Plausible Blue vs. Blue background for scenario campaign?

[Darkmath]

Some people consider Blue vs Red far too asymetrical so they are turning into Red vs Red campaign (like Paper Tiger's Hasrabit Campaign).

Indeed, except infantry only battle or late T72 vs. M1 armour battle, combined arms scenarios involving AFV or arty for example, make the syrian side disavantaged in comparison with Americas (BMP2 is of no match against Bradley).

So how about a blue campaign?

However, there should be a background for such a campaign.

Moreover, not many potential enemy country would have american material ( Egypt and Saudi Arabia have M1 Abrams, but I don't know country having Bradley so far).

What do you think?

[birdstrike]

Funny, since I've already mentioned that in another thread today, but if you'd be willing to settle for a fictional blue on blue scenario:

there was a PC game out a couple of years back - "Shattered Union" - where a new civil war broke out in the US after Washington DC was destroyed by an unknown nuclear attack. The US territory was divided between a number of factions consisting of several former states each.

It also had the russians taking advantage of the internal conflict by invading Alaska and a European UN intervention force trying to restore order.

[Cpl Steiner]

You have a few options:

1. Military Exercise lasting 1-2 weeks: When you play the game you have to imagine that no-one is actually getting hurt and the explosions etc. are mere pyrotechnics like you'd have in a paint-ball game. Blue would be America and Red would be a made up OPFOR for the exercise. It could be quite fun if you had decent made-up maps and names for things. I'd make it quite explicit in the briefings that this is an exercise and your aim is to prove your worth to High Command and hopefully get promoted.

2. Doctor Strangelove: A highly charismatic US Brigade commander loses his mind and decides to conduct a military coup within the United States. His hand-picked force of loyal followers seize control of large parts of Washington DC. The player is part of the task force sent to evict the maverick General from the nation's capital.

[YankeeDog]

Ya, you have to either accept a training exercise or something pretty fantastical to justify a Blue vs. Blue campaign.

I still think it would be lots of fun, tho.

Also, edited to add: It should be possible to create Red vs. Blue armor scenarios that are much closer to balanced once the USMC module comes out; T-90s and BMP-3s are definitely a step up from what's in the game now on the Syrian side. . . IIRC they're planning on adding some more advanced Red ATGMs as well.

[The Warrior]

Well. If they do in fact add other NATO nations such as Germany and/or France, then you gold have blue on blue. Has any one ever read the books The 10,000 by Harold Coyle and Cauldron by Larry Bond?

[MikeyD]

Let's not forget American-dressed SS during the battle of th Bulge sneaking through the lines. The story line might be they captured a U.S. depot intact and hastily dressed in uniforms and jumped in vehicles for a sneak attack. Hey, its no less plasible than anything else!

[Sequoia]

Alien Bodysnatchers take over the minds of US troops. John Kettler, where are you when we need you?

[RuhrRiver]

"You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That's the signpost up ahead - your next stop, the Twilight Zone!"

For your consideration:

One very lost Stryker unit somewhere in the Syrian hinterlands. As they approach this hilltop complex, they expect to find enemy--perhaps a secret complex with elite troops standing guard.

But what they find they could not have anticipated in their wildest dreams: an attack by a bizarre mirror image--something only glimpsed in

Mark Ezra created the battle, which is pretty bizarre in or out of the TLZone. The above was one idea I had for a briefing pic. I think blue on blue battles are a real challenge and hey--we've already gotten close to US Army vs. US Contractors in Iraq; I see more possibilities...like, in October Bush decides to invade Syria as a boost to the McCain's chances, but Cheney persuades him to use all independent contractors. When the new president (a Democrat) is sworn in, s(he) cuts off funding to the mercenaries--I mean, contractors, leading them to take over Damascus---and, as it turns out, Cheney gave them nuclear weapons! Meanwhile, the contractors' leader, Colonel Kurtz, is....uh, I think I'll stop here. I don't want to write Dale Brown's entire next novel for him...

[gibsonm]

Doesn’t the topic say “Plausible” ??!!

BTW, RuhrRiver you haven’t recently read Chapter 6 of my “Armour Attacks” AAR have you?

Armour Attacks!

[RuhrRiver]

Ah Ha! Good thing you used one of the other season's openings! : )

I just have a weakness for the one that talked about "the signpost up ahead"

[abneo3sierra]

There are some plausible scenarios. Many of our allies in the region use US/western weapons systems. Most of those allies could have very plausible scenarios where the government fell and more radical elements took over..Saudi Arabia one huge example there.

It does make for an interesting tactical game when both sides have essentially the same equipment and you cannot depend on your opponents equipment being inferior or having weaknesses

[kawaiku]

How about this:

The flow of illegal immigrants into the US has become so great that the US government abandons the costly effort of building a wall across the entire border with Mexico and instead, threatens with invasion to stem the flow. A handful of states lead by California and Texas, who have large hispanic populations (not sure about Texas but this is fictional), vehemently argue against such a move and threaten with succession if war is declared. Well the US government tells them to f-off and declares war anyways. California and Texas along with several other states succeed and prepare to defend themselves and mobilize their populations. Other states join the government while others decide neutrality is better. The world on the other hand, stands by and idle watches the events unfold. It's fictional but also semi-realistic as the flow of illegal immigrants has been quite a large issue with our government.

What do you guys think? It could also be split into several other campaigns covering all areas of the states...

This is tentative and if others like it, it can be fleshed out a little more.

I live in California just in case you're wondering.

[gibsonm]

So what NG Vs the Federal Army or USMC?

[FAI]

Originally posted by abneo3sierra:

There are some plausible scenarios. Many of our allies in the region use US/western weapons systems. Most of those allies could have very plausible scenarios where the government fell and more radical elements took over..Saudi Arabia one huge example there.

It does make for an interesting tactical game when both sides have essentially the same equipment and you cannot depend on your opponents equipment being inferior or having weaknesses

But the Saudi's hardware are (mostly) nerfed export version of the real thing.

[kawaiku]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

So what NG Vs the Federal Army or USMC?

haha no. Cali has it's own Marine base and naval base so it could be a mix of USMC, Army, and NG. Just a mix of all the forces pretty much.

You could have say have Cali, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas; vs whatever they have on the east coast. The fighting could take place on neutral states and in the Suez Canal, etc...

[gibsonm]

Why assume that the forces based in that state would side with it?

Just because some formation is rotating through say Fort Irwin wouldn’t mean it would automatically side with the Californians.

Suez Canal? Maybe you meant Panama Canal?

[kawaiku]

I dunno...cuz it's fictional? Why not. And yes that's what I meant, thought the right canal but typed the wrong one..doh!

[MarkEzra]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

Just because some formation is rotating through say Fort Irwin wouldn’t mean it would automatically side with the Californians.

California! Love it or Leave it

[gibsonm]

Mate,

If all they have seen of California is the NTC (like I have), I think they’d leave.

[abneo3sierra]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

Mate,

If all they have seen of California is the NTC (like I have), I think they’d leave.

Guaranteed..

And with the way most in Cali treat them, not a chance of siding with them. but hey, would probably be a fun game.

[C'Rogers]

Hmm if you are going to do a small scenario I suppose it is remotely possible that security contractors could somehow end up on opposite sides.

[John Kettler]

YankeeDog,

It's the considered opinion of many observers that the U.S., in its present form, is unsustainable and is therefore likely to devolve into more intimate, better governed, regions with common interests. That alone could create Blue on Blue action, especially if one or more regions get so fed up they secede.

Are you aware that Texas explicitly reserved to itself that right when it joined the U.S.? Don't mess with Texas! California, screwed year after year by the federal government through being forced to pay for the former's huge unfunded mandates and immigration policies by itself has an economy and industrial base bigger than most countries, not to mention enormous military power, to include amphibious warfare capabilities.

Mind, I certainly don't want war here, but the potential's definitely there for civil war. Believe we had one before! Also, we've got people actively looking to create a race war. Manson tried, but there's also a flock of neo-Nazi groups

and White Supremacists who'd welcome a chance to "shoot 'cans." Africans. Mexicans. Puerto Ricans.

Personally, I find the parallels between this country and Late Imperial Rome quite disturbing, but they offer all sorts of interesting gaming possibilities.

Regards,

John Kettler

[kawaiku]

Are you aware that Texas explicitly reserved to itself that right when it joined the U.S.? Don't mess with Texas! California, screwed year after year by the federal government through being forced to pay for the former's huge unfunded mandates and immigration policies by itself has an economy and industrial base bigger than most countries, not to mention enormous military power, to include amphibious warfare capabilities.

That's exactly why I thought California and Texas seceding would be the perfect duo supported by say, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico against Maryland, Virgina, Pennsylvania,etc..

Or you could go the easy route and say that the Republican party did not like the fact that it was completely booted out of government by the Democrats that they split the Union up and went to war with the Democrats.

[The Warrior]

Originally posted by kawaiku:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Are you aware that Texas explicitly reserved to itself that right when it joined the U.S.? Don't mess with Texas! California, screwed year after year by the federal government through being forced to pay for the former's huge unfunded mandates and immigration policies by itself has an economy and industrial base bigger than most countries, not to mention enormous military power, to include amphibious warfare capabilities.

That's exactly why I thought California and Texas seceding would be the perfect duo supported by say, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico against Maryland, Virgina, Pennsylvania,etc..

Or you could go the easy route and say that the Republican party did not like the fact that it was completely booted out of government by the Democrats that they split the Union up and went to war with the Democrats. </font>

[The Warrior]

Originally posted by kawaiku:

How about this:

The flow of illegal immigrants into the US has become so great that the US government abandons the costly effort of building a wall across the entire border with Mexico and instead, threatens with invasion to stem the flow. A handful of states lead by California and Texas, who have large hispanic populations (not sure about Texas but this is fictional), vehemently argue against such a move and threaten with succession if war is declared. Well the US government tells them to f-off and declares war anyways. California and Texas along with several other states succeed and prepare to defend themselves and mobilize their populations. Other states join the government while others decide neutrality is better. The world on the other hand, stands by and idle watches the events unfold. It's fictional but also semi-realistic as the flow of illegal immigrants has been quite a large issue with our government.

What do you guys think? It could also be split into several other campaigns covering all areas of the states...

This is tentative and if others like it, it can be fleshed out a little more.

I live in California just in case you're wondering.

How about this. Lets leave the whole immigrantion thing alone. Besides, the governments will never go to war over this. I mean, they oked the building of a wall but last I heard, they never funded it. I would say go with a drug war. With the Mexican government unable/unwilling to stop the flow of drugs from there side of the border, the U.S finally take military action on the border to stop the flow of drugs coming up from Mexico and Central/South America. With all the news about U.S. Border patrol agents coming under snipper fire and the Mexican Army escorting drug runners across the border this would be more likely.

Really don't like the idea of a campaign with Americans killing Americans. I get enough of that from my job.