Ukraine > NATO vs. Russia

[Chops]

3. CM: Shock Force 2. Our return to modern warfare is long overdue! Given how close Shock Force 1 was at predicting a conventional conflict in Syria, we're a little nervous about choosing a topic this time around. Especially because we've chosen to simulate a full spectrum conventional conflict between NATO and Russia in the Ukraine. This gives players a rich tactical environment to explore with the most advanced militaries the world has ever seen. Having said that, we hope the politicians aren't insane enough to try it for real. Even thought this is great stuff for a game, it's the last thing this world needs in real life.

Yeah, let's really hope this doesn't pan out.

Yes, this is the roadmap for the next 12 months. All of these are in active development already.

With CM:SF2 comin' down the pike, I was wondering if any of the resident experts (Kettler and Emrys?) on a NATO vs. Russia conflict could recommend some publications or books that cover the possibility of this scenario happening in a current setting? Maybe something along the lines of Red Thrust by Zaloga.

[Sequoia]

Well, CMSF really wasn't that close at predicting a conventional war in Syria IMHO. Besides the Russians didn't go to war directly with NATO in the heyday of the Soviet Union. They're really unlikely to do it now.

[ZPB II]

I'd say Russia vs. China or Arabs is more likely than vs. Nato.

The kind of future I envision has an allied NATO and Russia. These factions have a lot more in common than with the other big players.

[MikeyD]

Its called a tactical combat simulation, not an international diplomacy simulation. The only reason for a 'backstory' at all is to provide an excuse to get two armies that you'd like to see fight on the same map. One supposes if Steve got a hankering to see the armies of France and Melanesia come to blows some sort of vaguely plausible scenario could be worked out.

[Mord]

Quit pissin' in the lemonade, guys! Russia vs Nato, rules!

Star Wars isn't plausible, yet people bought into it LOL.

Mord.

[Sequoia]

Oh, I agree. It will make a great match up in game terms. And crazy reasons for going to war have happened in history after all.

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, I think large scale ground warfare between forces of rough parity are out for a few more decades. But when political and economic squabbles over dwindling resources isn't enough for national interests, ohboy. To paraphrase Agent K... a person is nice, people suck.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, I agree. It will make a great match up in game terms. And crazy reasons for going to war have happened in history after all.

Actually, I'd say it's the norm. Or at least if it didn't start out being nuts it got to be nuts. In fact, my father-in-law and I were talking briefly about the real reasons behind The Crusades. The upper classes had to get their spices for rotting meats and silk for undies, no matter how many poor bastards had to be tricked into dying for a false cause.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Yeah, I think large scale ground warfare between forces of rough parity are out for a few more decades.

I agree, but I wonder how much longer the peace between the West (mainly the US) and China will hold. As long as both sides see it in their interests of course. But at some point toes are going to get trod on and elbows jab into ribs and then the dice may begin to roll. I dread that day.

Michael

[Chops]

Well, in my limited understanding of the situation, apparently Ukraine is a candidate to join NATO, obviously making Russia quite unhappy. Additionally Russia is medling in Ukraine and there was a recent push to adopt Russian as the official language in Ukraine, obviously upsetting a lot of Ukranians. NATO has also been pushing to get a missle defense system set up in Ukraine. So, the seeds of conflict are starting to germinate.

Also, remember not long ago the whole deal with Georgia - South Ossetia and Russian tanks rolling in there quite rapidly with NATO supporting the other side.

[MikeyD]

Yeah, I think large scale ground warfare between forces of rough parity are out for a few more decades.

Don't forget CM's scenario playscale. The game doesn't require grand armies clashing. Maybe that company of Abrams' on the streets of Lutsk, Ukraine are the only U.S. tanks in the whole theatre of operations! CMFI, for example, boasts only 17 Tiger tanks on the Island (more or less). But you don't need to have vast tank armies to play a CM-scale Tiger vs Sherman scenario.

[John Kettler]

Not my night at all--two posts eaten in succession! Deem potential conflict zone highly credible. Recommend all of you start reading this. http://www.warfare.ru/ This the Russian Arms EXPORT Catalog. The good stuff doesn't get exported until it's obsolete. Will discuss this more later.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Vark]

When the director of the UK MOD Future Wars group came to give a lecture he stressed that competition for resources, especially water and oil, would drive conflicts, and as had been already said the scarcer the resources the greater the potential for violence. Although not PC there was a book that postulated an Islamic alliance, and when the Russians saw the West bogged down they attacked. Realistic, pah, who cares it was fiction and the back story allowed Ka-50's to take on Scimitars and M1's to duel with T-80's.

Red Storm Rising was risible as a realistic scenario, but again was an excuse to fight a hot war. Steel Panthers had some nice, German versus Polish scenarios, not very unrealistic but allowed 3rd Gen German armour versus second Gen Warpac and Western kit. Then again, looking at 1936, few predicted the events to follow, some saw the 'gathering storm' but no one saw how events would unfold, when the storm broke.

Personally, I would like a Cold war gone hot game set in the late 70's to mid eighties, but if BF want to make it more modern than any reasonable story will do. Jamers Macaroon had to invent the ludicrous 'unobtanium' just so that he could make his anti-military, pro indigenous culture, extravaganza. For all I care it could be a surprise assault by a Russian spearhead, in Azmakitupistan, to sieze critical yoghurt supplies, after a dreadfull case of yoghurt weevil struck the Donbas region (historically, producers of the finest grade of yoghurt). Nato intervene, bribed by Greek threats of pulling out of the Euro and the economic collapse that would ensue. The Greeks see an opportunity to corner the market in premium yogurts and resurrect their collapsing economy and so want to stop the Russians. Sensible, no, plausible, no, but I'll accept any threadbare tosh just to get rounds down range, PGM's dropped, ATGM's flying and sabots saboting!

[gunnergoz]

Well, in my limited understanding of the situation, apparently Ukraine is a candidate to join NATO, obviously making Russia quite unhappy. Additionally Russia is medling in Ukraine and there was a recent push to adopt Russian as the official language in Ukraine, obviously upsetting a lot of Ukranians. NATO has also been pushing to get a missle defense system set up in Ukraine. So, the seeds of conflict are starting to germinate.

Also, remember not long ago the whole deal with Georgia - South Ossetia and Russian tanks rolling in there quite rapidly with NATO supporting the other side.

Ukraine's current leadership is very corrupt and totally out to gut the country for its own enrichment. It plays with Russian nationalism to get support in the Eastern Ukraine, in part to counter the Ukrainian nationalism that is prevalent in the Western half of the country. Unfortunately, this current crop of bosses has learned to use the state's security apparatus to suppress dissent - note the very public jailing of Yulia Tymoshenko and other political dissidents - and corral in the media. So a repeat of the Orange Revolution is not likely given this regime's very heavy handed suppression of public displays of discontent. The military is still mostly conscript, though, and it is doubtful it would hold together if the regime decided to start shooting down people in the streets.

Joining NATO? Becoming part of the European Union? Not a chance. Not until this regime is long gone and the country manages to get some breathing space. Big brother Russia is also a factor, though intervention a la Georgia/Ossetia is not very likely - Ukrainians would resist that quite vigorously. But they will continue to play footsies with Putin, if for no other reason than they need Russia's natural gas if they want warm homes in the winter.

I suppose if you have to design a wargame around it, you could posit a situation where Russia does intervene - say in Eastern Ukraine - on behalf of a tottering, pro-Russian government, and the Western part of the country (which includes the capital, Kiev) might conceivably request NATO assistance to re-unify the nation and eject the Russian "intruders." Not likely, but a scenario does not have to be authentic, just plausible.

[wolf66]

Actually, I'd say it's the norm. Or at least if it didn't start out being nuts it got to be nuts. In fact, my father-in-law and I were talking briefly about the real reasons behind The Crusades. The upper classes had to get their spices for rotting meats and silk for undies, no matter how many poor bastards had to be tricked into dying for a false cause.

Steve

And don't forget that it was a lot more safe for the rich to have the poor fighting and dying in another land far, far away than to have them rebellious and hungry in their own lands .......

[nik mond]

Nato vs Warsaw pact 1980ish. I'm probably in the minority but always put it out there anyways. sigh, Never get a CMFG (Fulda Gap). Well Mr Reagan tried I guess.

Its just the forces and weapons platforms were very closely matched in those days, 105mm Abrahms vs the new T 80. Who had body armour then.

[Boche]

Jamers Macaroon had to invent the ludicrous 'unobtanium' just so that he could make his anti-military, pro indigenous culture, extravaganza.

So I can asume I wasnt the only one cheering for the marines during the film?

[Battlefront.com]

Don't forget CM's scenario playscale. The game doesn't require grand armies clashing.

Sure it does. A company of Abrams doesn't just up and go into the Ukraine on it's own to do combat with a company of T-90s from Russia that just happened to have the same idea at the same time. For a conflict to happen, and be sustained, there has to be a mega huge policy shift that is pretty much "all in or all out".

Joining NATO? Becoming part of the European Union? Not a chance. Not until this regime is long gone and the country manages to get some breathing space.

That's the premise we're angling for. I don't think it would take much time for it to happen, though, if the regime was punted because of an overt reason.

steve

[Vark]

Could the proposal to build an, anti-missile, radar array, in the newest Nato member, be one of the initiators of conflict?

Bosch, sad thing is I cheered for the Empire as well. Better ships, better uniforms, less hippy characters and no sodding annoying droids! As for Avajoke, I switched off, fearing the safety of my TV screen!

As for only a company of M1's perhaps the other tanks/crews/support vehicles/fuel/ammo storage are destroyed and or delayed, so a modern day Thermopylae beckons?

[A Canadian Cat]

<snip>CMFI, for example, boasts only 17 Tiger tanks on the Island (more or less). But you don't need to have vast tank armies to play a CM-scale Tiger vs Sherman scenario.

So true. We don't even need a grand back story it could even just be a Nato Brigade group in country doing training when all hell breaks loose. There would still be plenty of CM sized scenarios to work with. Excellent point @MikeyD. One I had not thought of - mind you I also have not relay paid any thought to any back story at all really:D

[A Canadian Cat]

Personally, I would like a Cold war gone hot game set in the late 70's to mid eighties, but if BF want to make it more modern than any reasonable story will do.

That was my first desire to. But if BFC want to do modern - I'll give it a try.

Jamers Macaroon had to invent the ludicrous 'unobtanium' just so that he could make his anti-military, pro indigenous culture, extravaganza.

Entertaining movie. I still giggle when I hear them say 'unobtanium' - it is just silly.

For all I care it could be a surprise assault by a Russian spearhead, in Azmakitupistan, to sieze critical yoghurt supplies, after a dreadfull case of yoghurt weevil struck the Donbas region (historically, producers of the finest grade of yoghurt). Nato intervene, bribed by Greek threats of pulling out of the Euro and the economic collapse that would ensue. The Greeks see an opportunity to corner the market in premium yogurts and resurrect their collapsing economy and so want to stop the Russians. Sensible, no, plausible, no, but I'll accept any threadbare tosh just to get rounds down range, PGM's dropped, ATGM's flying and sabots saboting!

LOL Brilliant spin on the back story. But won't BFC need to include dead cows for that to work.

Ooops sorry did I just ask for dead cows:D

[Battlefront.com]

I still have NO idea why anybody thinks Avatar was anti-military since there was NO military in there. Corporate mercenaries only. And the critics who called it anti-American failed to point out how America was involved in the film at all. Unless America is a corporation, I guess.

I swear that some of the most vocal critics of the movie either watched a different movie or have a horrid ignorance of history in general, and corporate history specifically. Shocking to think that corporations think about money first and ramifications a distant last. What with all the selfless, legally compliant, socially conscious corporations and individuals who benevolently used other people's money to create a stable and prosperous housing market for everybody to enjoy.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

So true. We don't even need a grand back story it could even just be a Nato Brigade group in country doing training when all hell breaks loose. There would still be plenty of CM sized scenarios to work with. Excellent point @MikeyD. One I had not thought of - mind you I also have not relay paid any thought to any back story at all really:D

Again, the back story is to explain why there is a fight in the first place. It's no different than if we made a game that had 17 Tigers in Sicily engaging in mortal combat with M1A2 Abrams. Something needs to be there to explain how it is that this conflict is happening at all, not so much why Tigers and Abrams are involved.

Steve

[A Canadian Cat]

Nato vs Warsaw pact 1980ish. I'm probably in the minority but always put it out there anyways.

When I heard that BFC were doing a Shock force 2 I was hoping for just that time frame. Back in high school (in the 80s) I started playing Assault with my father (hex based war game set in the 80s). At the time he was a former mechanized infantry officer then working in HQ so right up his ally. He spent a good part of his military career getting ready for a hot war in Europe that, thankfully, never came.

[A Canadian Cat]

Again, the back story is to explain why there is a fight in the first place.

So, it is a good thing you are thinking about a back story - cause I'm not

It's no different than if we made a game that had 17 Tigers in Sicily engaging in mortal combat with M1A2 Abrams. Something needs to be there to explain how it is that this conflict is happening at all, not so much why Tigers and Abrams are involved.

That would be soooo cool - wait no, it would not. That would be boring.