NATO Vs Warsaw Pact 1990 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV >> Mods and Scenarios



Message

r williams -> NATO Vs Warsaw Pact 1990 (5/13/2021 10:22:11 AM)

This is a request for help with a scenario from a long time TOAW player but long time lurker on these forums. Hopefully an experienced designer might be able to offer some tips and/or help me develop a scenario to a conclusion

Inspired by the various Daniel McBride and other large operational level scenarios I've been working on a Battalion/Regiment level NATO Vs Warsaw Pact central front scenario for a couple of years now. I've got a bit fixated (including now having a shelf of relevant books and an unhealthy level knowledge of how Belgium would have mobilised reservists...) but most of the Orbat is complete (including bespoke equipment) and I've completed a 5km level map for Northag and Denmark. Family and work commitments mean I've not made much progress on the rest of the map recently and even with the various third party tools available I find the events engine baffling.

I'd love to try and complete the scenario in partnership with someone - I think there's an opportunity to create something really interesting for those who read too much Harold Coyle, Tom Clancy and John Hackett.

[image]local://upfiles/38139/47FA3CB9D52844AA82DD6DC79C5FDE95.jpg[/image]



golden delicious -> RE: NATO Vs Warsaw Pact 1990 (5/13/2021 11:42:56 AM)

Well, I don't have much time either and this period isn't my speciality- but a few comments based on the screenshot:

1) Unimproved roads: in TOAW, this means a road which becomes more or less useless in heavy rain. I suspect every single road hex in your screenshot would constitute "improved road" in TOAW terms, or no road at all if it's too small for use by significant forces. Heavy rain would not materially impact the ability of mechanised forces to move around West Germany in 1990.

2) Urban: I picked a town at random, Selsingen. Wikipedia gives a population of 3,601 in 2019, and helpfully also suggests a density of 86 per square kilometre. That means a single 5km hex, with an area of 25 square kilometres, would actually only contain 2,150 residents. Go to Google Maps and check out a 2.5km radius around towns like these: this hex isn't urban. I'd suggest setting a minimum population for an urban hex and sticking with it; as it is, the Soviets are basically advancing through suburban sprawl across the entire North German Plain. You should do the same for dense urban, too: check the area between Osdorf and Pinneberg, it's actually mostly open country. Perhaps "urban" at a push.

3) Ant units: There may be some improvements in the way TOAW handles these with recent releases, but I'd suggest that having loads of 1-1 AA companies dotted across the map could cause serious problems. They'll get in combat, they'll subdivide, and suddenly a hex is "full" because it contains nine platoon of AA troops totalling about 300 personnel. At a minimum, give them the section icon so they don't subdivide.



r williams -> RE: NATO Vs Warsaw Pact 1990 (5/18/2021 8:13:25 PM)

Thanks for the response much appreciated.

Some really good food for thought.

Hopefully I can get the scenario to a point where I can start to play test to see the impact of the engine - the right thresholds for urban/dense urban is a personal bugbear so your challenge against me getting carried away is really helpful (agree with your spot on the Hamburg suburbs). My view is that by 1990 urbanisation and the levels of woodland (as NATO planners had long hoped) were starting to be material across a lot of the North German Plain - that said it doesn't make for fun, accurate or balanced gameplay if the Warsaw Pact player is sucked into a giant Stalingrad from Hannover to the Ruhr...[:)] One to ponder.



Wannabe -> RE: NATO Vs Warsaw Pact 1990 (9/14/2021 7:54:19 PM)

This looks amazing... and daunting....



jmlima -> RE: NATO Vs Warsaw Pact 1990 (9/15/2021 9:13:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: r williams

... if the Warsaw Pact player is sucked into a giant Stalingrad from Hannover to the Ruhr...[:)] One to ponder.


Soviet doctrine specifically told them to avoid large urban centres. Their tactics were based in avoiding urban centres. In an age where you can level a city with ease there was no point in fighting, Stalingrad style, for urban centres. Another tactic both sides followed (for obvious reasons) was dispersal, so anytime you see a stack of 9 units, something is wrong.




golden delicious -> RE: NATO Vs Warsaw Pact 1990 (9/15/2021 10:53:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima

Soviet doctrine specifically told them to avoid large urban centres. Their tactics were based in avoiding urban centres. In an age where you can level a city with ease there was no point in fighting, Stalingrad style, for urban centres. Another tactic both sides followed (for obvious reasons) was dispersal, so anytime you see a stack of 9 units, something is wrong.




Even a continuous line would be out of the question for NATO I think. I recall in S. Steven's Berlin Crisis, it was all about digging in your brigades in a network of interlocking ZOCs, ideally so they could also support one another with artillery. While the Soviets could in theory work their way through the cracks, it would be quite hard for them to actually erode the strength of the force, and any serious concentration could just be whacked with a nuclear strike.

I see Silvanski put up a TOAW IV version here:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4419581&mpage=1�



jmlima -> RE: NATO Vs Warsaw Pact 1990 (9/15/2021 11:04:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Even a continuous line would be out of the question for NATO I think. I recall in S. Steven's Berlin Crisis, it was all about digging in your brigades in a network of interlocking ZOCs, ideally so they could also support one another with artillery. While the Soviets could in theory work their way through the cracks, it would be quite hard for them to actually erode the strength of the force, and any serious concentration could just be whacked with a nuclear strike.

I see Silvanski put up a TOAW IV version here:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4419581&mpage=1�


Yup. Distances between them were usually measured in kilotons. When you can pulverize a section of the front in minutes the concept of 'continuous line' is moot. Even not going into nukes, you also need to factor huge stockpiles of rather nasty chemicals... fair enough there's a degree of protection (if you can get geared in time...) but combat under those conditions is anything but easy as carefully illustrated in 'the defense of hill 781'.



Lobster -> RE: NATO Vs Warsaw Pact 1990 (9/15/2021 1:19:45 PM)

Seriously, the first tactical nuke and the war is over in a week at most. Pointless to put them in a scenario and pretend it won't go strategic when in fact there won't be a Europe to fight over. Further, the Soviets were all about force concentration and avoiding battle instead driving as fast and deep as possible into NATO's hinterlands before REFORGER can happen. Hardly think they would do something to make that a handicap. 48 hours to the Rhine. Of course a wargame makes that quite difficult because of ZOCs and TOAW gives no way to adjust whether or not a ZOC exists at all. A platoon has the same ZOC as a division.



golden delicious -> RE: NATO Vs Warsaw Pact 1990 (9/15/2021 2:29:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Seriously, the first tactical nuke and the war is over in a week at most. Pointless to put them in a scenario and pretend it won't go strategic when in fact there won't be a Europe to fight over.


Depends on the era. This is what makes Berlin Crisis an interesting scenario, as at this point strategic nuclear arsenals were relatively small.

Anyway, not putting them in the scenario is pointless, as S. Stevens points out in his briefing: NATO doctrine clearly called for the use of tactical nuclear weapons to response to Soviet superiority in conventional weapons, and Soviet doctrine called for a massive strike in response to any nuclear release, thus making a full nuclear exchange the inevitable result of any serious NATO/WP shooting war.

If you want to do a no-nuclear what-if you'd need to explore the knock-on effects. NATO was comfortable with huge inferiority in Europe because it knew that their nuclear edge would wipe out any Soviet advantage; if NATO doctrine were different then they would necessarily have had to find a way to field much larger conventional forces. This didn't happen because large conventional forces are much, much more expensive than nuclear forces.

quote:

TOAW gives no way to adjust whether or not a ZOC exists at all. A platoon has the same ZOC as a division.


1) you can effectively turn off ZOC altogether if you don't want them
2) You absolutely should not have a platoon and a division in the same scenario. Just bundle the platoon into another unit.



jmlima -> RE: NATO Vs Warsaw Pact 1990 (9/15/2021 2:45:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster
... before REFORGER can happen. ...


REFORGER equipment sites were very near to the top of the list for priority strikes in the first minutes. Dependent on the air battle, reforger forces could find themselves with no equipment very, very quickly.

Re nuclear, it's unavoidable, but both sides had plans to fight on and certainly the soviets considered a nuclear war 'winnable', whatever that means in that context. In the later days of the warsaw pact, I go back to Jaruzelski's quote, said to the warsaw pact leaders and military commanders as they discussed nuclear release, 'I can assure you that after a nuclear war you are not going to be drinking coffee in Paris afterwards.' (quoted from memory so perhaps not entirely correct, but the spirit of the quote is correct)



Lobster -> RE: NATO Vs Warsaw Pact 1990 (9/15/2021 2:55:08 PM)

ZOCs are all or nothing. Every unit has the exact same ZOC. An artillery unit regardless of size should not have the same ZOC as an infantry unit. A unit of irregulars have the same effect on an elite unit as another elite unit. It is all or nothing. Size does not matter. Whether or not you can adjust anything is not the point. The point is that every unit has the same exact ZOC. A HQ with only staff and support should not have a ZOC at all yet there it is.

As for real life NATO vs Warsaw, there was no war because the fear of tactical nukes ending up with cities turned to ash. I was there so it's not news to me. REFORGER was a smoke screen and everyone knew it. People spoke of the vulnerability of REFORGER sites in Germany to tactical nukes. HAH! Wouldn't matter since that would be the end of the war. Wasn't a secret and it took no authors to tell everyone. So yeah, correct on that one. [;)]

No nukes would indeed be a fictional what if but there is no other recourse if you want a head to head NATO/Warsaw fight. Why they would even be included in a scenario is a puzzle but some people insist on doing that very end of the war/civilization what if. Might as well send in the REFORGER troops without anything but what they carried over from the U.S. Glowing tanks are not very hospitable. [:D]

BTW, Red Star White Star was one of my favorite SPI modern war games. [;)]



golden delicious -> RE: NATO Vs Warsaw Pact 1990 (9/15/2021 5:25:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ZOCs are all or nothing. Every unit has the exact same ZOC.


Now Lobster. that's just not true. Recon % is the main factor in ZOC. If you have a light mechanised brigade, I assure you it can slip easily enough past an artillery regiment.

quote:

A HQ with only staff and support should not have a ZOC at all yet there it is.


Not really. An HQ unit is actually worse than an empty hex, because the attacker will poke it, get an RBC, and enter the hex without paying the conversion cost.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: NATO Vs Warsaw Pact 1990 (9/15/2021 11:10:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

BTW, Red Star White Star was one of my favorite SPI modern war games. [;)]


Great counters!



Lobster -> RE: NATO Vs Warsaw Pact 1990 (9/16/2021 10:29:54 AM)

Not talking about Retreat Before Combat. That's a different subject.

Your recon percentage is the same against any ZOC. It actually makes my point. Doesn't matter what kind of unit it's measured against. Doesn't matter what size of unit it's measured against. It's the same in all cases.

I can only imagine the amount of work it would take to scale zone of control effects based on unit size and unit equipment. [X(]



golden delicious -> RE: NATO Vs Warsaw Pact 1990 (9/16/2021 11:12:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Not talking about Retreat Before Combat. That's a different subject.


Not really. If you're trying to move through some enemy positions and one of the hexes is held with an HQ, you just go through the HQ. In fact when you do so, you'll ignore any ZOCs, too. If we're talking about how easy it is to slip through gaps in the enemy line, RBC is extremely relevant.

quote:

Your recon percentage is the same against any ZOC. It actually makes my point. Doesn't matter what kind of unit it's measured against. Doesn't matter what size of unit it's measured against. It's the same in all cases.


No. Open up a scenario. Try to move an infantry regiment past a recon unit and you'll get that nasty "bang bang" sound and the unit may go into a reorganising status or worse. Now try to move it past an engineer unit- more likely you'll be fine.

Disengagement penalties- which are a huge part of how ZOCs work- depend on the recon rating of the enemy unit and your own unit.



Lobster -> RE: NATO Vs Warsaw Pact 1990 (9/16/2021 12:41:47 PM)

Force ZOC Cost
(0-1000%) – Default of 100 applies the normal
25% cost. A value of 50 halves the cost. A value of
200 doubles it, etc. This does not affect chances of
triggering disengagement attacks. This is the cost
of moving away from an adjacent unfriendly unit.

Zone of Control is the same for all units.



golden delicious -> RE: NATO Vs Warsaw Pact 1990 (9/16/2021 3:17:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Zone of Control is the same for all units.


...except when considering the chance of a disengagement penalty, which depends on the composition of the enemy unit.

It really does matter. If the opposing units have high recon, you're not even going to get into the next hex, never mind how many MPs it uses up. If they have low recon, you can get through- albeit more slowly.



Lobster -> RE: NATO Vs Warsaw Pact 1990 (9/16/2021 8:21:06 PM)

A platoon or a division, it's the same. Even in your examples.

I can't say this unit has no zone of control because it's made up of civilians and this unit has a strong zone of control because it has a butt load of highly mobile assets. They both have the same zone of control.

Force ZOC Cost
(0-1000%) – Default of 100 applies the normal
25% cost. A value of 50 halves the cost. A value of
200 doubles it, etc. This does not affect chances of
triggering disengagement attacks. This is the cost
of moving away from an adjacent unfriendly unit.

If I adjust the Force ZOC Cost to 50% for Force 1 what units in Force 1 will be affected?



Jeremy Mac Donald -> RE: NATO Vs Warsaw Pact 1990 (9/18/2021 12:18:48 AM)

Have you noticed the ZOC is much of an issue in practice?

In my experience the reality that, at default, the cost is move into a space that normally costs 1MP through ZOC just increases the cost to 1.25 is usually not that much of a hindrance. This is definitely one of those adjustments that a scenario designer wants to think about because if you want sliding through ZOC to be a thing 'unless your facing real opposition' then you lower this level (at 50% moving into that space through ZOC now is a mere 1.12 instead of 1) and focus more on recon, which, as Ben says, is I think where most players most of the time really start noticing ZOC. If you are doing WWI increase the default.

I understand that what you are complaining about is that base ZOC is not differentiated but I think, for the most part if that is coming up it is the scenario designers fault. Units of Civilians should not be in the scenario except in specific circumstances and Platoons and Divisions should not both be in the scenario. Artillery and HQs can be an issue but because of RBC in practice they help the break through more often then their ZOC hinders it. Yes there are cases where that is not the case but from an over all feel of the game those don't come up to much.

Hence, I agree that in a perfect world the system would differentiate in terms of "ZOC Power" even beyond what we currently get with Recon but the tools we have here, being able to adjust it up and down, and ZOC normally being much more a function of Recon in actual play, means that this basically works. Absolutely it ought to be fixed... but there are 9001 things that should be put in front of it on the priority list because in practice this mostly works fine.

The big standout where I think a lot of people notice this breaks down in a lot of scenarios is those damned Engineer units. This element is one part of a parcel of reasons why those units often stand out as doing funky things in various scenarios.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: NATO Vs Warsaw Pact 1990 (9/18/2021 1:05:45 AM)

I'll just reference Wishlist item 7.7:

7.7 Dynamic ZOC
7.7.1 Leaving/crossing ZOC movement costs may be reduced or canceled if too small a unit relative to the moving unit is exerting that ZOC. (Example: company vs. division).
7.7.1.1 Test might be the same or similar to the RBC test, except instead of RBCing if it fails the test, the defender would lose its ZOC instead.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.625