The modern-day battlefield includes far more than application of force - but what I had specifically in mind was politics. Do the whims of the politicians back home have any effect on their forces in the field or is BFE simply a WWII-style game with modern equipment and forces? Large-scale pitched battles aren't that common anymore (particularly when the battlefield is absent of civilians) and I don't see that changing in 10-15 years. So how about some politicking rules and effects, civilians as well? Or perhaps save it for a later expansion or another game altogether?
BF [d]evolutions?
- Thread starter Tallen
- Start date
Tallen, the only thing is, people dont want to hear about what really goes on behind wars, they prefer to live in blissful ignorance of what civillians IN warzones go through. now personally i think adding a politcal or civillian element to the game would bog the system down a little to much or destryoy the game entirely, example:
"hey im gonna shoot at your Arabs"
"you cant do that"
"why not?"
"because of the GW Bush rule of course"
"the wha?!?!?!?"
"the GW Bush rule states, you cant shoot at someone whos not white"
"ah, f***, thats right....my bad...."
while this may seem funny, i am using this as an example of what can go wrong and generally does
"hey im gonna shoot at your Arabs"
"you cant do that"
"why not?"
"because of the GW Bush rule of course"
"the wha?!?!?!?"
"the GW Bush rule states, you cant shoot at someone whos not white"
"ah, f***, thats right....my bad...."
while this may seem funny, i am using this as an example of what can go wrong and generally does
Lieutenant Rasczak
Mongoose
byram said:Tallen, the only thing is, people dont want to hear about what really goes on behind wars, they prefer to live in blissful ignorance of what civillians IN warzones go through. now personally i think adding a politcal or civillian element to the game would bog the system down a little to much or destryoy the game entirely, example:
"hey im gonna shoot at your Arabs"
"you cant do that"
"why not?"
"because of the GW Bush rule of course"
"the wha?!?!?!?"
"the GW Bush rule states, you cant shoot at someone whos not white"
"ah, f***, thats right....my bad...."
while this may seem funny, i am using this as an example of what can go wrong and generally does
Superb - LMAO! Awesome Gag!
roughneck GIR
Mongoose
Oww I can't target asians or or arabs?? But bush is white so I will make a mini of him, cast it, and sell bushes that are used for bb guns and slaughtering in minis gameLieutenant Rasczak said:byram said:Tallen, the only thing is, people dont want to hear about what really goes on behind wars, they prefer to live in blissful ignorance of what civillians IN warzones go through. now personally i think adding a politcal or civillian element to the game would bog the system down a little to much or destryoy the game entirely, example:
"hey im gonna shoot at your Arabs"
"you cant do that"
"why not?"
"because of the GW Bush rule of course"
"the wha?!?!?!?"
"the GW Bush rule states, you cant shoot at someone whos not white"
"ah, f***, thats right....my bad...."
while this may seem funny, i am using this as an example of what can go wrong and generally does
Superb - LMAO! Awesome Gag!
*Spladaymn!*
Higgins 1, Bush none
I'm a poet and don't even know it lol
:shock:
Lieutenant Rasczak
Mongoose
Hiromoon said:
Has anyone seen the "Gay Bar" Music Video with Buch/Blair thats drifting around the net - top stuff!
Bush strikes me as a self serving 'fake' Patriot, Blair should be fired at the Sun in a Rocket.
Sgt. Brassones
Mongoose
Lieutenant Rasczak said:
No! Don't do that! Didn't you see Superman 4? He'll just be turned into some super-powered Uber Doof.
Lieutenant Rasczak
Mongoose
Sgt. Brassones said:
Ok then, sell him to another country for Weapons testing
ScipioAmericanus
Mongoose
byram said:Tallen, the only thing is, people dont want to hear about what really goes on behind wars, they prefer to live in blissful ignorance of what civillians IN warzones go through. now personally i think adding a politcal or civillian element to the game would bog the system down a little to much or destryoy the game entirely, example:
"hey im gonna shoot at your Arabs"
"you cant do that"
"why not?"
"because of the GW Bush rule of course"
"the wha?!?!?!?"
"the GW Bush rule states, you cant shoot at someone whos not white"
"ah, f***, thats right....my bad...."
while this may seem funny, i am using this as an example of what can go wrong and generally does
Good one, byram!
Not too far from the truth, either.
I think the idea has merit.
LBJ took over personal responsibility for approving targets in N Vietnam: to the consternation of the pilots that had to fly the missions.
SECDEF Les Aspin (may he rot in Hell) was directly responsible for US forces in Somalia not having what commanders in the field pleaded for.
The current gang of nit-wits (SECDEF Rumsfeld, may he find a Special place in Hell reserved for arrogant policy wonks) have also ham-strung troops in the field, and disregarded their needs: my ex-wife worked in the command responsible for getting armor to the troops. All they ever did was have meetings. And travel. And worry about their breifing slides. It was the source of much frustration to me, and try as I might, I could never get across the idea of "troops in the field."
So, yes. Write some rules in to take into account the fact that soldiers are often sent into harm's way (and even sent to their deaths) by elected politicians whose only qualification is that they would be great game show hosts.
"Lima Five Nine, Charlie Two Three, hostiles in open. Engaging."
"Charlie Two Three, Lima Five Nine, CHECK FIRE! I have to consult my table of allowed enemies. Stand by."
Tallen, not to be harsh, but frankly that's just a really bad idea.
The game isn't modern so much as near future. It could be said that it's science fiction too.
Also, mixing politics and gaming is a bad idea unless the game is centered around politics, such as some board games. It just leaves too much room for people to get offended as no matter how you write the rules, putting politics in a game is a akin to the company taking a side on political issues.
The game isn't modern so much as near future. It could be said that it's science fiction too.
Also, mixing politics and gaming is a bad idea unless the game is centered around politics, such as some board games. It just leaves too much room for people to get offended as no matter how you write the rules, putting politics in a game is a akin to the company taking a side on political issues.
I think there is scope for in-game 'politics' in a campaign, but that these should be based solely on the imagination rather than any attempt to understand the current (or near future) political arena.
Civilians too. Maybe a scenario to breakthrough to a town encircled by enemy forces and rescue the civilians, or a holding action while civilians board ships to take them to safety, or a special forces mission (e.g. an embassy siege) where civilians are present and every casualty causes a loss of victory points.
Cheers,
Eisho
Civilians too. Maybe a scenario to breakthrough to a town encircled by enemy forces and rescue the civilians, or a holding action while civilians board ships to take them to safety, or a special forces mission (e.g. an embassy siege) where civilians are present and every casualty causes a loss of victory points.
Cheers,
Eisho
Greg Smith
Mongoose
If anyone has played AK47 Republic, they will know that politics can be a fun part of a war game. The politics part (as well as random naming of your country/rebel group and random flag generation) take place before the battle part of the game starts.
Soulmage
Mongoose
You probably wouldn't have seen nearly 3,000 Americans killed in one shot on American soil by a foreign enemy prior to September of 5 years ago either.
Plus, I seem to remember a quarter million U.S. and allied troops engaging the main military forces of a sovereign power about 3 years ago? Why have things changed so much all of a sudden that you think that kind of war won't happen again? Have you even been watching what's going on in Iran or North Korea?
The world is not a stable place, and anything can change. In case you haven't been paying attention, our (America's) security leaves much to be desired. While its extremely unlikely, and the feds are doing everything the can to prevent it, there's no guarantee that New York won't be dissolving in a nuclear fireball this afternoon. It can happen, and whoever wound up being responsible or even hosting those being responsible, I guarantee you their would be American tanks rolling across their countryside by October.
People have been predicting the Main Battle Tank was obsolete for 30+ years, and yet, we still seem to be getting quite a bit of use out of them!
Plus, I seem to remember a quarter million U.S. and allied troops engaging the main military forces of a sovereign power about 3 years ago? Why have things changed so much all of a sudden that you think that kind of war won't happen again? Have you even been watching what's going on in Iran or North Korea?
The world is not a stable place, and anything can change. In case you haven't been paying attention, our (America's) security leaves much to be desired. While its extremely unlikely, and the feds are doing everything the can to prevent it, there's no guarantee that New York won't be dissolving in a nuclear fireball this afternoon. It can happen, and whoever wound up being responsible or even hosting those being responsible, I guarantee you their would be American tanks rolling across their countryside by October.
People have been predicting the Main Battle Tank was obsolete for 30+ years, and yet, we still seem to be getting quite a bit of use out of them!
Makoto
Mongoose
Because mere few years earlier both Rumsfeld and Bush senior were brown-nosing a certain Iraqui guy known as Hussejn, S. They were also calling him the "prime of a democratic politician", should You've forgotten - politics live in a very fluent world, so tailoring a system for a certain, current circumstances dooms it to a failure in near future, as alliances and high-level friendships will change again.
I too feel that lately all this talk about terrorism and the new kinds of military threats of the 21st century have put things out of perspective. War is about resources and strategic position. While terrorists may kill individuals, even a lot of individual humans, and cause economic problems by attacking valuable targets, they are not in any way comparable to e.g. the soviet union or the forces unleashed in the world wars. The terrorists aren't going to occupy your country and make you speak their language, or make your entire people move to siberia, or worse! For such actions a real, large and organized military force is required.Soulmage said:
Should a nation field forces designed against terrorism or against an invasion? Terrorism is a danger to individual citizens, an invasion threatens the existence of a whole nation. Even if an invasion is extremely unlikely(and terrorism very likely), we should always remember that the primary role of an army should be to defend the sovereignty of a nation.
The BF:Evo background material that has thus far been released seems to point to a limited conflict between expeditionary forces and local bands of rebels/resistance fighters.
Soulmage said:
Iraq sovereign? did i miss that memo? did it not have the proper TPS report cover? ill give you the reason for war were unfounded, ill give you our president can be a dumb toushy at some times, ill give you alot of things, but i ask you one question, in the end do you say that taking saddam out of power was a bad thing?
the security leaves much to be desired because we as a nation/government cannot define terrorist. one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. i do not agree with terrorist actions in anyway, but i sure as hell can culturally understand why they are pissed off so much. also NK and Iran dont have the testicular fortitude to use Nukes, the name of the game in nuclear warfare is to be the person to not shoot first, because the rest of the surviving world comes down on you (in all out Nuclear war, it dont matter who died first, we are all screwed), their economy is in shambles they dont have the backbone to stand econmic sanctions against them. terrorist cells using nukes may happen, but only one time, terrorist have a habit of proclaiming they did an action in front of a camera, all for propoganda purposes, they use nukes on one american city, we we will turn their mountain cave into glass. yes, even though Shaykh Fahad declared a Fatwah on the US allowing the use of WMDs, consider this, our intel is very good, our allies intel is very good, we probably would know who sent the WMD to the terrorist cell.
and by the way, not to sound rude or anything, this is just a friendly conversation after all, the threat of NY being vaped has been around for maybe 45 years or so, ever hear of the cold war
they are pretty much obsolete, a helicopter can pop one open like a zit from behind a hill. a person with a one hundred dollar RPG can get a mobility kill on an Abrams, yes this happened several times, although it usually resulted in the RPG gunner getting killed, and yes a mobility kill can at times be as good as a total kill, especially in a city.
Nah, not really Byram. The thing is, while heliocopters are good at popping tanks, that's assuming that the force feilding those tanks isn't operating under a combined arms method of warfare. As for the mobility kill theory as being as good as a total kill in an urban environment, we learned (the hard way) you don't send tanks unsupported by infantry into a city. They weren't ment for city fighting. That RPG guy hits the tank, the supporting infantry spreads out and covers while the crew either does a spot repair or call up a tank recovery vehicle.
