New game Call0fDiity17w

@amanntai:

@Young:

@amanntai:

This post is not meant to be political in any way.

ISIS & ALLIES
A Modern Take On A Classic Board Game!

Extremists threaten the globe!
Lead the coalition forces of Iraq, Syria, the Peshmerga, and Hezbollah into battle!
Or rally foreign fighters to join the cause of Islamic State!
As the coalition, order US airstrikes.
As ISIS, win the war on the internet to radicalize the West.

Change the course of history… as it’s being made!

What do think? It could happen, right?

Anything can translate into a board game, but sometimes you just gotta wait a few years while things blow over, and this idea might be one of those times.

Obviously, in real life this would have to be done way after the events, to avoid it being called pro-ISIS or offending ISIS or anything. It’s one thing to make board games featuring Nazis or Soviets, another to make one featuring terrorist groups. You’d have to do it carefully.

Will it be made? Probably not. Could it? Yes.

I’m not censoring anything for those douche bags…both Daesh or the PC crowd. F*ck em!

Don’t worry though, it won’t be long before US combat soldiers find their way back over there going “weapons free”. If that happens, the game wouldn’t be terribly interesting since it would be unbalanced and a seperate game dedicated to counter insurgency and wide area security probably wouldn’t sell too well either.

You’re correct about the current world we live in. I went to war to help our economic trading partners whose economies affected our own. Kuwait’s occupation did not directly affect us and despite the peaceful embargo threats, Saddam continued to assert his claim of rightful conquest. It was also our military stance after the ceasefire that prevented Saddam’s expansion and the embargoes embittered the Iraqis against us when we finally decided to dethrone him. History does not only consist of WW2 as an example. the same thing has been happening for millenia. Tibet and Kosovo are polar opposites of bellicose decisions. Rome fell from internal dissension and civil war when those energies could have been better spent keeping the borders secure in offensive actions. The problems we face now have always plagued empires. We just happen to be lucky enough to be somewhat isolated an our economic empire is falling apart due to our society’s inability to adapt to the fact that the world is changing.
We have to protect that empire and a soft and weak military will cause that economic empire to be taken advantage of. You can use post war Germany and Japan as examples of weak military and economic growth but remember that their economies were heavily subsidized by our military might protecting their trade from others who would take it from them. I’ll just mention the Ukraine for a contemporary example and you can research the history, both economically and politically and come to your own conclusion.

I didn’t see all of those and they missed a couple.

I think that the system should stay the way it is. The states should ask for assistance. If they don’t it’s their fault, not the federal government. We do not need to have more bureacracy. Personally, I believe it was the Louisiana’s fault the situation wasn’t handled properly along with FEMA. It would be a violation of states’ rights to use Bush’s plan imo.

I haven’t heard a thing. But hopefully there is some weight to what you’re saying. Then Hasbro can fix the problems that plagued the first two games.

just finished a great game. 112 turns (I like to keep track) 75 hours roughly. I lost, playing Allies. Damn was that fun!

I like to put my IC in Kwang because if the nasty little americans get long range air craft, they can reach any ships you build out of japan from AK. If its on Kwang then newly built ships can be out of range. Also its farther away from russia, but not that far from moscow. Plus I like it because if its on Manchiria, its on the front lines. When in Kwang if the russians americans or british make an offencive it can still hold out.