Question: Who are the Bad Guys?

[WBWilder]

WOW! WOW! And all of this from just the suggestion of such a scenario! My, oh my!

Still, this is very good conversation. I think the main point I have gathered from this is simply do the battle and let folks decide for themselves.

In that sense the text file must also be neutral, not leaning one way or another.

As is often the case, most soldiers in the trenches are not so much concerned with philosophical right or wrong, they just want to stay alive, whatever it takes.

And as for the bloodletting of the innocent, well, that to me does not qualify at all in the sense of whatever twisted honor that there is in warfare.

Final result. I will probably do it. There are other themes less controversial and more apparent and those I will do first.

Thanks gentlemen, for expressing your views on the subject.

I heard you Listy! Get back to work. You got it!

I guess "Height of Battle" or "Bushwhacked" was not enough.

Okay, coming up, the UK paras and their landings at Port Said. That work for you?

[WBWilder]

One last thought. War does bring out the worst and the best in men, politics aside. My goal and I think the goal of most designers is to highlight that "best" side.

WB

[bigbang11C]

I look at it this way, the good guys were the young men sent to war and the bad guys the politicians that sent them to war.

[troopie]

Kunel,

There are neither good guys nor bad guys, there are just a gaggle of poor kerls doing their service at the same time we are. Someone came to their homes, said you must come with us, shoved a rifle in their hands and made them learn to use it. We are called the security forces, they are called terrs. But to a lot of people, we are the terrs and they are the security forces. So, f))k dit, do your job, obey your orders and try to come through it in one piece with your sanity intact.

Beside all, in a hundred million years the cockroaches won't give a turd who was SF and who was terr.

troopie

[IanWilliams]

I for one would enjoy a few scenarios or a campain from the perspective of the insurgents.


Another idea for a scenarios or campains would be a Revolutionaries ( Castro & Che) vs Batista's forces.


Ian

[PlasmaKrab]

Nice of you to ask that kind of question, Wild Bill!

Just as everyone said here, what the hell, do the best scenario you can using this setting and as far as gaming is concerned everyone will be happy.
Consider the problem of every historical recreation (book, movie, game, no matter): as long as you just set the stage and play the game everything is just fine, but as soon as you start talking context (here, writing the text file), everyone will start complaining.

Now as a Frenchman I can tell you that some fellow citizens would probably get angry even at your mentionning the subject! Possibly same with Algerians, mind you.

I'm quite surprised that no other Frenchie here spoke up on this subject yet, that could be interesting.

IMO one thing you could consider is creating two scenarios, not necessarily on the same setting, each to be played from one side, with rather than a neutral and non-inducive test (which wouldn't be quite the flavour in such a situation, would it?), for each one a situation report aligned to the considered side, without being propaganda forasmuch. That should settle it, without losing anything of the spirit of the thing.
Now I don't want to overload you either, so if you weren't considering going that far on the Algeria War, I'll understand that this isn't the solution!

Anyway, without starting a heated debate on this subject, I think that your question is a very interesting one indeed, regarding the conception someone has of wargaming (and of war, as an extension).
To paraphrase Don, no one goes to war considering himself the 'bad guy', and good or bad are a matter of moliticians and historians. So if there is to be some equity in historical scenario design, I guess that we wargamers should stand back somewhat and not stick to the point of view of the winner just because, as persons or mere citizens, we are on the winning side.

That's just my mind about all that, I don't want to offend anyone and I hope I didn't! I think that it quite sums up the general mind about it, but I was just quite curious.

Sadly I'm not enough of a wargaming veteran to know much of your impressive record, but how many VietNam scenarios have you done, that were meant to be played from the VC side? Please understand that there is no irony or reproach in my question, just a sincere interrogation about, as I said, the general outlook on wargaming.

Best regards,
PlasmaKrab

[KevinRanger95]

I guess the way I have always played or a point of view of playing is, I know how history has played out for a certain war or even battle or even a war that hasn't happened, like the cold war. I don't like to look at it as good guys or bad guys but as countries battling against each other and what out come I can come up with if I do it a different way, kind of like instead of doing a hail mary in Iraq, just going and slugging it out up the middle.
But really are there good guys in war, both are doing the same thing, just for two different causes, and there wild bill is where you have to stay neutral, and really as this is a wargame, people need to be responsible and remember that its just a simple everyday computer game!
Not to mention if I don't keep my hull down and I get it blown off I have a billion more tries to get it right!
It's the best way to Train!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[WBWilder]

Very enlightening comments. To Plasmakrab (I'm trying to figure that name out, my friend!), It is good to get the point of view of a Frenchman on the subject.

I want to say that he has a point. No, I've never done a scenario that I can remember from the VC point of view.

My rough guess is that out of the 1,300 plus scenarios I've done, some 100 have been on Vietnam, including three campaigns for SP3.

I sense no irony or reproach at all my friend. I like it when folks speak their mind fairly. All of you have been quite politically correct in your opinions.

Quite frankly, there are, I'm sure, good guys and bad guys on both sides of the demarcation line. Troopie and Bigbang are correct in their statements. Lots of good people caught up in bad wars.

The idea of scenarios with insurgents as the human player side is a good one, Ian. I will definitely give that some thought. I have done a few about guerrilla warfare in a WW2 atmosphere but this could be developed.

Thanks all of you for your thinking on the matter.

WB

[WBWilder]

Refesh my memory, Troopie. What does that saying at the end of your posts mean? I think you told me once but senility coupled with time sneaks stuff out of my brain.

The Kunel