Sergei Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Originally posted by Rollstoy: Combat Mission: What? No Oil? Syrian Oil Minister: Syria's Oil Production Continues Until 2040 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Hehe! Good one! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philippe Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Originally posted by Seanachai: Let's try: Combat Mission: Liberating the Next Islamic Nation We Think We Can Justify Attacking and Actually Beat. This cuts to the heart of why the subject of this game leaves a lot of people cold. The backstory, best omitted, is very disturbing, and many will be reluctant to feel that they are condoning it by playing a game about it. The problem, in a nutshell, is that the game, by virtue of its subject, is in itself political, and I don't particularly care to buy into that agenda. And it's not about WW II worship. WW II is not my favorite subject of military history and I only accepted it reluctantly because of the excellence of the simulation. Modern warfare is very interesting. Political cant is not. And the problem is compounded by the name of the product. "Shock Force" suggests a semi-political catch phrase and confirms the suspicion that, yes, you probably should be offended by this game before you even open the box. And sooner or later some politician looking for a sound bite will jump on this (though that may actually help sales). I'm not that fond of marketing, but I think Mikey D could fill you in on some of the ramifications of attaching strong, negative subliminal undercurrents to a product. Sort of like trying to sell a Nova in Latin America. There's nothing wrong with the latest BTS product per se, the problem is that it comes with a political context, and possibly with political trappings. I think the product would be more palatable if it were simply cast as a modern warfare simulator, the first release of which just happens to involve the Middle East. But then again, no one ever got rich catering to good taste. As for alternate titles, I think calling the game Combat Mission: Strike Force is a better idea. It doesn't have any of the negative political undercurrents (and potential derision) of Shock Force, and a lot of people (myself included) thought that that is what it was called anyway. Editors of ancient texts refer to this particular mental switch as a lectio facilior, the substitution of an easily remembered word for a difficult one. The subject matter of this game is a bit like sex. While it certainly sells, depending on how you present it the end result can be romantic, erotic, pornographic, or simply boring. It all comes down to the presentation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PseudoSimonds Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Fine, then go back to stomping around as Communists and Fascists if that turns your crank more than leading a multilateral UN mission. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Combat Mission: Jockstrap Jockeys! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Combat Mission: Join up Now! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarquelne Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 This cuts to the heart of why the subject of this game leaves a lot of people cold. The backstory, best omitted, is very disturbing.What's so disturbing about it? The backstory sets up the game as a popular (a guess, but I think a good one), multi-lateral, counter-coup with good UN participation. Maybe not a classic "Just War", but it's about as close as you're going to get. Without that backstory we've merely got a game that seems to be a US invasion of some nameless ME nation. Actually, not nameless, because BFC is going to want to portray an actual military as the OPFOR (something that makes it a "CM" game). They could use Iraq. But not only wouldn't that be a very good game (for reasons BFC has already mentioned), but it'd be VERY political. Thus Syria. And without the backstory CM:SF becomes CM: Unilateral Invasion of Syria For No Damn Reason (CM:UISFNDR). That would be much worse than the present backstory. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philippe Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Not really. Any backstory, the current one included, tends to become a very thinly veiled CM:UISFNDR (or worse) unless it is emminently credible and convincing. The thing that you are suggesting is worse than the backstory is already perceived to be the backstory (BFC protestations to the contrary notwithstanding), and that is the problem. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarquelne Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Originally posted by Philippe: [QB] Not really. Any backstory, the current one included, tends to become a very thinly veiled CM:UISFNDR (or worse) unless it is emminently credible and convincing."Eminently credible and convincing?" That sounds like a rather high standard. And perhaps ignores the fact that BFC has stated it will flesh out the backstory more. While I find the proposed story quite unlikely, I think it not much more unlikely than, well, than the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq was several years ago. Stuff happens. More to the point, I find the possibility of another unilateral, non-UN backed invasion in 2007 quite incredible, and the proposed backstory easier to believe. That may just be me... but I've yet to be convinced that BFC's scenario is really so unlikely, or that a the UISFNDR scenario is at all likely. The thing that you are suggesting is worse than the backstory is already perceived to be the backstory (BFC protestations to the contrary notwithstanding), and that is the problem. ("suggesting as worse than", yes?) On the matter of people either not reading the proposed backstory or just not believing it and imposing their own objectionable backstory (objectionable by their own standards)... I think that's simply not BFC's problem. I do appreciate that many are trying to convince BFC to switch to a backstory they think better. But, short of that, if you don't like the backstory it should either be ignored or filled in with a better one. I see no compelling reason to replace a backstory you don't believe with one you don't like. OTOH, I suppose BFC may find that way too many people will only see the game as an exercise in "neocon fascism", as one poster put it. That they refuse to suspend their disbelief enough to accept the hypothetical scenario making up the backstory. But I think that'd indicate be a failure on the part of an overly-sensitive public, not BFC. I suspect there are people that only play the "good guys" in the CM games, and who can only enjoy a wargame that allows them to fight a war that's well known for being a "Just" War. If everyone were like that the world would be a better place. But I figure if most of us can handle raining down 81mm mortar fire on a bunch of random conscripts - US, German, whatever - in a CM game, we can handle quite a bit. Including a CMSF backstory that seems less than inevitable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshik Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 I know HERTSTON was only kidding, but "CM: The Road to Damascus" is actually a pretty good title! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Europa Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 I get the feeling that BFC aimed for an Iraq freedom game, but came to the conclusion that it might be over the line, so here they sity with some code and stuff and need to put it somewhere... So a thin story about invading Syria is dreamt up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 Originally posted by PseudoSimonds: Fine, then go back to stomping around as Communists and Fascists if that turns your crank more than leading a multilateral UN mission. LOL!!! I'm trying to imagine a "multilateral UN mission" that would involve aggression against ANY Arab country for any reason. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 Originally posted by Treeburst155: LOL!!! I'm trying to imagine a "multilateral UN mission" that would involve aggression against ANY Arab country for any reason. I think Kuwait War would count? But it's unlikely that Syria would suddenly invade Kuwait... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PseudoSimonds Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 Originally posted by Treeburst155: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by PseudoSimonds: Fine, then go back to stomping around as Communists and Fascists if that turns your crank more than leading a multilateral UN mission. LOL!!! I'm trying to imagine a "multilateral UN mission" that would involve aggression against ANY Arab country for any reason. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 Well Iam for "Combat Mission:Power Rangers", Hell it's even got a theme tune. I got the idea from watching film of US troops in Iraq, and their seemed something oddly familiar about their mannerisms and behaviour all that " OK lets go" "kick Ass" and high fives. Then I got up one Satuarday morning about 7 am and found my five year old son jumping around the living room watching "Power rangers" on TV and it clicked. Probably almost every guy serviing in Iraq has been brought up on this crap and subconciously it comes through in the way the speak to each other and act when together. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Drago Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 Originally posted by Peter Cairns: Then I got up one Satuarday morning about 7 am and found my five year old son jumping around the living room watching "Power rangers" on TV and it clicked. Probably almost every guy serviing in Iraq has been brought up on this crap and subconciously it comes through in the way the speak to each other and act when together. Peter. omfg. Do you know what this means?? The current generation was brought up on Pokemon. Power Rangers were bad, but Pokemon... The last days are upon us! :eek: :eek: :eek: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Originally posted by PseudoSimonds: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Treeburst155: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by PseudoSimonds: Fine, then go back to stomping around as Communists and Fascists if that turns your crank more than leading a multilateral UN mission. LOL!!! I'm trying to imagine a "multilateral UN mission" that would involve aggression against ANY Arab country for any reason. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Ivan, I am slightly more worried by the fact that with all that body armour Us troops now look strangely like Turtles..... "Combat Mission: heros in a Half Shell". Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Originally posted by Tarquelne: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />This cuts to the heart of why the subject of this game leaves a lot of people cold. The backstory, best omitted, is very disturbing.What's so disturbing about it? The backstory sets up the game as a popular (a guess, but I think a good one), multi-lateral, counter-coup with good UN participation. Maybe not a classic "Just War", but it's about as close as you're going to get. Without that backstory we've merely got a game that seems to be a US invasion of some nameless ME nation. Actually, not nameless, because BFC is going to want to portray an actual military as the OPFOR (something that makes it a "CM" game). They could use Iraq. But not only wouldn't that be a very good game (for reasons BFC has already mentioned), but it'd be VERY political. Thus Syria. And without the backstory CM:SF becomes CM: Unilateral Invasion of Syria For No Damn Reason (CM:UISFNDR). That would be much worse than the present backstory. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Originally posted by Tarquelne: I suspect there are people that only play the "good guys" in the CM games, and who can only enjoy a wargame that allows them to fight a war that's well known for being a "Just" War. If everyone were like that the world would be a better place. But I figure if most of us can handle raining down 81mm mortar fire on a bunch of random conscripts - US, German, whatever - in a CM game, we can handle quite a bit. Including a CMSF backstory that seems less than inevitable. as a side note, i found it a very reassuring experience of "great minds think alike" (*g*, or maybe rather of "two nutjobs - same idea" ?)- to realize the following: when I heard of CMSF, even before I got to the board and learnmt of the details, I found myself wondering how it would be a far more interesting challenge to play the syrian side... and wondered about how to carefully hint at or phrase that contemplation without setting off any flaming on the board...only to come here and find most of my CM buddy community to think along similar lines...without national or patriotic blinders...only focussed on the wargame as a challenge to the mind. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Efraim Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 CM:SF Combat Mission: Science fiction But I'll still buy it if you really model the Buratino! (http://warfare.ru/0702ey70/update/june1999/Toc200.jpg) hehe 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Originally posted by Efraim: CM:SF Combat Mission: Science fiction But I'll still buy it if you really model the Buratino! hehe bah ! nothing that the slat armor on a Stryker couldn't handle. and it's 50cal will make short work of this...this...mere T-72 chassis or whatever that is. sincerely, M.Hofbauer 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kellysheroes Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Combat Mission: The World Terrorists Strike Again 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1A1TC Posted October 26, 2005 Author Share Posted October 26, 2005 Do you know what Buratino means in Russian? Its Pinnocio (the wooden boy whose nose grows when he lies) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Putin's nose is growing? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.