Fortress America: When Gaming and Politics Collide

Nemesis Destiny · Dec 20, 2011

Leatherhead said:
Independent point of view?
To me it sounds more like the plot from a North Korean cartoon.

Of course it does - you're (presumably, based on your location) an American citizen. That's why I said "independent" - America and her foreign policy looks a lot different from an outside perspective.

Charles Dunwoody · Dec 20, 2011

I think the first text is too soon. I game with a friend whose team leader was killed in Iraq just last year. Throwing words around like horrifying, fury, mercilessly, and brutal creates a certain picture of the U.S.

The real point is that the U.S. military would be the ones that have to perform the violent acts described in the first blurb. The idea of doing something so terrible so violates what American soldiers, Marines, airman, sailors, and Coast Guard believe that we can't wrap our minds around it. I don't care what the President or some general says, when I was active military I would take a court martial and be shot before carrying out orders like those described in the first blurb. I was taught that in boot camp; you don't obey an unlawful order.

Hell, my wife's grandpa was just honored for serving in WW II (her other grandpa served as well, E-1 to E-7 in four years, but he has passed away). Her uncle and both my uncles served in Vietnam Nam. Both sides of our families are filled with veterans who stuck our necks out not on American soil but overseas to protect both U.S. interests and those of nations whose freedom was under attack (France, Great Britain, China, and Kuwait to name a few).

The text came too soon. There are still U.S. military personal fighting in Afghanistan. The bodies of our buddies who died in Iraq are barely cold yet. Give us gamers who happen to also be veterans a few months to grieve and for those just returning from Iraq time to readjust to being home before throwing the U.S. under the bus.

Or not. I fought so that FFG has the right to make games with whatever the hell blurb they want on it (long as it doesn't break the law, which it doesn't). If they want to turn the U.S. into the bad guys and ignore the many times we've fought for democracy (Europe, Asia, and Africa in two world wars) and the underdog (Kuwait in the first Gulf War for example) they've been given that right to do so. I don't think the first blurb makes sense, but others do so maybe it works. Of course, FFG changed it so maybe they see veterans point of view after all.

I don't have to like the first blurb though or the thought that went into dreaming it up. And I have the right to voice my disgust. I've more than earned that right as well. If I can't have the opinion that the U.S. is a nation to be proud of, I suppose ENWorld shouldn't have opened this thread up at all.

Leatherhead · Dec 20, 2011

Nemesis Destiny said:
Of course it does - you're (presumably, based on your location) an American citizen. That's why I said "independent" - America and her foreign policy looks a lot different from an outside perspective.

I was trying to make a joke there, you see.

Also that bit about perspective reminds me: Independent isn't the same thing as unbiased. The US can be a downright intimidating place if you aren't "part of the fold."

Of course, I don't believe there is such a thing as unbiased, so I don't know what point I am trying to make here.

Orius · Dec 20, 2011

frankthedm said:
I'm having trouble believing the first blurb wasn't made intentionally to be controversial. FFG is not stupid and wouldn't put a blurb like out that unvetted. They damn well wanted to stir the pot.

I have to wonder the same thing, though the original blurb is the sort of thing that would initially annoy me. But looking at the initial statement more deeply, it's somewhat ludicrous. A devasting terrorist attack that would lead the the US to lash out to that degree would have to be pretty bad, just compare to the 9/11 attacks. A terrorist group that would be able hit America that hard would likely be seen as an even bigger threat than anything America does.

S'mon · Dec 20, 2011

The premise seems silly. Having thousands of nukes and by far the biggest military on Earth already makes you immune to invasion. Having an effective SDI just makes you even more immune to invasion.

For an 'invade America' scenario to work, you first need to (1) negate everybody's nukes through widely available, flawless SDI. Then you need to (2) degrade the US military and build up the aggressor nations' militaries so that the US is conventionally weaker than its enemies.

I can imagine (2) fairly easy; the USSR went from having the most powerful land forces on Earth ca 1975 (although the US had superior air & sea forces), to being a basket case ca 1995. (1) really requires magitech, though.

If I was going to do a fortress America game, I'd probably set it before the development of nuclear weapons. Eg in the early 1940s Nazi Germany defeats France and Britain, remains allied with the USSR, and joins with Imperial Japan to invade the USA. That's really the last time I can see an invade-America scenario being remotely plausible.

S'mon · Dec 20, 2011

Morrus said:
However, I am curious about negative reaction to something that's clearly fiction. Nobody's going to mistake a board game for a historical text book, and plenty of games change history in massive ways. What's wrong with changing the future in massive ways, too?

The US attacked Iraq in 2003. This was not popular in certain quarters. Talking about the US attacking other countries in a future scenario is too close to home to avoid controversy.

S'mon · Dec 20, 2011

ChristianLindke said:
You can read the original flavor text, which falls somewhere between the two new ones, at the Hasbro website.

What amazes me is how topical all of the descriptions seem, including the one that is almost 20 years old.

I notice that the original text makes no mention of the American nuclear weapons arsenal. They could have at least stuck in a line about the US unilaterally nuclear disarming or something. :lol:

S'mon · Dec 20, 2011

GreyLord;5754223 That people would put their own nations down can be understandable in some instances said:
I'd say that was last the case in Athens, 5th century BC.

varden · Dec 20, 2011

Umbran said:
...casting the USA as the villain of the piece (with "brutal displays", "lashing out mercilessly" and taking part in destruction of whole nations that sounds suspiciously like genocide)... That this would be a tender spot in many people's minds should come as a surprise to nobody.

Yeah, I'm a little offended by the US being cast as the bad guy and I wouldn't buy the game just for that reason.

I'm an RPGer anyway, and I've found these types of game to be pretty dull, and it seems like this doesn't really have anything to do with the game play but it still bothers me and I wouldn't support FFG.

saskganesh · Dec 20, 2011

I've played the '86 version, back when it came out. It was OK.

Kudos to the poster that mentioned the SPI boardgame. SPI later created "balance" by issuing an-everyone-versus-the-USSR game, Objective Moscow.

My impression is that both SPI titles were supposed to be more beer and pretzels sci-fi-lite wargames, and not sincere simulationist "studies" such as the Next War, Fulda Gap, NATO Division Commander, South Africa and so on.

In the 70's SPI also had the balls to publish games based on contemporary conflicts: Year of the Rat, Sinai, Search and Destroy etc. These were also presented more soberly.

SPI also had a Quebec Seperation game. That created some controversy here in Canada, but it probably didn't mean more than a few thousand units were sold.

I digress. Anyway, if the FFG game marketing copy is seen as offensive or over-the-top, I think people are missing the tone.