Help support TMP


"Near Future Russians vrs everybody advice???" Topic


30 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the American Wargaming Message Board

Back to the Canadian Wargaming Message Board

Back to the British Wargaming Message Board

Back to the SF Discussion Message Board

Back to the Modern Discussion (1946 to 2004) Message Board

Back to the Playtest Message Board


1,104 hits since 7 Dec 2008
©1994-2014 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Uesugi Kenshin Supporting Member of TMP07 Dec 2008 5:08 a.m. PST

I have a near future (sci-fi) scenario brewing in the early development phase (buying minis, none painted yet!).

My plan, in general is as follows:

In the near future, the USA is weakened by civil war which in turn prompts a resurgent militant russia to flex its muscle vrs. Nato.

In the opening stages of the conflict, Russia convinces (through intimidation) Belarus to admit russian troops onto its territory.

Russia then hopes to reclaim the Ukraine into its sphere of influence in a rapid show of force before Nato can respond.

Ultimately Poland and Germany rush to Ukraines aid and the war bogs down into a near-future slug fest. The Caucus region (Dagestan, Ingushetia and Chechnya) then take advantage of Russia's pre-occupation in the west to revolt and attempt to secede from the Russian union.

My questions are,

#1: how does this sound so far?
#2: What other state(s) should join Nato against Russia, if any?

My plans are initially to game this in 28mm skirmish games and later possibly to expand into 15mm sci-fi battles.

Thanks for any input/ contributions!

Earl of the North07 Dec 2008 5:12 a.m. PST

One thing, Belarus wants to re-join Russia and have tried to repeatedly.

Personal logo Cacique Caribe Supporting Member of TMP07 Dec 2008 5:22 a.m. PST

Why not something like this?

TMP link

CC

Uesugi Kenshin Supporting Member of TMP07 Dec 2008 5:44 a.m. PST

"One thing, Belarus wants to re-join Russia and have tried to repeatedly."

Exactly why I figure they will be Russias only ally!

Earl of the North07 Dec 2008 6:17 a.m. PST

Russia convinces (through intimidation) Belarus to admit russian troops onto its territory.
You'll have to change that bit then, no need for any intimidation….Belarus would love to be Russian again, problem is at the moment the Russians don't want them. grin

There is a guy on here, who can give you a lot of detail about the regionial forces, sergeis is his name.

You may want to write in Russia's 'offical reason' for the invasion of the Ukraine being the protection of ethnic russians in the Crimea and their naval base there..

I'm not sure you would get any other nations apart from NATO countries responding to Russia's aggression, apart from Georgia but they probably have problems of their own at that point. Even then a civil war in the U.S. might mean Canada might sit out the war due to problems on its border with the U.S……they might even make a grab for Alaska.

David Manley07 Dec 2008 7:12 a.m. PST

I asuppose in the US civil war scenario you could also have Mexican troops occupying parts of Texas and other southern states to "protect visiting Mexican citizens in the prevailing period of civil unrest", British and Dutch peacekeepers in Maryland bringing calm to the situation with a nice pot of tea and a few joints, French peackeepers restoring calm in New Orleans, etc. :)

Oh, and why not have the world's other flash points take advantage of the demise of the US too, whilst you are at it – Chinese expansion in the South China Sea, reunification with Taiwan (whether voluntary or not), India / Pakistan / Iran / the Koreas – fun for all the family!!!

FalloutLeader Inactive Member07 Dec 2008 7:35 a.m. PST

How about just look at the game Shattered Union great concept poor game.

Personal logo Klebert L Hall Supporting Member of TMP07 Dec 2008 9:30 a.m. PST

Make it not the near future.

The Russian military is not going to be in any shape for something like this for a good long while.

You'll need to explain away the whole strategic nuclear exchange part, too.
-Kle.

fowler Inactive Member07 Dec 2008 9:31 a.m. PST

I wouldn't be surprised if the Russian Army is already in Belorussia….

Germany rush to Polands aid…..nah….no way! :D

se

cpmodels.co.uk

Chrono HAL Fezian Inactive Member07 Dec 2008 10:28 a.m. PST
Personal logo Natholeon Supporting Member of TMP07 Dec 2008 1:19 p.m. PST

As a reason to attack NATO, all you need to do is put anti-ballistic missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic. I'm pretty sure Russia would be happy to knock them out without so much as a by-your-leave. The US doesn't need to be in Civil War, it just needs to be bogged down in too many wars to be able to intervene decisively. Wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran maybe. And why not look at a Russian deal with North Korea to attack south and divert US attention? Or a Chinese descent on Taiwan?
Would Russia back down in the face of a nuclear threat from the US? Something in me says 'no'.

Personal logo andygamer Supporting Member of TMP07 Dec 2008 5:13 p.m. PST

they [the Canadians] might even make a grab for Alaska.

No way. Florida instead. (At least if the civil war starts in winter.)

Lampyridae Inactive Member07 Dec 2008 8:09 p.m. PST

I second the US being tied down in the Middle East. The US, with Iraqi allies, invade Iran. Baghdad is nuked, crippling the US military presence in the area. India sends expeditionary forces. Pakistan senses an opportunity and joins in the fun, with battles erupting along the Kashmir. This quickly gets ugly and the two sides nuke each each other. At the same time, Syria, Egypt and co. see a chance to get back at the Israelis, and, with some antimissile backing by the Russians, invade. Israel says what the heck, goes nuclear (everybody's doing it) and shortly afterwards half the Middle East is destroyed. World oil prices skyrocket, and guess who has the largest intact oil and gas fields now? That's right, the US and Russia. Russia decides to move in and bag lost territory, taking back whichever countries they feel like. Ukraine is left out of it but is seriously cowed by Russia.

The Frenchies wouldn't step in until something intruded on their assets… I would suspect a squeeze on the oil pipeline or closing it would draw them in along with Germany. The UK is too busy with their mates in the Middle East to help. Belgium, Spain and Italy are along for the ride. Australia tries to stay neutral. The Japanese just might grab the opportunity to nibble at the Bear's tail and take back the Sakhalin islands, opening up a second front.

Now, China is the biggie. Does it assist the Russians or do they sit back and watch stuff burn? My guess is they would try to take Taiwan, but it seems less and less likely as time goes on. They may not ally with Japan but they may decide to get involved with Russia and take back a few disputed provinces. I think they will not risk it, I think they might actually side with Russia against Japan. Ouch.

Uesugi Kenshin Supporting Member of TMP07 Dec 2008 9:25 p.m. PST

Lampy, good stuff.

In my initial brainstorming I pictured China coming in as a late starter and fighting the Russians either in Mongolia or Kazakhstan. I hadn't gotten far enough along to figure out the big question…"why"?

If Kazakhstan, it would be for the oil.

Thanks all for the input. Not trying to predict history here, just making sci-fi gaming goodness.

I always enjoy battles more when I can put them into even a loose context of "why" they are happening..rather than an unknown time, place and reason.

Keep the ideas coming please.

Uesugi Kenshin Supporting Member of TMP07 Dec 2008 9:44 p.m. PST

…then again, I might just paint up a bunch of over-priced minis, set them up om opposite sides of a large table, and let them blow the crap out of eachother for no good reason.

kyoteblue Supporting Member of TMP07 Dec 2008 10:59 p.m. PST

Senseless miniature violence is also a good thing.

Lampyridae Inactive Member07 Dec 2008 11:15 p.m. PST

…then again, I might just paint up a bunch of over-priced minis, set them up om opposite sides of a large table, and let them blow the crap out of eachother for no good reason.

Careful, the Inquisition might come knocking at your door with itchy bolter fingers.

China is traditionally a non-expansionist power. They are big enough already. They don't have the maritime power to take on Taiwan and Japan, for example. I can see them taking areas where there are traditional historical claims, nobody lives there, or perhaps there are some ethnic group they claim as "theirs." See the occupation of Tibet. Territorial acquisitions in this century will probably be along the lines of Georgia. Persuade the disgruntled locals to join you, give them weapons and when they revolt against their corrupt governments, move in as "peacekeepers." Then make moves to annex the province. It would never work with, say, China invading Japan, but where you have ethnic overlap there's a possible excuse.

South Korea / North Korea at the moment is far away from a squabble, but if China gets involved again, things could get ugly real fast. Kazakhstan, Tajikistan etc. are sources of possible ethnic "reunification" efforts. Taiwan might be coaxed in with dialogue and skullduggery (what I believe is happening now).

Farmland that is not salinized is also prime territory, along with freshwater access and oil those will be the biggest resource squabbles in coming years.

Earl of the North08 Dec 2008 5:32 a.m. PST

You could always use the Tuffleyverse timeline link as a background, I expanded the background of the break up of the U.S. for my planned games from the founding of the NAC.

RABeery08 Dec 2008 10:41 a.m. PST

I'm not sure you'd get any fight out of NATO.

Moscovian Inactive Member08 Dec 2008 12:20 p.m. PST

The U.S. split up is a good idea IMO. Sounds like you listen to too much Glenn Beck (something I'm guilty of) but pretty viable. Russian analyst just put out the U.S. breakup as a viable future – I'll post the link if anyone really wants it.

How big is the 'map' of the conflict? Global?

You don't necessarily need a Civil War to justify the Balkanizing of the USA. Economic forces straining the relationships between the states and ultimately a secession takes place. The "civil war ii" hasn't taken place yet and there is dialogue to try to resolve things without conflict. With the U.S. in that situation, the Russians would be more than willing to move.

You may want to consider having SOME American troops involved although I am not sure which ones would be the most interested in being involved on two fronts. If you go about it with the scenario I suggested above, you can have the Eastern US (Federalized America) siding with the Russians, hoping they will strike against Alaska in exchange for the lack of F.A. troops involved. The American Republic (US States like Alaska, Texas, Oklahoma, etc) are interested in lending support against Russia.

The Finnish might not be too happy about the Russians strolling across Europe. England and Germany would be none too happy either. Lots of players, really. Try looking up U.N. resolutions where the European players are at odds with Russia and you should have a fairly accurate list.

Personal logo Cyrus the Great Supporting Member of TMP08 Dec 2008 11:19 p.m. PST

Causes for the American Civil could be either a revolt against the continued corporatization of America or class warfare. Another idea could be a war weary America entering a new phase of isolationism caused by too many global commitments.

Number609 Dec 2008 12:31 a.m. PST

"In the near future, the USA is weakened by civil war which in turn prompts a resurgent militant russia to flex its muscle vrs. Nato."

You don't need a civil war – all you need is a new President.

And no one is going to rush to anyone's aid. They'll just roll over for them. Russian doesn't have to invade anybody. They can coerce Eastern Europe into allowing them back in and intimidate Western Europe into dancing to their tune. The new Cold War will be over in a few months, maybe a year or two after the new US administration takes over.

Uesugi Kenshin Supporting Member of TMP09 Dec 2008 2:07 a.m. PST

"They'll just roll over for them. Russian doesn't have to invade anybody."

Well that doesnt help the scenario along much does it…

"The new Cold War will be over in a few months, maybe a year or two after the new US administration takes over."

I SERIOUSLY doubt that.

Moscovian Inactive Member09 Dec 2008 7:24 a.m. PST

Well, this IS a fictional game. All you have to do is make the scenario plausible and it will be fine. While the liklihood of the U.S. breaking up is low, it isn't impossible. The same thing can be said about a stronger military presence in Europe on behalf of the German, the French, the Spanish, or whoever you choose. The liklihood is low, but not impossible.

It would be interesting to see China aiding the E.U., however, in order to preserve its European markets from being war torn as opposed to altruistic ties.

Another thought is having the Republic of Iraq assisting, having been built up by the U.S. military and now a strong rival against Iran (its old nemesis who has clear ties to Russia today and probably will in the future).

Personal logo Klebert L Hall Supporting Member of TMP09 Dec 2008 10:19 a.m. PST

Would Russia back down in the face of a nuclear threat from the US? Something in me says 'no'.

Every bit of historical evidence says "yes".
-Kle.

Personal logo Natholeon Supporting Member of TMP09 Dec 2008 2:29 p.m. PST

Kle
I don't think Russia today (or tomorrow) is in the same situation as during the Cold War. For instance, putting missiles in Cuba was a direct reaction to US deployment of missiles in Turkey. The spectacular end of that was the Soviet backdown in Cuba, but in the shadows the Turkish missiles went too. My point is that when Russia sees direct threats in what it considers its backyard, it is prepared to go to the wall. Missile deployments in former Warsaw Pact states (or even former Soviet states) may just be a step too far for the Russians.

sergeis Inactive Member09 Dec 2008 4:40 p.m. PST

I whould venture to say here that Russia's current wet dream is a state cooperation along the lines of Russia- Ukraine-Belarus-Kazakhstan. That whould include most of USSR population and resourses. Mind you it will be of separate states, but with Russia as a leader. Invading or annexing large swathes of land like Ukraine is detremental to say the least- somebody has to feed those chaps. Maybe only invading Crimea- as purely Sci-Fi scenario. In reality it is too costly in all aspects. It is far more lucrative to
have a very friendly border state, without annexing it- and with it all its troubles…

Echo5Hotel Inactive Member09 Dec 2008 5:34 p.m. PST

Here's a thought:

The new administration in the U.S. destroys everything the United States ever was and stood for and the country is now called the United Socialist States of America (USSA), a dictatorial regime. Russia, being the defenders of democracy on the planet now are the good guys!

The USSA still has a large insurgent issue to deal with however and so a low intensity civil war could be ongoing along with a confrontation in Europe with Russia.

I could detail more but I have a habit of getting bogged down in detail.

Uesugi Kenshin Supporting Member of TMP10 Dec 2008 7:24 p.m. PST

"I could detail more but I have a habit of getting bogged down in"

Much like our Military under our current regime! ;-)

Uesugi Kenshin Supporting Member of TMP02 Jan 2009 12:23 p.m. PST

These have now been added to the Wargames Factory page!

link

Sorry - only trusted members can post on the forums.