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

[GhostOfDisco]

Well, I've already got generic units for the East and West infantry types (regular inf, paratroopers, marines - I guessed the Soviet Units could readily fill in for their WarPac ally counterparts)... should I collapse it more (I noticed in some of the NATO OOBs that they have Marine reigments/divisions ... did they have the same capabilities as the USMC units?)

Also, I've begun making sounds for the units - I've got the US/NATO infantry and Abrams sounds done, now I need to work on the other units...)

What should I do about population size of the cities? Should I just use Ostfront's population values, try to increase them proportionately, or should I take the trouble of looking at the cities' populations circa 1989-90?

Another dilemma - I'm thinking of giving the NATO the Great Wall wonder in a key city whose loss would be very bad for it's defensive line. The two main contenders would be Frankfurt (WarPac capturing it would split West Germany in two) or Brussels (chaos would ensue upon the Red's capturing NATO's headquarters). What do you think?

[GhostOfDisco]

Double post.

[McMonkey]

Frankfurt would be a more bitter blow than Brussels IMHO. Having your country split in two would have a devastating effect on the West Germans and would allow the Soviets to defeat the isolated halves in turn. I expect NATO would have contingency plans for their HQ should it be threatened, captured or destroyed.

I wouldn't waste too much time trying to get city sizes exactly right. So long as they are consistent and represent the cities importance thats enough. You can never hope to be exactly right with populations in Civ2.

[McMonkey]

Frankfurt would be a more bitter blow than Brussels IMHO. Having your country split in two would have a devastating effect on the West Germans and would allow the Soviets to defeat the isolated halves in turn. I expect NATO would have contingency plans for their HQ should it be threatened, captured or destroyed.

I wouldn't waste too much time trying to get city sizes exactly right. So long as they are consistent and represent the cities importance thats enough. You can never hope to be exactly right with populations in Civ2.

[GhostOfDisco]

So, it's settled. Frankfurt gets the Great Wall.

The other day I was going through the Warsaw Pact OOB (simplified for my purposes). I got through most of the Soviet forces that would probably be in the game and tallied up the numbers (1 unit for each independent regiment/brigade, 1 unit per air wing, 2 units per division

T-80 Guards: 20
T-64 Guards: 40
Guards Motor Rifle: 92
T-80: 14
T-64: 6
T-72: 19
Motor Rifle: 46
Naval Infantry: 2
Airborne: 10
Helicopter: 24
Artillery: 24

MiG-29: 19
MiG-23/27: 31
Su-24/25: 16
Su-27: 2
Su-17: 1
Tu-28: 4
Tu-16: 3
Tu-22: 3
Tu-95: 4
Tu-160 (I think): 1

That's … a lot of units. I know the criticisms I got for 2013's large unit numbers, and would like to keep the unit numbers down. (I just did a quick look at the Turkish army, which alone would require 60 or so units!) On the other hand, it is a big war, and perhaps 1 unit = 1 division would be too small (plus it would probably get rid of the appearance of individual brigades/regiments in the game). I'm not sure. Anyone have any advice on the matter?

One thing I think I'll be doing is restricting the elite Guards units to their Category A equivalents, and giving the Category B and C Guards units simply regular units with Veteran status.

[McMonkey]

I would go for gameplay over historical accuracy. It is tempting to build a scale model of the world but if it detracts from the gameplay then whats to point!

Something occurred to me the other day. We have been talking about how long it takes to train a unit from scratch but there is another way you can look at it. When a unit is defeated in combat it is rarely annihilated. A lot of the troops and equipment will limp away and can be reorganized to fight another day. Units produced during the game don't necessarily need to represent brand new formations, they could be seen as patched up units ready to be sent back into the field. Just a thought.

[Timoleon]

I agree with McMonkey. Also, I think that only front-line units would be up to full strength (Guards units, the BAOR, etc). Which makes second-line and reserve unit depiction optional. Imagine a motor rifles unit in eastern Ucraine, or some regimet in Wales, with only a skeleton staff. How long would it take to fully equip, train and mobilize them? The time to build them in game terms.
And something else.
What equipment would reservists and raw conscripts readily get? The older mothballed stuff, T55s, Chieftains, Pattons, what they had trained with. Which opens up some research options for the tech tree. Apart from the standing armies, newly built units could be worked up the tech tree. Think about it.

[bc1871]

Personally, it would be great to see an extremely high level of accuracy. Also, and perhaps I might be alone in this line of thought, but I thoroughly enjoyed the large amount of units in 2013.

[Elensar]

I would like to see something that, even if not strictly "accurate", gets the idea across. We are talking about large forces here.

One thing I noted in regards to the Lost Legions scenario that bugged me a bit was that moving thirty or so units feels like moving a horde. It didn't feel right there.

But here, moving a massive army bent on conquering the West should feel like...moving a massive army bent on conquering the West.

That being said, I heartily agree with Timoleon's last post. Maybe have units that would be on the "mobilize right away" list partially constructed.

A thought that seriously comes up.

Garrisons.

For instance, how many troops are really stationed in (for instance) Paris compared to what a Civ player would put there?

Having that factor (and having to hasten field forces to hold areas) would be very appropriate.

Naturally this assumes multiplayer, the poor AI would not be appropriate, but then, the AI is not really appropriate for realistic anywhere.

[GhostOfDisco]

Well, I've got two garrison units (movement 0, unbuildable, defensive only)... police for the Western civs, Internal Police for the Communist civs...

[Elensar]

But are they meant as useful troops (as in, can they actually withstand an attack), or are they just there to suck up shields and/or handle civil disorder?

[Case]

I noticed in some of the NATO OOBs that they have Marine reigments/divisions ... did they have the same capabilities as the USMC units?

In short, yes - they were elite light infantry, but lacked the USMC's tanks and organic air support. It's important to note, however, that they would have probably been deployed to either Norway or the eastern Mediterranean in the event of war.

[Case]

how many troops are really stationed in (for instance) Paris compared to what a Civ player would put there?

NATO would have stationed only second or third-rate reserve units as garrison units behind the front lines. Some countries had local defence militias (eg, Belgium, Denmark, Norway and Germany) and others had somewhat more capable but still under-equipped and trained combat units (eg, elements of the British Territorial Army - though much of the TA would have gone to Germany). France, Italy and some other countries also had paramilitary gendarme forces which were surprisingly well equipped.

[Elensar]

That doesn't sound like it would be a match for a commited assault, though it would probably buy time.

Very interesting, all of this.

[Case]

No, those units main role was to defend key installations from attacks by Soviet special forces.