Favorite campaign concepts?

[Mgellis]

Hoping to start a good discussion...

Aside from "And then, to no one's real surprise, it was WORLD WAR 3!" campaigns, what are your favorite alternate history campaigns? What concepts really grab you? Or what's a concept you're hoping someone tackles someday?

A second Korean war? Twenty or thirty or forty years after the first one?

Another Taiwan Strait crisis? Or an actual invasion of Taiwan by China?

A second Falklands War?

Greece vs. Turkey?

Another India vs. Pakistan war?

Something else?

[TBLackey]

1. Scenarios that use tactics of battles previously fought in the same location, but modernized are cool. They are rooted in the historical accounts, adding to the realism.

Example, how about the 1943 Kursk tank battle, except its 2025 and Ukraine takes the place of the Germans?

2. Everyone wants to play as their own country and be heroes and save the day.

In terms of Steam at least players come from these countries:

https://store.steampowered.com/stats/content/

i.e make scenarios playing as USA or China, or another country that uses Steam a lot.

3. Take a work of fiction and turn it in to a CMO scenario

Here's a concept I am thinking about, from the 2024 film Civil War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_War_(film)

The President has taken a third term in office. As a result the United States has split apart into the federal loyalist government, and three different blocs of rebel states.

Concerned about this civil war in the United States, His Majesty the King has requested that UK armed forces guarantee the sovereignty of his Commonwealth Realm of Canada. Canadian Armed Forces, British Army and RAF units are arrayed along the USA-Canada border.

As the rebel forces gain ground, they begin to encroach on the Minuteman ICBM fields in Wyoming, North Dakota and Montana. The federal government is uncertain it can hold these states against rebel advances. ICBMs in the hands of rebel factions of uncertain motivation presents a grave risk to the global order. As such, the UN Security Council and the federal government resolve to charge the United Kingdom with immediately taking over custodianship of the ICBM fields, deploying forces out of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Will the rebel forces respect the mandate of the UK armed forces? That remains to be seen....

[HalfLifeExpert]

In terms of specific campaigns I'd like to see made I have three main answers:

1) Historical Vietnam Campaign, covering some of the highlight operations of the war, especially since there really isn't a lot of scenarios of that war. There is room for some hypotheticals as well, such as something akin to Linebacker I happening in 1965/6 rather than 1972, or a surprise Chinese Intervention against Yankee Station

2) An "Exercise" campaign of sorts, where it actually involves a "simulated" campaign between friendly forces of the same nation/coalition, something like the USN Fleet Problems of the interwar years or the Red Arrow campaign of Jane's USAF.

The relatively new area creator tool can easily be used to create fictitious nations/coasts in given exercise areas in the real world to simulate "hypothetical" OPFOR forces and battlespaces. Command's limited ability to edit the properties of certain platforms can be used to make interesting adjustments to certain ships, etc. to try and simulate something the "other side" has, and can also make use of any captured or purchased equipment by the other guy's standards (I.e. all the Soviet pattern equipment the US got from Egypt in the 1980s)

3) For an alternate history campaign, I'd be interested in a balkanization of the USSR, where the Soviet system goes down violently/chaotically, with many new nations popping up. Something akin to AlternateHistoryHub's "Fallout Wars" which follow a hypothetical WORSE Chernobyl accident: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feOlqEMKivY

[Mgellis]

Interesting. Few surprises (along with the US and China, the big ones appear to be Russia, Australia, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Spain, Japan, and Brazil) but good to know. Thanks.

2. Everyone wants to play as their own country and be heroes and save the day.

In terms of Steam at least players come from these countries:

https://store.steampowered.com/stats/content/

i.e make scenarios playing as USA or China, or another country that uses Steam a lot.

[kahta]

Hoping to start a good discussion...

Aside from "And then, to no one's real surprise, it was WORLD WAR 3!" campaigns, what are your favorite alternate history campaigns? What concepts really grab you? Or what's a concept you're hoping someone tackles someday?

A second Korean war? Twenty or thirty or forty years after the first one?

Another Taiwan Strait crisis? Or an actual invasion of Taiwan by China?

A second Falklands War?

Greece vs. Turkey?

Another India vs. Pakistan war?

Something else?

I've been working on one for a few months now. A description from chatgpt is as follows:


Oceanic Horizons is an alternate Cold War history marked by heightened global tensions, shifting alliances, and unprecedented military buildups by both NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The Soviet Union avoids internal collapse, embracing reforms and doubling its naval shipbuilding capacity, producing advanced supercarriers, battlecruisers, and submarines, while NATO modernizes with advanced radar, missile defense systems, and joint exercises. Key alliances shift dramatically, with Turkey joining the Warsaw Pact and Iceland, Norway, and Denmark withdrawing from NATO to adopt neutral stances. The Middle East becomes a flashpoint, with Iraq rising as a dominant Gulf power, countering Soviet-backed Iran and Syria. Meanwhile, Africa sees brutal proxy conflicts fueled by resource exploitation, and Latin America becomes a battleground for insurgencies. As the 1990s progress, the world edges closer to direct confrontation, with both blocs fortifying strategic territories and deploying cutting-edge military technologies, from electronic warfare to nuclear-powered carriers, in preparation for a potential global conflict.

[djoos5]

I have had a scenario in suspension since CMANO, based on the Cauldron novel by Larry Bond.

The situation is based on a united Germany and France called (EurCom) that begins to strong-arm the neighboring nations - Poland, Hungary, etc. In an attempt to bring Poland under their compact, a French Spec Force mines some ships in Gdansk and basically starts the war. The United States makes its alliance with Poland (along with England) against the combined military strength of Germany and France.

I built the original scenario as one big battle, but it needs to be rebuilt as a series of scenarios. It is on my list to do, but I just haven't put in the time.

Anyway - if someone else had the gumption, that would be a pick for me.

[fitzpatv]

I agree that more could be done on the Vietnam War (perhaps its own DLC) and maybe the Korean War, too.

One idea that's occurred to me is a conflict that stems from global resource shortages and some nations' desire to protect the environment. Perhaps a Democrat government in Washington issues a Bolsonaro-style Brazil with an ultimatum over destroying the Amazon, which is refused, leading to US military action to bring about regime change. This could draw in other Latin American nations, Russia, China etc.

[JFS737]

I am really enjoying the new "logistics" possibilities made possible by the numerous CARGO ops improvements. I think all scenarios should include basic logistics... and the ability to interdict. This I find far more challenging, engaging and difficult. I'm working on a scenario, but I've designed none and am finding it daunting (I'm learning LUA !).

Still, making ships, airfields and aircraft dependent on re-supply or just initial supply or movement of weapons and other items is very intriguing, and moving ground units in order to achieve objectives is similarly rewarding. Defending against such is thus super important as well. Possibilities!

[SunlitZelkova]

One concept I've thought about examining is a Second Russo-Japanese War. It would involve Japan trying to retake the Kuril Islands.

A serious issue is how to realistically get Japan to attack Russia. I've thought about points of divergence stretching all the way back to the 1960s, but none of them were very convincing.

My main focus nowadays, not so much on actually building a campaign but doing research related to politics and OOBs, tactics, etc., is US and friends vs. China over Taiwan, and separately, US and friends vs. North Korea. The latter is very hard to make into a campaign because a war in Korea would be extremely ground oriented. I've done testing for an initial scenario involving a battle around Baengnyong Island, but having two sides exchange artillery can really slow down a scenario.

I know you said besides WWIII, but one of my past research projects revolved around a US-led attempt to destroy the USSR before it could build a big nuclear arsenal, beginning in 1950. I still have the materials related to it, but I haven't revisited it much. Because aerial and naval combat in 1950 was still very similar to World War II, it is very difficult to make scenarios based on that era, at least ones that satisfy me. Gun-based naval tactics don't work as they should, and the universal turboprop engine model, coupled with flight models being suited to jet combat, makes combat between the widespread prop aircraft of the time a little underwhelming.

That campaign is also heavily lopsided in favor of the Soviets. They already had a huge force of MiG-15s, and the Cambridge Five were still active and may very well have provided advanced warning to the Soviets of such a large operation.

[turmoil]

I am really enjoying the new "logistics" possibilities made possible by the numerous CARGO ops improvements. I think all scenarios should include basic logistics... and the ability to interdict. This I find far more challenging, engaging and difficult. I'm working on a scenario, but I've designed none and am finding it daunting (I'm learning LUA !).

Still, making ships, airfields and aircraft dependent on re-supply or just initial supply or movement of weapons and other items is very intriguing, and moving ground units in order to achieve objectives is similarly rewarding. Defending against such is thus super important as well. Possibilities!

This! I don't really know of many (still working) scenarios that look at the sustainment of forces over the course of a month or something where you have to balance risk to make sure you still have forces available to you by the end of the scenario. I have no doubt they would be complicated scenarios to create but any modern conflict revolves around logistics and it rarely get a decent showing. Particularly when we consider that most Western militaries don't maintain enough stockpiles for an extended conflict beyond COIN ops and basic deterrence (even then...).

It's also interesting to me the speed at which these supplies and reinforcements could even be brought into theatre.

[bladesinger79]

With all the realistic crazy going on, you almost can't go wrong with a long campaign war in the Middle East and Africa. Iran has always tested people's patience due to arrogance and a large support form Russia. Their sponsorship of terrorism and a consistent pushing in the Persian Gulf is due to spark a fire sooner or later.

There are about ten or so conflicts going on in the African Continent. Northern Africa has political upheavals left and right, with terrorism in the mix. Western Africa has the Boko Haram causing hell on civilians. Central Africa has the longest running wars that nobody talks about. Eastern Africa has a bunch of flare ups due to the Houthi rebels and political strife in Eritria. Somalia and Sudan continues to be a mess.

I personally enjoy a long running campaign with everything thrown in. Air, ground, naval units along with logistics and so on. For example: In Northern Fury #8 (I think), I'll take the invasion of Iceland and run a full length ground campaign of NATO forces fighting against the Russian air assault until relief comes in. Another one I'm working on for personal use is Iran going ape-sheit in the Middle East against practically everyone as an extension of the Fury series there. I dislike scenarios that continues to introduce the same stuff I blew up in the previous missions.

[kch]

I really enjoy the Baltic as a location. Nice balance between sea and land, with plenty of different types of force structures close (Swedes, Finns, Norwegians, Danes, Poles, Germans, Russians etc etc) ... also an area with tonnes of traffic that should complicate things.

I like smallish linked scenarios. While it is fun to have a tonne of assets on hand, then it just feels a bit too optimistic that you have that amount of resources ready.

I prefer not too have too much land combat, since think the artillery / fire exchanges as they are modelled right now on land are way too precise and destructive. Also since suppression isnt a thing in the game, then land units tend to quickly fight each other to the death instead of tiring out, pulling back, hiding etc etc.

[tylerblakebrandon]

I'm like scenarios and possibly campaigns based around smaller nations. As...

1. Some countries don't get a lot of play attention, especially as the central participant.

2, Limited resources create challenging play.

3. Your resource limitations don't mean threats to you are limited.

[FrangibleCover]

I'm poking fitfully at a campaign based around the Angolan Civil War, although I'm running into issues of scale - Most actions simply don't involve enough forces to make an interesting, challenging scenario. Command is also a little too lethal to do it properly, a 2v2 fighter combat tends to end in two or three aircraft down instead of the usual historical result of one aircraft down and everyone else fleeing. The strike components are similar - Most historical raids involve the fighters not realising the bombers are there, the SAMs missing the bombers, the bombers missing the target and everyone going home shamefaced

In terms of what I want to do though, I want the campaign to act as something of an educational piece about the conflict. Being able to study the challenges and solutions of the real conflict through the lens of the game is great, I think. I'm much more interested in historical or quasi-historical (another on my list is the Harrier Force in Germany for the first twelve hours of WW3) scenarios than having a carrier group smash up a random country.

[zacklaws]

A long time ago, I created a couple of scenario's based on Vietnam, around the " Rolling Thunder" 1968 and "Linebacker" 1972 periods.

I found all the airbases in use for both sides and populated them with all the aircraft and squadrons etc for them time frames. I also did the same with the US navy stationed offshore and any other assets like "Red Crown", stationed offshore. Also "Search and Rescue" assets onshore and offshore was built into the scenario.

All targets in North Vietnam and below the DMZ on the " Trail" were built into the scenario, bridges, radar sites, factories, Sam and AA sites, docks all as accurately as possible, convoys on the trails etc. Vietnamese aircraft had missions created for them so that there was a constant air threat over North Vietnam.

Then it became a situation of whilst playing the US side, what target shall I go for and plan it from take off, refuelling and to landing, it could be, B52's carpet bombing the Ho Chi Mihn trail which would have North vietnamese AA units on, convoys slowly moving etc which had been found by special forces etc that I had positioned or even a couple of F4's on a "Search and Destroy" mission looking for enemy ground forces, ammo dumps etc which are on the "Trail". The target could be a bridge in North Vietnam with land based F105's bombing and F4's providing CAP mixed in with SEAD strikes. Or the same with A4 skyhawks and Corsairs etc doing the same, or mining the harbours, or a coastal bombardment by ships. The possibilities were endless and I was always adusting things and adding things as I discovered more about the periods.

At the end of the scenario I played, I never saved them so losses were never taken into account for the next mission. A mission was succesful if the target was destroyed and it was not always guaranteed as heavy AA fire and Sam launches and North Vietnamese air cover could lead to mission aborts which would mean, another attempt on the target with different tactics. Usually, as well, I was always adding to the scenario's by just adding ground units and even would have contacts with friendly forces so that I could replicate "Broken Arrow" scenario's by any aircraft just "Flying around".

Basically, that is the type of campaign I like and if I looked at the campaign diaries, I could emulate what happened on a certain day.

[ParachuteProne]

I like scenarios that don't necessarily start out as a war but can escalate.
Clandestine stuff. Something with a story line.

A sunken submarine or ship that two sides are trying to find. DSRV's or ROV's

A crew from a lost ship, aircraft or submarine need to be recovered. (A use for CSAR units)

A ship is held hostage, needs help. Boarding (Not in game right now )

A lost nuke to be searched and possibly fought over.

A ship carrying dangerous cargo needs to be found.

Or intelligence suggests a ship may be cutting cables etc. This could involve divers, DSRV's or ROV's etc.
(Don't know how you would do it ? )

Some thing where special forces or a spy need to be deployed, reach an objective and be picked up avoiding combat.

Things like that. Things we may never hear about in real life but happen. ie "a modern Clear and present danger" type scenario.

Would be nice if we had boarding, CSAR, the ability to search for sunk platforms using DSRV's, ROV's etc. in the game.

Scenarios with limited resources as they take place in remote areas would be interesting.

[hellfish6]

This is well beyond my scripting/lua abilities, but I always loved the idea of making a military on a budget. Like if there was a way to have a campaign/long scenario where you're basically the new minister of defense for country X and you have A, B, and C nations as potential threats and your job is to be prepared to fight them (and then fight them, if need be). Some non-combat options to either affect deterrence (have your ships remain in this area off their coast for X days), neighborly relations (counter piracy ops or port visits increase your reputation, hostile VBSS might decrease them), etc. Buy ships and aircraft and munitions for them. Bonus points for being able to invest in training or having to pay for fuel/maintenance...

[ThunderCBR]

Longer scenarios where you are acting as a JTF or theater commander at the operational level of war rather than strictly the tactical, allowing the user time to establish their battle plan, maneuver their forces, etc rather than being engaged immediately upon starting the scenario (if applicable).

When building these larger scenarios I also like to make sure the player has options, like should I go left or go right based on the current intel assessments, etc.

Long duration scenarios where logistics come into play forcing the player to make decisions. Do I separate the CVN from the group and do a speed run to get into position faster but leave the escorts behind while they are refueling or keep the group together and risk the enemy being in a better position?

Scenarios that really force the player to think about EMCON, deception oops, and hide their forces a la Red Storm Rising. Like yeah, I can launch an AWACS or turn on my radars and easily detect the opposing force, but then they'll bring down a world of hurt on me if I do.

A LOT of randomization for the OPFOR for replayability. Changing starting positions, and even LUA scripting to change their overall strategy like shifting from a defensive to an offensive strategy is really cool and I'm trying to build that into all scenarios. This really ensures that no two players should have the same experience (within reason).

Personal pet peeve: keeping score. As a retired military officer I can't stand the way people try to keep score since war is not a game where you simply add up points to see if you won or lost. The "scoring" system should be if you meet your sides strategic objectives or not and leave it to the player to decide if they really won or lost the battle.