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

[Elensar]

That's my feeling. Having most units not needing to be moved - even if those who do aren't moving anywhere quickly - isn't too bad.

The only other sense of "unit fatigue" is "this feels unmanagable" - and that's more a sense based on mood (scenario and me while playing).

For instance, moving a vast horde is part of the feel of playing the dirty commies in Red Storm, as I understand it.

But it felt wrong in the Lost Legion scenario, despite the fact there were fewer.

So I think 60-odd is perfectly reasonable.

[GhostOfDisco]

Did some more work on the map tonight, adding cities, roads, and such.

Movement rates ... my plan for the past little while was to give the mechanized/armored units a movement rate of 5 (given a rate of advance of 60 km/day X 7 days/week = roughly 5 terrain squares per turn) but not sure what to give the dedicated foot-sloggers. A movement rate of 2 seems realistic, but it would take a long while for infantry from, say, Spain to reach the German/Low Countries/Channel border. Infantry with a movement rate of 3 would move quicker, but I'm worried that it means that the armor/mech units would have too little an advantage (at least in terms of speed) over their footsoldier counterparts than they should have. Plus, I'm not sure I can see paratroopers moving 157 miles behind enemy lines in a week. Plus it would mean some units, like the US Marines," might have little time to advance, and I think I'll let the player be able to convert some non-mechanized units into mechanized ones...

Maybe I'll up the tanks and such to 6, and the infantry to 3, or maybe keep the tanks/mech at 5, most infantry at 2, and some special infantry at 3. What do you think?

I've also been thinking ... given that there isn't really much time in the scenario to research and develop new technologies, I'll be using researchable techs to call in reinforcements and/or maybe some diplomacy (such as urging China one way or another so that the other side can't call up forces from the Far East, for example), so what should I rename the science improvements? What about the science wonders? I'm thinking of some places or locations that would seriously affect logisitics/the flow of supply somehow, and try to even things out among the two main powers. Any suggestions?

Also, here's my current unit roster. There are a tiny few unit slots left, and I'm wondering about some possible unit choices (should I have towed artillery as well as mobile? Do I need to include the Alpha Jet and/or the G91, or should I just "merge" those units in with other units (like the F-4s?)
Any comments, observations, etc.?

[McMonkey]

I think it would be a good idea to scrap research in favour of reinforcements via the tech tree. The player can the factor this into their strategy, making decisions like whether to go for Air, Airborne, Marine or Armoured reinforcements first. This has been done successfully in several scenarios before.

I would leave out towed artillery and assume it is organic to units. If you do decide to include it I would give it a good move rate, at least as good as the motorized units (infantry with lorries to Transport them etc...), but perhaps less than fully mechanized ones.

[GhostOfDisco]

Here's the city and road placement. I've got a 1988 set of World Book encyclopedias I've used for much of the city populations and placement of roads, though it's kinda though given the "stretchedness" of the map.

What do you think? Any changes that I should make? Any glaring errors that need to be corrected?

[AGRICOLA]

Great looking roads . . . . a designer has finally bothered to look at a modern road map. For a refreshing change, it's nice to see 1988 AD roads that don't meander like 1988 BC goat trails.

You may want to clean up some of the unnecessary road mazes in the Norwegian mountains and elsewhere.

Liepaja is an ice-free port whereas the Gulf of Riga can freeze. I think that Liepaja should have a road to Riga.

Grodno must surely have a road link to the outside world.

You may want to check the spelling of Fredrickton, Misrata, Valldolid, Tronso, Trezibond and Timiosara.

[McMonkey]

Looking good. Here are a few comments:

Luxembourg size 10 ???

Poznan should be connected by roads

I would recomend replacing Grimsby with Hull

No Cardiff? (Just kidding)

I agree with AGRICOLA about trimming the roads at points where they spider web. Straight and direct highways look better on the map!

[Arthedain]

I agree with AGRICOLA about trimming the roads at points where they spider web. Straight and direct highways look better on the map!

Also, too much roads in Sweden. Take a look at this pic:

http://www.sverigeturism.se/smorgasbord/image/sweden72.gif

Think E4, E6, E22, E20, E18, E10

[GhostOfDisco]

Been doing some work on the map, and I'm thinking I could be placing units soon - but to do that, I need to finalize my units. Here's what I currently have.
There are a few units slots free (one was to be a Freight unit to help simulate logistics, but think I'm scrapping that idea) and I'm wondering what I should fill them with. A third WarPac Motor Rifles so that I can have different units for the Class A, B, and C divisions? The Jaguar fighter. The non-US Western Marine units (IIRC the USMC is pretty unique in terms of its equipment, doctrine, fighting capability etc. Feel free to correct me on that. ) Should I include cruise missiles into the scenario? Do the Cobra (which would probably represent all the Western choppers not up to the Apache's level) and Apache units need to have separate unit slots, or can they be combined into one "Western Chopper" unit? Should I include cruise missiles? Can I merge, say, Alpha Jet and G91 units with the F4, or make separate units? What do you think?

[EZRhino]

Hi GhostOfDisco
This scenario is really shaping up! Congratulations. To your ponderings I will add my own thoughts.

-If it was me a would skip on the 3rd echelon soviet divisions. It seems redundant from a play standpoint if you already have your general "strong but few" unit, and your "weak but plentiful" unit. If I was the player I would be a little fatigued trying to tell the difference between all the similar looking mech inf units.

-Cruise missiles. All U.S. cruise missiles were exclusively nuclear or anti-ship until 1986 with the advent of conventional ALCM and Tomahawk designs. These would be launched by submarines or the B-52 (perhaps you could give the B-52 the "aircraft carrier" role?). Unless the scenario takes place in the very late 80's I wouldn't recommend cruise missiles. This leads me to my next wondering.

-Nukes in general. Is this a no-nukes scenario? I notice alot of strategic bombers in the units.bmp, these would all be under SAC until 1992, and you can bet every penny that they would overwhelmingly be held in reserve for nuclear strike missions. Soviet strategic bomber doctrine was probably similar to that to NATO. Since realistically these aircraft would be unavailable for the conventional missions (except maybe some F-111) I would recommend dropping them and using the slots for other units. As a sidenote if the unit next to the blackjack is a Mig-25 FOXBAT, they were high-altitude interceptors, they would be reserved for anti-strategic bombing missions.

[GhostOfDisco]

Hi GhostOfDisco
This scenario is really shaping up! Congratulations. To your ponderings I will add my own thoughts.

-If it was me a would skip on the 3rd echelon soviet divisions. It seems redundant from a play standpoint if you already have your general "strong but few" unit, and your "weak but plentiful" unit. If I was the player I would be a little fatigued trying to tell the difference between all the similar looking mech inf units.

Well, it looks like the type A and B divisions have the same type of equipment, so I think that I'll just have the same unit type for both, and keep the Type C unit, as the Type C units had inferior equipment to their A and B counterparts.

I was planning on having the C mech inf represented by a BTR-60 (with the -70 as a placeholder), but maybe the C's did sometime use -70s ... I dunno. And it wouldn't have any impact on the actual game...
It does mean I don't need to add another unit, though...

-Cruise missiles. All U.S. cruise missiles were exclusively nuclear or anti-ship until 1986 with the advent of conventional ALCM and Tomahawk designs. These would be launched by submarines or the B-52 (perhaps you could give the B-52 the "aircraft carrier" role?). Unless the scenario takes place in the very late 80's I wouldn't recommend cruise missiles. This leads me to my next wondering.

Well, I've decided the scenario begins in the summer of '89, so I think cruise missiles could be a factor. Now, if only I can find a decent cruise missile graphic...

-Nukes in general. Is this a no-nukes scenario?

Mostly, though I might include some event-generated nukes given certain events (if the WarPac gets near Paris, for example, the French will consider using the nuclear option, as will the Brits if it looks like an invasion of the Isles is imminent. I could see the US trying to nuke an invasion force, but not sure how to trigger all that, and I know the president would be committing political suicide if he glassed a large number of American citizens. (Maybe a retaliatory attack would make more sense.) The Soviets launching a nuclear attack at the US might work if NATO took Moscow, but I could also see them just retreating to Siberia and letting NATO forces wipe themselves out on the Urals.) So, I might be including nukes, but it's not a guarantee. I've always thought nukes tended to be a "game-ruiner," as the AI tends to use them rather then conventional forces and thus my attacking forces get nuked. :P

I notice alot of strategic bombers in the units.bmp, these would all be under SAC until 1992, and you can bet every penny that they would overwhelmingly be held in reserve for nuclear strike missions. Soviet strategic bomber doctrine was probably similar to that to NATO. Since realistically these aircraft would be unavailable for the conventional missions (except maybe some F-111) I would recommend dropping them and using the slots for other units. As a sidenote if the unit next to the blackjack is a Mig-25 FOXBAT, they were high-altitude interceptors, they would be reserved for anti-strategic bombing missions.

Well, I do know the B-52 was used in Desert Storm even though B-52s weren't permanently taken off "First Strike" duty until September of 1991. Though your observations have made me think - I think I'll have a "tech" required before B-52s are released for tactical duty.

[Case]

Well, I do know the B-52 was used in Desert Storm even though B-52s weren't permanently taken off "First Strike" duty until September of 1991. Though your observations have made me think - I think I'll have a "tech" required before B-52s are released for tactical duty.

I think that the USAF's B-52 units were split between conventional and nuclear roles. In the 1980s they also had an important anti-shipping and naval minelaying role.

[GhostOfDisco]

I finished with the preliminary unit roster, and thought I could start unit placement (stats aren't finalized - at all...), and the game keeps crashing on me. I don't know why, but I do know it's in this RULES file. When I put a vanilla "ExtendedOriginal" rules file in, the game is fine.

Could anyone help me figure out what's wrong?

[bc1871]

Just a historical note, but your US Marine and NATO Infanteer should be wearing an M1 style helmet, since the PASGT didn't really come into usage until the Gulf War.

[GhostOfDisco]

Just a historical note, but your US Marine and NATO Infanteer should be wearing an M1 style helmet, since the PASGT didn't really come into usage until the Gulf War.

Actually, the PASGT helmet was in use as early as Grenada.


And it was also worn in Panama:

[McMonkey]

I can't see anything wrong with the rules. I ran it through the CivTech application and the technologies seem OK. I have had a quick look through the units and there doesn't appear to be any missing commas which is a common problem for me. I usually copy and paste things across section by section into a healthy rules file until I get it to break and then I further break down that particular section until I find the problem line. Its time consuming but it is a solution, unless someone has a smarter solution.