kevinkins Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Looks like you can set up points that mimic "political" victories. That is if the US losses are "too high" or they destroy "too" many building etc.. Am I seeing this correct? I just edited a small clearing the town scenario I made by adding some TOW AFVs. That changed the battle completely. They blew up 8/10 buildings in 10 minutes. Without them the enemy insurgents on the roof tops were really tough. But blowing up the town may not be the right tactic in the political sense. Any threads on this? Kevin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 If you dont want the US player to damage buildings, then use the Preserve terrain objective. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bimmer Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 I've included some limited representation of this in my "Village of Trouble" scenario in the form of "Preserve" territorial objectives for Blue and low Enemy Loss thresholds for Red. It seems a very useful tool for limiting the otherwise overwhelming firepower advantage of Blue in combat with unconventional forces. I still need to do further experimentation to see just how it can be best utilized. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bradley Dick Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 How cool is that ? Even in video games the US Army has its hands tied by politics. Imagine the horror of a modern army, with ancient world morals. The conflict in Iraq would be over in a week. We'd level the cities, salt the crop lands, enslave the populace to work in our massive oil refineries, and then build huge monuments to our victory. Does anyone remember the ROE card they handed out in Kuwait ? "On order: I will engage hostile forces and designated military targets with appropriate levels of force." "I will not target civillians, enemy infrastructure (including bridges, roads, power plants, railroads, etc), mosques, hospitals, or cultural monuments unless it is for the protection of myself, my unit, friendly forces, coalition property, or to prevent civillians from serious bodily harm such as murder or rape" I wish I still had that thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 I still have mine. Heck, it's still stuck in the helmet along with my casualty feeder cards (I kept the helmet too). [ August 09, 2007, 04:14 AM: Message edited by: Normal Dude ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KNac Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Originally posted by Bradley Dick: Imagine the horror of a modern army, with ancient world morals. The conflict in Iraq would be over in a week. We'd level the cities, salt the crop lands, enslave the populace to work in our massive oil refineries, and then build huge monuments to our victory. Well, there are lot of current wars that look like that; ok, not the monument part and not that much for the sleeving but in a similar mood. Only that are not fought (most times) by occidental powers, or there is little direct involvement of their armies (to the public eye, anyway). Do not count Russia, just see Chechenia etc with leveling of entire cities. So if you want to make some scenarios which follow this 'style' with the current Red units you can represent quite a few of them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinkins Posted August 9, 2007 Author Share Posted August 9, 2007 Agree ... it will take some experimentation to get right. You could really tie the hands of the Blue force if you wanted too. 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.