The Kuril Islands War that Wasn’t-How Scenarios Stall (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message

RoryAndersonCDT -> The Kuril Islands War that Wasn’t-How Scenarios Stall (1/19/2015 9:47:26 PM)

The Kuril Islands War that Wasn’t-How Scenarios Stall by Coiler12

quote:

Late 1993. Russia’s eyes are focused on the showdown between Yeltsin and the parliament, the crisis that would end the country’s experiment with democracy almost as soon as it began. But in the Far East, a seemingly long-defeated adversary hopes to take advantage of it…

[image]http://i.imgur.com/nNtq7za.png[/image]

Fleets of ships and aircraft rush from Hokkaido and strike at the two disputed Kuril Islands, thinking that the collapsed nation is too politically and militarily weak to do anything but quickly give up…

The Third Russo-Japanese War pits the previously restrained JSDF against the crumbled shell of Russia whose Soviet-era arsenal has not entirely been scuttled yet. This seems like a piece of cake for a scenario. And yet-it hasn’t developed into anything beyond a few scenario editor experiments.

Why?




JRyan -> RE: The Kuril Islands War that Wasn’t-How Scenarios Stall (1/19/2015 11:53:04 PM)

I would play it, I still the Japanese are a force...you know the 2nd largest Defense budget...well maybe China and maybe Russia have now grown larger but still..



hellfish6 -> RE: The Kuril Islands War that Wasn’t-How Scenarios Stall (1/20/2015 1:37:23 AM)

Great article. I run into the exact same problem all too often - scenarios become too big to be fun, and it's tough to take away enough to make it playable.



magi -> RE: The Kuril Islands War that Wasn’t-How Scenarios Stall (1/21/2015 4:30:14 PM)

Please Finnish this.... I want it..... It's ok if it's big... I like big......



Primarchx -> RE: The Kuril Islands War that Wasn’t-How Scenarios Stall (1/21/2015 6:45:16 PM)

I agree. I find myself in 'The Perfect is the Enemy of the Good' situations all too often with big scenarios.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfish6

Great article. I run into the exact same problem all too often - scenarios become too big to be fun, and it's tough to take away enough to make it playable.




magi -> RE: The Kuril Islands War that Wasn’t-How Scenarios Stall (1/24/2015 1:52:38 AM)

if i wanted to just have fun... i would just ride my motorcycles and have sex with my girl friends.... this game is an intellectual challenge... which can be a real stimulation of another kind....




DirtyFred -> simplify scenario and add US units as well (1/24/2015 10:50:37 PM)

hello Baloogan,

imho the japanese military in 1993 still was a self defense force, relying on US bases and units. russia had major cold war bases on kamchatka plus sachalin and would use subs and aircraft plus army units on the islands. would south korea remain neutral, blocking us bases in south korea for war use?

i would simplify the scenario in:

1. Anti-sub battle (japanese navy)
2. Amphibious landings on southern kuril islands (japanese navy)

3. defense of japanese forces (US Navy, japanese navy)
4. supression/interdiction of russian reinforcements (US Navy, japanese air force)

for the russian side i would like an air base and a sub base on kamchatka and one air base on sachalin.

the US navy should have on cvbg and one airbase on okinawa.

japanese forces should have two air bases

balancing forces will be interesting...


russia conducted Military Drill on Disputed Kuril Islands in 2014
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russia-announces-military-exercises-in-kuril-islands-claimed-by-japan/504954.html



Major SNAFU_M -> RE: simplify scenario and add US units as well (1/26/2015 4:07:53 PM)

Hi Baloogan,

Here are some thoughts from my end (I work for a Japanese company, by the way, so I am drawing on my experience on watching them develop a strategy, etc.) I essentially recommend taking a step back and considering the framework within which the war would take place, then figure out the asymmetries and what countries and platforms would be involved.:

I think you should consider a "Shattered Trident" kind of approach. I don't think Japan would act so overtly. Who else would gain from Japan reclaiming those islands and what might they do to help Japan to obtain their goal in a non-obvious way (subs, etc)? (What about a joint Chinese-Japanese operation to knock back the Bear? China might be open to the right approach - It is a huge stretch considering the history here, but it might just be feasible if you can hit on the right reason. What about China agreeing to help in trade for Japan coming out in favor of Taiwan being formally returned to China? (That would exclude US assistance...) What about Korea? Did China have Kilos yet at this time point, or am I way off?

Could Japan manufacture a situation in which their actions could be perceived by US as an act of self-defence, and thus gain at least some limited US support (no-fly zones, AWACS, a CVNBG nearby to inhibit Russia's response and or cause others to not join in?

I am pretty certain that the Japanese would have analyzed (to an unbelievably exhaustive extent) the asymmetry of the potential forces involved and would have plans in place to off-set (via allies (unwitting or otherwise), via misdirection (above), etc.) to address this. If they could not achieve this, I don't see them acting openly and unilaterally.

Japan would be violating treaties and their own constitution. Are the objectives really worth this politically? The Japanese would also have analyzed this and have a plan to alter the "political calculus" to not be perceived as violating either of these commitments - or doing so for reasons that the world would support.

May be a re-approach would lead to a better mix of units and thus an easier to plan and design scenario?

It occurs to me that you could also turn this entire thing around. What if it was Russia that baited Japan into acting? Perhaps with the exact goal of destabilizing the region, forcing political breaches, etc.?




Jabbman -> RE: simplify scenario and add US units as well (1/26/2015 7:10:12 PM)

Would the above be more feasible/realistic if you swapped China (PRC) for China (ROC)?



magi -> RE: simplify scenario and add US units as well (1/29/2015 3:14:38 PM)

dirtyfred.... you should do one of these... you already have a good basic design in your head....



Sakai007 -> RE: simplify scenario and add US units as well (1/29/2015 8:59:40 PM)

I built something similar the other day. I was all the way through force allocation when I realized the Japanese have little to no stand off SEAD capability. I had to throw in a squadron of USAF F-16's and their HARMS to make it workable. I actually ended up getting pretty man handled by the Russians, and I built the darn thing so really didn't see that coming. Japanese ASW is excellent, and their missile boats are capable as well. They are seriously lacking a cruise missile capability as well, but as that is most certainly an offensive system i can understand why.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.171875