Modern Iraq Scenarios

[Mk 1]

I can see where that would be an issue from a modelling standpoint. Personally, from a gaming standpoint, I'd feel comfortable using the Mujis to represent any un-uniformed middle eastern insurgent or extremist fighters. But hey, that's just me.

To my thinking it is no different than modelling the various nation's armies.

I sure would not like to use British Army figures for my Italian forces. I suppose if that was the only infantry available, I would have to. But I would not like it one bit.

I'm not to the level of kit-bashing a whole force of infantry at this scale. More likely it would indeed make me turn to brand-x figures if they were available.

For me, I want Russian army figures for my Russian armies, and Italian figures for my Italian army, and American figures for my US Army, etc. etc. So also I would want Arab figures for Arab forces, and would keep the Afghanis for use in central Asia.

Sometimes one uses "close enough" because that's the best one can do. So for example I bought extra Italian infantry to build my Romanian force. But then GHQ came out with their Romanian infantry, and I immediately put the kabosh on the whole substitution idea. (Got 4 extra packs of un-used Italians now...).

I could see using Afghanis as Pakistanis, or as Uzbekis, or even as Chechnyan irregulars. But I'd no more be inclined to use Afganis as Arabs than to use Vietnamese figures as Arabs.

Just my 2 riyals worth.

[Theodore]

The fictional campaign country is fine if that is what you want, but I like playing historical battles. I did a lot of the scifi on the rhine in the 80s, didn't even own any infantry. But the board game Test of Arms, by Frank Chadwick really pulled me in the direction of fighting historical refights with realistic forces. GHQ still seems like they are clinging to future tank battles in Fuldagapistan, rather than knock down dragout real battles like Faluja, Gaza, Beirut, and many more.

[Timothy OConnor]

The fictional campaign country is fine if that is what you want, but I like playing historical battles.

Me too.

But my favorite 6mm supplier decided there's more money in WWII Fantasy than historical moderns.

And if WWII Fantasy is good enough for GHQ then a fictional region that allows me more freedom in the hardware I field is good enough for me!

In fact, my approach has the added advantage that the hardware actually exists and has been used in battle!!! Same can't be said for GHQ's investment in WWII Fantasy stuff.

GHQ still seems like they are clinging to future tank battles in Fuldagapistan, rather than knock down dragout real battles like Faluja, Gaza, Beirut, and many more

I agree 100%! They've made strides with stuff like MRAPs and Stryker. They just forgot to make opponents for them!!!

[voltigeur]

But my favorite 6mm supplier decided there's more money in WWII Fantasy than historical moderns.

Great line! But hey they may be on to something think of how much money the FOW people made with Audie Murphy rules and incessant do overs. (ducking now)

First off for those that think Fulda or any of the other hundred potential conflicts during the Cold War were science fiction talk to guys who were in the military at the time.

When our PHIBRON got redirected to counter a North Korean move on the border in during the 82-83 winter Team Spirit exercises or the alert for Lebanon in 83 it was anything but science fiction. The countless border incidents on the IGB had US troops one screw up away from what would have been a very bloody fight. And don’t even think about how many times the US & Soviet Navies nearly started World War 3 every day of the Cold War.

Just because our leaders were smart enough (or chicken enough) not to cross the threshold and let the shooting start, doesn’t mean it does not have a place in war gaming. An besides if the only Cold War scenario you can think of playing is Fulda or other IGB scenarios your missing 90% of the era.

I think most of the issue is with gamers. The vast majority want set piece battles where they can kick their opponent off the table and be the last one standing. A serious study of 20th century warfare shows clearly that has happened very few times since World War 2. (In fact it didn’t happen that often in that war at the tactical level.) On this forum I have read comments where gamers have openly stated the hate any game that has infantry in it because is slows the game down. I personally love games with just infantry, but I can understand GHQ's reluctance to invest in them.

I don’t know too many gamers clamoring to fight an Armor BN made up of a few Panhards & Fox Armored cars some truck borne infantry against a rebel movement. I would love to do that game there just aren’t any takers.

I think I’m more of a hypothetical historical gamer. I like historical organizations with real world weapons using real world tactics hypothetical scenarios where tactics and operations can be studied. Re-fighting strictly historical battles is of very limited fun. I do like fictional battles in a historic setting that show what the real battles were like, and why certain decisions were made at the time.

But for GHQ yes I want more infantry

[Theodore]

First off for those that think Fulda or any of the other hundred potential conflicts during the Cold War were science fiction talk to guys who were in the military at the time.

Yep i served in the cold war too though at Ft. Bragg. I wasn't referring to the real Fulda Gap. I was referring to the wargamers versions with 100+ tanks and zero infantry on the battlefield, fighting a division level battle to complete annihilation in 5-10 minutes of real time according to the rules time-turn scale. They clearly did not look or sound like real battles as the games sought 'realism' in gun and armor ratings but none on the timing, scale, and command and control side. Which is why Test of Arms, was such a major difference for me. There were infantry and battles had realistic scale.

[HKurban]

\I don’t know too many gamers clamoring to fight an Armor BN made up of a few Panhards & Fox Armored cars some truck borne infantry against a rebel movement. I would love to do that game there just aren’t any takers.

I think I’m more of a hypothetical historical gamer. I like historical organizations with real world weapons using real world tactics hypothetical scenarios where tactics and operations can be studied. Re-fighting strictly historical battles is of very limited fun. I do like fictional battles in a historic setting that show what the real battles were like, and why certain decisions were made at the time.

But for GHQ yes I want more infantry

I'm with you on this one 100%. I too enjoy a good hypothetical scenario, so much that I've been throwing a lot of my free time into structuring a very wide ended scenario that encompasses a number of current world miltiaries in any number of scenarios. Basically I've put together what I think is a *fairly* realistic WWIII campaign that is very open ended. Imagine large scale skirmishes between joint NATO forces and the latest in Russian hardware, amphibious island hopping battles between USMC and Chinese PLAMC forces, desert force on force between high tech US Army forces and resourceful Iranian armies and militias, the possibilities are almost endless.

I also take a good interest in infantry. I even go so far as to kitbash Israelis to fill the gaps left in the US Infantry weapons selection. Even if we went into a full scale force on force conflict, it would be combined arms, and definitely not infantryless. The Russians learned the hard way in Chechnya that tanks without proper support by other combat arms would get hammered in urban combat. Plus almost all modern military doctrine is based on the infantry warfighter, with all other units acting as support for that infantryman.

[Timothy OConnor]

On this forum I have read comments where gamers have openly stated the hate any game that has infantry in it because is slows the game down. I personally love games with just infantry, but I can understand GHQ's reluctance to invest in them.

I don’t know too many gamers clamoring to fight an Armor BN made up of a few Panhards & Fox Armored cars some truck borne infantry against a rebel movement. I would love to do that game there just aren’t any takers.

I think I’m more of a hypothetical historical gamer. I like historical organizations with real world weapons using real world tactics hypothetical scenarios where tactics and operations can be studied.

Same here! I strongly prefer infantry-focused games with armor in a supporting role. Hub-to-hub tanks deployed chariot-style is of little interest to me.

I wonder if this is why 15mm and 20mm moderns are so popular now. Modern wars, even those involving tanks, have been infantry-focused: Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Chechnya, Balkans, Somalia, etc. All have certainly included heavy armor but always in a supporting role. There's one particular 20mm manufacturer that offers nearly every infantry combatant who has fought in the last 30 years. I only wish GHQ's product line was as current!!!

Personally I enjoy using GHQ figures for modern infantry-focused wars since it offers the most variety of supporting arms and at very reasonable prices (a single 1/72 LAV-25 costs $20!). And as my friend Mark Luther has taught me the visual presentation can be more realistic based on weapon ranges (even infantry small arms!).

As a result of all this my interests have drifted from GHQ moderns to this other 20mm moderns mfg. and even 25mm sci-fi / near future! Their Afghan figures are very nice but I'd like more variety.

I find it interesting that there's frequent discussion of actual modern wars on this forum and requests for modern infantry figures. But even with the release of the WWII Fantasy products there's very little discussion of those products and virtually no AARs.

Plenty of historical AARs but almost nothing using the Fantasy stuff. I even started thread seeking Fantasy AARs but there were very few replies. Maybe the Fantasy WWII line is selling like hotcakes to collectors and not gamers?

Tim

[Turk]

I think the best figure to use for the Iraqi insurgents are the Middle East civilians. You don't really need lots of guys with AKs running around. Suicide bombers look like anyone else on the street and gunmen don't live long if they are in the open with a weapon. That is just my personal opinion.

A pack of GHQ militia/insurgent (and some police) would be nice, but in real life these guys survive by blending in with the local populace. (Of course, a generic enough pack could cover PKK Kurds, Algerians, Palestinians, Lebanese, and numerous other Arab non-state forces to fight GHQ's French, Israelis, etc.)

I like to game both 'what-if' scenarios and real engagements from actual conflicts. It's nice to refight battles and see how I would do things differently. Playing Russia against China or Turkey against Greece and other fictional battles are fun too. I prefer conventional battles over insurgencies. To me fighting conventional combined arms forces against each other is more entertaining. The purpose of this thread was to see how others are gaming counterinsurgency scenarios.

[Theodore]

The purpose of this thread was to see how others are gaming counterinsurgency scenarios.

Well here's what I would like to do when I get figs to inspire me.

Some basic ideas: lots of civilians and vehicle stands with some of them serving as concealed insurgents. When regulars move adjacent or if the insurgents want to take command of them they get replaced with insurgent figures/vehicles. Can also designate teams concealed in buildings the same way. If revealed insurgent stands get a certain distance from regular troops they can attempt to go concealed again or melt away.
Insurgent get VPs for inflicting casualties, Regulars have lots of firepower but give up victory points for using it especially if they hit civilian stands.

Stand up fights: Faluja style battle with the insurgents dug in, most of the civilians out of the way, and a smashmouth fight using urban tactics.

Raids: Regulars attempt to raid into an urban area to secure an objective, rescue a pinned down force, patrol, police etc. Insurgents try to set up blocking positions and ambushes. It could focus on the surrounded and pinned down force, the relief columns or both.

Column Ambush: Trying to run a column of supplies through hostile territory. Trying to scout out ambushes and avoid getting pinned down.