Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Well Iraq war was incredibly one sided in terms of battle casualties. Not saying it was easy but it was a highly trained and conditioned army vs an army using extremely outdated tactics and equipment with the wrong mindset.
Oh whoops, not going to lie skipped from title to comment :)
But now that you say it, that really would be a cool game idea for something like full multiplayer.
Maybe it has a lot to do with politics....not many western developers are willing to make a game about a middle eastern war with muslims killing eachother IMO-just a little to risky and might draw the wrong kind of attention? Although there are so many worse game ideas
I also think an even better war setting(Vietnam being my #1-I wish battlefield would do this route) would be the Soviet-Afgahn war from 79-89. Would be a fantastic setting with the afgahn mountains