Just a Common Soldier

 

1. Christopher .....
   WONDERFUL!  Never saw this before and am gonna share.

   This also reminds me and I have a post planned on it, of an article in todays paper that is just maddening.  There is a new game out, hope I didn’t lose the article, you would not believe the pile of papers I have here, anyway .... its a war game set in today in which you can be the Taliban or any terrorist ... and shoot American and Brit soldiers.
   A freekin game.  It’s got a number of people upset and understandably so.

   I’m not a gamer and so maybe should voice opinions but somehow I thing that while our guys are bleeding in a current war situation, that is just gross.
   Furthermore ...  even in WW2 games, and I admit I don’t play those either, with the war so long over, I know I couldn’t play the German side. Yeah,yeah, war over and only a game but somehow, I don’t know. I just couldn’t play shooting our guys.
   I guess that’s why I’m not a gamer.

   However ... I could happily shoot the hell out of a neighbors high pitched barky damn dog.
   But that’d be the subject of another post.

   Posted by peiper       08/22/2010  at  11:28 AM  



2. its a war game set in today in which you can be the Taliban or any terrorist ... and shoot American and Brit soldiers.
   A freekin game.  It’s got a number of people upset and understandably so.

   I don’t get the problem. In any wargame somebody has to be the ‘bad guys’.

   I grew up playing Avalon Hill wargames like Third Reich, Richtofen’s War, Jutland, Arab-Israeli Wars, 1776, Panzer Blitz, Panzer Leader, etc. Also SSI games like Vietnam, Civil War, Third Fleet, etc. Somebody always had to be the Germans, the British, the Vietnamese, the South, etc. The whole point of wargames is what Newt Gringrich calls ‘living history’. ‘What if’ things had been decided differently.

   Might depend on the definition of ‘wargame’. In my view, a ‘wargame’ is a simulation of historical events. The game involves an evaluation, in game terms, of the capabilities of the antagonists forces. The difference is the player might choose a different strategy than was chosen historically. So, back to Mr. Newt’s ‘living history’ approach.

   Now, if this is just an arcade ‘shoot ‘em up’, that’s not a wargame. Nor was a previous game called ‘Going Postal’.

   Posted by Christopher       08/22/2010  at  11:59 AM  



3. Yeah but Chris… this war is ongoing. There are young kids being killed. In fact, according to reports last day or two, the Taliban have actually hired snipers to kill Brits and have taken out 10. Brits that is.

   I believe Brits sent in drones when they located some. These are mercs btw. Whatever.
   It isn’t the same thing I don’t think.  Not while our guys are dying over there. Somehow playing a game that has killing our ppl while they are already dying, I don’t know. Just can’t see it.

   Posted by peiper       08/22/2010  at  12:33 PM  



4. I dunno peiper,

   I’ll refer you to my mention of Avalon Hill’s Arab-Israeli Wars. Now, I’ll grant that ‘our guys’ weren’t dying over there then, but the Arab-Israeli conflict has been ongoing my entire life.

   As for SSI’s Vietnam, t’was a close thing. ‘Came nigh to be spoilin’ me pantaloons.’ (not sure what that means, but I’ve been dying to use it in a sentence since I read it in Bored of the Rings.) The war ended far too close to when I’d have had to go. (mind you, I’d have gone, just didn’t want to. It was obvious we weren’t there to win. If I’m going to die for my country, my country better be in it to win!)

   The military is wargaming past, present, and future conflicts constantly. That’s all they do at the War College.

   Once again, is this just an arcade game shoot-’em-up? One where you’re the Taliban shooting Brits, Amercs, Canucks, etc? That’s different. That’s not a wargame. That’s just pure evil.

   Posted by Christopher       08/22/2010  at  01:25 PM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.