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

[bc1871]

An interesting idea for destroyed divisions might be rather than just having them be fully taken out of play, instead transforming them into a non-functioning field formation (through events), which though they would not have any ability to attack, could be retreated and disbanded in a friendly city(thereby simulating the reassignment of surviving troops).

[McMonkey]

That's a really good idea but how would you get them to generate in the right place? Worth thinking through though!

EDIT:
I suppose sleep-healing damaged units already does what you suggest, though it will only work for the victor.

[EZRhino]

Well, at the outbreak of World War I all sides thought the conflict would be resolved in a matter of weeks, and in World War II Hitler thought his invasion of Russia would be finished before the winter of 1941. We all know how those plans worked out.

I'm sure I'll love playing your scenario either way, but I enjoy historical discussion very much so please consider me as playing the role of the kindly devil sitting on your shoulder

First, I don't think it makes much sense to compare a NATO vs. WARPAC confrontation in 1985 to World War I. Generals, whose practical experiences were forged fighting the battles of WWII spent decades preparing for this next world war. I feel like the historical example of the Persian Gulf War vindicates their expectations of what the high-tempo mechinized battles of the cold war would look like. In short fast and very deadly. If you're interested here is an interesting transcript of a round table discussion held between various ex-NATO and WARPAC generals, civic and military planners about this subject. On the subject of logistics there is the Napoleonic maxim that war is invariably a question of supply. During the Gulf War it took 6 months to build up the supplies for for a 2 week operation involving elements of 10 allied divisions. The logistical demands in fuel, ammunition and replacement parts for a continental war involving dozens of divisions fighting well-trained and equipped opponents would be truly gigantic. What good is an F-15 if it doesn't have Aim-7? They may be good fighters, but not good enough to fight 3-1 or 5-1 odds using only guns. They're even less useful if they're stuck on the runway for of lack of fuel. Sources that I've seen say NATO prepositioned supply stocks would run out after about 30 days of full scale war, or even less if some of the more forward supply caches were captured or destroyed by the Soviets. Since the most modern equipment is expensive and time consuming to produce, and it takes months to effectively switch an economy to a war footing, NATO logistics would probably collapse long before new production could take up the slack. In consequence the operational strategy of both sides focused heavily on deep strikes for disrupting or destroying each others logistics capacity.

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.

Nice idea Gareth.

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?

According to the Osprey title Tank War-Central Front NATO vs Warsaw Pact, the total US Army tank force was about 7500 M60s and 4000 M1 in 1987, but most US tank battalions in Europe were equipped with the modern M1 or M1A1. Reinforcements from CONUS in operation REFORGER 10-30 days later would use both M60s and M1s.

The same book had a map that looks like it might be useful to you. Here it is

[Elensar]

Well, if both sides are running into the issue of how rapidly supplies are used up fighting a well equiped and prepared opponent, wouldn't that naturally lead to things bogging down after the first few months (or even weeks)?

Presumably, neither side is competent/incompetent enough for a war ending triumph in the first few weeks, so it sounds like there ought to be a way to represent the struggle on NATO's part to switch to a war footing and make up for the areas and supplies lost (the Reds being the aggressors presumably already have things in place to deal with that - somewhat, at least, but that's another story).

Similarly, the thought that struck - and this on unit destruction, but it seems appropriate here.

Triggers permiting, if say 50 units are destroyed, or one hundred (a large number at any rate), several extremely valuable wonders are rendered obscelete (with the technology that does that being removed later when the losses are made up for) to represent the major damage done in having to rebuild.

I'm unfortunately very unfamiliar with the Cold War, especially with any plans for "if it goes hot" - but it sounds like for all that it is a modern and war scenario, building up cities (in terms of improvemetns) ought to be vital to the war effort.

Time frame wise...I guess the question is, what would happen to Soviet resources after 30 days?

If both sides are hastily scrambling to support the oversized armies that will be formed, and the war goes to he with the deeper purse, then it should be longer, with the improvement building.

If not, I'm not sure Civ is good for blitzkrieg being the whole of the war. You can call one turn one month or one day or even an hour, and its still not designed to support that kind of warfare - the engine favors the deeper purse scenario, I believe (someone more familiar with scenario design please pick this apart if I'm wrong).

Just some thoughts as a student of prior periods and a Civ fan.

[Case]

It's important to note that neither NATO or the Warsaw Pact expected a conventional war in Europe to last for more than a few days or weeks before it escalated into a nuclear war or ended in stalemate. Both sides knew that their opponent would probably go nuclear if a breakthrough took place (eg, if Warsaw Pact forces crossed into France or NATO came close to the Soviet border). As a result, the role of the conventional forces was to buy time for a negotiated settlement by ensuring that the war didn't go nuclear too soon. Not surprisingly, the conventional forces were actually pretty well matched - all the realistic war games I've played show the fighting ending in stalemate, with both sides suffering massive casualties. The unit density and quality of forces on both sides was such that there was little chance of a breakthrough taking place anywhere along the front lines.

It should also be noted that while western views of what the war would look like always assume that the Warsaw Pact would go on the offensive, the Communist countries actually expected that it would begin with a NATO offensive. Both sides practiced offensive and defensive tactics, so it shouldn't be assumed that NATO would automatically start the war on the defensive.

[GhostOfDisco]

So many … wordy responses …

Well, it's good that people have responded like this to my thread; it means you all are interested. So much to discuss, so little time (at least tonight)… but some things I've been wondering about is, again, movement rate. (Of course, this relates to time per turn and while I'm biased towards the 1 turn = 1 week ratio for unit recruitment/city improvement construction plausibility reasons, EZRhino's made some good arguements for the 1 day = 1 turn ratio) At any rate (pun intended? ), I've hit a problem with road movement and plane range. From reading this article, one thing I learned was that higher road movement rates = lower overall move point values, and that's not good news for intercontinental bombers and supersonic fighters (OK, some intercontinental bombers are supersonic, but still…). Given that each turn will be less than one month, I see no problem with reducing the road movement factor to something less than 5 (it's rate in Ostfront), and I've got the idea of doubling the movement rate of the land units while simultaneously doubling the movement cost of the land terrains, which should even things out. What do you think?

The Ostfront map I'm using is excellent for an SP (or MP) European campaign, but it seems to have been "stretched" to adjust for Civ 2's peculiar "diamond" grid pattern. This is probably good for gameplay, but it does make it harder to translate things (such as route routes, unit placements) from a normal map to a Civ 2 map. One example of this would be my attempt to duplicate the 1980s road/(rail?) network of Germany:

Could anyone help me with this?

Also, I think I'll add the Armored Cav regiments into the game (the US ones will be in there, but what about the other NATO ACAVs? ??? ). I've given some thought as to their general character in the game - a higher movement rate than other mechanized units, and perhaps able to avoid zones of control, but not as strong as their "fully" armored cousins. I've even got a preliminary graphic for them (as I'm not sure when my scenario will take place (1989? 1985? A wrongheaded WarPac reaction to Able Archer 83?), they're currently equipped as they were pre-1989:

[Harry Tuttle]

You may want to fool around with Berlin and maybe add some NATO units to the city. The city will remain in Soviet hands, but the NATO units will prevent any movement into the city until they are destroyed. The reason for this is the overall war plan for Berlin if and when the Soviets started the invasion. NATO Berlin units were to immediately withdraw into the city and stall any invading force. This would have created an immediate pocket, but one that would screw up logistics through the metro area.

[Elensar]

Given that each turn will be less than one month, I see no problem with reducing the road movement factor to something less than 5 (it's rate in Ostfront), and I've got the idea of doubling the movement rate of the land units while simultaneously doubling the movement cost of the land terrains, which should even things out. What do you think?

One thing comes to mind that may be a stupid/obvious point, but...

If units have twice as many movement points, they can attack twice as much (health permiting).

Would that be an issue?

[GhostOfDisco]

One thing comes to mind that may be a stupid/obvious point, but...

If units have twice as many movement points, they can attack twice as much (health permiting).

Would that be an issue?

Hmm, that might...

Also, good idea, Harry. I think I might do that.

[Case]

Also, I think I'll add the Armored Cav regiments into the game (the US ones will be in there, but what about the other NATO ACAVs? ??? ).

The other NATO countries didn't really have anything equivalent to the US ACRs. The American units were 'tank heavy' and were tasked with either slowing down Warsaw Pact forces while other NATO forces mobilised or spearheading advances. In contrast, the other NATO countries only had reconnaissance battalions equipped with scout cars, etc, which would have reported on Warsaw Pact forces and tried to keep out of their way - I wouldn't bother including them.

[bc1871]

Now here’s an idea, and I know it might be viewed as far too much realism, but I’m not sure if you ever played the bonus scenario associated with “Atomic Eagle”(can be found on Spanish Apolyton), but during the bonus, one of the interesting features was that the infanteers only had a limited number of rounds which they could fire(as the ammunition itself took the form of a separate unit). With that being said, perhaps you could take this theory one step further, and rig it, so that armored/mechanized units would have a limited range/limited ammunition.

[GhostOfDisco]

So much to say, so little time to say it in...

Anyway, I seem to be more in favor of the "turn=week" thing. While a NATO-WarPac war might last no longer than a few weeks, it could be longer. The war in "World in Conflict" lasts at least six months, if not longer. (OK, OK, maybe a game with airdroppable Abrams isn't the best example of a realistic depiction of Cold War combat, but that feature was done primarily for gameplay reasons, but the producers did consult Tom Clancy's co-writer for Red Storm Rising, so...)

Of course, one of the reasons I'm partial toward the turn=week arrangement is the possibility of forming new units, but I'm not sure if that's a viable option. From Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault I surmised that basic enlisted infantry had at least three weeks of service, meaning that it might be possible to train a green military unit in such a time. (I don't plan on having barracks in the scenario, so that all the player's units must earn veteran status.) Now, units could be "built" in that several weakened units could be combined to form a new unit. But could one raise, say, a mechanized or armored regiment in a matter of weeks? I'd like the player to be able to build new "major" regiments (and perhaps set financial things up to prevent rush building), but maybe the most I could get (and still keep things plausible) is something like El Aurens, where you could only build basic local infantry units and had to rely on "outside" units for your main force. I dunno. What do you think?

There's also the issue of troop movement. Now, in Ostfront, curt had the infantry move at a rate of 1, general mechanized forces with 2, and roads multiply those rates by 5. Do you think I should adjust those rates, given my timeframe, and how should I go on doing it?

Not long ago I was going through the 1989 Warsaw Pact OOB and noticed the air forces were organized into regiments. I thought it best to arrange my air units along those lines (1 air unit=1 WarPac air regiment), but seeing as the average regiment had about 45 aircraft, whether the NATO air forces should be arranged by squadrons or wings. If the latter, than the carrier unit could carry only one air unit, and thus a Nimitz class carrier could not strike multiple targets like a real carrier air wing might. (Though I could "cheat" and have the carrier carry two units - a Tomcat and a Hornet , and leave everything else be. )

I'm leaning more and more towards having the scenario begin in the summer of 1989 (main plot: hardliners launch a "palace revolution"/coup to prevent the breakdown of the Soviet Union and in the resulting chaos, war erupts) though that might mean I'd have to put the F-117 in a unit slot. I had thought about getting rid of (most) the non-mech infantry units (that weren't airborne or marines, that is) in an effort to save unit slot space, but since that might be the only type of new unit you'd be able to recruit...

I need to wrap this up, so here's some eye candy: more mech infantry (including a possible Foreign Legion pic) and a MDV guy (the WarPac's basic "garrison" unit. )

[AGRICOLA]

You can't train new units in a few weeks but you can call up reservists and individuals who have recently retired from the armed forces, get their equipment ready, and give them a referesher course on it before shipping them overseas.

[bc1871]

About the only units that you could field in 2 weeks(that were not Reserve/Recalled/Vets), would be some form of Home Guard(Dad's Army anyone?).

[GhostOfDisco]

True, you might not be able to recruit a major unit in a matter of weeks, but what about months? Just give the mechanized units large shield values, maybe extend the amount of shields per row... I'm thinking of making the game at least a year (52 turns) long, so...