Hi all, long time lurker, first time poster...
Well, not entirely. I was here a while ago when SST was just about to be released. In fact I'm kinda proud to see that a comment I made back then has been immortalized in the Arachnid description. Ah, the things that will warm a gamer's heart...
Anyway, I wanted to drop in here with a comment or two on the discussion between Hiromoon and Mr. Evil. While it might be a bit off topic in this thread (my apologies), I think it's actually pretty interesting to gamers of modern or "ultra-modern" conflicts to understand how conflicts like those currently underway in Iraq and Afghanistan work.
The most important distinction you'll want to make here is the tactical versus the strategic level. In my opinion, the way the coalition forces are currently handling the conflicts is quite successful tactically, and a dramatic failure strategically. So, to borrow Hiromoon's phrase, the US military's fighting personnel may have gotten pretty good at smacking insurgents (or partizans, or guerillas, or whatever), but the brass and the political leadership sure as hell haven't.
The tactical superiority of modern Western fighting forces is pretty obvious. It's far more than a technological advantage, that just helps to smoothe things along with less casualties. The Western soldier is pretty much unmatched in training, discipline, leadership (especially at the NCO and junior officer level) and - perhaps most importantly - logistic support. The casualty ratios in Iraq and Afghanistan speak for themselves. If those were conventional conflicts, they'd also be staggering victories. Sadly, they are neither.
Military scientists (that is, folks that study military science) like to speak of "asymmetrical" or "fourth generation" warfare, but it's really just guerilla. The fancy names are there to hide the fact that they still haven't figured it out after fifty years or so. It's a form of warfare that focuses not on destroying the enemy's
ability to wage war (as conventional warfare does), but on his
willingness to do so. This changes the ball game dramatically, especially when you add a good dose of fanaticism in the mix.
The Western forces in Iraq and Afghanistan win pretty much every serious engagement they get into, hands down. In traditional terms anyway. They rout the enemy before them, kill his soldiers, destroy his equipment. But the insurgents don't care much for casualty rates - martyrdom and all that - so if they can send just one or two Western sodliers home in bodybags, they win. Bodybags eat public support and without public support, a Western democracy cannot wage a protracted war. It's a time-honored military tradition to pit your strengths against the enemy's weaknesses, and the insurgents are doing just that.
It'll be interesting to see if BF:Evo models this somehow, although I'm not sure it would make for a very fun game ("Haha, you may have killed half my insurgents and most of the goats, but those two casualties you suffered mean you *still* lose!"). Well, unless you build it into a very involved campaign system. Hmm...
An interesting case in point that just sprang to mind was the 1993 battle of Mogadishu, best known to most by the movie "Blackhawk Down". That battle was, in fact, a victory for the Americans - they achieved their objectives and, given the intensity of the engagement, did so with a perfectly acceptable casualty rate. It was touch-and-go at some points, and it was definitely hard-fought, but it was still a victory. By tactical standards anyway. Strategically, of course, the operation was a disaster, leading pretty much directly to the repeal of Task Force Ranger and a US policy of non-involvement in Africa that has lasted for over a decade now.
:lol: 
