← Home ← Back to /tg/

Thread 96131162

185 posts 54 images /tg/
Anonymous No.96131162 [Report] >>96131167 >>96131191 >>96131213 >>96131682 >>96131930 >>96132288 >>96132668 >>96132775 >>96133534 >>96134246 >>96134256 >>96142451 >>96142506 >>96142521 >>96142744 >>96142869 >>96145076 >>96145090 >>96146247 >>96146800 >>96147551 >>96155666 >>96159728 >>96159956 >>96159960 >>96159968 >>96160502 >>96162299 >>96162445 >>96170724 >>96171104 >>96171111 >>96182613 >>96182618
Why did traditional games not adapt to middle eastern war settings when video games did?
Anonymous No.96131167 [Report] >>96131191 >>96175062
>>96131162 (OP)
Because wargames about modern warfare have always been few and far between.
Anonymous No.96131191 [Report] >>96146204 >>96146284 >>96171008
>>96131162 (OP)
>>96131167
Team Yankee tried, and the result is that most ME powers suck because they are consigned to the bottom-of-the-barrel hand-me-downs of the big boys and the game can't really model civilian uprisings or the enemy's RoE suddenly going to shit (though it would be funny if they had that as an ability.)
Anonymous No.96131213 [Report]
>>96131162 (OP)
Modern conflicts are rare in wargames and RPGs almost as a rule, modern RPGs don't really feel major difference if war is going on, while wargames from historial point of view just use cold war tech in middle east for the most part.
Anonymous No.96131660 [Report]
>Inbred Goatfucker
>Unit size: the population
>1/2 point per model
>Gear: AK-47, RPG
>Special Ability: You're Training Us to Shoot You in the Back=this unit is allowed to get within melee range/attack first before the reacting unit is allowed to defend or attack.
Anonymous No.96131682 [Report] >>96131701 >>96176437
>>96131162 (OP)
What kind of story would you tell in the middle east that wouldn’t be terribly depressing? No one wants to RP as johnny getting his dick and legs blown off.
At least Vietnam is 60 years removed.
Anonymous No.96131701 [Report] >>96131714 >>96148450 >>96150512 >>96151929 >>96170724
>>96131682
People do Vietnam games? Wouldn't you just be crawling in holes hoping to knife the other guy before you get knifed yourself, with the occasional burning of a village before you get sniper'd?
Anonymous No.96131714 [Report]
>>96131701
You also have good old russians to kill. there’s a Delta Green module set in Vietnam my group is running soon.
Anonymous No.96131755 [Report]
>I have no units left on the table but held all the objective points for twenty turns making me the winner.
Anonymous No.96131930 [Report]
>>96131162 (OP)
What if desert storm, but modern fantasy?
Anonymous No.96132288 [Report] >>96132689 >>96134401 >>96140018 >>96147093 >>96155609
>>96131162 (OP)

I mean, you have to admit it's pretty ridiculous to cast the American military juggernaut as the plucky underdogs like video games like cowadooty.

In terms of miniatures and other tactical games, I think it would be really hard to balance the rules for a one-off fair fight battle which a lot of gamers expect because of GW. Mideast insurgents aren't likely to wipe out a whole USMC company IRL so you'd have to craft a ruleset where the insurgent player gets points for slowing down the American player, injuring soldiers with traps, goading him into killing civilians, sabotaging infrastructure needed by the occupiers, etc.

The modern military seems way more restrictive and organized than most people would want for an RPG. Maybe you could do an interest Heart of Darkness type story where the characters are leaderless national guardsmen left behind after a pullout or some sort of deep cover special forces. But in general I don't like modern guns in RPGs since I know my /k/ommando friend would ruin it with autism/arguing.
Anonymous No.96132642 [Report]
>Do we have air superiority and missile
strikes available?
>Lmao we always do.
Anonymous No.96132668 [Report]
>>96131162 (OP)
Because ttrpgs are a medium for games where you play under a chain of command
Anonymous No.96132689 [Report]
>>96132288
The best take on this was Twilight2k where WW3 cut you off from it, and you might not have a national government anymore.
Anonymous No.96132775 [Report]
>>96131162 (OP)
Mongoose tried and catastrophically failed, Games Workshop saw no reason to (and was probably too busy with Fantasy, 40k and LOTR), everyone else was going through massive problems and wasn't in a position to launch a new line (e.g. FASA, Rackham).
Anonymous No.96133534 [Report] >>96162674
>>96131162 (OP)
Why do single line shitposters not know anything about the questions they ask?
There are many asymmetrical combat modern nema conflict games in tabletop, board games and hex & chit.
Anonymous No.96133704 [Report]
It is because the conflict is boring and uniforms look like dogshit, there's no mythologized figures or battles, no iconic uniforms, it's dull as fuck.
Anonymous No.96134246 [Report] >>96180377
>>96131162 (OP)
Because pentagon never ordered such a game.
Anonymous No.96134256 [Report] >>96134272
>>96131162 (OP)
But they did?
Anonymous No.96134272 [Report] >>96140531 >>96184220
>>96134256
Anonymous No.96134401 [Report]
>>96132288
Ayo, hol' up! You finna say that getting /fit/, /fa/ and doing what you want rather than what you think women want is the secret to getting bitches?
Anonymous No.96140018 [Report]
>>96132288
>Mideast insurgents aren't likely to wipe out a whole USMC company IRL
That largely depends on how crafty the locals are with their IED placement.
Anonymous No.96140531 [Report] >>96152350 >>96155919
>>96134272
Straight trash creating by teenage history majors with supervision from a prof not even specialized. Cannibalized a bunch of ideas from other popular systems and watered them down. This winning a CSR award was an insult considering it is essentially hex and counter SLOP.
Anonymous No.96142451 [Report]
>>96131162 (OP)
Because nobody wants to play a game where the American faction deploys ten models against a hundred models on the Terrorist side, then wipes out 90% of the Terrorist faction's units by playing a "drone strike" card before easily mopping up the rest of them, but still loses the match because the Terrorist faction managed to inflict a minor wound on one of the American faction's infantrymen, which is deemed to contribute to the eventual loss of support for the war effort among the American faction's civilian population.
Anonymous No.96142506 [Report]
>>96131162 (OP)
There's a distant plain and labyrinth: the war on terror. Both by Voiko Ruhnke, both excellent.
Anonymous No.96142521 [Report]
>>96131162 (OP)
There’s a few out out now:

In Country
Spectre Operations
Asymmetric Warfare
Black Powder Red Earth

On the RPG side, WOD’s Dogs of War was decent.
Anonymous No.96142744 [Report]
>>96131162 (OP)
Because you focused too much on what they don't do, instead of focusing more on what you want to do with them.
Anonymous No.96142869 [Report] >>96145007 >>96145052 >>96145892 >>96145989
>>96131162 (OP)
Most game devs are left-leaning, and ever since 9/11 those people have been more and more inclined to think Muslims are the ones in the right, because Conservatives don't like Muslims so much after 9/11, and Liberals are contrarian hipster pricks.
Anonymous No.96145007 [Report] >>96147759 >>96159972
>>96142869
But the average Muslim 'is' a conservative.
Anonymous No.96145052 [Report] >>96148381
>>96142869
I don't think muslims are in the right, I just think the American war machine is causing a lot of unnecessary death and suffering to make money for a few people and they do it with MY TAX DOLLARS
Anonymous No.96145076 [Report]
>>96131162 (OP)
The videogame adaptations were literally propaganda.
Anonymous No.96145090 [Report]
>>96131162 (OP)
They did, but historical wargames are kind of niche (compared to D&D and 40K), and post WW2 historical wargames are a niche of a niche. Then middle eastern post WW2 historical wargames are a niche of a niche of a niche.

It's not like there was a Call of Duty: Modern Warfare that influenced every other game and suddenly everyone was doing it. A few games certainly sprang up - Fist Full of TOWs, Spectre Operations, Team Yankee, but they didn't really have widespread market penetration, although TY saw some success for a while in some groups.
Anonymous No.96145892 [Report] >>96148362
>>96142869
This is something I never really understood about americans. They see "X is worse than Y" and immediately default to "So you think Y is (capital G) GOOD!!!". They don't grasp that the most bloated military in the entire planet by a fucking order of magnitude operating from the most geographically advantaged country in the modern world massacring actual millions of stone-age goat herders for the better part of a century being a Bad Thing, doesn't make the other side immediately the Good Thing. Neither is good, but one is clearly worse. It's just pure binary. It's the same with /tg/ settings where there's no good guys. They just see that one thing is worse than the other and some little switch in their head divides them into Good and Bad, then proclaim everyone else is retarded for not understanding that the Human Meatgrinder is actually the Good Guys.
Anonymous No.96145989 [Report]
>>96142869
Also conservatives aren't into making tabletop games.
Anonymous No.96146204 [Report]
I have heard that Battlespace is decent, but it is a co-op/solitaire game probably for this >>96131191 exact reason and would just suck as competitive game.
Anonymous No.96146247 [Report]
>>96131162 (OP)
Different audiences, that shit appealed a lot more to the dudebros who started playing video games in the late 00s than to nerds who play tabletop RPGs.
Anonymous No.96146284 [Report] >>96171024
>>96131191
Did the 6 Day War and other pre-TY Cold War stuff suck like that?
Anonymous No.96146800 [Report]
>>96131162 (OP)
Asymmetrical Warfare / Spectre Operations V2
GWOT and ultramodern skirmish games exist, people just get lazy and default to 40K.
Anonymous No.96147093 [Report] >>96147247 >>96148400 >>96152409 >>96175277
>>96132288
>the American military juggernaut
Name a conflict it won past WW2. And even that was with Soviet help.
Even in Ukraine Abrams are the worst performing tanks.
Anonymous No.96147247 [Report] >>96147361 >>96175302
>>96147093
>Even in Ukraine Abrams are the worst performing tanks.
Look, I'm not claiming they're some wunderwaffe, but it isn't really a fair comparison. Leadership on both sides of that shitshow is utterly incompetent, you can't really draw accurate assesment from equipment when the retards just yeet shit to the grinder with no support or real operational plan. This is veering to /pol/ territory but slavs to this day can't shake the attrition warfare doctrine.
Anonymous No.96147361 [Report]
>>96147247
>Leadership on both sides of that shitshow is utterly incompetent
Russians and Ukrainians have about the same IQ as Americans. Without a lot of other mitigating factors, you can't say that Americans would do better. War is hard. Americans only a few years removed from the very real lessons of peer conflict, and arguably at their apex of prowess, got fought to a draw by an underequipped Chinese force in Korea.

There's an argument that "this is what happens when you can't achieve American-style air superiority". However, this feels much more like the warnings of the Russo-Japanese war's ground campaign being ignored because "lol they're retarded slavs" and then having to be painfully learned on the Western Front.
Anonymous No.96147551 [Report]
>>96131162 (OP)
1. They did there are games for it
2. People who play ttrpgs tend to read and people who read are embarassed as fuck about the idiocy of the wars we've waged for no purpose in the middle east
Anonymous No.96147759 [Report] >>96184258
>>96145007
>But the average Muslim 'is' a conservative.
/pol/ has some funny compilations of liberals getting confused about why they're being assaulted by their "allies."
Anonymous No.96148362 [Report] >>96150697 >>96150723 >>96150759
>>96145892
This is more of a left-wing thing, they define themselves by what they oppose rather than what they (the voters) are, because they all think they're Robin Hood valiantly fighting oppression and tyranny, they crave oppression so they have something to heroically struggle against. Just look at how often they act like the underdog in a conflict MUST be the good guys, they don't even stop to think about it. It's why progressives can never be happy, they NEED there to be something to fight against.
Anonymous No.96148381 [Report] >>96150697
>>96145052
Anonymous No.96148400 [Report] >>96150487 >>96151676 >>96151899
>>96147093
>Name a conflict it won past WW2
All of them. Also WW2, Russian help was token at best, even Stalin said they were fucked without us.
Anonymous No.96148450 [Report] >>96148470
>>96131701
That sounds like a cool game
Anonymous No.96148470 [Report]
>>96148450
Then purple haze might be your speed
Anonymous No.96150487 [Report] >>96155850
>>96148400
>Also WW2, Russian help was token at best
the fuck?
Anonymous No.96150512 [Report]
>>96131701
Fire in the Lake is excellent.
Anonymous No.96150697 [Report] >>96151991 >>96155821
>>96148362
America doesn't have a left wing, and what you wrote describes both of their parties to a T so it's clearly not a partisan issue. But thank you for demostrating my point.

>>96148381
Americans had been about forty years deep in middle eastern conquest by the time of 9/11, if you're implying the equivalent of a bad highway pileup was them starting something.
Anonymous No.96150723 [Report] >>96151991
>>96148362
>This is more of a left-wing thing
It really isn't. Both sides of the American political system are constantly portraying themselves as the victims. You can basically break down American platforms into
>Group A NEEDS our support. They're being FAILED and TARGETED by our opposition.
>Cause B is a flagrant WASTE of resources--no, worse than that, it's being PRIORITIZED at the cost of the honest members of Group A.
>Group C? They aren't in a bad spot at all--if anything, they've been disproportionately hired into corporate roles because of their membership in Group C. The opposition is just trying to scaremonger by saying that we're trying to take rights away from them when we're just trying to level the playing field.
>Foreign Nation D is a THREAT and is much more of a problem than Foreign Nation E, regardless of what our opposition says.
>We do not wish to make a clear statement on Israel at this time.
Anonymous No.96150759 [Report] >>96151991 >>96155802
>>96148362
My man, American conservatives have spent literal decades wailing that Christendom is under assault because stores put up signs that say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". Do not even try to pretend for a second that this behavior is restricted to one side of the political spectrum.
Anonymous No.96151676 [Report] >>96155850 >>96155859 >>96175754
>>96148400
>All of them
>laughs in Korean, Vietnamese, Arabic...
Anonymous No.96151899 [Report]
>>96148400
Based retard
Anonymous No.96151929 [Report] >>96152384
>>96131701
>People do Vietnam games?
I do, and the rules I wrote for Vietnam have sold 86 copies so far (released in 2022). It's not much, but better than being kicked in the nuts for doing what I enjoy.
Anonymous No.96151991 [Report]
>>96150697
>>96150723
>>96150759
You guys are absolutely correct, but no American online will ever accept it because they're all fucking nuts.
Anonymous No.96152350 [Report] >>96152421 >>96152818
>>96140531
Plenty of hex and counter games are good though
Anonymous No.96152384 [Report]
>>96151929

based anon doing his own thing.
Anonymous No.96152409 [Report] >>96170724
>>96147093
>Even in Ukraine Abrams are the worst performing tanks.
thought that was the British Tanks that performed the worst
Anonymous No.96152421 [Report] >>96152440
>>96152350
Getting new players into Hex and Chit is pretty hard, at least with miniature Wargames, there's the hobby and modelling aspect to entice players in before bombarding them with complicated rules, but Hex and Chit games tend to be rather dry and rules-heavy, though some exceptions do exist.
Anonymous No.96152440 [Report] >>96152460
>>96152421
That’s why I always start with pic related. It’s fast and fairly straightforward and is more like a hybrid between a board game and a hex and counter.
Recently though I’ve also found World at War ‘85 to be a decent starting point
Anonymous No.96152460 [Report] >>96152473
>>96152440
This and also pretty much anything by Mark Simonitch. So much better than any H&C computer game.
Anonymous No.96152473 [Report] >>96152860
>>96152460
I dipped my toe into his stuff with Salerno and liked it. Then I bought North Africa ‘41 and it was like my third eye opened.
So fucking good. I need to get US Ciivl War at some point, though right now I’m learning this beast.
Anonymous No.96152818 [Report] >>96152848
>>96152350
Oh 100%. As long as you avoid stuff designed to appeal to brainlets like Vuca games, Phalanx, etc. Stuff made by people with no actually experience with H&C as designers as well. There's been a worrying trend of low quality games dragging down the quality to appeal to people who arent the core demo with excessive chrome, simplistic rules, zero effort into research, etc. Thankfully theres still lots of excellent designers and devs, and newer guys honoring the core even if it is going pop (ie. burning banners)
Anonymous No.96152845 [Report]
Anonymous No.96152848 [Report] >>96152856
>>96152818
>As long as you avoid stuff designed to appeal to brainlets like Vuca games
Red Strike and 1914 Nacht Paris are great even if they are monsters. Not a hex and counter but I’ve also heard great things about 1812 Napoleon’s Fateful March.
Everything else is meh though.
Anonymous No.96152856 [Report] >>96152864 >>96155571
>>96152848
You may be unaware but their entire business model is talking old japanese games, translating them, and slapping a huge markup on them for a lot of overproduction. If that's your thing cool, but my much cheaper much more functional old copies with translated text work a lot better. And Im not paying to be fomo'd for 200 bucks for zero improvements to old designs. I can buy the endless reprints of berg games for that.
Anonymous No.96152860 [Report]
>>96152473
generally GCACW is the best regarded but it's operational scale. Always been too much of a pain in the arse for me to get a hold of in the UK at anything like a reasonable price.
Anonymous No.96152863 [Report] >>96152867
This worth learning? I'm fine with it being solo only.
Anonymous No.96152864 [Report]
>>96152856
>You may be unaware but their entire business model is talking old japanese games, translating them, and slapping a huge markup on them for a lot of overproduction
I am aware anon. That’s why I only mentioned two games that were originals published by them.
Anonymous No.96152867 [Report] >>96152868
>>96152863
It’s solid for a small little game. From White Dog though I liked The Mission and The Mog better.
Anonymous No.96152868 [Report]
>>96152867
Ya I saw The Mission too, it felt just a notch more complex and intimidating.
Havent heard about Mog I'll check that out.
Thanks anon.
Anonymous No.96155571 [Report]
>>96152856
>And Im not paying to be fomo'd for 200 bucks for zero improvements to old designs
Wargame prices have been shit for 30 years
Anonymous No.96155609 [Report]
>>96132288
I want to fuck Taiwan.
Anonymous No.96155666 [Report]
>>96131162 (OP)
>why didn't [analog turn-based hobby] adopt real-time military shooting with online multiplayer and DLC as a genre the way video games did
OP, I mean this as sincerely as possible: Go enlist and die in a forever war in a shithole desert country ASAP. They love retards like you.
Anonymous No.96155802 [Report]
>>96150759
False equivalency.
Anonymous No.96155821 [Report] >>96155925 >>96156587
>>96150697
>America doesn't have a left wing
And no country Europe has what Americans would call national pride, it's OK that we don't think the same way, so long as we acknowledge that what's called a Democrat here, is not what's called a Democrat there, so don't expect them to act the same way.
>what you wrote describes both of their parties to a T
It really doesn't.

>forty years deep in middle eastern conquest by the time of 9/11
I'm not saying it was the start of the conflict, but it was the start of the American left becoming a pack of brainless rubes over it.
Anonymous No.96155850 [Report] >>96156548 >>96162572
>>96150487
Anon, you do know American Lend/Lease went to Russia as much as England, right? They were getting more than half their ammo from us. As well as boots, food, tanks, industrial supplies, train cars...

>>96151676
The Korean war ended like 5 minutes ago, and the north lost. The American military didn't lose Vietnam, LBJ pulled out because his buddies got what they wanted. And I have no idea what middle eastern conflict you think we lost.
Anonymous No.96155859 [Report] >>96170855 >>96175317
>>96151676
The US won Korea
The US lost Vietnam
The US lost Afghanistan
The US won Iraq
Anonymous No.96155919 [Report] >>96156145
>>96140531
Hex and counter games are the only real war games, everything else is Bing Bing wahoo minishit
Anonymous No.96155925 [Report]
>>96155821
>what you wrote describes both of their parties to a T
>It really doesn't.

Not that anon, but it absolutely does. The American Right has been running on aggrievement politics for the past decade or so.
>White people are being genocided due to immigrant displacement and birth rate inequalities
>Christians are the only oppressed religion in the world and the secular Left is trying to destroy us
>Gay and trans people are grooming/converting/raping your children
>Trans athletes are destroying competition and pushing out women
>Mainstream media is pushing a WOKE agenda and that's why you feel ostracized from the public at large

The American Right ran on opposing things rather than being for anything for a while now. What did they actually want? It's impossible to tell other than wanting to stop Wokeism. Every time the American Right takes over the government, they pretend to be about balancing the deficit and making cuts, but they always balloon the deficit. They've talked about pulling back from the global stage with their military and keeping the money at home, but have stayed the course and increased military budget by 150B this year.

The American Left suffers from massive fractionalization. The DNC's power comes from trying to grab and group many disparate "wronged" groups under the same umbrella as "Democrats" while, as people pointed out, what the "Left" is has a massive spectrum with most of its voter base sitting somewhere center-right in terms of global politics. So it makes sense that they unite more around what they don't want than what they want because the groups barely agree on anything. A lot of conservative critique of the American Left is that it's a purity test, and that's not wrong when you have different parts of the Democratic base being culturally dominant and that becomes the new standard for being "a leftist" in America.

Whatever becomes the culture war battleground du jour becomes a way to oust people for both sides.
Anonymous No.96156145 [Report]
>>96155919
in rules terms it's hard to argue against this, at any scale except maybe man to man, but the hobby aspect and gaming with the results still has its own appeal.
Anonymous No.96156548 [Report] >>96180515
>>96155850
The bast majority of Lend Lease arrived post 1943, at that point the end was already set. Check your numbers, 1941-42 lend lease was not a deciding factor, not even close
Anonymous No.96156587 [Report] >>96159349
>>96155821
>American left
EU here, please explain me this, how people consider democrats left? In the EU they would be considered very right wing, or even fascists considering their military intervention track record.
Anonymous No.96159349 [Report]
>>96156587
NTA but the Democrats right now are far left socially and centrist economically (and run the entire gamut of the political spectrum militarily). That’s why they’re so unpopular right now. America is generally right wing on social issues, especially now except for abortion which has been deplatformed. Being economically centrist means neoliberalism which everyone except boomers despise now, and military intervention is largely disconnected from being a left-right issue at this point.
Anonymous No.96159728 [Report]
>>96131162 (OP)
>Why did traditional games not adapt to middle eastern war settings when video games did?
Because traditional consumer wargames have been doing MENA sandbox shit since their inception and will continue doing so. You've got everything from AK47 Republic through Skirmish Sangin through to SPECTRE to Twilight 2000 supplements, not to mention all the hex-and-chit games based on the early Arab-Israeli wars that helped directly popularize early wargaming magazines. Fuck's sake, the US command literally used off-the-shelf games from SPI to test some of their ideas for Desert Storm.
For my money SPECTRE 2.0 or Asymmetric Warfare are the best small-unit games but there's like two dozen that have come out in the last decade alone.
Anonymous No.96159956 [Report]
>>96131162 (OP)
There are some, but WWII is simply the most appealing modern war (pic related), and not much happened around Middle East specifically at that time.
Anonymous No.96159960 [Report]
>>96131162 (OP)
The last time someone made a comment critical about Islam, armed gunmen stormed their offices and butchered them (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting).
Salman Rushdie got stabbed in the fucking face by a fanatic and lost an eye.
The violence of Muslims, and their status as - perversely - a protected caste means that they're verboten, no-one wants that smoke.
Anonymous No.96159968 [Report] >>96160340
>>96131162 (OP)
Why would they? Modern war is fake and gay. Even "modern war" videogames gave to invent conflicts out of whole cloth because "sit in the desert for 18 months while goatfucking dirtfarmers take potshots at you and occasionally wipe out a village" is boring as shit.
Anonymous No.96159972 [Report]
>>96145007
But they're brown so their culture must be respected.
Anonymous No.96160340 [Report] >>96160359
>>96159968
Might want to google the Soviet Afghan War. Shitload of interesting tactics and evolution over the 10 year war.
Check out "The Bear Went Over the Mountain" and 'The Other Side of the Mountain". very interesting shit and there are a few damn good games based on it.

Even US-Afghanistan can be interesting if you read some first hand accounts and play games that take into account the true asymmetry of these kinds of conflicts.
Anonymous No.96160359 [Report] >>96160444
>>96160340
If I wanted an asymmetric skirmish game I can just play Infinity and get the same thing but with space samurai vs alien monkeys. And if I want it in a TRPG then I can play Only War and get access to more interesting weapons.

It's interesting stuff to read and learn about to be sure, but it's not interesting to play through.
Anonymous No.96160444 [Report] >>96160459
>>96160359
You probably need to zoom out a little. Skirmish might not be the right scale to game it (although could still work).
I think a lot of 20thC middle eastern conflicts work best when you have combined arms and ~company scale - helicopters, reinforcements, IFVs, infantry, multiple villages on the table.

Pic partially related
Anonymous No.96160459 [Report]
>>96160444
Which is heavily fictionalized for the purposes of OP's question. Because the actual 20 year war on terror was either street level door breaching or bomb n sweeps.
Anonymous No.96160502 [Report] >>96161470
>>96131162 (OP)
People play traditional games for escaping reality
Anonymous No.96161470 [Report] >>96184310
>>96160502
Truth can be stranger than fiction. What would your African Warlord character be?
Anonymous No.96162299 [Report]
>>96131162 (OP)
The few tried, and it sold like shit.
So they've stopped trying and moved on.

Rocket science, I know
Anonymous No.96162445 [Report]
>>96131162 (OP)
To answer this question, ask yourself how awful it would be to play a wargame based on the Ukraine Conflict where most of the game is just blowing up surrendering conscripts with drones or pounding people you never see with artillery.

ME war led to the idea of small groups of elite guys fighting large groups of scrubs, which is kind of present in wargames, but in order to really capture the essence of this you need absurdly restrictive rules of engagement, piles of objectives, and rules for air support and artillery and stuff which clug games up.

40k and other popular wargames typically model earlier forms of warfare, a sort of Pre-Methodical-Battle thing where it's possible for company strength units to fight for any length of time without air or artillery power becoming involved.
Anonymous No.96162572 [Report] >>96175192
>>96155850
>The Korean war ended like 5 minutes ago, and the north lost. The American military didn't lose Vietnam
This is some next level copium man. It's not healthy for America's military either
Anonymous No.96162674 [Report] >>96182587
>>96133534
Name 10 of them then.
Anonymous No.96163880 [Report] >>96163984 >>96182587
As someone who has actually done a bunch of post-WW2 miniatures wargaming; the games and miniatures are out there. The problems are just this:

There's a fucking weird attitude that pretty much only occurs within the toy soldiers sphere about something being 'too recent' Even for wars they have literally no connection to. The people who bang on about this are usually still happy with literally any other media or entertainment on the wars in question. Movies. Videogames. Scale models. They're also still fucking weird about it with fictional wars. Many of these people also never served. Not all though. But many.

The closer you get to present day, the less suitable for miniatures gaming the wars get. This isn't an attitude thing, this is simply a lack of solid information to base games on, and that the technological problems created by newer gear requires different approaches by designers. The speed and destruction of properly modelled modern combat (at the larger scale especially) is also something players frequently can't deal with - it's too much to manage. I've seen it time and again that the average player cannot deal with things like:
Thermal imaging systems vs not having them
Artillery genuinely fucking up stuff.
Very expensive helicopter gunships getting destroyed because of slight mis-plays bringing them into AA range.
Very expensive helicopter gunships played right shredding entire tank companies without being touched.
Very expensive tanks getting blown up by cheap infantry because they were not screened properly (Grozny '95 anyone?)
And this is before getting into even more modern combat than late '80s stuff. There's a lot less intuitive/institutional understanding of how shit works, and there's far less room for error because the amount of firepower being thrown around at every level is vastly more than in WW2 and earlier.
Anonymous No.96163984 [Report]
>>96163880
>There's a fucking weird attitude that pretty much only occurs within the toy soldiers sphere about something being 'too recent'
This happens in hex and counter too but generally it gets blown right past. Mark Herman is even designing a game about the first year of the Ukrainian War right now, to say nothing of hypothetical wargames like Next War or Littoral Commander.
I think it’s because, and I really don’t mean to sound pretentious, hex and counter tends to be more “academically minded”. Putting a hobbyist element of painting miniatures and building terrain instantly makes something more gamey even if the actual mechanics and topic are identical.
Anonymous No.96170724 [Report]
>>96131162 (OP)
Can only speak for myself, but frankly deserts bore the shit out of me. And for games involving warfare, I much prefer conventional conflict to COIN.
>>96131701
Yup. Even though I don't know how well it plays, I've always been tempted to play RECON RPG.
>>96152409
Nope, they've been doing very solid work. We'll probably only find out which tank is the worst post-war, anyway.
>CAPTCHA: OATSJ
Is a lack of cereal crops the culprit behind there being no modern ME war settings?
Anonymous No.96170855 [Report]
>>96155859
Nobody won Korea. It's technically still going, just on pause forever.
Anonymous No.96171008 [Report]
>>96131191
The iran and iraq are actually pretty competitive in team yankee because spam lists are fucking king in that game and guess who has dirt cheap infantry bmp hordes and t55s
Anonymous No.96171024 [Report] >>96171044
>>96146284
all the battlefront games? yeah them+ the vietnam war games are just team yankee but with massive hordes of vietcong or middle easterners with soviet hand me downs vs a small group of israeli/american forces.
Anonymous No.96171044 [Report]
>>96171024
God I hate that TY doubled down on the worst aspect of Flames: the parking lots
Anonymous No.96171104 [Report] >>96174927
>>96131162 (OP)
Ultra-moderns were boring shit, where everyone wanted to play Western Forces with all the toys and no one wanted to play sandal-wearing OPFOR being stomped.

Ukraine has changed that with two genuinely interesting and balanced sides, but I think people are waiting for it to end before they game it.
Anonymous No.96171111 [Report]
>>96131162 (OP)
because videogames are propaganda.
Anonymous No.96172802 [Report]
There are tons of wargames set on the war on terror. They are just not as visible as sci fi games, because historical wargames are a niche anf usually played in clubs instead of game stores.
Anonymous No.96173302 [Report] >>96180495
Use recon and advanced recon
Its basicly set for nam, but ak' and m16's are the same.
Youll have to modernize the nvg's and themals but everything else is pretty 1 for 1
Its lethal to the point of suggesting you make extra characters
Anonymous No.96174927 [Report]
>>96171104
>Ultra-moderns were boring shit, where everyone wanted to play Western Forces with all the toys and no one wanted to play sandal-wearing OPFOR being stomped.
Eh, I'll wilingly play OPFOR because it has unique challenges. Especially with more realistic scenarios where Blue and Red both have coverts on the table, Blue's got air support and a couple Hummers full of troops as backup but Red has 3 IEDs, 1 traitor in the allied Blue unit on the ground, and 50 militia jackoffs split between hidden deployment and reinforcements backing up a dozen Trained troops in an urban area. Or when you're running angry Russkie mafia bandits trying to pull a bank heist extract against EU SWAT, or a Cartel hit on an LEO gathering, or any of dozens of other scenarios that aren't just plugging durkas for three hours and six turns.
Basically design the scenario to test things, and be willing to accept that sometimes the "win" condition costs you horribly.
Anonymous No.96175062 [Report] >>96175081 >>96187138
>>96131167
The first wargames were literal simulations of the then-current warfare. What changed to make it stagnate?
Anonymous No.96175081 [Report]
>>96175062 (me)
Okay I won’t post before reading the rest of the thread again
Anonymous No.96175192 [Report]
>>96162572
>It's not healthy for America's military either
Never will be
>oh no a marine barracks just got blown up in some african shithole, we now need to completely fuck up your mission planning to rescue some hostages in a north african shithole to shove marines in or the pride of the marine corps will never recover!
The more you know the more you learn that military leadership above platoon level is almost universally retarded and gay, trying to pretend they're fucking Napoleon or some shit.
Anonymous No.96175277 [Report] >>96175368
>>96147093
>Name a conflict it won past WW2. And even that was with Soviet help
It's much more accurate to say the Soviet wons WW2 with American help than vice versa.
Anonymous No.96175302 [Report]
>>96147247
>just yeet shit to the grinder with no support or real operational plan
The Russians simply don't do this.
The Ukrainians try not to do this, except their support gets blown up or shot down, and planning any operation that isn't going to cost immense numbers of bodies requires resources they don't have and conditions that they can't create.
Our Military Advisors saying they should've just "driven around the minefields" when the entire line of contact was just minefields is exemplary of how unprepared we've become for fighting a war that isn't a proxy conflict against insurgents and conscripts.
Anonymous No.96175317 [Report] >>96175758 >>96180524
>>96155859
>The US won Iraq
Still ongoing so there's no winners there. Closest you could say is that we beat the Iraqis in Kuwait. Though they were also one of the most incompetent armies on earth.
Anonymous No.96175368 [Report] >>96175417 >>96175501
>>96175277
Could even go as far as to say D-Day might as well have not happened. At some point it became more about landgrab and the shaping of the post-ww2 environment. Axis loss was already a foregone conclusion arguably even as early as Barbarossa's failure.
Anonymous No.96175417 [Report] >>96175478
>>96175368
>Axis loss was already a foregone conclusion arguably even as early as Barbarossa's failure.
True, but neither side could have won the war without the other. The western allies wouldn't have won without the Soviets providing a black hole for Germany to throw most of its military might into, and the Soviets wouldn't have won without the vast quantities of western supplies, effective strategic bombing hampering German industry, and the threat of invasion from the west diverting massive chunks of German materiel and manpower away from the eastern front.
Anonymous No.96175478 [Report]
>>96175417
>and the Soviets wouldn't have won without the vast quantities of western supplies
The point you missed is that the Soviets had effectively won by the time any significant lend leasing was being done, which was also the main reason any was done: The Soviets had proven themselves the winning horse.
Without lend leasing, it might have taken longer to get to Berlin, but that's about it.

>the threat of invasion from the west diverting massive chunks of German materiel and manpower away from the eastern front.
Never did. 90% of casualties and combat occurred on the eastern front, and any western invasion wasn't even a threat to be dreamed of until the Nazis had been running back to Berlin for two years straight.
Anonymous No.96175501 [Report] >>96175680
>>96175368
D-day is honestly overrated and mostly hollywood yeah.
I would argue that the Germans had only truly lost when Fall Blau went horribly wrong. Although it's entirely reasonable to say that Barbarossa was the beginning of the end and wasn't realistically recoverable, I think they still would have had a shot at winning if the oil fields were taken.
Anonymous No.96175680 [Report]
>>96175501
Yep, countries will obviously have a tendency to write history and create media about their own involvement. The sheer volume of easily available and digestible material on the western theatres and even pacific theatre vs the eastern front..well there's no real comparison. I don't think it's that anyone is engaging in some kind of cover-up, but the US and to a lesser extent, British & Commonwealth contributions end up feeling more weighty/consequential mostly due to this disparity and how thoroughly covered it is, in almost every aspect.
Anonymous No.96175754 [Report] >>96175792 >>96175809 >>96179731
>>96151676
What war did america lose in the middle east? And no occupations aren't wars

Also it's massive cope to say america lost Korea. If not completely wiping out your enemy counts as a loss than the north and china also lost.

And Vietnam ended in a peace treaty. North Vietnam didn't invade again until US troops left.
Anonymous No.96175758 [Report] >>96180040
>>96175317
Anon we literally toppled the Iraqi government, that was the goal. Stuff being shitty after the war ends doesn't mean you lost the war lol. That's like saying that the allies lost ww1 because ww2 followed it.
Anonymous No.96175781 [Report] >>96176476
Why the fuck did Hitler think it was a good idea to fight a 2-front war in the first place?
>Hurr durr stoopid mongoloid slavs, we can kick their asses and take over their oil fields easily. Whoops, there goes the war...
Anonymous No.96175792 [Report] >>96176872
>>96175754
Retroactively changing your war goals does not count as "winning" a war
Anonymous No.96175809 [Report]
>>96175754

>And no occupations aren't wars

I don't really see the point in making a distinction. You deploy troops, it costs tons of money, and there are battles. Your KDR doesn't matter. The side that outlasts the enemy gets their way.
Anonymous No.96176437 [Report] >>96176478 >>96176893
>>96131682
Honestly being a bunch of Afghan tribals trying to carve out a place for themselves in the midst of the conflict would be cool
Anonymous No.96176476 [Report] >>96176507
>>96175781
>Well, we failed to achieve much of anything in the Blitz, let's try to invade somewhere we can get to without swimming.
Anonymous No.96176478 [Report] >>96183336
>>96176437
I mean, they carved out the entire country for themselves and now they have to deal with the banality of actually running a modern country
Anonymous No.96176507 [Report]
>>96176476
>We're just about take Moscow. Hehehe... Napoleon ain't got shit on m–AAAAAIIIIEEEEHHHH! HELP MEEEEEEEE
Anonymous No.96176872 [Report]
>>96175792
More importantly, we didn't have clear goals in any of those conflicts. They were war-profiteers encouraging the US to parcipate in conflicts for the sake of war-profiteering. There was never a clear goal in a single one of those conflicts. We certainly didn't wipe out the Taliban, Viet-Kong or the DPRK. Russia didn't collapse. China cidn't collapse. Communism didn't vanish in either one. The Taliban retained control and no, it didn't become a proxy for the US in the Asian Steppe.
Anonymous No.96176893 [Report]
>>96176437
So then go play Pax Pamir.
But be ready for non stop backstabbing and parasitic opportunism.
Anonymous No.96179731 [Report] >>96180234 >>96180257
>>96175754
>Vietnam ended in a peace treaty
Hardly, the US were scrambling to get out as fast as they could and would sign anything by that point. The NVA were always going to storm south Vietnam treaty or no, and they did so with such speed that we have pictures of diplomats trying to escape by helicopter from the top of buildings.

The goal of the Vietnam war for the US was to stop the spread of communism, and it backfired so badly (or was so poorly handled) they ended up spreading communism to south Vietnam, which is communist to this day.

As we've seen with countries with long histories of oppression and resistance (Afghanistan and Vietnam) it becomes really hard to break their spirit of resistance, as for a lot of them it's all they've known. Afghans for example would say during the Soviet Afghan war "if I don't win this war, my children will, if they don't win, their children will" and so on.
Anonymous No.96180040 [Report]
>>96175758
>That was the goal
The goal was to turn Iraq into a democracy, not depose Saddam. We have an ongoing occupation because we still can't succeed.
Anonymous No.96180234 [Report] >>96180257
>>96179731
Yes, the US was desperate for a face-saving escape route.
>The goal of the Vietnam war for the US was to stop the spread of communism
Eh. That's what we now rationalize it as being. The truth is that that's the reason we were giving supplies and propping up the South Vietnamese. But we didn't enter the war until the Gulf of Tonkin, when Johnson straight up lied to congress claiming that the North Vietnamese were attacking our navy unprovoked. What actually happened was one ship of ours was mistaken as South Vietnamese. And then Johnson told a bald-faced lie about another being attacked, to present a false image that the North Vietnamese were intentionally starting a war w/ the US. Which Johnson did because he wanted to be seen as tough because he hadn't been elected President and he knew that starting a war would get him a second term. It's not a coincendence that we started the war in August 64, and the election was held that November. We had no clear military objective from the start.
Anonymous No.96180257 [Report] >>96180272 >>96180421 >>96180546 >>96181625
>>96179731
>>96180234
You're both retarded faggots, the goal was to keep France in NATO and it worked. I mean holy shit the vietnamese are basically one giant shoe factory for the US, and you think they won anything?
Anonymous No.96180272 [Report] >>96180417
>>96180257
That's absolutely, flatly false. For one thing, France left NATO in 66. Dipshit.
Anonymous No.96180377 [Report]
>>96134246
This and unironically. IIRC it was found that Electronic Arts was taking DoD money and effectively became a propaganda wing for military recruitment, creating the 'brown and bloom' era of video games. It's why they bought Command and Conquer and converted it from a sci-fi series with a wacky Cold War subseries into a "United States versus China and Jihadis" series.

Tabletop didn't get the interest of that sweet DARPA money, so it just went about its business as always.
Anonymous No.96180417 [Report] >>96180421
>>96180272
Lmao you're retarded https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52044.htm
France is right there. Suck my nuts and then kill yourself, faggot.
Anonymous No.96180421 [Report] >>96180437 >>96180463
>>96180257
>>96180417
France (unofficially) withdrew from Nato in 66.
Because of de Gaulle's nationalist policies after he took over in 65.
The US passed the resolution authorizing the war in 64.

So you're claiming that we authorized the war with Vietnam in 1964, to prevent the French from withdrawing from NATO. Which they didn't decide to do until the administration that took control in 1965. And that it worked despite the fact that they withdrew in 1966.

Do you comprehend why that makes your claims retarded?
Anonymous No.96180437 [Report] >>96180443
>>96180421
>Unofficially
>IT TOTALLY HAPPENED GUISE! NATO IS LYING, FRANCE TOTALLY WITHDREW, I-ITS JUST OFF THE BOOKS TRUST ME!
Also what's with the 'we' stuff, Ivan? lmfao
Anonymous No.96180443 [Report] >>96180451
>>96180437
Oh you're literally retarded. Anon your version of events requires time travel.
Anonymous No.96180451 [Report] >>96180456
>>96180443
Oh you're literally making shit up and begging people to believe you. Why are Russian shills always so dumb?
Anonymous No.96180456 [Report] >>96180474
>>96180451
Anon, De Gaulle was the one who wanted out of Nato.

He wasn't elected until 1965.

We entered the war in 1964.
Anonymous No.96180463 [Report] >>96180477
>>96180421
>France (unofficially) withdrew from Nato in 66.
That's not true, though. France only withdrew from NATO's military command structure to avoid the US having defacto control over its military. They were considering leaving the alliance entirely, but the Vietnam war (Which only started over old French colonial interests in the region) is a large part of why they stayed in NATO.
Anonymous No.96180474 [Report] >>96180477
>>96180456
Anon, you're a retarded slavic shill who seriously thinks France is secretly out of NATO.
Anonymous No.96180477 [Report] >>96180489 >>96180498
>>96180463
>>96180474
Holy shit you're retards. It's irrelevant whether you wanna count the unofficial withdrawl.

De Gaulle's term started in 65.
We authorized Vietnam in 64.
Anonymous No.96180489 [Report] >>96180498 >>96180499
>>96180477
...And? The US was already in the region by '54. Why exactly do you think De Gaulle even won his term?
Anonymous No.96180495 [Report] >>96184504
>>96173302
Isn't this the game with Left-Handed Underwater Knife Fighting?
Anonymous No.96180498 [Report]
>>96180477
>"y-you're retards"
>t. guy who believes France secretly left NATO

>>96180489
He's 100% asking chat GPT why right now lmfao
Anonymous No.96180499 [Report] >>96180513 >>96180522
>>96180489
And you can't claim that we authorized the war in 64, to prevent a decision by a guy who didn't come into power until 65.

You fucking retard.
Anonymous No.96180513 [Report] >>96180523
>>96180499
>And you can't claim that we authorized the war in 64
I mean we didn't. We never "authorized a war" and were never officially at war with Vietnam.
But regardless, no, we were fighting in the region in 1954. France had been fighting over Vietnam with rebels and soviet sympathizers up to that point, and part of the US's reason for taking over in the region was to keep France within NATO by aligning their political interests. The French had been considering leaving the alliance long before De Gaulle was elected, anon.

Please, calm yourself, you just don't know as much about this topic as you think you do.
Anonymous No.96180515 [Report] >>96180609 >>96182676
>>96156548
>retard
Lend/Lease delivered more thanks to the Soviets before the Stalingrad counteroffensive, than were USED in the Stalingrad counteroffensive.
Anonymous No.96180522 [Report] >>96180546
>>96180499
The US was financing the war and sending troops in during the 1st Indochina War. Are you retarded?
Anonymous No.96180523 [Report]
>>96180513
The US' military action began after authorization on August 7th 1964 that was passed by Congress under lies told by Johnson for his re-election campaign.

De Gaulle's declarations about Nato were made in 1965.
Anonymous No.96180524 [Report] >>96180598
>>96175317
I guess no one told you we invaded Iraq twice? The first one was in the 90s, before you were born. We won both.
Anonymous No.96180546 [Report] >>96180604 >>96180620
>>96180522
And? That wasn't the claim. This was: >>96180257
>the goal [of the the Vietnam War] was to keep France in NATO and it worked.
The US entered a military conflict in 1964. The claim that it was to "keep France in NATO," which didn't become a thread until 1965, is false.
Anonymous No.96180598 [Report]
>>96180524
I guess no one told you what Kuwait was.
Anonymous No.96180604 [Report] >>96180615
>>96180546
>And? That wasn't the claim
You're directly claiming they weren't involved until 1964. You are retarded.
Anonymous No.96180609 [Report] >>96182506
>>96180515
when it comes to this shit I'm gonna go with Glantz:

>Although Soviet accounts have routinely belittled the significance of Lend-Lease in the sustainment of the Soviet war effort, the overall importance of the assistance cannot be understated. Lend-Lease aid did not arrive in sufficient quantities to make the difference between defeat and victory in 1941–1942; that achievement must be attributed solely to the Soviet people and to the iron nerve of Stalin, Zhukov, Shaposhnikov, Vasilevsky, and their subordinates. As the war continued, however, the United States and Great Britain provided many of the implements of war and strategic raw materials necessary for Soviet victory. Without Lend-Lease food, clothing, and raw materials (especially metals), the Soviet economy would have been even more heavily burdened by the war effort. Perhaps most directly, without Lend-Lease trucks, rail engines, and railroad cars, every Soviet offensive would have stalled at an earlier stage, outrunning its logistical tail in a matter of days. In turn, this would have allowed the German commanders to escape at least some encirclements, while forcing the Red Army to prepare and conduct many more deliberate penetration attacks in order to advance the same distance. Left to their own devices, Stalin and his commanders might have taken twelve to eighteen months longer to finish off the Wehrmacht; the ultimate result would probably have been the same, except that Soviet soldiers could have waded at France's Atlantic beaches
Anonymous No.96180615 [Report] >>96180641
>>96180604
I'm stating, factually, that we didn't enter a military conflict in Vietnam until 1964. That is accurate. Prior to that we provided support, money and weapons. There is nothing that can be called the "war in vietnam" that the US engaged in with military force, until 1964.

And France didn't threaten to leave NATO until 1965. So even if we pretend your weaseling counts, you're STILL just saying "the threat to leave NATO isn't why we got involved."

Jesus christ you're retarded.
Anonymous No.96180620 [Report] >>96180661
>>96180546
>The claim that it was to "keep France in NATO," which didn't become a thread until 1965
Except it was a threat much earlier. De Gaulle's anti-NATO slant came from the 1950s when the US went against French interests multiple times, such as during the Suez Crisis.
I also don't know why you keep saying "1965." De Gaulle became president in 1959. So by your own logic, you're incorrect.
Anonymous No.96180641 [Report]
>>96180615
>I'm stating, factually, that we didn't enter a military conflict in Vietnam until 1964,
Oh ok, you're wrong then.

>In 1961, The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) began assisting Montagnard irregular forces, American pilots began flying combat missions to support South Vietnamese ground forces, and Kennedy authorized the use of herbicides (Agent Orange) to kill vegetation near roads threatened by the VC. By the end of the year, 3,205 American military personnel were in South Vietnam compared to 900 a year earlier.

>And France didn't threaten to leave NATO until 1965
Actually, they'd been not only threatening it before, but taking steps to leave NATO as far back as 1959.
>The United States and the United Kingdom did not accept the French proposals. Consequently, on 11 March 1959, France decided to withdraw its Mediterranean naval fleet from NATO command. In June, it refused to store foreign nuclear weapons on its territory, forcing the United States to transfer 200 military aircraft out of France.

Sorry, you're retarded.
Anonymous No.96180661 [Report] >>96180687
>>96180620
>I also don't know why you keep saying "1965."
Because he didn't make the threat until he was reelected in 1965.

And I'm saying it because I know what I'm talking about. And you don't.
Anonymous No.96180687 [Report] >>96181834
>>96180661
>Because he didn't make the threat until 1965
That's been proven false though, France was already making moves to leave in 1959.
>I know what I'm talking about
You don't and it's pretty obvious you don't. For example, you previously said he wasn't elected until 1965, but De Gaulle was elected much earlier. Now you've hastily changed to "re-elected" because you realized you were wrong, but all this does is show you didn't know anything about the subject when you started mouthing off about it.
I hope this conversation is very educating for you :)
Anonymous No.96181625 [Report] >>96183359
>>96180257
>the goal was to keep France in NATO
gaslighting nonsense. I've been researching the Vietnam war for like 10 years and it's the first I've ever heard of it.
Post some sources or stfu
Anonymous No.96181834 [Report] >>96183359
>>96180687
>You talked about specific things!
>Therefore you must be in denial that other things also happened
Jesus. The dishonesty and idiocy of you people...
Anonymous No.96182506 [Report] >>96182536
>>96180609
>the ultimate result would probably have been the same, except that Soviet soldiers could have waded at France's Atlantic beaches
Is this implying that the western allies aren't in the war at all? Wouldn't that mean that on top of the USSR being significantly weaker, Germany is also significantly stronger in this scenario?
Anonymous No.96182536 [Report]
>>96182506
>the ultimate result would probably have been the same
the quote on wikipedia I lifted is incomplete for some unfathomable reason, here's the actual:

>If the Western Allies had not provided equipment and invaded northwest Europe, Stalin and his commanders might have taken twelve to eighteen months longer to finish off the Wehrmacht. The result would probably have been the same, except that Soviet soldiers would have waded at France’s Atlantic beaches rather than meeting the Allies at the Elbe. Thus, although the Red Army shed the bulk of Allied blood, it would have bled even more intensely and for a longer time without Allied assistance.
Anonymous No.96182587 [Report]
>>96162674
NTA but:

-Ambush Alley/Force on Force
-Labryinth: The War on Terror
-Hornet Leader
-Brotherhood & Unity
-Spectre Operations
-Black Powder Red Earth
-Flashpoint: South China Sea
-Jagged Alliance: The Board Game (admittedly more '80s action movie)
-Next War: Taiwan
-Armageddon War: Platoon Level Combat in the End War

>>96163880
I'll note EW, communications interception/subversion, and deception/diversion operations are relatively undermodeled in most wargames by virtue of usually having much better information and the limits of having only so many players involved.
Anonymous No.96182613 [Report]
>>96131162 (OP)
>random encounter
>roadside explosives
riveting.
Anonymous No.96182618 [Report]
>>96131162 (OP)
>you do a thing
>congratulations soldier, your tour is over, you get to go home and your replacement will have no idea that you did a thing, starting from zero all over again!
Anonymous No.96182676 [Report]
>>96180515
Educate yourself. Contrast your sources.
Anonymous No.96183336 [Report] >>96183422
>>96176478
>20 years from now some Mohammad Abdullahshallawali will be telling his kids how much better Afghanistan was when they could car bomb Americans instead of working as office drones making Excel spreadsheets for to show American investors how far the quarterlies are up
Anonymous No.96183359 [Report]
>>96181834
>>96181625
The coping and lying needed to pretend you didn't get caught being a witless retard is hilarious. Come back and keep going please.
Anonymous No.96183422 [Report]
>>96183336
>20 years from now
Only couple months after the Taliban took control, they already started complaining about how they had to manage schedules instead of being out there, planting roadside bombs.
Anonymous No.96184121 [Report]
Near future stuff is better than just modern stuff because you can add in more toys, though I guess since drones are now bread and butter warfare "modern" is catching up to that near future aesthetic every day.
Anonymous No.96184220 [Report]
>>96134272
The way the title text is setup is awful. I can barely tell what it's trying to say.
Anonymous No.96184258 [Report]
>>96147759
Got any examples?
Anonymous No.96184310 [Report]
>>96161470
Stylish.

Frankly a skirmish game of "Not African Warlords" with each side having some ridiculous suits and most combatants not being able to hit a broad side of the barn without goig full auto would be fun.
Anonymous No.96184504 [Report]
>>96180495
Dont recall that part but off hand knife fighting sounds like a hard thing to train underwater
Anonymous No.96187138 [Report]
>>96175062
asymmetric instead of peer