LongLeftFlank

"I've hurt you.... And I wish to go on hurting you." Not to spoil the levity here, but Khan exemplifies a home truth in entertainment (including video games): a strongly drawn villain is as important as a strongly drawn hero. Khan's backstory was wholly fictional but intriguing: a bioengineered superman with an outsized ego whose subsequent actions were defined by that background, and by more normal human failings (e.g. pride, haste, inexperience). He is us, under different conditions, and is therefore a tragic, sympathetic figure in a way, though evil. Syria doesn't work at all on this level, as villain or hero. AFAICT, non-Arab gamers will be unable to identify with them as either: (a) effective fighting force ( users of cool gear or tactics © human personalities with compelling motivation (d) underdogs skillfully fighting the odds I'm not sure what my conclusion is here, since you're already doing what you gotta do, but.... (punt).

Nice analysis, Steve, and other folks. I've enjoyed reading the thread. Let me add a nasty wrinkle to the equation. Abandoning the Kurds as part of a general bugout of Iraq would result in the following: a. Adding them to the long, shameful list of faithful US tribal mercenaries left to their fate when their usefulness had passed. Talk to the Hmong about that.... I have. b. Resume the longstanding genocidal war waged against them by all their neighbors with a new fury (i.e. knowledge that the West would not come back to help them would make a Final Solution tempting). c. ... which would also likely drive them to become the newest adherents to AQ brand Sunni extremism -- the Chechens of the Fertile Crescent. An alternative -- neither tidy nor risk-free, but plausible IMHO -- would be to pull out of Arab Iraq but leave a significant US/UK (UN?) military presence in a de facto Kurdish republic. Out of consideration for the Turks, this state would not be internationally recognized, or enter the UN in the forseeable future. It would simply weather the storm as a relatively stable, secular Middle Eastern republic (notice I didn't say democracy). The Kurds (95%+ of them, anyway) would love our honky asses as they have since the start, because they know what'll happen to them if we leave. Their backs are against the wall, literally. Also, the Coalition's Arab Iraqi friends, including some of the best educated and wealthy Iraqis, who currently risk being mass beheaded as collaborators post-bugout could be resettled in Mosul and Kirkuk instead of Dearborn. (Phew, no helicopter lifts from the Embassy roof in the Green Zone!!!!) These people would KNOW how to identify AQ infiltrators in their midst. They might even be able to wield some influence in a post-civil war mullah Iraq. The Turks would still bitch and obstruct, but would not invade or even openly subvert under such conditions. The always pragmatic Turkish army would much rather contain old style commie PKK rebels in their Kurdish areas than new style whacko-Islamist Kurds. [ September 21, 2006, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: LongLeftFlank ]

So I'm trying to imagine the backstory that explains the random objects scattered about the streets (i.e. besides that they're just doodads to provide cover for the shooters). "Maurice, put down zat packing container full of steel ingots, and load ze cast iron replica piano on ze reinforced steel tumbrel cart! Ze Amis will be here in 30 minutes!"

Hi, Mum!!!!

I absolutely agree that the game's backstory MUST be credible for it to sell outside the CMx1 installed base. BFC's competitive advantage in the market (at least among better educated strategy gamers) is that it simulates real armies in realistic conditions, and the backstory is a part of that experience. As I see it, there are two options: 1. Come up with a new venue and compelling/credible backstory that meets the following basic requirements: - Combat in arid/desert/mountain terrain - Blue team = US Army Stryker brigade - Red team = Mainly bloc-equipped regular / irregular forces The problem with this one IMHO is finding a backstory that is credible and holds gamer interest throughout a full campaign, as opposed to a scenario or two. Other than Iraq, nothing really springs to mind right now for me. 2. Broaden the scope of the game to include a wide range of historical and fictional scenarios set in a variety of (arid) hotspots. This wouldn't be limited to US Stryker brigade vs. Reds. With Stryker Brigade (using Queensberry Rules or with "gloves off") - Iraq - Afghanistan - Fort Irwin (Blue on Blue) - Korea (large parts of this country are pretty arid) - Iraq border clash with Iranian forces Red on Red combinations (Neither side cares much about collateral damage) - Iraqi army vs. insurgents / militias - Chechens vs. Russians (though RA TOE might be a bit too much) - Insurrection / civil war in any Middle Eastern state - India vs. Pakistan -- Kashmir clash or full scale war (I bet you'd tap into a HUGE gamer market in both these countries, BTW) - Darfur rebels vs. Sudanese army / Janjaweed (Red on Red) - Horn of Africa (Ethiopian, Eritreans, Somalis) - Turks or Iranians vs. Kurds - South Africa/UN intervention in (arid) Zimbabwe or Angola OK, OK, I can already hear the disdainful groans of gamers who could care less about "commanding" bands of indisciplined, unwashed heathen spraying Toyota-loads of Chinese ammo at each other for control of some tin-roofed shacks. Just play the Blue vs _____ scenarios all the time, fine, and wait for the next game. The practical downside of this "Janes All The World's Tinpot Armies" approach is that you would need to stick in a bunch more "Red" equipment. Oh, and of course there's the flesh tone issues (a lot of folks in the Mideast and India are as dark as subsaharan Africans... as are a lot of American infantry, for that matter). I also know that BFC swore off this "wargaming kit" approach given its experience with CMx1, and I sympathize with its reasoning. But I just feel in my gut that the wider market isn't going to show much interest in a game based on a NEW intervention in a theater that is making the entire world increasingly queasy.

I seem to recall that in Vietnam it was standard grunt practice in US cav and armour units to ride atop the M113s, not in them, for the same reasons cited above (better to risk a bullet in the open than spalling/fire from a mine or RPG inside a metal box).

"DROP YOUR WEAPON! YOU HAVE TWENTY SECONDS TO COMPLY! ..... YOU HAVE TEN SECONDS! .... YOU HAVE FIVE SECONDS!" [Mayhem] "Dick! I'm VERY disappointed!"

OK, I just HAD to resurrect the below classic quote from the 2004 thread (re: why 10% chance of death?):

I'd always assumed this to be because the CM terrain grid is only an abstract representation of real world terrain. The model creates unnaturally angular ridges and crest "lines" that LOOK like they should provide cover. But such sharp angles aren't common in real topography owing to the erosion effects of wind and water. Try walking over a hill sometime, and you'll see what I mean: barring some other terrain feature such as trees, rocks or a gully, there isn't (normally) some natural parapet on the crest line that offers you good cover from all shooters below you. Any given point on the hilltop might offer cover from some, but not others. The CMx2 engine is talking about a 1 meter terrain grid and 1mm height gradients, which will allow far more realistic topography.

The Osprey book on Peiper made a very good tour guide when I retraced his route. Highly recommend this trip, since you can't see the utter folly of sending King Tigers along the Ambleve river until you see the terrain.

In light of the above, I doubt there'd be Russians still there in the game scenario. Since I doubt anyone on this board thinks there's a ghost of a chance that the US would invade while Assad was still in power (better the devil you know), Russian troop presence would seem largely a moot point.

I wonder whether it's possible to abstract civilian foot or auto traffic by "color coding" trafficked roads and open spaces in some aesthetically acceptable fashion. Threat units moving in these "red zones" would be harder to spot (i.e. suddenly materialize out of nowhere ready to shoot/blow up as described above). This would give the US player an option to position/maneuver in relatively untrafficked areas where threat units are subject to normal spotting rules. Mission requirements, however, might still require his units to enter or fire on "red" zones at times. "Red zones" would likely shrink over the course of a game. Vehicle traffic "red zones" might not fall off at once when a firefight begins since civilian drivers don't always hear the shooting), but foot traffic "red zones" might disappear rapidly as civilians on foot scurry for cover (or don't, as in Mogadishu). You might also apply an abstract VP penalty for total volume of US firepower landing in "red" zones, even if it was targeted on threat units (aggregate impact of civilian collateral damage).

Number 4. The Naughty Bits. Or is it the post-Abu Ghraib Geneva Convention-Friendly Field Interrogation Kit: "So, you are made of sterner stuff! Cardinal Biggles? Poke her.... with the Soft Cushions! Confess! Confess! (What, have you got all the stuffing up one end?)"

Ah, memories of geeky megalomania flood home. In winter 1977, suburban Buffalo NY, my friends and I pooled 6(x5) sets of CoI counters and boards to reenact "Elefant/Tiger Panzerkeil at Kursk" on my bedroom floor.... the Ballantine paperback being our primary source. I remember being totally pissed at AH for the crappy print quality of the second set of CoI counters (unreadably dark navy and bright orange) and boards (far too much brown) I had ordered for the occasion. For me, age 13 and making my first mail order purchase ever with my paper route money, this was my version of the Rust Belt "crushed beer can and marble in the dashboard" betrayal of the American dream. But unbroken, we soldiered on, listening to Styx and Rush on cassette as our stoner older brothers and parents shoveled snow and lined up for gas back in Canada (Back then, compared to Buffalo, Cleveland and NYC, my hometown of Toronto seemed like an oasis of enlightened civilization: CN Tower. Ontario Place. The bank towers. Game over, eh?) With about 1000 AFV and ordnance counters per side (infantry was largely beside the point), in about 30 hours of snowday play we got through the turn 2 Defense Fire Phase before my mum's cats got into the room and executed Operation Kutuzov on our pathetic Tamiya Sturmpanzer fanboy asses. The Advanced D&D Monster Manual came out around that time, so that was pretty much the swansong for wargaming, as it was for our cardboard SS Panzerkorps. Having drunk the Koolaid though, I kept buying the ASL games all through college, even though there was nobody to play against. They still sit today in my brother's basement, counters neatly arranged in plastic hardware store containers, collecting dust, lost legions of my misspent youth (oh rubbish, I'm a spreadsheet jock today, and where do you think I got so good at large pattern recognition?) What was the Paul Carell caption again: "One game of many; one dork of many"

I don't wanna be buried in a pet cemetary....

I don't wanna be buried in a pet cemetary....

I don't wanna be buried in a pet cemetary....

Wasn't this the guy with the poisoned chalices from "The Princess Bride"? (and I seem to recall a reference to "fighting a land war in Asia").

Hmm. I've learned a lot reading this thread. Thanks, all. I was particularly compelled by the comparison between Iraq-Iran and Texas-Mexico frontiers. Most reasonable parties involved privately admit the latter to be an utterly futile whack-a-mole game, just like the war on drugs (i.e. as long as demand is strong for the smuggled commodity -- cocaine, immigrant labour, arms -- supply will find a way through even if the loss rate is high owing to costly saturation policing by the authorities). I suspect the same dynamics apply to the Syrian-Iraq frontier, even if the USMC refuses to admit that. Just as it was for the "Market Time" and Laos-Cambodia interdiction ops back in the day. Are there any Vietnam vets still active within the DoD command structure? Or did they all take their pensions with Colin Powell before GWB, Rummy and the "government can be managed just like a corporation" gang moved in? (Coincidence? You decide) The above line of reasoning suggests that even if you could magically seal the "hostile" borders, all you'd do is create pressure for substitute flow via corruptible "allies" in Kurdistan, Jordan and Saudi/Kuwait. Which would effectively destabilize the few stable areas remaining within the Artist Formerly Known As Iraq. So, following the logic of the war on drugs/immigrants: supply-side interdiction of a highly fungible commodity (e.g. white powder / hard-working day labourer / Chinese or Slovak knock-off of Soviet-era wire guided missile) is futile. In which case, interested parties should focus on "demand side management". And what is that, exactly?

Oof! So the IDF is moving away from infantry carriers based on fully armored MBT chassis back to pimped out purple heart boxes? That's a TERRIBLE mistake IMHO.

Oops, here's the link. Sorry. Zer Link!

Yes, yes, I know, the LRDG didn't really "beat" Rommel. Write an angry letter to the Telegraph. At least they know what the LRDG was, though! <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/24/wiraq24.xml> Telegraph British to adopt the tactics that beat Rommel By Oliver Poole in Amarah (Filed: 24/08/2006) I won't quote more than this, as it is copyrighted material. Click the link.

Amen, brother! Patiently stalking Spandau nests in hedgerow hell. The "skin" concept could be an element of the oft requested "Iron Man" Super Duper Extreme FOW option where players have limited visibility into distant terrain details, as well as limited "god views".

Yes, I did a college thesis on the VDV in 1985 that reached much the same conclusion. A division- sized desant complete with BMDs and arty would also have required about 70% of all the Soviet airlift capability (IL-76s and AN-22s) then available, Aeroflot included. An airborne coup de main against Antwerp or Frankfurt was a fantasy. Battalion scale attacks -- maybe. For purposes of my thesis, far more interesting was the location of the 7 VDV division bases: in a loose ring around Moscow HQ'ed at Tula-Ryazan, and convenient to the major highways into town. While the VDV divisions made a useful elite rapid deployment force for places like Afghanistan and Czechoslovakia (and they were almost sent to Egypt in 1973), their primary purpose in the late Soviet era was not to execute WWII style airdrops. It was rather to act as a praetorian guard, counterbalancing the KGB and MVD units and the (ceremonial) Taman Guards. That was one thing Suvorov (Rasun) was quite right about -- one of the CPSU's governing principles was to ensure that no one organization had a monopoly on armed force. And as it turned out, in 1991 guess who showed up at the Kremlin en masse in their BMDs and sailor shirts for the failed anti-Gorbachev coup (and then withdrew equally promptly once it failed)? And while we're speaking of that, what do you think the US 82nd Airborne Division gets special training for? Remember who integrated the schools in Little Rock in 1956 when the Arkansas National Guard proved unreliable?

Looks to me like the marksmanship was about as good as the camera work.