Modern Warfare

Ron Saueracker · Post by **Ron Saueracker** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 12:55 pm

"Drank more beer, pissed more blood, banged more quiff than the lot of you!":p

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 7:47 pm

I agree with the Clint Eastwood sentiment essentially.

I have a great wealth of war movies, and I don't own anything based off of modern settings for the most part.

Why?

Well mainly because they are also full of the modern world.

I dont really care for the modern world. Guess its not so unusual that I dont care for its warfare either.

I watch anything made that's black & white or 70's era and they don't have a lot of the modern world in them either.

Vietnam was the last military event that was passable as a wargame potential area in my opinion.

If we are to simulate Afganistan, at what point do we exclude modern information services. The US can monitor each and every individual soldier in the field. We can say with absolute surety, yes that is ours that is theirs. We can pinpoint any location and wipe it out.

If you find an enemy position, what's to stop you from radioing in to higher echelon, and just having air support "eliminate" it. And you can even have the CNN reporter get you a copy of his tape so you can let your wife know that you got your birthday card from your daughter.

Fog of War today means nothing.

As for the 80's. Sorry I will pass on simulating Warsaw Pact attacks on Western Germany. Both sides no longer exist, and the fighting never happened. The Middle East is a bore, yawn Israelis win again. African states that butcher each others civilian populations yet again, sorry not what I am looking for.

Accurate data is just to sketchy before WW2 and and after Korea the world stopped fighting large global battlefields (fortunately for our race).

But for those that just cant handle leaving out modern technology on the battlefield...ever tried playing Alpha Centauri?

eaube · Post by **eaube** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 10:32 pm

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1

As for the 80's. Sorry I will pass on simulating Warsaw Pact attacks on Western Germany. Both sides no longer exist, and the fighting never happened.

You could use that argument on many scenarios in many wargames, such as the hypothetical USSR vs USA campaing in SP:WAW. Hypothetical scenarios are more interesting than historical ones to me: it is easier to make a well balanced game since if you do not have a historical guidline to follow to keep 'the spirit' of the battle being simulated. This is just as applicable for WWII era as present times.

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1

But for those that just cant handle leaving out modern technology on the battlefield...ever tried playing Alpha Centauri?

Heh, more like been helplessly addicted! It doesn't help to have a roomate that likes to play, I end up in quite a few multiplayer games.

Eduardo · Post by **Eduardo** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 12:46 am

I just imagine that Matrix had a conversation similar to ours and concluded that it was better to stick with SPWaW and continue to improve on it.

I guess when I want to do some Modern Warfare, I just dust-off my old Armored Fist CD's and do some tank driving.

I haven't learned to mess with OOB's, etc. I just do not have the time

. . . Kids

, work ,:rolleyes: ,wife

. . .

I would like to program some of the Nicaraguan battles during the 1970's. Ambushes, artillery duels, urban warfare, assaults against Spanish-colonization castles, etc. My father had three gold stars in his collar. My uncle, a fighert pilot, had three of them too. Three stars was Colonel, 4 General, 5 gold was Brigadier General (I think we only had three of these guys, including the dictator's half-brother) and 5 silver Division General (our dictator was the only one wearing them).

SPWaW would work great! The Guard used . . . Garand M1 left over from WWII. The tanks? Shermans. The planes? Mustang P-51, T-30 training jets with rocket pods, and the last days of the war . . . Push and Pull planes with rocket pods. The communists had a mix of weapons, not that many AK's, a few RPG without the tubes (saw a few burnt zealots). At the end the Guard had Israeli Galils (AK's knockouts) and M-16's.

The Contra war was American small teams tactics vs. Russian en-mass attacks, not much to program.

The Sandinistas would take 600 kids (14 yrs and up) in a batallion divided in three waves of 200 each. The Contra would control a hill (an M-60 supported by several M-16's or AK's) and the Sandinistas would send wave after wave of kids with the hope that by the third wave the Contras would have ran out of bullets or be wounded and take the hill. The usual score? 5 Contra dead, 450 innocent kids dead or maimed. This was a daily occurrence.

Just as in WWII in the Eastern Front. The military books of the German Kampfgruppen tell the same story. A hilltop with an MG34, a few single action rifles and grenades . . . Dead Russians by the hundred around them. Eventually the Germans will run out of bullets and pull back.

It has been very informative all of your comments. Until the next topic.

Brigz · Post by **Brigz** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 4:14 am

I have to agree to an extent with Les. Modern warfare, especially contemporary warfare, leaves little to the imagination. And I also agree about the Arab/Israeli wars (stiffling a yawn myself). A friend recently mentioned to me something about the Israeli army being the best in the world. Now I'm not about to say that the Israeli army isn't one of the best fighting forces on the planet, but, I don't think they are necessarily the "best". I mean, look at who they've been fighting. Sure, they nearly lost it in '73 and the Egyptions did a **** fine job of getting across the canals and surprising the Israelis, but with better intelligence and a little more respect for their adversaries on Isreal's part, that never would have happened.

Except for "maybe" the North Koreans and especially the North Vietnamese, there hasn't been any adversary that stood a chance against the US, Britian, Isreal or most other "NATO" armies. I single out the North Vietnamese because I haven't met a Nam Vet yet that didn't say they were generally tough and determined troops. The US beat the crap out of them in nearly every major engagement but they were still tough troops and they gave the US a very hard time. And hey, I'm not trying to brag either. I'm not about to say that the US or Britain or Isreal will always win every war it fights. That would be foolish. Nothing guarentees victory and any military organization of any nation should be taken seriously. It's just that the nature of the organization, training and philosophy of the armies is vastly different, and that difference is to the detrement of nearly all "non-western" military forces. It's not necessarily what you wage war with, but how you wage war.

Having said all that, don't get me wrong about modern era wargames. I still love to get out my old Jim Dunnigan games and try one more time to overrun West Germany with my Soviet steamroller. And I still like stopping waves of Soviet tanks with a platoon of M1's in Steel Panthers II. I guess it's just some grotesque and sadistic part of my wargaming psychi.

Like I said, Les definitly has a point here about modern warfare. Maybe that's why the only board game I play any more is Advanced Squad Leader. Seems to capture everything in one
game.

Raverdave · Post by **Raverdave** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 2:14 pm

Modern Warfare boring??????? Have any of you guys played SP2 or even Harpoon?????? And you find the modern age boring??????:eek:

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 5:50 pm

Yep I find modern war boring guys.

Hmmm lets see I also find absolutely perfect blonde beach babes boring too. Perfection and ideal isnt always appealling.

I dont play any of the shooters or the RTS games, why, cause they all look the same. Mega guns with god like ammo loads and no rhyme or reason.

I have found a few of the Matrix forum crowd a bit anal on technical accuracies, but some of those guys have given me one heck of an accurate game in SPWaW.

But around the time of the Berlin wall falling down, the Soviets becoming just the Russians, the Warsaw Pact becoming just something to read about in a history book I rapidly sold all my WW3 wargames (board game types). Boy that was a close call too. A couple of years later they had no shelf value at all.
Then I noticed how all new wargames (board games) that were hiting the shelf were (no surprise) increasingly WW2 designs.

Even the Post Apocalyse theme in movies has become boring.

Dont get me wrong, I am sure there is a market for guys wanting to play fictional never happened WW3 games (however puny). But if I designed wargames and was interested in making a buck, you wouldnt have my companies attention at all. Not enough money in it guys.

I bought Operational Art of War Volume Two just cause i wanted completeness. But I reeeeeally only care to play Volume One.
I have SP3. I could care less if it is ever fully updated software wise. I would like to be able to play it easier and with better graphics of course. But I am not fretting over it much.

troopie · Post by **troopie** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 9:31 am

Imagine this, Les. You have a group of high quality infantry armed with assault rifles, light machine guns and rocket launchers. Mounted on armoured lorries armed with MMGs, and three improvised armoured cars you are to move in complete secrecy across a border, attack and destroy a camp full of highly trained and partially trained infantry, T-34/85 tanks, medium artillery and mortars, and anti aircraft guns. There are about 3000 men in the camp. You have eighty-two. You will have NO air support. If the country you are entering discovers what you are doing 1: They will move large numbers of men to stop you. 2: You will embarrass your government. 3: The target will be alerted and you will fail. This means you must keep the tightest march security. You must destroy beyond recognition any of your vehicles that are immobilised or destroyed in combat. You must leave NO men behidn, living or dead.

I have just described a flying column raid by the Selous scouts in the Bush War. How can that be boring?

SADF externals were similar.

troopie

Raverdave · Post by **Raverdave** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 10:25 am

Fighting a delaying action in the Fulder gap, with a target rich enviroment.............man it does not get better than that!

Brigz · Post by **Brigz** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 10:23 pm

How about this scenario. I'm the Iragi's defending a well fortified position essential for the Allies to breach. On turn one the Allies call in a B-52 strike on my position. On turn two the Buff's arrive and drop thousands of antipersonnel bombs on my position wiping it out. The Allies roll over my mutilated troops and fortifications and on to the next objective. Game over. This is how modern warfare is fought by the US and most modern western armies. Quick, fast, and deadly, leaving little to the imagination. And it's going to get worse (or better depending on how you see it). They're even developing "smart bullets" that can seek out and kill individual soldiers. What's that going to be like? I'm not saying it's wrong to develope better and more leathal weapons, as a matter of fact, I'm glad. I'm just saying that the technology of modern war takes some of the (dare I say it) "fun" out of simulating warfare. Just like I was reading in the newspaper this morning. A big challenge in modern warfare is whether or not you punch in the GPS settings on your hand held targeting device correctly.

This is certainly an interesting thread and I find myself agreeing with both sides on this one and I have to admit being a little "simplistic" with my above scenario description. Troopie and Raverdave describe some interesting scenarios that I would probably find interesting to play, especially defending the Fulda Gap (I'd be more interested and challenged playing the Soviets trying to breach the Gap). Heck, I'm even thinking of adapting GDW's game "The Third World War, Battle for Germany" to use with VASSAL.

But, I still have to agree with Les to an extent. Modern, and especially contemporary, warfare just doesn't have the same appeal. I get out the modern era games and play them occasionally but always find myself going back to my WWII and pre WWII games. They just seem more historically rich and interesting. Maybe because time ferments things and makes them more digestable. And fun too.

Good thread guys!

Raverdave · Post by **Raverdave** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 2:15 pm

You know it is a funny thing, I love Combat flight sims, yet only play WW2 era games such as MS CFS2 ans EAW. I detest the modern combat flight sims. Having said that I tend to lean towards the modern battles in land warfare games. With sea combat I like to have a bet each-way.

Mojo · Post by **Mojo** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 2:24 pm

Originally posted by Raverdave
You know it is a funny thing, I love Combat flight sims, yet only play WW2 era games such as MS CFS2 ans EAW. I detest the modern combat flight sims. Having said that I tend to lean towards the modern battles in land warfare games. With sea combat I like to have a bet each-way.

Sure man, What's the fun of standing off 60 miles and launching a missle at the guy in the MIG? I wanna get in there and dogfight:D

Raverdave · Post by **Raverdave** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 4:15 pm

Originally posted by Mojo

Sure man, What's the fun of standing off 60 miles and launching a missle at the guy in the MIG? I wanna get in there and dogfight:D

Yeah and besides that I am usally so **** busy trying to figure what that red flashing light on the dash is that I end up drilling a big hole in the ground!:D Sumfink that I NEVER do in a P-51 or Me-109;)

Eduardo · Post by **Eduardo** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 8:47 pm

Has any of you guys tried Panzer Elite? It is a WWII Tank simulation. Kind of difficult to play.

You are the gunner in a German tank. The sight has these couple of triangles, which give you the distance of the enemy tank. I guess I got frustrated very quickly and just played it a couple of times.

I am soooooo used to the "center, laser-range, lock, fire" that it drove me nut trying for hour to figure out which triangle to use. I was wondering how the Germans were so accurate. Then, a couple of days ago I saw a documentary in the History Channel that said that the Germans tested thousands of soldiers and only the few that were the best at using those sights became tank crew.

If they would have simplified their sight, which was the best, they might have been able to field more tanks.

The American sights, I understand, were two images that one moved together with a knob and fired once they were super-impossed.

Do you imagine a Tiger, with a flat trajectory 88 equipped with an Abrams M1 target acquisition system? If as it was with those stupid triangles they were blasting away Shermans . . .

What about the 5cm in the Panzer III, but with depleted uranium core darts? Su much for the KV's and Txx's.

troopie · Post by **troopie** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 1:49 am

If the Allied infantry can have Apache Longbow helos with Hellfire FFM ATGM, Javelin ATGMs, Stinger SAMs, and laser target designators. Allied artillery gets M198A6 Paladins and G-6 SPAWs with DPICM, TG rounds, Valkiri and Vought MRLS with DPICM, and FASCAM. The Allies also get GPS sensors, NVGs, command detonated mines and Predator UAVs. Allied airforces get B-2 and B-52 heavy bombers, F-22 Raptor and F-16 multimission aircraft and A-10 strike aircraft. Oh and the Allies get tactical, theatre, and strategic nukes.

If that happens we can let Tigers have laser sights.
troopie

Modern Warfare

CLINT!