In a perfect world.

MacCready · Post by **MacCready** » Thu May 30, 2002 12:47 am

There would be a gaming company devoted entirely to making modern 1950-future wargames,this company would not bother with any aspect of ww2 as it has been allready covered admirably by a host of other companys.

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Thu May 30, 2002 6:06 pm

Had to say it heheh

In a perfect world your wife would serve you your meals at the computer. She would reserve her lustful moments for when you were needing excercise from sitting so long.

Your kids would grow up admiring your fine taste in wargames. They would brag at school that not only could their dad beat the other dads, but he would also make it look easy.

Their teen years would be spent feverishly learning your games so they might challenge you. And your crowning moment would be when just before moving out, they finally managed a mere draw (but it would show they had been paying attention all those years hehe).

But somehow I can't see a perfect world possessing a company that would totally ignore WW2.
The world doesn't revolve around WW2 of course. But a wargame company ignoring WW2 intentionally?

That's like trying to raise a family without first having the woman show up. Somehow I just can't see how it would work.

Vincent Prochelo · Post by **Vincent Prochelo** » Thu May 30, 2002 7:06 pm

In a perfect world there would be no wars.

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Thu May 30, 2002 8:08 pm

Wanted to say the No Wars comment myself.

Thought it was a bit to plainly obvious a comment even for the Sarge though heheh.

But recognising that humans are unlikely to mature any time soon, I thought that particular "perfect world" was just to highly unlikely.

Vincent Prochelo · Post by **Vincent Prochelo** » Thu May 30, 2002 8:13 pm

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
Wanted to say the No Wars comment myself.

Thought it was a bit to plainly obvious a comment even for the Sarge though heheh.

But recognising that humans are unlikely to mature any time soon, I thought that particular "perfect world" was just to highly unlikely.

Yea, I figured. But there is nothing wrong with stating the obvious.

I think there is plenty still to be done with WW2.

But I also think a Vietnam game, much like Combat MIssion would be great fun. But I digress.

MacCready · Post by **MacCready** » Fri May 31, 2002 1:51 am

Maybe that was the wrong heading for this thread..
I wasn't thinking so deeply.
humans=War=world.

There is no way to change something that is genetically encoded into us.
These are definetly going to be hairy years ahead.
I mean Pakistan and India could lose 12 plus million people any time if they go Nuclear.
Thats a hidious thought.
I recently heard a Japanese man talking about his hiroshima experience.I'm amazed he lived though it considering the shape he was in after it happened.
To think that more people may be subject to that with even more improved nuclear weapons,and they* are so casual when talking about the use of nukes.

*India/Pakistan

I'm just bitter there's so many WW2 games and more on the way.

Im not bitter about Combat Leader though.As long as it goes modern (1950-present-near future)

stevemk1a · Post by **stevemk1a** » Fri May 31, 2002 10:36 am

My feeling on this subject is that WWI and WWII were the defining events of the 20th century. I'll bet that in 1000 years they will be the most recognized events in our time (and possibly the only ones remembered). I'm not trying to give short shrift to modern warfare post 1945, but I say the attention to the world wars is not unwarranted!

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Fri May 31, 2002 1:56 pm

As much as many might enjoy driving modern armour around in modern setting etc.

The sad truth is, that by numbers, most people, while perhaps not specifically expert in the time period, distinguish a significant difference between warfare from WW1 through to perhaps Korea with anything following it.

I think a major impact is the advent of real time news. I have seen sooooooo much minutae on Afganistan that as a gaming experience, well, I am just not interested in it.
Maybe the news aspect has spoiled it in some manner whos to say.
That and the magnitude, the sheer scope and size, the entire globe at war, not just some very powerful nation beating the snot out of a lesser group makes a very big difference in my opinion.

I won't say I do NOT want to game out something modern in a Steel Panthers looking game, but well, it will never equal WW2. And that much is an absolute that will never actually be overcome.

Game designers when thinking of the bottom line, will always go with the knock out punch rather than the isolated option with game design.

Hmmmmm simulate the battle of Kursk or the invasion of Grenada?
That will always be an easy choice unfortunately for modern warfare fans.

MacCready · Post by **MacCready** » Sat Jun 01, 2002 1:58 am

Afganistan wouldnt be boring at all considering you could design specific scenerios and set up specific battles and of course campaigns.

for example you could have the Taliban outnumber the good guys by 2 to 1,this would not be boring it would be a dogfight.

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Sat Jun 01, 2002 4:34 am

I think you might have missed the slant of my comment Mac, WW2 is a distant bit of history (generally speaking to most of us, I sure wasn't around then at least).

Afganistan though is a tedious bit of current news to me.
It's annoying in the same way the OJ trial was annoying.
Sound bites, slanted video clips, politically biased reporting, all the wonderful qualities of modern warfare.

Take for instance the "tragedy" of the 4 Canadians (my own fellow countrymen in fact). I am disgusted with all the fuss that was given to that pathetic over reported non incident.

Yes for the families it was a tragedy (duhhhh I ain't saying it wasn't). But a national tragedy?. The massive reporting that incident generated was just plain stupid. Shows how little anyone in the day and age knows about real sacrifice.

No the tragedy at the National level is our pathetic politicians expecting our under paid over worked poorly equipped soldiers, are expected to pretend we are a super power like our US partners.

And that's why I don't wish to game Afganistan. I have had way to much Afganistan.
I suppose if WW2 had been subjected to the same level of reporting it would have looked a lot different to us.
Then again, the idiots who proclaim total disclosure publicly as the way to go, would have made life real interesting to the Politicians and Generals who fought that conflict.
I have always wondered what TV would have done to WW2.
Probably screwed the Allies more than the Axis is my opinion.
After all the Axis wouldn't have permitted journalistic freedom.
Some jerk would have given away the secret of Enigma and Ultra for sure.
Odds are I would be speaking German.

I think I will enjoy playing with modern Combat Leader to an extent. But modern to me will mean Korea, Vietnam, Arabs vs Israelis in the 60's and 70's places where the combats were not certain, places where the outcome was not just a matter of how many bombs to drop before clean up time.

The US going into Afganistan was an elephant smashing an ant. Just like it was when they smashed the admittedly large Iragi ant.
It's no wonder 4 casualties shows up as such a harsh news story. Its not a war, its live fire training, with nasty targets. 4 men getting killed during a war is not worthy of massive national coverage. It made my country look like pathetic whiners too.

Now a modern setting I want to see, is the fight that might happen between China and Taiwan. That might end up dragging in the US and then Japan, Korea and maybe Russia. No I don't want that to happen (god I hope no one is dumb enough to think that). But we have reliable stats on the equipment everyone has. We have reliable information about forces involved. And no one can say where that conflict would go.

Then there is India and Pakistan. Two countries that seem fairly casual about nuclear exchange. That is going to be quite the game challenge. Certainly more exciting than whack the mole Taliban and AlQueda hunting.

Hey we found a cave, lets blow it up, boooooooring.

MacCready · Post by **MacCready** » Sat Jun 01, 2002 7:35 am

Ok,I understand .

But you could force the Taliban to a straight up fight heh.
Dont give them caves.

As far as India /Pak are concerned,are they REALLY that ready to nuke one another or is that another media embelishment to control opinion?

stevemk1a · Post by **stevemk1a** » Sat Jun 01, 2002 12:01 pm

If conflict erupts between India and Pakistan then it will take one helluva lotta escalation, and one side (probably Pakistan) would have to be seriously faced with defeat/conquer for nuclear weapons to be considered for release by either side. I don't think it will come to that (god willing). I think that the time of true total war between major nations has been made unthinkable now, and that WWII was the last really significant one (again, god willing). Not to say that some tactical actions post 1951, and indeed, post 1980, aren't interesting: Falklands, Beirut, Iran/Iraq, Gulf War, Somalia, Kosovo, Chechnya, etc... come to mind. However the total war of WWII is a more fertile source of possiblility than any of these. As Sarge 9-1 mentioned, every recent conflict has been reported in excruciating detail by sattelite in realtime ad infinitum... the information then becomes something to lure viewers to whatever channel that is offering it. Sell sell sell! I'm sure some of the real stories are more interesting, but now I'm starting to babble on... Last word is that WWII the biggest war with biggest remaining air of mystery...

antarctic · Post by **antarctic** » Mon Jun 10, 2002 2:52 pm

Ahhhhhhhhhhh............. MacCready is still after a modern wargame..............

I guess June 14 is a totally Crimson letter day on your calendar.......

Antarctic

Egg_Shen · Post by **Egg_Shen** » Fri Jun 28, 2002 2:48 am

Originally posted by Vincent Prochelo
In a perfect world there would be no wars.

then we would be living in straw huts eating mud.

where do you think technology comes from?:rolleyes:

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Fri Jun 28, 2002 9:26 am

Hmmmm technology.... is it really something to be thrilled with.

I could go on forever about all the wonders of technlogy....
Nuclear waste that will realistically be with us forever
Weapons of mass destruction waiting for the laws of probability to take notice
Insane consumerism slowly burying us under garbage and despoiling the planet to our peril

Oh I could list a zillion ills of technology.

But its not all bad.

I just wish people could accept as a species we are a tad to clever and a great deal to immature for our own cleverness.

And hey whats wrong with straw huts?

There are peoples living in jungles that haven't even discovered half the things we fill books up about that drive our society crazy.
I can't picture a Borneo savage suffering from work related stress eh. It seems unlikely I will find many Amazonian savages hanging around doctors offices with all manner of ailments.
They get up and do there daily routine not knowing car payments, food bills, picket lines, gang crimes.

They might not live as long in some cases, but I will wager their lives are happier.

OKW-73 · Post by **OKW-73** » Fri Jun 28, 2002 12:14 pm

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1

And hey whats wrong with straw huts?

Nothing if they got *DSL connection