The "unlikely" war with Syria...

[stoat]

It's larger, but Pakistan's is fairly large and they have a lot of US equipment. They also have nukes, and have been on the verge of war with India for quite a few years now.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by retkit:

Michael Emrys :

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Me too. Being a visible friend of the US (and to the West in general) is not a very stylish stance in the Mid-East/Moslem world these days. I can see Turkey joining in if NATO gets involved either as a whole or as individual countries thereof.

Turkey is ***NOT*** an arab country.</font>

[Battlefront.com]

Ardem,

But I view the invasion of a soverign country totally different then the act of extemeists.

Which explains why your country, along with more than two dozen others, are sitting in Afghanistan right now? I don't recall the Taliban attcking anybody. And don't forget Iraq, where an invasion happened desipte the fact that there were not facts to support the action.

Look, I don't expect everybody here to be some sort of geopolitical visionary... but for feck's sake... can't you at least extrapolate from the last 4 years of world history before sounding off so loudly against this setting? It makes me think that some of you are living in caves somewhere.

Peter, at least, is using his noodle Yeah, the Pakistan scenario is nasty one to think about. However, I'm sure the doubters would react more negatively against that than Syria, but that's just how some people are Having said that, I don't think Musharraf's faction would be seriously compromised in terms of grip on power an security of Nukes. So it would more or less be a "clean out the tribal areas" operation. Not as interesting as Syria or Iran due to the fact we'd be talking about mountainous guerilla actions and that would get old fairly quickly.

Something else I totally agree with is:

I think it would need to be something spectacular to get the US involved in another major military operation.

Absolutely agree. All taken into account with the backstory.

Steve

[junk2drive]

Who remembers the Shah of Iran and the hostage crisis?

I can believe a scenario like CMSF for Somalia, Sudan, Libya and Egypt too.

[V]

Originally posted by junk2drive:

Who remembers the Shah of Iran and the hostage crisis?

I can believe a scenario like CMSF for Somalia, Sudan, Libya and Egypt too.

Egypt would be the best of those listed, I would assume the militaries of the other countries involved would be just too weak to make a decently balanced game.

[Sergei]

Well, given how USA is goberned by a bunch of hawkish warmongers, I don't see how any target would be unlikely - especially if God told them to do it.

And Syria's got oil, eh?

[Bigduke6]

Almost as good. Syria has a pipeline that connects the Mosul oil fields with the Mediterranean. Why do you think the place was a French colony, way back when?

Still, when all is said and done, I think this scenario would be a lot more plausible, if the IDF was involved, if not taking the lead role. Not a gripe really, I'm neutral towards the scenario overall.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I do not think the back-story matters that much, but if it does what you need is a back-story that has the Syrians as, to some degree, the wronged party, from “their” point of view.

By this I mean that the US invades them for some reason that the Syrians are not very sympathetic too, i.e. the Syrians are motivated to fight hard. Unlike the Iraqis who just wanted to go home.

The back-story I will be using is that Bush, in the last few months of his presidency, invades Syria in order to spread democracy and secure his “legacy”. Politically neutral. From their respective points of view both sides would no doubt feel they had right on their side.

The problem with a back-story that has the Syrians as clearly the bad guys, needing “liberating for real”, is that the Syrian forces would just walk home like the Iraqis. You need a back-story that would allow the Syrians to have high morale, even if still often low skills. Thus morally the Syrians cannot clearly be the bad guys.

However…. I fully understand that wargames cannot sell in the US unless the US forces are unambiguously seen as the good guys by the US wargame buying public. It is called being human .

Thus the back-story will be relentlessly “anti the Syrian government” but not the Syrian people. BFC are just being human too , as I would be in their place too why offend the people to wish to buy your game .

All very good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[GSX]

A former Soviet Republic may have been more plausible actually. A lot of people are going to see this as jumping on the lets kill an Arab and spread democracy Band Wagon.

Still, if the gameplay is there I dont think I mind too much, the Tom Clancy esque made up future world.

All the scenarios that will be designed by the gamers out there will be producing the fight for Fallujah anyway..........

[Philippe]

One of the reasons I'm not likely to buy the next iteration of CM is that I consider the possibility of war in Syria as all too real, and therefore much too depressing to play games with. I'm not sure Steve's scenario is the most likely one for leading up to a war there, but that, as Von Moltke the Elder said when one of his staff officers pointed out a particularly idyllic view of the Moselle, is an insignificant obstacle. There are plenty of ways to imagine the usual suspects turning out for a war in Syria: the precise aetiology of the idiocy is not that important.

As for wars in South Asia, you really don't need outside intervention or a misunderstood Taliban or Al Quaida involvement to have a world class bloodbath. A few militant Sikhs in Amritsar, a few Hindu fundamentalists in Bombay, shaky governments in at least one of the two countries, and the doomsday clock will move a little closer to nuclear midnight.

[Fokker G1]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

.... why is it so hard to think that the #1 sponsor of terrorist groups might not give the world reason to react again?

...

Steve

They are not the #1 sponsor?!?!? The money comes from Saudi Arabia and other RICH Arab countries. Afghanisatan was just the uncontrolled outpost of the world where they decidede to setup their HQ.

I think you are wayyyyy out of line here. You guys, the creator of our coolest of cool game, should keep FAR from politics. It really makes me sad you are putting this up.

I think it is dangerous for software vendors to go along with the Bush hype: Syria axis of evil kinda thing. For the majority of the thiking part of our community, I hope they laugh in my face as they can tell right from wrong. For those seeking causes to do their own thing, this could be seen as something that confirms their view even more.

I didn't want top bring up politics, but this post by BTS staff really bothers me.

[ October 10, 2005, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: Fokker G1 ]

[Wicky]

OK you disagree with BFC's scenario but then who would it be acceptable for you to see a UN/US force tussle with in the foreseeable future?

Originally posted by Fokker G1:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

.... I think it is far fetched to think it won't happen again.

...

Steve

I think you are wayyyyy out of line here. You guys, the creator of our coolest of cool game, should keep FAR from politics. It really makes me sad you are putting this up.

I think it is dangerous for software vendors to go along with the Bush hype: Syria axis of evil kinda thing. For the majority of the thiking part of our community, I hope they laugh in my face as they can tell right from wrong. For those seeking causes to do their own thing, this could be seen as something that confirms their view even more.

I didn't want top bring up politics, but this post by BTS staff really bothers me. </font>

[Fokker G1]

Originally posted by Wicky:

[QB] OK you disagree with BFC's scenario but then who would it be acceptable for you to see a UN/US force tussle with in the foreseeable future?

Maybe Syria 2003? Everyone can tell it is fictional, as good as the same OoB (or hell, even allow for 2007 material/technics to be possible).

How about US vs Europe (fictional,challenging material). UN vs some bogus Russian republic (remember how Command and Conquer had such a setting around their game?).

All in all I am not saying Syria is a good country which should be spared, nor am I saying it is a bad country that belongs to some axis of evil. I am only saying that IMHO BTS have (deliberately?) chosen a VERY sensitive subject.

Choosing a sensitive subject/setting is one thing. Defending it by using political statements about so-called (Bush talk) axis of evil countries (as "#1 sponsor of terrorism" regarding Afghanistan shows) partiality and is IMHO way out of line.

I really am shocked they let themselves into this...

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Every one to their own… but I think it is a shame if people take the politics too seriously. It is just an excuse for a good, virtual punch-up.

Given the hand BFC had to play with, finding a scenario for a contemporary war that is even reasonably credible but does not offend their home market too much, they have done very well. I have not seen anyone come up with a better back-story.

All the best,

Kip.

[Wicky]

Would a hypothetical UN/US vs Netherlands 2007 as the Reagan instigated 'just say no' campaign cannot be resolved by diplomacy

[Fokker G1]

Originally posted by Wicky:

Would a hypothetical UN/US vs Netherlands 2007 as the Reagan instigated 'just say no' campaign cannot be resolved by diplomacy

Now THAT would be a real challenge for the US/UN forces...

[Wicky]

Sadly it looks like NBC warfare is out of the CMx2 engine - So you'll need to rely on conventional lager and spirits to slow 'em down

Originally posted by Fokker G1:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wicky:

Would a hypothetical UN/US vs Netherlands 2007 as the Reagan instigated 'just say no' campaign cannot be resolved by diplomacy

Now THAT would be a real challenge for the US/UN forces... </font>

[Lars]

Originally posted by Fokker G1:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wicky:

Would a hypothetical UN/US vs Netherlands 2007 as the Reagan instigated 'just say no' campaign cannot be resolved by diplomacy

Now THAT would be a real challenge for the US/UN forces... </font>

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

People have been trying to clean up Northern Pakistan since the British garrisoned the Kyber pass and no one has succeeded yet.

As of this week that part of Pakistan is in ruins and people are already pointing the finger at the government ( GWB will probably be giving Musharraff a sympathy call).

As you said in your own post , things can change very quickly, and placing your money on the shelf life of a strong man isn't the bet it once was. The Shah, Saddam, Norreaga, Pinnoch, Hoxa, sooner or later something gets them all.

Some people aren't happy about his closeness to GWB, or his talks with India over Moslem Kashmer, itself the centre of the earth quake.

Like it or not Pakistan is another one of the countries only ever an assasins bullet from an election.

Like I say i am happy enough with Syria, but I think given the 2007 setting you would need something pretty spectacular to justify a US force intervening anywhere, so for me real live nukes fills the gap.

Peter.

[dieseltaylor]

JC_Hare - an Arab paper reporting a story from an Israeli paper makes it no truer than quoting the two Israeli papers directly.

The question has to be why the story was made public - who is to benefit and who is to suffer in this shaping of public perceptions.

As to Syria being more interesting to do than Iran - which has mountains , sea, plains, towns, and cities could it just possibly be that no one wishes to piss off the Iranians when oil is tight. Syria does not produce oil and is of marginal importance in the world.

I wonder if politics/common sense meant Syria. The idea that action would be taken against Iran building nuclear weapons is obviously too far fetched --- and would never garner the support of NATO etc. Huh!

As for BFC

how many people would have raised their hands on September 10th, 2001 when asked "do you think the next conflict America engages in will be on the ground in Afghanistan?

Is a little daft really as who knows what might have happened in Grenada over the weekend. If the question had been " Given continuing US support for Israel over Palestine will there be an attack on US interests" I think most of us would have scored 100%.

Would the use of aircraft/ships for a major attack be possible - no problem I would have said yes. Would America react with extreme force .... no-brainer.

[jack frost]

Howdy Battlefront,

I would also strongly suggest going with Syria 2003, which I think was a fantastic suggestion.

This is handy for a few reasons:

A - its an alternative history, so you don't need to worry so much about plausable.

B - for some reason it just makes me as a gamer feel more comfortable. Maybe it is that Syria is too likely, or something...

I donno, I think that an alternate history instead of a "plausable future" just makes everything better.

[dieseltaylor]

Nice point Jack : )

I did wonder why they did not treat the thing as live war games so all forces in the world with their equipment being modelled. Laser sight and probability means your tank stops, the infantry walk etc.

Ok nobody is dead and no nation gets offended .....

[Londoner]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

I think it is a shame if people take the politics too seriously. It is just an excuse for a good, virtual punch-up.

LOL So true.

[Geier]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Repost of something I put on this very page. Would the "Syrian Doubters" please address these points before continuing?

Not interested in current conflict theory. Your guess is probably better than mine. Now please tell me how and why this game is going to be fun to play. I haven't figured that part out yet.

As to your obvious disappointment to the reactions of many of your loyal customers, have you forgotten why you had to shut down the GF? I'm very surprised at this decision. Let's leave it at that.

[Ardem]

Steve, I don't live in a cave unlike the major of people think australians do, and there is no shrimp on my barbie.

The year you set in, would be the election year or close to it, there is strong sediment in pulling all our troops out and the opposition party will be leading that call, if they get it power they will move out in a second.

Australians have had enough of been lead around the nose by American foreign policy. The reasons why we ended Iraq and Afganistan were at best niave. Even I supported both causes, the nation was divided 60 40 split. Next war anywhere US will be going by itself. You don't live here, I do, I think I am able to guage public opinion here better then you.

I have friends which have syrian decent, they speak french and english. You think the french jumped an down in Iraq, that would be nothing compared to Syria, even to the possibility of leaving NATO and the Brits well they don't want to upset the french anymore, my brother has been living for 2 years are saying that the British want to get there boys right out of the middle east and back home again, and never to go back.

The bad PR about WMD linger in each other countries minds and we feel duped and silly, and the general poplus felt it was about Oil and US interests. We only staying there so we can restore order and leave the place in a less ****ty mess then is was after the war.

What I am trying to say make it a US thing, but I would not put it in the story line to drag NATO or other western powers. You once said you interest in modelling close to historical events, so I say make sure your storyline fits some type of semblance.

As the US people who think they know what public world opinion is and never lived in the countries you speaking up for, you just making yourself sound silly.