
Consider the following scenario - you show up to a game, the table has beautiful buildings and scenery and fantastically detailed miniatures. It is set in the Baltics during WWII and your command consists of elements of the III SS Germanic Armored Corps deployed North of Narva preparing for the Battle of the Narva Bridgehead. No one complains and everyone enjoys the game.
Now consider this scenario - you show up to a game, the table has beautiful buildings and scenery and fantastically detailed miniatures. It is set in Afghanistan in 2006 and your command consists of Taliban attempting to recover a downed UAV against a British QRF in an action that actually happened. Some people complain that it is too soon and it is hard to rouse enthusiasm for the game.
The problem? The closer you get to contemporary events the less stomach most gamers have for the game. The reasons are varied. At large conventions you can find enough people interested in them but not always. Even though the quality of the game is the same in both look, rules and so forth it is the fact that politics and sensitivies can make one really uninterested in this sort of gaming.
However, I've been more than just dabbling with modern combat and I believe I've found the best solution to the problem. Mainly, you simply don't include actual units, politics and situations. You replace national or non-state actor names with Red Force, Blue Force, Green Force and Tan Force. You keep all of the tactics and make all of the weapons generic (an AK-74 and an M4 are treated equally and simply called Assault Rifle.)
The benefits are many - one set of rules can be used for any conflict in the modern period with any world power. You don't get involved in discussions justifying a real world action, political stance, foreign policy and so forth and you don't offend people sensitive to the portrayal of certain groups.
What I am trying to do is portray modern asymmetric warfare tactics without getting into questions if current wars are just or not. Oddly enough when you have exactly the same situation on the table as some contemporary battle but have disguised the whole mess with different names, uniforms, etc. you end up with people becoming much more engaged and thinking tactically rather than politically.
I've gone so far as to propose doing fictional games such as the Ape Uprising from one of the Planet of the Apes movies but using and actual modern battle as a guide for the troop placements and the pacing of the battle. The apes are easy enough to get from Eureka Miniatures. It is such a doable game. People will shoot up apes in boiler suits without a problem. But if you put down figures that represent a real battle and represent real situation some people lose their stomach for it. I even understand this. After 9/11 I didn't play a wargame until the following April.

Understanding these kinds of sensitivies is important. Expediant and easy to implement changes are the best way to examine modern warfare. As my game gets closer to completion I will write more about my experience in both designing it and the reactions I get from players.



























