more than concerns about any controversy the module might generate or supposed infractions, by the IDF, of 'international law'.

If it isn't a matter of controversy or the IDF is immoral, evil, etc... Then what might it be?

For my part, I'm really focused on WWII so a potential IDF module doesn't much concern me one way or the other. But I'm honestly puzzled here. I don't want to veer into a political discussion, but if it's no problem to play with soldiers of Nazi Germany and/or Stalinist Soviet Union, how is the IDF unacceptable?

And if a person really REALLY hates the IDF, might they not actually WANT to play CM against the IDF?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow this thread took off like wild fire.

Despite some of the spiteful comments in here, i would like to see an Israeli mod.It would match the scenario but I doubt it's going to happen.NATO is the last MOD if I'm not mistaken.

Now a days and like every other day before it, this world is bubbling to a heating point where anything political will cause the nastiest and biased attitudes to emerge.Time to throw some water down on these attitudes so the bridges that connect us don't burn out of control and beyond repair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my experience, any mention of the words Israel or IDF stands a very good chance of creating a thread that generates more heat than light. My argument is simple, the only morality in wargaming should be not cheating, if we don't like a side, pick its opponent and try to give it a damn good thrashing.

Second, if there is a viable market for an IDF product then producing it should be a possibility, if BFC do not want to get involved (understandable given their current workload) sell the ability to produce it. If Russians can make Afghan modules, then I'm sure an enterprising Israeli could produce one; though I do understand that the Russian market for a game, where you can save the motherland from humiliating failure might be stronger than watching the IDF defeat the Arabs, again and again and again. Still, I'd buy it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest I have no problem either playing the Wehrmacht or the Red Army. They both fought hard, event till last man, against overwhelming odds in desperate conditions. To me, this is much more honorable than the David and Goliath type of conflicts IDF has participated in the recent years. Images that spring to mind are those of boys throwing rocks to super tanks and bulldozers demolishing some poor's family slum house. The bombardment of the Gaza strip is not a far memory.

That being said, I'm not against an IDF module. Cool hardware and surely they are more relevant to the area than the Dutch for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah Ali-Baba, cause the IDF definitely committed more atrocities than the Wehrmacht or the Red Army (or the US Army in WW2 for that matter), no doubt. After all, the good Landser boys were only fighting for the fatherland. I mean, against all odds they defeated the Poles, the Dutch, the Belgians, and of course they had nothing to do with the Holocaust or the Nazi Party. That was the SS boys, but really, not the Waffen-SS, they were brave and only slightly misguided, oh, and their uniforms are so cool.

I am ex-IDF, so take this with a grain of salt. But in all honesty, this is really ridiculous. The IDF is far from perfect. It makes mistakes, it is far too careless, in my opinion, when it comes to protecting civilian lives, and on the odd occasion it even does bad things on purpose, such as using WP rounds in Gaza or bombing Lebanon with cluster munitions for no real reason, etc.

But the fact of the matter is that NATO armies are killing far more civilians in Afghanistan, the Russians killed far more in Chechnya and the list goes on. I'm not even going to start comparing them to Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, to Hizballah and Iran. My real problem with the IDF is that it is active in supporting the illegal settlements in the West Bank (and previously in Gaza), that it applies a double standard in terms of upholding law in those territories (they are under martial law, not regular Israeli Law), and that they dominate Israeli politics with the Military mindset, both in active service and later on, as senior IDF officers retire, through Parliamentary politics.

But anyway, this thread is a great demonstration of why BFC don't want to step into that mess :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That being said, I'm not against an IDF module. Cool hardware and surely they are more relevant to the area than the Dutch for instance.

Politically, no. Quite the opposite. Since the 1st Gulf War it's been policy to keep Israel out of any fight in the area. Israel siding with you in a ME conflict is like the kiss of death towards local cooperation.

Unlike the Dutch, who've been dragged in to most of the fights the US has been involved in recenrtly. And as been mentioned many times before, share gear with the Teutons and the Canucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yair Iny, when I play a side its not about right or wrong, or who has commited more atrocities. It's about other things. I find it more dramatic to play as russians in the encircled Stalingrad, or as the Germans in Normandy because I like the back on wall situation and always this fascinated me. Germans had all the world against them, doesnt this count as overhwelming odds? I wont question the morality of a side but the challenging of the fight. This is what matters for me when playing a game. There is simply more drama when you command battle worn, starving Red army soldiers defending with their last ammo a panzer breakthrough in a frozen hell, than cool marines that just finished watching some internet porn and are having fun shooting "towelheads" with their high tech gear from the luxury of their air conditioned tanks. That's why I rarely play as american army/marines and I doubt I'll play as NATO as well, with an exception perhaps of some silly Blue v Blue battles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Politically, no. Quite the opposite. Since the 1st Gulf War it's been policy to keep Israel out of any fight in the area. Israel siding with you in a ME conflict is like the kiss of death towards local cooperation.

Unlike the Dutch, who've been dragged in to most of the fights the US has been involved in recenrtly. And as been mentioned many times before, share gear with the Teutons and the Canucks.

Yes I know. But politics is the only reason you've been dragged there. You dont fit with the color of the sand :) IDF on the other hand fits ok ;) As for the sharing gear, thats just a good marketing/time saving policy of BFC. But NATO is high on my list anyway, I'll get to play with gear I've seen from first hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yair Iny, when I play a side its not about right or wrong, or who has commited more atrocities. It's about other things. I find it more dramatic to play as russians in the encircled Stalingrad...

Fair enough mate, I may have been too defensive when I read your post. What pisses me off is that when I used to live in Israel and even now when I speak to Israeli friends, I am extremely critical of the IDF's conduct and of the past governments' policies. But when I read some of the hyperbole around here, with people almost making out the IDF to be the worst perpetrators of war crimes in history, I get a bit jumpy maybe. I was there, I cringed at a lot of the stuff we were doing, especially when I was in the reserves. It felt wrong, and it made a small, but concrete contribution to my decision to leave Israel. But it was nowhere near being as bad as it is portrayed by some people in this forum and elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My two bits (two cents adjusted for inflation):

I imagine that one of the reasons why many CM[x1] fans never got into CMSF (aside from the more obvious reason of it being not a WW2 game) in the first place was the likeness of the game's premise to the widely unpopular wars currently being waged by the United States.

When I play CMSF, I purposely disregard (at least to a certain extent) the reason why my pixeltruppen are there (whether in Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan) in the first place -- that's something for the politicians to worry about. I focus on the mission of each scenario/campaign and on how best to achieve success. I strive to maintain the outlook of a professional soldier.

Conversely, if I were to state outright that I play Blue 98% of the time, some would see that as proof that deep down I just want to "shoot 'towelheads'". I understand how that might seem to be the case, but I can understand where the "terrorists" are coming from. I prefer to play as Blue because I dig Blue equipment and because I like to command forces which are not (in real life) hindered by outmoded tactics.

And then there's the plausible but not-necessarily-the-case possibility that some who play Red more or less exclusively do so out of a desire to give vent to their disgust with the wars being waged in Iraq and Afghanistan, a sort of military equivalent to "sticking it to The Man".

War makes criminals and victims out of all who engage in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

I have a "Modest Proposal" to offer, a way to get Zahal and a lot of other forces into a CMSF style game. Call it Combat Mission :Armageddon! Could be a marketing and PR masterstroke, bringing the bestselling Left Behind series reading eschatological Christians, the Mahdist Muslims and messianic Jews alike into the gaming fold, in a no holds barred battle of coalition upon coalition. The media coverage alone could make the game go viral, as people rushed to buy it simply to find out what the flap was about. Just think of the amazing scenarios, the cool names, the campaigns and modules possible, never mind all the toys! Naturally (or unnaturally) there'd be special provisions for NBC ops and effects. Offhand, troops in rubberized NBC suits for X time at Y heat suffer a progressive fatigue hit and combat degradation.

If that doesn't work, maybe we should seriously consider Combat Mission: Iran! The Washington Times feels it's inevitable, and the article provides a neat tie-in to CM:SF by its characterization of Syria as a vassal state of Iran.

http://earthboppin.net/talkshop/international/messages/2552.html

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could be a marketing and PR masterstroke, bringing the bestselling Left Behind series reading eschatological Christians, the Mahdist Muslims and messianic Jews alike into the gaming fold...

For my part, I am not at all sure that that would constitute a desirable end. I remember all too clearly what happened when the Hippies welcomed the likes of Hell's Angels and Charles Manson "into the fold". I would support a BFC policy of producing games of strictly historical content and let those who belong in the fold find their own way there.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael Emrys,

A friendly reminder of what a "modest proposal" is.

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/modestproposal/summary.html

I don't really expect BFC to give us CM: Armageddon. Rather, I was indulging in a bit of weird whimsy while trying to find a clever way to get certain forces and capabilities into the CM:SF type mix. I think, though, that such a game could make a huge splash and would garner enormous attention and discussion. In closing, I refer you to what H.G. Wells said in Little Wars should be done with all those who wanted to conquer the world and dominate everyone else:

"...and so I offer my game, for a particular as well as general end; and let us put this prancing monarch and that silly scaremonger, and these excitable "patriots," and those adventurers, and all the practitioners of Welt Politik, into one vast Temple of War, with cork carpets everywhere, and plenty of little trees and little houses to knock down, and cities and fortresses, and unlimited soldiers--tons, cellars--full, and let them lead their own lives away from us."

I'd much rather have people work out their issues at expense of possible carpal tunnel syndrome, rather than potentially slag the planet and us with it. These days, all it would take would be the games, some computers and appropriate connectivity. It would, though, be appropriate to require DARs and AARs from those thus immured.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to see an IDF module. However I would like to see a NATO one more from the standpoint that it may bring greener fields of battle and some cold war like mods.

As for an IDF module, the equipment is good, but I don't remember any real set piece battles taking place with them. The scenarios would have to be ficticious.

One thing I do not want is a seperate stand alone game, I am all about the modules. If it aint pluggable and collectable for the greater game. Then its nothing to me.

BTW I'm no Waffen SS expert. But I was in a military bookshop last week. The bookshop had just moved and the two owners were having a conversation. One was whinging that they had sooo many people

ask where there SS section was. He did not understand and could not wait until the shine wore off the subject. He wanted the SS section seperated into SS and Waffen SS just to make the lines a little less gray.

The other was saying that the shine will never wear off and that new younger people came in all the time asking for it.

Not to derail this thread but did the waffen SS in the field commit any more noteable attrocities? Remembering that allied propaganda would have covered some with "victors" perogative? I'm just curious as to whether they

were responsable for more than a few thousand civilain deaths with intent to kill inoccents on purpose?

If its too touchy thats fine, maybe I will have to ask for that section to find out myself lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd much rather have people work out their issues at expense of possible carpal tunnel syndrome, rather than potentially slag the planet and us with it.

Agreed on that. But I've been around too long and seen too much to believe that the real crazies—and many of those find their ways into leadership positions—will be mollified by games. They are looking for a much bigger rush.

:(

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...