Red Storm - The Cold War Gets Hot (scenario development)

[Timoleon]

I am sure the Mirage F1 was the main French fighter during the 80s (250 planes).
The Mirage 2000 started entering service at 82-83.
The Mirage 5 was actually the simplified Mirage III the Israelis had ordered, before the French embargoed Israel and pressed the small numbers of it (50 something) they had built for them in French service.
The Israelis then reverse engineered the Mirage 5 with the F4s engine as the Kfir.
And the French exported the 5 all over the Arab world.
More or less.
Did I mention there is a Mirage F1 parked in my neighbourhood?

[bc1871]

A great colorful unit for this scenario would be the Canadian Airborne Regiment, who through much of their existence, trained to go into action in West Germany.

Reference Photo

http://mpmuseum.org/secur/photos/parade1.jpg

[GhostOfDisco]

Been doing some work on the scenario…

As the number of empty unit slots gets lower, I wonder which units I could combine. Do I really need separate units for the USSR's Guards formations (I currently have Guards T-80s and Guards BMP-3s; while they do add color to the game, I have to wonder if their quality was that different from their "run-of-the-mill" equivalents). Finland and Sweden are part of the same civilization (the "Scandanavians," who are neutral but can be attacked and invaded) - should they have separate unit slots, or should I combine them into one "Swedish/Finnish" infantry unit? On the side of NATO (and other Western) helicopters, I currently have three different units - a Cobra, a Huey, and an Apache. Civ II's helicopter unit is never strictly defined - you're not sure if it's an attack helicopter (it can attack units in the air) or a heliborne infantry assault unit (in can take over cities) As the Hind is designed for both attack and transport, it suits the role of WarPac heli unit just fine. But should the NATOs also be rolled into one? I also wonder if I should have separate NATO and WarPac paratrooper units, or simply have one paratrooper unit for both sides? (Did any other countries beside the US have large paratrooper units?) On a similar note, a web article describing the tank forces in Europe circa 1982 says that the British Army of the Rhine had no mechanized infantry divisions - does that mean I can get rid of the British FV432 unit?

Oddly enough, as I look for unit slots to cut, I wonder if I need more unit types. For example, while I've got a unit for the Nimitz-size supercarriers, the British, French and (I think) Soviet carriers were of a smaller caliber, so I think I might need a unit for that. And I still haven't gotten my B-1 or (maybe) refueling units settled yet.

Switching topics, what about movement rate? In his Ostfront scenario (whose map I'm using for this), Curt gave the motorized units a general movement rate of two, the infantry a general movement rate of 1, and a road movement multiplier of 5. Should I change this, given the changes in vehicles and such between WWII and the 1980s? The maximum number of moves per turn allowed is also a factor - I heard somewhere that the highest movement factor a unit could have was 42, and that this was related to the road multiplier factor. (I also know Eivind was able to get higher move numbers - 55 and 60 - in First Strike, but he also reduced the road multiplier to 2.) Since units like the Tu-95 Bear, the B-52 and the B-1 can cross the Atlantic without refueling, this is a significant factor. Could anyone help me with this?

I can't type forever, so I'll end this post with a little eye candy: the airbase graphic I currently plan to use in my scenario (the hangars are brown because that's the color protected European hangars of the era seemed to be.)

[Case]

Do I really need separate units for the USSR's Guards formations

Probably; the Guards units had the best equipment and better than average troops and would have spearheaded any offensives. I think that the BMP-3 didn't appear until the 1990s.

Finland and Sweden are part of the same civilization (the "Scandanavians," who are neutral but can be attacked and invaded) - should they have separate unit slots, or should I combine them into one "Swedish/Finnish" infantry unit?

Why don't you use generic 'Western infantry'? Swedish and Finnish infantry mainly used NATO-standard equipment (or close equivalents) and were of similar quality to NATO units.

I also wonder if I should have separate NATO and WarPac paratrooper units, or simply have one paratrooper unit for both sides? (Did any other countries beside the US have large paratrooper units?)

All the NATO countries had parachute formations (Germany and France had airborne divisions and most of the other main NATO countries had brigades or the equivalent). You may as well use generic units as their capabilities were all about the same (eg, next to useless in central Germany, but probably very useful on the flanks).

On a similar note, a web article describing the tank forces in Europe circa 1982 says that the British Army of the Rhine had no mechanized infantry divisions - does that mean I can get rid of the British FV432 unit?

Probably not; the British 'armoured' divisions had substantial amounts of infantry (like all division-size units of the era they were combined arms formations) and the Territorial Army formations were, from memory, infantry-heavy rather than armored. On the other hand, there's not much to separate the FV432 from the M-113.

the British, French and (I think) Soviet carriers were of a smaller caliber, so I think I might need a unit for that.

The British carriers were tiny (they could only carry about 20-30 aircraft compared to 100 on a Nimitz), the French carriers were mid-sized (about 40 aircraft) and the Russian Kiev class carriers were a bad joke (They never had any effective aircraft, though they did pack a fearsome missile armament). Given that Civ 2 doesn't model carriers well it's probably not worth worrying about though.

And I still haven't gotten my B-1 or (maybe) refueling units settled yet.

The B-1s operated purely in the strategic (atomic bomber) role until about the 1990s and would have played no role in conventional warfare in Europe; they would have been held in reserve at bases in the US and used against the Soviet Union had the war gone nuclear (ditto most of the B-52 force and probably whatever F-117s could have been fielded).

[Elensar]

The Canadians look nice, but I'm not sure it would make an meaningful visual difference on the Civ unit scale.

On the general subject of airborne units: How are you handling paratrooper "jump" range?

Somehow, standard Civ seems too far for a realistic (or plausible fiction, as the case is) scenario - though it depends on how far apart cities are.

But it seems wrong to have paratroopers able to leap from the pre-war frontier well into the interior and capture cities.

I'm not sure if that's just me or not, but since all things being even, that's an extremely useful capacity, it probably needs to be fiddled with for best effect.

[bc1871]

You might want to check out this link as a reference:

http://www.fas.org/irp/dia/product/smp_index.htm

Soviet Military Power provided an estimation of capabilities of the Soviet Armed Forces.

[fairline]

....On a similar note, a web article describing the tank forces in Europe circa 1982 says that the British Army of the Rhine had no mechanized infantry divisions - does that mean I can get rid of the British FV432 unit?

Eh? The BAOR OOB before it was rationalised in the early 1980's was that of a full armoured corps comprising 1st, 3rd and 4th arm'd divisions + 2nd infantry division. As Case says, both the armd and inf divisions are combined arms; the distinction between a modern British armoured brigade and a mech inf brigade is (was?) the former had 2 inf bns : 2 armd bn whereas the latter had 3 inf bns : 1 armd bn per brigade. Any road up, all the BOAR divisions contained tanks and mechanised infantry in FV432's and Warriors from the late 80's. There is a distinction also between full mechanised infantry (Warriors or previously FV432) and infantry bns, which rode to battle in Saxons or Saracens and fought dismounted.

The territorial bns (ie part-time volunteers) that Case referred to were attached to the UK-based (light) infantry divisions, which were really only peacetime admin units, with the intention of using them as a core for wartime formations. AFAIK the BAOR divisions contained only (professional non-territorial) mechanised infantry.

As a general thought on this kind of scenario, why don't you approach this from the perspective of representing actual formation types with each civ unit rather than getting bogged down in including every available tank or APC type? You could have US armd bds represented by an M60 icon, Soviet Gds tank bdes represented by T-72 icons, regular Soviet tank bdes by T-55 or T-62's etc.

[fairline]

Did I mention there is a Mirage F1 parked in my neighbourhood?

Does your neighbour use it for getting to work or is it just a weekend thing?

[Timoleon]

I should ask them...

[Case]

The territorial bns (ie part-time volunteers) that Case referred to were attached to the UK-based (light) infantry divisions, which were really only peacetime admin units, with the intention of using them as a core for wartime formations.

I thought that they were deployable units, which would have mainly been used for rear-area security duties? (NATO dedicated a surprisingly large number of resources to countering Soviet special forces parties). I image that they would have also have been used to provide replacements for casualties in the BAOR.

As a general thought on this kind of scenario, why don't you approach this from the perspective of representing actual formation types with each civ unit rather than getting bogged down in including every available tank or APC type?

I agree that that would be the best approach.

[McMonkey]

I am looking to make an updated version of 'Rise of the Dictators' and in that I will be trying to expand on the system of real units instead of specific vehicle/aircraft models etc... One thing I have decided to do is do away with the nation specific Infantry units and go with more generic types using the multiple mini figures that Curt made. This way I will only need one unit slot for Airborne Brigades, Infantry Regiments etc... These smaller units also blend well with tank crewmen and mechanized passengers who are of a similar scale. With this system you can still include Artillery and AA units as long as they were of Regimental size.

[bc1871]

Personally, I think it would be best to stick to units at the Regimental level, rather than using full divisions or even brigades. The reason why I say this, is based on the fact that Civ2's combat system is totally based on a win/loss scenario, and to have whole divisions or even brigades destroyed in one engagement seems a bit far fetched. Now obviously, if the nuclear element were included then it could be possible to lose a division, but it just seems too unrealistic for my taste to have such high losses.

A better option would be to possibly use the APP-6 which relies on military map symbols, which I think might be more appropriate, especially if the player wishes to simulate large formations in the field.

[GhostOfDisco]

Well, I added some more cities, did some more road mapping, and finally responded to this thread again.

As a general thought on this kind of scenario, why don't you approach this from the perspective of representing actual formation types with each civ unit rather than getting bogged down in including every available tank or APC type? You could have US armd bds represented by an M60 icon, Soviet Gds tank bdes represented by T-72 icons, regular Soviet tank bdes by T-55 or T-62's etc.

Well, the T-80 was in service in Germany from the late '70s on, including the 1980s so I think that tank would make a better model for the Guards armored units. I also believe that the Soviet Army had different classes of divisions, each one having a different type of equipment (top-of-the-line divisions got T-80s and T-64s, for example, while "old retiree" reserve divisions had T-55s and other hand-me-down stuff); if I've got the T-55 and T-72s as units, and have the T-80s as Guards armor, do I need the T-62 and T-64 units? Should I keep the non-Guards T-80 unit?
(the BMP-3 unit, however, is going to go, as it didn't enter service until 1989. )
As for the Americans, I'm wondering about the armor unit. True, the Patton comprised the vast majority of the US tank force in Germany in 1982 (I've got a web article detailing the tank forces from each side during that year) but what about, say, 1985 or so? Besides, I've got an M60 Patton unit that I intend to use for all primarily Patton units (M48, M60, and Israeli variants), and while opening unit slots is always good, what kind of equipment a unit has does effect how it operates (for example, a Panzer IV battalion will fare differently against a battalion of Shermans than a battalion equipped with Tigers) So since a unit equipped with Abrams will perform differently than a unit with Pattons, I think it stays.

As for Divisions, I think I'll go with McMonkey's RotD decision of 2 units per division. While looking at said scenario, I noticed he relegated Artillery units to Corps, so I think I'll leave my artillery and heli units to the corps level as well.

Anyway, any Orders of Battle or depictions of force deployments from this period would be greatly appreciated.

[Case]

Anyway, any Orders of Battle or depictions of force deployments from this period would be greatly appreciated.

NATO in 1989: http://www.ordersofbattle.darkscape....o/oob1989.html

Warsaw Pact in 1989: http://www.ordersofbattle.darkscape....arsawpact.html

[McMonkey]

One thing I intend to change in my next version of RotD was to increase the movement rate of the corps Artillery. Getting the balance right will be tricky as they are such powerful attack units, but with a move rate of 1 and a road move of 3 they are just too hard to get into combat and are therefore only useful to disband for shields.

Picking a unit scale, for argument sake Regimental size, and then tweaking it to fit the scenario (IE 2 regiments instead of three, or whatever) will make the process of placing units on the map a hell of a lot easier. Without a set number of units you could end up dropping them down randomly and getting a good balance will become very hard.

I tried to match unit stats to their role on the battlefield as much as by the actual type of equipment depicted. For example Infantry units are good in cities, good at defending and mobile in rough terrain while Tank units are mobile, have good attack and defense but no bonus when attacking cities so they are best employed in the open.

I think the stats I made for RotD have worked extremely well in the current PBEM game (excuse the self praise ) so feel free to borrow what you like. I think the basic unit roles for a WWII and a WWIII scenario will be very similar when it comes to ground units.