Scenario: Russian Invasion of the Baltic States

[wulfir]

Originally Posted by Airborne Rifles

Thoughts?

I would play those scenarios.

[iln82]

Originally Posted by wulfir

Anyways, a couple of years ago I started building a German/NATO vs Russia campaign set in southern Estonia.

The idea was a that the player would command a mixed battle group of somewhat unready NATO forces during the initial stages of a Russkie invasion...

I experimented with adding an element from a different OOB into the fixed German core force - here an attached Dutch mech inf coy - I did not intend for the player to be able to refit destroyed units and that the campaign would only last 5-6 battles...

Didn't really turn out that great. Stopped working on it halfway through. Buuut, if anyone wants to kill some time, here it is..., the Russians won't be all that problematic in this setup...

The C023s000.dat, C023s002.dat & C023s003.dat files are missing. Campaign cannot be played.

Can't believe that 36 people downloaded it before me (two actually thanked you) and none noticed!!!

[wulfir]

Originally Posted by iln82

Campaign cannot be played.

No big loss, honestly. You'll live.

[Suhiir]

Balancing campaigns is very difficult if you want to have limited replacements/reinforcements. The designer can't really predict player losses, all you have to work off of is an educated guess. Since you're the one that designed it you know where everything is and when, and where, enemy reinforcements will arrive. It's impossible to test your own campaign and know what a player will experience.

If they take "excessive" losses early on they're screwed, if they don't take many it's a cakewalk. Neither is good.

[wulfir]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

Balancing campaigns is very difficult...

I think I've said it before but I'm not a great believer in 'play balance'.

Some players are demons at this game, some are newbies - building a setup that challanges both is impossible.

I prefer to build scenarions/campaigns around larger size player and AI-enemy forces, but adding elements from various OOBs in a fixed core campaign is probably best avoided.

[Oche]

Originally Posted by wulfir

I think I've said it before but I'm not a great believer in 'play balance'.

Some players are demons at this game, some are newbies - building a setup that challanges both is impossible.

I prefer to build scenarions/campaigns around larger size player and AI-enemy forces, but adding elements from various OOBs in a fixed core campaign is probably best avoided.

Exactly, to each its own. If you don't like a scenario/campaign just move along. Also, if you are not even a seasoned player/scenario builder please spare the complaint about force balance or other scenario aspect.

[Imp]

Originally Posted by wulfir

I think I've said it before but I'm not a great believer in 'play balance'.

Some players are demons at this game, some are newbies - building a setup that challanges both is impossible.

I prefer to build scenarions/campaigns around larger size player and AI-enemy forces, but adding elements from various OOBs in a fixed core campaign is probably best avoided.

Just a thought here but a campaign with the majority of the units provided each battle as support units could be intresting. Core could just be a infantry or Mech Company plus perhaps a plattoon of tanks or the heavy weapons company or whatever.
Advantages are designer knows where most of the players force are deployed & can change the size of the battle as they wish by varrying support units as desired.

[shahadi]

Although, I have taken this opportunity to post my understanding of a fight with Russia in the Baltics here, please be aware of the thread by Aeraaa: http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showp...68&postcount=1.

There remains several factors that must be taken into açcount when devising wargames to counter a Russian force (BTGs)in the baltics, or anywhere else:

1. Are the skies contested? US planning assumes US dominance.

2. Time. Transport, assembly, and deployment even if materials are pre-positioned, takes weeks not days to ready an American HBCT.

3. Light IBCTs and Stryker BCTs can be deployed into a fight within days, although to put those light forces against heavy Russian forces is merely heoric given clear or contested skies.

4. Readiness. Training, material, and maintenance readiness must support full ready divisions.

Check the online article: (Patrick Donahoe, "Heavy Armor: The Tank’s Role in the Future of War" http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...r-16322?page=2)

The modern heavy tank is vulnerable to ATMGs in urban spaces and mountainous terrain. We saw what happened to the IDF at the Chinese Farm, at the Second Lebanese war, and the Iraqi Golden Division at Mosul (although the GD finally prevailed but after 50% casualties), and at the battle of Tskhinvali in the Georgia war, Georgian armor scattered under ATGMs.

"To Beat Russian Tanks, the Baltic States Study the Georgia War 2008 conflict with Russia proves that anti-tank missiles rule"

See: (Robert Beckhusen, https://medium.com/war-is-boring/to-...r-710812d7e5b8, Oct 24, 2014)

"Later in the day, the tanks arrived at a crossroads near the command center of a local detachment of Russian peacekeepers. And that’s when the full force of the Russian 19th Motor Rifle Division—rushed to reinforce Tskhinvali—slammed into the battalion.

The Russians quickly destroyed four of the Georgian tanks—not with tanks of their own, but with anti-tank guided missiles launched from lighter armored vehicles. Demoralized, the surviving Georgian armor retreated."

Furthermore, the US forces have a lot of experience in counterinsurgency and fighting "near-peer" adversaries; nearly 26 years alone in Afghanistan and Iraq (Since the first Gulf War). However, there is no "breath" of experience fighting heavy maneuver formations.

Similar, to what has troubled the IDF going toe-to-toe against Hezbollah and Hamas, in that the IDF had a lot of experience fighting rock throwing knife wielding individuals in policing roles and nil experience or training in large bridgate and division exercises, hence their leadership realized soon after the fight, the IDF soldier had not the training to fight a disciplined foe, hence, the USA is now training to fight adversaries using Russian and Chinese equipment and tactics.

Check the online article here: http://scout.com/military/warrior/Ar...pons-101455712.

Finally, can the US Army ready sufficient arms after nearly 3 decades of warfare to counter Russian heavy formations in the Baltics or elsewhere?

[wulfir]

This could be interesting form a scenario making perspective as a possible what-if:



Capturing the Baltic states within a week
According to the two sources, Kremlin forces rehearsed capturing NATO’s “region of vulnerability, according to the Russian view”, namely the three Baltic states. “To realize this, you would have to quickly do the Suwalki gap operation” in order to cut off Poland and NATO reinforcements from Lithuania. This is exactly what Russia did, creating the artificial state of “Veyshnoria” at the exact location of the 40-kilometre land bridge between Poland and Lithuania (carried out on Belarussian territory, however).

At the same time, Russia rehearsed “neutralizing or taking under control air fields and harbours (in the Baltic states), so there are no reinforcements arriving from other NATO states there”. The sources emphasized that, in the case of an emergency, this would, in the first few days, be a purely military operation. “This does not mean that you have to occupy the countries and declare ‘Peoples’ Republics’ or something like that, but that you have to occupy the harbours, airports and so on”.

source:
http://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/b...3658.bild.html

[shahadi]

Is the article reporting (bild.de) that attacks on German, Polish, Norwegian, and Swedish targets are part of the initial operation to sieze harbours, airports,and the like, or are those attacks in response to NATO getting involved after the initial operation to control the Baltic states?