Persia in the Twilight War

[Raellus]

Have any of you ever played in or run a T2K campaign set in Iran? How'd it go?

I was looking through the King's Ransom module and it looks like a pretty fun campaign setting. Like Poland, the military situation is pretty dynamic. There are lots of "factions" vying for control- Americans, Soviets, pro-western and pro-Soviet Iranians, Islamic Fundamentalists, Royalists, marauders. Unlike Poland, there's a more centralized American military command (not necessarily a good thing) and relatively ample supplies of real gasoline. So, add more AFVs and a handful of aircraft to the mix.

I understand that both superpowers want the oilfields for their strategic military and domestic reconstruction efforts. The Soviets can pipe the oil into the USSR overland. How is the U.S. getting it back to the U.S. and/or its forces in Europe? It seems like the Soviets would be concentrating their remaining air and sea assets to make sure as few tankers got out of the Persian Gulf as possible. What good is all that gas if you can't move it anywhere (the Road Warrior's quandry ).

What role does Iraq play? Seems like it could go a couple of ways depending on whether your T2K Universe had a Gulf War I or not. Are the other oilfields and refineries of the Persian Gulf nuked? I should probably look it up in the v1 strategic background. On the other hand, King's Ransom and the v1 U.S. Vehicle Guide make multiple mention of American units being sent to Saudi Arabia for refitting or R&R.

If the Middle East's other oil-producing regions have been nuked to hell, that would explain why both sides are committed to Iran.

What are the regional nuke targets? There's probably a list in the v2.2 rulebook. Are there others I should know about?

Last question, what other NATO forces (if any) are in Iran. None are mentioned in KR, but it does specifically refer to NATO a couple of times, implying that more than just American troops are operating there. I'd hate for there not to be any other substantial NATO forces in Iran. I like how you can have characters from just about any European country in Polish campaigns. I wouldn't want to be limited in that regard in a Persian Gulf campaign.

Anyway, I'm eager to read your Twilight experiences in the Persian Gulf.

[Rainbow Six]

I played in an Iran campaign twenty or so years ago right after our group got a copy of the RDF sourcebook; PC's were a group of Special Forces types who linked up with a pro US group of Iranian fighters. (And yes, I openly admit we were were munchkins - it was a long time ago! The idea was to give the European GM (me) a chance to be a player, whilst one of the players GM'd an Iran campaign)

It went OK, but it was more structured than the Polish campaign we were used to...there was an chain of command that the group were supposed to observe, things were much more organised...we gave it a shot for a little while, but consenus was that everyone in the group preferred the more fluid style of campaign that we had going in Poland so we drifted back to that after a while. You said that a centralisec hain of command wasn't neccessarily a good thing and I'd abolutely agree with that....I'd say that we found working within the confines of an organised chain of command a little too stifling.

Iraq if I recall correctly was split into three factions, one backed by the US, one by the USSR, and one by France. From memory I don't think the RDF Sourcebook mentioned specific nuke targets.

Besides the US there was a brigade sized group of British forces present in theatre - one Battalion from the Parachute Regiment, two Ghurka Battalions, plus an Infantry Battalion (the King's Own Scottish Borderers). The French also had a large presence in the area, which included elements of the Foreign Legion. If you can get a hold of a copy of the RDF sourcebook it has a full order of battle for most of the forces in the area (I don't think it covers all of the Gulf Cooperative Council States' armies).

One thing I did have a hard time accepting at the time though was the presence of an Israeli Brigade in theatre. I always thought it was stretching credibility to have the Iranians accepting the US as allies, but having Israeli troops in the region allied with the Arab armies was pushing it too far for me.

As an aside, if you're thinking about running anything in that region, I'd recommend reading Sword Point, Harold Coyle's second novel; it's set against a Soviet invasion of Iran and the US response, and as well as being a good read has a couple of good ideas for scenarios in it.

[Raellus]

Thanks for the insight, Rainbow. That's exactly what I'm looking for.

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

One thing I did have a hard time accepting at the time though was the presence of an Israeli Brigade in theatre. I always thought it was stretching credibility to have the Iranians accepting the US as allies, but having Israeli troops in the region allied with the Arab armies was pushing it too far for me.

I agree. Very few self-respecting Pan-Arabists or Ilsamic Fundamentalists would ever work alongside the Israelis. Saddam was counting on that in '91 when he used Scud attacks against Israel to try and draw them into the war, thus alienating the coalition's Arab contingents. The U.S. had to bend over backwards to keep the Israelis from defending themselves (or retaliate) with airstrikes and/or commando raids on northern Iraq. They knew the Saudis, Syrians, and Egyptians would likely bolt if they felt they were providing de facto assistance to Israel. The enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that. Unfortunately, being Jewish/Israeli trumps all other enmities where most Muslims are concerend

Really it makes no sense for Israel to send troops that far afield in a Twilight War scenario. My guess is the game developers wanted to offer the players the opportunity to play as IDF/Israeli characters.

In my Twilight Universe, the Israelis would stay home and mind their own affairs. I'm sure the Syrians and PLO types (at the very least) would give them plenty to do.

I guess it would be reasonable for an undercover IDF SOF detachment and/or a few Mossad types to be operating in Iran, probably with the approval of CENTCOM and "disguised" as American troops. That's as far as I'd go. But an entire IDF formation operating under the Israeli Star of David banner? Not bloody likely.

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

As an aside, if you're thinking about running anything in that region, I'd recommend reading Sword Point, Harold Coyle's second novel; it's set against a Soviet invasion of Iran and the US response, and as well as being a good read has a couple of good ideas for scenarios in it.

Good recommendation. I read it probably twenty or so years ago when I was a teenager. I just acquired a copy of Team Yankee and one by a different author called Red Army, which is pretty highly rated. When I finish those, I'll try to get a good used copy of Sword Point.

[natehale1971]

In my campaign, the Baghdad Pact was the Soviet allied Arabic power bloc fighting in the middle east. Unfortunately, the majority of the Middle Eastern nations where forced into accepting the fact they where fighting on the same side of the Israeli governmnet when they had to ally with the United States. While the bulk (80%) of the Israeli Defense Forces where confined to the Israeli territorial gains. The near collapse of Lebannon thanks to Syrian and Soviet-backed Iraqi forces pushed Isreal into a position sa the liberators as the Lebanese, and turned alot of the Muslim people in the Middle East against the Palestinians when a group of extremists had gotten their hands on a tactical nuke and ended up setting it off near Jeurselem destroying the Temple Mound. The fact that the mosque wasn't destroyed because of IDF troops pushing the SADM far enough away that it didn't completely destroy the area...

It was the Jordanians who first responded with support for the Isrealis to make the first move to crush the fledgling Soviet Equipped Palestinian People's Liberation Army that had been assembling in the area along the Syria-Jordan border. Islamic fundamenalism turned the middle east in my campaign to be the bloodest and most brutal fighting outside of Africa... and the regon that contained the highest casulty rates of the entire war from direct combat (80% or more of the pre-war population died due to fighting, if counting non-combat related deaths Africa was the highest percentage of deaths from rampant diease).

the Middle Eastern campaign for us was really, really brutal. actually put about eighty 'really, really' in front of brutal and you'll hit the tip of the iceberg... The fighting was HORRIBLE. street-to-street fighting and insurgency like we're seeing there right now... that's what happened AFTER the major land battles when the frontlines stablised. Bright Star is a damn good description of an idea of the kind of fighting.. but our campaign was even worse.

after the war was over, the State of Israel ended up growing to inculde Jordan, Lebannon and the Golan Heights. Peace was due to the fact that Isrealis where governed by Isreali laws, Arabic Muslims by their own laws, and the Christians by their own laws. Of course, the redraw of the map of the middle east was massive. almost unrecognizeable by some... one day i'll post the post war world maps i had drew up...

[kato13]

Originally Posted by natehale1971

one day i'll post the post war world maps i had drew up...

Already looking forward to it.

[Raellus]

After skimming through King's Ransom, I'm wondering if maybe the guys that wrote the movie Three Kings might not have played a little T2K.

Are they any other Persian Gulf-based modules? I don't think so but it doesn't to ask.

Used copies of the RDF Sourcebook start at $22. A little steep for me. I can get a legit electronic copy for $6 but I much prefer the ol' fashioned paper and ink. Reading on even a dimmed down computer screen for just a few minutes hurts my eyes.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Are they any other Persian Gulf-based modules? I don't think so but it doesn't to ask.

Nope, King's Ransom was the only one, although there was at least one adventure published in Challenge...my memory is hazy but I think it was something to do with intercepting a Soviet unit that was equipped with a backpack nuke.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

Nope, King's Ransom was the only one, although there was at least one adventure published in Challenge...my memory is hazy but I think it was something to do with intercepting a Soviet unit that was equipped with a backpack nuke.

Correct.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

I played in an Iran campaign twenty or so years ago right after our group got a copy of the RDF sourcebook; PC's were a group of Special Forces types who linked up with a pro US group of Iranian fighters. (And yes, I openly admit we were were munchkins - it was a long time ago! The idea was to give the European GM (me) a chance to be a player, whilst one of the players GM'd an Iran campaign)

It went OK, but it was more structured than the Polish campaign we were used to...there was an chain of command that the group were supposed to observe, things were much more organised...we gave it a shot for a little while, but consenus was that everyone in the group preferred the more fluid style of campaign that we had going in Poland so we drifted back to that after a while. You said that a centralisec hain of command wasn't neccessarily a good thing and I'd abolutely agree with that....I'd say that we found working within the confines of an organised chain of command a little too stifling.

Iraq if I recall correctly was split into three factions, one backed by the US, one by the USSR, and one by France. From memory I don't think the RDF Sourcebook mentioned specific nuke targets.

Besides the US there was a brigade sized group of British forces present in theatre - one Battalion from the Parachute Regiment, two Ghurka Battalions, plus an Infantry Battalion (the King's Own Scottish Borderers). The French also had a large presence in the area, which included elements of the Foreign Legion. If you can get a hold of a copy of the RDF sourcebook it has a full order of battle for most of the forces in the area (I don't think it covers all of the Gulf Cooperative Council States' armies).

One thing I did have a hard time accepting at the time though was the presence of an Israeli Brigade in theatre. I always thought it was stretching credibility to have the Iranians accepting the US as allies, but having Israeli troops in the region allied with the Arab armies was pushing it too far for me.

As an aside, if you're thinking about running anything in that region, I'd recommend reading Sword Point, Harold Coyle's second novel; it's set against a Soviet invasion of Iran and the US response, and as well as being a good read has a couple of good ideas for scenarios in it.

Ah, Sword Point is a great read for anyone who want to run campaigned in the middle east region. Much like Team Yankee would be nice to read too, for nothing else for back ground.

Yes the Isreali Brigades were stretch for me too, especially since many of the countries they were serving in, had supported many of the military campaigns against them, if not active in them.

As for UK and French troops. The French troops were moved there from units they had sent to former Colonies in Africa to help them out. For the UK, the Brigade was an accident, not planned. They sent one or two of the Battalions into the region due to their legacy of sending seconds to the region. The rest of them were deployed after the US deployed there, and were the extent they could send in.

[Abbott Shaull]

One of the great things about the lack of material, is that it does give a GM a lot of room to play with. One of the things, is in this region, the recruitment of locals would be very limited. Many of the excess of the personnel from the US Navy and US Air Force would have been directly absorbed into the Marine Corps and 3rd Army, or their service security forces.

On the other hand you had a very active chain of command. Yet, creative thinking would be required to loosen the strings. Think Kelley's Heroes where the Officer only military connection is his Uncle is a General, and he rather leave the senior NCO in charge. Or think of Lt Dyke of Band of Brothers, who is there, but would spend his time at Higher HQs. With the size of the military it would be likely to find a Platoon/Company in such a state. Also many Platoons would be commanded by NCOs.

Just some thoughts.

[Raellus]

Good points, Abbot.

Since I don't have the RDF SOurcebook, I'm trying to reconstruct the campaign history and theater OOBs using the sources I do have access too. First off, I'm shocked that the v1.0 timeline (as presented in the v1.0 Core Rulebook, at least) makes no mention of the campaign in Iran. The v1.0 U.S. and Soviet Vehicle guides, however, present skeleton OOBs for the theater and feature several color plates of U.S. and Soviet vehicles operating in Iran.

Balance of Forces

One thing that struck me is the disparity of forces. A quick and dirty tally gives the Soviets 30,750 troops, 171 tanks, and 33 attack helicopters in Iran, as of 2000. This does not include 4000 men and 8 tanks fighting mutineers in "Turkestan" as of 2000 (nor does it include any of the 2-3 mutineer/marauder divisions in the breakaway republic).

The U.S. on the other hand, fields 18,100 troops, 39 tanks, and 16 attack helicopters. This does not include the Ranger regiment, for which no strength is listed, nor does it include the British or French units in Iran (I can't find the unit designations or strengths for said anywhere).

Aside from the indifferent 24th ID and the 9th Motorized division, the U.S. units in Iran of a historically high quality (Airborne, Airmobile, and Marine divisions, plus the Rangers, Paras, and FFL[?]). Almost all of the Soviet divisions in Iran are listed as Category III or Mobilization Only, though several of these are noted to have performed "surprisingly well".

Regardless, in Iran, the Soviets have a near two-to-one advantage in men and attack helicopters and a near four-to-one advantage in tanks. Based on the respective unit types, I think its also safe to assume that the Soviets have at least a four-to-one advantage in artillery as well.

Both sides apparently have a handful of operational combat aircraft as well.

Considering that the Iranian forces are split at least three ways in loyalty (pro-Soviet, pro-NATO, and anti-foreigner/infidel), their strength wouldn't really make up for the difference. Also, King's Ranson mentions that anti-Soviet Iranian conventional forces suffered massive casualties, especially from Soviet chem-warfare.

So, in 2000, the Soviets have a clear operational advantage in Iran. It looks like Iran could be the site of the Twilight War's last major conventional battles (and quite possibly nuclear ones...).

[Targan]

Are you interested in getting the RDF Sourcebook (in dead tree or electronic format) Raellus? Surely having a copy would make your job much easier.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Raellus

The U.S. on the other hand, fields 18,100 troops, 39 tanks, and 16 attack helicopters. This does not include the Ranger regiment, for which no strength is listed, nor does it include the British or French units in Iran (I can't find the unit designations or strengths for said anywhere).

There's a French orbat online.

http://www.reocities.com/littlegreen...T2K_France.htm

(Note f you read the section on industry and economy you may find it a little optimistic and non canon)

For the British, you might want to check here:

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dh...#Middle%20East

Hope this helps.

Cheers

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Targan

Are you interested in getting the RDF Sourcebook (in dead tree or electronic format) Raellus? Surely having a copy would make your job much easier.

Yes. Unfortunately, the cheapest dead tree version I can find is $22. I can get a watermarked PDF for $6 but I'm an ol' fashioned kind of guy and reading PDFs makes my eyes burn.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

Hope this helps.

Thanks R6, it does. Unfortunately, neither site gives numerical strengths for the units listed.

Interestingly, it looks like all of the French forces in the Gulf region are based outside of Iran, in places like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait.

Maybe this explains the Russian's reluctance to make use of their superior numbers in Iran- they don't want to get the French involved there and, by extension, in Europe as well.

If T2K were a game of strategic diplomacy, it would be interesting to play a scenario where NATO characters tried to convince the French to support them in Iran, especially in light of an impending Soviet offensive there. Soviet players could try to convince the French not to get involved. Could make for some interesting Realpolitik wheeling and dealing.

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Balance of Forces

One thing that struck me is the disparity of forces.

...

So, in 2000, the Soviets have a clear operational advantage in Iran. It looks like Iran could be the site of the Twilight War's last major conventional battles (and quite possibly nuclear ones...).

Geography may be the key you are missing, then. Iran is BIG-- there is a large no-man's-land between the forces, and trying to expand would leave one's flanks hanging in air.

One of my *other* favorite GDW games from the '80s was the "Third World War" series, which covered conventional combat in Germany, Norway, the Balkans and Iraq-Iran ca.1985. They could be played all together, most of the maps actually linked. I bring this up because the Iran game almost always featured lots of empty space, and both US Soviet sides had a lot of empty flanks to watch. Unfortunately, one could not break down divisions in that game*, so quite often it became a sideshow really quickly as both sides would turtle in some mountains or cities. The main show, of course, was a Soviet drive across north Germany.

[*In the Norway game, the Soviets had some breakdowns, to enable air and sea lift. ]

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

Geography may be the key you are missing, then. Iran is BIG-- there is a large no-man's-land between the forces, and trying to expand would leave one's flanks hanging in air.

That's a very valid point, Admiral, and perhaps that has something to do that with the lack of movement in 2000.

On the other hand, the Soviets have an edge in both numbers and mobility and I would imagine that both sides would have some at least some operational experience in, and greater comfort level with, fighting with exposed flanks, especially with veterans of Europe in the ranks.

Also, it seems that a de facto cantonment system has developed in Iran, with both sides centered around Iran's major cities. The Soviets would have merely to threaten the ports to force a NATO withdrawal (or tac-nuke strike).

Perhaps the major factor precluding a Soviet offensive in 2000 is the chaos in their rear (i.e. several divisions in the Caucuses and "-stans" having mutinied). The Soviets' supply lines are thus threatened before an offensive is even launched.

It would be fun to play out a Soviet offensive/NATO defense c. late 2000 on an operational level. I'll have to look into that "Third World War" game.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

From memory I don't think the RDF Sourcebook mentioned specific nuke targets.

Other than the generic "oil fields" and "refineries" the only specific target is Riyadh.

If anyone is interested in unit locations, the page below was a prototype I used to test a few things but it might be useful to someone who wants to figure what units are where.

http://games.juhlin.com/maps/RDF_sourcebook.html

This is a prototype and has many issues, like not listing the Country (in the on unit click popup) and collocated units are not represented (Only the largest unit at a single location is shown). I fixed those in my latest version (which is not ready).

Can you guys tell me how long the page takes to load and what browser you are using. First time load will most be longer than when you return to the page as a lot of the javascript will be cached.

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

Geography may be the key you are missing, then. Iran is BIG-- there is a large no-man's-land between the forces, and trying to expand would leave one's flanks hanging in air.

One of my *other* favorite GDW games from the '80s was the "Third World War" series, which covered conventional combat in Germany, Norway, the Balkans and Iraq-Iran ca.1985. They could be played all together, most of the maps actually linked. I bring this up because the Iran game almost always featured lots of empty space, and both US Soviet sides had a lot of empty flanks to watch. Unfortunately, one could not break down divisions in that game*, so quite often it became a sideshow really quickly as both sides would turtle in some mountains or cities. The main show, of course, was a Soviet drive across north Germany.

[*In the Norway game, the Soviets had some breakdowns, to enable air and sea lift. ]

When I was in they told us that our plans were made to repel amongst other things an airborne operation of Soviets ,they would take the main roads and strand our units in invaluable areas .they told us that in the event of a full blown war the soviets could drop 5 or 6 brigades simultanously .Apparently the airborne invasion gave only 2 1/2 - 4 hours warning before it all went Red Dawn .An amphibious assault was also envisioned as a part of the operation .The assault would have 15 -30 hours warning time and could comprise as many as 11 brigades.

Seeing as we only had 2 brigades in active duty and the rest mothballed as a mobilization defense it was very much a theoretical game of speed and lucky circumstances up here on Natos north flank .The North has limited road systems and a lot of fjords cutting into it - for a tactical game of conventional warfare I guess it would be an interesting match .(Did the game take into account our own little maginot line that we had built in Troms ? It didnt go all the way across but still,a concrete bunker fortress is a novelty in our days of warfighting.)

As for real life I dont think we could have done much against the Soviets.Our real defense was our close alignment with the US that made any move against us a possible trigger for a big conflict .On the ground I guess the plan was to hold enclaves /provinces that could be used as staging areas until the designated allied forces arrived -with their airpower- and mobilize our army as best we could in these areas .And then break out I guess. ( The threat of nuclear war ,other political events not taken into account and just focusing on the war on the ground I mean .)

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by kato13

Can you guys tell me how long the page takes to load and what browser you are using. First time load will most be longer than when you return to the page as a lot of the javascript will be cached.

Took about thirty seconds to load for me from start to finish using IE.

Well done on the map...looks good...

[Targan]

Originally Posted by headquarters

As for real life I dont think we could have done much against the Soviets.Our real defense was our close alignment with the US that made any move against us a possible trigger for a big conflict.

Right up to today we here in Australia rely on our close friendship with the US to be a deterrant against outside military hostility. A full blown war between the US and China would suck for Australia - we have very strong trade ties to China.

[Turboswede]

Originally Posted by headquarters

As for real life I dont think we could have done much against the Soviets.Our real defense was our close alignment with the US that made any move against us a possible trigger for a big conflict .On the ground I guess the plan was to hold enclaves /provinces that could be used as staging areas until the designated allied forces arrived -with their airpower- and mobilize our army as best we could in these areas .And then break out I guess. ( The threat of nuclear war ,other political events not taken into account and just focusing on the war on the ground I mean .)

I think the Swedes would have helped and I always thought that their omission from the original T2K timeline was a glaring problem. I come from a Swedish military family and in my conversations with former officers there is a lot of guilt around the actions (or lack of action) taken by Sweden in the Second World War My Grandfather’s generation in particular felt a great deal of shame for allowing German forces into Norway.

What is even a worse scar on the Swedish psyche is not backing the Fins against the Russians in the Winter War. About 40,000 Swedish military personnel wanted to volunteer to help the Fins but the Swedish government was terrified of antagonizing the Soviets so it made serving in Finland as difficult as possible. I have relatives who did take leaves of absence to hike up to Kiruna to volunteer, but there were a lot more army personnel who were not allowed to volunteer.

My father’s generation was also no fan of the Soviets, during the Sub incursions of the 60’s and 70’s there was a lot of debate around sinking Soviet submarines detected in Swedish waters. From what I have heard, there were frequent incidents when Captains of Swedish vessels reluctantly gave the order to use dummy depth charges and torpedoes against Soviet subs.

I do not think the Swedes would have sat back and let the Soviets violate their airspace to attack Norway, Iceland, the U.K. and the rest of Western Europe. After speaking with a number of Swedish Air Force and Naval officers, I get the feeling a lot of them were in fact, itching for a fight.

[Adm.Lee]

No, I don't remember any fortified line, but the game did have reduced stacking for mountains and passes, and there were quite a few choke points along the coast.

I remember the NATO player could roll for mobilization, getting more Norwegians into action sooner. If the Soviets tried for a flat-footed attack, it helped them a lot.

Soviet air and amphibious lift in the game was maybe 5 regimental-equivalents, but I'm not sure about that anymore. If you played the combined games, the Pact got something more than 12 Regiments' worth of airlift, which could be directed to any theater. {Seeing a whole corps' worth of desant was pretty impressive. My favorite plan was to drop them all over the US ReForGer sites along the Rhine, and negate 3+ divisions of Americans.} I think the game designated 1 Soviet MRD as amphibious-capable, and allocated 1 desant division to the northern theater. There was also an airmobile brigade, which was really, really useful.

The Soviets had an option to allocate a "strategic reserve force," which I think was 1 or 2 armies of Cat 2 divisions, which cost the Pact player VPs to send to the theater. I don't remember it as being worth sending, except there might have been a second airmobile brigade.

I remember the games usually wound up in a stalemate around Narvik or Tromso, with the Pact running out of assault-worthy forces, and NATO building up light troops. Victory keyed on the Pact capture of airfields to allow the Northern Fleet to sortie, and I don't remember too many victories for the Pact.

FWIW, I remember the Norwegian forces as being pretty important, since they were there, obviously, and rated at proficiency equal to the US and West Germans.

Dag, now you've got me wanting to dig it out again!

Originally Posted by headquarters

When I was in they told us that our plans were made to repel amongst other things an airborne operation of Soviets ,they would take the main roads and strand our units in invaluable areas .they told us that in the event of a full blown war the soviets could drop 5 or 6 brigades simultanously .Apparently the airborne invasion gave only 2 1/2 - 4 hours warning before it all went Red Dawn .An amphibious assault was also envisioned as a part of the operation .The assault would have 15 -30 hours warning time and could comprise as many as 11 brigades.

Seeing as we only had 2 brigades in active duty and the rest mothballed as a mobilization defense it was very much a theoretical game of speed and lucky circumstances up here on Natos north flank .The North has limited road systems and a lot of fjords cutting into it - for a tactical game of conventional warfare I guess it would be an interesting match .(Did the game take into account our own little maginot line that we had built in Troms ? It didnt go all the way across but still,a concrete bunker fortress is a novelty in our days of warfighting.)

As for real life I dont think we could have done much against the Soviets.Our real defense was our close alignment with the US that made any move against us a possible trigger for a big conflict .On the ground I guess the plan was to hold enclaves /provinces that could be used as staging areas until the designated allied forces arrived -with their airpower- and mobilize our army as best we could in these areas .And then break out I guess. ( The threat of nuclear war ,other political events not taken into account and just focusing on the war on the ground I mean .)

Edit: I crossed Turboswede's post. In TWW, the Swedes and Finns were presumed neutral, but the Pact could request/demand passage rights to get to Norway. The NATO player secretly drew chits to see if or how strongly the two would resist. My recollection is that if either nation resisted, it really wrecked the Pact's chances.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

Took about thirty seconds to load for me from start to finish using IE.

Well done on the map...looks good...

Thanks

Load time is a little longer than I had hoped but good to know. My biggest problem with testing is the fact that I am directly connected to my webserver so my load times are very short.

[Graebarde]

Originally Posted by Targan

Right up to today we here in Australia rely on our close friendship with the US to be a deterrant against outside military hostility. A full blown war between the US and China would suck for Australia - we have very strong trade ties to China.

It's only money friend. China only wants your money and resources.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Graebarde

It's only money friend. China only wants your money and resources.

So true. It scares me actually. What China really, really wants is Australia's coal and iron ore. Chinese government-owned companies are trying to buy up the biggest stakes they can in Australia's (and especially Western Australia's) iron ore companies and reserves. And they are becoming increasingly keen on the idea that we'll sell them uranium too.

We here in Australia very much enjoy the massive economic boom that China's money provides but lets face it - if they could get away with it they just take our resources rather than buy them. If the US ever goes down the toilet in a big way Australia will be in for a world of hurt.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Targan

If the US ever goes down the toilet in a big way Australia will be in for a world of hurt.

They would only outnumber you 50 to one. C'mon you guys could take them.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by kato13

They would only outnumber you 50 to one. C'mon you guys could take them.

Well its true that Australian forces usually 'fight above their weight'. The Korean and Vietnam Wars are good examples, we really kicked some ass in our own small way. There are just so few of us compared to the size of the continent we live on.

If you nice Americans could just keep selling us that excellent quality military gear, we'll keep on handing over the cash - which we got from China.

[natehale1971]

Originally Posted by Targan

Well its true that Australian forces usually 'fight above their weight'. The Korean and Vietnam Wars are good examples, we really kicked some ass in our own small way. There are just so few of us compared to the size of the continent we live on.

If you nice Americans could just keep selling us that excellent quality military gear, we'll keep on handing over the cash - which we got from China.

My dad and uncle once told me a story about a group of Aussies who where on leave in Veitnam during the war. The eight men had 'borrowed' two jeeps, one was full of ammo and the other was full of beer. They then asked for directions for the combat zone, everyone figured it was so they could stay far.. far away from the combat zone because they had said they where going hunting... they came back totally drunk a few days later to buy more beer and ammo. And they had a shitload of NVA and VC gear that they 'traded' for the beer and ammo.

When asked what the hell are you hunting? 'We're hunting VC... but the damn NVA keep getting in the way.'

They did that for two weeks before they went home.

Point of the story... Don't mess with the Aussies, they are either totally insane. Or they get really deadly when they are totally liquered up.

[Matt Wiser]

Our group at CSU Fresno ran a campaign in Iran: we had done the first set of adventures in Poland (Escape from Kalisz, Black Madonna, Krakow), but not the Vistula or Warsaw; before heading to take part in the evac home, but when we found out our vehicles would be turned over to the Germans, we headed to Rostock, which is where we found two Frosch-class LSTs getting ready to sail to Bremerhaven. After an exchange of some of the gold from a Kelly's Heroes type adventure, we sailed to Israel instead. IMI refitted our vehicles (for some of the gold, naturally) and off we went via Jordan and Iraq. There was a running gun battle from As Samawah down through An Nasiriya and finally the outskirts of Basra, before running into some Green Berets advising anti-regime Iraqis. After getting into Iran, we were attached to the 101st, and then got sent to Lordegan, where we would be the armor support for 3/187 (the Lordegan garrison), and also be available for any special missions tasked by the 101st. Didn't do King's Ransom per se, but used it as background. Our GM had some NPCs get the Crown Jewels. Before we could do any more, it was graduation time for about half of the folks in the group, and that was the end of that.