RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-12-2011, 08:38 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,906
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HorseSoldier View Post
CENTCOM in T2K manages to hold onto Saudi Arabia with no serious drama, so NATO's oil situation is okay. Contesting Iran is important but kind of just the bonus round -- and an economy of force mission when the European theater is full tilt boogie. If they can hold without augmentation, especially not another heavy division, that's likely to be all they'll get.
After rereading some of Harold Coyle's novels and RDF sourcebook as well; the impression you get is that the push to hold onto Iran was a desire to have as much strategic depth as possible in order to protect the Saudi/Gulf oil fields. Okay, makes sense...but the force commitment is what is so screwed. A single heavy division, no matter the size its commander's balls is going to be able to push against 1 or more Soviet armies. Even dropping the 82nd behind the lines to break the LOC would run into serious trouble from the 2nd & 3rd echlon divisions. And while the ole maroon beret may make its wearer semi-bulletproof....it doesn't have any effect when the enemy switchs from 7.62mm to 152mm...(now if the 82nd pulled a Chuck Norris and ripped off their BDU shirts and exposed their heroic manly chests....and a salute to Steve Jackson and his Heroic Hollywood Nudity stat!). Nope CENTCOM doesn't have the force structure to do half of what the canon material says they did.

My own feelings is that in order to pull off the "canon" material, CENTCOM had to have some form of additional force. My approach is to add two heavy divisions, an ACR, an LCR as well as some additional Iranian forces. I also debate about some kind of NATO force, most likely a British/Commonwealth Brigade....and yes I do add an Aussie battalion to the mix. Yes, it draws units from the CENTAG/NORTHAG mix...but I've always had issues with what GDW "sent" in that front.

And just for arguments sake...what in the world were they thinking when they decided to ship MILGOV/CIVGOV forces to Yugoslavia? Got tired of fighting against overwhelming odds and decided to enter Europe's free-fire zone?
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-12-2011, 08:57 AM
James Langham James Langham is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 735
Default Iranian forces

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragoon500ly View Post
After rereading some of Harold Coyle's novels and RDF sourcebook as well; the impression you get is that the push to hold onto Iran was a desire to have as much strategic depth as possible in order to protect the Saudi/Gulf oil fields. Okay, makes sense...but the force commitment is what is so screwed. A single heavy division, no matter the size its commander's balls is going to be able to push against 1 or more Soviet armies. Even dropping the 82nd behind the lines to break the LOC would run into serious trouble from the 2nd & 3rd echlon divisions. And while the ole maroon beret may make its wearer semi-bulletproof....it doesn't have any effect when the enemy switchs from 7.62mm to 152mm...(now if the 82nd pulled a Chuck Norris and ripped off their BDU shirts and exposed their heroic manly chests....and a salute to Steve Jackson and his Heroic Hollywood Nudity stat!). Nope CENTCOM doesn't have the force structure to do half of what the canon material says they did.

My own feelings is that in order to pull off the "canon" material, CENTCOM had to have some form of additional force. My approach is to add two heavy divisions, an ACR, an LCR as well as some additional Iranian forces. I also debate about some kind of NATO force, most likely a British/Commonwealth Brigade....and yes I do add an Aussie battalion to the mix. Yes, it draws units from the CENTAG/NORTHAG mix...but I've always had issues with what GDW "sent" in that front.

And just for arguments sake...what in the world were they thinking when they decided to ship MILGOV/CIVGOV forces to Yugoslavia? Got tired of fighting against overwhelming odds and decided to enter Europe's free-fire zone?
Don't forget the Iranian Army - these play quite a large part in the war.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-12-2011, 09:06 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,906
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Langham View Post
Don't forget the Iranian Army - these play quite a large part in the war.
GDW forget the Iranian Army. I've always felt that a lot more than 5 divisions survived. My own game has between 12-15 divisions surviving and help holding the line.
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-12-2011, 09:17 AM
James Langham James Langham is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 735
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragoon500ly View Post
GDW forget the Iranian Army. I've always felt that a lot more than 5 divisions survived. My own game has between 12-15 divisions surviving and help holding the line.
I'm not sure they did, I assume that they disperse and act as guerrillas or bandits, tying down a lot of Soviet troops.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-12-2011, 07:57 PM
Abbott Shaull Abbott Shaull is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere in the Eastern U.P. on the edge of Civilization.
Posts: 1,086
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Langham View Post
I'm not sure they did, I assume that they disperse and act as guerrillas or bandits, tying down a lot of Soviet troops.
Yeah their would be some units who would support the US, others would support the Soviets. While many probably would be good Iranians and fight whatever satan who happen to currently 'own' the local area at the time.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-12-2011, 11:50 PM
HorseSoldier HorseSoldier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 846
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-13-2011, 04:12 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-12-2011, 07:55 PM
Abbott Shaull Abbott Shaull is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere in the Eastern U.P. on the edge of Civilization.
Posts: 1,086
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragoon500ly View Post
After rereading some of Harold Coyle's novels and RDF sourcebook as well; the impression you get is that the push to hold onto Iran was a desire to have as much strategic depth as possible in order to protect the Saudi/Gulf oil fields. Okay, makes sense...but the force commitment is what is so screwed. A single heavy division, no matter the size its commander's balls is going to be able to push against 1 or more Soviet armies. Even dropping the 82nd behind the lines to break the LOC would run into serious trouble from the 2nd & 3rd echlon divisions. And while the ole maroon beret may make its wearer semi-bulletproof....it doesn't have any effect when the enemy switchs from 7.62mm to 152mm...(now if the 82nd pulled a Chuck Norris and ripped off their BDU shirts and exposed their heroic manly chests....and a salute to Steve Jackson and his Heroic Hollywood Nudity stat!). Nope CENTCOM doesn't have the force structure to do half of what the canon material says they did.

My own feelings is that in order to pull off the "canon" material, CENTCOM had to have some form of additional force. My approach is to add two heavy divisions, an ACR, an LCR as well as some additional Iranian forces. I also debate about some kind of NATO force, most likely a British/Commonwealth Brigade....and yes I do add an Aussie battalion to the mix. Yes, it draws units from the CENTAG/NORTHAG mix...but I've always had issues with what GDW "sent" in that front.

And just for arguments sake...what in the world were they thinking when they decided to ship MILGOV/CIVGOV forces to Yugoslavia? Got tired of fighting against overwhelming odds and decided to enter Europe's free-fire zone?
Yeah I have to agree there would of had sent more to hold. Look back at the first PG1 they had nearly half of the Regular US Army sitting in the Desert.

Then we have current operation in Iraq of the last 8 or so year that throw things askew. Granted their isn't a fighting Soviet Front thrown into the match. Yet, GDW has sent only 1 Airborne, 1 Air Assault, 1 Mechanized, 1 Light Motorized (Test-Bed) and 2 Marine Divisions with 1 Air Combat Cavalry Brigade does seem too light. I agree that couple more Heavy Divisions and ACR or two wouldn't hurt.

As for the 82nd being sent to cut the LOC of the advance Soviet unit that were engaged with the 3rd US Army and its allied forces.

What I do see even with the 82nd and 101st Division is that they would cross-attach a Brigade with other US Army Division to balance out the forces. In the resource book GDW stated that each Division was regular pulled from the fronts lines and shipped to Saudi for rest and refit.

Another thing I am sure the British would have sent more in the lines of Commonwealth Division in which HQ, support units, and one or more combat Brigade from the UK and the rest from whatever they could scrounge up from Commonwealth members.

Last edited by Abbott Shaull; 03-12-2011 at 08:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.