Working on new scenarios for a 1996 war...how plausible is this?

[Mgellis]

Okay, here's my newest idea for a "World War III" campaign. I'm curious what people think, how plausible this is, if people think it makes a good back story for a campaign, etc.

Here it is...

April Storm

It's the Spring of 1996 and the Russian president is both ill and probably an alcoholic. The war in Chechnya is not going well and in an attempt to aggressively stamp out the rebels he not only hits targets in Georgia but manages to accidentally hit targets in Turkey, too.

Not surprisingly, NATO is greatly displeased. Many loud and unpleasant words are exchanged.

The Russian President thinks an attack is imminent. He panics and tries to cripple NATO with non-nuclear air strikes. He believes NATO will not respond with nuclear weapons because they won't want to use nuclear weapons first. Also, he has not actually invaded anyone--his alcohol- and paranoia-fueled vision is to leave NATO too weak to attack conventionally and unwilling to use nukes. In effect, what he's trying to do is a gigantic version of the Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981. At least, that's how he sees it.

No, it doesn't go well.

Around the world, over the next few days, a series of battles take place as Russian forces go after NATO forces and NATO respond by going after them. So far, though, no troops are crossing any borders.

The campaign itself would include scenarios involving a) defending air bases from Russian bombers, b) protecting carrier battle groups and other surface forces from submarine attacks, and c) NATO battle groups eliminating deployed Russian naval forces.

I'm assuming the crisis actually ends fairly quickly, after maybe only a couple of days, with the Russian president being assassinated by his own generals. They quickly call for a cease-fire before things escalate into a nuclear exchange. Or would something else happen? (Should something else happen?)

[DeltaIV]

I think that it could be done.

I could see a short few day inner struggle going on as the sane generals try to remove the president before being assassinated. Meanwhile few loyal commanders here and there comply with his orders and proceed with the attacks. The battles could be then done on just decent scale, as all units won't be available. West, knowing the situation will try to avoid going nuclear at all costs. Russian strategic missile troops, SSBNs, etc. would disobey his fanatic orders and do nothing.

Plausible as any work of fiction that was dealing with post-soviet inner struggles.

[NickD]

The Russian military was in a pretty bad state in 1996, so this could be a bit one-sided

[p1t1o]

Even the Russians wouldn't follow an alcoholic blunderer into nuclear war, I think it would be more plausible if your alcoholic premier pi**ed of a few of the wrong people with his mistakes and a coup is mounted by a group of hardline generals (which has been a real risk in the past), replacing the more moderate but incompetent premier with a hardened military leadership who see an opportunity to restore some of Russia's old might. From there you can have it escalate into anything you want.

The Russian military was in a pretty bad state in 1996, so this could be a bit one-sided

Its a fictional scenario so theres no reason why the drunk, paranoid premier cannot increase military spending in the few years prior to the scenario...

[dcpollay]

If you want to make a campaign out of it, you could design a couple of initial scenarios covering each region - Turkey, Northern Europe, arctic, etc. When people play out the scenarios they could submit AARs based on their results. Then you could take the "average" results and construct the follow-up scenarios.

[Mgellis]

ORIGINAL: Colonel Mustard

If you want to make a campaign out of it, you could design a couple of initial scenarios covering each region - Turkey, Northern Europe, arctic, etc. When people play out the scenarios they could submit AARs based on their results. Then you could take the "average" results and construct the follow-up scenarios.

Yes, I was thinking along the lines of breaking things up into regional theaters. Among other things, I'm still finding Command slows down a lot when there are a lot of units, especially a lot of ground units (fully detailed airbases, etc.). So I tend to break things down into small or medium-sized scenarios.

I think there are also some limits to the AI in terms of responding to evolving events. The AI is great for launching a set of attacks, but it does not really have the ability to look at the situation after those attacks have taken place and then revise its tactics. So most scenarios can be set up for a day or two, but if you want to cover events of a week or so, it usually has to be done as separate scenarios. (There are some exceptions, of course, but these would be special cases like a convoy mission where you set up a bunch of different enemy patrol zones and the submarines can't leave those zones, so they stay where they are supposed to stay even a week into the scenario.)

So, for a major war, or even a medium-sized conflict like the Falklands, you would probably want to set things up as a series of scenarios, like the battlesets that were written for Harpoon Classic. In the long run, of course, because Command is so robust, I could see different authors writing dozens of big campaigns, each one with dozens of related scenarios. And that's not counting all the small, individual scenarios that will get written. I think Command is going to keep us busy for years to come.

[Mgellis]

In other words, what would trigger a war is a Russian coup, followed perhaps by an invasion of Georgia or Latvia or some country that used to be part of the Soviet Union. Then the war is along the lines of the Gulf War, with NATO forcing Russia out of the country it had invaded? (Or possibly, during the initial invasion, NATO forces are attacked, possibly by accident, but then respond and things escalate from there.) I like this idea. It seems more plausible. What do other people think?

Related question...would NATO support for a Warsaw Pact country in rebellion have automatically led to a nuclear exchange? Say we had helped Czechoslovakia in 1968 but had somehow made it clear that we had absolutely no interest in attacking the Soviet Union itself. With no immediate threat to the Russian homeland itself, would the Soviets have gone to war (perhaps relying on barely disguised proxies like East Germany and Bulgaria) but avoided a full nuclear exchange? Korea and Vietnam suggest this might have been how things worked out. The critical issue may have been if the Soviets thought Russia was going to be attacked or not.

Thoughts?

ORIGINAL: p1t1o

Even the Russians wouldn't follow an alcoholic blunderer into nuclear war, I think it would be more plausible if your alcoholic premier pi**ed of a few of the wrong people with his mistakes and a coup is mounted by a group of hardline generals (which has been a real risk in the past), replacing the more moderate but incompetent premier with a hardened military leadership who see an opportunity to restore some of Russia's old might. From there you can have it escalate into anything you want.

[p1t1o]

Well during the Czechoslovak crisis, it was the Russians who "reassured" NATO that the mobilisation would not involve any encroachment or attack outside of WP territory. Czechoslovakia was not a NATO member so there was absolutely no mechanism in place that would allow NATO as a treaty organisation to intervene.

If for some reason, NATO had intervened and issued its own assurances of containing the conflict to the stabilisation of Czechoslovakia, then it is certainly plausible that those assurances would be taken seriously, however with WWIII at stake, it would seem like a risky manouvre - Especially if the goverment in place is hardline and fresh from a succesful coup detat. IMO, it is very unlikely to have resulted in an *automatic and immediate* nuclear echange, but it would represent a major escalation and would bring nuclear release very much closer to the table. How would NATO have reacted if WP units rolled into West Germany claiming "This is a peacekeeping mission, this is not a full invasion, do not use nuclear weeapons!"? I think that it would have had strong effect along the whole border and certainly on nuclear readiness.

Having the WP invade another of its sattelite states like Latvia or Georgia, would not have nearly as much impact as a move out of WP territory, as in the Czechoslovak example, on paper, NATO was just not set up to, or intended to defend those countries. And even if there were no paper obstacles, the escalation caused by having NATO troops move onto WP soil may well have been deterrent enough. Bringin it up at the diplomatic level was probably all they could do.

From my point of view, any real NATO-WP conflict in the European theatre would have involved WP rolling onto NATO soil proper.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

ORIGINAL: Colonel Mustard

If you want to make a campaign out of it, you could design a couple of initial scenarios covering each region - Turkey, Northern Europe, arctic, etc. When people play out the scenarios they could submit AARs based on their results. Then you could take the "average" results and construct the follow-up scenarios.

Yes, I was thinking along the lines of breaking things up into regional theaters. Among other things, I'm still finding Command slows down a lot when there are a lot of units, especially a lot of ground units (fully detailed airbases, etc.). So I tend to break things down into small or medium-sized scenarios.

I think there are also some limits to the AI in terms of responding to evolving events. The AI is great for launching a set of attacks, but it does not really have the ability to look at the situation after those attacks have taken place and then revise its tactics. So most scenarios can be set up for a day or two, but if you want to cover events of a week or so, it usually has to be done as separate scenarios. (There are some exceptions, of course, but these would be special cases like a convoy mission where you set up a bunch of different enemy patrol zones and the submarines can't leave those zones, so they stay where they are supposed to stay even a week into the scenario.)

So, for a major war, or even a medium-sized conflict like the Falklands, you would probably want to set things up as a series of scenarios, like the battlesets that were written for Harpoon Classic. In the long run, of course, because Command is so robust, I could see different authors writing dozens of big campaigns, each one with dozens of related scenarios. And that's not counting all the small, individual scenarios that will get written. I think Command is going to keep us busy for years to come.

The AI is not that reactive on its own beyond tactical but the event editor lets you program some reactive responses.
Here’s some examples:

ex. Your MPA gets bagged by some fighters. Bottom line is the patrol patterns that made sense before the war don't make sense after (posture or ROE change etc). So using the Event editor you can disable the existing mission and enable one with a different zone. Its possible to even transfer those assets to that mission using LUA (Assign unit to mission).

ex2. Let say you want to start with a small scenario that grows into a large engagement. You can do this by either using the add unit Lua actions or ImportInst. Import Int is better for groups, airbases etc where you want units. You would then add them to missions.

Lua is still in its infancy for Command although Baloogan,CKFinite and a few others are really banging away at it and doing some cool things in terms of AI. This is critical work as part of the reason we implemented it was to give players a tool to create AI behaviors instead of us having to code for different cases until the end of time. We do realize there is a hefty technical learning curve but we know the guys that have those skills do help. We are really excited about what will come of this and hope you guys will really use each as resources to build some cool stuff.

Mike

[RoryAndersonCDT]

If you have any questions, want to bounce ideas off of us or even want help coding please let us know! Adding advanced AI patterns into a scenario is one of the things that Command lua was designed for.

[Mgellis]

Absolutely. The Event editor and lua give you a lot of options. I only meant that because the AI isn't a real person, it can't truly think for itself; it depends on someone to anticipate what happens in the scenario, at which point it can activate new missions, etc. So the longer and more complicated a scenario is, the harder it is for a scenario writer to make the AI behave intelligently.

This is not meant as a complaint. I think this is going to be a challenge with any game. The AI for Command is really good. I was just thinking aloud about why I feel it sometimes makes sense to break up what might be one big scenario into several shorter ones.

ORIGINAL: mikmyk


The AI is not that reactive on its own beyond tactical but the event editor lets you program some reactive responses.

Here’s some examples:

ex. Your MPA gets bagged by some fighters. Bottom line is the patrol patterns that made sense before the war don't make sense after (posture or ROE change etc). So using the Event editor you can disable the existing mission and enable one with a different zone. Its possible to even transfer those assets to that mission using LUA (Assign unit to mission).

ex2. Let say you want to start with a small scenario that grows into a large engagement. You can do this by either using the add unit Lua actions or ImportInst. Import Int is better for groups, airbases etc where you want units. You would then add them to missions.

Lua is still in its infancy for Command although Baloogan,CKFinite and a few others are really banging away at it and doing some cool things in terms of AI. This is critical work as part of the reason we implemented it was to give players a tool to create AI behaviors instead of us having to code for different cases until the end of time. We do realize there is a hefty technical learning curve but we know the guys that have those skills do help. We are really excited about what will come of this and hope you guys will really use each as resources to build some cool stuff.

Mike

[Mgellis]

ORIGINAL: p1t1o


From my point of view, any real NATO-WP conflict in the European theatre would have involved WP rolling onto NATO soil proper.

This makes sense and it's very helpful. So, a war in Europe probably depends on one of the following things happening:

A) The Warsaw Pact actually invades a NATO member nation like West Germany or Norway. NATO responds to drive the invaders out.

B) After 1991, Russia invades a NATO member nation, including some of its former Warsaw Pact allies, or territory it claimed for itself (e.g., Latvia). NATO responds to drive the invaders out.

C) NATO invades a Warsaw Pact nation and/or attacks the Russian homeland itself. The Warsaw Pact responds to drive the invaders out.

What keeps things from going all-out nuclear? As long as the Soviet Union/Russia, the U.K., France, China, and the U.S. were not directly attacked, and the war was confined to non-nuclear Europe (Germany, the Mediterranean, etc.) I suppose it is plausible that global counterforce and countervalue strikes would not take place. Does this make sense? After all, if you know the likely outcome is losing something like 50% of your entire population, you would only launch those missiles if you felt you had no other choice. (As I recall, the Seven Days to the Rhine plan avoided attacks on the U.K. and France...maybe the Soviets were thinking along these lines already.) As long as one side doesn't nuke Moscow or London or Washington or Paris, the other side won't do it, either. As for the rest of Europe, they might well be sacrificed by their nuclear allies. Nuke a base in Germany? Okay, we won't hit Moscow, but we will nuke a base in Poland, and you'll put up with it because you don't want us to nuke Moscow. And so on.

This raises yet another question...

Could you have had a direct confrontation outside of Europe without it leading to global war? What if the Soviets had said in 1965, "We will not attack the U.S., but if you don't leave our brothers in Vietnam alone, do not be surprised if we start to fight alongside with them" and started moving medium-range bombers into North Vietnamese air bases and submarines into the Gulf of Tonkin? Does this automatically lead to all-out war? Or does the U.S. simply put more forces in the area and start sinking Soviet submarines that get too close to its ships? Or, if the U.S. had put troops into Afghanistan, but made it clear they would NOT enter the Soviet Union, would the outcome be a nuclear war or another version of the Korean War, with North Afghan and South Afghan proxies backed by one of the superpowers, but no attacks on superpower territory? History seems to suggest that's how it could have worked out. I don't think we ever bombed China during the Korean War, after all.

Again, there's no way to know; I'm just trying to figure out the most plausible backgrounds for scenarios. The reason I try so hard to do that is that I think if you don't do that, it hurts the scenario because it's harder for the player to immerse himself or herself in the game. I know some players don't care, but I know some people will go, "Oh, that's just STUPID! That would never happen!" And it ruins the game for them. (And for me, too, to be honest.) The more I can keep that from happening, the more I like it.

Again, thanks in advance for all the help. I appreciate it.

[Mgellis]

Going back to the original question, how plausible is this initial 1996 situation...

LONDON (AP) - Talks continue among NATO leaders regarding the Russian invasion of eastern Latvia earlier this month. The new Russian president, who took over when Boris Yeltsin suddenly resigned from office, claiming his health no longer allowed him to serve, has repeatedly argued that much of Latvia is actually Russian territory. He has rejected all demands that Russian troops withdraw from Latvia. NATO forces remain on high alert and there are unconfirmed reports that combat air patrols have increased over Germany and Denmark and that an American carrier battle group has moved into the North Sea.

What do you think?

[Mgellis]

And a related question...assuming a partial occupation of Latvia, what could NATO do about this situation? I am assuming that hitting targets within Russia has been ruled out over fear it would escalate into a nuclear exchange. Would any of the following make sense?

* Attack Russian aircraft in "no fly" zones (i.e., Latvian airspace)--Russian plans staying in Russian airspace are off limits to attacks (unless they shoot first and then one can shoot back), but those crossing into Latvian airspace may be prosecuted

* Attack Russian forces actually in Latvia--tanks, etc.

* Attack Russian naval forces that appear to be threatening Latvian freedom of the seas (e.g., anything that looks like it might be laying mines near Riga, submarines or missile boats getting too close to Latvian waters, etc.)

* Start building up troops in free regions of Latvia for an eventual large scale attack against Russian troops in Latvia, with back channel diplomacy making it clear that no one is going to try to cross the border into Russia (this would, of course, present various targets to Russian forces)

* For all of these, employ non-nuclear NATO member forces to send an implicit message that there is NO interest in escalating this to a nuclear exchange...if the forces involved are German, Norwegian, Danish, Italian, etc., perhaps getting information from French E-3s, etc., but NO American, French, or British aircraft or ships are shooting at Russian forces, does that make a difference?

* What else? What am I missing here?

How does all this sound? Again, to me this is kind of like writing a novel; I want it to be a story that is plausible enough in terms of the politics, the tactics, etc., that people can really immerse themselves in the scenario(s). This doesn't mean you can't sometimes write scenarios with bizarre set-ups (e.g., "What if Mexico and Israel got in a fight!? Hey, it could happen!") because sometimes it's just interesting to see how different forces would deal with certain opponents. But for the ones I'm brainstorming now, I'm trying to come up with as believable an alternate history as I can.

Thanks again in advance for everyone's help. I appreciate it.

[Gunner98]

Plausibility in the 90's has some flexibility[;)] I think, because everyone was mapping out new political ground. There may be some who say 'that wouldn't happen' but many who held that view in the 80's were proven wrong. If the backstory covering the 'alternate history' between 1990 and scenario/battleset start addresses the likely questioners I think you hit the mark. A couple thoughts:

-By 96 no one was interested in Nuclear holocaust. I think the timing is advantageous because you actually need to prove the plausibility of going Nuc vice the other way round. National survival would be the big one but it is difficult to think of another reason the west would take that option.
-NATO Cohesion was an issue, so the story would have to strike a threat in Europe or there would be risk to the foundation of NATO itself. It could go global as a consequence but it would be difficult to sell an issue in Asia as a threat to NATO in Athens or Rome etc. Afghanistan in 06 was difficult enough for NATO to tackle politically.
-The Baltic countries were still a decade away from acceptance into NATO, whereas Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary were much closer and in direct negotiations with NATO. A threat to one of these would put NATO's evolving philosophy to the test, and it was the European NATO nations who were very keen on the expansion, so would not be a situation where it was a big US stick pushing them into war.

I think your escalation of events is plausible, but you may want to consider Poland vice Latvia. It was much closer to home for many Europeans, and the history of events there in the 30's might sound the clarion call in European Capitals.

Once you have the backstory, and as you said, it does add a lot to the emersion for the player - its game on, subsequent scenarios can vary widely as long as you keep the balancing points [Nuclear escalation vs. NATO Cohesion] as a thread through the story line your good to go.

I look forward to playing them?

B

[Mgellis]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

I look forward to playing them

B

I look forward to writing them. I'm thinking that the war itself will start with an attempt to eliminate Russian air defenses in Eastern Poland. This, of course, triggers attempts by Russian forces to shoot down NATO aircraft and things rapidly escalate into a more general--but at least initially non-nuclear--war. I'll have to see how the early scenarios turn to out to figure out what happens after that.

[Sardaukar]

You could also make scenarios about possible Russian Civil War that time. Might be more plausible than Russia-NATO conflict.