RE: Global Conflicts I, II & III

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Global Conflicts I, II & III

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: Global Conflicts I, II & III

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Global Conflicts I, II & III - 12/22/2013 1:57:27 PM

navwarcol

Posts: 637
Joined: 12/2/2009
Status: offline

The August '91 coup would seem to suggest there were, in fact, hardliners at that time at least, although I agree that they were almost certainly not wanting war with the west, they WERE wanting to reverse or stop, the Gorbachev led thaw in relations with the west.

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 31

RE: Global Conflicts I, II & III - 12/22/2013 2:39:18 PM

Russian Heel

Posts: 231
Joined: 10/8/2013
From: Metro Station Vasileostrovskaya
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: navwarcol

The August '91 coup would seem to suggest there were, in fact, hardliners at that time at least, although I agree that they were almost certainly not wanting war with the west, they WERE wanting to reverse or stop, the Gorbachev led thaw in relations with the west.

Of course there were 'hardliners' I named two of them, but their hard line was based solely on internal policies - the wish for international adventurism died with Andropov. Their distaste wasn't the relationship with the West, but the perversion of the system with the perestroika. Changes that were needed but done too quickly causing the downward spiral to increase speed. By 1985 here was no saving the country. The hardliners thought they could slow or stop it by rolling back the changes. They didn't have the support of enough of the Politburo or the people to do it. The absolute catastrophic failure of the '91 coup illustrates that.

(in reply to navwarcol)

Post #: 32

RE: Global Conflicts I, II & III - 12/22/2013 5:47:58 PM

Stevechase

Posts: 161
Joined: 10/5/2013
Status: offline

I think you all have really good ideas here. Perhaps some kind of collaborative effort amongst those of you interested. Think about it. Maybe a you could pool your ideas and come up with a basic Modern Coldwar/WW3-ish premise that would be plausible and engrossing and add depth to a series of scenarios.

(in reply to Russian Heel)

Post #: 33

RE: Global Conflicts I, II & III - 12/24/2013 12:46:18 PM

Mgellis

Posts: 2054
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline

You guys got me thinking about various ways to approach this and I came up with a sort of generic template for an escalating proxy war...

At level one, two smaller countries (or two sides in a civil war) are fighting. Each side is being supplied by a major or global power. This might be just one scenario or it could be several.

At level two, a major power (or superpower) steps in on behalf of its client/ally in the region and attacks one of the smaller countries (or sides), the enemy of its client state/ally in the region. Its counterpart, the other side's patron, may do the same (i.e., Big A attacks Little B, and then Big B attacks Little A). Again, this may be one scenario or several. A variation on this would be if the major power (Big A) is trying to supply its client (Little A), and its enemy (Little B) attacks the convoy, etc. At this level, major powers are fighting, but fighting respective client states rather than each other (e.g., U.S. in Vietnam).

At level three, the same thing happens, but this time, the opposing major power intervenes (i.e., Big A attacks Little B, but Big B tries to stop the attack). Now we have escalated to the point where the forces of two major powers are openly fighting each other, although only in a regional conflict (e.g., Korea), not in an all-out war.

At level four, one of the major powers tries to take the fight directly to its counterpart and knock them out of the region. An example would be a Middle East war, where the Soviets have been supporting Syria, and the U.S. is supporting Israel, and the U.S. decides to simply sink the Soviet battle group in the Mediterranean and thus cripple Syria once and for all. This is meant to be a decisive battle that will clearly establish who has influence in this part of the world. Depending on how much the major powers have invested in the region, this could be one scenario or several. This could escalate to a global war, but this template assumes that once someone is a clear winner at this level, the major powers step back, take a breath, and start negotiations rather than continuing to fight.

What do you guys think? Does this make sense? Am I missing anything?

(in reply to Stevechase)

Post #: 34

RE: Global Conflicts I, II & III - 12/24/2013 2:32:06 PM

Mgellis

Posts: 2054
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline

As a follow-up to the last post, here is a sample what-if proxy war in six stages (each one might have a scenario dedicated to it)...

In 1973, instead of a decisive coup, Chile breaks down into civil war; this assumes Allende is able to keep some of the military loyal. The Soviet Union moves to supply Allende with weapons and "military advisors." The United States backs the anti-communist rebels, who control much of the military in the country.

1) Air battles take place between opposing sides in the civil war.

2) American pilots assist Chilean pilots in raids.

3) More raids take place, but recently delivered Soviet SAMs now play havoc with Chilean rebel planes and American planes.

4) The United States decides to eliminate the problem and hit the SAM sites.

5) Soviet submarines go after the American battle group off Chile.

6) The American battle group, having survived the submarine attacks, goes after the Soviet task force/convoy bringing more weapons to Allende.

With the destruction of the Soviet battle group, the Soviets concede defeat and withdraw.

What do you all think? Comments? Suggestions?

< Message edited by Mgellis -- 12/24/2013 3:32:29 PM >

(in reply to Mgellis)

Post #: 35