Israeli ground tactics in S. Lebanon

[oren_m]

Four days ago the villege of Maroun Al-Ras has fell into a combined force of special forces mounted on APC's, tanks and heavy air support, what i'm saying? It's exactly CM:SF scenario, a special combined force is taking control over a hostile villege.

So what do you say, could the whole game now turn into an IDF game in Lebanon or Syria? could it happen?

Oren_m

[vincere]

Maybe that would be, rightly or wrongly, too politically contentous.

I also wonder if there was a wider Syrian war would it affect CMSF release?

[M1A1TC]

Why is it ok to make games about Nazis versus Allies, and its "politically incorrect" to make a game about Israel versus Arabs?

[oren_m]

Maybe becasue the arabs has the oil!

[M1A1TC]

Yes, and a lot of people hate the Jews

[oren_m]

Yes, the oil an this.

But think the Israeli-Arab wars are so classic for strategy games, such a shame...

[Peter Cairns]

A more likely reason is polarisation and patriotism. By and large WW2 games sold to allied countries but also let Axis countries play as the war was over and they were democracies. That ment that most gamers could play their own country distance themselves from the old regeme and even if they lost still have good games.

As people are much more polarised on the middleeast and by and large their country wasn't involved, and if it was it still is, then they are no where near as popular or will be.

Peter.

[PseudoSimonds]

I don't care about any of that, I just don't want the game to be delayed as much as would be necessary to do this. Me want game NOW!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

[vincere]

Why is it ok to make games about Nazis versus Allies, and its "politically incorrect" to make a game about Israel versus Arabs

I don't know. I don't know if any game can be unethical. Personally I'd like to see US Marines, US Heavy, Light and Air Assalt; British; and Israeli Modules. But we have seen how the media can get hot under the collar about stuff. And while games are being made very shortly after conflicts, releasing a game while the conflict is hot would be a first to my knowlede.

Yes, and a lot of people hate the Jews

I work with mentally ill people, and to tell you the truth I'm really bored to my back teeth of mad people ranting on about Jewish plots.

[ July 24, 2006, 07:10 AM: Message edited by: vincere ]

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by vincere:

releasing a game while the conflict is hot

Bingo

[MikeyD]

Y'know, CMSF could come in for a bit of 'politically correctness' heat from the right wing as well as the left. Not only can the game be played as 'us' hitting on an Arab country, we can can play the game as 'them' defending their homeland against a foreign aggressor. Neither side in this conflict (these conflicts) much appreciates having their enemies portrayed as actual human beings with rational motives. If BFC comes out with an even-handed game without steriotypes the results might be viewed as subversive to agenda-driven types.

About M1A1TankCommmander's line "Why is it ok to make games about Nazis versus Allies..." I must admit I still feel a bit creepy commanding SS troops in Eastern Europe. As a result maybe i don't try as hard as I ought to keep my SS troops all alive by game's end. But even the horrors of WWII are slowly fading into the past. I was born around the 10th anniversary of the liberation of Paris. Only ten years! What was it this July, the 62nd anniversary?

[M1A1TC]

Nazis burned my grandfather alive, yet I dont have any issues playing a GAME with Nazis in it. Its just a GAME.

Anyway, Id love to see a IDF module in future. They have very interesting armored vehicles and equipment. It would be interesting from a GAME point of view to pit them against Syrians and even "gasp" Americans! That might be an even fight

[Battlefront.com]

This is skating close to the edge of closure, but so far it's staying within bounds.

To answer the quesiton about doing an Arab/Israeli game right now isn't a good idea. It has nothing to do with perceived political correctness in our eyes. Three main reasons:

1. Few people would be interested in it. That nixes the idea right there.

2. The conflict is largely seen as a cycle of revenge and retribution flare ups, not a military conflict. Poor subject matter for a wargame, fine subject matter for some sort of counter-insurgency type simulation.

3. It's still a raw subject because it is an ongoing conflict. A conflict, I might add, that has a long history and no resolution in sight.

Couple these three things together and you have a pretty poor basis for a commercial viable wargame. We be no better off making a game about the conflict in Northern Ireland. There are more similarities with that conflict than differences. Yet nobody is seriously suggesting we do an IRA vs. British sim. And righly so for the same reasons as listed above.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

In addition to what Steve said, I think Peter comes pretty close. Arabs vs. Israelis is a very hot emotional issue for a whole lot of people. I don't think that for those people, engaging in a war game on the subject is the way to cool tempers down. It could very easily cause irreparable ruptures between individuals who had previously thought themselves friends. This in turn would sour them on the game and the company that produced it. If I were BFC, I wouldn't even think of going near this topic at this time (meaning for at least another generation).

Michael

[Nidan1]

web page

This was released by Talonsoft some years ago. It followed the East Front-West Front game series, but really wasn't a lot of fun to play for me because the long range weapons modeled were so lethal, that in later scenarios that showed the Six Day War or the Yom Kippur War, it was mostly attrition, and no real manuever or planning.

I have feared that the first iteration of Shock Force might wind up being the same way.

[Blofeld]

With respect, I don't see how CMSF, which will be about a current day US invasion of Syria, will be less controversial or more popular than a WW2 game and yet BFC has decided to tackle that subject. It will inevitably be compared to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the continuing civil war.

I am planning to buy CMSF, not because I love the subject matter, but because I know BFC will do a good job, but I would also line up to buy a CM game based on WW2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the june 1967 or october 1973 War or even a IDF module to CMSF for the same reason.

[MikeyD]

My advice all along has been to stress the OPFOR aspect of the game. Downplay the Syria backstory. Its a chance to give 'Tranfsormational Warfare" (if that's the current term) a spin around the block. In an OPFOR sense Syria's an ideal opponent. Syria's forces haven't already been ground down by previous years of warfare like 2003 Iraq or 2006 Lebanon. They're as likely as anyone to give the Stryker Brigade a run for its money.

Either that or we could compromise between a Syria game and a WWII ETO Game - Stryker brigade invades modern day France!

[ July 25, 2006, 08:12 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Battlefront.com]

First Sergeant

With respect, I don't see how CMSF, which will be about a current day US invasion of Syria, will be less controversial or more popular than a WW2 game and yet BFC has decided to tackle that subject. It will inevitably be compared to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the continuing civil war.

True, which underscores why the "hotness" isn't the main reason to steer clear of the kind of conflict that is going on with Israel and its neighbors. It just isn't a good basis for a wargame, which CM ultimately is. To a large extent even the current ops in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't the best subjects for a wargame. At least not unless the civilian and political angles could be simulated in decent detail. The investment to return equation for that sort of game isn't very good.

We do agree with Mikey. Unlike WWII, the importance of the "other side" in CM:SF is simply to have another side to play against We chose Syria because two years ago we figured it was the most likely scenario in the near term. Since we rather not have a fictional force to go up against, Syria was chosen. However, we might be OBE very soon (Overtaken By Events) and have to adjust the story accordingly.

Steve

[Blofeld]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

However, we might be OBE very soon (Overtaken By Events) and have to adjust the story accordingly.

I doubt that Israel will attack Syria and trigger a wider war, but if they do, will you substitute the IDF for the US?

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, there is another difference between the Arab vs. Israeli and Allies vs. Axis emotional matchup. Only a few wackos out there think that the Nazis were anything BUT the "bad guys". Some people had a problem with the Soviets vs. the Germans since the Soviets were not "good guys", but even not many objected from an emotional stance.

The conflict in the ME is entirely different. Many people see it as a mix of good and bad on both sides. Or at the very least, that things are extremely muddled and therefore unclear. Gamers don't want to think about right and wrong when they sit down and play a game. They want to already know this so they can move on and get into the tactics. So a game that lacks "moral clarity" and has few opportunities for conventional tactics is a non-starter.

Incidentally, this is the same reason why Vietnam War games aren't all that popular and WWII games are.

Steve

[dan/california]

Well the French do have those lovely shaded avenues for victorius invading armies to march down.

[dixon_el]

I'd like see an Iraq vs. Iran game. Both of them had a wide range of equipment and tactics. Neither was able to bring closure to the war, so they were fairly well balanced (or unbalanced) militarily.

Tanks, Itvs, Ifvs, missles, mass charges, all the good stuff with chemicals mixed in to add to the excitment.

Cool, rules.

[Homo ferricus]

Originally posted by dixon_el:

I'd like see an Iraq vs. Iran game. Both of them had a wide range of equipment and tactics. Neither was able to bring closure to the war, so they were fairly well balanced (or unbalanced) militarily.

Tanks, Itvs, Ifvs, missles, mass charges, all the good stuff with chemicals mixed in to add to the excitment.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Cool, rules.

</font>

[Peter Cairns]

Once CM:SF is up and running we will probably see a lot of these things come about. As it is planned to allow Red on red then given the ammo of old, adapted and updated kit that Syria has, i suspect you will pretty much have all you need to stage Iran v Iraq.

Israel creates more of a problem as in that without an Israeli module, you can't get any of their equipment as most of it hasn't been exported so you can't even do a Leopard and have it under a third party like Canada or Australia.

One that could have been interesting and could be modeled is Egypt v Libya. Although given recent events Libya isn't one of the bad guys anymore.

Given that Eygpt has 750 M1's, it could use US equipement in Israeli scenarios. I am not sure how much of Israels kit would be that good in a fast manouvering war, as it seems to have been skewed to it's recent needs, which is more MOUT than open desert. I am not sure a 45ton APC can keep up with a Merkava 4.

Jordon has ex UK Challengers so any module with the Uk that included them ( although I think they are older mark 1's) could let you do Jordon v Syria, or indeed Saudi Arabia.

Once CM:SF is out I am pretty sure we will see Israeli special forces modeled in the first few weeks, and infantry based raids into Lebanon Scenarios to match them.

Peter.

[gibsonm]

Alas we are bidding farewell to our Leo’s (and I think the Cannuks already have too).