![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Well, the GDW Iran had a moderate and pro-western sort of government. Some Iranians might take up arms against everyone, but I'd think the Soviet invaders would be seen as a bigger threat than the western support (especially since in the T2K timeline the Soviets were still "waging war against Islam" in Afghanistan, if I remember right).
The other thing to remember in the T2K timeline is that Israel and the Palestinians reached some sort of amicable settlement. I'd guess that at the peak of the conventional war, a larger IDF expeditionary than is shown in theater circa 2000 was on the scene, after they settled their slugging match with Syria. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
On the Soviet side, the units available are apparently less than reliable with a number of units only held in check by the KGB units shoving them forward. In that environment, I don't see a huge need for a strong western presence to create the situation we're presented with.
The whole region though is a bit of a mess with what appears to be several different factions within the same nationality (looking predominately at the locals here). We've also got the French in the background too which can only help the western cause (because they're mostly unaffected by the greater world war). Might not have a lot of troops on the ground and in the front lines, but just the threat of them post winter 97-98 is likely to put a check on Pact offensive intentions (or at least make the commanders think twice about it).
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Guess it all boils down to what the GM feels most comfortable with. I perfer to go with a reinforced CENTCOM and a larger Iranian Army. I also go with a more even mix as far as the Soviets go. Wargaming it out allows for a more balanced fight. Roleplaying it allows for more options for the players.
But I still question the DoDs choice of units for the RDF. It always stank too much of "we have all of these Light Divisions, now how can we publicize them?"
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Also, with regards to the Commonwealth, whilst it's possible that Commonwealth members would send troops to the Middle East (or Korea and Hong Kong for that matter), I think it's important to note that the Commonwealth now is completely different to what it was at the start of the Second World War when the UK declared War on Germany and various Commonwealth members duly followed suit in line with the Mother Country. Commonwealth members now are all independent states (I think their only tie is that they retain the Queen as their Head of State), so would be under no obligation to enter WW3 as a belligerent on the Allied side (Canada is an obvious exception as it is also a member of NATO). I'm not saying that it wouldn't happen and the Commonwealth nations wouldn't answer the mother country's call, just it's not something that I would take for granted. As ever, my comments based primarily on a V1 timeline, although whilst canon mentions various Commonwealth members fighting "local" Wars, e.g. India fighting Pakistan and (I think) Australia fighting Indonesia I don't believe there's anything in canon for either version to confirm one way or the other whether any of them - other than Canada - were active participants in the "Global" War? Quote:
Granted, I am probably biased here - I much preferred the sort of scenario put forward in Harold Coyle's Sword Point to the one portrayed in the RDF Sourcebook.
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor’s Guide to the United Kingdom |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Mind you, you could perhaps stretch British deployments slightly if you didn't have two Battalions sitting in Canada...
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor’s Guide to the United Kingdom |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I've always felt that with the example of the Sino-Soviet War, that NATO would have, at the very least, increased its readiness levels, reactivated some units, brought Reserve units up to a higher level of training. So I can see the two battalions maining the training area, but I can also see at least a handful of regiments being reactivated (no more than 4-7), that's where my extra forces come from.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor’s Guide to the United Kingdom |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|