Defense Contracts

[Battlefront.com]

OK, Barry it is then

Rational or not the sight of a U.S. squad in the exact same uniforms we see on the news being wiped out by an IED is unsettling in a way that the first game could never be

I agree. But the problem isn't that this is "too real" but the other stuff is "too abstract". When playing to win, winning should include a degree of empathy for your virtual soldiers. Otherwise gamey tactics soon follow. I don't mean that people should put a ton of emotional investment in little works of digital pixles, rather they should think "if I needlessly and wrecklessly get my guys killed then I am not worthy of calling myself a good tactitian".

This is imperfect, but it is far better than "war is fun" and "so what if 100 virtual soldiers died... I got that flag in the end and that is all that counts" crap that most games actually CATER to. Yet we also don't want to make CM an unpleasent experience just like real war in fact is. We simply never want people to come away with "lessons learned" from our simulations that are similar to Warcraft or Command & Conquer. It's a very fine line, we know, but as wargame designers we have no choice but to figure out where that line should be laid.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Mace:

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

Capitalizing off of worldly events... Theatre and subject matter. IED and suicide bombers?

That's not capitilisation at all.

That is the shape of the modern battlefield even as far back as, yes, Vietnam and probably further.

If one's going to 'model' the modern battlefield at the tactical level, than maybe you just have to include those elements in.

btw IIRC, HPS Sim's Point of Attack 2 already includes IED and suicide bombers. </font>

[Mace]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Vietnam? The Japanese in WW II had "tank-hunters" who would detonate satchel charges against US AFVs, knowing they would die in the process - not even mentioning the kamikaze pilots.

Heh. I was going to use the point of the Japanese using unexploded bombs as IEDs during WW2, but I wanted something a little more recent.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Mace:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Vietnam? The Japanese in WW II had "tank-hunters" who would detonate satchel charges against US AFVs, knowing they would die in the process - not even mentioning the kamikaze pilots.

Heh. I was going to use the point of the Japanese using unexploded bombs as IEDs during WW2, but I wanted something a little more recent. </font>

[jrcar]

MD, Mace I have sent you a file on the email addresses in your profiles.

Cheers

Rob

[Barrold]

Steve

I have officially pushed the "I Believe" button and will look forward to more details in futher press releases.

BDH

[FFE]

The point of the matter is political, and not something I should discuss on this board. The perception of IEDs (rather than calling them, let's say, booby traps) smacks of an intentionally marketing tool. Suicide bombers & car bombings are not routine occurrences in offensive operations, rather they happen in greater frequency in the static environment. For instance, will there be women suicide bombers? Teenagers triggering remote IEDs? Becoming too "real" will likely push away the traditional wargaming community, who typically do not fixate on the ultra-reality of what happens under the hood in actual conflict. After all, I think including children into the mix (think Vietnam) would be unsettling. Game balance vs. the Fun Factor: the proposed Fun Factor disguised as realism is hitting too close to home. I, again, am going to pass on this title and wait for something less in-my-face. Hopefully, the marketing won't include "IEDs and Suicide Bombers" on the cover of your product.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by FFE:

The point of the matter is political, and not something I should discuss on this board. The perception of IEDs (rather than calling them, let's say, booby traps) smacks of an intentionally marketing tool. Suicide bombers & car bombings are not routine occurrences in offensive operations, rather they happen in greater frequency in the static environment. For instance, will there be women suicide bombers? Teenagers triggering remote IEDs? Becoming too "real" will likely push away the traditional wargaming community, who typically do not fixate on the ultra-reality of what happens under the hood in actual conflict. After all, I think including children into the mix (think Vietnam) would be unsettling. Game balance vs. the Fun Factor: the proposed Fun Factor disguised as realism is hitting too close to home. I, again, am going to pass on this title and wait for something less in-my-face. Hopefully, the marketing won't include "IEDs and Suicide Bombers" on the cover of your product.

Death toll in the earthquake just topped 19,000 if anyone is interested.

Got the email JR - thanks! Will give it a good looksee.

As for teenagers and kids - I don't see a reason to model them any differently in game terms; keeping a male figure would be about right, if they include "suicide bombers". Nor do I think an IED is any different from the good old fashioned "boobytraps" the Germans used in WW II with such amazing efficiency. See Ambush! by Victory Games or Advanced Squad Leader rulebook Vol. I rule B28.9 for earlier simulations of same in a wargaming context.

[Battlefront.com]

FFE, you are still pulling crap out of your ass. You don't like the topic so you are inventing reasons to rationalize your dislike of it. If you just admitted that's why you're upset then you'd have your bitching out of the way in one post and then that'd be it. But no... apparently you feel the need to trash talk us in ways that are completely unfounded and unfair. Fair weather friends can be expected to do no less.

IEDs have been a part of conventional warfare since explosives were invented. Check your PTO history. It was one of the few ways the Japanese had to knock out tanks. There was one that was fully documented, with pictures, of a M4 Sherman hitting a bunch of aircraft bombs (several multi hundred pound bombs IIRC) and flipping up in the air. A SHERMAN went into the air, that's right... those gamey little PR grubbing Japanese. The only difference between that and something that is going off today is back then they didn't call them IEDs.

IEDs are being included in CM:SF because there is no way to avoid them. They are as much of a part of conventional warfare now as the tank and the airplane. It doesn't matter if you don't like it, but it is there front and center. If you think that any of the West's potential advesaries are thinking "IEDs... well, that's really a marketing gimmick, so we're not using them" you're insane. IEDs will be used, whenever possible, against any enemy. Why? Because they can be very effective.

Having said that, I don't see IEDs playing a large or central role in CM:SF. They will be included just like minefields, tanks, and infantry weapons were included in CMx1. IEDs are simply a tool of the trade and therefore to NOT include them is to shortchange the enemy of a legitimate (and I mean that in the military sense) weapon. We are not about to pull something from CM:SF because it isn't politically correct in your eyes.

Suicide bombers... we haven't decided about them yet. They were used in the very early battles in Iraq, but they mostly started showing up after GW did his infamous "end of hostilities" speech. Unlike IEDs, I do not see suicide bombers as being a significant part of the more or less conventional phase of CM:SF's setting. However, they would certainly be there for sure.

Steve

[FFE]

Ease off the insinuations. I don't care for it, since I have kept to the point and at NO time disrespected your views or others in this thread. A motivating reason to go into the near future in a fictional conflict in the middle east with the subject and theatre so prime is clearly in the subject of this thread.

So plainly, if you don't like my point of view, simply say so or please take a dose of Matt's STFU.

Enough. I've said what needed to be said. You and I don't agree. I've said why this next title doesn't sit well with me, and each time I have to defend my rationale simply makes this more in-my-face.

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by FFE:

... I have kept to the point and at NO time disrespected your views ...

:eek:

[Overman_XXX]

@ Mord

"You are both being hypocritical...it's okay to play wargames where people were killed and maimed and blown to crap just as long as it was set twenty or thirty or sixty years ago?"

The issue has nothing to do with death and how people are killed. You're right, that's simply the nature of warfare.

The American military has much to be proud of, but some games glorifying the US Army/USMC are taking it a little too far (ie First to Fight, Kuma War, et al).

Games based on the venerable WW2 setting (or any other *historical* setting) are popular because they are neutral in that regard. History has painted a clear picture of the victor and the defeated, and the ramifications of alternate endings. Playing a historical strategy game often maintains a clear focus on the 'good' and 'bad' guys, given the historical retrospect.

The subtle point being made is that simulating current military conflicts is not only politically tasteless and serves to shamelessly inflate the national ego, but that there is an expectaion that we're supposed to sit back in the comfort of our homes and enjoy playing out current events on our PCs, as our friends and neighbors are getting killed everyday in such a conflict. How many people here would buy 'Katrina 2005:The Game'?

BFC has cleverly sidestepped most of the potential political fallout by creating a scenario that is in the "near future".

Throw in the noble rationalization that it will be sold to world militaries as a training tool, and one is left with a program that isn't really a 'game', much less art.

[hellfish]

FWIW, In OIF's first phase, the run to Baghdad, VBIEDs/Suicide bombers were a serious threat to the US forces. Especially read about the Thunder Runs - VBIEDs were encountered in large droves.

[Dirtweasle]

Interesting rehash or reworking of the point Barold makes.

I do wonder though if it isn't a bit rich though comming from one who manufactures dreams of blowing up women in VWs;

Originally posted by Overman_XXX:

I've been playing CM ever since 'Beyond Overlord'...but I must admit I had my first CM dream the other night.

A beautiful woman walks into my room. I am playing CM, but I stop and give her my full attention. We talk for a bit, and one thing leads to another. Then, for whatever reason, she abruptly gets annoyed and leaves.

She gets into her car, which strangely enough looks like a Kubelwagen, and starts to drive off. Suddenly I'm standing next to a 25 pounder, and I yell 'Fire!'. Her tiny car immediately blows up, sending her voluptuous body into the air. Bright green text flashes in the sky:

LOWER HULL PENETRATION

KNOCKED OUT!

I cheer and congratulate my crew...

sick, huh?

[stoat]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

FWIW, In OIF's first phase, the run to Baghdad, VBIEDs/Suicide bombers were a serious threat to the US forces. Especially read about the Thunder Runs - VBIEDs were encountered in large droves.

The book "Thunder Run" describes these in detail. Makes me wonder what percentage of the Syrians vehicles will be made up of Nissan pickups.

[Abbott]

I have never let politics of any kind influence what games I purchased and I find it humorous that (some) people have chose to grandstand their political view on this game setting because of the war in Iraq.

If it is too tough for some of you to play, for any reason, then I would suggest passing it bye.

Life’s a bitch then you die.

[ October 10, 2005, 07:49 AM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Barrold]

I had a point? Doesn't sound like me...hmmmm

BDH

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Barrold:

I had a point? Doesn't sound like me...hmmmm

BDH

I'm rambling, could you tell?

How's the hangover?

[Dirtweasle]

Guess I'm not the only one who's liver is doing the samba this morning, eh?

[Barrold]

Tip top buddy...tip freakin' top.

BDH

[Mord]

Originally posted by Overman_XXX:

The issue has nothing to do with death and how people are killed. You're right, that's simply the nature of warfare.

The American military has much to be proud of, but some games glorifying the US Army/USMC are taking it a little too far (ie First to Fight, Kuma War, et al).

See that's the funny part about all this...I didn't look at the setting as glorifying anything...that seems to me to be people projecting their unhappiness onto the title because of their own bias and political outlooks.

In defense of all the CMs that BFC have made, they haven't been handled like other game companies handle war games so why would BFC start doing it now? CM didn't glorify the US any more than it did the Germans. Any glorifying is left up to the players and scenario makers who can only do so in their love of using one country or the another but not tweaking the engine to make one side better than the other...hence all those long ago arguments about national modifers.

Nobody has even seen this game outside of two vague screen shots and they are flipping out. They have no idea how anything will even be handled in the game but you hear some of the most extreme comments that can be voiced because they are unhappy and want the game to reflect as negatively as they feel it should. It reminds me of the blood argument. One guy mentions blood and a bunch of people scream that they don't want to see flying body parts and spurting eye balls. When all he said was blood.

Games based on the venerable WW2 setting (or any other *historical* setting) are popular because they are neutral in that regard. History has painted a clear picture of the victor and the defeated, and the ramifications of alternate endings. Playing a historical strategy game often maintains a clear focus on the 'good' and 'bad' guys, given the historical retrospect.

Actually I don't think that's true...I think people just like playing war games and people that are mostly interested in WWII will play WWII related games.

I for one don't sit and contemplate the moral and ethical and ideaological conundrums of the different combatants when I play CM....I just play and enjoy all the historical equipment and troops....If I am playing the Germans than in my view I am the good guy...or Vice Versa with Allied Forces. I do however get your point and I do fathom those things when I read and learn about WWII but I don't do it everytime I fire up a scenario...

The subtle point being made is that simulating current military conflicts is not only politically tasteless and serves to shamelessly inflate the national ego, but that there is an expectaion that we're supposed to sit back in the comfort of our homes and enjoy playing out current events on our PCs, as our friends and neighbors are getting killed everyday in such a conflict. How many people here would buy 'Katrina 2005:The Game'?

Hurricane Katrina The Game and a war game aren't quite the same thing....Unless you simulate it in a way where we are making tactical decisions on how to kill cities with wind and rain...one is a natural disaster the other is an armed conflict that uses your wits and skill to kill and destroy the other guy's assets and soldiers until you achieve a victory of some sort....I guess what I am saying is there is a reason and method behind the killing...not just simulating a hurricane and seeing how many people you can kill. I just don't think the two are comparable.

I understand what you are saying about it being current but it doesn't bother me. I have family in Iraq too. But either I find playing any kind of game tasteless that involves killing other humans or I don't.

As far as the Political parts of it...the only people I see bringing in politics are the one's unhappy with the setting.

BFC has cleverly sidestepped most of the potential political fallout by creating a scenario that is in the "near future".

In my view there is no Political Fallout...everyone else is making that argument. Mostly angry people that don't like that the game isn't set in WWII...any war has political fallout and controversy even WWII....or Nam..

Korea...Balkans...Zulu wars...but it's only political if you make it that way....I don't see BFC going into political simulation just yet..that's more Sid Meir's deal I think.

Throw in the noble rationalization that it will be sold to world militaries as a training tool, and one is left with a program that isn't really a 'game', much less art.

Why wouldn't it still be a game if it is sold to the Military? That just sounds like more nitpicking and a dodge...CMAK went to a military oranization...I still played and had fun...who cares?

Mord.

[B00M$LANG]

Perusing this thread, something very stark and amazing hits me - so many people are very ignorant of exactly how "games" and simulations are used today to train military professionals.

I suggest all of the naysayers here pay attention to the people from Battlefront, jrcr, etc., as they actually KNOW what it's all about. I can say this because I am involved in using commercial games in training the US military's fine officer corps.

I can't go into minutiae, but the US military uses games like Decisive Action, TacOps, and the ATF series to train its professional warriors. Even Battlefield 2 and Warhammer are being used by the US Military academy to teach squad-level tactics and teamwork.

IED's, Homicide Bombers, and civilian militia are all a key component in this training - any company who can't deliver these important components in their product are often left out of government contracts. Every single one of these titles have benefited from their relationship with the military, and, in a very direct way, so has the civilian gaming community. Any company that does NOT have a provision in their contract to use any and all non-classified material in the civilian releases of their product deserves to go bankrupt.

The self-proclaimed "purists" who hate to see anything modern portrayed in "their" games are fooling themselves, as todays modern wargame will, at some point, be tomorrow's WWII game.

Some people need to get out of their "comfort zone", read some books written about tactical employment of men and material written AFTER the 1970's, and see if they can meet the challenge of true fog-of-war and the lack of historical information to rely on to play a game.

If you don't like the genre, don't buy the product, plain and simple. The fact that some people here are insistant that Battlefront is "selling-out" to the "man" are completely unaware of some of the history behind Battlefront's products, and should realize that mudslinging isn't going to endear you or your opinions to the great folks that have been bringing you games you love - it smacks of immaturity.

Why not just wish them the best of luck with their official endeavours and evaluate any new release that is the result of this relationship on its own merits? You may find yourself a fan of the new product(s).

Being a huge fan of contemporary warfare and the uniqueness of all aspects of it, I am looking forward to the new releases!

Curt

[FAI]

Originally posted by B00M$LANG:

I can't go into minutiae, but the US military uses games like Decisive Action, TacOps, and the ATF series to train its professional warriors. Even Battlefield 2 and Warhammer are being used by the US Military academy to teach squad-level tactics and teamwork.

Curt

Warhammer? Really...? How?

[B00M$LANG]

Warhammer DoW is being used to teach teamwork and proper use of the available warrior-types to accomplish a given mission. They also use WoW, C&C:Generals, and a great deal of other products to reinforce these lessons.

[FAI]

Originally posted by B00M$LANG:

Warhammer DoW is being used to teach teamwork and proper use of the available warrior-types to accomplish a given mission. They also use WoW, C&C:Generals, and a great deal of other products to reinforce these lessons.

I thought the click-fest type RTS don't remotely resemble real world tactical situations... Or are they?