Armageddon 2015 Russia (Larry) vs. NATO (Roger) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> After Action Reports



Message

toawfan -> Armageddon 2015 Russia (Larry) vs. NATO (Roger) (12/3/2010 6:24:17 PM)

Larry Fulkerson and I are getting ready to playtest the newly updated scenario by Mark Stevens, Armageddon 2015. Larry is Russia and I am NATO.

This 60-turn scenario is the European version, but even this "mini" version is quite broad in scope. We actually are using the other file which includes North Africa and the Middle East and is 40 turns. The game presumes that NATO is spread quite thinly in the aftermath and still bogged down efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq and with threats still possible in North Korea and Taiwan (not shown on map, but explains why forces are limited in Europe).

Mark has provided more details over at GameSquad, plus the two game downloads for others to test.

Our AAR will begin with Larry's Russian moves. You will see that he faces many Theater Options of just how broadly to expand this war. It feels like both sides are spread very thinly. Where will they even establish any semblance of a front and how will you actually control VP or Supply Points?

We shall see.




toawfan -> RE: Armageddon 2015 Russia (Larry) vs. NATO (Roger) (12/3/2010 6:33:56 PM)

Here is Larry and my initial email discussing the scenario with some thoughts that we hoped we help Mark. Also, I began four moves against Elmer to get some feel for what I would be facing. Here's our email:

I'm playing this game against Elmer with me as the Russians. We're both going to have our hands full. I've got to say that Elmer is playing like you as NATO, dropping special forces behind my Russian lines left and right. Gonna have to try that myself.
Elmer is doing this? Our Elmer? That's so cool. That's way cool beans. I would not have expected Elmer to do things like that. Hmmmmmm.......

The news events in this game really are like the real thing. Hizbollah decides to enter the war in Lebanon, probably triggered by my Russian movements in the Middle East. And it appears this is randomly generated by the scenario and won't necessarily happen every time.
That's great.....that means the scenario won't actually play out the same each time. I guess Mark has thought about, well, almost everything. I noticed that he ( Mark ) has abstracted the Korean conflict so that we don't have to deal with THAT. Or say, a conflict between China and Taiwan. Part of me is glad he left those out of this scenario. But then on the other hand..........

The news has meaning in this scenario. Certain events trigger reserves or insertion of new forces. I love that part.
Good deal. This scenario just keeps getting better and better.

With the time you've spent so far, I'm sure you see what I mean that it is almost impossible to have a defined front. You really have to decide which VP and SP are going to matter most and see if you can get it.
I agree. And I did, but maybe should not have, attacked all my enemies at the same time, except Israel ( for now ). Israel looks to be a really the opposite of a push-over. Between a rock and a hard place. I guess I'm trying to leave that for last.

I'll be very curious to see if you use your TO and attack other nations and how many of them. Against Elmer, I have not added to the war. Hands are full enough without adding other countries to the assault.
I haven't declared war on any other nation yet. Like you I decided I had my hands full with what I have so far.

Once again, like the Warsaw/NATO game, I will be on my heels, on defense, and trying like crazy to get reserves to the front in this scenario.
Yeah, but you love it. Or, if you want we can switch sides and I'll be NATO. Up to you.

One question in the game settings: Should we turn on the new supply rules and new turn order rules. I forget what the significance is of either one, but remember reading that it's suggested for the newest scenarios. Up to you. I'm not sure.
I thought I turned "on" the new supply rules and the new turn order rules. If they aren't "on" then maybe we should start over. LOL.



larryfulkerson -> RE: Armageddon 2015 Russia (Larry) vs. NATO (Roger) (12/3/2010 9:59:37 PM)

Here's a 4Meg file that shows the Warsaw Pact moves in turn 1:

http://b.imagehost.org/0610/WP_moves_in_T1.gif


I discovered that you can use ships as a platform for choppers to operate from. The trouble with doing that is that sometimes the chopper goes into reorg and then it's stuck at sea and can't move. A sitting duck for enemy ships to sink them.

I invaded the following countries: 
	Norway
        Poland
	Bosnia
	Spain
	Lebbanon
	Isreal
	Saudi Arabia
	IraQ
	Turkey
	Romania
	and Croatia
I may be forgetting one or more countries.

It took me the better part of a full day to do my moves because I got about 8 combat rounds and I was being extra thoughtful as to where I moved and what I did when I got there.

I'm thinking maybe the Warsaw Pact forces are too strong. Maybe not, I could be wrong. I pushed a lot of NATO units backward, destroyed some, and sunk an aircraft carrier. Not bad for a slow week. Serbia is a worry spot for me mostly because they are surrounded on all sides by the enemy. Not unlike Isreal. Speaking of Isreal, that looks to be a really hard place to try to defeat. I'll give it the old college try.

I dropped some airmobile troops in Poland to bust some bridges and start a surround on some units. Roger loves it when I do that.

Here's a picture showing some of the front lines as they are now:

[image]local://upfiles/16287/759E449F6E644A09A2569C3ABACF2800.gif[/image]



larryfulkerson -> RE: Armageddon 2015 Russia (Larry) vs. NATO (Roger) (12/3/2010 11:19:52 PM)

Here's my grand plan:

[image]local://upfiles/16287/89027E007951429FBD9ED857D32B7E3D.gif[/image]



toawfan -> RE: Armageddon 2015 Russia (Larry) vs. NATO (Roger) (12/4/2010 12:00:02 AM)

Mark: See if you think Air Superiority should be balanced for both sides at the start and if losses should be this large before NATO even gets to make a move.

My "grand" plan: Build some sort of defensive line, wait for reinforcements and then counter-attack. Probably can't even begin to happen until turns 3 or 4.

[image]local://upfiles/36595/C88FCB2F9BDA4BB9ABD02174101B6F8C.jpg[/image]



Odenathus -> RE: Armageddon 2015 Russia (Larry) vs. NATO (Roger) (12/4/2010 12:37:42 AM)

Hi

Yup, the assumption behind this is that the Russians and their allies/satellites launch an attack on NATO under cover of massive 'exercises'. NATO's air forces are on full alert, and the ground units, although not the full reserves, have been bought up to strength and moved to initial defensive positions, although there has not been time, or the political will, to move ground units into other countries. I'm assuming that there is still one full US corps permanently stationed in Germany, and that the British 1st Armoured Division still exists - smaller than at present following the recently announced spending cuts - and that it's also still stationed in Germany, primarily because there's nowhere for it in the UK. I've also given the Russians and their allies (I nearly typed 'the Warsaw Pact', naughty me) air and ground shock for the first few turns (gradually decreasing) to simulate NATO's shock and confusion at the outbreak of a real shooting war. From my own playtests I think you'll find that NATO gradually achieves air superiority, and will then be able to switch airpower to ground support.

However I admit that, while I'm broadly happy with the general ORBATs and TOEs, it's anybody's guess how the overall play balance will work out in a full game between two experienced players. And Larry, as we know, is very experienced.

It is quite likely that some sort of tweaks to the VPs/proficiencies/initial shock bonus will be required.

No production as there won't be time in a campaign lasting a few weeks, although there are manpower replacements representing reserves being called up, and trucks as I reckon they can be requisitioned from civilian use in an absolute emergency. And this represent an absolute emergency.

Or it may be necessary to reduce the number of Russian reserve units: on paper there's enough in storage to comfortably more than double their existing ground forces in the European theatre, let alone the option to shift forces from the Central and Pacific Operation Strategic Commands. If this leads to them reaching the Channel in a week or so, some drastic pruning may be required. I'd like this to bear some resemblance to an existing or near future reality, but at the end of the day it has to be a challenging and interesting game.

I'll watch this with keen interest.

Cheers

Mark



toawfan -> RE: Armageddon 2015 Russia (Larry) vs. NATO (Roger) (12/4/2010 12:49:19 AM)

Thanks, Mark. This really adds to the fun of a new scenario to have the designer looking over our table in the war room.

I'm counting on those reinforcements that I see coming and we'll test if your theory is right about the balance. I certainly am trying to calm my forces and Allies in more than a few nations. Talk about shock and awe from what Red Storm Larry has unleashed.

All I'm doing now is trying to protect Supply Points and build a defensive line until I can race reinforcements to the action, probably a few turns away.

I just wanted to make sure that you still considered a balanced game possible if NATO had 10 percent losses across the board before they even make their first turn.

Thanks for watching us from the war room.

Due to the experience of Larry, we'll probably switch sides and play again so we can provide the most accurate playtesting info. I hope I last a long, long time before we do the switch. Doesn't feel like it after half a turn. Yikes.



Telumar -> RE: Armageddon 2015 Russia (Larry) vs. NATO (Roger) (12/4/2010 1:35:46 AM)

Do we (Germany) still have that many Leopards.. or are this mainly the exported pieces (Turkey acquired quite an amount of Leos afaik) ? My initial thoughts were "poor Germany - how to resist a russian ground attack with our huge tank army disbanded after the end of the cold war..." [X(]

quote:


I nearly typed 'the Warsaw Pact', naughty me


You're not alone.

Oh wait.. aren't we at war with Oceania..

..or was it Eurasia..?

[;)]



Odenathus -> RE: Armageddon 2015 Russia (Larry) vs. NATO (Roger) (12/4/2010 2:30:54 AM)

408 in active service, according to Wikipedia so it must be true, with more in storage. The game has 700, so clearly they get 292 out of storage as tension builds...[:D]



larryfulkerson -> RE: Armageddon 2015 Russia (Larry) vs. NATO (Roger) (12/4/2010 4:38:22 AM)

Here's the Warsaw Pact losses so far:


[image]local://upfiles/16287/EAD7944C3ED1468594CED29A77B8AC10.gif[/image]



larryfulkerson -> RE: Armageddon 2015 Russia (Larry) vs. NATO (Roger) (12/4/2010 4:49:25 AM)

Umm....there's probably more than one person ( Mark ) who might want to check out the Warsaw Pact's END_OF_TURN_DO_NOT_SEND file that was produced at the end of turn 1. Here you go:

[ just remove the .txt from the file name to make it a .sal file instead. ]



Odenathus -> RE: Armageddon 2015 Russia (Larry) vs. NATO (Roger) (12/4/2010 2:12:14 PM)

That's a rare old report, even by TOAW standards. Any idea about the nonsense script at the end? What caused it, how to stop it happening? Although I have to confess to never reading these things anyway.



larryfulkerson -> RE: Armageddon 2015 Russia (Larry) vs. NATO (Roger) (12/4/2010 3:37:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Odenathus
That's a rare old report, even by TOAW standards. Any idea about the nonsense script at the end? What caused it, how to stop it happening? Although I have to confess to never reading these things anyway.

Are you talking about the SAL file above? Other than that I haven't a clue what you're talking about.

On the other hand I think I may have found a tiny problem with the deployment of Arty Brigades. Here's an arty brigade that has a range of 1. Which means you have to put this unit adjacent to an enemy to "use" it offensively. But if you put it adjacent then you risk loosing your command groups. Those guys ( and the support squads organic to a unit ) shouldn't be risked if at all. And if possible you should avoid it. I'm not sure I would have put command groups in the same unit as a combat unit. ???

[image]local://upfiles/16287/7996BF745CA64C16BE9173433988335E.gif[/image]



larryfulkerson -> RE: Armageddon 2015 Russia (Larry) vs. NATO (Roger) (12/4/2010 4:10:42 PM)

And another thing..........Here we have a ground support unit ( Mi-34 Hinds, etc. ) but right next to this unit was an airmobile infantry dude that I flew to somewhere. All of a sudden I can't move this ground support dude anywhere. He's used his movement points to fly an airmobile dude somewhere. I suppose I COULD have move this ground support dude to point A BEFORE I flew the airmobile dude. But then if I fly the airmobile dude to point B I'm supposing that doing so would use all the remaining movement points of the ground support dude and then I again can't fly him anywhere else and I might need to at some point in the turn as the situation changes. So I'm not really really sure it's a good thing to put an airlift cap. in a combat unit like this.

[image]local://upfiles/16287/97D1BEA206F54130B365F005E1D53910.gif[/image]



larryfulkerson -> RE: Armageddon 2015 Russia (Larry) vs. NATO (Roger) (12/4/2010 4:22:23 PM)

And one more thing while I'm on the subject of things I think need to be "fixed". Um......I can't move my choppers to enemy territory. I can drop an airmobile dude jumping out of a plane in enemy territory. But I can't fly a chopper to the same hex. Totally unrealistic. PAVE LOW choppers routinely drop SF teams in enemy locations. And then a couple of weeks later go and get them from a similar spot. At night. In bad weather. While being shot at. After a recent divorce. While having a magnificant headache. On an empty stomach.

[image]local://upfiles/16287/06A3D28A8267496FBF6A3ECF0FE4065F.gif[/image]



Telumar -> RE: Armageddon 2015 Russia (Larry) vs. NATO (Roger) (12/4/2010 5:09:15 PM)

Larry, this all works as intended:

1.) Command Groups
Won't have any effect in a combat unit. Jean-Luc Betin put these into his ground units for his series of modern scenarios for the GS TOAW tournament some years ago just to find that they don't affect the performance of a combat unit when lost.

2.) Airmobile Lift
Sad but true, the M24 Hind has the Light Transport Helicopter flag set. This is only visible in BioEd. A remedy would be to uncheck this flag and to put transport helicopters into HQ units i.e. - this is what i've seen in the few modern scenarios i played so far.

3.) Helicopter Units and Enemy territory
I think TOAW represents this very well. It's not just the Helos that are represented by the unit counter, but also the ground team etc. Like mechanics, supply troops, fuel vehicles, repair facilities, communication and so on. All the stuff that keeps the machines working and operational. Also i think what you want is more tactical. Given the scale of this scenario it wouldn't really fit.






larryfulkerson -> RE: Armageddon 2015 Russia (Larry) vs. NATO (Roger) (12/4/2010 5:23:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar
...more tactical......

What's more tactical than an Apache helicopter? See, my problem is that I thought combat units were supposed to be used in combat. I didn't know that they also had repair facilities, refueling trucks, command groups, candy stripers to make the coffee, squadron mascots to lay in the corner, coffee cups to stack in a group, and a box of wooden matches. I thought combat units were things you sent on missions. I didn't know all this other stuff about them. I say let's separate out what's combat from what's not. That's all.



1_Lzard -> RE: Armageddon 2015 Russia (Larry) vs. NATO (Roger) (12/4/2010 5:35:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson
What's more tactical than an Apache helicopter? See, my problem is that I thought combat units were supposed to be used in combat. I didn't know that they also had repair facilities, refueling trucks, command groups, candy stripers to make the coffee, squadron mascots to lay in the corner, coffee cups to stack in a group, and a box of wooden matches. I thought combat units were things you sent on missions. I didn't know all this other stuff about them. I say let's separate out what's combat from what's not. That's all.


In this case, the 'unit' could be moved up to the edge of secured territory, and it's 'range' will allow for effect INTO enemy territory, eh? One needs to remember the range of the helos!



Telumar -> RE: Armageddon 2015 Russia (Larry) vs. NATO (Roger) (12/4/2010 5:49:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar
...more tactical......

What's more tactical than an Apache helicopter? See, my problem is that I thought combat units were supposed to be used in combat. I didn't know that they also had repair facilities, refueling trucks, command groups, candy stripers to make the coffee, squadron mascots to lay in the corner, coffee cups to stack in a group, and a box of wooden matches. I thought combat units were things you sent on missions. I didn't know all this other stuff about them. I say let's separate out what's combat from what's not. That's all.


Ok ok.. Maybe i should have used a formulation the other way around.

As TOAW doesn't allow these things we have to assume that the counter represents not only the combat elements but also the ground elements of the helicopter unit like technical stuff, even the christmas tree in the ready room..



toawfan -> RE: Armageddon 2015 Russia (Larry) vs. NATO (Roger) (12/4/2010 6:04:11 PM)

Anything that keeps Larry out of my back lines is a good thing. He's always trying to drop paratroopers, destroy bridges, mess up my supply lines. :) He needs to keep his helicopters at home and use them as large fans for cooling off the troops who stay at home.



samba_liten -> RE: Armageddon 2015 Russia (Larry) vs. NATO (Roger) (12/4/2010 6:16:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

And one more thing while I'm on the subject of things I think need to be "fixed". Um......I can't move my choppers to enemy territory. I can drop an airmobile dude jumping out of a plane in enemy territory. But I can't fly a chopper to the same hex. Totally unrealistic. PAVE LOW choppers routinely drop SF teams in enemy locations. And then a couple of weeks later go and get them from a similar spot. At night. In bad weather. While being shot at. After a recent divorce. While having a magnificant headache. On an empty stomach.

[image]local://upfiles/16287/06A3D28A8267496FBF6A3ECF0FE4065F.gif[/image]

The way i see it a PAVE LOW helicopter wouldn't land in the hex either in TOAW. You would select the spec ops unit and go "board helicopters", then drop the unit in the desired hex.

You probably all know this, but I'll say it anyway. The Soviet HIND helicopter is an attack helicopter with room for a fully equipped half-squad inside, hence the transport capability.



larryfulkerson -> RE: Armageddon 2015 Russia (Larry) vs. NATO (Roger) (12/4/2010 9:19:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: polarenper
The way i see it a PAVE LOW helicopter wouldn't land in the hex either in TOAW. You would select the spec ops unit and go "board helicopters", then drop the unit in the desired hex.

Okie dokie. See, this I can understand. The range of the chopper is used to penetrate to the desired hex. Okay. I can 'get it' now. That's cool with me. I don't have a problem with that. Case closed.



toawfan -> RE: Armageddon 2015 Russia (Larry) vs. NATO (Roger) (12/5/2010 10:44:03 AM)

Would you surrender before your second turn if you were NATO and saw this?:

15,000 infantry are dead.

All 417 T72 tanks are destroyed and they do not replenish in this scenario.

1,000 of 4,000 M48 Patton 3 Improved tanks are gone and do not replenish.

Warsaw is surrounded and ready to fall, meaning you will lose all Polish troops.

Losses were so severe before you even got to make your first move that all you could do was dig in, try to move reserves to a defensive line and then read a sitrep.log in 19 battles where losses were from 71 to 100 percent.

I'm attaching a screenshot that shows how deeply Russia has penetrated before I even start Turn 2. Warsaw is surrounded and ready to fall.

And, as you can see, I have nothing in sight to pretend to mount a defense.

Seriously, would you surrender before you even begin Turn 2?

By the way, I had Air Superiority of 113-70, but Russia had no problem annihilating my aircraft and getting to my tanks.

(As a footnote, it has taken me 10 moves as Russia vs. Elmer to advance this far to Warsaw in the smaller scenario of Europe only).

I know Larry is an expert and I'm a newbie, but I haven't even had a chance to screw up or do anything before this position in the large scenario.



[image]local://upfiles/36595/ABE8EF9C9763414F8914C36382E7A313.jpg[/image]



sapper32 -> RE: Armageddon 2015 Russia (Larry) vs. NATO (Roger) (12/5/2010 11:52:52 AM)

Maybe your not supposed to hold Poland in this scenario just absorb the punishment and fall back untill the Russians are worn down and they are starting to slow down it looks like there is some good defensive terrain in western Poland and eastern Germany,With regards to your airforces where are they based the farther away from the front they are the lower there effectivness also Larry is probarbly hitting your airfields with SSMs its frustrating i know i played one scenario as UK/USA against western europe i had 6 harriers and 4 B2 Spirit bombers against Western europes hundreds of F16/Mirage/Tornado and the list went, on stick with it just try to screen his advance and build your major defense line further back.

Good luck



toawfan -> RE: Armageddon 2015 Russia (Larry) vs. NATO (Roger) (12/5/2010 2:35:36 PM)

It's possible that this is working as designed, but I can't believe that NATO and their Allies would not have some sort of fortified front-line defense. And I guess it's set to lose 20 percent of all forces on the map after the first move. Kind of wonder why spend all the time and effort to place all the forces if you know they'll be gone after the first move.

Remember that I've only had one turn so the aircraft are pretty much in their default position and what I moved forward got overrun.



Silvanski -> RE: Armageddon 2015 Russia (Larry) vs. NATO (Roger) (12/5/2010 2:58:06 PM)

You sure are going to receive reinforcements aye. Sweat it out and see how it develops... An elastic defense may be your best bet



larryfulkerson -> RE: Armageddon 2015 Russia (Larry) vs. NATO (Roger) (12/5/2010 6:11:27 PM)

Here's a 4Meg file that shows the moves by the WP in turn 2:

http://b.imagehost.org/0148/wp_moves_in_turn_2.gif

I'm still up in the air about Serbia.  It's still in danger of being overrun.  The rest of the map.....I'm comfortable with the rest of the map.  Just Serbia is a problem for me.  Isreal is, surprisingly, falling apart.  I guess it's because I have all the artillery in the world on the southern front with Isreal.  I attacked a bunch of targets hoping to stir up some furballs and had set my fighters to ignore losses and I shot down a bunch of Allied planes but I lost a boat-load of fighters myself.  The end result is that now the Air Power meter says the Allies and WP are roughly equal now.  OOoops.  That didn't work like I had intended.  I used to have a substantial lead and now I don't so attacking his airbases wasn't a really really good idea I guess.  The Iraq-ie army isn't worth the food it takes to keep them alive.  Their proficiency is like 48% or something.  Same with the Iranians though.   No wonder they blead each other white in their war a long time ago.  Losses like I've seldom seen were taking place on their common border this turn.  I'm going to have to use the Iranians to chase down partisans from here on I guess.  They aren't much good for attacking and are very poor on defense.  So........



larryfulkerson -> RE: Armageddon 2015 Russia (Larry) vs. NATO (Roger) (12/5/2010 6:15:02 PM)

Here's the main front line at the end of turn 2. Those Allied units painted red on green are almost all gone now. But Allied reinforcements are starting to show up at the front. It's going to be a long war I think maybe.

[image]local://upfiles/16287/F1E7E969AD46441CA77383796150C338.gif[/image]



toawfan -> RE: Armageddon 2015 Russia (Larry) vs. NATO (Roger) (12/5/2010 6:56:59 PM)

I just hope the real factions in Russia and Europe are playing war games like this to see what a horrible bloodbath this is. Even Vladimir Putin might pop a John Lennon CD in and start singing, "All I'm saying is give peace a chance."



larryfulkerson -> RE: Armageddon 2015 Russia (Larry) vs. NATO (Roger) (12/5/2010 7:29:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: toawfan
I just hope the real factions in Russia and Europe are playing war games like this to see what a horrible bloodbath this is. Even Vladimir Putin might pop a John Lennon CD in and start singing, "All I'm saying is give peace a chance."

I'll bet that Root'n Toot'n Putin is planning the take-over of Georgia just like I did. And then there's points south to think about. And then there's the Med.....he's had his eyes on the med from the time he was knee-high to a grasshopper.

Here's the SAL file I saved at some point in the game before the last turn. I don't remember just when. Just in case anybody wants to check out the positions / conditions of the units involved.

Just clip the ".txt" off the end to make it a ".SAL" file again.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.921875