"Team Yankee - Hot War. How do you decide your battles?" Topic

World War II is easy: it's already happened & there are plenty of battles to recreate or scenarios to play. But how are you going to generate your Hot War scenarios?

Perhaps I'm a bit handicapped because I've been a campaign player for so long. But, I've attempted a Hot War with micro armor for 10 years and it never really got any traction. Rather than escalating into a global war, we ended up re fighting Korea a decade later.

And if the war went hot, how much ground battles would there be, anyway? Wouldn't air power take over in short order?

I adapted the old War in Europe game to modern times so that the games all had a purpose, but by then my players had lost interest.

So here we are with Team Yankee coming & I am chomping at the bit, but I'm concerned we'll fall into "let's just roll the scenario out of the back of the book" mode.

What do you guys think? Any ideas for inspiration? Interest in an email campaign to generate battles?

Since it never really happened, no one can tell you how it didn't happen. If you don't want the air war to take over quickly, then it doesn't have to

Dig out '80s era games or my old GDP

FOW "Team Yankee" is basically WWII or Korea with more modern and varied equipment. Conventional battles with tanks and mechanized infantry will still be the norm. Airpower can play a supporting role but should not be a gamebreaker, nor should artillery and NBC weapons.

The "quality versus quantity" feature of the Cold War should be exploited. Can the massive numerical advantage of the Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces overcome the qualitative, morale and training (cohesiveness) edge of NATO units? It certainly gives players a lot of tactical options to try out.

I personally think historical scenarios that actually happened are a bit overrated. With some knowledge of the historical context, you can come up with realistic "what if" scenarios that's both challenging and fun. After all, WWIII never happened so FOW "Team Yankee" is purely hypothetical anyway.

Where do I pull scenarios from?

Red Storm Rising. Team Yankee. link

You can play out the air war too, with C21, if you want to.

Otherwise, I suspect there'll be some rules to abstract what happens to air support for both sides, during the scenarios.

If not, the prehistoric "Tractics" rules had a dice table to represent that for both sides. Ranged from no air support to limited, contested, and overwhelming air superiority.

My guess is at least initially, the communists will have the advantage in air support, since they have larger numbers, but over time, if the quality of aircraft and pilots plays out, NATO should eventually gain at least parity, if not aerial dominance.

Of course, that presumes their airbases and aircraft aren't taken out in the first wave of attacks by: aircraft, short-ranged, conventional ballistic missiles, nukes, chemicals, or bio weapons.

Just make up some plausible scenarios, and have at it.

The Soviets/Warsaw Pact have anywhere from a 3:1 to 10:1 advantage in tanks, IFVs/APCs, troops, artillery, aircraft, etc., depending upon the time period and region, so NATO forces will be hard-pressed to stop them, and may also have to resort to popping nukes to do so.

Of course, few really want to see that happen, but it was planned for.

About 2,000 Davy Crocketts were produced, not to mention all the other small nuke missiles, demo. charges, and bombs too, e.g. Corporal, Sergeant, Lance, Pershing II, etc..

My on going WW3 campaign is mainly based around SPIs BAOR, with a healthy dollop of Hacketts WW3 and Webb's Chieftans. Rather than leaving the game set up I'm just tracking formations on a facsimile of the map.

Air power doesn't have to be overwhelming, it is something which turns up randomly, the likelihood determined by overall air superiority and degree of effort in the sector in question.

Afternoon on the first day, the Sovs are already past Brauschweig, a div airhead over the Weser and the Rhine, but so far no chem or nukes employed, which shows great restraint:)

I would get a copy of World at War Eisenbach Gap.
The whole series of games are about Cold War gone hot in '85

link

Every scenario is a hypothetical one. What could be better than that?

Try this: link

It is FM100-2-1: The Soviet Army Operations and Tactics dated 1984. It will give you a good idea of Soviet Tactics and I have actually found it fascinating reading.

Also, don't forget that IIRC the average engagement range in West Germany would be about 800 meters, so make sure you have enough terrain on the table.

The Soviets would not just blindly drive forward into defensive fields of fire like a firing range, they would use a lot of recon, I think scenarios at this level would be interesting if you use Soviet Division or Regimental forward detachments versus a Company-Team sized unit.

Also, try this: link

This guy (whom I think is on TMP) has an amazing array of resources and scenarios he had played. Good luck and good gaming!

The full version of Sabresquadron contains suggested set-ups for both meeting engagements and attack-defence games, allowing for different levels of preparedness and force ratios.

@Jozis: Great link.

I think the attrition on air forces would have been brutal, so there'd be plenty of early strikes but later it would have been more by happenstance. Even then I think the primary air strikes would have been behind the lines, so you just end up with busted up formations for the actual ground fight.

Like others, fiction gives a lot of battles, you can add "Red Army", "Red Thrust", and "The War That Never Was" as other fictional sources.

There were also a few operational Cold War Gone Hot board games, "Air and Armor" and "Airland Battle" being two, plus GDW's Assault series, which was a (grand) tactial game.

The best way I have found is to establish a framework for the game or games at a higher level and from the perspective of both sides which then allows you to play out games in the context of a bigger picture, which helps create realism at the level of play with out having to resort to points systems

so from the Soviet perspective the operational/strategic context for my game world is outlined in these posts

link

link

link

Then understand the way they fought and grouped their forces and how things would be task organised

link

Put an overarching plan together and play out a series of games within the context of that operation and the doctrine. The two scenarios below sit within the context of the same operation, having bottomed out the context you can come up with an almost endless series of games that at least have a bunch of logic under pinning them that stands in place of the historical context you would derive from a war that happened

link

link

Here is my countdown to war

link

Mainly based on an accelerated version of the run-up to war in Threads, so we all know the fighting is only going last a few days before the world gets fried.

If you look for other posts with the tag NBC or Cold War you will see some the briefings and engagements. Mainly battleground, brigade or light division level, so a bit higher level than FOW.

I have yet to actually recreate a correct world war 2 battle, rather acting in an operational context.

I would agree that it is this understanding of the planned operational context that is the primary scenario engine. By reading up on TO&Es and the tactics that would have been used to fight the war, you can easily gather enough for a whole series of battles. Using some kind of campaign/map system seems like the easiest way to avoid "roll up a scenario" if thats what you are afraid of.

Like a certain deceased WWII dictator I like to study maps, sectors and deployments:

Plenty of authoritative fictional material out there for scenario fodder.

Team Yankee, Red Army, WW3 are all excellent, as have been mentioned above.

To add to the list, Red Thrust by Steve Zaloga, First Contact by Ken Macksey. Both designed as training aids, but highly readable, and the latter also replete with maps, orbats and DS notes.

Also the series of novels by 'Harvey Black' ex British Intelligence Corps – The Red Effect, The Black Effect, etc. Also complete with maps, and easy to make up orbats from…

Chieftains by Bob Forrest-Webb also thankfully back in print and good for some realistic scenarios…

Should keep you going for a good few games!

My default scenario recipe:

12 x 6 table, liberally sprinkled with woods and villages at 1km internals with good road network and an autobahn straddling the western short end. Sprinkle a British Combat Team of 3-4 Chieftains or Chally Ones and 8-9 FV432s or Warriors with Infantry squads armed with Milan and Charlie G 84mm AT, supported by 4 Abbott SPG, over the first 2-3 feet of the western end, with the mission of defending access to the autobahn.

Slowly introduce the leading elements of a Soviet Operational Manouever Group at the Eastern short end, with the mission of accessing the Autobahn – the stock consists of copious amounts of on and off table artillery – throw in a generous amount, then double it. Then add a recce group of 6-8 BRDM, 4-6 BMP2, 4 T-80, and a couple of ZOOs….turn up the heat slightly with a company of 9-10 BMP with 10-12 infantry squads….then a final grillade of 9-12 T-80…garnish with a couple of HIND passes…

Season to taste with RAF Harrier or ATAF A-10 passes…

Of Bruce it would depend on the date, as we all know in the Mid 80s 3SA were still equipped exclusively with T-64, boom boom tish,

Tally Ho!

For NATO, in NW Europe, roll a 1D20 (adjust as needed, based upon what miniatures you have):

Americans – 1 – 8
British – 9 – 10
West Germans – 11 – 15
Belgians – 16
Canadians – 17
Danes – 18 – 19 (on the front lines, in the Baltics)
Dutch – 20

Not sure I have the force ratios right, based upon numbers, and positions in Western Europe (relative proximity to the front lines, and/or in later battles further west), so feel free to tweak the above as needed for your battle locations, and time period during the Cold War.

Other options to include are: Norwegians, Italians, and French.

Perhaps much less likely, are Greeks, Turks, Spanish, Portugese, in adjacent theaters.

Non-aligned possible/probable allies are: Swedes and Finns.

For the Soviets/Warsaw Pact (1D20):

Russians – 1 – 12
East Germans – 13 – 16
Poles – 17 – 18 (further from the front lines – might need to increase % chance of encounters with them, especially for amphibious landings in and around the Baltic Sea)
Czechs – 19 – 20

For the forces, I'd suggest going with either companies, and/or battalions, if playing 1:1 real vehicles/troops to miniatures ratios. You can go a little larger, like regiments, if using one vehicle/troop stand equals a platoon.

Roll 1D20:

Tank unit – 1 – 5
Recon/Scout/Cavalry unit – 6
Mechanized Infantry unit – 7 – 12
Infantry unit * – 13 – 16
Airborne/Paratroopers/Helo-borne troops ** – 17 – 18
Marines/Amphibious unit (usually only around major bodies of water – like seas, oceans, the English Channel)
Home Guard – 19 – 20

* you may swap these out for mechanized infantry/motorized infantry units, as appropriate, for the nations selected, and the time period you are gaming. Many modern infantry units now have at least truck transport, if not APCs/IFVs, but that was not always the case for some, I suspect.

** swap out marine/amphibious units for airborne/paratrooper, or Home Guard units, as appropriate/desired. If you want to have them both in the lists for your nation(s), then I suggest reducing the mech. infantry, and infantry units by one each, to permit you to roll randomly for both airborne and amphibious units at the same time.

Again, use the above as a rough guide, since I haven't run the numbers to determine if the above percentage chances are correct – could use a little tweaking, especially for some nations, but works reasonably well as a rough guide for setting up battles.

Haven't included the small, specialist units like Spetznatz, Seals, etc., so feel free to substitute them for others, or add in as extras, as desired.

Obviously, you'll also need the forces available on the charts as well, in miniature, in order to use them effectively for your games.

Note – feel free to set up your games, as desired, however, from a historical perspective, the communist (Soviets/Warsaw Pact) forces should generally have a numerical advantage of at least 3:1, so a battalion vs. a NATO company, or a company vs. a NATO platoon. Of course, in any conflict, force ratios can change hourly, daily, weekly, as well, so you have a lot of leeway with the above.

Enjoy!

Ran across this, while looking for info to tweak the charts above, I suggested:

link

A good overview of the number of divisions by nations, and type, as well as number of tanks.

Would love to see the same for IFVs/APCs if anyone runs across those, and/or listings by country for the various division numbers, cross-referenced by types, e.g. tank divisions, mech. divisions, etc., for various time periods too, e.g. late 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, early 1980s, mid-1980s, etc..

Back in the 80s we had the Battle Group/Brigade Group Trainer where we would go and be the Sovs against the lucky Battle Group picked to "play"

If only I had kept me notes!!

Tally Ho!

Scrolled to the bottom to say that I've been thinking about this for weeks, so I'm excited to read through the responses. I have a couple of new games designed for this, but few interesting scenarios. Thanks for bringing this up.

Oh, and highly interested in an email campaign.

I'm just putting the finishing touches to my background now.
Briefly, it is set in the late 70s when I believe the USSR had the best chance against NATO: there was a relative equipment parity, the soviets were not encumbered by Afghanistan and Brezhnev still didn't require jump starting in the morning. Plus NATO had the stunning leadership of Carter and Callaghan.
I've brought the rise of Solidarity forward a couple of years so the Poles start kicking the traces earlier. USSR invokes Brezhnev Doctrine and moves in to crush Lech & co. coupled with destabilising activities in Europe, using groups such as the RAF and various 'useful idiots'. Schmidt takes a more hawkish stance against this interference, smashes the RAF and gives Poles fleeing to the west via the Baltic military 'assistance'. You can guess what happens next…

I posted this up last september but it didn't go very far. Anyone fancy helping developing these

TMP link

The link to the vignettes is here rather than digging through the links in the relevant posts

link

The late 1960s, or early 1970s seem to be a good bet, with the US tied down in Vietnam.

1973 also seems like a very good year for an invasion of Europe, with multiple, major issues going on then.

US tied down with Vietnam, and anti-war protestors at home; Middle Eastern oil embargo, 1973 Arab-Israeli War; Nixon's resignation, and Ford, newly sworn into office, communist terrorists in Europe and Japan, conflict in Northern Ireland, military coup in Greece (don't know if that is good or bad for their stability in the NATO alliance), etc..

If the Soviets and their Warpac allies had really pressed the issues around the globe, things could have been very challenging indeed.

Convince the Chinese and North Koreans to agitate on the Korean peninsula, and in other areas too, and it would be even worse, especially if they were to aid the communist terror cells working in Japan at the time.