cabal23 Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Will we ever see PMC's(private military contractors) in CMx2? I just finished reading Highway by John Geddes and he makes a strong argument that the future of warfare is PMC's working side by side with government military units with the majority being PMC's. Being that there are more military contractors in Iraq than British soldiers, doesn't it make sense to find a way to add them into the mix? It is very apparent that PMC's are one of the single biggest growth sectors in the world(Look at the profits for any military contracting company). It would be a small addition, but Blackwater uses air support, gun trucks, and equipment that far surpasses what the military is currently working with. And Blackwater is only one compnay. I think this would be an amazing addition. I can already hear the no from BF because it seems like they have the next 10 years planned out despite the fact that the battlefield is changing dramatically and in 10 years won't resemble what it is now. Drones, Robotic warfare, PMC's, mobile sniper units, and the list could go on how it is changing. How is BF going to have the game change with the times for future products? I understand it's not Star Wars, but all of the aforementioned items are being used right now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homo ferricus Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I think PFCs won't be added for the same reason armored Humvee turrets, MRAPs, and other COIN related content won't be added (as much as i'd like to see it in). Over and over the devs have stated that this game is NOT a COIN ops game, but rather COIN is a small aspect of a modern conventional warfare that BFC is willing to spend a little time to simulate. PFCs have never been used in a direct combat role in any large scale offensive of any sort, ever. Maybe as make-shift defenders in Iraq (like in Najaf in whatever year it was, those videos are all over youtube) in firefights that can get pretty intense. This game simulates conventional war, a role traditionally handled by national forces, and i think it will be that way in the foreseeable future. CM:SF can't and won't simulate all the potential small-unit engagements happening between irregulars and supply-runners behind the front lines, like i said, as much as i would like to see it. But BFC has been thoughtful enough to give us IEDs, VBIEDs, taxis and trucks, frag-5 humvees, and irregulars. I think we will have to find a way to be content with this. It is not unreasonable for Battlefront to keep it this way, the focus is elsewhere, and they have spent a lot of time giving us COIN goodies anyway. I'm still unsure about what my opinion of MRAPs is. One part of me says its a waste of time, out of scope, and not worth it. But the other half says, they are here to stay, they have utility, and all the better for COIN! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I think the game doesnt need more COIN or police missions. It's still a wargame in a traditional sense, would be a mistake if BFC narrowed their scope that much imo. And I'd rather play the Talibans than corrupted corporations like blackwater. Militaries are not corruption free either but hey, these guys make a living out of it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Since CMSF is not about counter-insurgency operations, I don't think private contractors are that relevant. It's not like PMC's were in Iraq during the invasion stage. Probably you won't be seeing them in the WW2 titles either, unless eg. Luftwaffe were to be counted as Göring's private army, and so on. Space Lobsters of Doom, on the other hand... as I understand it, if Earth came under attack by aliens, the defense of the whole planet would be put on the shoulders of a small enterprise with a strict budget discipline, likely not able to field more than a dozen or so fighters and airmobile infantry squads (with or without tank support). That would fit PMC description, roight? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Having said that, creative minds won't let themselves to be restricted by any of that. Then it's only a matter of finding the closest match from the game TO&E's to the PMC's, even if it means using Syrian SF or stuff from multiple modules and so on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I'd rather play the Talibans than corrupted corporations like blackwater. So you would prefer to play as men who rule through terror and who murder pretty much whoever they please? Sure, I think PMCs whose actions lead to noncombatant deaths should be punished, but it's not like they're beheading people and hanging their bodies in public with signs that read "This is what happens to those who oppose us." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackMoria Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 At it core, what is the difference between a squad of soldiers and military security contractors beside the uniform and who the boss is? The weapons and vehicles perhaps... but is a special armored SUV much different than a Hummer from a game point other than visually. Are contractors armed with Steyr AUGs and wearing body armor and helmets really any different than US soldiers with M4s, aside from the visuals. From a game viewpoint, nothing really - therefore, they really don't add anything to the game per se that can't be done by creative modding or what not. But the original poster does hit on a salient point - what is the face of warfare going to be in 2018? The Future Combat Systems may be fielded in that time but how widespread will NLOS-C and NLOS-LS systems be? I expect some special brigades but I suspect that the most US military units will still be using current equipment with usual enhancement mods that the next ten years brings. The big jump in the next 10 years, outside of FCS, will be in the increased use of sensors and robotics. What affect will this have on the future battlefield, I don't know. UAVs are being used now but is it translating to more victory in the field? From a game issue, is knowing where everything is (a consequence of having UAVs) a game breaker because is makes asymetrical warfare even more lopsided in blue's favor? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 At it core, what is the difference between a squad of soldiers and military security contractors beside the uniform and who the boss is? A soldier fights for a flag, a mercenary fights for money. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackMoria Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 A soldier fights for a flag, a mercenary fights for money. Yes, but from a CMSF game point of view, completely irrelevant, unless the programmers have it so you have to log in and pay a small amount of money to play a scenario or your contractor pixeltruppen do nothing during that scenario. Let's not give them any ideas like that.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 So you would prefer to play as men who rule through terror and who murder pretty much whoever they please? Sure, I think PMCs whose actions lead to noncombatant deaths should be punished, but it's not like they're beheading people and hanging their bodies in public with signs that read "This is what happens to those who oppose us." I dont like playing either. But I admit, since Rambo III I have a somewhat iddylic picture of them 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falconander Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 There is something to be said about playing for "honor". My men fight for honor whether Blue or Red. I don't like the idea of mercs, it would just muddy things up. I try and teach my kids that every soldier has honor. The japs, koreans, viet nam, afghans, iraqis etc... We can't say these guys are bad people. They are just like us in many ways and if we grew up in their position what they do and how they act would be normal. A terrorist is just a soldier who lacks an M1 to do his work for him. I bet there is many an Iraqi who thinks we are the evil empire. In the end, they are fighting for their country, their god, their homelands. In some way that makes them honorable. Ok.. now I don't feel so bad when I mow them down with my combined M1s, Helos, 105mm, Javs and a bunch of Marines bent on destruction. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 A terrorist is just a soldier who lacks an M1 to do his work for him. But do soldiers (I mean actual soldiers, not just gun-toting power-mongers who call themselves soldiers) ever blow themselves up in the middle of bazaars? Do soldiers ever hijack airliners and crash them into skyscrapers? Do soldiers ever kidnap people, behead them, and then display their bodies in public to strike fear in the hearts of any and all who might try to oppose them? You are confusing the inaccurate-but-popular definition of "terrorist" (any non-uniformed person who attacks Western forces or Western interests) with the accurate-but-seemingly-confusing designations "fighter", "combantant", etc. A terrorist is a person who kills people or causes destruction to sow fear, not to achieve a (tactical) military objective. To put it in CMSF context, a Syrian guy dressed in civilian clothes and wielding an AK-74 can still be pretty much as honorable as the M16-equipped Marine he's shooting at, but he by definition is not a soldier because he's not fighting in uniform and in an organization. True, it's wrong to think "any combantant who isn't a soldier is a terrorist", but then it follows that you don't actually mean "soldiers are no different than terrorists; they just have better weapons", right? They are just like us in many ways and if we grew up in their position what they do and how they act would be normal. If foreign forces invaded the US, it's reasonable to figure that there would be guerilla warfare on a scale and of an intensity never before seen. So yes, I see your point. But taking up arms in defense of your homeland and loved ones is much different than what actual terrorists do. I bet there is many an Iraqi who thinks we are the evil empire. In the end, they are fighting for their country, their god, their homelands. In some way that makes them honorable. fighting to defend your homeland: honorable fighting to defend your religion: honorable murdering anyone whom you deem a threat*: dishonorable * That's what the Taliban do; in fact, they're doing it right now in northwestern Pakistan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 I have to agree with Dietrich here. If anyone needs a reminder of just how nasty the Taliban really are, then a quick glimpse at some very recent events in the news should serve as a refresher as to why these guys need to be stomped out of existence as soon as possible. I just wish the correct level of resources had been administered in this direction sooner rather than becoming a sideshow to the Iraqi conflict which (IMO) has a much more dubious set of motives behind it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TempV Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 But do soldiers (I mean actual soldiers, not just gun-toting power-mongers who call themselves soldiers) ever blow themselves up in the middle of bazaars? Do soldiers ever hijack airliners and crash them into skyscrapers? Do soldiers ever kidnap people, behead them, and then display their bodies in public to strike fear in the hearts of any and all who might try to oppose them? Do soldiers ever kill and rape civilians? Go and see "Redacted". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkEzra Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 This conversation seems surreal. War is savagery no matter how it is conducted or by whom. One need only recall Sherman's words: "I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell. " 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meade95 Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Do soldiers ever kill and rape civilians? Go and see "Redacted". A complete and utter farce of a movie. Lies among lies wrapped around complete untruths, with scattered facts, concieved via a pre-bias and agenda......with no intention of being honest or factual whatsoever. Please. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 You people can stand playing those armed men??? But they kill people! I'm not playing the game until the Catholic Girl Scouts module comes out, then I can make cookie baking and sale scenarios! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabal23 Posted January 31, 2009 Author Share Posted January 31, 2009 I really do see a trend in the future, just because of economics, that PMC's will begin to be used in a much broader scope. Multinational corporate armies will be the wave of the future. It is so much more cost effective as the last administration of the US saw. The amount of money they poured into PMC companies was staggering. Training costs are minimal and you get your pick of the litter, so it's a win win. All you have to do is look back through history and see that mercenary armies have been prominent through history since the dawn of war. In the eighteenth century when the French came up with the idea of conscription, mercs lost favour and it became easier for nations to send their own citizens to war because their was an almost endless supply of new recruits and no real need to pay them anything. The alternative was to be imprisoned. Now with the battlefield changing so drastically, you are battling a armies that span several countries. Al qaeda came from many countries. So in essence they were similar to one large mercenary force gathered from all over the middle east. Conventional warfare tactics are changing because this is not the cold war and the enemy can't be defeated as easily with brute force. Smaller more highly trained forces with a technological advantage will rule the battlefield of the future. There are few places in the world I can ever see the coalition forces getting into a conventional large scale war in the foreseeable future. I just see the next 10 years being skirmishes all around the globe with common theme being Muslim extremists and now with the possibility of Mexico breaking down in chaos, narco-terrorism. And also Africa represents another hot spot as it slowly comes into the technological age. Most African countries hire PMC's as well as their private armies, to protect their valuable resources that their country provides. What's left China? They have enough pissed off citizens and problems, I doubt they could must the strength to do anything. And then there is always Russia. So as our enemies dwindle and others regroup and become larger the battlefield will change drastically. I am just curious how that will translate into future versions of this game. I hope they continue to grow this franchise like they did the WWII CMx1. I think the possibilities are awesome for a very broad spanning game that could encompass the entire globe seeing theaters in every country on the planet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 It is a wargame...It is natural to try to imagine that our troops do something honorable like defending their country, beliefs or something. I know we are just fooling ourselves, killing has little to do with honor but I think it is more healthy to add an ethical extension on our side, even if it is made up. With mercenaries this is a lot harder. They represent an aspect of today's society that I personally don't like and their behaviour in Iraq is questionable. I last heard Iraqis didnt renew their papers following some civilian murdering incidents and at least blackwater is leaving the country. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acrashb Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 At it core, what is the difference between a squad of soldiers and military security contractors beside the uniform and who the boss is? Access to heavy weapons, arty and air support - generally lacking for PMCs, although they may have a friendly relationship with allied armed forces, they are not in the chain of command. Also access to heavy / armoured vehicles. An armoured suburban is no match for an up-armoured hmmwv. C3I (or whatever it's called now) is not as good either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acrashb Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 I last heard Iraqis didnt renew their papers following some civilian murdering incidents and at least blackwater is leaving the country. Several people have been charged: innocence or guilt to be determined in court. The Iraqi authorities declared guilt summarily, without enough time for any investigation. Politics, I assume. BW has been moving away from PMC to toward training for some time, because of a smoother cashflow and less reputational risk. Having said that, as long as PMC work is profitable, they'll be there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acrashb Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Do soldiers ever kill and rape civilians? Go and see "Total BS". There - I fixed it for you. If you want some reality, get a copy of "Shadow Company". A well-balanced documentary featuring a couple of people I know. Some soldiers, like some civilians, kill and rape civilians. Any objective person can see the difference between aberrant, unsanctioned and prosecuted violence and rape/murder being used as a tool of asymmetric or regular warfare. Which is what a lot of today's "bad guys" do. Oh yeah, and throwing acid in the face of schoolgirls as a matter of sanctioned policy. Bad people in the service of an evil way of thinking. I'm not in favour of PMC's in CMSF - it would be a different game with different goals. Regular army (and sometimes mercenaries) take and hold ground, have the goal of killing the enemy and work under an expansive ROE (most of the time). PMC's protect nouns: people, places and things, which is a very different mission and outcome, using different tools. And the game would absolutely need a "convoy" command to make ambush management work, with your lead, limo, chase, and CAT vehicles ripping through town. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falconander Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Guys, I am in no way supporting terrorism. War has been brutal since the existence of mankind. Take the Huns or Monguls or any other barbarian warrior type nation. Forget barbarian nations, take the Roman Empire or others of their time. Rape, pillaging, heads on pikes, the destruction of villages, torture, burning civilians etc.. etc.. etc.... The thing is that terror has been used for centuries to control the masses. It has not been too long since Nazi germany stalked the lands. I remember a psych class that I took talked about how a teacher had some of his students question how could something like Nazi Germany ever exist. So he conducted an experiment with the school. He slowly granted people power and prestige, gave them uniforms and bands to wear with an insigna on them. Before long, his group was ruling the school, bullying the other students and policing the school after hours. It finally came to a head when some parents tried to break into his office after hours to figure out what was going on. They were caught by his "followers" and beaten. The entire class had to go through a "detoxing" brief and many of them wept when they realized how far they had gone. --- The point is that we are no more removed from the primal instinct than our situation allows us. We are truly lucky to sit in our warm beds and not be plagued by the horror and brutality that many of these nations face. Not too long ago we were at war with ourselves and people were raped, civilians and children were killed, people were imprisoned, villages burned, people were burned alive. But this was the 'Civil' war, and we have changed so much since that time. These were honorable acts by 'soldiers.' A soldier is not removed from acts of terror. We can say that those times were many years ago and we are more civiliazed now. I'd hate to say that I disagree. We just haven't been tested for a long time. So yes, any army or soldier can have honor for what it does as any person can be pushed to acts of terror. The fortunate thing is that the wide majority of us will never have to take that test. ---> Sorry for the less than popular post <--- 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falconander Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 True, it's wrong to think "any combantant who isn't a soldier is a terrorist", but then it follows that you don't actually mean "soldiers are no different than terrorists; they just have better weapons", right? Unfortunately Dietrich, That is almost exactly what I am saying. Think of the battles over the years in Ireland. Been awhile since I followed it but what many would call terrorist attacks. The organized, well equipped politically backed force fighting against the insurgents. But were/are they terrorists or are they fighting for what they believe in and using the methods that they have access to? As I said before, this is a game and these comments are merely used to paint the Red army in a more favorable light and give them a reason for their fight. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarhead0331 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 There is an astounding amount of stupidity displayed in this thread. I can't believe some of the comments posted here. 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.