Guys, let's not turn this into a political debate, OK?
The whole affair is pretty fresh, if you ask around there are chances you'll hear it isn't exactly over yet, so don't expect objective information to be found lying around.
So the tank on the pic above is a Magach-7 rather than a Merkava-IV, and most of the reported "invincible Israeli tanks destroyed by the mighty Hizbollah fighters" were not Merkava-IVs. Some of those were apparently pretty much disabled in fighting and ambushes, but they were certainly not the bulk of disabled Israeli armor.
Just to clarify things: I have no idea how many Merk-4s Tsahal fields. Given the overall Merkava and tank fleet numbers, I'd say one in ten or so, counting the old Magach, Shot and Tiran leftovers. Considering the huge rep of Israeli tanks and tankers, the showing off they did with the Merk-4, and the average armor knowledge of the average reporter , every time a Hezbollah spokesperson reported "defeated Israeli armor", everyone jumped to conclusions.
Besides, all politics aside, why would the Israeli command have sent their best and most expensive tanks when they didn't expect such resistance from the Hezbollah? And why would the Hezbollah have bothered shooting Merkavas when they were sure to have the same media coverage when they toasted 40-years old Tirans?
Now there have been reports that some Kornets were in Hezbollah hands, and afterwards that KBP and Russian authorities were investigating. That's the last I've heard of it. I don't trust that Wikipedia article an inch (matter of principle), but I readily admit that some Kornets have been smuggled from Syrian stocks by friendly hands.
There again, they certainly didn't make up most of the antitank weapons available, just as the Merkava-IVs didn't make up most of the Israeli tank force.
I've just tested the scenario (that thread is about a scenario, right?), and it turns out quite well.
So all political nagging aside, I just have two critics for you, Adler, and I hope they will be constructive:
-As said above, too much high-tech. Too many top-notch Merkavas against too many top-notch ATGMs (Milan-IIIs? do even Lebanon or Syria have those?). Except if you have visual evidence to the opposite, I think most of the Israeli column can be made of Merkava-I/IIs or even older tanks. And the Hezbollah force should rely less on Kornets and more on upgraded Malutkas or similar (take the Iranian SACLOS Raad-T f.e.). They are good enough for plunking anything short of a second-generation Merk and
much less expensive.
-Second, your Hezbollah deployment could do with some trimming. Don't take it bad, I can see you put a great deal of work in this scenario, but some things look strange. A N commando formation before the HQ? Guys with inflatable rafts? fortified infantry position lying around with no one in them? Not much incidence on the gameplay, but it looks messy
. Now what has more influence is that your Hezbollah force is probably a) too large (218 people for 100 from the Jerusalem Post?) and b) not too well-equipped. It looks like these guys have had days to set up. AK-47s only don't do much against tanks, so sprinkle some RPG-7 rounds on your frontline units, that will make things even more fun. Also, some of your ATGM teams don't have a view on the road (I know, detail, details...).
So good work, all in all, but I think it could be a good idea to refrain from making political statements out of scenarios. There are a lot of in-game and user-made scenarios that deal with real conflicts, even recent ones, and no one uses them for childish "haha! pwned!!" comments, it just takes the fun out of it.
Tell you what, the more you'll try to come up with an objective scenario and steer away from the politician- or journalist-made manichean narratives, the better the game will be.
IDF vs. Hezbollah guerilla (08/2006)
Linear Mode
