RE: What new scenarios would you like to see?

RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (Full Version)

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

Message

golden delicious -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/10/2005 4:46:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: palmdogg Pages 33-34 actually use the phrase "speed bump" when describing the 82nd Airborne. Mm. This in the planning? Thing is, everyone massively overestimated the fighting ability of the Iraqi Army prior to Desert Storm. I really cannot emphasise this enough: Iraqis don't make good soldiers. Things would no doubt get a little hairy for 82nd Airborne, but the Iraqis just wouldn't be able to budge them. quote: In other words, if Iraq had serious logistical problems, so did the US. I'm not convinced. For the United States, "logistical problems" mean that Lieutenant Bloggs doesn't get a cake for his birthday this year, and mail has to wait an extra day. quote: 2 Aug - Iraq invades Kuwait. 7 Aug – Two squadrons of USAF F-15s are first US forces arrive in Saudi Arabia. 9 Aug – First elements of Ready Brigade of 82nd Abn arrive in Saudi Arabia. Right. I doubt the Iraqis could have pushed a significant force a significant distance into Saudi Arabia in that time. It's not a matter of just crossing the border and doing battle- the Saudis can withdraw almost 150 miles from the border without losing anything much at all. This puts the Iraqis 300 miles from Basra- when the furthest they fought from their own border in the Iran-Iraq war was maybe 20 miles. quote: I'm guessing the 82nd deployment is set in stone since the US tried to 'plant the flag' as fast as possible to dissuade Iraq from continuing South, but the US might have been able to get air forces into the region a day or two earlier. There's also Qatari and Emirati units which can presumably be deployed in about the same time frame. Various other bits and peices- an airborne brigade from Britain could probably be forthcoming in fairly short order. Like I said; we have a definite fight on our hands. The Iraqis have overwhelming numerical superiority- but are at the end of their supply lines and facing forces with a major qualitative edge. Ultimately, the coalition will prevail; but there's an interesting and (for Saudi and Iraq at least) politically significant clash going on in the meantime.

palmdogg -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/10/2005 8:07:26 PM)
Without trying to start a back-and-forth: TOAW already includes both the Marine offensive into Kuwait and Operation Desert Storm, which as battles were as one sided as Hervé Villechaize vs. Mike Tyson. This at least lets the Iraqis keep the initiative and strike while they're still strong. Yes, there will be logistical problems, but just because something seems idiotic and unfeasible doesn't mean someone won't try to do it (For a further analysis of the Great Saddam Hussein, read Mark Bowden's "Tales of the Tyrant") http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200205/bowden Some minor corrections: this report was from 1994 and offered an analysis after-the-fact. It says there were bigger logistical problems than LT Bloggs' birthday cake (Read "Jarhead" for a similar view on the immediate deployment), but our subsequent overwhelming victory masked a lot of the problems we had. Second, at the risk of pointing out the obvious, in 1990 Iraqi forces advanced approximately 100 miles to the Kuwaiti-Saudi border in about two days. It would only be another 150 miles to the oil hub of Ad Dammam. This map suggests that there was more than just desert between the two. http://www.ndu.edu/inss/books/Books%20-%201998/Military%20Geography%20March%2098/mgmap26.gif [image]http://www.ndu.edu/inss/books/Books%20-%201998/Military%20Geography%20March%2098/mgmap26.gif[/image]

golden delicious -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/11/2005 4:42:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: palmdogg but just because something seems idiotic and unfeasible doesn't mean someone won't try to do it Quite right. I'm sure Saddam had a very high opinion of his forces. quote: Second, at the risk of pointing out the obvious, in 1990 Iraqi forces advanced approximately 100 miles to the Kuwaiti-Saudi border in about two days. It would only be another 150 miles to the oil hub of Ad Dammam. Right- but this isn't very meaningful. You're probably not going to approve of the Second World War example, but the fact that Rommel could roll right up to the Egyptian border didn't mean it would be possible to get to the Delta; his supply dumps were still back in Tripoli- and he didn't have to deal with F-15s (and the apparently quite effective Saudi air force) interdicting his communications. Whatever force the Iraqis were able to project to the far end of Kuwait in that first week, they'll only be able to project a fraction of that a further 150 miles. I'm not an expert on such matters- but presumably all this thick black stuff in the country the Iraqis are passing through isn't going to be any use to them without refining. quote: This map suggests that there was more than just desert between the two. Yeah; but there's nothing being lost here which will limit the Saudi's capability to fight. I suppose the Coalition player gets to choose how far forward to make his stand; and the Iraqi player gets permanent VPs for capturing various significant locations (on the assumption that they are demolished in the inevitable withdrawal). Presumably, though, those off-shore oil wells aren't going to be vulnerable.

Siberian HEAT -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/11/2005 6:35:58 PM)
A scenario has already been made concerning an Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabi called Oil War 1990. It's been several years since I've played it, and I don't think it is a very popular one...but nonetheless it is out there. I do know it is heavily favored to the Saudi/US/Allied side... I can't speak for its accuracy. [8D] http://www.toaw.co.uk/post1990.html --> second scenario from the top.

golden delicious -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/11/2005 7:10:43 PM)
The scenario does seem to have its problems. Besides the dubious full-day turns-20km/hex scale combination, it has all Gulf forces available for action within three days, the whole of 101st Airborne plus a US marine brigade arriving within five days, the whole of 82nd Airborne within six days, and a further US marine brigade within seven days- and the whole scenario only lasts twelve days. We'd probably want a 5km/hex map with full-day turns (and battalion units) for this scenario. Might as well start after the invasion of Kuwait since up to that point nothing has changed from the historical course of events. Have the forces of the Gulf states coming up to war readiness at a more reasonable rate and the US forces arriving more gradually (perhaps a minor acceleration over their historical timetable). Unopposed the Iraqis would be able to get to Dharhan about the same time as that first brigade of 82nd Airborne- but that would be after moving at full speed down the coast road, attrited by interdiction and low on supply. So we've got some interesting decisions that have to be made by both sides, and one way or another an interesting battle to play out. I reckon the guy who designed this scenario must have been a former US marine, since he rates them at 95% with the airborne divisions at 85%. The latter rating's probably fine for both- with the various Arab forces between 10 and 50% proficiency. From what I've read (on the other thread, linked above), the Egyptians were the best Arab troops around so everything should be scaled down from them.

bluermonkey -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/11/2005 9:57:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Siberian HEAT A scenario has already been made concerning an Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabi called Oil War 1990. It's been several years since I've played it, and I don't think it is a very popular one...but nonetheless it is out there. I do know it is heavily favored to the Saudi/US/Allied side... I can't speak for its accuracy. [8D] http://www.toaw.co.uk/post1990.html --> second scenario from the top. Yeah, this was the one I was thinking of earlier. I can't really comment on it 'coz I've never really given it any attention... I might have to give it a try sometime.

palmdogg -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/11/2005 11:55:09 PM)
Thanks Siberian HEAT. I'm just skimming it but Golden Delicious' comments look pretty reasonable. (The author said he just wanted a 'beer and pretzels' scenario) Anyone know a good site that would have OOB and initial deployments?

YankeeAirRat -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/12/2005 12:46:47 AM)
Although Desert Shield/Storm/Saber scenarios are interesting along with all sorts of variantions on the war in europe during World War 2. I would love to see scenarios that covered some of the Cold War posturing in places such as Latin and South America, the Mid-East, and finally in the Pacific. Just to pick a few places and do the what-if incident. Lebanon 1982-84, what if the Stablization Force there (which was composed of of a Marine Landing Team and elements of the French Foregin Legion both of whom were attacked on 23OCT83) were attacked not only by the various terrorist organizations but also by the Isrealis. Where could this of gone? Nicragua in the 80's, what if the Soviets and Cubas gaing the upper hand and started to build bases in Nicragua what could the US have done or even what sort of forces would the US have applied? Panama 1989, I don't believe anyone has written a scenario about Operation Just Cause yet. Columbia in the 80's, taking a step from tom clancy here, but what if the cartels attacked the American military mission there and got the US military involved in a fight? Brazil vs Argentina in 1981-84, there was a time for a little bit that Argentina while still under the military junta was flexing its muscle was pushing its undefined boundary between Brazil and Argentina. Also both nations at this time were believed to be developing nuclear arms. S. Africa in the 80's, S. Africa for all its internal problems with aparthied was also one of the most stable of the African countries and faced pressure not only for the western world, but also from the Soviets about them being a democracy. So a simple what-if the Soviets with the Cubans (who were in Angola from the mid 70s until the 90's) helped to push countries like Mozambique, Botswana, Zimbabwe pushed south and invaded S. Africa Philippines, the murder of Marcos political opponet in 1986 and later on Pres. Aqiuno's fight against the various rebellion factions through out the island later lead to USN and USAFPAC involvement in 1989. However, what if the US had to put troops down on the ground to support the Filippino army in its fight against the rebellions? Greece and Turkey during the 1975 war over Cyprus, What if it lead to Pact and NATO involvement? These are just some ideas that I have been pondering and looking at for the return of TOAW

palmdogg -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/13/2005 7:31:55 PM)
quote: Lebanon 1982-84, what if the Stablization Force there (which was composed of of a Marine Landing Team and elements of the French Foregin Legion both of whom were attacked on 23OCT83) were attacked not only by the various terrorist organizations but also by the Isrealis. Where could this of gone? Even the Israeli invasion by itself would be pretty interesting, just because you have the potential for some major events (Sabra & Shatila, Marine Bombing, Hostages) to throw the scenario, regardless of facts on the ground. quote: Nicragua in the 80's, what if the Soviets and Cubas gaing the upper hand and started to build bases in Nicragua what could the US have done or even what sort of forces would the US have applied? This would be pretty interesting, since the Sandinistas, like Castro and Chavez today, used the constant specter of a US invasion (real or not) to keep their population in a state of emergency and actually prepared for a withdrawal into the mountains. I think you're right that a good catalyst would be an increase of Soviet activity in Latin Ameria (Coupled with an insurgent takeover of El Salvador), so 1984-1985 is probably your most likely year for an invasion. quote: Panama 1989, I don't believe anyone has written a scenario about Operation Just Cause yet. I was going to suggest it too, but the major fighting really was over within a day. You'd have to mod it so that the PDF actually stood and fought ala Grenada. quote: Columbia in the 80's, taking a step from tom clancy here, but what if the cartels attacked the American military mission there and got the US military involved in a fight? You wouldn't even need that. US involvement in Columbia was one of the three possible wars predicted by David Hackworth in 2000 (The others were Afghanistan and China) so you could just do an escalating involvement, although that might require too much time. Maybe I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any really good TOAW scenarios on guerilla warfare. Otherwise this would work. If someone knows differently, let me know. quote: Greece and Turkey during the 1975 war over Cyprus, What if it lead to Pact and NATO involvement? I think this is your strongest candidate for a scenario (There were some threats of war as recently as 1998), but then you run into TOAW's problems with naval operations.

golden delicious -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/13/2005 8:22:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: palmdogg Even the Israeli invasion by itself would be pretty interesting, The Israeli invasion of Lebanon? http://www.tdg.nu/articles/AARs/Lebanon%20intro.htm quote: I was going to suggest it too, but the major fighting really was over within a day. You'd have to mod it so that the PDF actually stood and fought ala Grenada. Yeah. These "USA versus tinpot Central American country" scenarios aren't terribly interesting. What would constitute an American "defeat"? Any political damage to Bush is irrelevant since he went on to lose the next election anyway. quote: Maybe I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any really good TOAW scenarios on guerilla warfare. Curt Chambers' Campaign for South Vietnam is pretty top-notch; http://www.tdg.nu/articles/AARs/CSV.htm

macgregor -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/13/2005 9:56:45 PM)
When Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1979, my task force was sent into Thailand. Apparently the tension was pretty high. Perhaps a scenario could be created for this conflict, including possible conflagration involving Thailand...or even India?

YankeeAirRat -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/14/2005 12:32:21 AM)
In Operation Just Cause could of lead to a possible guerrilla campaign, with US forces against the PDF or even against the narco-terrorists that were operating in Panama and Columbia. Another idea would of been that what if the push against the US Forces in the Canal Zone happened eariler and the PDF attacked when the US forces were weaker. Remember that in the months leading up to Operation Just Cause the PDF had executed/assisanted a few members of the US military that were stationed there, all of these assisnations occured while the PDF was basically running wild rounding up the opposition to Noregia's presidenacy. A few soliders were caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. So a possible idea to change it up would of been to try and hold the canal and a couple of the miliatary bases so that the build up occurs. What could cause the defeat of of the US is like nearly every modern war/conflict since Vietnam. That is when the loses counter hits a magic number then the opposing force gains what is now termed the "CNN Factor" win. IE the news media starts to report and comment on the loses and forces a political change. If the OpFor gains this factor then maybe you can have another force come in as a mediating side or even to support the OpFor. So there you could of had the Soviets/Cuba coming to Panama to support the right of Panama not to become another puppet state of the US in Latin America.

golden delicious -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/14/2005 2:15:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: YankeeAirRat What could cause the defeat of of the US is like nearly every modern war/conflict since Vietnam. That is when the loses counter hits a magic number This won't happen here though. How many Americans were historically killed in this conflict? Ten? Twenty? It'd have to be hundreds to be significant. I just don't think the Panamanian government at the time had the kind of widespread support necessary to fight the kind of war it would take to inflict serious losses on the Americans. quote: So there you could of had the Soviets/Cuba coming to Panama Even if the Soviets (who of course had their own problems at this point) or the Cubans were stupid enough to get into a shooting war with the United States over Panama, the United States had such dominating control over the air and sea in the Western Hemisphere that nothing would ever show up in the theatre. What do they care for Noriega anyway? He's hardly a paragon of Communist virtue.

lok -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/14/2005 4:53:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: palmdogg Greece and Turkey during the 1975 war over Cyprus, What if it lead to Pact and NATO involvement? I think this is your strongest candidate for a scenario (There were some threats of war as recently as 1998), but then you run into TOAW's problems with naval operations. quote: Greece and Turkey during the 1975 war over Cyprus, What if it lead to Pact and NATO involvement? Just as an FYI. I have made both a Cyprus 1974 and Aegean 2004 that simulate the Turksih invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and a possible Greek-Turkish conflict in the Agean and Cyprus. I have (unpublished) updates to both scenarios with improved TOE's and OOB's and theater options. But as it was pointed out TOAW's problems with naval operations is an issue with both scenarios.

macgregor -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/14/2005 5:29:50 PM)
Any war that is deemed 'optional' by the US public would get scrutinized based on casualties. IMO the US is somewhere in the middle in term's of it's sensitivity to casualties. There used to be a 'Freedom House' classification of countries (MIP Almanac?) that was really a good indicator of how 'liberal'(funny- we used to say 'free') a particular country was. I think this would also be an indicator of a particular country's sensitivity to casualties. The 'magic number' is an interesting concept. It would vary based on how 'optional' the war is percieved to be. As time passes with no threat to the mainland country this number would become more fixed. With enough events in the game I think this can be represented.

golden delicious -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/14/2005 6:37:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: macgregor With enough events in the game I think this can be represented. The current system of loss penalty isn't very satisfactory (since it's based purely on AP strength), nor is the use of the 'unit destroyed' event. Perhaps each peice of equipment could be assigned both a material cost and a manpower value, and these two values could contribute to two seperate loss penalties. The USA today should not be seriously bothered about the loss of x number of tanks, but their crews would be another matter. So they'd have a low loss intolerance for material cost, but a high loss intolerance for manpower. These things could be made to work off the equipment in the "lost" column in the replacements view, rather than off the difference between current and initial assigned equipment, which is how the current system works.

palmdogg -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/14/2005 6:47:17 PM)
From the "Grenada/Cuba" Victory screen for Grenada. quote: Operation Urgent Fury has turned into a huge debacle for the United States, an even greater embarrassment than the failed Iranian hostage rescue attempt four years earlier. The Soviet bloc is heartened by the important propaganda victory, and President Reagan finds himself in a serious fight for re-election in 1984. Notice how it doesn't say anything about the US losing. All that matters is public perception. If the operation looks like a cakewalk but the US sustains heavy casualties, it will be perceived as a failure. For example, in Mogadishu, the US Army managed the difficult task of extracting Task Force Ranger from under heavy enemy pressure, while losing only 18 men, yet the battle is still perceived by many as a defeat. Similarly, in 1956, Britain easily crushed Egypt's army at the Suez Canal, but Egypt was declared the victor, and the British government fell. In other words, (heresy I know) there's more to wars than just battlefield victories. As I said above, though, Just Cause was way too short to be a good scenario. A cynical observer said that had the PDF seriously resisted, the only result would have been a lot more dead, almost all Panamanian. An invasion of Nicaragua has far more potential, simply because it would have taken longer.

golden delicious -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/14/2005 6:53:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: palmdogg Notice how it doesn't say anything about the US losing. No- but it's a bit hollow. Essentially, the American player wins or loses on the basis of a couple of die rolls. quote: Similarly, in 1956, Britain easily crushed Egypt's army at the Suez Canal, but Egypt was declared the victor, and the British government fell. The difficulty with this is that the ultimate result had nothing whatsoever to do with military events. Egypt 'won' because the United States decided that they were right. No military success in the Canal Zone or elsewhere was going to change that. quote: there's more to wars than just battlefield victories. Right. But wars which are decided primarily or solely by such factors do not make suitable subjects for TOAW. The boardgame "Superpower" was pretty interesting for covering a Cold War type situation.

palmdogg -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/16/2005 4:25:47 PM)
quote: quote: there's more to wars than just battlefield victories. Right. But wars which are decided primarily or solely by such factors do not make suitable subjects for TOAW. The boardgame "Superpower" was pretty interesting for covering a Cold War type situation. Suit yourself. As I said earlier, my favorite scenarios are the ones like Grenada, Attu, and Kiska that have those random factors in there, simulating the "luck" factor that more often than not decides battles. As I asked earlier, does anyone have any good websites for OOBs?

golden delicious -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/16/2005 4:57:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: palmdogg As I asked earlier, does anyone have any good websites for OOBs? What sort of OOBs? My inclination is to just direct you to TDG's links page; http://www.geocities.com/wolin212/ A number of OOBs are also available on the site itself, though few that are relevant for a Gulf War scenario. I'll link you to the modern ones. http://www.tdg.nu/indexoobmodern.html http://www.tdg.nu/indextoemodern.html

Williamb -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/17/2005 9:01:01 AM)
Well for some more turtledoving Civil war history rewrite. I did try to come up with other versions of how the South won the first American Civil war and how it ended in in a second civil war. I Did the "Cliburne option" and a "McClellan Political win" to explain how how the First Civil war ended. Basically in the Cliburne option they accept what Confederate General Pat Cliburne urged. A freeing of all blacks on the condition they fight for the South. HOWEVER the twwist is that McClellan wins the 1864 elections and offers peace to the South and independance on the conditon that all slaves are free. Cliburne talks Jefferson Davis into this option and the war ends with the North wiithdrawing its troops. So Slavery ends and most blacks move north forming the WWII version of the Black divisons (including the fame Buffalo Division and the "MUSKEEGEE" airmen. In subsequent years the US Cavalry begins the Indian wars With Custer killed because the South is supplying the indians but then makes a deal allowing all remaining Indian tribes to withdrawl into the South And they create famous divisions like the 2nd "Indian Head division" Also the South Backs Maximillians move into Mexico and the Juaristas end up going guerilla with a Southern Expitidionary force helping the Mexicans fight against the insurgency for a long time. France keeps selling good to the South. Finally in the 1940s things come to a head when its reveiled that the North is helping bandit "Pancho Villa" raid into the South from Mexico and the war starts and France backs the South with war goods and Britian backs the North with war goods from Canada. The whole thing is meant to explore what ifs and meant to be fun. Also as I stated elsewhere wanted to consider different tactical doctrines and see how non equal sides can fight with different strategic goals. Hope to see this come to fruition one day

konk -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (12/1/2005 11:22:02 PM)
Warsaw Pact vs. Nato please :) I think in the 80's, GDW released 4 boardgames, Third World War, Arctic Front, Southern Front and Persian Gulf that I believe could be played individually, or combined into 1 monster-sized game. Computerizing those order of battles into scenarios for the new TOAW would be great. In fact, I do recall playing a computerized monster game of that magnitude, but it was probably about 10 years ago, so I can't even confirm the game platform was even TOAW! I believe the scenario wasn't included with the game, but had to be downloaded from a fan site. Any help or info would be much appreciated. Maybe the scenario (or just use the data files to save time and effort) could be updated to this new TOAW. I'm sorry I don't have more details, but I've seen this site and people who visit Matrix, and this seems the site to ask for details on old-hard-to-find-games. Thanks!

DanNeely -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (12/2/2005 3:10:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: konk Warsaw Pact vs. Nato please :) I think in the 80's, GDW released 4 boardgames, Third World War, Arctic Front, Southern Front and Persian Gulf that I believe could be played individually, or combined into 1 monster-sized game. Computerizing those order of battles into scenarios for the new TOAW would be great. Someone (Trey Marshal?) Has done just that for ACOW.

lok -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (12/2/2005 11:36:28 PM)
you may want to know that both Trey Marshal and I have made scenarios based on the GDW series you refer to. I think Trey's scenarios were a more faithful reproduction of the GDW games. My 1988 Global Conflict scenario is based on my own modifications I had made over the years to the GDW WWIII series and adapted them to TOAW.

konk -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (12/7/2005 6:39:00 PM)
Fantastic! Knowing that information alone will result in me buying the game. I liked reading all the scenario suggestions people have listed, but give me a good ole Nato vs WP battle anyday. Are there options for Chemical release for the WP? Will there be one grand scenario to be able to play all Theaters linked together/simultaneously on one super-sized map? The Soviet Strategic Reserve With the GDW games, I always loved the option of committing the Soviet Strategic Reserve to the theater of my choice. Maybe there could be 2 options for each scenario, one where the USSR didn't commit the reserve to that Theater, and one where they did, OR just make it an option the USSR can exercise or not, possibly at any time as well. I would imagine it would entail a large reserve force entering the side of the Soviets later in the scenario, but there would be a hefty Victory Point penalty. If there was an option for WHEN the SSR would be committed, maybe there would be a sliding scale for VP's. ie, the sooner it was comitted, the heftier the VP penalty? Just some input, food for thought, etc. Thanks Matrix. It's great you're open to this feedback during the development stage. Not to change the subject, but so many folks get p*ssed when there are delays. I just guess they sometimes don't realize they should be estatic to be able to be in the loop of information at all. THANKS to ALL and MATRIX! You go Girl! konk Any chance of re-releasing Red Lightning? Just fighting the Air battle alone was great fun. If I recall properly, I think it even affected chances of airdrops (ie, if Nato had massive air superiority, and the Soviets attempt a drop of an Airborne Divison deep into Nato territory, the forces could be butchered en route!) Will there be Helo forces in the re-write of TOAW? Attrition to the Helo forces due to the Simulated Air war?

golden delicious -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (12/7/2005 8:55:55 PM)
quote: Will there be Helo forces in the re-write of TOAW? Attrition to the Helo forces due to the Simulated Air war? What do you mean? There are already helicopters in TOAW:COW. They take losses if they attempt to move or fight against air superiority.

lok -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (12/7/2005 9:56:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: konk Fantastic! Knowing that information alone will result in me buying the game. I liked reading all the scenario suggestions people have listed, but give me a good ole Nato vs WP battle anyday. I will try to answer your questions but I would encourage you to take a look at the briefing and the scenario for more details. It is available on WarfareHQ and the Strategist websites. quote: Are there options for Chemical release for the WP? Yes for both NATO and WP quote: Will there be one grand scenario to be able to play all Theaters linked together/simultaneously on one super-sized map? My scenario uses one huge map that includes all of Europe-Middle East and parts of Afghanistan and a separated map that includes the Korean Peninsula, Japan and parts of the USSR and China quote: The Soviet Strategic Reserve With the GDW games, I always loved the option of committing the Soviet Strategic Reserve to the theater of my choice. Maybe there could be 2 options for each scenario, one where the USSR didn't commit the reserve to that Theater, and one where they did, OR just make it an option the USSR can exercise or not, possibly at any time as well. I would imagine it would entail a large reserve force entering the side of the Soviets later in the scenario, but there would be a hefty Victory Point penalty. If there was an option for WHEN the SSR would be committed, maybe there would be a sliding scale for VP's. ie, the sooner it was comitted, the heftier the VP penalty? There are options for just about everytyhing (I used all 500 events) and have more than 20-30 options per side that deal with invading countries, troop deployments, etc. Most divisions deploy to their "known" locations but I basically left up to the players how they want the war to start, where they want to send their reinforcements, and how each theater should develop. Please read the briefing. I will wait to see the Matrix changes and revise the scenario accordingly quote: Will there be Helo forces in the re-write of TOAW? Attrition to the Helo forces due to the Simulated Air war? As already stated there are airmobile, attack, and transport helicopter units in TOAW. I made a weak attempt to model naval helicopters but does not work very well.

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 6 [7]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.71875