Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: RBWhite

I seem to see a parallel developing in Iraq. In the 1968 TET offensive the Viet Cong were foolish enough to take on the US Army and Marine Corp head on they were also put up to it by there so called friends in the North.

After the TET offensive was put down the VC pretty much no longer existed as a fighting force and were no longer a threat. Enter the NVA.

After this it should be interesting.

Let see what happens

Rick White

quote:

ORIGINAL: a19999577

And please, I really expect better responses than "It would be insensitive to make a game out of the suffering of our brave Marines"... If we can make and play games with Waffen-SS divisions overruning Eastern Poland (with all the implications we know that entails), the mere fact that it was less than an entire generation away doesn't make it any less insensitive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hertston

quote:

ORIGINAL: a19999577

And please, I really expect better responses than "It would be insensitive to make a game out of the suffering of our brave Marines"... If we can make and play games with Waffen-SS divisions overruning Eastern Poland (with all the implications we know that entails), the mere fact that it was less than an entire generation away doesn't make it any less insensitive.

Hmm.... I recall when some folks were developing a (very good) "Black Hawk Down" mod for Ghost Recon. They heard from a couple of ex-Rangers who had participated in the action asking them to drop it, so they quite rightly did (quite what they thought of the subsequent Novalogic game is unknown - not much, I suspect).

There is an issue here. Sure, a wargame/strategy game is different from a shooter but the taste issue should be acknowledged. Personally I find Kuma War a pretty unpleasant concept - an opinion that didn't change much after having tried it.

I disagree totally on you historical point - WW2 gaming is very different. I can see the logic, but this isn't a philosophical debate, it's about how people feel and maybe those feelings should be respected.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RBWhite

I would almost say that the defections in Mosul of the Police and National Guard were expected, probly planned. Same mentality as Fallujah. It just happened faster than expected.

The ARVN units Elite or Regular fought well after a time as long as they knew US forces weren't far away.

The Kurd elite units, [hows that spelled, Peshmerga] no doubt about their future prospects, but I don't think they could deploy to far south.

I think in terms of Syria, I look at them joining the fold in the very near future, they the Syians have far more to loose and whole lot to gain by making nice, nice. Its just that the time has to be right for them to make some serious changes. I think that time is close.

As for Iran I see no useful prospects coming from them. Only Trouble.

Regards

Rick White

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

You cannot game something whilst people are still putting their lives at risk, I think it's that simple.

quote:


I'd be surprised if as a gaming subject we saw anything for years. The insurgency in Iraq can be very effective and I'm sure they make numerous decisions every day about whatto do, but if you think about the methods and targets involved (carbombs, hostage taking and murder etc), then does anybody really want to make those sorts of decisions within a game?

I just think that when you sit down and start to think coldly about what sorts of decisions a commander would be asked to make, then you'd quickly turn off. I admit, the point about the Waffen SS and the 2nd world war is well made. I do occasionally feel uncomfortable playing Wehrmacht or IJN and then seeing some images of the camps or Russian villages in flames on the TV.

quote:



Re the ARVN and the Iraqi National Guard, I don't see that much of a similiarity, I'm afraid. I noticed during the recent battle in Fallujah one statistic that suggested 51 Marines killed and just a handful of Guardsmen. If anyone has the latest figures, then I'd be happy to reconsider this point, but they are some way off being able to handle this alone. The tactics of targeting their recruiting stations and ambushing their buses are (I'm afraid to say) going to be too effective as well.

quote:


I also don't see the Kurds as the answer. The other two major groups (or the violent members at least) in Iraq will not accept them any more than they accept the Coalition. What happens in Iraq depends on the US.

quote:


If they stay for several years, then there's a chance the democratic institutions might embed, if they leave in any numbers before the end of 2006 then the country will shortly thereafter split into three parts in the north, south and west along ethnic and religous lines. The split will probably be accompanied by a great deal of violence.

quote:


I find a nuclear Iran a disturbing prospect. I do think it restricts outside intervention to some extent, because even a small device could make troop concentration difficult and dangerous to attempt. Even without it, I don't see anyone being prepared to attempt to occupy the place. Iraq was considered relatively moderate and secular and has still cost over 1200 lives and a large number of Iraqis (I think any conversation as too how many and what their status was should be avoided here). Iran would be far worse, though. I suspect Israel will getinvolved if they look like producing a device, anyway, so it could be academic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RBWhite

Looks really good!!

If you would refrain from the terms Sunni & Shiite, I think it adds a religious aspect [Kurds, Turkaman are also Sunni, there are also Christians ] to the thread.

So a discription by ethnic group would be more appropriate, Turkaman, Kurds, Arabs and possible Iranian Persians.

I think the thread should steer clear of division by religious sect.

As we all know there way to much sects in the world already. [just a little humor]

Thread look good Keep it going

Thanks

Rick White

quote:

Iran. Quite a large country, larger than Iraq anyway. Very tough terrain. Much tougher than Iraq anyway. I'm not all that confident that the US Army and Marine corps would be able to execute a Blitzkrieg reminiscent of Iraq 2003. On the other hand, the collapse of the Taliban in mountainous Afghanistan was fairly quick, wasn't it? But let's face it, the Taliban were something of an irregular militia, right? And they probably didn't really have much in planning in case of a US intervention. The Iranians have probably been seriously studying how to defend themselves in case of a US invasion since 9/11, and all the more since the invasion of Iraq. What the US has in its favor is the possibility of making a two-front invasion of Iran [from Iraq and Afghanistan]. But on the other hand, it'd be a third war front for the US, how many wars can it handle?

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

I also wouldn't use the word Blitz for the invasion of Iraq. It's not a great word, and it doesn't mean a great deal these days, but the American invasion was not WWII German style doctrine. Their blitz was about breakthrough and encirclement, but the two prongs aimed at Baghdad were all about something else. They never stopped to encircle anyone.

quote:


Iran, I still contend, simply isn't on. We can postulate how it might be done, but if a previously secular country like Iraq can produce the resistance it has, Iran would be far worse. You'd have to occupy it permanently, as I don't see a credible alternative. In Afghanistan and Iraq you could at least theorise there was a silent majority who would welcome regime change and embrace it. I don't think we are there with Iran, yet. There are lots of moderates, yes, but countries have a habit of uniting when under attack, and I just don't see it.