It's time, once again, for me to climb up on my soapbox and lay the smack down on the whole paintball as war that is commonplace in much of scenario paintball. I was reminded by this post over at The Catshack Reports for the annual Oklahoma D-Day event.
I don't like it much but I don't want to ban it. I don't think it's wrong in any moral sense, it's pretend after all, but I personally find it disrespectful and I find myself concerned that it trivializes reality. (But so does Call of Duty and most people, even teenaged boys, still understand the difference even if they have no experience that drives that difference home in a meaningful way.) I also think there are degrees involved. For instance, if some promoter wants to reenact Agincourt or Thermopylae I'm fine with that. D-Day and the Tet Offensive, not so much. So maybe I'm inconsistent but even the promoters can't argue it doesn't matter. Ever seen the folks in Oklahoma (or the northern plains) try to run a game based on the Battle of the Little Bighorn? Or the folks in Texas play act the Mexican-American War or even the Alamo?
I also gotta say that ten years ago competitive paintball (and the industry) were busy trying to pretend that combat paintball was the crazy but harmless uncle living in the basement. Today industry considers competitive paintball the One Percenters while they market look-a-like AK's--so go figure. The industry will do whatever turns a buck and that shouldn't surprise anybody.
What's your take? Is the scenario or Big Game tied to actual historical military (combat) events different somehow? Is it a concern? A problem? No big deal? Vote early, vote often. (No, you only get to vote once. This isn't Chicago.)