Iraqi Freedom Wargame(s)

Iraqi Freedom Wargame(s) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

EricLarsen -> Iraqi Freedom Wargame(s) (3/30/2003 10:36:27 AM)
Okay now that the party has started in Iraq the burning question is when will Matrix have Iraqi Freedom wargames for us to play. I'm sure they'll sell like hotcakes, but you'd better be quick before every other game company pushes out their version. For all the good titles we've been waiting patiently for I'd bet most would wait longer to get IF games sooner. Tactical and operational/strategic with diplomacy and random events would be oh so cool. Come on Matrix time to switch gears and crank out games on what's going to be a much analyzed much talked about war. We wargamers will want to start wargaming it real soon. Eric Larsen

TenaciousD -> good call (3/30/2003 7:47:50 PM)
The game balance would be a little out, unless you could hire/borrow russian equipment, have russian(or other country with interests in Iraq) spes ops train your lowly civilians in the lead up to the official start of combat, beat the us in the psych war stakes(put up pictures of saddam all over Iraq lol, take the unethical approachand involve children in it,), have the choice of using chem weapons, train in guerilla warfar, have the women carry AKs in their traditional dress things, suicide bombers, captured equipment, hold us pows near important sites, on and on. quite a few posibilities.... ps have to be squad level or less (so I buy it)

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (3/31/2003 8:56:17 PM)
Check out the TOAW crowd they are already playing Iraqi Freedom scenarios. And the SPMBT crowd are already hard at it. I guess you must have missed the memo hehe :)

EricLarsen -> Waiting for the right game (3/31/2003 11:54:59 PM)
Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1 [B]Check out the TOAW crowd they are already playing Iraqi Freedom scenarios. And the SPMBT crowd are already hard at it. I guess you must have missed the memo hehe :) [/B] Les the Sarge, Didn't miss the memo, or the upload from a friend. I didn't bother with ACOW and can't play the IF ACOW scenario since my older TOAW versions won't run it. I don't do SPMBT either. I'll wait for a really good dedicated game on the subject on the operational/strategic level. I just hope Matrix is getting someone hot on the subject now and getting a game system thought out while we wait for the military info to come out on what was there and when. Eric Larsen

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (4/1/2003 12:33:45 AM)
Hmm judging by the Battlefront grogs heheh, they think Matrix should actually "make" a game instead of adding more irons to the fire.

Veldor -> Re: Iraqi Freedom Wargame(s) (4/1/2003 1:07:52 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by EricLarsen [B]Okay now that the party has started in Iraq the burning question is when will Matrix have Iraqi Freedom wargames for us to play. I'm sure they'll sell like hotcakes, but you'd better be quick before every other game company pushes out their version. For all the good titles we've been waiting patiently for I'd bet most would wait longer to get IF games sooner. Tactical and operational/strategic with diplomacy and random events would be oh so cool. Come on Matrix time to switch gears and crank out games on what's going to be a much analyzed much talked about war. We wargamers will want to start wargaming it real soon. Eric Larsen [/B][/QUOTE] Maybe I'm in the minority but even the thought of such a game bores me to death. All you need to play is a dozen eggs and a couple bricks. The eggs are the Iraqi forces. The bricks the Americans. Throw one at the other, either first. Same Result. Now what fun would that be? I guess the only way to make the game would be a "beat the clock" type game. Decisive victory is winning the war in 3 days. Marginal victory is winning the war in 3 months. You loose if it takes more than 4 months. But I just don't find it fun to play a game where victory by one side is absolutely 100% guaranteed.

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (4/1/2003 2:03:34 AM)
Hmm until people are walking to the store casually to buy bread and milk (or whatever), and there are no US military units keeping fanatics at bay in Baghdad, I will not assume this fight will be a piece of cake. Remember it isn't over till Baghdad is secure, and the regime is just an article in a history book.

Veldor -> (4/1/2003 6:23:35 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1 [B]Hmm until people are walking to the store casually to buy bread and milk (or whatever), and there are no US military units keeping fanatics at bay in Baghdad, I will not assume this fight will be a piece of cake. Remember it isn't over till Baghdad is secure, and the regime is just an article in a history book. [/B][/QUOTE] Well its no piece of cake but victory IS still certain. Maybe a more fun game to play would deal as much with the political and diplomatic side of things as much as any military confrontation. A little of AH's diplomacy mixed with a bit of Civ and... Well you get the point it wouldnt really be much of a wargame. The REAL victory would be winning without having to go to war at all. Though oddly enough that really never was too possible in Civilization.. even though in theory you were suppose to be able to win the game that way. Just like in the game, in real life, war is usually inevitable... If you want a quick buck off the war, far better to make a shooter. imo.

Maliki -> (4/1/2003 2:07:42 PM)
i think it could be a good game if it was kept to tactical level;squads,patoons,companies.The overall outcome is certain but at that level of play things would be kept more interesting.

Bucket -> (4/6/2003 2:35:36 AM)
To be honest, I don't know if a strategic war game could ever come out of the war with Iraq at the moment. Perhaps maybe as just a scenario in a bigger game but... You'd probably need to include sucide bombers as actual units/tactics. I'm sure eventually 'command and conquer' will cash in on the subject with some ridiculous unit in one of their, now many, games. Probably about the same time that Capcom release "Street Fighter X=em2 vs The Teletubbies and the theory of pie". I would maybe like to see some more urban combat style games though with lots of buildings being trashed, large fires, choosing where to store your ammo supplies to hide it from the enemy and all that. I suppose we'll see though. Some elements of the Iraq war would make a fun game. I'd like to see wounded men become more of a feature in games also. Deafening from grenades, shrapnel... etc.. It seems often many soldiers are wounded in real life conflict, so why never in games?

Veldor -> (4/6/2003 12:52:24 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bucket [B]To be honest, I don't know if a strategic war game could ever come out of the war with Iraq at the moment. Perhaps maybe as just a scenario in a bigger game but... You'd probably need to include sucide bombers as actual units/tactics. I'm sure eventually 'command and conquer' will cash in on the subject with some ridiculous unit in one of their, now many, games. [/B][/QUOTE] Already done. Command and Conquer generals has suicide bombers, machine guns mounted on pickup trucks, car bombs, and chemical warheads etc. And that came out just before the war. No magic to knowing what it was going to be like...

Bucket -> (4/6/2003 2:04:57 PM)
Figures. Its one of the reasons that I just can't stand the Command and Conquer line of games. Its a big rotting, sore titted cash cow begging to get shot in the head.

Veldor -> (4/6/2003 3:07:45 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bucket [B]Figures. Its one of the reasons that I just can't stand the Command and Conquer line of games. Its a big rotting, sore titted cash cow begging to get shot in the head. [/B][/QUOTE] Why, because they give people what they want? People like killing terrorists. The best way to do it just isn't in a wargame, its in an RTS or, better in my mind, a FPS..

Bucket -> (4/7/2003 4:14:21 PM)
People want a good game. Command and Conquer is generally gimmicks and not much new. I don't believe they give people what they want. People want originality and strategy - the command and conquer line of games hasn't delivered that IMO since Red Alert. The whole 'terrorist' thing is C&C is just another gimmick. I'm yet to meet a person that says that C&C gives them what they want.

Veldor -> (4/8/2003 10:06:06 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bucket [B]People want a good game. Command and Conquer is generally gimmicks and not much new. I don't believe they give people what they want. People want originality and strategy - the command and conquer line of games hasn't delivered that IMO since Red Alert. The whole 'terrorist' thing is C&C is just another gimmick. I'm yet to meet a person that says that C&C gives them what they want. [/B][/QUOTE] Well it may not give a "wargamer" what he or she wants but no one would (hopefully) claim that C&C is a wargame. I know tons of fans of the game though. Do you really think it can sell the record number that it does if no one likes the series? I thought Emperor DUNE was a tragic failure myself but Generals is pretty "Fresh" as far as C&C goes. Enough that I can now part with all my older C&C games. I also don't believe in knocking something you haven't tried. If you've tried it and don't like it then its just your opinion. But if you havent then its an uninformed one. I don't think its the greatest game by any stretch, but it is a very worthy replacement for Red Alert.

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (4/8/2003 10:17:21 AM)
I don't myself doubt that every single C&C release has pleased its audience. I have seen the guys that play that genre of game. It's what they want. I have heard people say that Heroes of Might and Magic shamelessly milks its customers with thin almost pointless expansions. But the games always please me. So I am not surprised C&C sells. My only real beef with C&C or almost all of the RTS games of that style, is how the players sit in my face and explain how they are more realistic than my turn based games. That, is a different matter altogether.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.625