V Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 I am assuming that B F.C doesn't want to touch a current war for sensitivity issues, but I don't think it is that big of a deal, obviously Syria was used because it is similar to Iraq. Reading Steve's post it was clear to me that the fictional campaign in Syria is meant to mirror the drive to Baghdad. So I was just wondering why not just set it in Iraq? Not a problem with me, mind you, just preference. Will still pre-order the game as soon as I can and the fictional setting will not bother me much. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 Perhaps to allow themselves a greater poetic license. Also, because Iraqi army had been decimated in the previous war already, so a mostly intact Syrian army would be more interesting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
securityguard Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 Probably because the fictional Syrian engagements will have more thrust than the Iraqi ones ever had. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exploding Monkey Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 It's a ploy to get the US military to buy thousands of copies of CMSF for training purposes in case we have to go to war with Syria. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V Posted October 9, 2005 Author Share Posted October 9, 2005 Originally posted by Sergei: Perhaps to allow themselves a greater poetic license. Also, because Iraqi army had been decimated in the previous war already, so a mostly intact Syrian army would be more interesting. Yea, someone else mentioned the same things in another thread. Makes perfect sense to me now. Thanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V Posted October 9, 2005 Author Share Posted October 9, 2005 Originally posted by Exploding Monkey: It's a ploy to get the US military to buy thousands of copies of CMSF for training purposes in case we have to go to war with Syria. LOL 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillweed Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 Read the previous posts on this issue: "There were several reasons for not doing OIF. First, it is controverisal in a very negative way. Most of the world sees it as act American (not even Anglo-American!) aggression. Right or wrong, that is the way it is. And now with 60% of the American public being against the war and only 30% or so thinking the Bush admin is effectively managing the war, domestic support is quite low too. So controversy is one reason. The other reason is that it is too recent. We don't have a lot of source materials to draw from to do historically correct battles the way we would like. Hard enough to do WWII battles with literally tens of thousands of books in print, but something that only started 2 years ago? Think about it [big Grin] Lastly, we wanted to explore the use of the Stryker Brigade as it was originally intended to be used. The SBCTs that have seen action in Iraq all came after the initial conventional warfare phase, which mens no Strykers vs. T-72s and other such challenges. Lastly (no, really...), by making a scenario in the near future we can predict, fairly accurately, what the forces will look like and the doctrine they will follow. Plucking some completely unbelievable scenario set even further away means a lot more speculating about weapons systems in use, their capabilities, and their likely means of use. We don't want to do that. That's why you'll see us skip on the timeline from near future modern combat to Space Lobsters (when we get around to it). If we're going to be making stuff up, we might as well go whole hog! Oh yeah, and anybody thinks there is no chance of another conflict in the world, or the ME, until Iraq is nicely tied up in a bow... whatever you're smoking it has the kind of nice, calming, and detached from reality effect that people go to jail for possessing [big Grin] While I agree that a preemptive Iraq type scenario is unlikely, a reactive Afghanistan scenario is very much an "any time, any place" possibility. Steve" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V Posted October 9, 2005 Author Share Posted October 9, 2005 Thanks for posting that, I had missed it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoolaman Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 I bet they originally came up with the groundwork for an Iraq game before the Iraq conflict started. Then when it did start (as if it was ever not going to be started, but I digress), they had to switch to "somewhere in the middle east, (not Iraq, honest!)". Hope BFC's prophetic streak doesn't continue through 2007! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmightyTH Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 Originally posted by Exploding Monkey: It's a ploy to get the US military to buy thousands of copies of CMSF for training purposes in case we have to go to war with Syria. Too funny, I have to re-post it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 Thanks for reposting this stuff. I did forget to mention that "creative license" is also a part of it. It allows us the freedom to put together a very interesting, intense, and tactically challenging game without worrying about the little details of "did it really happen that way?". It was no single thing that directed us to come up with the Syrian scenario. It was the combo of everything, especially our interest in seeing what the Stryker concept looks like in a full conventional setting. In fact, we had already planned on focusing on Stryker before the first Stryker unit had even set foot in the Middle East. Iraq simply wasn't a good pick, so we took a pass on it. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalgiris 1410 Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 How about 'Blue on Blue' Styker Force invades Saudi Arabia in the very near future to stop them funding the insurgancy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Originally posted by Zalgiris 1410: How about 'Blue on Blue' Styker Force invades Saudi Arabia in the very near future to stop them funding the insurgancy. Every army in the world will eventually be frantically bidding to commission their own module! 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.