Help support TMP


"Looking for thoughts and ideas on a Ukraine campaign" Topic


18 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.

In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Modern What-If Message Board

Back to the Modern Scenarios Message Board

Back to the Micro Armour: The Game Message Board

Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2012-present) Message Board


Areas of Interest

World War Two on the Land
Modern

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Top-Rated Ruleset

Battleground: World War II


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Profile Article

First Look: GF9's 15mm Falaise House

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian explores another variant in the European Buildings range.


2,443 hits since 9 Nov 2014
©1994-2023 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

M1911Colt09 Nov 2014 4:36 p.m. PST

I'm considering putting together a Modern Ukraine campaign. Starting with the civil war and having it explode into more or less WWIII. Im planning on using 6mm for the first time. I figured I would start with a soviet combat command from GHQ and add some additional pieces here and there. Start slow if you will.

Now to the questions.

I really like GHQ minis. But what is the quality generally of CinC? Are there others I should be on the look out for?
I'm considering using GHQ's modern rule set. Whats you folks thoughts on that? Should I be looking at something else? If so why?
I was thinking off board artillery would be appropriate for some of the initial scenarios. The artillery being based in Russian territory and all. Thoughts on that?
Lastly Once things get going, and start evolving into WWIII. What tanks do you think Poland would send first? Would they go with Leopards right off the back, or Twardy's? Keeping the Leopards in reserve in case of the inevitable Russian counter attack coming to close to the Polish border?
Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian09 Nov 2014 5:48 p.m. PST

I'm considering using GHQ's modern rule set. Whats you folks thoughts on that? Should I be looking at something else? If so why?

If I recall correctly, they recently did a new edition of the WWII ruleset to clarify the rules. If you're lucky, the new edition of the modern ruleset should be out eventually… and if not, you can use the WWII set to aid in understanding the modern ruleset.

Tgunner09 Nov 2014 5:52 p.m. PST

CinC models are pretty good. I wouldn't mix the two in the same unit, but yes in the same army.

I'm more of a Fist Full of TOWs kind of guy myself. It's a great rules set that is easy to learn and plays great.

I don't really see the Poles crossing into the Ukraine myself… But I can see an emboldened Vlad overreaching. Say incursions into the Baltic maybe? Then the question becomes is NATO real or so much hot air. Putin might be thinking that.

Now the folks over at Modern War magazine have a game coming out soon that covers this possibility.

Rod I Robertson09 Nov 2014 6:25 p.m. PST

M1911Colt:
For some kit which GHQ does not make have a look at GameCraft out of California. Some very nice minis and comparably priced to GHQ. CinC are good little models but were originally 1/300 scale. They can look small beside GHQ kit. They are also a little more fragile IIRC.
Cheers and good gaming.
Rod Robertson.

Mako1109 Nov 2014 6:33 p.m. PST

All sounds good to me.

As mentioned, CinC's quality is very good, but a bit simpler style than GHQ, e.g. no over-sized detailing, like on the latter.

Not sure about the Leopards, but yes, perhaps using them as a mobile reserve, or to protect Ukraine from deeper Russian penetrations at key points. Though, given the current situation, I suspect Poland will want to keep their tanks to protect their own territory.

I don't think NATO will weigh in to save Ukraine militarily, but might be convinced to provide more substantial aid, if things keep on. Even that though, appears to me to be doubtful, and the USA won't do that unilaterally, until Jan. 2017, after the elections (again, even then, I doubt we will provide much aid, other than perhaps small arms, ammo, and RPGs, in addition to those lethal Meals Ready to Eat we've already contributed to the cause (hope the Ukrainians were smart enough to leave those for the rebels to "capture").

What would really make it interesting is to throw in the Baltics scenario, similar to their moves in Crimea, either separately, or even worse, simultaneously.

M1911Colt09 Nov 2014 7:18 p.m. PST

I don't really see the Poles crossing into the Ukraine myself… But I can see an emboldened Vlad overreaching. Say incursions into the Baltic maybe? Then the question becomes is NATO real or so much hot air. Putin might be thinking that.

I was thinking the russians would eventually make a steam rolling move across the Ukraine. In my scenario, Poland that has pledged aid the the Ukraine. Would intervene if nothing else to secure their border. Wanting Ukraine to remain as a buffer state between them and the country that has taken them over many times. Using this as an excuse allied with Belarus the Russians make a push into Estonia and move southward with Belarus forming a pincer movement through the baltic. Forming a northern front into Poland. This bringing NATo in to the battle. The baltic sea would be a hot bed of warfare. The Baltic states would be mainly a lost cause. With NATO concentrating on pushing the Russians out of Poland and liberating the Ukraine. Meanwhile the Russians help support Transnistria in a campaign into Moldavia. The former yugoslavian countries exploit the chaos and explode into another war.
Is all that really the way it would shake out? Probably not. But its my campaign :-)

dragon6 Supporting Member of TMP09 Nov 2014 9:14 p.m. PST

CinC are good little models but were originally 1/300 scale.
CinC have always been 1/285. Perhaps you are confused with British 1/300?

GHQ have tended to "grow" and are larger than 1/285 these days, especially their infantry.

Tgunner10 Nov 2014 6:49 p.m. PST

Here's the issue I was thinking about. Poland vs. Russia!

link

Deadone10 Nov 2014 7:17 p.m. PST

I'd use Force on Force.

My own scenario for this is that with increased Russian incursions the US and co set up a buffer zone in Ukraine a line in the sand so to speak.

After a period of building up of both forces and tension, the Russians launch a massive offensive from North with a diversionary offensive on East.

Rules of engagement prevent each side from attacking NATO/Russian territory. This acts as balancer between the more capable American/allied forces and Russians and negates American air superiority (contested air superiority).

Also it's not a proper NATO operation but rather a coalition of the willing (also to limit conflict to Ukraine) albeit with both sides building up on border.

Rod I Robertson10 Nov 2014 8:02 p.m. PST

dragon6:
When I started buying C in C models in the late 1970's they were advertised as1/300 scale models. They changed their scale claims somewhere along the way as far as I can see, but back in the day they were 1/300 scale. I just dug out an old catalogue from the early 1980's and the models are listed as 1/300. Whether they up sized the models when they began calling them 1/285, I do not know.
Cheers.
Rod Robertson

Mako1110 Nov 2014 10:58 p.m. PST

Adding to the scale question is that the CinC minis are noticeably smaller than those of GHQ, so I don't recommend mixing the same types, in the same units, as mentioned by others, too.

If GHQ are true 1/285th, I would agree that the CinC are probably 1/300th.

If you want to bring NATO into it, you could just flip a coin to pick a side, where one nation's military over-reacts to a provocative action, causing a skirmish, or full-scale war. Happens all the time.

gregoryk02 Dec 2014 11:25 p.m. PST

I would use Fistful of Tows as a modern ruleset.

tuscaloosa04 Dec 2014 2:56 p.m. PST

What would really make it interesting is that no participants really have the density of forces to push on all fronts, so a theoretical war in this area would look a lot like the Russo-Polish War, with units striking and counterstriking with little semblance of a fixed front line.

chrisswim29 Jul 2015 11:56 a.m. PST

In the event someone else may read this. I use CnC and GHQ. I use much more of GHQ's product line, it is more extensive and new products in the modern arena are being developed.
I used to use CinC hummvs, as they have an insert of weapon system(tow, .50 cal, .30 cal). Then after many years GHQ came out with up-armored Hummvs with weapon station for .50cal. If one compares the M113 of CinC and GHQ, they look the same. The company split a few decades ago.

It depends upon the vehicle you wish to have as to which one I decide to buy. I use both M1A1 and M1A2 from both companies. I do try to keep these in separate units, but I have mixed periodically. I do not mix the LVTP-7s, usually. CinC tends to be smaller on many items, but not all.

chrisswim29 Jul 2015 11:58 a.m. PST

As to question of Ukraine wargame, posted this already.

TMP link

paulgenna01 Aug 2015 12:24 p.m. PST

I also have both CinC and GHQ and honestly I do not have a problem when the two are mixed. CinC has M1A1 and M1A2 that give you the option of adding turrets or men and turrets. I really enjoy those models. GHQ does have more detail and it is easier to paint up but do not discount CinC. The price difference allows you to get more for your dollar.

chrisswim03 Aug 2015 8:18 a.m. PST

FaceBook: Chris's Micro Armor

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.