Scenario Preview: Red Storm

[Paul Hanson]

The folowing screenshots are a taster of Red Strom, the scenario I`m working on. I apologise in advance for the poor quality, but it seemed to be the only way I could get the file size down below 150K.

[Paul Hanson]

Another preview:

Warsaw Pact forces catch West German and Danish forces off guard. French and British troops rush to help, but will it be enough to save either country?

[Shaka Naldur]

the preview of two good scn at the same time!!!!!!!!!!!
when are you going to release it??

[Grothgar]

Paul i thought you wernt doing this scen any more? glad to see im wrong. just make syre it isnt 5 months before you finnish it

[JPetroski]

Is this scenario going to be FW, or MGE? I think it would make for a fun email game personally...

JP

[Paul Hanson]

It`s going to be an MGE scenario, since that`s what I use. And as for e-mail games, it`s intended to be played as NATO only, so don`t hold your breath. If there`s enough demand for a multiplayer version, then I`d be happy to tweak a few things.

[Grothgar]

NATO only!!! you know i like to play the bad guys. Oh well ill have to stem my evil this time. I for one am adding my vote for a multiplayer version!

[Grothgar]

But really paul this looks like a really good scenario!

[Chris 62]

It's very impressive looking, Paul.

I would look foward to playing it, and yes, if you do make a MP version, it will get more play, so make that happen.

[Eternal]

Grothga, you'll be happy to know what I have of my scenario has been saved from my computer in the short time I was able to get it to work. It's playable as the Soviets only. No previews of it for a while though.

[Paul Hanson]

Another preview:

Here we have a "tank park" of all the tanks featured in the game. From top to bottom, they go like this:

NATO:
Leopard
Chieftain
AMX-30
Centurion
M48 Patton
M60 Patton
M1 Abrams

Soviet:
T-62
T-72
T-64
T-55
T-34

I am aware that some of these tank graphics are are incorrect (the Leopard, I believe, is actually a Challenger, but I`m not sure, and the T-55 is obviously just a recoloured T-62) but they are the best I could find for tanks of the era Red Storm is set (mid 1970`s). If anyone can suggest any better unit graphics, or possible additions to this tank park, I`d be happy to hear from you.

Anyway:

[Grothgar]

Paul i hope that you have made the NATO tanks better than the Soviet ones. Because the NATO tanks had better night vision equipment and better range targeting and frankly some bette tanks. The only thing that the Soviets had on their side was overwhelming numbers.
Also this might tie in especially well with just being able to play as NATO.
The armys are totally different. The russian army is based around a big plan which they plan for far in advance and they keep to the plan until they either succeed or the unit becomes combat inefficient. (40%)
The Nato armies however are based around flexibility with only a broad plan and then its up to the platton leaders etc to make it up as they go along which makes the NATO armies a lot more flexible and unpredictable.
The AI acts like the russians and thus us people will be nato.
Some of you might think im talking absolute rubbish but its something to bear in mind. also does anyone know if the Su-27 flanker or the MiG-29 Fulcrum was in service in June 1988?

[Paul Hanson]

I take it you got that from Red Storm Rising or one of those other cheesy books you`ve got lying around?

What I had planned to do was make the Soviet tanks more powerful, for several reasons:

1. The AI is crap. It can`t attempt a co-ordinated attack and succeed without losing half it`s army. If I make the Soviet tanks more powerful (at least to begin with, since this is a multi-part scenario) it`ll allow them to take Europe more effectively and provide a greater challenge to the player.

2. Soviet tanks, from what I gather, were more powerful. Thicker armour, bigger guns etc. Run a few tests on Steel Panthers 3 (not the most accurate game on the planet for this sort of thing, but good enough for me) and you`ll see what I mean. Try April 1975, W.Germany versus Soviet Union. The only tanks on the scenario that have a fighting chance against the stronger Soviet tanks (T-64, T-72) are the British Chieftain and the American M1 Abrams, which doesn`t come in until later on.

And in answer to your question Gary, both planes were in service at that time, or had at least been developed several years previously.

[Paul Hanson]

And speaking of planes, here are the few that I have. Once again, I would appreciate suggestions of which ones I should drop, what others I should include, where I can find better graphics for the Jaguar and F-14 etc.

NATO:
B-52 Stratofortress
F-14 Tomcat
F-4 Phantom
F-15 Eagle
Mirage III
Harrier
Jaguar (yes, I know it`s actually a Tornado)

Soviets:
MiG-21 Fishbed
MiG-23 Flogger
MiG-27 Flogger (I know it looks identical to the MiG-23)
Tu-16 Badger

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Paul Hanson

Soviet tanks, from what I gather, were more powerful. Thicker armour, bigger guns etc.

On a stat sheet, it may appear so, but in reality, this is simply not the case.
Nato armor of the period included much better optics, higher rates of fire, and early reactive armor, to say nothing of increased crew survivability, as well as much increased crew comfort.
Soviet designs are extremly cramped, with low range and carry a much smaller amount of ammunition.
But the problem, it seems, is the lame AI would stand no chance with inferior equipment...

I offer a compromise. In civ, no mention is made of what sized formation the icon represent, so why not say in the readme that the soviet armor represents divisions, and the Nato forces brigades, so that is why the soviet units are stronger, because there are a lot more tanks in them!

To go the other way is to invite criticism that the design is inaccurate.
Soviet equipment was shown to be inferior in operation in the middle east, as well as on trials conducted at Ft.Hood with caputred equipment provided by the Israelis against nato armor.

This way, you have the best of both worlds.