Ray Bradbury's Farenheit 451 was setting in last sentence above.

My two cents on this issue... I found the subject of the game to be very interesting, and also interesting were the consequent reactions. I posted a comment in the news section, but it was rather quick and easy to misunderstand.

Basically, history should teach us that there are no "bad" or "good" guys. Not only because very often politics is influenced by economy (gimme some oil-rich land, and everyone will go there as soon as possible) but because many Nations, during their history did terrible things, as well as heroic acts. As someone wiser than me once said, "history's sea has a crimson tide".

The US had a very long story, filled with shades and lights, but since their economy is very strong, and their political influence is very strong as well, all the things they did had a greater echo across the land. I don't see any good reason for having the US playing the part of the "good" guy, nor the one for the "bad" guy (even if, in my personal view of the history, they did more "bad" things than "good", from Hiroshima to the war in Vietnam, passing through helping Pinochet coup d'etat and blacklisting intellectuals during the McCarthy era. But anyway, we cannot judge the facts without considering what caused these things to happen, so we should figure out the true meaning of "Cold War" and so on). The main point is that we need a game with some faction playing the part of the "good" guy and the other the part of the "bad" guy. So, who cares who's the good and who's the bad? Shall we imply that by playing "Axis and Allies" the Axis player should be grown in the nazi faith? It's a game. And somebody has to be the bad guy. If it's not the US, then it's another State, and somebody from that State should be allowed to say as well "hey, why should I be the bad guy?".

Hence, we should ask ourselves: am I interested in this kind of Scenario? If yes, then accept the game for how it is, regardless of who's the good and who's the bad. If not, no probs, just go somewhere else, and leave other players free to play this.

For some instants, this reminded me of the neverending debates around the RPG "Kult - In nomine Satanas". Another case of non-sense.

As for the flavour text... I wasn't offended by it. Often we had games with strong text just to stress the climate of the game, and the flavour text FFG posted was very good to present a certain kind of game. I'm wondering if the people who felt offended by that text, would also feel offended by the "Better dead than red" motto of "The Price of Freedom" (an old RPG (?) of the 80s) or other propaganda things made for celebrating the US as land of freedom over other countries.

Julia said:

I concur. I read the original flavour text and I did not think of America as the "bad guy." In particular, the part about America being hit by multiple terrorist attacks and lashing out in desperation made me think of them as a victim, not an antagonist, in that story.  The message was certainly politically charged, but it was also showing us how violence and anger on one part (the terrorists, btw) could lead to global warfare and disaster.  This sort of "what-if" scenario building is the crux of truely good fiction, IMHO.  It allows us to explore alternative realities and consider the consequences thereof, the better to avoid disaster in the real world.

I can understand Sepayne's position in his original post, and I can also vouch for the fact that he has been a staunch supporter and generally positive-minded member of this community for a long time. He's allowed to dislike ONE GAME in FFG's lineup for personal reasons if he feels that way, that's his right to freedom of speech.  (Only ONE GAME, though, Sepayne - you're on notice! =P)

I think the saddest part about the whole debacle is that it's only fluff text. There's no difference to the actual game, so who cares? I wasn't especially offended by the original fluff, and I probably would have preferred if it remained intact (personally), however, I don't blame FFG for taking a less inflammatory position, especially among their primary constituency.

sepayne7l said:

As a Canadian myself, I wouldn't be particularly offended if a game like this came out portraying Canada as "the villain."  However, to be entirely fair about it, I am only one person.  I can't say that the Canadian population at large would share my enthusiasm.

I can also think of a few Canadian gamers who would revel in playing Fortress America (with the original fluff) just so they could poke fun at how America is a big, evil, bomb-the-shit-out-of-everything powerhouse.  Not that I think such a portrayal of America is fair-minded, but some of us Canucks do seem to enjoy thinking of the US as a big bully.  Probably because it makes them feel like Canadians are saints in comparison, and really, that's basically the same line of reasoning as Americans not wanting to be the villains in this game, so I guess we're all the same after all.

Love this old game, and love this thread. It’s not much about the game play itself, but sure got a heated (or warm) argument about the game politics. That being said, I want to add my rant to the list.
Being an American who was born and raised in Halifax, Nova Scotia (We live in North America too, and are also Americans), makes me from CanaDUH. But I love the U.S.A. and I’m glad they did change the theme of the game back to its more original version. I’d not refuse to buy it if they didn’t (I’d just ignore the “New” back-story), but the first description of the U.S. as the “Bad Guys” just made me think “Oh, No….why did they do that???”
Remember that this game came out during the Cold War and also when the documentary “Red Dawn” came out as well (that’s a joke). Obviously the US was never invaded by Commies, but people still thought it could, or might happen. I doubt anyone took it real seriously; folks were more worried about nukes then, anyway.
But, I do remember that here in CanaDUH what few gamers there were in Halifax in the mid-80’s didn’t really like the game, thinking it was jingoism. That’s probably because a lot of CanaDUMB’s are prejudice vs. USA’ers (Yeah, I just opened the Top Secret envelope, I expect lots of death threats with Hockey sticks). Personally, being right-of-center, gunning down hoards of Commies was enjoyable, and the NRA card was always my favorite card to receive.
Maybe bouth the 1980’s game and Red Dawn were a parody of the way some USAmericans saw what was going on, oddly though, there were enough people, like myself, that took it seriously.
One other person here said that “It would have a different connotation now than when the original game came out”. I agree, and the first thing I looked for in the pictures and site was to see if the enemies had changed to something else (I’ll leave that up to your imagination.
There have always been games folks thought were offensive. I have S.S. Amerika, and people found that offensive. Maybe someone here can help me out, because I remember seeing (in the late 80’s) a wargame where the USA was a conquered Nazi state and was being invaded by the Soviet Union. Anyone know what this was called???

Lastly…”Fortress Quebec”? I would LOVE to see this…maybe I’ll draw a prototype map, with funky cards (Justin Trudeau rallies for or against Canada on a certain die roll, or “Vive Quebec Libre! shouts the René Lévesque Legion in Montreal”, How about an FLQ card?) and try it my self. But friend, you don’t even want to THINK of starting a war of words in CanaDUH with that one. I can’t think of a good analogy for this one…but talking about Quebec separation in English (or even French) CanaDUH, would be like asking Osama Bin Laden to sing the national anthem at a Basebell game (or something).

Marketing department misunderstanding? Did they all get sent to Git-Mo after this? (That’s another joke!)
 

Thanks Steve-O, for the nice comments. I love this site and think FFG is the best game company in existence bar none.  I've been waiting and hoping for this reprint for years (like a lot of people). Yes, obviously, the theme would not have changed the gameplay, which I expect to be great.

The flavor text was pointed out by someone at BGG and I posted here and there after reading it. I wouldn't say I was offended by it, I just thought to myself, "That sounds kind of stupid. I don't want to play it if that's the story."  I thought my post was  a little tame compared some people's reactions to the announcment of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 3E. I would never have supported a boycott, I simply would have voted with my dollars going to a different game.

FFG changed the text because they wanted to (or, as they said, it was not the intended original text). They did not do it because anyone forced them to. Implying this is some kind of censorship is a little off base I think. My comments were more a review and a complaint. Lord knows no one else in my life does what I tell them to, I hardly think I forced anyone's hand here.

I thought perhaps FFG was trying to be too PC, but either way, I really didn't want to derail the initial announcment, because it is a wonderful thing. I think if I ever have an issue like this again, I'll send an e-mail directly to them. Not that I mind the debate, but some criticisms are better in private.

Also, if any of you make Fortess Quebec I would like to be a playtester.

sepayne7l said:

I second that.  :)

Hi:

When I read the Hawkmoon stories, I found out the British were the enemy, & the Germans were the good guys (all right, one German)... That didn't seem to offend me or too many people.  & this being written a scant few decades after WW2.

Speculative fiction & uchronies are full of "what if?" scenarios... I don't see the harm in this fluff.  I see no way it will affect gameplay.

Also, (about the original MB backstory) ever since I've played the original game I've wondered why Canada stayed neutral... Ain't Canada part of England?  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

L

LynchMob said:

Not so sure if this is the game you're referring to, but in the late 80's a game called "Mississippi Banzai" was out, designed by a certain (well known) Ty Bomba. No nazi and commies ripping the body of the US, but nazi and japanese

sepayne7l said:

I third this :p

Well, in the back story (of F.A) I believe CanaDUH was “Taken Out” of the fight immediately.
Let’s face it guys (Fellow CanaDUMB’s on here) we have NO fighting force to speak of. It has been said that the NYC and New York State police forces combined could conquer CanaDUH in an out-and-out military campaign, and that’s one BIG ice cube to take.
And you are “Sort of “ wrong…CanaDUH is a sovern nation-state with ties to England. We are part of what is called the “Commonwealth” , which is a giant street gang version of what’s left of the former British Empire. Other gang members include Australia, New Zealand, and Formally South Africa who told us to go “F” ourself’s when we tried to get them not to implement Apartheid back in the ‘50’s (and now they are a Republic).
But, we still are NOT a democracy…we are a “Constitutional Monarchy”, and yes, that means Queen Elizabeth II is the “Official” head of state here. The cool thing about this is the following; if the Queen ever removed her approval from a sitting government, and it resulted in Civil war…no “Rebels” would be rebels, ‘casue they’d be fighting for the Queen not the sitting Government. Which brings me back to Fortress Quebec, or should I say “Québec de Forteresse”, I totally think I’d like to do this using the F.A. rules…but play testers? I don’t even think I’d know where to begin.

“God save the Queen!”
 

During lots of Google searches, i've seen Mississippi Banzi, but that's still not the one I'm lookig for. It's N.S.D.A.P.U.S.A. vs. U.S.S.R. (lots of dots between letters), big grang strat game.

Just in case you can't find it the original fluff text later, it's here, along with my rant, feel free to comment.

http://miah000.blogspot.com/2011/12/fortress-america-causes-quite-stir.html

Well I have to say, that I own the "old" version of this game (with Saddam on the front side of the box :D why did they erase him from new box? :D ), and I liked the story used in the old version... I dont get it why they had to change it... the first version with "bad America" was still kinda good.... now the second is completely boring, no thrill, no excitement...

I will still buy it probably, I like the look of new figures (I hope this is not just some promo and that they will look like this in-game), and I am kinda curious about those changes in the rule set....

When I read version 1 of the fluff I thought "oh cool, we're the bad guys!". The old "Red Dawn" scenario needed to be updated anyway and version 1 was interesting / plausible. V2 of the fluff doesn't make much sense and isn't very interesting. I hope FFG didn't "cave" to a vocal minority (you're never going to make everyone happy) but that's sure what this looks like.

The victors write the history anyway - version 1's the story if USA loses (they were zapping us with doom lasers!), version 2's the story if the USA wins (we had unicorn rainbow lasers and the world was jealous!).

At this point, maybe they should just set this in the Twilight Imperium univese (ala Dune / TI).

You know, when it’s all said and done, I’m glad we can have a discussion like this. So far it hasn’t gotten too nasty. I did read the Tannenhauser blog and it did get pretty heated. I can’t remember the last time I’ve ever gotten this Excited or into a toy since I was a little child. But it’s not just the toy business. This is a political issue that has touched off some great (and civil) debate here.
Again, remember this game came out in the Regan era (30-23 years ago), and it DID have a different feel than it would today. Imagine the fervor that Fortress America would have cause if it came out 30-23 years before that? Nixon & Vietnam, with all the same three forces in the game (unchanged) attacking the US- Yikes!
I am happy they DID NOT change the three attackers from Communist-Socialist attackers to some thing more “Modern” like Irano-Arab’s from the East and (like someone else said) then Aliens and then zombies from the other two areas. Having CanaDUH attack from a different area would leave me with a big question mark over my head.
My derailed point is; what an incredible game/toy F.A. is to be able to initiate such discussion!!!