Jump to content

Any modules ? National Family extensions or patches in the works ?


Recommended Posts

Seem to me that if we're going to discuss what Russia would and wouldn't do when it came to nuclear strikes and why, it would be most helpful to look at things as seen and described by the Russian insiders--clear up to Marshal of the Soviet Union and Chief of the General Staff Sergei Akhromeev. Summary page below.

Previously Classified Interviews with Former Soviet Officials Reveal U.S. Strategic Intelligence Failure Over Decades

nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb285/

Interview with General-Colonel (Ret.) Adrian A. Danilevitch.

nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb285/vol ii Danilevich.pdf

Among other things, he was the Special Assistant for Doctrine and Strategy to Chiefs of the General Staff Akhromeev and General Moiseev. He was also the Director of the collective which wrote and refined the three-volume TOP SECRET Strategy of Deep Operations (Global and Theater), which was the basic reference for Soviet strategic and operational nuclear and conventional planning for the last decade of the SU. You'll get quite the education if you read even a few pages of it. I sure did.

While I freely grant much has changed since the collapse of the SU, it is also true that much is as it was and still informs the thinking at the top in Russia. For example, I would argue that conceptually, the mighty Iskander-M is doing (but with much shorter legs) exactly what the RSD-10 Pioner/SS-20 SABER did when it was rolled out by providing radical new capabilities for which the foe has no counterpart. In this instance, Iskander-M has multiple warhead options, creating greater flexibility than the now removed from service and destroyed nuclear only IRBM. This is precisely why BMD in Eastern Europe is such a Russian hot button. It neutralizes a very potent threat for which there is no corresponding equivalent weapon--without requiring a thoroughly fraught direct attack on Russia. But now my position derives not just from reasoning things through, for we have the testimony of a man who was inside, at very high levels, when the RSD-10 was planned, developed and put in play.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 167
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

10 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

I don't know if you guys get any education in it, but the US built a series of broad strategies for conflict in the 1920's-1930's.  They're known as the "rainbow" plans because they were all color coded (for instance, Warplan Black detailed a conflict with Germany as we understood them in that era).  Warplan Orange, which detailed conflict with Japan actually was implemented to some degree with modification (the loss of the Phillipines undercut parts of it), but what's interesting is that Orange was built in a time in which US-Japanese relations were pretty good, it was simply seen as a sort of "We might have a problem with Japan one of these days, how would we win that one?"

Warplan Red is the most interesting for me, simply because it involved a war against the UK, and part of that involved invading Canada (and Canada actually had a counter-plan to attack the US in the event of US-UK hostilities).  It seems silly now but there was a bit of a low spot in US-UK relations in the 1920s given the rising US power and waning UK economic strength.  

Either way they're a neat study in planning decades out, and trying to write strategy for the world that may come vs the world that is.

 

 

Look, I've made it pretty clear.  No.  You are likely on crazy pills.  Russian nuclear deterrence rests on going ugly fast, and they're not going to take an invading group of Germans Germans and friends lying down.  There is no realistic military value to occupying Western Russia, it's not far enough to damage the Russian ability to rebuild slowly, and it's just advancing the line the retreating forces have to cross a little further.  The only thing it does is give the Russian government the GPW2 card to play.

It's bad strategy.  Really, really bad strategy, and not understanding the strategic operating environment.

Like I said this is a war game and if I or anyone else wants todo a scenario based on the premise that isall it is

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, kinophile said:

The high school mentality of refighting WW2 with modern weapons. Everything he's describing is based off a secondary school level of understanding of how the world USED to work vs.how it is today (and why).

It's possibly the most pointless,  worrhless What If base to work from. It's looking at the world like a game of Risk or Civ.

It is a war game. Set up a scenario based on one of the actions fought at Kursk, in Army Group South/ The game is fought on the same ground Years ago there was a concept of the Disguised scenario discussed in a issue of a tabletop war gaming magazine. You used different forces from another period to set up a abletop game. In this case one would be doing something very similar. It is no more than a war game  What you see is how an action durng the WW2 battle of Kursk would be fought today on the same ground using modern weapons. You may well need take some compromises using modern platoons and companies instedof the WW2 companies and batalions.

All this is is another way to design a scenario for a GAME

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14 June 2016 at 0:34 AM, kinophile said:

This.

BS maps need to double in size,  but I believe there's an engine restriction. Is it max 4Km x 4km?

The unforgiving lethality is actually a huge draw for me. It makes the game  HARD.and that challenge,  where screw ups can be disastrous so quickly, is a big plus for me.

I am actually quite interested in the Commonwealth forces, and a variation in elevation from Ukraine's pancake lands would be nice.

But the cost. The COST. Their prices are mental.

It would be nice to have huge maps but, as you say here is the ngine restriction. Someobody sill needs to create on the maps. Having experimented myself with mp creation it is no easy or simple task. Then of course there is tyhe questionof whether computer processors and graphic cards cancope. However, in an ideal world maps two or three times the size would be great o have and not just for moderns.

Maybe existing maps could do with more concalment and cover. In Ukraine we could have areas of balkas 9ravines). areas of low scrub,more undulations and so forth. Evven the steppes are not he flat billiard tabl they migh first appearto be,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look,  thus is a forum for a game whose whole ethos is realism/realistic approximation and prediction of real life events, weapons systems, military organizations and modern warfare. 

That kind of thing inherently attracts highly analytical, skeptically minds. Generally people with a good background in history and current affairs  even as amateurs. 

I know I can be harsh tongued (sharp fingered?) but it's a little blind to assume your ideas won't get picked on and their lunch money stolen until they are able to stand up to the push and shove of common sense military doctrine versus Command & Conquer strategy. 

I went through the same process on that Hypothetical NATO thread. If you read that you'll see I listened and followed through on a lot of the input, including some very rigorous shut downs of my ideas by among others @panzersaurkrautwerfer,  Steve,  Sublime  and I think also BTR. My understanding of the associated miitaries, geopolitical situation and local environment is that much better because I listened. It sure wasn't fun seeing my ideas constantly shot down (I certainly whined about the process at one point!)  but my intended UKR campaign is developing very differently because of that feedback. I feel it will be stronger than if I'd designed it in a room inside my head. 

However you've been working very differently; mainly you've joined in with some very locked-in preconceptions and have steadfastly refused to consider or include the detailed,  thought through responses by some fairly informed people here (I do not count myself amongst them).

If you did do so I'm certain your scenarios would become more robust and realistic.

If you want loop-di-loop logic and uninforned analysis there's always World of Tanks...

Edited by kinophile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, kinophile said:

Yes yes a game,  but one with a relentlessly daft premise and plot.

 

Not really. Just assume a decision was made to cross the border. It is simply another possible branch of the campaign. In CMBS we are not responsibl for such high level decision making. We command a company or a batallion in game and no more. At that levvel we are simply following the orders of our "superiors" Maybe the war does indeed gonuclear later onbut at the point he scenario is played that has not happened yet. And as I said earlier a Russian use of chemicalweapons happens first. in this case the back story can either end with an agreed ceasefire or it can end with a nuclear exchange. It might be a tactical exchange or it might be Armgeddon. For strict scenario purposes how the back story develops and endsdoes not seem that important - thouugh obviously it maters a lot in he real world

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The staff put a lot of effort into developing a realistic and plausible timeline for the campaign and backstory. You're suggesting we take their hard work and then add lunacy at the end. You've been met by 100% opposition to the idea, with every effort made to explain why. And yet you refuse to acknowledge the absurdity you are spouting.

I think it's best you drop it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now KOREA would be an interesting scenario, for the terrain alone! 

But I'd need to read up far more than my current base before I could start dropping idea bombs like turds in a punch bowl. 

2 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

 For strict scenario purposes how the back story develops and endsdoes not seem that important 

I'd argue it is. For me,  personally, it frames my tactics in game and also frames the map designers' approach. 

For example, as campaign RUS commander I understand that achieving my OBJ ASAP is time critical, civilian infrastructure be damned (other than militarily useful items like bridges, high points). This means I'll often simply blast my way through (never said I was a good RUS commander!...). 

But as US/UKR commander I work under the framework that 1)ive limited forces  2)I must initally delay delay delay 3)i must kill as many hostile armor as possible. On the attack I must not level the town to save it. 

All this because I'm fighting within the Ukraine itself. If I as NATO invaded Russia then I suspect the frameworks would flip, with speed being my highest priority. 

As a map designer, as mentioned in my post above, the general operational/strategic situation informs what battles I set up and why. I'm developing a UKR v RUS campaign, positing an unplanned sudden deterioration in the front line which slips into a phase of fluid manoeuvring followed by some critical set piece battles. This is based on a reading of the current Donbass situation (and it's development) and also a VERY general understanding of Russian military priorities and current evolving doctrine. 

Basically,  I don't fight or map in a vacuum. 

Quick battles are completely separate and independent. I view them as testing grounds for tactics, scenarios,  etc. 

Edited by kinophile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, kinophile said:

Now KOREA would be an interesting scenario, for the terrain alone! 

But I'd need to read up far more than my current base before I could start dropping idea bombs like turds in a punch bowl. 

I'd argue it is. For me,  personally, it frames my tactics in game and also frames the map designers' approach. 

For example, as campaign RUS commander I understand that achieving my OBJ ASAP is time critical, civilian infrastructure be damned (other than militarily useful items like bridges, high points). This means I'll often simply blast my way through (never said I was a good RUS commander!...). 

But as US/UKR commander I work under the framework that 1)ive limited forces  2)I must initally delay delay delay 3)i must kill as many hostile armor as possible. On the attack I must not level the town to save it. 

All this because I'm fighting within the Ukraine itself. If I as NATO invaded Russia then I suspect the frameworks would flip, with speed being my highest priority. 

As a map designer, as mentioned in my post above, the general operational/strategic situation informs what battles I set up and why. I'm developing a UKR v RUS campaign, positing an unplanned sudden deterioration in the front line which slips into a phase of fluid manoeuvring followed by some critical set piece battles. This is based on a reading of the current Donbass situation (and it's development) and also a VERY general understanding of Russian military priorities and current evolving doctrine. 

 

13 minutes ago, kinophile said:

Basically,  I don't fight or map in a vacuum. 

Quick battles are completely separate and independent. I view them as testing grounds for tactics, scenarios,  etc. 

Fine but I am thinking more along the lines of whether the nukes fly or not

Putting that issue aside assume any NATO operations are t be conducted in Kursk and Belgorod provibnces. NATO won't be operating around Bryansk (forested and poor road networks looking at Google Earth. No"March onmoscow is planned. Assume a secondary operation in Southern Ukraine in the Donetsk and Luhanska region to be conducted by Ukranian forces supported by NATO alies.

Assume the initial Russian invasion has been repulsed and the NATO counter offensive is ongoing. A decision has been taken to conduct limited advances into Russia with the objective of reducing Russian forces prior to a negotiated ceasefire . Washington and SACEUR anticipate  that ceasefire as being in place roughly ten to fourteen days from now. at about that time a ceasefire proposal is intended depending on military progress in the forthcomig operation

Assume at the major operation is to be conducted in the Kursk and Belgorod region and assume that this will be a limited operation lasting a week to ten days with the objective of destroying or pushing back mobile Russian forces to prevent a new Russian invasion. Politically assume that Moscow has been informed that limited advances into Russia will be made and warned of the consequences should they use nuclear weapons. The use of nuclearweapons is not expected but has not been ruled out. NATO forces are to avoid urban combat in places like Kursk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Korea, yes Iwould love to see CM Korea 2020. Not keen th historical Korean War- I doubt most people would like that as a scenario just as we are not keen on Vietnam.The Arab - Israeli wars particularly 1967, 1973 and a modern day scenario would be great but might be considered too politiclly controversal. I suspect a lt of people would like a CM Fulda Gap 1985 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First yeah Id love Fulda Gap 85. The only thing that would compete for it with my attention would.be if they did a CM WW3 45 where confusion at the end of the war and minor clashes between western and eastern allied forces escalated. Perhaps with an expansion of some weak Wehrmacht units and then the regular allies vs Soviets. I dont know which id prefer.

Im going to stop arguing how silly your points are. Its obvious to me that if you are rdg anyone elses posts youre just manually moving your eyes over the words ajd not comprehending them or trying to.  Belgorod and Kursk arent negotiating chips. NATO would never be able to keep a long term prescence there nor wants to. NATO and the west is already sick of the Russians and their problems. Why the hell would we want to inheirit their problems by occupying any part of their country especially since Iraq has been such a mess and lets face it we all know the Russians as either military or partisan forces would almost for sure do their bloody work better or at least have a bit more testicular fortitude.

Its like you suggested the idea, which isnt that bad, about degrading the physical condition of troops because of chemical weapons. Its a good idea but it seems youve fallen so in love with your idea youve structured your narrative now around it being a given chemical weapons are introduced. You seem to not realize what pzsaurkraut said which is 100 percent true: its not for nothing the US calls things NBC (NUCLEAR BIO CHEMICAL) theyre all the same category to our military and therefore chemical weapon use would definitely be hit back with nukes. Nevermind also that the US has destroyed a lot of its stocks and isnt going to say " awwww shucks guess since we re outta MX we ve got to let the Russians gas us constantly" and not use our WMDs.

Anyways see just like that i got sucked back into it.

Kino you can call me Jeff man its cool. I hope I wasnt too sharp fingered to you either when I corrected you. I dont even remember what you.re referring to but everyone heres seen youre a good kid (not literally your civ 2 ref belies your age is about 10 yrs older than me, we just say kid in this part of america the same as people say dude) and came here meaning well with knowledge and opinions but also open to suggestions and counterargument.  Ive got to say its been awhile since "Ive thought Im glad the board got this guy now", besides noticing raptor codename duchess and pz in the last couple years and appreciating their input. So ya, glad you.re here man. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems this one is in need of a padlock.  I think we've been pretty clear that we're not interested in putting our time into premises that either didn't happen (clash between Warsaw Pact and NATO) or things which aren't even remotely possible (invasion into Russia by NATO).  We have too many other things to do with our time that are historically factual or at least plausible.  Therefore, it doesn't seem productive to discuss things which we're not going to be involved in making happen.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...