Combat Mission Shanghai Pact: Ring of Fire 2021

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Wht about this for a future conflict scenario. This would pit the United States and her Pacific Region Allies such as Japan,Taiwan South Korea. Australia and maybe European allies such as the UK against the armies of he Shanghai Co-Operation Organisation in a widespread conflagration in the Pacific Rim region (essentially a WW3 scenario. Combat in this game might be in any area within the region during this lengthy conventional war including Taiwan. South Korea, and Siberia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation

It coud alo be potentially used to game wars such as a Sino-Indian conflict or an Indo-Pakistani conflict though, as always, the main focus must be on US ground forces. I think this would be a far better option than revisiting the Middle East. The Far East has much potential for a high tech  modern conflict - and we have never had a Combat Mission game set in this region. Perhaps Korea or Taiwan might be the spark that sts the region (and the world) ablaze.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

The Russians could even get to use the Armata and then we would see plenty of Chinese equipment. not to mention South Korea. Japan and Taiwanese equipment. Als Indian tanks like the Arjun and the Pakistani Al Khalid.

Many different terrain/theater options as well such Kashmir, Korea, South East Asia Siberia and Mainland China. This is a conflict could easily last two or three years (assume the war leaders are too scared to go nuclear) so different seasons could be featured. As indicated earlier this CM game might cover smaller regional conflicts that might not otherwise be regarded as commercially viable on their own even with US intervention.

[Erwin]

Aside from the Korean peninsular, it's hard to envisage US ground troops any other place - the logistics and dangers of supplying them would be mindblowing.  However, due to current events it would be a timely game and I'd buy it.  (But after we get an upgraded CMSF please.)

[LUCASWILLEN05]

52 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Aside from the Korean peninsular, it's hard to envisage US ground troops any other place - the logistics and dangers of supplying them would be mindblowing.  However, due to current events it would be a timely game and I'd buy it.  (But after we get an upgraded CMSF please.)

A great power conflict along the Pacific Rim against Russia and China could very well involve significant ground warfare from very early in the conflict, The first ground contacts would likely, as you say, be in Korea. However, this would be a conflict of World War proportions and would require a reintroduction of the draft. One can assume that the US would eventually win the war at sea and would then have to conduct large scale ground operations against China

While this game might concentrate on the Far East this would be a world war with likely theaters in the Middle East, Europe and possibly Africa. Perhaps an upgraded CMSF might be linked in to his future scenario history Particularly f game design went down a multi theater route there would be tremendous scope for expansion within the timeline

There are some interesting considerations here 

 

Edited May 5, 2017 by LUCASWILLEN05

[slysniper]

Yes, its a great location to be used for a cm game.

Shortly after CMBS came out, we had a discussion on a tread about it.

Bringing up a fact that China has one of the more interesting what if's situations and a army with plenty of different units to model and use that would be interesting to put in a tactical game, plus it would add a different terrain type than what we have been using and would be a nice added change.

I like your thoughts on the year also, which would allow the Russians to have some of their new tools in play if they were added.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

34 minutes ago, slysniper said:

Yes, its a great location to be used for a cm game.

Shortly after CMBS came out, we had a discussion on a tread about it.

Bringing up a fact that China has one of the more interesting what if's situations and a army with plenty of different units to model and use that would be interesting to put in a tactical game, plus it would add a different terrain type than what we have been using and would be a nice added change.

I like your thoughts on the year also, which would allow the Russians to have some of their new tools in play if they were added.

Indeed. I think the Far East has at least as much potential for high  tech armoured combat and we already have games for the Middle East and Eastern Europe. As you suggest paddy fields would be  a significant terrain addition. I consider a Far East game would offer far more than a Middle East repeat. Possibly the game would open up a potential Far East market for  Battlefront :-)

Regarding the year 2021 does seem like a reasonable plausible date for a conflict as well as allowing for gaming several other interesting regional conflicts, thus killing several birds with the same stone. I rather fancy gaming India v Pakistan, a Sino - Indian or a Second Korean War but I accept that these conflicts on their own might not be commercially viable as a game in the way that Ring of Fire could be given the variety of armies that might be available.

Battlefront has also shown an ability to model different terrains  hence they ought to be able diverse terrains such as Northern India and Pakistan including Kashmir Nepal, Korea, Taiwan, Mainland China, Siberia and South East Asia where the main ground combat would most likely take place in this scenario.

[Artkin]

1 hour ago, slysniper said:

 and a army with plenty of different units to model

We are paying for a tunguska reskin!!!??

P.s. I think this is a fantastic idea

Edited May 5, 2017 by Artkin

[Erwin]

THE biggest market would be for Israel vs everyone.  But that hasn't happened - possibly for political reasons. 

May have similar problems in Far East and even India-Pakistan.  They are not so great on Free Speech and games that could be "offensive" etc.   (Even the Germans ban Nazi stuff in games.)

[Kinophile]

UK would not be anywhere near this, just saying. They're very much a regional power now, with some highly limited and platform specific strategic reach. 

[Codename Duchess]

I'm very curious what realistic casus belli would prompt an even bolstered US Army to commit ground forces to a land war in Asia beyond the Korean Peninsula (which every day seems less likely that China would be involved, militarily, in).  Seriously.  Sure the Shanghai Pact sounds like a good boogeyman (although India is more likely to remain neutral or even pro-US than you think) but there's no good reason for there to be a land war component beyond Marine actions on islands.  If you're interested in this I suggest you pick up CMANO which would much more realistically represent any hypothetical naval engagement.  I don't think anyone would realistically expect to see an M1A4 in Tiananmen square...

Now Combat Mission Fulda Gap...

Edited May 6, 2017 by Codename Duchess

[exsonic01]

IMHO the second Korean war, PLA + KPA vs RoKA + US army, on the Korean peninsula would be good enough for the first CM game for east-Asian theater. Then BF could include more modules with other nations. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

I for one am profoundly doubtful of an Asian land war that is fought with equipment that Battlefront reasonably can simulate.  

Re: Fulda Gap

I think it'd be really enjoyable.  The capabilities of the hardware is fairly well understood, and it's been a long time since a company worth a darn has seen fit to pay it a visit.

Re: Korea

Having been there for a spell, it just never felt like a likely scenario in modern times.  This is not a statement on our readiness, we'd have murderivated our way clean through the DPRK etc, but the DPRK is so broken these days it's really hard to imagine it summoning the credible forces to invade the South, and if we're going North it's because the DPRK has totally and utterly folded and we're looking at some sort of stability operation+cleaning up what parts of the old DPRK disagree with this sort of operation.  

[IICptMillerII]

Pls no...

3 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:

Now Combat Mission Fulda Gap...

This would be exponentially better.

[exsonic01]

50 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Re: Korea

Having been there for a spell, it just never felt like a likely scenario in modern times.  This is not a statement on our readiness, we'd have murderivated our way clean through the DPRK etc, but the DPRK is so broken these days it's really hard to imagine it summoning the credible forces to invade the South, and if we're going North it's because the DPRK has totally and utterly folded and we're looking at some sort of stability operation+cleaning up what parts of the old DPRK disagree with this sort of operation.  

I agree that the readiness level of KPA is far below the reliable line at current state, but almost all of the second Korean war scenario includes the PLA intervention. Oh yeah, I'm pretty sure they will, if something happens inside the DPRK, like uprising or coup or any other urgent political events. This depends on economic situation of PRC, but I'm certain that they will intervene for very very good chance if something happens. 

The prime logic behind is that the PRC is trying to follow the old Soviet Union and current Russia. They wish to make 'buffer zone' from their main land, so called '1st island line' and '2nd island line'. All those artificial islands on the South China Sea are one of the good examples. From the same logic, PRC does not want to meet the direct border against the democratic nations, i.e. unified Korea under full South Korean control. If something happens, they will push southward at all cost, to save DPRK, or they could eliminate DPRK and even make puppet government in the northern part of the Korean peninsula. 

So, IMO at least several scenarios are possible to become an interesting CM scenario. But not sure what is the BF's plan. And I agree that if they compete over CM Cold War vs CM 2nd Korean war, I think they will go for CM Cold War. I love to see CM Cold War as well

As far as I know the, Type 99 is comparable with T-80UD, and Type 96 is comparable with early T-72. But not sure about Type99a2. All of estimations I read were just overestimated fanboy fantasy. 

 

Edited May 6, 2017 by exsonic01

[Codename Duchess]

3 minutes ago, exsonic01 said:

I agree that the readiness level of KPA is far below the reliable line at current state, but almost all of the second Korean war scenario includes the PLA intervention. Oh yeah, I'm pretty sure they will, if something happens inside the DPRK, like uprising or coup or any other urgent political events. This depends on economic situation of PRC, but I'm certain that they will intervene for very very good chance if something happens. 

The prime logic behind is the PRC is trying to follow the old Soviet Union and current Russia. They wish to make 'buffer zone' from their main land, 1st island line and 2nd island line. All those artificial islands on the South China Sea are one of the good examples. From the same logic, PRC does not want to meet the direct border against the democratic nations, i.e. unified Korea under full South Korean control. If something happens, they will push southward at all cost, to save DPRK, or they could eliminate DPRK and even make puppet government in the northern part of the Korean peninsula. 

So, IMO at least several scenarios are possible to become an interesting CM scenario. But not sure what is the BF's plan. But I agree that if they compete over CM Cold War vs CM 2nd Korean war, I think they will go for CM Cold War. 

As far as I know the, Type 99 is comparable with T-80UD, and Type 96 is comparable with early T-72. But not sure about Type99a2. All of estimations I read were just overestimated fanboy fantasy. 

 

Negative.  The PRC has already promised not to engage in a military engagement if there is war meant to disarm Kim on the peninsula.  They have a hell of a lot more to lose by war with the US than they stand to gain by propping up that regime further after hostilities begin.  I think expectation of a Korean War 2.0 that is identical to 1.0 is not going to happen. 

[exsonic01]

18 minutes ago, Codename Duchess said:

Negative.  The PRC has already promised not to engage in a military engagement if there is war meant to disarm Kim on the peninsula.  They have a hell of a lot more to lose by war with the US than they stand to gain by propping up that regime further after hostilities begin.  I think expectation of a Korean War 2.0 that is identical to 1.0 is not going to happen. 

If we talk about the current ongoing situation only, official response from PRC is that they will not going to intervene if the US only attempts surgical strike to nuclear-related sites. They will intervene if any faction try to change Kim regime. Plus, even in the imaginary artificial scenario, I don't believe such opinions from the nations like PRC, i.e. communist or totalitarian or dictatorship nations. Frankly and historically, such 'promises' are not that meaningful and reliable from those nations.... 

They will not gonna allow the direct border against the unified Korea as strong western ally, and they will try their best to prevent that. They will attempt to take at least 70~100km northern part of Korean peninsula, and will declare pro-China puppet government, denying all of the charges of illegal intervention, saying "the people living in those lands want to become a part of China by their election" "All of Chinese forces inside the Korean border are not official PLA, they are all just volunteers" Sounds quite familiar, isn't it? I bet my 50 cents  

I also think there's not that much chance of full-scale land battle at current state. But no one knows the future, this really depends on what will going to happen at the top circle of the DPRK leadership, and economic state of PRC. 

Edited May 6, 2017 by exsonic01

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

6 minutes ago, exsonic01 said:

If we talk about the current ongoing situation only, official response from PRC is that they will not going to intervene if the US only attempts surgical strike to nuclear-related sites. They will intervene if any faction try to change Kim regime. Plus, even in the imaginary artificial scenario, I don't believe such opinions from the nations like PRC, i.e. communist or totalitarian or dictatorship nations. Frankly and historically, such 'promises' are not that meaningful and reliable from those nations.... 

They will not gonna allow the direct border against the unified Korea as strong western ally, and they will try their best to prevent that. They will attempt to take at least 70~100km northern part of Korean peninsula, and will declare pro-China puppet government, denying all of the charges of illegal intervention, saying "the people living in those lands want to become a part of China by their election" "All of Chinese forces inside the Korean border are not official PLA, they are all just volunteers" Sounds quite familiar, isn't it? I bet my 50 cents  

I also think there's not that much chance of full-scale land battle at current state. But no one knows the future, this really depends on what will going to happen at the top circle of the DPRK leadership, and economic state of PRC. 

There's a lot I wish I could say.  Here's some considerations:

1. DPRK is a poisoned chalice.  It's terrible.  It's broken.  Whoever winds up with it is going to be committed to decades of undoing all the damage that like, it's not "underdeveloped" it's "maldeveloped" in that it's poorly thought out and set up in ways that are directly counter to being a functional country.  There's mass malnutrition, no "functional" industry (nothing that isn't done elsewhere for many times better and cheaper once you remove unfree labor forces), disease, infrastructure, all terrible.  

Right now?  it's the DPRK's problem.  China can tut and then disapprovingly and maintain it's buffer zone.  If it all burns down though?  Do they really want to inheret that dumpster fire?  They won't have the old "It was Kim's fault!" excuse, it'll be their terrible DPRK zombie baby.  

And the PRC is too smart for that.

2. Once the DPRK is no longer intact it loses its value as a buffer.  Using non-intervention as a negotiating position makes more sense ("Okay we sit this one out, but no US forces north of ## parallel and everything from the old State Mines 1-8 you'll sell to the PRC exclusively!) than placing blood and treasure on the line to become the king of craptown.  

I wouldn't rule out a narrow "humanitarian" buffer strip to keep the North Korean refugees out of China (as that's high on their heartburn list), but nothing that'll get their hands too dirty or obligate them to nation building.  

[exsonic01]

53 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

There's a lot I wish I could say.  Here's some considerations:

1. DPRK is a poisoned chalice.  It's terrible.  It's broken.  Whoever winds up with it is going to be committed to decades of undoing all the damage that like, it's not "underdeveloped" it's "maldeveloped" in that it's poorly thought out and set up in ways that are directly counter to being a functional country.  There's mass malnutrition, no "functional" industry (nothing that isn't done elsewhere for many times better and cheaper once you remove unfree labor forces), disease, infrastructure, all terrible.  

Right now?  it's the DPRK's problem.  China can tut and then disapprovingly and maintain it's buffer zone.  If it all burns down though?  Do they really want to inheret that dumpster fire?  They won't have the old "It was Kim's fault!" excuse, it'll be their terrible DPRK zombie baby.  

And the PRC is too smart for that.

2. Once the DPRK is no longer intact it loses its value as a buffer.  Using non-intervention as a negotiating position makes more sense ("Okay we sit this one out, but no US forces north of ## parallel and everything from the old State Mines 1-8 you'll sell to the PRC exclusively!) than placing blood and treasure on the line to become the king of craptown.  

I wouldn't rule out a narrow "humanitarian" buffer strip to keep the North Korean refugees out of China (as that's high on their heartburn list), but nothing that'll get their hands too dirty or obligate them to nation building.  

I never said PRC likes DPRK, and I know that he Sino-NK relations began to crack from 1980s, when Deng pushed the economic reforms and official relationship with RoK, and it is getting worse and worse since 1990s. And I'm pretty sure, that PRC also knows well the DPRK is failing and even more worse and worse as time goes by. Still, they support DPRK just because they can, not because they like them, and anyway DPRK well serves as buffer zone against US, Japan, and RoK. 

Like I mentioned, as they are really good at copy and paste anything, PRC is trying to follow the old Soviet style or current Russian style. They want to make the buffer zone, as 1st island chain and 2nd island chain, and Korea is inside the 1st chain. Whole Korean peninsula is the region of 'vital national interest' to PRC, just like what Russians called the Crimean peninsula and whole Ukraine region. They don't want to allow any potentially hostile factions close to their border. They will try to do anything, regardless of economic sanctions, to take at least a part of Korean peninsula, just like what Russians did. 

Based on that, if something happens, first, they will try to save the original DPRK regime. If that option is not viable, they will try to control whole northern part of Korean peninsula. And if that is also not viable, they will try to take the land as much as possible. This whole assumption depends on the economic ability of PRC at the moment, but they will try as much as they can at given circumstance. 

Zombie baby? Well said, that is exactly what they want. They don't need 'good-looking' nation, they just need the meat shield, to prevent direct border against western influences, such as US, Japan and RoK. No nations will officially approve or acknowledge such puppet nation as official sovereign country, but do you think they will care? I think not. Russia and China will approve and that will be done. First they will try to use old DPRK social and control structure as much as possible. Soon, they will try to build infrastructure, roads, buildings, and social support, to upgrade the 'puppet' in some degree, at least to survive by its own ability. It has very good cause, like "PRC is supporting NK refugees and orphans" or "PRC is supporting hungry NK citizens, who were suppressed under terrible dictatorship" or etc...  

Edited May 6, 2017 by exsonic01

[LUCASWILLEN05]

7 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:

I'm very curious what realistic casus belli would prompt an even bolstered US Army to commit ground forces to a land war in Asia beyond the Korean Peninsula (which every day seems less likely that China would be involved, militarily, in).  Seriously.  Sure the Shanghai Pact sounds like a good boogeyman (although India is more likely to remain neutral or even pro-US than you think) but there's no good reason for there to be a land war component beyond Marine actions on islands.  If you're interested in this I suggest you pick up CMANO which would much more realistically represent any hypothetical naval engagement.  I don't think anyone would realistically expect to see an M1A4 in Tiananmen square...

Now Combat Mission Fulda Gap...

Fleshing this out politically Korea ight be partt of the reason. However sooner r later war between the US and China is a highy plausible scenario

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/29/us-china-war-increasingly-a-reality-chinese-army-official-says.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-china-war-be-end-of-life-earth-nuclear-weapons-apocalypse-steve-bannon-donald-trump-white-house-a7561821.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/02/steve-bannon-donald-trump-war-south-china-sea-no-doubt

ussia is also a hostile power and is the other senior member of the SCO. In the right circumsances the SCO might well morph  into a military alliance. China has other disputes such as he one with Vietnam that might bring about a situation where the US has to commit large ground forces to the Asian mainland.

While the US will likely suffer early defeats in a war that would clearly be of World War proportions (we are assuming no nukes here - the war leaders are assumed to be too scared of the consequences and so are assumed to figh  an extended conventional war instead) it is probable the draft will be re-introduced permitting the US to raise a large enough army to fight the war. I am not saying it will end with US tanks rolling into Tianaman Square. There is however a strong likelihood of extended ground campaigns in South East Asia and perhaps India in addition to Siberia (remember the old Lehman Doctrine from te 1980s) and eventually, yes, maybe an invasion of mainland China. Bear in mind we are talking about the US when fully mobilized, not the US with current capabilities.

Anyway, this is a GAME allowing us to use high tech armies in a theater not previously addressed As far as geopoltical "realism" is concerned - back in the late 1980s war gamers were gaming "Sci Fi on the Rhine" - and I notice someone has recently suggested a Combat Mission 1985 game!

[LUCASWILLEN05]

9 hours ago, kinophile said:

UK would not be anywhere near this, just saying. They're very much a regional power now, with some highly limited and platform specific strategic reach. 

Early on the UK might send an expeditionary force of some sort. Maybe Royal Marines, Paras etc.However, if Russia is also in the war alongside China there will almost certainly a war in Eastern Europe which is where heavy British forces will be.at this point.

There would however be Australia and New Zealand forces instead - and a small British contingent may fight alongside them. Bearing in mind the game depicts an extended conventional war lasting two or three years (or  longer more UK forces could arrive in theater at a later date 

Again I remind you we assume an extended conventional war for scenario and gaming purpose. No nukes!

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I am not saying a war like this would be a good idea. Just that a war game depicting such a conflict might well work as a war game. It can depict a range of regional conflicts that might not be viable games in  themselves. allows for the use of cutting edge technologies that would certainly be employed (for example tactical usage of cyber hacking  alongside more the more traditional electronic warfare in CMBS . What happens when drones or command systems get hacked?)

Politically . over the next few years the preconditions for a conflict like this could develop. The early phases of the war might very wel see he US being driven off the Asian Mainland (or a large part f it)   just like Britain was driven out of Europe in 1940. The much longer time frame allows for a US mobilization. recovery and liberation of Asia followed by, perhaps, final victory. We can of course have alternate timelines where the US loses or the war stalemates as we had in CMBS.

The US would require an army of millions in this scenario and obviously the volunteer army would not be enough. The draft would have to be reintroduced and it would take a year or two at least to train and deploy a big enough army to win this extended conventional war scenario which is why the time frame might be something like 2021 - 2024 or 2025 rather than just a couple of months.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

A game like this set in a future Far East conflict can address questions like this

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-armata-tank-vs-americas-m-1-abrams-tow-missile-who-17719

Which should please those who want to see the T14 Armta and future US oppents like the M1A3. Alongside these of course we can see a plethora of different modern vehicles such as Pakistan's Al Khalid, India's Arjun, China's T-99, South Korea's K1. older as well as older equipment such as that used by North Korea and others

All against a wide ariety of possible opponents in highly varied terrain

[LUCASWILLEN05]

And here is how such a war might start and play out.  An extended conflict involving the entire Pacific Rim and Indian sub continent (as part of a Third World War)seems like the worst case scenario, However it does have the best war gaming potential - and let us hope that is where it stays http://nationalinterest.org/feature/asia-flames-us-china-war-10621

[Erwin]

"...it would take a year or two at least to train and deploy a big enough army..."  To think like that is almost the definition of "fighting the last war".   Evidence is that the next war will be very very fast, using cyberwar to cripple national infrastructure with the primary target being homeland society and objective being mass panic and disintegration of community.  And CMBS demonstrates that combat will be lethal in the way that WW1 shocked the world with its slaughter. 

The best deterrent is the knowledge by the decision-makers that in such a war, their nation's best troops and equipment will be destroyed leaving the "empires" of Russia, China and US militarily weak with low morale and easy pickings for smaller regional powers and uncon forces like ISIS.