PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
America's Battlefield Army 2007 - the terrorists win!
September 13th 2002, 01:32 CEST by m0nty

Who is the greatest player ever in online gaming? Forget Thresh, my money is on Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper. Who is he, you might ask? He is a retired Vietnam vet and ex-three-star-general who played the part of Saddam Hussein in a recent US$250 million war simulation called the Millennium Challenge, and pwn3d the combined strategic intelligence of the entire American armed forces singlehandedly. In terms of expense, it was the greatest online game ever played. The only problem was that the generals called him a cheating fag, resurrected his fallen clan foes, reset the frag count and banz0rred his a$$ - making Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld and the chiefs of staff looking like nothing better than petty server admins.

Van Riper, who will surely be played by Matthew Broderick (reprising his role in War Games) in the inevitable telemovie, broke his NDA to the Guardian newspaper (after the story broke in the Army Times, and was reported by AP and FCW, commented on by a NY Times columnist and was the subject of numerous blogs and forum threads like this one) all about the Millennium Challenge. His team defended the briefcase as Red, a thinly-disguised Iraq-like country, while the US forces played as Blue. In effect, Van Riper saw that Blue were being camping lamers, and team-chatted via Muslim mosques to his clan buddies, who then completed a successful series of BF1942-style ramming raids on American naval units. Part of the problem was that the armed forces had themselves built the game, and had designed pre-scripted sequences into the dynamically-generated storyline, which Van Riper thought hindered the flow of the gameplay.

"Scripting is not a problem because you're trying to learn something," he says. "The difference with this one was that it was advertised up front as free play in order to validate the concepts they were trying to test, to see if they were robust enough to put into doctrine."

The Gulf War was talked of as the "television war", where the action was played out on cathode ray tubes across the world. Perhaps the impending invasion of Iraq will be the "online war", where gamers recognise strategies shaped by real soldiers' experiences on online gaming environments such as the Millennium Challenge. The other side of this is, of course, that online gamers might be better at the new world of warfare than the deskbound generals in Washington. All this talk of America's Army being a "Last Starfighter"-style recruitment tactic might not be so far off the mark, but not so much at the grunt infantry level - what America might really be looking for are the officers who can understand and operate in tomorrow's military hotspots, with skills developed in the roiling cauldron of public team co-op servers.

Does Uncle Sam want j00 for a new recruit - or if not, should he? Should America's army be spending a bit more time playing America's Army or BF1942 to hone their clan tactics? Are you worried that the Allies will become c4mp1ng l4m0rs who rely too much on sniping? Should Saddam be instructing his forces to bone up on their briefcase-defending skillz in SoF2? Was Van Riper guilty of playing Out Of Character in what was really just another MMORPG, and should he be docked XP? Will Van Riper meet Thresh in a winner-takes-all showdown at the next Q3A tourney?
Home » Topic: America's Battlefield Army 2007 - the terrorists win!

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by Charles
2002-09-13 01:33:16
The US wallhacks, and got punkbusted.

"'Halo 2' is a lot like 'Halo', only it's 'Halo' on fire, going 130 miles per hour through a hospital zone, being chased by helicopters and ninjas," explained Jason Jones, the head of Bungie Studios, "and the ninjas are all on fire, too."
#2 by Bailey
2002-09-13 01:36:09
Paul Van Riper is my hero. Not only for kicking America's Army's ass, but then ratting them out to the world on what big sisses they are. Of course, this is all old hat, and I already chastised m0nty for writing about obsolete news, but hey.

I see you have opted to play a MMOG. In keeping with your peoples' traditions, I will now roll a ten-sided die to decide your fate.
#3 by BobJustBob
2002-09-13 01:58:29
m0nty was obviously on crack when he composed this topic. I can't understand a word of it.

So there.
#4 by jjohnsen
2002-09-13 02:00:17
When you are about to take hundreds of thousands of people into battle, why don't they explore every option?  From Bush's speech today it really sounds like something is going to happen soon, and thinking Saddam isn't going to try something different from last time is foolish.

I am trying to catch up to Ergo's Dvd collection.
#5 by Creole Ned
2002-09-13 02:01:23
I get in early on a thread and have no idea what the hell we're even supposed to be discussing here. Am I doing something wrong?

"I don't bemoan the great paste" - LPMiller
#6 by m0nty
2002-09-13 02:01:59
Bailey, it hadn't been reported much outside the Army media until the Guardian story. I'd love to see if any other gaming site had covered it.
#7 by Warren Marshall
2002-09-13 02:02:36
I long for the day when a soldier can get on his radio and tell command HQ, "This is red dog ... spotted camping faggot on west ridge."

"It's pretty common for pussies, dumbasses, and their families to blame their problems on vague influences like the media and society. The truth is, fuck you."
#8 by Cliff
2002-09-13 02:22:25
I'd seen it reported various places, but this is the funniest writeup I've seen.  I don't visit gaming sites but I'm surprised none covered it.

I don't have anything to add to the topic.  I thought America's Army already was well established as a bunch of "c4mp1ng l4m0rs who rely too much on sniping", for instance.
#9 by Cliff
2002-09-13 02:24:33
Unless of course Bill Mahr points it out, in which case he's a pinko commie morally equating relativizing faggot who's on the side of the terrorists.
#10 by chris
2002-09-13 02:34:34
Warren, that's almost worth using as a signature.

If signatures weren't for perverts!

#11 by Bailey
2002-09-13 02:55:19
Canada: #1 in the world for 5n1pz0r1ng f4gg0rtz.

I see you have opted to play a MMOG. In keeping with your peoples' traditions, I will now roll a ten-sided die to decide your fate.
#12 by m0nty
2002-09-13 03:18:57
This is amusing and all, but it becomes deadly serious if Bush follows through on his threats.
#13 by crash
2002-09-13 03:26:47
interesting story. and if Saddam went through the armed services, got promoted to lieutenant colonel, knew the armed forces' combined-operations doctrine inside and out, and knew how they thought, then yeah, i'd be concerned. but he doesn't. *shrug*

interesting, nonetheless. as for the questions... um, the computer-gaming skill isn't the story here. it's the tactical and strategic experience of everyone involved. Johnny Wallhack ain't gonna be commanding the 7th Fleet, no matter how good he is at mouse control.

By this time tomorrow we can be doing BODY SHOTS off HOOKERS in some MEXICAN HELLHOLE
#14 by None-1a
2002-09-13 03:27:25
When you are about to take hundreds of thousands of people into battle, why don't they explore every option?

Because these games are far more important for developing ammunition come appropriations time then developing tactics. Every thing played out exactly as it was supposed too, they showed they can win (the details will be unimportant) but but just barely thus need more money.
#15 by TheTrunkDr.
2002-09-13 03:46:29
these are suppose to be new military tatics so a retired colonel should have about the same level of knowledge of it as anyone else. The point is whether or not their opposition knew the inner workings or not is irrelevant, they lost, even though they had the upper hand in every way.

Women always see a need for improvment, and men only improve things to either keep them from having to get off of their asses later, or to keep drinks cold.
#16 by m0nty
2002-09-13 03:46:49
crash: I would think Saddam would know a lot about the US military's tactics and whatnot, seeing as he's already fought a war with them, and would have had agents watching them at work in Afghanistan. Seeing as Van Riper wasn't allowed to use chem or bio weaponry, Saddam has a lot more options at his disposal.
#17 by Cliff
2002-09-13 03:48:36


What really bothers me in my more paranoid moments (at least, the few of those moments when I am somehow simultaneously feeling generally kindly disposed towards humanity) is the possibility that Bush et pals are on a Quest for Armageddon.  He's got some freaky people surrounding him, such as John Ashcroft (self-anointed with Crisco when taking office in some imaginary continuation of divine kings), Rumsfeld, et al., whose policies at times look suspiciously much like "christian zionism".

That same freaky "bring on the Apocalypse already" vibe exuded by the Reagan cabinets.  

It just seems a bit too easy to trigger Bad Shit.  We go in, Saddam lobs some Scuds over to Israel, Israel retaliates, possibly with a few nukes -- our fine friends in Pakistan meanwhile get ousted by militant muslims, who maybe accidentally on purpose misplace a few nukes just as some old Al Qaeda friends are over for tea, or maybe decide to settle this Kashmir business once and for all...

I mean shit, we might never get to see the BaileyTron in action.
#18 by HiredGoons
2002-09-13 03:49:21
I just want to be clear:

Are some of you saying that in US v. Iraq, the US will lose?
#19 by m0nty
2002-09-13 03:53:17
I don't think Dubbya is quite as militant as Reagan. George did beseech the UN today, he didn't just ignore it and invade anyway like Reagan did in Grenada (IIRC, YMMV).

All I can say is, "Colon" Powell for president.
#20 by m0nty
2002-09-13 03:56:25
The US is not invincible, despite its overwhelming firepower. It has to win the PR war as well as the ground war (cf Vietnam). Having a dozen of its ships sunk in the first week of a real life war with Iraq wouldn't be good for business.
#21 by HiredGoons
2002-09-13 03:57:40
OK, I'm chalking you up as for Iraq and taking the points.
#22 by Foodbunny
2002-09-13 04:06:38
It's not like suicide attacks are a radical new area in combat, and gosh, we've certainly never had non-military vehicles used against us before.

Come back!  You're not a freak, you're just stupid!
#23 by Desiato
2002-09-13 04:08:14
CN tower next?

Sears tower?

Or just the obvious, biological or pee-in-your-water supply kind of attack.


...with sexy results!
#24 by "Poseidon"
2002-09-13 04:10:06
you must also concider that Russia (and China?) is now Iraq's trading partner.

US starts war, the russia will conviniantly start selling weapons.  Why?  because russian economy sux and money is money.  To get sell more weapons, would actually get people jobs (3 shifts factories).  Will US respond to that? Oh sure... They can threaten all they want, BUT only economically/diplomatically, otherwise it would threaten start WW3 and that would piss the rest of the world off.  And please don't start "US has best weapons" arguments, they don't.  Period.  US has good ideas, Russia has good ideas, Other countries have good ideas on weapons, but nobody can really claim "best".
#25 by Cliff
2002-09-13 04:14:33
Actually, once you start WW3 the rest of the world being pissed off about it is not, you know, that huge a concern in the overall scheme of things.

Also, your message has a Russian accent.
#26 by Cliff
2002-09-13 04:17:13
As far as terror attacks go, tomorrow's as good a day as any.  Friday the 13th is appropriately symbolic, and coming two days after "maximum danger" (and on a Friday), presumably guards will be relatively down compared to 9/11.
#27 by Bailey
2002-09-13 04:17:44
A chicken in every pot and a war every other 6 months. This is truly the greatest man ever to take the office.

I see you have opted to play a MMOG. In keeping with your peoples' traditions, I will now roll a ten-sided die to decide your fate.
#28 by m0nty
2002-09-13 04:17:52
I'm against unilateralism. I'm against stupid obsolete military doctrines.

I'm pro Van Riper!
#29 by Hugin
2002-09-13 04:39:01
Actually, overall the US does have the best weapons.  

Various militaries/countries around the world are perfectly capable of making world class weapons sytems, a great artillery gun here (Samsung K9 from Korea), a great tank there (Leopard 2A6 from Germany..actually, there's a Swedish refit that's even better), a great air-superiority fighter here (Sukhoi SU 37 from Russia), a great rifle there (FN P90 from Belgium).  

But when you take all the systems of all the segments of the military together, the US has the technology, the industrial infrastructure, and the sheer money to make or buy the best stuff, and maintain that stuff, in greater numbers, cumulatively/on average.

Doesn't mean the army with the best toys wins. And I'm not rah rah about the US military, I think this whole Iraq initiative is bullshit.  But I also don't think Iraq has anything resembling a chance if/when this all hits the fan.
#30 by mrbloo
2002-09-13 04:42:42
Can anyone else see Dubya as Greg Stillson, the presidential candidate in The Dead Zone?

"Hallelujah, the missiles are flying."
#31 by Cliff
2002-09-13 04:46:46
I don't see Iraq as having a chance at really "winning", but they sure as fuck could make things real ugly -- not just in Monty's american bodybags sense, but in the region (e.g., bomb the shit out of saudi oilfields, lob scuds to israel, tell us to "withdraw or the cute puppy gets it!"...).

Although I really doubt it, perhaps Bush's UN move is a first step towards backtracking a bit.
#32 by mrbloo
2002-09-13 04:50:13
I also saw a comment made by one of the US generals when he was discussing the current Iraqi ground forces.  He dismissed 2,500 tanks as  'not a formidable threat'.  I know they're at best only T72s but assuming they won't be running about the desert waiting to be blown up, it seems like rather a lot of tanks.
#33 by m0nty
2002-09-13 04:54:46
Saddam's been playing C&C too much. Tank rushing is so 1998.
#34 by Hugin
2002-09-13 05:02:11
Tanks are great for taking territory mrbloo.  They aren't all that great at defending it, in an environment where they'll have pretty much no air support. Assuming we do the typical "knock down the airforce, knock down the air defense systems" thing, tanks in the desert are basically meat for A-10s and Apaches. And honestly, the performance difference between Abrams' and T-72's in open ground is not to be dismissed.

Iraq does theoretically have stuff that could be a big pain.  Mobile air defense missles, medium range ballistic missles, entrenched infantry forces in urban areas, chemical weapons, etc. The general guy may be an arrogant dork, but he's probably not incorrect in his assesment of the threat the tanks represent.
#35 by Your Friend
2002-09-13 05:25:23
Its pretty obvious Iraq is just totally going to get fucked.  We pretty much rolled over them back in the other Bush's Gulf War ("Oh no, the Elite Republican Guard!! This could get messy..Wait a second, they all just surrendered!") and considering we've been maintaining fairly tight sanctions and a no fly zone for most of the time since then, its unlikely they could have somehow gotten in a substantially better position for this go around.  

In any case, like pretty much everyone but Bush, Cheney and the really rabid right, I don't think knocking Iraq around is in our best interest, so I don't support the war. But you can without a doubt put me down as betting on an overwhelming US victory (in a strictly military/blowing shit up sense, maybe not politically, etc) should it go down.
#36 by Percy Kittenz
2002-09-13 05:26:36
Well, sure 2,500 tanks sounds like a lot of opposition, but our unpracticed soldiers and their half-assed tactics should have no problem taking them out when you take into consideration the issue of buggy interfaces and 3 month old netcode. I mean, if we can't figure out how to change our default tank key bindings, what chance does Iraq have of being able to decipher our shitty menu interface? And talk about lag! I don't think they even have cable modems over there! Our guys should be able to rush right across the field and take their spawn points before their tanks can even draw a steady bead on us with their 400+ pings!

Who says wargames don't teach you anything?

This uneducated post brought to you by Pez and sleep deprivation. Thank you.

"And I'm working under cover for The Man." - They Might Be Giants
#37 by yotsuya
2002-09-13 05:34:48
Dammit, m0nty, this is PC, not CNN. If I wanted to talk about this, I'd go to their forums.

Let's talk games.

Arizona Diamondbacks 2001 World Series Champions
"It's all about positioning! So assume the position!" JMCDaveL
#38 by Cliff
2002-09-13 05:36:58
#39 by Cliff
2002-09-13 05:37:12
shit, forgot the

#40 by Bailey
2002-09-13 06:02:15
Haggle gaggle, I'm an armchair war correspondent.

I see you have opted to play a MMOG. In keeping with your peoples' traditions, I will now roll a ten-sided die to decide your fate.
#41 by chris
2002-09-13 06:07:56
What's really frustrating is that if GW doesn't get us all killed in the next two years... he'll probably get reelected.

#42 by mrbloo
2002-09-13 06:16:21
Aye Hugin, I also think that battles such as Medina Ridge and 73 Easting proved to the Iraqis that they will lose any huge set-piece battles they try to have.  That rules out any chance of a neat and tidy war and points to a slaughter for the civilian populations that will get mixed up in the fighting.  I don't think anyone thinks he can win militarily, but this isn't 1945.  A country can't just conduct total war anymore, and not on such a flimsy pretext either.
#43 by yotsuya
2002-09-13 06:57:09
Nah... Bush is a 1-Termer. My stone cold guaranteed lock. Take Gore and the points.

Arizona Diamondbacks 2001 World Series Champions
"It's all about positioning! So assume the position!" JMCDaveL
#44 by HiredGoons
2002-09-13 07:21:25
The Dems will nominate Gore again?

The man lost Tennessee.  If he could have won his own home state, something even Dukakis did, all the stuff in Florida would have been moot.
#45 by Cliff
2002-09-13 07:59:21
Based on the way certain segments of the punditocracy are starting to spin character based narrative, I suspect Kerry is who The Powers That Be have settled on.

It'll all be irrelevant of course once Bush gets assassinated, Cheney takes over and martial law is declared right before the election.  See you in the camps!
#46 by crash
2002-09-13 08:00:53
what kills me is that anyone thinks it'll be a conventional war, should the US really want to lay waste to Iraq. the key to the first stage isn't sinking ships. it's "How good is Iraq's anti-aircraft?" 2500 tanks is a lot if you're fighting with tanks. but dropping bombs on 'em? tanks ain't real good at shooting B2s.


By this time tomorrow we can be doing BODY SHOTS off HOOKERS in some MEXICAN HELLHOLE
#47 by HiredGoons
2002-09-13 08:01:36
Which Kerry?
#48 by yotsuya
2002-09-13 08:30:56
Kerry Strug

Arizona Diamondbacks 2001 World Series Champions
"It's all about positioning! So assume the position!" JMCDaveL
#49 by Bailey
2002-09-13 09:19:11
I've taken down more than a few planes on butter with a Sherman, so surely the Iraqis can pull it off.

Admittedly, the only hit I made with the main cannon was one of my teammates, but still, it was a great shot.

I see you have opted to play a MMOG. In keeping with your peoples' traditions, I will now roll a ten-sided die to decide your fate.
#50 by m0nty
2002-09-13 09:35:25
That's the sort of post I want to see in this thread! Chin up, GI Joe!
Home » Topic: America's Battlefield Army 2007 - the terrorists win!

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: []Cool Site[/url], [url][/url]
Email Links: []Email me[/email], [email][/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]