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: WW3 – 1985 – A project

 
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] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII: World at War >> MODS and Scenarios >> RE: WW3 – 1985 – A project Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: WW3 – 1985 – A project - 4/17/2020 6:52:15 PM   
Tulius Hostilius

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 4/2/2020
Status: offline
Country Profile: Central African Republic

KGB Report [classified]

Armed forces: 1100. Gendarmerie 1400. 1 Battalion. Most of the equipment is French (some may be ex-USA, from WWII). It is not considered an effective force; its main task is to defend the presidential palace.

There is a French Military Base in Camp Leclerc (Bouar).

Last data: 1981.

Reliability: Medium.

Conflicts: Internal unrest.

Sources: Jane’s Pocket Book (1981), Global Security, Wikipedia, Library of Congress Country Studies.

In-game armed forces proposal I: 1 Garrison (3).

In-game diplomatic situation: French minor. 25% Mobilization.

In-game Events: The country will switch sides a few weeks after fully conquered for a MPP cost. If the Soviet Bloc conquers the country and the French Base they may begin to use it (change possession).





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Tulius Hostilius -- 4/18/2020 7:44:45 PM >

(in reply to Tulius Hostilius)
Post #: 31
RE: WW3 – 1985 – A project - 4/17/2020 10:12:37 PM   
Tulius Hostilius

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 4/2/2020
Status: offline
Country Profile: Chad

KGB Report [classified]

Armed forces: 4800. Paramilitary Forces 6000. 3 Infantry Battalions, some para-trained for rapid deployment. Almost all the equipment is French.

Last data: 1981.

Reliability: Medium.

Conflicts: Since the independence from France, in 1960, the government fights the Moslem FRONILAT rebellion in the North, supported by Libya. Often Libyan troops entered Chad, that had the support of France.

Sources: Jane’s Pocket Book (1981), Global Security, Wikipedia, Library of Congress Country Studies.

In-game armed forces proposal I: 1 Garrison (4), 1 Brigade (3).

In-game diplomatic situation: French minor. 25% Mobilization.

In-game Events: Guerrillas active in the North (Bardaï) if the country enters in the War siding with France.

(in reply to Tulius Hostilius)
Post #: 32
RE: WW3 – 1985 – A project - 4/17/2020 10:13:03 PM   
Tulius Hostilius

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 4/2/2020
Status: offline
Country Profile: Chile

KGB Report [classified]

Armed forces: 50.000 men. 30.000 Carabineros. 6 divisional HQ, 3 Armoured Regiments, 3 Cavalry Regiments, 20 Infantry Regiments (most with 3 battalions, and including 9 motorized Rgm and 3 mountain Rgm), 6 Artillery Regiments, various AA and support units.

Air Force and Navy under study.

Last data: 1981.

Reliability: Medium.

Conflicts: The Army organized coup in 1973.

Sources: Jane’s Pocket Book (1981), Global Security, Wikipedia, Library of Congress Country Studies.

In-game armed forces proposal I: 4 Divisions (5); 1 Mechanized (6, Santiago); 1 Mountain (4, Valdivia);

In-game diplomatic situation: USA minor. 10% Mobilization.

In-game Events: The country will switch sides a few weeks after fully conquered for a MPP cost.

(in reply to Tulius Hostilius)
Post #: 33
RE: WW3 – 1985 – A project - 4/18/2020 7:49:05 AM   
Tulius Hostilius

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 4/2/2020
Status: offline
And the first Major player:

Country Profile: China

CIA Report [classified]

Armed forces: 3.250.000 men and women in the PLA. There was a huge reform that begun in 1987, downsizing and modernizing the army. By these dates it was considered that the army had good defensive capabilities but lacked offensive ones, as it was demonstrated in the several conflicts that participated (from Korea, to the wars with India and particularly with Vietnam): 11 Armoured Divisions, 115 Infantry Divisions, 3 Airborne Divisions, 40 Artillery Divisions, 150 independent regimental formations, +40 engineer, railway and construction Divisions. Local forces up to 80 Infantry Divisions and 130 Independent Regiments (1981). By 1987 that slightly changed. The Main Forces included about 35 group armies (actually were “Corps”), with 13 armoured divisions (+2), 118 infantry divisions (+3), and 33 artillery and antiaircraft artillery divisions (-7), plus 71 independent regiments and 21 independent battalions of mostly support troops. Regional forces consisted of 73 divisions of border defence and garrison troops plus 140 independent regiments (basically the same that in 1981).

Air Force and Navy under study.

Last data: 1981 (and 1987).

Reliability: Medium.

Conflicts: Invasion of Tibet (1950); Korean War (1950-1953); Dispute with South Vietnam (1974); Sino-Vietnamese War (1979); Sino-Indian War (1962, 1967); Sino-Soviet border conflict (1969);

Sources: Jane’s Pocket Book (1981), Global Security, Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Ground_Force), Library of Congress Country Studies (Warden, Robert L.; Savada, Andrea; Dolan, Ronald; Library of Congress, Federal Research Division (1988). "China: A Country Study". pp. 543-594).

In-game armed forces proposal I: It is not easy to represent such a huge army, for now the best possibility seems to represent it with 35 Corps (the Field Armies in the Chinese designation, with 3 Divisions of 12.000 men), but without further elements since the corps incorporated armour, artillery and support services. After 1987 the Chinese will have an event to reorganize the army and allow them to have other kind of units. Plus 17 Garrison (Militia and Regional) units. It seems an impressive number but when distributed to the country in defensive positions, it isn’t that much. Only playtesting we will see.

In-game diplomatic situation: China is a major; begins neutral, with its mobilization at 20%, leaning to the Soviet Bloc.

In-game Events: India and China can’t be in the same bloc; China decisions influence positively in diplomatic terms Albania, Pakistan, Tanzania, Yugoslavia, Zambia and Zimbabwe. If China enters in the war in the Soviet Bloc, North Korean moral rises, if it enters on the opposite side, North Korean moral drops; If China enters in the war on the NATO and Allies side, Taiwan refuses to fight side by side with China (demobilizes the army); If the Soviets attack Albania, China tends 10% to the NATO and Allies; If NATO and Allies attack Albania, China tends 10% to the Soviet Bloc; If the Soviets attack Pakistan, China tends 20% to the NATO and Allies; If NATO and Allies attack Pakistan, China tends 20% to the Soviet Bloc; China has trade routes with USSR and USA, except if its mobilizations rises to more than 50%, in that case ceases to trade with the other faction; 1987 Army reorganization; WIP.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Tulius Hostilius -- 4/18/2020 7:29:14 PM >

(in reply to Tulius Hostilius)
Post #: 34
RE: WW3 – 1985 – A project - 4/18/2020 8:33:10 AM   
Tulius Hostilius

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 4/2/2020
Status: offline
Country Profile: Colombia

KGB Report [classified]

Armed forces: 80.000; 10 Infantry Brigades; 1 Battalion Presidential Guard; 1 Ranger Battalion; 1 Airborne Battalion; 1 Artillery AA Battalion; 20 Mechanized Infantry Battalions; 5 Mechanized Artillery Battalions; 6 Engineer Battalions.

Air Force and Navy under study.

Last data: 1981.

Reliability: Medium.

Conflicts: Participation in UN Missions, including the Korean War, and internal conflict with the guerrillas of the FARC.

Sources: Jane’s Pocket Book (1981), Global Security, Wikipedia, Library of Congress Country Studies.

In-game armed forces proposal I: 3 Infantry Divisions (5), 1 Armoured Recon (5), 1 Garrison (5).

In-game diplomatic situation: USA minor. 10% Mobilization.

In-game Events: If Colombia enters in the war siding with the USA, the FARC is present in the South and can intensify their struggle with funding from the Communist Movements.

(in reply to Tulius Hostilius)
Post #: 35
RE: WW3 – 1985 – A project - 4/18/2020 8:38:42 AM   
Tulius Hostilius

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 4/2/2020
Status: offline
An "experience", other major:

Country Profile: Communist Movements (alternative designation: Insurgent Movements)

CIA Report [classified]

Armed forces: n/d

Last data: n/d

Reliability: n/d

Conflicts: Several around the Globe (they can only be activated if the respective country is at war); Argentina (Urban Guerrilla); Bolivia; Brazil (Urban Guerrilla); Burma; Chad (FRONILAT); Chile (Urban Guerrilla); Colombia (FARC); Ecuador; El Salvador; Guatemala; Honduras; Iraq (Kurds); Israel (PLO); Italy (Red Brigades); Japan (Urban Guerrilla); Lebanon; Malaysia; Mexico; Morocco (Western Sahara, POLISARIO); Peru; Philippines; Somalia; South Africa (ANC; SWAPO); Spain (ETA); Sri Lanka, Sudan; Thailand; Uganda; United Kingdom (Northern Ireland); Uruguay (Urban Guerrilla); Venezuela (Urban Guerrilla); Zaire…

In-game armed forces proposal I: None at the first turn. They are created through guerrilla spots; Events and Decisions of financing with MPP costs, as soon as the countries enter in the war or, the war is declared. Since “Communist Movements” is a major, “independent” of the USSR, it allows it to be at war with solely some other majors, and not all.

In-game diplomatic situation: Major. 100% Mobilized.

In-game Events: WIP.

Note: This “country” faction was created as a proxy of Soviet Union. It can help in diplomacy and research. The Capital is “off-map”. The faction surrenders if USSR surrenders, unless there is other major still fighting (India or China). The objective of this “faction” is to spread communism and revolution around the world. If other majors declare war to this faction, there are negative diplomatic repercussions among some “neutrals” and “non-aligned”. And as a major, this faction can be at war with other major that USSR isn’t. Still trying to see how this can work.

(in reply to Tulius Hostilius)
Post #: 36
RE: WW3 – 1985 – A project - 4/18/2020 10:52:31 AM   
Tulius Hostilius

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 4/2/2020
Status: offline
Country Profile: Congo

CIA Report [classified]

Armed forces: 6500. 1 armoured Regiment. 1 Infantry Battalion. 1 “Paracommando” Battalion. Most of the equipment is Soviet and more recently Chinese. There still in use some old equipment provided by French. There are 850 Soviet military advisors in the country, 960 Cubans, and 15 East Germans.

Last data: 1981.

Reliability: Medium.

Conflicts: Internal turmoil.

Sources: Jane’s Pocket Book (1981), Global Security, Wikipedia, Library of Congress Country Studies.

In-game armed forces proposal I: 1 Garrison (5).

In-game diplomatic situation: USSR minor. 25% Mobilization.

In-game Events: The country will switch sides a few weeks after fully conquered for a MPP cost.

(in reply to Tulius Hostilius)
Post #: 37
RE: WW3 – 1985 – A project - 4/18/2020 10:53:10 AM   
Tulius Hostilius

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 4/2/2020
Status: offline
Country Profile: Costa Rica

KGB Report [classified]

Armed forces: No army. 3000 Civil Guard (Fuerza Pública).

Last data: 1981.

Reliability: High.

Conflicts: Troubles in the border with Nicaragua. The Contras have sanctuaries in the territory.

Sources: Jane’s Pocket Book (1981), Global Security, Wikipedia, Library of Congress Country Studies.

In-game armed forces proposal I: 1 Garrison (3).

In-game diplomatic situation: USA minor. 10% Mobilization.

In-game Events: If Nicaragua enters in the war, the mobilization of Costa Rica will rise. WIP.

(in reply to Tulius Hostilius)
Post #: 38
RE: WW3 – 1985 – A project - 4/18/2020 11:03:47 AM   
Tulius Hostilius

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 4/2/2020
Status: offline
Country Profile: Cuba

CIA Report [classified]

Armed forces: 160.000 to 200.000 men. 10 Infantry Brigades (slightly smaller than the Soviet Motor Rifles Divisions). 3 Armoured Regiments, 8 Independent Infantry Regiments. 3000-4000 Airborne troops. SAM. Many units have combat experience.

The Cuban Air Force has some 200 MIGs, 21 and 23, with 2 Squadrons of MIG-23 Floggers. And SA-6 and SA-3 SAMs.

The Navy has 2 Foxtrot-class Submarines; 1 Koni-class Frigate; Osa and Komar-class missile attack boats, Turya-class hydrofoil torpedo boats, Yevgenya-Class inshore minesweepers and 1 Sonya-class minesweeper.

There are Cuban units and advisers in Angola (8000), Ethiopia (6900), Nicaragua (3200), Libya (3000), Iraq (2200), Mozambique (1000), Congo (950), South Yemen (800), Guinea (280), Algeria (170), Afghanistan (100), Tanzania (95), Madagascar (55), Peru (10), Syria (5). While there are 12.000 Soviet advisors in the country.

Last data: 1982.

Reliability: Medium/High.

Conflicts: Many; Cuban Revolution (1953–1959); Invasion of Panama (1959); Invasion of the Dominican Republic (1959); Bay of Pigs (1961); Invasion of Venezuela (1963); Sand War, Algeria (1963–1964); Congo Crisis (1964); Guinea-Bissau War of Independence (1964–1974); Ñancahuazú Guerrilla (1966–1967); Machurucuto Incident, Venezuela (1967); Yemenite War (1972); Angolan Civil War (1975–1991); Ogaden War (1977–1978); Ethiopian Civil War (1977–1991); Eritrean War of Independence (1977–1991); Invasion of Grenada (1983).

Sources: Jane’s Pocket Book (1981), Global Security, Wikipedia, Library of Congress Country Studies, CIA.

In-game armed forces proposal I: 3 Corps (9, one in each city), 1 SAM (9), 1 Mechanized (7, in reserve); 1 Paratroops (4, in reserve); 2 Garrisons (5, one in reserve): 2 Interceptors (9). 1 Patrol Boat (10).

Land and air Forces deployed in Angola and Ethiopia on the first 2 turns: 1 Mechanized (8) and 1 Fighter Bomber (9) (Angola); and 1 Mechanized (6) in Ethiopia.

In-game diplomatic situation: USSR minor. 100% Mobilization.

In-game Events: Intense guerrilla activity if conquered. WIP.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Tulius Hostilius -- 4/18/2020 7:31:33 PM >

(in reply to Tulius Hostilius)
Post #: 39
RE: WW3 – 1985 – A project - 4/18/2020 12:06:13 PM   
The Land

 

Posts: 553
Joined: 2/19/2010
Status: offline
Good luck with this!

A few thoughts. It's important to firm up the list of country IDs and majors as early in development as possible - particularly majors. Also the engine requires each major to be assigned to one of two sides, it's impossible to have a major that can go either way between Axis/Allies or NATO/Pact. (Of course the major need never be active, but it must be one or the other). There may be a way around this involving surrenders, but it would be complicated.

Also I would suggest thinking carefully about land units, particularly what's the difference between a Corps, a Mechanized and a Tank unit in this era, which of course is the peak for mechanization and heavy kit on the whole. In the Northern Europe theatre most Corps were made up of tank divisions and mechanised divisions... what is a Tank counter representing vs a Mech vs a Corps?

_____________________________


(in reply to Tulius Hostilius)
Post #: 40
RE: WW3 – 1985 – A project - 4/18/2020 12:42:04 PM   
Tulius Hostilius

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 4/2/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: The Land

Good luck with this!

A few thoughts. It's important to firm up the list of country IDs and majors as early in development as possible - particularly majors. Also the engine requires each major to be assigned to one of two sides, it's impossible to have a major that can go either way between Axis/Allies or NATO/Pact. (Of course the major need never be active, but it must be one or the other). There may be a way around this involving surrenders, but it would be complicated.

Also I would suggest thinking carefully about land units, particularly what's the difference between a Corps, a Mechanized and a Tank unit in this era, which of course is the peak for mechanization and heavy kit on the whole. In the Northern Europe theatre most Corps were made up of tank divisions and mechanised divisions... what is a Tank counter representing vs a Mech vs a Corps?


Hi The Land,

Thanks for the inputs. Some are already made others not by far.

The first things are made: The List of the countries IDs is done, I posted it in post #2. The majors are also defined, as their sequence in the list and positions, the ones of the “Axis” are on bottom as I read somewhere in the manual.
The problem that you point, the changing sides, I was thinking to use the surrender via Event (the user doesn’t need to know that is a “surrender”), as we see in Italy, in the 1939 Scenario, but still didn’t look to that in deep. I hope that I can put this to work. It will be important since China and India begin as “Neutrals”, but both slightly pending for the Soviet Bloc, and yet antagonists, and I don’t want that they enter on the same side. This will make the Soviet player to choose in the diplomacy efforts one or other. When one enters the war, the other “surrenders” and changes sides. This just needs to work once.

What point in the last paragraph is one thing that is also problematic, but I think that it is mostly a question of defining some “rules of conversion”, from the reality to the game. that I still didn’t clearly defined. I am considering the Mechanized and the Tanks as “Corps”, so in Europe we will not see many Infantry Corps, all will be mechanized or Tanks. And when I have 2 Mech Dv and 1 Tank Dv, that makes a Mech Corps, and the inverse.

What do you think?

Also in Europe I am thinking to group the divisions, so there will be some space for the units. 3 Mechanized Divisions will be equal to a Mechanized unit, and 3 Tank Divisions will be also equal to a Tank unit.
As for smaller units, when I “merge”, I am converting 2 Brigades to a Division, or 3 Regiments to a Division. 3 battalions to a Regiment… It is not perfect, but it is a system, and sometimes I make adjustments depending on the country, especially on the country size and number of available hexes. I don’t use much the Brigade, so I am considering if the Brigade makes sense! For small armies, I prefer to use the Garrison. Also note that the countries that I already posted, are already “done”: the armies are already in the map, and the diplomacy adjusted. But all is still a WIP. So any errors, corrections, suggestions, feel free to shoot.

PS: Good luck to your mod, I also have the SCWW1. Good games!

(in reply to The Land)
Post #: 41
RE: WW3 – 1985 – A project - 4/18/2020 1:48:58 PM   
Tulius Hostilius

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 4/2/2020
Status: offline
Country Profile: Cyprus (Greek-Cypriot)

KGB Report [classified]

Armed forces: 10.000 declining. Most of the equipment is delivered by Greece.

Last data: 1981.

Reliability: Medium.

Conflicts: Border tension with North Cyprus, controlled by Turkey. UN Nations mission controls the border. UK bases in the island.

Sources: Jane’s Pocket Book (1981), Global Security, Wikipedia, Library of Congress Country Studies.

In-game armed forces proposal I: UK controlled, except Famagusta.

In-game diplomatic situation: UK controlled, except Famagusta.

In-game Events: WIP.

**********************************************************

Country Profile: Cyprus (Turkish-Cypriot)

KGB Report [classified]

Armed forces: 5000.

Last data: 1981.

Reliability: Medium.

Conflicts: Border tension with North Cyprus, controlled by Turkey. UN Nations mission controls the border. UK bases in the island.
Turkey controls Famagusta.

Sources: Jane’s Pocket Book (1981), Global Security, Wikipedia, Library of Congress Country Studies.

In-game armed forces proposal I: Turkey controls Famagusta.

In-game diplomatic situation: Turkey controls Famagusta.

In-game Events: WIP





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Tulius Hostilius -- 4/18/2020 7:37:18 PM >

(in reply to Tulius Hostilius)
Post #: 42
RE: WW3 – 1985 – A project - 4/18/2020 7:48:09 PM   
Tulius Hostilius

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 4/2/2020
Status: offline
Country Profile: Czechoslovakia

CIA Report [classified]

Armed forces: 140.000. 5 Tanks Divisions. 5 Motor Rifle Divisions. 1 Airborne Regiment. 3 Artillery Brigades with Scud SSM. 1 Anti-tank Brigade. 2 Artillery Brigades. 2 AA artillery Brigades.

Air Force and Navy under study.

Last data: 1981.

Reliability: Medium.

Conflicts: Prague Spring (1968).

Sources: Jane’s Pocket Book (1981), Global Security, Wikipedia, Library of Congress Country Studies.

In-game armed forces proposal I: 1 HQ (5), 1 Tanks (7), 3 Mechanized (6), 1 SSM (5), 1 SAM (5), 1 Heavy Artillery (3). Interceptors (7). 1 attack Helicopter (5).

In-game diplomatic situation: USSR minor. 100% Mobilization.

In-game Events: WIP.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Tulius Hostilius -- 4/18/2020 11:54:28 PM >

(in reply to Tulius Hostilius)
Post #: 43
RE: WW3 – 1985 – A project - 4/19/2020 1:24:21 AM   
Tulius Hostilius

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 4/2/2020
Status: offline
Country Profile: Denmark

KGB Report [classified]

Armed forces: 22.000 + 41.000 Field Army Reserves. 5 Armoured Brigade HQ, 5 tank Battalions, 10 Mechanized Infantry Battalions, 1 Independent Infantry Battalion (Bornholm Island), 5 artillery Battalions, 5 Engineer Companies, 1 Independent Recon Battalion, 2 Independent Recon Squadrons, some Independent Motorized Infantry units. Most of the equipment has origin in the USA or West Germany.

Air Force and Navy under study.

Last data: 1981 (and 1988).

Reliability: High.

Conflicts: UN Missions.

Sources: Jane’s Pocket Book (1981), Global Security, Wikipedia, Library of Congress Country Studies.

In-game armed forces proposal I: 1 Mechanized (6), 1 Garrison (3, Bornholm), 1 Garrison (5, Copenhagen).

In-game diplomatic situation: NATO minor, 99% Mobilization.

In-game Events: None planned. WIP.

(in reply to Tulius Hostilius)
Post #: 44
RE: WW3 – 1985 – A project - 4/19/2020 1:25:01 AM   
Tulius Hostilius

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 4/2/2020
Status: offline
Country Profile: Dominican Republic

KGB Report [classified]

Armed forces: 11.000. Gendarmerie approx. 10.000. 3 Infantry Brigades, 1 Mixed Armoured Battalion, 1 Mountain Infantry Battalion, 1 Parachute Battalion (probably no larger than one company), 1 Presidential Guard Battalion, 1 Artillery Regiment, 1 AA Artillery Regiment, 1 Armoured Recon Squadron. Most of the equipment is form the USA and France.

Navy under study.

Last data: 1981.

Reliability: Medium.

Conflicts: Invasion by Cuban supported guerrillas (1959) Dominican Civil War (1965), that led to the USA and OAS intervention;

Sources: Jane’s Pocket Book (1981), Global Security, Wikipedia, Library of Congress Country Studies.

In-game armed forces proposal I: 1 Garrison (5), 1 Infantry Brigade (3).

In-game diplomatic situation: USA minor, 10% Mobilization.

In-game Events: The country will switch sides a few weeks after fully conquered for a MPP cost.

(in reply to Tulius Hostilius)
Post #: 45
RE: WW3 – 1985 – A project - 4/19/2020 1:25:42 AM   
Tulius Hostilius

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 4/2/2020
Status: offline
Country Profile: Ecuador

KGB Report [classified]

Armed forces: 17800. 9 Infantry Battalions, 2 Motor Infantry Battalions, 1 Parachute Battalion, 11 Independent Infantry Battalions, 1 Presidential Guar Company, 3 Recon Squadrons, 4 Horsed Cavalry Squadrons, 6 Artillery Groups, 2 Engineer, Battalions. Most of the Equipment is French or form the USA.

Air Force and Navy under study.

Last data: 1981.

Reliability: Medium.

Conflicts: Paquisha War with Peru (1981);

Sources: Jane’s Pocket Book (1981), Global Security, Wikipedia, Library of Congress Country Studies.

In-game armed forces proposal I: 1 Garrison (5), 1 Infantry Division (5).

In-game diplomatic situation: USA minor, 10% Mobilization.

In-game Events: The country will switch sides a few weeks after fully conquered for a MPP cost. If Peru enters in the war, Ecuador will move slightly to the opposite faction.

(in reply to Tulius Hostilius)
Post #: 46
RE: WW3 – 1985 – A project - 4/19/2020 8:22:57 AM   
The Land

 

Posts: 553
Joined: 2/19/2010
Status: offline
I see your OOB has a lot of low-strength units in it. I'd suggest it might be worth considering making more use of division and brigade sized counters if that's likely to be the case?

The way the game system works out is that for most combat units, a Strength 5 or 6 unit is pretty much entirely ineffective (less effective than a division-sized unit at full strength). However the unit can also be expanded to strength 10 making it a fully effective corps-level unit. So you end up with a double problem - too little capacity, but too much potential. Also the map gets cluttered.

I think the issue is less for things like missile batteries which are less likely to take damage, though of course artillery can still do de-entrenchment even at very low strength.

_____________________________


(in reply to Tulius Hostilius)
Post #: 47
RE: WW3 – 1985 – A project - 4/19/2020 10:15:41 AM   
Tulius Hostilius

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 4/2/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: The Land

I see your OOB has a lot of low-strength units in it. I'd suggest it might be worth considering making more use of division and brigade sized counters if that's likely to be the case?

The way the game system works out is that for most combat units, a Strength 5 or 6 unit is pretty much entirely ineffective (less effective than a division-sized unit at full strength). However the unit can also be expanded to strength 10 making it a fully effective corps-level unit. So you end up with a double problem - too little capacity, but too much potential. Also the map gets cluttered.

I think the issue is less for things like missile batteries which are less likely to take damage, though of course artillery can still do de-entrenchment even at very low strength.


Thanks for the feedback and the concerns. Honestly, it is good to have someone to discuss this, since this is for now a one man’s project, and pointing issues will help me to think out of my box. Besides, if there is out there someone willing to join the project, I urgently need help in several areas (bitmaps, sounds, scripts…). PM me.

Yes, the units below-strength are fully intentional.

This is the idea, let us see if it works, when the playtests begin:

I think they reflect in a more correct way the OOBs and their peace value, that for one side many are basically cadre units that in case of war will be filled with the reserves/territorial units, and for other side others are from Third World countries that just have small armies or units scattered around the country (we see also that in the 1939 Scenario). About the first case, for instance, the Soviets had +118 Motor Rifle Divisions (that would give +/-39 Mechanized Corps), but many were Level 2 and 3. Level one is +90%, Level 2 around 75%, Level 3 around 50% (if my memory doesn’t fail me, still didn’t do the USSR). So, in this case, the Equipment is there, but the men aren’t. The units must be refilled, MPPs spent (and the MPPs are never enough). So most of the Soviet units in Eastern Europe (East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia), Afghanistan and the Paratroops will be around 9/10 but in Western Russia and in the Chinese border around 7/8 (Level 2), and Central Asia around 5 (Level 3). This delays the Soviet initial capacity for some turns, and they can’t attack all the places at the same time, overrunning them. But the capacity is there. All the Warsaw Pact Countries will have their units also below strength. Bulgaria and Romania are the worst cases. Poland and East Germany will be better. Also on the NATO side the units don’t have all their full strength. But the US, UK, units in Germany (and maybe the US in South Korea) are better that the ones in the respective countries (9 versus 6 or 7).

Also outside Europe, some minors have some potential capacity, but will need MPPs from the major, to see their units becoming fully operational (money to pay the troops, ammunitions, logistical issues…), so the major will have to decide if wants to reinforce the front units that are currently fighting, or begin to strength other places around the world. Because even at level 10 the previous under strength units will have to recover the morale and effectiveness for a couple of turns.

So, at least initially, in some third world war theatres we will see a war of the poor. Both sides have units in place, but no effective offensive capacity until the major looks to that theatre of war, maybe bringing HQs, and reinforcing with MMPs the units.
So the “too little capacity, but too much potential” is intentional and often I hope that generate strategic decisions. Bring up to strength forces in place A or place B on the other side of the World?

(France had this under strength problem in the 1939 Scenario – I mention often this scenario because it was the scenario that I played more).

Cluttering the map is a concern, but that is also because I join units to corps and divisions as much as I can. If I downsize the units (using more brigades and divisions), to bring them to full strength, we will have smaller units later and will create initially offensive capacity were there isn’t or shouldn’t be none. And in general terms the Soviet Bloc will be better prepared, for instance, Cuban units are at 9 and have experience 1, so they can be fully prepared for a US invasion. Also Israel and South Africa are at these high levels, so an initial momentum can be created in some areas, while others can be a slum for some turns.

Obviously, this is the current plan, and all can go down if this doesn’t work as expected.

(in reply to The Land)
Post #: 48
RE: WW3 – 1985 – A project - 4/19/2020 10:32:50 AM   
Tulius Hostilius

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 4/2/2020
Status: offline
For instance, I mentioned the US forces in Korea previously… I am working on alphabetical order, so the USA, USSR and UK will be among the last to be studied and done, but the USA had a strong Infantry division in Korea (and a SAM Brigade). If I recall correctly there were more than 20.000 men. Should I use a Division at level 10 or even 11, or a Corps at level 6/7/8? The second option is probably better in defensive terms, and will allow quick reinforcements, if it isn’t overrunned by the initial North Korean offensive. So I still don't know the answer.

(in reply to Tulius Hostilius)
Post #: 49
RE: WW3 – 1985 – A project - 4/19/2020 12:34:58 PM   
Tulius Hostilius

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 4/2/2020
Status: offline
Country Profile: Egypt

CIA Report [classified]

Armed forces: 300.000. Reserves 500.000. Paramilitary 120.000. 3 Regional Corps (1 with the Delta, Lower Nile, Western frontier, and Training, the other two in the frontier with Israel), with 2 Armoured Divisions (each with 1 Armoured, 2 Mechanized, and 1 artillery Brigade), 3 Mechanized Divisions (each with 2 Mechanized and 1 Artillery Brigade), 5 Infantry Divisions (each with 2 Brigades), Republican Guard Brigade (Divisional Strength), 3 Independent Armoured Brigades), 7 Independent Infantry Brigades, 2 Airmobile Brigades, 2 parachute Brigades, 6 Commando Groups, 6 Artillery Brigades, 2 Heavy Mortar Brigades, 2 ATGW Brigades, 2 SSM Brigades. Most of the Equipment and concepts are still Soviet, but Egypt in the recent years moved away from the Soviet orbit and approached the West, buying weapons and equipment (M-60, M-113) and changing their army philosophy.

Air Force and Navy under study.

Last data: 1981 (and 1988).

Reliability: Medium.

Conflicts: First Arab–Israeli War (1948–1949); 1951 Anglo–Egyptian War (1951–1952); Suez Crisis (1956); North Yemen Civil War (1962–1967); Six-Day War (1967); War of Attrition (1967–1970); Yom Kippur War (1973); Libyan–Egyptian War (1977); and interventions in the Sand War (1963); Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970); Shaba I (1977).

Sources: Jane’s Pocket Book (1981), Global Security, Wikipedia, Library of Congress Country Studies.

In-game armed forces proposal I: 1 Tank (7), 2 Mechanized (7), 1 Paratroop (6), 2 Corps (7), 1 ATGW (5), 1 Field Artillery (5).

In-game diplomatic situation: USA minor, 10% Mobilization. The major obstacle for a better approximation between Egypt and the USA is still the USA support to Israel.

In-game Events: As for most of the Arab countries, the more offensive and victorious Israel is, the more Egypt moves away from the USA.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Tulius Hostilius -- 4/19/2020 12:53:05 PM >

(in reply to Tulius Hostilius)
Post #: 50
RE: WW3 – 1985 – A project - 4/19/2020 1:24:48 PM   
nnason


Posts: 473
Joined: 3/4/2016
From: Washington DC Metro Area
Status: offline
All,
There is plenty of good references to the sizes and capabilities of most of the potential belligerents in WWIII for 1985.

When I attended the Command and Staff College there was no better reference to USSR's overall organization, strategy, and tactics than:
"Inside the Soviet Army" by Viktor Suvorov a Soviet intelligence officer defector. published 1982 by Macmillian Pup. Co. Inc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Suvorov



_____________________________

Live Long and Prosper,
Noah Nason
LTC Field Artillery
US Army Retired

(in reply to Tulius Hostilius)
Post #: 51
RE: WW3 – 1985 – A project - 4/19/2020 4:13:14 PM   
Tulius Hostilius

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 4/2/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: nnason
All,
There is plenty of good references to the sizes and capabilities of most of the potential belligerents in WWIII for 1985.

When I attended the Command and Staff College there was no better reference to USSR's overall organization, strategy, and tactics than:
"Inside the Soviet Army" by Viktor Suvorov a Soviet intelligence officer defector. published 1982 by Macmillian Pup. Co. Inc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Suvorov


Hi Nnason, thanks!

I have that book and also Suvorov’s “Inside Soviet Military Intelligence”. He mostly writes about Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, if I am not mistaken. I confess that I didn’t read all the book. I will take another look to it again when I begin the Soviet Union. I recall some interesting chapters: “Why did the Soviet Tanks not threaten Romania?” or “Why are there 20 Soviet Divisions in Germany but only 5 in Czechoslovakia?”

I think that, in general, I have almost enough bibliography to make the approximate OOBs. The issue is that my main tool is from 1981, and others are from 1987 to 1989, so there is a gap there. Anyway it is possible to have an approximate idea. Since the 1981 makes some prognosis and the later works have a historical set.

Honestly my main concerns now are the graphics and the scripts. For OOB the information exists, even if often is dispersed and for other (close) years. From Surotov0s to the Osprey books, to the NATO and Warsaw Pact OOB available online by Andy Johnson, the ones that I am using most (Jane’s Pocket Book (1981), Global Security, Wikipedia, Library of Congress Country Studies).

And, if I make a major mistake, I hope the community here can correct me.

(in reply to nnason)
Post #: 52
RE: WW3 – 1985 – A project - 4/19/2020 4:23:22 PM   
Tulius Hostilius

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 4/2/2020
Status: offline
Country Profile: El Salvador

KGB Report [classified]

Armed forces: 6000, Approx. 3 Infantry “Brigades” (each with two Battalions), 1 artillery Brigade (under strength), 1 AA Battalion, 1 parachute company, 2 Ranger Companies, Engineer and support companies.

Last data: 1981.

Reliability: Medium.

Conflicts: Football War (1969); Ongoing Civil War (1979-1992).

Sources: Jane’s Pocket Book (1981), Global Security, Wikipedia, Library of Congress Country Studies.

In-game armed forces proposal I: 1 Garrison (5).

In-game diplomatic situation: USA minor, 10% Mobilization.

In-game Events: The country will switch sides a few weeks after fully conquered for a MPP cost. If Peru enters in the war, Ecuador will move slightly to the opposite faction. Unrest in the country with terrorist and guerrilla attacks.

(in reply to Tulius Hostilius)
Post #: 53
RE: WW3 – 1985 – A project - 4/19/2020 6:50:07 PM   
Tulius Hostilius

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 4/2/2020
Status: offline
Country Profile: Ethiopia

CIA Report [classified]

Armed forces: With approx. 250.000 personal the Army it is one of the biggest of Africa, Five Armies with 6 to 12 Infantry Divisions. 1 Mechanized Division. 1 Light Division (with two Parachute brigades which are probably not fully airborne trained). The Equipment is Soviet, although there is still some old US equipment in use. There was something around 17000 Cubans in the country, that may have dropped to 3000-6900 by 1984-5, as well as 2400 Soviets advisors, 550 East Germans and an unknown number of South Yemenis, North Koreans, and possibly Libyans, also Israelis after 1989. The Soviets have access to the naval bases of Massawa and Assab. and military installations in the Islands of Dahlak that control the Red Sea.

Furthermore, by 1980 the People's Militia numbered 150,000 troops organized into ten divisions and supplemented the army. Tension between regular army and People's Militia units exist on all fighting fronts.

Air Force: Some old US F-86 fighters and F-5A/B/E fighters may still operate, but since 1977 the Soviet Union supplied aircraft and instructors to Ethiopia. There are some 150 combat aircraft, most of them Soviet-manufactured fighter-bombers. A small number of the aircraft were transports and armed helicopters. The air force's tactical organization included seven fighter-ground attack squadrons, one transport squadron, and one training squadron. Approximately seventy-nine helicopters

By 1991 the navy had two frigates, eight missile craft, six torpedo craft, six patrol boats, two amphibious craft, and two support/training craft.

Since the 1974’s revolution the left wing Derg took power and by 1977 become a Soviet Proxy. The Soviet abandoned their regional ally, Somalia, and begun to support Ethiopia.

Last data: 1981 (and 1989, 1991).

Reliability: Low.

Conflicts: Ogaden War (1977–1978); Ethiopian–Somali Border War (1982); Eritrean War of Independence (1961–1991); Ethiopian Civil War (1974–1991);

Note: In the years of 1983-5 the country had a huge famine.

Sources: Jane’s Pocket Book (1981), Global Security, Wikipedia, Library of Congress Country Studies.

In-game armed forces proposal I: 5 Infantry Corps (6, Revolutionary Armies in the Ethiopian designation, The 1st Revolutionary Army in Harar, 2nd Revolutionary Army in Asmara, 3rd Revolutionary Army in Kembolcha, 4th Revolutionary Army in Nekemte, and 5th Revolutionary Army in Gondar); 1 Paratroops (6), 1 Light Tanks (5, T-34 and T-55). 1 Patrol Boat (10). Air force under study.

In-game diplomatic situation: USSR minor, 99% Mobilization.

In-game Events: Huge famine in 1985 that drains resources (supply). Guerrillas in Eritrea and Ogaden. Internal Unrest. Border tension with Somalia. Occasional desertions and unrest in the army.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Tulius Hostilius)
Post #: 54
RE: WW3 – 1985 – A project - 4/20/2020 1:58:38 AM   
Tulius Hostilius

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 4/2/2020
Status: offline
Meanwhile, not all is OOBs and placement of the units… I must begin to thing in other things… for now I changed the colour of the NATO icons (still using the originals), of the Soviet Bloc minors from gray to red… the map with the units looks much better now. See this comparing with the picture above:




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Tulius Hostilius)
Post #: 55
RE: WW3 – 1985 – A project - 4/25/2020 2:25:44 PM   
Tulius Hostilius

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 4/2/2020
Status: offline
Country Profile: Fiji

See also: Non-Aligned Movement (country merged in this “country”/organization).

UN Report [classified]

Armed forces: 750. 1 Infantry Battalion with a territorial reserve that can provide more men.

Last data: 1981.

Reliability: Medium.

Conflicts: The Fijian army participates in the UNIFIL.

Sources: Jane’s Pocket Book (1981), Global Security, Wikipedia, Library of Congress Country Studies.

In-game armed forces proposal I: None.

In-game diplomatic situation: Neutral, 0% Mobilization. Belongs to the Non-Aligned Movement.

In-game Events: n/d


**********************************************************

Country Profile: Finland

UN Report [classified]

Armed forces: In peacetime there are 34.000+700.000 Reserves (30.000 are retrained every year), with 7 Military Areas with 1 Infantry Brigade in each. Six independent infantry Battalions posted in some difficult area, such as Lapland and along the coast. The equipment is predominantly Soviet.

Air Force and Navy under study.

Last data: 1981.

Reliability: Medium.

Conflicts: Participates in UN missions.

Sources: Jane’s Pocket Book (1981), Global Security, Wikipedia, Library of Congress Country Studies.

In-game armed forces proposal I: 6 Divisions (2 with 9, 4 with 7), 1 HQ (8), 1 Mechanized (7), 1 SAM (9), 2 Garrions. My option was a middle term between the peacetime and the wartime situation, enlarging slightly the 7 Military Areas.

In-game diplomatic situation: Neutral, 0% Mobilization.

In-game Events: WIP.


< Message edited by Tulius Hostilius -- 4/25/2020 2:26:11 PM >

(in reply to Tulius Hostilius)
Post #: 56
RE: WW3 – 1985 – A project - 5/3/2020 10:31:54 AM   
erikbengtsson

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 3/29/2020
Status: offline
Very interesting. Looking forward to seeing more.

(in reply to Tulius Hostilius)
Post #: 57
RE: WW3 – 1985 – A project - 5/3/2020 9:17:35 PM   
Tulius Hostilius

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 4/2/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: erikbengtsson

Very interesting. Looking forward to seeing more.


Thanks! Currently seeing the scripts and trying to understand them, making a pause in the OOBs.

(in reply to erikbengtsson)
Post #: 58
RE: WW3 – 1985 – A project - 5/3/2020 11:59:13 PM   
satchel


Posts: 18
Joined: 9/26/2001
From: Fort Smith, Ark. USA
Status: offline
quote:

Tulius Hostilius—
I need flags for the time period.


quote:

Tulius Hostilius—
I will need help...for the NATO graphics...and for the 1980’s flags


Tulius, I'd like to help you with the flags and the NATO unit graphics.

I'll need your guidance, on some logistical details. I have an overall plan in mind, for meeting the goal of modifying the flags and NATO-style unit graphics.

I hesitate to write my technical comments and questions here, because I don't want to impose upon your thread.

Yet I would be happy to exchange ideas in this thread, and to keep basic communications public, so that a record of our work would be available for the sake of providing information to others who seek to mod the game. It is your decision.

I am ready to proceed, and I want to conduct our potential collaboration in the manner that suits you best.

(in reply to Tulius Hostilius)
Post #: 59
RE: WW3 – 1985 – A project - 5/4/2020 12:06:50 PM   
Tulius Hostilius

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 4/2/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: satchel

quote:

Tulius Hostilius—
I need flags for the time period.


quote:

Tulius Hostilius—
I will need help...for the NATO graphics...and for the 1980’s flags


Tulius, I'd like to help you with the flags and the NATO unit graphics.

I'll need your guidance, on some logistical details. I have an overall plan in mind, for meeting the goal of modifying the flags and NATO-style unit graphics.

I hesitate to write my technical comments and questions here, because I don't want to impose upon your thread.

Yet I would be happy to exchange ideas in this thread, and to keep basic communications public, so that a record of our work would be available for the sake of providing information to others who seek to mod the game. It is your decision.

I am ready to proceed, and I want to conduct our potential collaboration in the manner that suits you best.


Hi satchel,

Outstanding!!!! Really quite happy!

I send you a PM.

(in reply to satchel)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII: World at War >> MODS and Scenarios >> RE: WW3 – 1985 – A project Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.199