Add on module: Israelis...?

[Kip Watson]

Perhap Battlefront could consider Israelis in the list of possible additional modules. After all, they've fought Syria numerous times before - quite spectactularly - and they have an interesting mix of equipment.

It would probably mean creating some new unit experience types, though. Like super-elite, hyper-super-elite etc...

[flamingknives]

It would probably mean creating some new unit experience types, though. Like super-elite, hyper-super-elite etc...

Why?

[Kip Watson]

Joking aside, as a hypothetical they're a plausible force, equipped, trained and experienced in preceisely these sort of situations.

They have that nice Merkava tank and some other intersting Israeli-made weapons, but they use some US gear too, right? That would make them an interesting variant.

And there's also an appealing 'grudge match'/'final showdown' quality to an Israel v. Syria engagement.

You don't think they're a good candidate for an add-on...?

[Sergei]

Not a particularly likely inclusion for the planned setting; if USA were to invade Syria, they'd probably use all means available to persuade Israel NOT to participate.

[Kip Watson]

C'mon, that's not much of an objection - if BFC can tweak the hypothetical to include NATO (and why not, I say*), why not just invent a storyline in which Israel moves in too...?

It's not like anyone has to actually persuade George Bush or Condy Rice!

And in the case of an actual crisis right on their border, it's unbelievable that Israel wouldn't intervene - at least locally (not that that really matters, this is a wargame we're talking about).

[*...and why not France, too - on the side of the Syrians! ]

[Sergei]

A US invasion of Syria would heavily rely on the backing of Arab countries, or at least Iraq. Allying with Israel = not cool in the Arab world.

And if Syria was invaded by NATO, why would Israel intervene..? What would HER motivation be to invade Syria, considering that she already held the Golan Heights?

[oren_m]

I agree with sergei, it's highly unlikely that Israel will take part in the invision to Syria,

even if the syrian will fire their SCUD missiles on israel, like the Iraqis did in 91'.

The only way for israel to be in war with Syria during US invasion is only if the Syrians will attack the golan hights with ground forces, then, it's a whole different story.

If such a thing happans, you will see Israeli soldiers in Damescus some 2-3 weeks after the war will start.

And i will be called to service...

Oren_m

[Kip Watson]

It's not that I disagree with you, it just... who cares?

It would be really cool to see Israeli troops in a first class BFC sim. The rest is detail.

What do pesky geo-political realities matter? It's all hypothetical. I could think of a super back-story comprising Palestinians with stolen nukes and rogue Syrian special forces, and...

But, really, who cares - the back story is just an excuse to set up the Sim, right?

[Sergei]

But in that case, why have Syrians vs. Israeli when you could have Space Lobsters of Doom vs. Leather Goddesses of Phobos?

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by Sergei:

...vs. Leather Goddesses of Phobos?

Ah, finally you see the light!

[Sergei]

Of course, there is the license question... who is it that owns Infocom nowadays?

[Kip Watson]

*#*

ha ha - well, your puny earthling brain seems to be having trouble coping with possibiities outside your own limited imagination. Our invasion plans are assured.

-- Space Lobster Overlord

*#*

[oren_m]

Originally posted by Kip Watson:

*#*

ha ha - well, your puny earthling brain seems to be having trouble coping with possibiities outside your own limited imagination. Our invasion plans are assured.

-- Space Lobster Overlord

*#*

That is crazy talking, there is no such thing as space lobsters....geez.

[Battlefront.com]

Sergei has it correct:

But in that case, why have Syrians vs. Israeli when you could have Space Lobsters of Doom vs. Leather Goddesses of Phobos?

I've stated our firm intention to stick to the most plausible storyline, weaponry, tactics, and what not as we possibly can. Sticking things in just because they would be "cool" is not something we're going to do and it is not up for debate. It is what it is.

I've already commented on the Israeli angle before, as have many other people. Israel would not be involved. There would be no reason for it to be. Let NATO do the dirty work and reap the rewards without spending a Shickle or a drop of Israeli blood. Oh, and avoiding all the Jihadists switching over to wiping Israel off the map instead of US forces.

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

None of Steves comments rule out a future game in which the Israeli's might feature, current or historical, it just won't be CMSF.

Peter

[Schrullenhaft]

Actually one scenario where I could see Israeli involvement would be the "Saddam Strategy". Where Saddam used SCUDs launches at Isreal in the '91 Gulf War to provoke them into action and therefore potentially scuttle the Arab participation in the Coalition. It would be a high gamble (and due to the circumstances, potentially unsustainable), but the Syrians could attack the Golan Heights in order to 1) secure a tactically important area that is near Damascus from an "impending Israeli attack" (this being the Syrian govt's explanation) and 2) provoke wider outcry from Arab states with the involvement of Israelis in any action against an Arab state, even if it is solely defensive from the western point of view (it would easily be viewed by most Arab states as taking back their own land from the '67 war).

While a sane government may not attempt such actions, if the backstory to CMSF involves Islamist Extremists/pan-Arabists/anti-Allawists taking over Syria, it becomes a potential scenario. Of course for BFC's purposes it wouldn't be worth simulating due to the significant amount of extra work for what would amount to a small front that may only involve a limited number ground forces.

[akd]

Originally posted by Schrullenhaft:

Actually one scenario where I could see Israeli involvement would be the "Saddam Strategy". Where Saddam used SCUDs launches at Isreal in the '91 Gulf War to provoke them into action and therefore potentially scuttle the Arab participation in the Coalition. It would be a high gamble (and due to the circumstances, potentially unsustainable), but the Syrians could attack the Golan Heights in order to 1) secure a tactically important area that is near Damascus from an "impending Israeli attack" (this being the Syrian govt's explanation) and 2) provoke wider outcry from Arab states with the involvement of Israelis in any action against an Arab state, even if it is solely defensive from the western point of view (it would easily be viewed by most Arab states as taking back their own land from the '67 war).

While a sane government may not attempt such actions, if the backstory to CMSF involves Islamist Extremists/pan-Arabists/anti-Allawists taking over Syria, it becomes a potential scenario. Of course for BFC's purposes it wouldn't be worth simulating due to the significant amount of extra work for what would amount to a small front that may only involve a limited number ground forces.

You are quite right. Even the current regime would likely openly decry any invasion as an attack by Israel/Zionists. If Syria then struck Israel with chemical weapons in response to the attack, Israel would enter the conflict no matter how much NATO/U.S. begged and pleaded for them to stay behind their borders. That Syria would pursue such a strategy is not unthinkable now, and even less so under the assumption of a more extreme/ideological regime.

[Peter Cairns]

akd

And just how would israel do this, send it's aircraft in to US controlled Syrian airspace and hope the US airforce just ignored them or something.

On land what do you envisage, US M1A2's been overtaken by Merkava racing past them to the front.

Logistical and militarily it's a daft scenario.

Peter.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

it would be super cool to have a CMx2 game that features Israelis. Israelis are one of my favourite underdog masterblasters. there are plenty of historical scenarios that would make very interesting games and the new Merkava is the coolest tank ever.

perhaps make a module for CMSF that is set at Lebanon (the conflict would have spread). it would make it natural for Israelis to take part in operations. it would be very interesting to get to play with Merkavas, because they have such unique design.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

scratch'n'sniff. the good old times.

BTW, http://www.xs4all.nl/~pot/infocom/leather.html

[akd]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

akd

And just how would israel do this, send it's aircraft in to US controlled Syrian airspace and hope the US airforce just ignored them or something.

On land what do you envisage, US M1A2's been overtaken by Merkava racing past them to the front.

Logistical and militarily it's a daft scenario.

Peter.

I guess you are unaware how close Israel came to retaliating against Iraq during the first Gulf War. What is so different about this hypothetical scenario? And why would Israeli forces need to be racing past NATO/U.S. (assuming they were not staging out of Israel)? Look at a map. Look where Syria can place assets that directly threaten Israeli soil. Do you really think that Israel is not prepared to strike and seize those areas if sufficiently provoked (i.e. massive conventional or any form of WMD attack)?

I'm not arguing for the inclusion of a such scenario in the scope of CM:SF, but I do think that you can't posit an invasion of Syria without answering what would be happening concurrently in Israel and Lebanon. It's just part of putting forward a realistic storyline for the game.

[ January 08, 2006, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: akd ]

[Sergei]

Originally posted by akd:

I guess you are unaware how close Israel came to retaliating against Iraq during the first Gulf War.

But they didn't. And a retaliation is not exactly something that is in the scale of CM. A flight simulator, maybe.

[Peter Cairns]

Well AKD there is the fairly obvious difference that the US wasn't invading Iraq at the time.

Any Israeli attempt to sieze more ground would undermine the basis of the whole operation and endanger US lives, hows about this for a reason for the Israeli's not getting involves, the US president phoning them up and saying I'll block every aid or funding request for Israel that comes across my desk.

Israel is totally dependant economically on the US so hate it or not it would keep out unless the US invited it in, which is pretty near never.

Peter.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Any Israeli attempt to sieze more ground would undermine the basis of the whole operation and endanger US lives

And Israeli. It's not as if any Israeli leader would lightly commit ground forces against Syria if it was known that a NATO attack would be commencing anyway - it would be a costly venture that would lead nowhere. Bombing possible threats from the air would be much less risky.

[MikeyD]

I can imagine BFC producing a stand-alone Isreal vs Syria GAME (sounds like fun, actually), but not an Israel MODULE to a U.S.-centric game. Just too far into Bizarro alternate universe for me. But would you get on board if BFC announced the next stand-alone game had exactly the same Syrian forces but was instead fighting Israel over control of Lebanon again?