BF [d]evolutions?

[MaxSteiner]

I gotta chime in here, everyone was saying tanks were dead till reactive armour was developed! (Just in case anyones really out of date, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_armour , hell its probably obsolete if I've heard of it though... )
A couple of years dowen the line someone else will invent something else to keep tanks viable. If Tanks were no longer usable the weapons companies would lose out on a lot of money, and as everyone knows they dont want that (Especially if governemnts are willing to pay for the research!)

As for the Political thing I think it could be a benefit. For instance at the end of the battle there could be a chart of the medias reaction.
I.E:
====> "Awesome I neemed that weapons factory with my Apache's
I've totally won thats like 500vp's right there!"

====>"Ah but you also destroyed that orphanage next door, AND there was a media observer filming the whole thing" >Flicks through the book to the table< "...Yup says here thats minus 1000vps... Hah I win in your
face looser!"

I think that'd be quite cool, then the less scrupulous armies (Won't even imagine who they could be though) could try and kill the media in "accidents" before the end of the game... Hmmm maybe civilian assets could be things you could by and place down on the board, like bugs tunnel assets to protect you're troops!
Yeah gritty and fun addsa a twist to the 'oh I win" style of gaming, and would add some real twists to the way you play different armies.
Good taste be damned, its shaky ground with wargames that aren't fantasy anyway :lol:

 

[Rob_A]

...... oh for the love of pete.... Why Bush? What about Blair?

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.

Thats great.

IMO Blair only follows because of America's war effort during WW2, and how ever hard it is to say, rightly so.

 

[byram]

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.

ill give you the helicopter hiro, but i must disagree on the mobility kill, look at how many resources that RPG gunner just tied up, sometime tieing up resources can be as good as killing the tank

 

[Makoto]

look at how many resources that RPG gunner just tied up, sometime tieing up resources can be as good as killing the tank

Even better - stall the advance, tow the cripple away, comb the area before next vehicle can move in... Lots and lots of time and resources lost for nothing - even quarter-trained soldier usually survives making such an attack.

 

[gorkamorka]

I gotta chime in here, everyone was saying tanks were dead till reactive armour was developed! (Just in case anyones really out of date, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_armour , hell its probably obsolete if I've heard of it though... )
A couple of years dowen the line someone else will invent something else to keep tanks viable. If Tanks were no longer usable the weapons companies would lose out on a lot of money, and as everyone knows they dont want that (Especially if governemnts are willing to pay for the research!)

As for the Political thing I think it could be a benefit. For instance at the end of the battle there could be a chart of the medias reaction.
I.E:
====> "Awesome I neemed that weapons factory with my Apache's
I've totally won thats like 500vp's right there!"

====>"Ah but you also destroyed that orphanage next door, AND there was a media observer filming the whole thing" >Flicks through the book to the table< "...Yup says here thats minus 1000vps... Hah I win in your
face looser!"

I think that'd be quite cool, then the less scrupulous armies (Won't even imagine who they could be though) could try and kill the media in "accidents" before the end of the game... Hmmm maybe civilian assets could be things you could by and place down on the board, like bugs tunnel assets to protect you're troops!
Yeah gritty and fun addsa a twist to the 'oh I win" style of gaming, and would add some real twists to the way you play different armies.
Good taste be damned, its shaky ground with wargames that aren't fantasy anyway :lol:

I think I've played that game. How about private merc outfits, or " Private Contractor" assetts that can shoot at you OR the enemies?

The Tank is essentially outclassed by a buffoon with a $30,000 smart round. I played with such a toy, and most tankers I know are now getting new jobs. Light Infantry is the way to go, and having a " oh wait a minute, A call from command- rule" is a great idea. "What do you mean we arn't supposed to shoot at these guys?!?!?!"

As for Iraq... leave a sleeping dog alone. I'm here for the games and figures, but rest assured These guys were a major player in finance and training of terrorists/ had WMD/ would have just as easily attacked someone else in the region, or financially backed more terroristic activities. I say the US wasn't fast enough and alot of things supposed lost only changed hands.
I know about fighting, and I say people were blowing hard on the go to war horn a bit loud, so now that they got what they wanted, their getting cold feet, cause they now get to learn something some of us already knew. . .

People dog Bush, but I say he's the one for the job, cause he's nuttier then a fruitcake, but he's the exact guy you want fighting this bunch of woman-hating, bumpkin, psychos. The Iraq/ War on Fruit/ Terrorist hunt, has a good possibility to get difficult, but the funniest thing to me is the spin doctors are the ones driving THIS train, and the hippies are riding in the back seat, this time around.
Pure SST!!!
Rumsfeld is the pure lapdog lacky type Skymarshal that everyone needs for the fallguy card at the end of the game though, the poor thing.

 

[ScipioAmericanus]

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

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Tallen]

I didn't have any concret ideas when I wrote this. A few have given some constructive comments and here's a list of things that might fit well into a game that's supposed to be comparable to contemporary warfare.

Assets:
*Civilians used as human shields
*Civilians that require defense - VP gain if they live, and VP loss if they die
*Civilian-occupied structures used as fortifications (level them and lose 3x the value of whatever was inside)

Policies:
*Some nations do NOT lose VP's for killing civilians.
*Propaganda and censorship (maybe both forces can pay points to affect final VP scores?)


These sorts of things are very present in modern-day combat. And keep in mind that war itself is an extension of national policy - and policy is determined by politics. War is political in nature: ignore that and all you're left with is a glorified Colosseum.

 

[roughneck GIR]

Possibly some civs that don't know what to believe and attack both sides, oh and mine fields in which niegther force owns, but left over from an earlier war *Imagines civ running for his life as a tank company comes rumbling in his direction and a tank or 2 bites it and so does the civ*

A world war game seems like it would be fun, to much appleseed around me right now, thinking of how I'll make a full platoon of landmates for possibly BFE or as a special unit in sst, practically all of civilization in ruin from global war, and the like, oh and Lt I was somewhat disapointed, didn't you say there was landmates in that store? Though the pheonix knights(if I can remember correctly) looked neat, all they need is really thin wire whips and that'll look neat

anyways back on topic

 

[Makoto]

As for Iraq... (...)These guys were a major player in finance and training of terrorists/ had WMD/

Good god, You're better than the entire US intelligence forces - after all it's been over 4 years of hard work and they're still unable to bring anything even remotely supporting this viev...

 

[gorkamorka]

As for Iraq... (...)These guys were a major player in finance and training of terrorists/ had WMD/

Good god, You're better than the entire US spin forces - after all it's been over 4 years of hard work and they're still unable to bring anything even remotely supporting this view..

LMAO, there, I fixed it for you.

Boots on ground know best. And some people know more then others in this subject. Ask your local vet if YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE.

I am not at liberty to discuss this subject any further, except that Sometimes people are smart, other times they use Intelligence. If someone ran a buisness the way some people supposedly run the Intelligence establishment, They would not make 1 $, pound, ruble, or euro.
Don't believe half of what you hear, regarding these spy- types. Just look and see what a bang up job they've done so far. They are all a bunch of keystone cops, who should have all been canned September 12th.

 

[Makoto]

Yeah, sure.

Do notice that should Washington had even slightest, most fantasy-like shadow of anything even remotely proof-like that pre-invasion Iraq had anything to do with global terrorism Bush wouldn't hesitate even for a second trumpeting it all over the world, no matter who it would endanger - simply because his team is in dire need of anything that would justify this invasion.

 

[Alexb83]

Reactive armour, Chobham and other composites - all of these are well and good, but couldn't it be said that the DU penetrator round effectively obsoleted the tank? Or the AT guided missile?

The tank still holds an important place on the modern battlefield, supported by mobile infantry groups. Tanks are as vulnerable to infantry as infantry are in turn vulnerable tanks. What you have to wonder is... what if the RPG doesn't immobilise that tank? The group of rebels is royally boned if they dont have any more, as the tank is a mobile fire platform which is effectively invulnerable to small arms fire.

It's true that helicopters and other aircraft are effective at tank busting, but this has been true since WW2 - the point is that helicopters and ground support aircraft cost more to build and operate, have their own vulnerabilities to ground fire from effectively supported armour and so on...

 

[Alexb83]

Continued due to firewall limits...

Nobel predicted that the invention of TNT would end war forever. I imagine many predicted that the invention of the A bomb would do the same. History has proven them all wrong - conventional war is very much here to stay, part of the reason why western military doctrine has won out through the cold war. Soviet power seemed to be based on all out nuclear engagement (one nuke would deal with an entire US carrier group) but no nukes were ever used. Aren't you glad that the US built carriers anyways, rather than considering them obsolete?

 

[Makoto]

What you have to wonder is... what if the RPG doesn't immobilise that tank? The group of rebels is royally boned if they dont have any more, as the tank is a mobile fire platform which is effectively invulnerable to small arms fire.

What if? Nothing. Column stops anyway, no sane commander would advance without searching for the RPG. During an all-out attack? Just fire again. And should the missile hit even next to the track immobilisation is 98% certain.
Besides there's no tank invulnerable to small arms - blinding the crew by destroying periscopes/cameras (can be done. Not easy, but can be done) is as good as destroying the tank.

 

[Hiromoon]

Thats why you don't send a squadron of tanks into a city without infantry support. Even if one tank gets knocked out, the infantry can still sweep and advanced while Minor repairs are done.... and not like in BF2 where the engineer runs up and wacks it with a wrench till all the dents are gone.

 

[Makoto]

Why that's the idea - let invaders waste time searching few nearby buildings. Or risk the infantry advancing first, acting as the tank cover - especially this denies the very idea of using the tank ^^

And all the while portable launchers are getting smaller, simplier (especially the unguided ones - nowadays all they take is 8 minute loading/maintenance training, rest is merely aiming practice - more of an icing on the cake than neccesity at short ranges) and more powerfull much faster than counter-measures can be taken.

 

[Col_stone]

I really dig the whole civilians in the way scenario,
i know that's one of the things that make many "Legends of the old west" scenarios fun!


Makoto, i agree on the intelligence-discussion,

 

[Hiromoon]

Not really....that's if you want the town intact. The other option is flatten every building with artillery fire and then park infantry ontop. Currently, the killing ability of anti-tank missiles havn't increased while getting smaller. They're still beefy piece of equipment, and if you've seen video shot from a tank's perspective, most of the time they're riding with the hatches open and looking around, same as their infantry escort (in their perpective vehicles). Anyone trying to get a drop on a tank in an urban environment who's crew has any form of decent training won't have time to properly aim, especially with the type of equipment that's been plentiful from the old Soviet Block.

 

[Greg Smith]

but i ask you one question, in the end do you say that taking saddam out of power was a bad thing?

I'll ask a similar question. Sadam was undoubtedly a very nasty piece of work but was removing him worth the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis, the lives over a 1000 allied troops, detabilising Iraq to the point of potential civil war, turning Iraq into a recruiting ground for terrorists, terrorist attacks in Spain and the UK, and at least on prevented terrorist attack that threatened to blow-up airliners over US cities?

 

[Hiromoon]

Hmm....depends...could we have coaxed him into another war with Iran?