|
Mad Russian -> RE: Thanks . . . I guess (10/8/2016 1:06:45 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dwbennett
If one of the purposes of this game is to show me convincingly that NATO would have been up the creek with out the proverbial paddle if the Warsaw PACT invaded, it has succeeded. I've only made it though four scenarios so far and have only ecked out a draw once with the rest of the games ending in my force reduced to below 30%. The only way, I guess, I got a draw is I mistakenly played a head-to-head scenario with me as NATO against the AI.
One of the main purposes of the game is to show the unit and equipment of the time period as realistically as possible. 1989 is the year that NATO thought it could fight a 'conventional' battle with the Warsaw Pact and win. That simply means they didn't have to nuke half of West Germany to stop a Warsaw Pact attack.
When I playtest a scenario for balance as soon as I get a draw I consider it balanced and stop tweaking. Since I don't play as much as most of you that means there is plenty of wiggle room. The War Room Section (above) is full of advice on how to kill Soviets and win as NATO. It's not easy but it's far from impossible.
quote:
I now firmly believe Custer had it easy. In most of the games I played so far, the Warsaw Pact doesn't have to kill my forces with gun fire or artillery; all they have to do is run over my units as they are just too many to kill. And issuing Roman candles to the AD units instead of Stinger missiles would have had the same effect of hitting enemy aircraft and revealng the firing units location plus being a lot cheaper. Yes, yes, I know. The helos are using terrain masking, etc. but you'd think the continuous Stinger firing would make one of them lose control and fly into the ground at least.
The Soviet doctrine from decades has been masses of troops and equipment to overrun the enemy. Their WW2 experiences simply showed them they were right. It's a war of attrition anytime you fight them.
What version of the game are you playing? The current version has a good Air Defense resolution. Some earlier ones did not.
quote:
Oh, I like the game but expecting to win consistantly as the NATO player is, well, wishful thinking.
No, it's not wishful thinking. What it comes down to is different thinking. If you are reacting to the Soviets then you are pretty much done. They will get there 'Firstest with the Mostest' on you and win. You have to beat them to the spot.
What that means is, and I know this is going to sound strange in a wargame but you have actually use recon. And preferably not Recon by Death where you simply send units out to die. Recon shows you where the enemy is. It will show you the concentration of his units. Don't believe the bean count - the AI will lie to you about how many there are. Once you get the direction of the Soviet attack determined smash the spearhead. Smash it with everything you have. Stop the advance. Between artillery and kill zone ambushes you can extract a tremendous price from them. Often to the point of them attriting out. Keep your artillery on the move. It will shoot and scoot on it's own. You can interrupt that sequence but unless you have a really 'absolutely must fire at this target' I wouldn't.
Fire at HQ's at every opportunity. They will show up in different ways. They won't be marked as an HQ for you go 'Oh, gee look what I found!' They will have Jeeps or Trucks as the symbol. They will usually be very large targets and last but not least the Fire Control Center will find and target them automatically for you when they find them.
Artillery is the key to this whole deal. In both World Wars artillery was the main killer. This time period is no different. Fire artillery every single time you can. Even if you don't kill anything it eats away at a unit's efficiency and they will take more time to respond to orders.
As an ex-Combat Engineer (which I also am, I served in the 23rd Engr Bn with the 3rd AD 74-77) you know about smoke and mines. Use smoke to cover your units either in ambush, to blind the enemy or to retreat. There aren't a lot of smoke rounds in the game so use them wisely but use them in all critical situations. FASCAM mines are an instant minefield that does two things. It puts mines where you want them and it tells the Soviet AI there is a minefield there. Putting mines where you want them gives you obvious results. Telling the Soviets they are there can give you not so obvious results. By knowing the mines are there the Soviet AI will try to avoid them. So, you can channel the Soviets away from a point you don't want them to go to a place where you are ready and waiting.
NOTE: The AI doesn't cheat and this is the one time that both players maybe aware of an action.
BLOW BRIDGES if you are NATO. Again, as an ex-Combat Engineer I shouldn't have to explain the values of this one.
ALL units in the game can blow a bridge.
Disregard VP locations. Do not try to garrison them!!! Use them as bait to draw the Soviets into Kill Zones and ambush locations. If you get to the tipping point you can go back and recapture some of those lost later. Get your points in kills. There are generally far more points in the enemy forces than there are in Victory Points.
So, generally speaking, can NATO win? Yes, and I believe the scenarios are actually tilted a bit in their favor.
Is it hard to win as NATO? It can be, but it's certainly not impossible. Play A Time to Dance until you get at least a draw with that one. It's tough because you lack a lot of artillery but you can learn to do ambushes, smoke etc and most importantly you can play it several times in rapid succession. Trying different things each time. Don't try playing larger scenarios until you can win some of the smaller ones. Then take the gloves off and go to war!!!
Hope this helps.
quote:
As a side note: I was stationed in Darmstadt from 1970-71, in a combat engineer unit. Our main function (I figured out pretty quickly) was to bridge the Rhine River when the ballon went up as the Warsaw PACT would drop all the bridges over the river to slow reinforcements from west of the Rhine. From the training we went through, given the avaiability of the bridge components, our batallion could have thrown a bridge across in about 8-10 hours given no interference. Something tells me that it would have been easy.
I was stationed with the 3rd Armored Division in Hanau (74-77), with the 23rd Engineer Bn. We had a bridging company and were supported by Brigade level bridging Bn's as well. It is my experience that bridging the Rhine under wartime conditions would have been anything but easy. The one time we did it in the 3 years I was there was extremely difficult. But we did it with MAB units and not a Bailey, so depends on which bridging equipment you were using.
Good Hunting.
MR
|
|
|
|
