Modern Iraq Scenarios

[Turk]

What types of wargame scenarios are gamers using for contemporary Iraq? I know that GHQ has released several vehicles that are mainly used in Iraq, but how can you game the typical combat situations taking place there? I could see the few larger scale operations like Falluja or a few other operations with conventional tactical objectives. Are those the only types of operations that gamers are using? What rules are best for these games and how do you adapt them to the unique requirements of the counterinsugency fight?

Thanks

[Timothy OConnor]

GHQ doesn't make modern, middle eastern insurgents. Kind of hard to play Iraq scenarios without the figures!

Nor do they make African civilian/militia figures. Or eastern European civilian/militia figures (eg Balkans, Chechnya). Or south american civilian/militia.

Outside of Afghan fighters they're firmly entrenched in Fulda Gap circa 1980 when it comes to modern infantry. Their new Chinese infantry are very nice. I'd be happy with a generic civilian/modern militia at this point, but I suppose the market for WWII fantasy is much larger.

[Theodore]

Agreed the lack of insurgent infantry makes it difficult to game good looking scenarios. I have a handful of militia from another manufacturer but they don't really cut it. I have troops for Desert Storm and for Israel vs Syria in Lebanon 83 (but not PLO or militia forces), but I have not bought any of the more modern vehicles (US, British, or Israeli) for a lack of anyone to fight with. SO there are a few dozen different packs of miniatures that I am not buying units of, until I get inspired by having someone to fight against. GHQ often does their production math solely on how many of a figure will sell, and forget about the number of other packs that a person buys to complete a force. So while they might avoid making arab insurgents (or civilian vehicles for them) because they don't see them as profitable, they are losing a ton of money on people buying middle eastern buildings to hide their insurgents in and US Army, Marines, British, Israeli, and Iraqi forces to fight them.

I have been planning to do Falluja for years and just haven't found that inspiration yet. Maybe someday GHQ will figure it out.

[voltigeur]

I'm not sure about being "stuck in circa 80" but insurgency is a sloppy results kind of war game and gamers don't seam to want a game with messy ambiguous results. Besides what fun is there in the scenario of HUMMV gets hit by an IED and the unseen insurgents run away as American troops shoot up suspected but empty positions?

I am just as frustrated at the lack of infantry types in GHQ’s line but I have to admit that most gamers I know don’t use infantry let a lone have a purely infantry war game.

As far as armor games there is nothing interesting about an incompetent army in the world taking on a superpower? 4 or 5 turns of A10’s blasting away at the Iraq’s, and 1950 or 70’s era tanks getting shot to hell by M1’s and Challenger 2’s? As for me it is just not worth doing. It is not fun and there is nothing to be learned from it.

I wish there were armed civilians I hope the upcoming insurgents are pro western 3rd world soldiers. But until the demand for infantry is there in sales, I don’t see it happening.

If you want to play out the insurgent actions where Iraqi’s stood and fought in a more conventional way I suggest a skirmish system each man mounted on their own stands. This will allow you to play out squad drills building clearing and other infantry tactics.

The skirmish system I have was done by tabletop games and is over 15 years old. Not sure if there is a newer set out there.

[Timothy OConnor]

I'm not sure about being "stuck in circa 80" but insurgency is a sloppy results kind of war game and gamers don't seam to want a game with messy ambiguous results. Besides what fun is there in the scenario of HUMMV gets hit by an IED and the unseen insurgents run away as American troops shoot up suspected but empty positions?

I am just as frustrated at the lack of infantry types in GHQ’s line but I have to admit that most gamers I know don’t use infantry let a lone have a purely infantry war game.

I've gamed Fallujah-style battles using GHQ's Americans and Afghans but set in my fictional campaign called Afraqistan. These battles have included rules for IEDs, civilians, etc.

Victory conditions varied for each side. Inflicting American casualties and then retreating (ie not holding ground) were often insurgent objectives. Clearing an area of insurgents, avoiding collateral damage, and minimizing casualties were often American objectives. Our group found these COIN scenarios to be a nice change from the usual T-72 vs Abrams game.

Certain rules were fairly abstract such as the civilian markers. Insurgents could move among these without fear of American firepower. Americans were not allowed to engage insurgent stands near civilians. But when the firing started the civilian markers "fled" and Americans could use small arms against insurgents. They could also close assault Insurgent stands among civilian markers.

American heavy weapons such as tank guns, helos, arty, and air support were not "released for use" unless an American unit was in danger of being overrun.

When insurgents tried to stand and fight they were hosed. When they conducted hit and run attacks they could present very interesting tactical puzzles for the American player.

Note that we were gaming at the battalion level so the players had more options than lower level gaming. At lower levels I would fully agree with Voltigeur but at higher levels it's almost an operational level game. We used an entire American battalion at 1 stand = 1 platoon.

When a platoon stand got hit with an IED it wasn't destroyed but accumulated a ton of "friction points" making it vulnerable to close assault.

So then the company or battalion level commander needs to scramble another unit to come to its aid. The insurgents either break contact, ambush the reaction force, or press the IED target before reaction force arrives. The company or battalion player then balances the need to intercept the insurgent force with protecting the ambushed platoon stand (sometimes those are two different things!).

And you have these little company and platoon-level fights breaking out all over the landscape which usually consisted of a central large town and outlying farms and industrial parks.

Tim

[Theodore]

Besides what fun is there in the scenario of HUMMV gets hit by an IED and the unseen insurgents run away as American troops shoot up suspected but empty positions?
...I wish there were armed civilians I hope the upcoming insurgents are pro western 3rd world soldiers. But until the demand for infantry is there in sales, I don’t see it happening.

If you want to play out the insurgent actions where Iraqi’s stood and fought in a more conventional way I suggest a skirmish system each man mounted on their own stands. This will allow you to play out squad drills building clearing and other infantry tactics.

The skirmish system I have was done by tabletop games and is over 15 years old. Not sure if there is a newer set out there.

Skirmish systems don't sell huge numbers of figures, if that is what someone wants there are plenty of insurgents in 20, 25, and 28 mm scales. The IED and unseen insurgents is how I envision a skirmish, not a battle. I want to see a few dozen stands of insurgents representing fireteam sized groups hiding amongst dozens of buildings and stands of civilians, and fighting against squad and individual vehicle level regular troops in multiple company strength.

With no good insurgents, I have not bought any of the troops necessary to fight them.
No companies of US Marines in Amtracks, no companies of US Army in Humvees, Strykers, Bradleys, or Abrams, No Brits or their vehicles, No Israelis and their vehicles, no civilians, no buildings, etc.
SO essentially because they don't think there is enough profit in providing both sides of a battle, I have bought zero of the following miniatures:
M1A2 Abrams $9.95
GHQ Stock # N115

M1A2 with Mine Plow $9.95
GHQ Stock # N132

M1A2 Tusk Abrams $9.95
GHQ Stock # N531

M109A6 Paladin $9.95
GHQ Stock # N118

M992 FAASV $9.95
GHQ Stock # N121

M119 Gun $9.95
GHQ Stock # N521

M2/A2 Bradley $9.95
GHQ Stock # N101

Cougar 4 x 4 APC $9.95
GHQ Stock # N517

Cougar 6 x 6 APC $9.95
GHQ Stock # N526

FAV $9.95
GHQ Stock # N522

M113A3 $9.95
GHQ Stock # N70

AAVP-7 A1 $9.95
GHQ Stock # N143

AAVC-7 A1 Command & AAVR-7 A1 Engineer $9.95
GHQ Stock # N144

LAV 25 $9.95
GHQ Stock # N68

LAV AT $9.95
GHQ Stock # N69

LAV LOG+C2 $9.95
GHQ Stock # N109

LAV Rec / Mortar $9.95
GHQ Stock # N110

M1126 Stryker IFV $9.95
GHQ Stock # N136

M1126 Stryker IFV w/ Applique Armour $9.95
GHQ Stock # N504

M1127 Stryker Cav $9.95
GHQ Stock # N502

M1128 Stryker MGS & M1131 FSV $9.95
GHQ Stock # N137

M1129 Stryker MC $9.95
GHQ Stock # N509

M1130 Stryker Command/ M1133 MEV Ambulance $9.95
GHQ Stock # N508

M1134 Stryker AT $9.95
GHQ Stock # N503

Stryker 'Slat Armour' $9.95
GHQ Stock # N505

M1132 Stryker ESV $9.95
GHQ Stock # N511

M1078 2-1/2 Ton Truck $9.95
GHQ Stock # N128

M925 5-Ton Truck $9.95
GHQ Stock # N86

M1083 5-Ton Truck $9.95
GHQ Stock # N129

M977 Cargo HEMTT $9.95
GHQ Stock # N95

M978 Fuel HEMTT $9.95
GHQ Stock # N96

MTVR Mark 23 Truck $9.95
GHQ Stock # N524

M997 Maxi-Ambulance $9.95
GHQ Stock # N117

M1117 Guardian ASV $9.95
GHQ Stock # N523

M1025 HMMWV w/ AOA $9.95
GHQ Stock # N513

M1114 HMMWV $9.95
GHQ Stock # N518

Buffalo EOD $9.95
GHQ Stock # N514

M1A2 with Mine Plow $9.95
GHQ Stock # N132

M104 Wolverine Bridge Layer $9.95
GHQ Stock # N146

Individual Modern US Infantry $9.95
GHQ Stock # N125

Individual Modern US Infantry Weapons $9.95
GHQ Stock # N126

Individual Modern UK Infantry $9.95
GHQ Stock # N139

Individual Modern UK Infantry Weapons $9.95
GHQ Stock # N140

AS-90 Braveheart 155/39 $9.95
GHQ Stock # N135

L118 105mm Gun $9.95
GHQ Stock # N528

Challenger 2 $9.95
GHQ Stock # N130

MCV-80 Warrior (Improved) $9.95
GHQ Stock # N103

Magach 7D $9.95
GHQ Stock # IS7

IDF Individual Infantry $9.95
GHQ Stock # IS8

IDF Individual Heavy Weapons $9.95
GHQ Stock # IS9

Achzarit $9.95
GHQ Stock # IS10

Merkava Mk IV $9.95
GHQ Stock # IS11

So at least 50 packs GHQ has put into production that are pointless to me because they are unwilling to add one or two lines Insurgent Individual and Heavy Weapons packs to fight them against. That does not even include some of the other support vehicles that would be needed to round out a force. When you add in buildings and aircraft it is probably approaching 100 packs of miniatures that they have spent the money to sculpt that I have bought exactly zero of.

I have a few companies of their older stuff to do Desert Storm, and a lot more Arab Israeli and Iran Iraq War troops but have not bought any of their miniatues that depict post-1991 equipment simply because their are no post-1991 opponents to fight. I did buy a few packs of the arab civilians and toyota technicals at the first con after they came out to encourage that direction, but haven't even painted them yet since there is no one to hide behind them.

GHQ has manufactured dozens of vehicles that have never even seen action yet they fail to manufacture troops that would allow us to play battles from many real conflicts from the Middle East that seems to be the cockpit of the world. I'm not sure why this is, but I suspect that they have a distorted view of the ratio of infantry to vehicles purchased by microarmor gamers since the historic lack of infantry in their catalog has sent many people who buy their vehicles to buy their competitors infantry. But in this case the competitors haven't made good insurgents yet either, so their is no case to buy GHQ vehicles to equip an army made of competitors infantry. Of course GHQ would have zero competition in an active modern market since their competitors haven't introduced any new vehicles in years.

[Turk]

Tim- Thanks for the info. I think trying to game Iraq is pretty tough. Few fights would be fun for the average gamer who is looking for kinetic types of engagements.

I tend to focus on more conventional 'what if' scenarios, but the GHQ Muj infantry is good enough for me when playing an insurgent force. For me, the miniatures that are available aren't the problem. It's creating scearios that can be played without taking away the fast paced action that I want in a game.

I may end up shifting to games covering Stryker unit operations in Afghanistan.

[DAK]

GHQ has posted for release in April of 2010 Irregular Infantry and heavy weapons. I think they have addressed this issue with the upcoming figures.

[opsctr]

We do games with "insurgents" all the time. There are lots of figures that can be used for them that with little or no work are great...

We use the "brush war" figures, Russians, Afghans, most WW2 and Vietnam US, plus slightly modified civilian figures that work great when they need to be on the table. Most of the time the NATO player doesn't see them but when they are needed they look just like the bad guys we've faced on almost every continent for the past 30 years. Oh, I almost forgot H&R made some pretty fine "insurgents" themselves.

I'll bet GHQ gets complaints about the weapons the new "insurgents" are armed with when they do arrive, ...and I will still be using the variety mentioned above plus the new figures for the dozens of games and simulations we do between now and when they hit the market.

As a Marine I've learned how to "adapt" and "overcome". I think most of you could use a bit of that yourselves.

WaBoG, Will

[HKurban]

I'm a bit confused. Is there any particular reason that the GHQ Mujahedin Infantry couldn't pass as Iraqi insurgents? I mean aside from the fact that there are no suicide bomber models or figures posed blind firing over their heads?

[Timothy OConnor]

Tim- Thanks for the info. I think trying to game Iraq is pretty tough.

I may end up shifting to games covering Stryker unit operations in Afghanistan.

Yup, I built a Stryker battalion at 1 stand = 1 platoon for my Afraqistan campaign setting for that reason. Beautiful miniatures!

To keep the action fast paced I try not to get wrapped around the axle on scale issues. My rules focus on entertainment-friendly in-game relationships rather than hyper detailed ratios. We've had some very interesting scenarios that included helo-borne blocking forces, IFV strike forces, and sneaky insurgents spread across the table. I've had insurgents mounted in everything from sedans and vans to city buses!!!

Our rule of thumb is that it should be possible to fight down-the-length and across-the -width of a 4 x 6 table in one session of ~2 hours or so.

[Timothy OConnor]

I'm a bit confused. Is there any particular reason that the GHQ Mujahedin Infantry couldn't pass as Iraqi insurgents? I mean aside from the fact that there are no suicide bomber models or figures posed blind firing over their heads?

Afghan fighters look nothing like Iraqi insurgents.

Afghan fighters wear traditional tribal dress and head gear. Iraqi and other middle eastern insurgents might wear a keffiyeh to hide their face but otherwise wear modern western-style clothing (eg short-sleeved collar shirt, slacks, tennis shoes/loafers/sandals, and AK-47 or RPG).

Very different, even in 1/285!

I've hacked some GHQ Bush Warrior and Afghan figures into middle eastern insurgents but it's a load of work.

[HKurban]

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.

[voltigeur]

I was reading the Marine Corps Gazette and there is an article about a 4th Generation insurgent warfare. This addresses not just the decision of the small unit leader but the higher level consequences. It takes into account the sometimes wildly disparate objectives of the “insurgent/terroristâ€￾.

While this has me thinking more along the lines of educating myself on Afghanistan, this thread came to mind along with a thought about Seekrieg. (It is scary how my mind sometimes ties things together.)

Looking at Seekrieg5’s critical hit table the game starts to tell a story. It details where rounds hit and their effects. I wonder if that same idea could work as an evaluation of the counter insurgency fight. You would get negative point values for doing things like killing civilians, damaging religious places, destroying infrastructure etc. You would get positive points for killing insurgents, protecting friendly villages, etc. At the end of the scenario you roll the higher your score the more likely you get a positive evaluation from the scenario, the lower the more likely you will have a negative evaluation.

The effects would be things like “a 25% increase in insurgent recruitingâ€￾ “Large protest against the country’s Government.â€￾ Depending on time period, “Host Government demands withdrawal of your forcesâ€￾. On the positive side you can have “Insurgent recruiting drops to a point that they cannot maintain operationsâ€￾, “popular support for host Governmentâ€￾, “Increase recruiting for the host governmentâ€￾, “Locals reveal a major arms cacheâ€￾

This would require a campaign game vs. individual scenarios but you would be fighting for not just the table top game but to get a bigger prize at a strategic level.

This could be written for not only Iraq and Afghanistan but for Vietnam, Nicaragua, Malaysia, or any number of insurgencies of the cold war and post cold war era.

[Timothy OConnor]

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.

That was one impetus for doing the fictional "Afraqistan". The Afghan figures can stand in for any just about insurgent in the campaign.