Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I must say that I appreciate all of the comments made in this topic so far (even those made in anger). It goes a long way towards helping me judge how potential players might feel about the idea of a set of game rules based in the modern era. Both as a game and as a potentially emotional issue.

If you don't mind answering a couple of follow-on questions...

Would a modern era game be more or less appealing if the army lists were restricted to the National Armies of various countries? i.e. No rules or Army Lists based on guerilla tactics in the main rules, but possibly available as optional rules.

Would you be more or less interested in a set of rules with victory conditions based on scenario goals rather than points of models killed? The idea being that scenarios would need to allow for subtle play to win over brute force of numbers or advanced equipment.

Again...Thank you all for your participation in the discussion.

>> Would a modern era game be more or less appealing if the army lists were restricted to the National Armies of various countries? i.e. No rules or Army Lists based on guerilla tactics in the main rules, but possibly available as optional rules.

Less appealing. Recent history seems to show that conventional wars between national government armed forces are much less common than insurgency, terrorism or other forms of low-level conflict. There have been relatively few "conventional" wars in the past 25 years; Falklands, Iran-Iraq, Gulf War 1, maybe some others. Lots of insurgency, though. It's ignoring a lot to focus on national armies.


>> Would you be more or less interested in a set of rules with victory conditions based on scenario goals rather than points of models killed? The idea being that scenarios would need to allow for subtle play to win over brute force of numbers or advanced equipment.

Much more interested in scenarios than points. War has never been about killing more of the enemy than you lose. It's always been about achieving particular aims.

Everyone has to draw the line somewhere. I'd play it, for the same reason I'd play WWII or other "historical" periods - because my life is sufficiently divorced from the reality of the combats (my only real experience of war is TV) so that I can treat it as a game and enjoy the "fun" without being brought face-to-face with the tragedy.

Where I *would* draw the line is in using real names. I saw a WWII Arnhem game at a show a while back and all the allied participants had the real names - it was an ultra-realistic simulation. Taking part in that would have freaked me out as it somehow was no longer "just a game". On the other hand I saw a "Rush for Baghdad" game at the same show based on the 2003 events - and that looked interesting - I could think of the abstract challenge and enjoy the modelling without dwelling on the gory reality.

Somehow that slight distance is required to enable play. If I actually knew any people still fighting in Afghanistan or Iraq first hand, then I may have felt differently, but as I don't then its ok in my head.

On the other hand, I'd be careful in a club or show context where I wouldn't want to cause any offence by appearing to trivialize any real traumas individuals may have gone through. But upsetting woolly-woofter PC types wouldn't bother me - after all they are usually narked at the whole "glorifying war" issue to start with so ...

For the first, more appealing. While it may not be historically significant, I'd prefer having national armies with a huge variety of weapons. I don't find assembling 500 insurgents, pickups, and cars with bombs that appealing. There would be no variety unless you REALLY like CV47s and RPGs for some reason.

For the second, more interested. Unlike the simplistic wargames we emulate with Fantasy or 40k, modern war isn't like that. It was realistic in the Middle Ages, sure, but nowadays you have too much political pressure riding on the professionalism of your troops. A "Politics card" much like the strategy cards for Cities of Death combined with SST's point-based objective system would work well. I think including such things would increase the level of strategy required to play since something like not being able to kill enemy soldiers, not allowing any of your own soldiers to die, or restricting weapons while the enemy has tanks will certainly require ingenuity on the part of the player. Even better is if civilian models are required for each player, scattered about randomly if it's an urban scenario, with strict objectives not to kill any (say -200 VP for each one killed).

The scenario we ran at DragonCon included a rule that 'Shooting them all and letting Deity of choice sort them out' would result in an automatic loss of the game. Additionally, insurgent forces were represented by civilian models until they started shooting.

Posted By stonefox on 09/20/2006 11:00 AM

I think including such things would increase the level of strategy required to play since something like not being able to kill enemy soldiers, not allowing any of your own soldiers to die, or restricting weapons while the enemy has tanks will certainly require ingenuity on the part of the player. Even better is if civilian models are required for each player, scattered about randomly if it's an urban scenario, with strict objectives not to kill any (say -200 VP for each one killed).

Now that right there -- especially deductions for civilian deaths - is excellent.

There was a recent LTTE-govrenment pitched battle here in Sri Lanka over control of a reservoir. Immediately afterwards we turned it into a wargame scenario.

Instead of a cap on the number of turns, we had an international outrage counter. Using air strikes, tanks, mines, and suicide bombers, would increase outrage. Once outrage hit a certain point, international pressure would be such that both sides would be pressured into a ceasefire.

The rebels began in control of the reservoir, and had to create as much outrage as possible before the army could dislodge them. The army had to race and take the reservoir before the game was up, literally, and had to be really sparing with their use of armor and air support.

We'll add civvies next. That's a great idea.

i actually agree with Augustus and Kilkrazy
as there are many computer games out there that are in the present tence. Rainbow five etc etc. so what would be the difference?? Only that in some countries such as the US it might not be patriotic if instead of the seals or marines a person was playing with a Palestinian freedom fighters army. apart from that i dont see the problem

I guess when Mongoose or whoever comes out with them we'll see.

We ran our game at HurriCon in Orlando on Saturday the 23rd. The table was roughly 5' wide and nearly 50' long. I will post some pictures as soon as I can get them from my friend that was there to take pictures. The game was well received by the players and several comments were made that the scenario involving four factions with both overlapping and conflicting missions and goals was one of the most interesting they had ever seen at a convention.

Althought the game was limited to 8 players, organized 2 to a team, we had numerous people watching the game unfold. At one point the Shia Militia player's mission was to take a 5 man squad and steal an Ambulance from the clinic in order to be used in a later mission. The Sunni player's mission was to kill the Shia team they were told would be attacking the clinic.

Both players could move any civilian people or vehicle models during their movement phases. The Shia player actually moved the Sunni SUV into position to use as cover when attacking the clinic. The Sunni player won initiative for shooting and opened up on the models leaning across the hood of their truck. Nobody at the table nor the spectators watching were aware of the ambush until it actually occured. I was very encouraged by the overall reaction.

Sounds REALLY cool!