Question: Who are the Bad Guys?
 

I've thought more about doing a French vs Algeria campaign but am in a quandry.

In a scenario or a campaign invariably one side becomes the good guys and the other, the bad guys.

So who do we make the bad guys. If I make the French the bad guys, our gamers in France are going to be quite upset. To them it would be the same if I made a scenario about the US vs Vietnam and the Viet Cong are the good guys!

Now that would not go well at all (except for the former VC, who might enjoy it...if perchance there are one or two who are playing the game).

And I'm not really sure who are the bad guys in this case. The Afghans were the good guys when they were fighting the Russians, Bin Laden included. Now they are the bad guys.

Iraqis were the good guys when fighting Iran. Now we are at war in Iraq. So I guess one has to be politically careful and correct these days, or should it really matter?

WB

Re: Question: Who are the Bad Guys?
 

Not entirely true. The "bad guy" Afghani's were those aligned with either the Taliban or Al-Qaeda. The common Afghani person, from my understanding, was quite happy to see the Taliban removed from power.


Similar to above comment: The Iraqi's are not necessarily the bad guys right now, only the insurgents. While public Iraqi opinion of Americans is on a general decline, they are (or at least were in 2003) happy that we have removed Saddam Hussein from power.

Re: Question: Who are the Bad Guys?
 

IMO do as you like, someone's eventally going to be upset anyway;o)

The terms "good/bad" in such wars are quite relative. Say who was good in Indochina in 1950's, French or Viet Minh? Who was good in Yugoslavia in WWII, Tito's partisans or Chetniks? Depends vastly on opinion of he who evaluates it.

Re: Question: Who are the Bad Guys?
 

I don't think it realy is any need for good-guys vs. bad-guys. After all, most players are intrested in a good game.

Also the side one plays, does not reflect wich side one thinks is good. Many wargamers like to play Nazi-Germany, but very few thinks the Nazis are good-guys.

Halstein.

Re: Question: Who are the Bad Guys?
 

Bill, you well know the quote about winners writing history and that applies here as well. One mans freedom fighter is, without question, another mans terrorist. I started out writing a huge "on one hand.... but on the other hand" post ranging from Tim McVey to Iraqi insurgents then deleted it because it would just have polarized people.

As Marek says, whatever you do will get someone's nose out of joint. Try an walk the line and stay neutral. Present the historical event then let people play out the battle and see what happens. There are probably HUNDREDS of SP scenarios in all the different variations of the game built from the perspective of the German SS that would have **not** impressed people at all 40 years ago. If you wanted to build a scenario based on events in Yugoslavia in the 90's good luck picking "the good guys" there!

The best you can do is try to stay neutral. It's the best you can do for any sceanrio.

Don

Re: Question: Who are the Bad Guys?
 

Seems to me the good guys are the side you allocate to the human player and the bad guys are the one you allocate to the computer (apart from your/my own personal/secret preference of course).

And I guess the decision on who you allocate to the human comes down to which side has the biggest challenge in the scenario you are creating. If you are recreating a historical scenario then the side with the challenge is up to the historian, but in that case the scenario you choose to create reflects your preference! (Of course, some historical scenarios are totally one sided and present no challenge for the victor and an impossible situation for the loser.)

I don't know much about the french / algerian conflict except that it was french "government" troops against the algerian insurgents. The french eventually pulled out, and there was a lot of ill-feeling, at least amongst the officers, against President de Gaulle for making the decision to pull out (the plot of Frederick Forsythe's book the Day of the Jackal was based on this ill feeling.)

A challenging scenario (and thus fun to play) would be one where a smaller side has a chance of winning against a larger side, and thus the human would get the smaller side. So in a french / algerian scenario, I would expect the french would have the smaller side, and would be the human player, and so by default the "good guys".

Of course, you could always create two campaigns - one to be played as the french, the other as the algerians!

Re: Question: Who are the Bad Guys?
 

The problem in Algeria was a very complex one, but in the same time simple, as it is not different to the Iraq situation today.

In Algeria, the french colonists were living together with the algerians natives , most of the french colonists were simple workers , mostly poor.
Algerian natives got access to the same schools as french colonists and were not considered "second zone people".

So where was the problem if all was that good ?

The problem was at first in France not in Algeria. There were rich people living in France, making the algerian natives working for them in Algeria but with a lower pay that any french colonists.
Laws from France were not really giving algerian natives the same rights as french colonists.

Due to that difference, some algerian independantists movements were created, on theory it was simple justice, but unfortunately the theory does not live for long due to how people behave.

What launched this guerilla war is the fact the insurgents and affiliated were killing civilians, not only french colonists but even their "algerian brothers" (as the terror goal was to make them afraid enough so they join them gainst french).

At first the french army went there to protect civilian french colonists (again not really caring of algerian natives murdered by the "insurgents") but when the french army noticed the murders of whole villages inhabitants by the insurgents and affiliated, the french army went out of the "civil" way to deal with the them.

The fact some , as always in a war young, french soldiers notice their friends horribly mutilated by the way insurgents dealt with their enemy , did not helped to keep things civil.

And because of that, mistakes and blindless killing has been done and again innocents were killed.
For the algerian natives the choice was then difficult : insurgent were killing them to make them cooperate with insurgents ideas, and french army were killing them too just because they looked like insurgents.

Later, as despite the victory was for the french army on the conflict, De Gaulle decided to leave, because the war became a bit expensive and not popular with people in France due to the media coverage , mostly controlled by opponent to the war.

Feeling betrayed by De Gaulle, the OAS was created made from french colonists and some head people of the french army
The OAS was a secret "army" that was killing :
-convinced FLN members.
-supposed to be traitors to their ideal.

But again, people behave differently thatn their theorical ideal : they killed a bit more than that, and in the middle were caught again some innocent algerian natives civilians.
Making the OAS/french army even less popular for the algerian natives.

Finally , some of the generals affiliated to the OAS made a "coup d'etat" in Algeria , to go against De Gaulle decision.
De Gaulle dealt with them by executing them all.

When the french army left on De Gaulle decision, they took the french colonists with them (as they all recieved the famous "valise ou cerceuil" message , we can translate by "the bag or the coffin" ).

But , as an end to that situation (maybe a "political gift" as a part of the no killing on french colonist leaving) an inhuman act from De Gaulle that would produce a lot of killing : the french army disarmed the algerian natives army that were on their sides and prevented them to come in France.

Now imagine what happened when those unfortunate algerian natives soldiers, waiting without weapons in the ex-french bases were caught by the newly independant Algeria troops ?
Yes , that's right : a massacre.
One more on this war.

Can you see some similarities to what happened in Vietnam or Iraq today ?
History repeat itself again and again and it is not something good.

I can agree that the french army could'nt be considered as the "good" , because of innocent blood on them and what they did to the algerian natives that believied De Gaulle at first then were left behind.

But you can't in all honestly consider the insurgent as "good" , becuase of the huge amount of innocent blood they have on their hands too.

That said, SP:MBT is a wargame , and unless the specific scenario is obviously pointing out who is the "good" or not, recreating battle situation in the wargame is not pointing to good or bad.

Usually in a scenario, i try to play both sides because of the tactics , the strategy involved, not because of the "right side". I don't consider real life and a game mixing, game stay not real by definition.

In my opinion, leave the "good" and the "bad" for the reality and design the scenario for tactic and strategy.

Re: Question: Who are the Bad Guys?
 

Aghhh! my last Bastion agaisnt the PC Virus has been breached!

Thrice damn you WB!

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

When you cna worry about "Good" or "Evil" Pixels, you've got to much time on your hands, now go desgin some more senarios using the UK. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Question: Who are the Bad Guys?
 

Part of playing Wargames is that you have to have the ability to look past that.I usually just play with whatever country I like the equipment of.

Re: Question: Who are the Bad Guys?
 

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?

Re: Question: Who are the Bad Guys?
 

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

Re: Question: Who are the Bad Guys?
 

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.

Re: Question: Who are the Bad Guys?
 

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

Re: Question: Who are the Bad Guys?
 

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

Re: Question: Who are the Bad Guys?
 

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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

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! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

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? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif 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

Re: Question: Who are the Bad Guys?
 

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: Question: Who are the Bad Guys?
 

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

Re: Question: Who are the Bad Guys?
 

Absolutely, Kevin. At least in my work there are no political undercurrents. I look at war in the noblest aspect, and there is a certain amount of nobility in it.

The Kunel

Re: Question: Who are the Bad Guys?
 

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

Re: Question: Who are the Bad Guys?
 

Necro-ing.
Being an expert on the French _ Algerian War and Guerre Revolutionnairre Doctrine, I can safely tell you there is NO good guys in that war. Both sides thought themselves the good guys, but neither were.

If you want literature, let me know. You should start out by reading Jean Larteguy's novels to get a feel for the situation and how the French Paras felt.

Re: Question: Who are the Bad Guys?
 

WTG Necro!