Israeli ground tactics in S. Lebanon

[Blofeld]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Because we'd sell a couple hundred copies, that's why There are certain conflicts that we simply doubt we can get people interested in. Three of them are the ones you mentioned, but there are more on that list than that. In fact, most conflicts are on that list. Even the fairly large, conventional Korean War is on the "weak sales potential" list. Perhaps they shouldn't be, but we don't make that decision. Customers do. We have enough experience to know what is worth doing and what isn't, and the Arab/Israeli conflicts are non starters from a sales standpoint.

Steve

Steve, which other ones are on the list? I presume Vietnam is one, based on your previous comments. Does that mean that wargamers will be forced to endlessly refight WW2 or modern hypothetical conflicts? I know that has been the general rule for flight simulations.

[wade_Angler]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Watch your tone.

As already explained above, Oren is not some sort of uninformed git (unlike others)…

I don't trust Time or the popular media to report these things accurately.

Steve

Steve,

Respectfully, many, including I, don’t trust you, Oren or the IDF either. To these many, you’re the very bias gits you so much abhor and are contemptuous of.

Originally posted by Khane:

Thanks Oren. It seems that my take about all that Lebanon stuff is different than yours. I don't buy the official version of the how and why of the events as they are given by our government officials but I cannot but respond to the blind hatred against Israel.

Khane

Shalom,

It’s not “blind hatred of Israel”, it’s hatred of the barbarous behavior, disdain for the truth and belittlement of the masses’ intellect.

No one is being critical of the Floridian retiree community, personally, I love the lille raisiny buggers; you won’t ever see them flattening Louisiana for example.

Ultimately, please save your hysterically laughable Socratic inquisition for Oren and village idiots, it’s not cuttin’ but French cheese.

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by wade_Angler:

Ultimately, please save your hysterically laughable Socratic inquisition for Oren and village idiots, it’s not cuttin’ but French cheese.

hmm.. trolling... "angler"... coincidence?

I don't know if Wade_troller is trying to be funny or sound clever. Either way, I don't think he'll be angling around here for much longer if he keeps it up... come on Steve, be a man! B7 the bugger would ya...!

[Battlefront.com]

wade_Angler,

Respectfully, many, including I, don’t trust you, Oren or the IDF either. To these many, you’re the very bias gits you so much abhor and are contemptuous of.

Not so. I have no agenda. I could care less if the tanks were scattered as far as Iran or are totally intact and out there shooting it up with not so much as a scratch on them. You, on the other hand, have shown a lack of objectivity in the extreme. So yes, you are a git. Now kindly knock it off or you'll find your 6th post to be your last.

J Ruddy,

I didn't mean to imply that I think Oren's information is accurate eitehr. I suspect it isn't. However, right now I have only the following to assess information:

1. Popular media with a vast and unspotted record of misreporting details.

2. A tanker in the IDF who has direct contacts with soldiers who, in theory, do know the details.

3. A git with a political axe to grind and no information of his own to contribute.

Me thinks #2 is the best one to side with at this point in time. Personally, I doubt that all 4 tanks that have been repored hit are all functioning perfectly well with the only addition being new crews. Some reports are starting to filter in that at least one was hit by a Kornet. I highly doubt that anybody would want to drive a vehicle hit by one of those into battle. If it survived it would almost certainly be in need of repairs. I also doubt that a tank flipped over by a 650# IED would be back in the field so quickly. But lacking any hard information, I know I am just speculating. That is the difference between me and a git.

Steve

[J Ruddy]

Point taken Steve!

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

That is the difference between me and a git.

Steve

That, plus Gits don't publish games. (Well, *good* game anyways...)

Jim

[Battlefront.com]

First Sergeant,

Steve, which other ones are on the list? I presume Vietnam is one, based on your previous comments.

Yes. At least at CM's scale or higher.

Does that mean that wargamers will be forced to endlessly refight WW2 or modern hypothetical conflicts?

Industry wide? Yes, count on it. The vast bulk of games out there are WWII or modern hypotehtical for a reason... it's what sells. Few games have been able to do well with much else. American Civil War sometimes does OK, so too with others like Napoleanic or ancient warfare. But you won't see too many of them since it takes an exceptional developer to make it interesting.

Now, for niche titles that don't have huge production costs... there is more flexibility. For example, check out our American Revolution and 1848 games. Developers can afford to make, and we can afford to publish, high quality games that deal with obscure or otherwise limited interest topics provided the production costs are far lower than something like CM.

Mind you I am talking about games that are more "wargames" than "games that have shooting in them". A game with muskets or elephant mounted infantry can do wonders if the game is about fun and not about history. But for a game to be both historical AND fun... gotta choose carefully.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by First Sergeant:

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

Because we'd sell a couple hundred copies, that's why There are certain conflicts that we simply doubt we can get people interested in. Three of them are the ones you mentioned, but there are more on that list than that. In fact, most conflicts are on that list. Even the fairly large, conventional Korean War is on the "weak sales potential" list. Perhaps they shouldn't be, but we don't make that decision. Customers do. We have enough experience to know what is worth doing and what isn't, and the Arab/Israeli conflicts are non starters from a sales standpoint.

Steve

Steve, which other ones are on the list? I presume Vietnam is one, based on your previous comments. Does that mean that wargamers will be forced to endlessly refight WW2 or modern hypothetical conflicts? I know that has been the general rule for flight simulations. </font>

[wade_Angler]

The so called Iron Control of Bint Jbail:

IDF Sources

[J Ruddy]

My name is Jim and I like cardboard.

As an example, ooking at 'The Gamers' products, I see that MMP has published ~20 WWII games, 2WWI, 2 Korea and 1 1973 conflict.

A better representation of the wargame market (which, though a smaller market, likely has quite a bit of audience overlap with BF's CM series) can bee seen by the top 50 'wargames' on Boardgamegeek.

http://boardgamegeek.com/browser.php?itemtype=wargame&sortby=rank

23 out of 50 top ranked (by BGG members) are WWII based.

The remaining 27 games are a mish mash of everything from Ancient to Sci Fi.

If my money was at risk, I'd stick to what sells.

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by wade_Angler:

The so called Iron Control of Bint Jbail:

IDF Sources

What's your point and how does it pertain to CMSF?

[Romulus]

Originally posted by wade_Angler:

The so called Iron Control of Bint Jbail:

IDF Sources

I particularly enjoyed the title of the article where the Hezbollah fighters in the village are defined as "terrorists". That's a bit propagandistic, isn't it?

[Dogface]

None and it doesn't J Ruddy.

wade seems to be (baised on the content of his posts) Saviola under another screen name.

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by Romulus:

I particularly enjoyed the title of the article where the Hezbollah fighters in the village are defined as "terrorists". That's a bit propagandistic, isn't it?

By definition any revolutionary force could be considered a terrorist organization. I wonder what Sam Adams and John Hancock would think about that?

[Romulus]

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

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

I particularly enjoyed the title of the article where the Hezbollah fighters in the village are defined as "terrorists". That's a bit propagandistic, isn't it?

By definition any revolutionary force could be considered a terrorist organization. I wonder what Sam Adams and John Hancock would think about that? </font>

[Blofeld]

I have nothing against WW2, but after 4 years of playing CMBB and CMAK, I need a break. Sure it's an interesting war, but it still represents only 6 out of the 6,000 years that humans have been killing each other in a professional manner, but I digress

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by Romulus:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by J Ruddy:

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

I particularly enjoyed the title of the article where the Hezbollah fighters in the village are defined as "terrorists". That's a bit propagandistic, isn't it?

By definition any revolutionary force could be considered a terrorist organization. I wonder what Sam Adams and John Hancock would think about that? </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Romulus

I particularly enjoyed the title of the article where the Hezbollah fighters in the village are defined as "terrorists". That's a bit propagandistic, isn't it?

Forces which represent no state or definable geographical region are kinda short on labels. However, when a force uses suicide bombs, hit and run rocket attacks on civilian targets, etc... there is really only one label. Terrorist is the correct term, regardless of one's feelings towards the current conflict.

Steve

[Sergei]

Lebanese civilians must be real glad that they're not being bombed by terrorists but a military.

[Jussi Köhler]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

However, when a force uses /SNIP/ hit and run rocket attacks on civilian targets, etc... there is really only one label. Terrorist is the correct term, regardless of one's feelings towards the current conflict.

Steve

Its a very fine line at the moment, isnt it? Which one is worse, he who kills 40 or he who kills 400. Or roundabouts anyway...

[Khane]

Originally posted by Romulus:

I particularly enjoyed the title of the article where the Hezbollah fighters in the village are defined as "terrorists". That's a bit propagandistic, isn't it?

The media of a country at war is alway "a bit" propagandistic. It is also quite difficult to sell the readers of these newspapers that people who only yesterday have fired missiles into their towns and villages are "fighters" even if right now in that particular place , Bint Jbeil, once they cannot fire missiles anymore, they fight with courage and determination in a fierce close ranged combat.

Khane

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Lebanese civilians must be real glad that they're not being bombed by terrorists but a military.

Isn't this covered in chapter 3 of How to Win Friends and Influence People ?

[wade_Angler]

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

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

The so called Iron Control of Bint Jbail:

IDF Sources

What's your point and how does it pertain to CMSF? </font>

[C'Rogers]

Even the fairly large, conventional Korean War is on the "weak sales potential"

My one hope and dream to potentially be a grog on this site. Guess I'll just have to keep using the forums as a learning tool.

Lebanese civilians must be real glad that they're not being bombed by terrorists but a military.

I'm sure Holocaust victims were likewise relieved that the Nazis had put together a formal military.

[PseudoSimonds]

Originally posted by wade_Angler:

So the point is they suck.

Well, that's certainly brilliant analysis. In the spirit of keeping on topic, do you have any actual comments on how they might improve their tactics, or what they're doing wrong tactically, or are you just here to gloat?

[Khane]

Originally posted by wade_Angler:

So the point is they suck.

It seems you are quite an expert. You are back from Bint Jbeil I presume.

Khane