"Could a first Gulf War type scenario make a good game?" Topic

Hey all,
I was wondering what everyone's thoughts would be on running a mini campaign based on gulf 1. It would be a little more on the what if side, as I will be assuming a little bit of competency on the side of the Iraqis.
(Modern Spearhead rules most likely)
the basic Idea would be a series of linked scenarios following Hell on Wheels (2nd Armored Division) as it swept its way towards Bagdad, clearing the way for an Infantry unit (82nd?) to take the city. The Americans will have the entire 2nd Armored division at their disposal, and perhaps a couple attachments from Corps.
The Iraqis will have an advantage in numbers and local intelligence. they will receive accurate maps for pre battle deployment and plan making, where the Americans will get one that is close, but lacking in certain details. The Iraqis would have a Republican Guard Armored Division as their main force, and also a Regular Army leg Infantry Division to call on (Non mech, but probably with trucks.) Their job will be to slow the American, and stop their advance if possible. Major kudos will be awarded if they manage to pull off a counterattack.

The Iraqis will act more like the media expected them to, at least the Rep Guard troops. Since the Armored divisions in the 1st gulf had 3 armored Brigades and no Mech Brigade, I was thinking of throwing a few towns in the way to mess with the US players.
An alternate US force would be Big Red One (1st Infantry Division) with an attached Armored Cavalry Squadron.

I would appreciate any thoughts on this, as this is a lot of models to paint and buy. In my head this sounds like a great idea, but I don't want to sink crap tons of money into something that is going to stink.
Thanks A lot in advance,
~Joe

Less interesting scenarios and less playability than the six day war.

Make the Iraqis harder to beat than in actuality and it may be more interesting to play.

Well, if Iraq has Gojira on their side….:)

The Iraqis will definitely be harder to beat than in real life. here are the ratings right out of the book:
Troop quality, effecting when to test morale:
US Armored/Mech: all Regulars
Iraqi Armored/Mech: 1/4 Veterans, 3/4 Regular
Iraqi Leg Infantry: 1/2 Regular, 1/2 Green
Morale checks as follows:
TQ/ Check at % Casualties by Battalion:
Veteran: 66%
Regular: 50% & 66%
Green: 33, 50, & 66%

The big difference will be command and control and equipment. American units will respond to order changes as:
(+1 Higher HQ attached, -2 under fire)
NATO1: 2+
Iraqis:
Third World: 5+

I'm thinking of making the Republican Guard Armored units WARPAC 1 for the sake of the game (succeed on a 4+)
The other Idea I had was to make the US Troops Green for Morale, to counterbalance their Superior equipment. Also reflecting the fact that 33% or more Casualties is not something that I see Nato troops not caring about.
Iraqis will be regulars & vets for morale, to represent them defending their home and to make it a bit more fair, considering the fact that I expect them to loose more stuff.

These are just Ideas, My basis for all this is that I want to do some desert armored warfare, I like modern american stuff, and the Iraqi division structure is a lot easier for me to follow and collect than the Soviet one, mostly the division support stuff confuses me in Soviet forces, I can never remember what is what.

thanks guys keep it coming!

It's not going to be much fun as an opposing sides game however you load it. But it could be a good game with all the players on the Coalition side and the Iraqis controlled by a reaction chart/cards. Most of the latter would be dug in static defenders anyway, with some randomly generated mobile forces carrying out counter attacks in a rules-prescribed fashion to match their real-life stereotyped combat drills.
Throw in card driven unmapped minefields, previously undetected pockets of resistance popping up behind you, blue on blue and other fog of war elements, 'beat the clock' victory conditions and/or competing individual player objectives- and you've potentially got quite an interesting game.

Biggest difference was that coalition air power had for the most part rendered Iraqi C3 ineffective although they weren't great at it to start.

Also air power had severely attritted most of the Iraqi armor/mechanized units, along with their logistics trail.

Those units that made it through the air campaign never knew what hit them.

Add some special rules to even things up a bit:

-Bad weather prevents the air campaign yet the coalition is dumb enough to attack anyway. No CAS for either side.

-Make the coalition attack head on, no left hook flanking maneuver.

-Have the Soviets intervene on Iraq's behalf…

Then things will get interesting.

I would go the other way and keep the Iraqis at historical capabilities. Instead, make radically asymmetric victory conditions.

2 player: Iraqi force must achieve a local victory: destroy one element and hold the position for one or two turns only. Coalition forces must rout all Iraqis with not more than one element lost.

Multiplayer: Different command motivations for different players, possibly hidden, possibly not all in play.
Iraq 1: Keep own formation intact, get bypassed.
Iraq 2: Keep coalition out of a secret site on the board.
Iraq 3: Destroy a coalition unit
Iraq 4: Delay coalition for X turns.

Make like twice as many as there are players.

Coalition could only win on total victory, with ranking by hidden competitive mission:
Coalition 1: Destroy the MOST tanks.
Coalition 2: First across the objective
Coalition 3: Capture an Iraqi HQ (not just blow it to hell at horizon distance)
Coalition 4: Media stunt: Write down turn X: destroy twice as many Iraqi elements as formation elements engaged, take no losses, on this turn. Reveal when complete.

Where's the British 1st Armoured Division, it wasn't all Yanks you know. Some of us are still fighting that war man! Seriously, sounds like a good scenario. That was what we were told at the time "you're going all the way to Baghdad" unfortunately the UN got involved. The world would be a vastly different place now if they had let us get on with it.

It could definitely be fun, like Pig said though, it all depends on properly defining the victory conditions. If standard victory conditions apply, then of course the Iraqis will get slaughtered.

Many moons ago, a friend in my gaming group (who studied to be a Soviet Naval Analyst until Gorby sank that plan) did a series of Iraq War (2003) scenarios. They were a blast. They required the better/more experienced players to be there Iraqis to give them a chance.

The victory conditions were key, the US essentially got no points for destroying Iraqi vehicles, they had to destroy entire battalions to get a small number of points, they had to capture terrain, exit the table, etc. However if the Iraqis destroyed a Bradley or an Abrams, it was a crazy amount of points. He also had a CNN embed reporter with the American unit, any American vehicle destroyed within spotting distance of the reporter counted for double points.

One scenario, the Americans had to capture bridges over a canal or something and exit the board. I was playing the Iraqis, I baited an American column into deploying and attacking a Mech infantry strong point. This caused them to expose their flank to a line of T-72s using a berm for cover. Numerous Brads and a few Abrams were destroyed with the flank shots, all within view of the reporter. The following turn the reporter's HMMWV was destroyed, he hadn't anticipated any victory points for that, but we all figured it wasn't good for the American side, remiscent of the scene in Starship Troopers where they get overwhelmed and the reporter goes down, all on camera.

Like I said, the games were a blast, all about incentives.

The old TSR game A light in the sand covered this type of scenario on a more strategic level, but since it was rushed out before the actual ground war started, it covered a whole host of scenarios that were pretty interesting. I quite liked that game and perhaps it is a possible place to mine for campaign ideas.

link

If you can find a copy of the board game Sands of War and its expansion there are about 10 different scenarios for the Gulf War covering different battles and a what if Marine coastal invasion.

Can anyone else remember when the 'Gulf War' was that really big one between Iran and Iraq?

Or am I just remembering things wrong?

That one lasted for a long time. Sands of War also has scenarios for the Iran-Iraq war.

Actually, I'd suggest a change to the scenario. Iraq drives on towards Saudi, with only the 82nd and a few marines there to stop them.

You'd have to fake stats for the Shillelagh ATGMs in the Sheridans, since none of those were fired in anger at a moving target.

Amp up the Iraqis a bit to make it a more interesting scenario or make the victory conditions incredibly strict for the coalition.

Otherwise, it'll end like a lot of bad modern scenarios does: An exercise in rolling dice and removing figures, without any doubt as to the outcome.

Have Iraqi tank regmt with BMPs fight against:
French Foriegn Legion: AMX-10RC is the heavy armor, VABs, lt trucks, AML
82nd Airborne: hummvs, Sheridans, or substitute a M-8
go against Strykers:
Fight against Canadians: Leopard 1, M113, Cougar, Grizzly

@Weasel: The 82nd and Marines don't have a lot of AT weapons, so it's certainly possible that they could get overrun by enough vehicles.

You'd probably have to recycle tank and BMP companies, though.

I've done a few GW1 games, it is no harder to set up than other asymmetrical engagements like 1967 or 1941 Barbarossa.

On one memorable occasion the Iraqis completely splattered the USMC, as the US commanders utterly mishandled their forces.

The French Daguet Division certainly offers opportunities. Have it attempt to take Al Aslam airfield against stronger Iraqi opposition including T55 Enigmas and they'll have a real challenge.

We did the battle of Khafji, there'a a few phases to it, the initial Iraqi mioffensive against the Coalition screen line, consisting mostly of USMC Recon and LAVs, with some ANGLICO teams in there, and some Saudi National Guard (their elite forces), followed by the Coalition counterattack.

Once the Iraqis captured Khafji, some USMC teams were trapped inside and served as observers for calls for fire. The Coalition counterattacked with Saudi National Guard infantry with Qatari AMX-30 armor support, with USMC artillery firing in support.

Interesting scenario

Wow, thanks for all the helpful suggestions guys.
I just got the desert war scenario book for ww2 spearhead and they have some interesting rules for mirages and movement kicking up dust that conceals follow on forces, so I will probably use this to mask Iraqi forces.

foxweasel: No offense meant by this, but as a pure bred Yank, when I read the TO&E of the UK 1stAD and it screams to me "crap, we got a war to fight… Hey you lot! get over here! We have to deploy an Armored division and your the only soldiers I can find!" It kinda reads like it got thrown together by whatever you guys could find lying around. I don't mean to be offensive, but its a little confusing. Plus, I like my 'Merican toys. As far as British performance goes during the modern period, I'm really uninformed. I don't really know about Gulf 1, but I was under the impression that in the modern period, that British Infantry is the best trained in the world, no offense to any other nation or formation. I know that when I play my cold war games that include British troops, I generally tend to make them hyper Elite, as in better than US or German troops from a quality perspective. wouldn't following that rationale go even further down the rabbit hole of invincible coalition forces though? Thanks for your service!
Yes, I do realize that the US forces shuffled Brigades and Battalions around like mad.

Chrisswim: Canadians would be interesting, but where they there? i honestly don't have a clue. From what I have read in cold war stuff, the Canadians were some pretty Hard Mofo's so I am guessing that they could be even higher up on the quality scale than US troops?

there are a lot of interesting scenario ideas in here. thanks a million to all,
Joe

Dobber,
Read a book call First Clash, a novel on the Canadian in conflict in cold war Europe. Give you an idea of there approach, equipment, etc.

Dobber, the point about the British Army is that it was challenged again and again since 1945 by a variety of adversaries, in nearly every conceivable environment in nearly every possible type of war. This happened during a retreat from a globe-spanning empire, severe economic problems, and a change from a conscript to a wholly regular tenure. Despite these challenges it performed consistently very well, whether in the Malayan jungle, the mountains of the Falklands or the desert of Iraq. Under a range of pressures it maintained its discipline without fragging officers, becoming politicised or brutalised, or resorting to drugs. In short, it got the job done repeatedly. Not hyper elite, just very professional. If it could do it in Borneo or Aden, there's no reason to doubt it could do it on the North German Plain – "If you can keep your head while all around are losing theirs" as a Kipling would say.

1st AD is a bit confusing but then it represented a whole army with every member wanting to take part – the first chance to use a complete armoured division in nearly half a century. Once it got in theatre the TO&E got changed for the jobs in hand. Nothing to compared to what the Israelis have done with their organisations!

chrisswim; I read that book, but its been a decade. I think I need to re read it. that may have actually been where I got the "bad mo fo" thing from…

Gennorm; I may have mislead with the "hyper elite" comment. My cold war games were usually set in the mid 70's. I assumed the basic level of competency to be Russian and American troops. The Russians were competently trained in this period, and the US Army was going through a host of issues, and some of my older friends were there and testified to some of it. I usually made the Germans (west) a little better trained if the system allowed for it and (east and west) with better motivation. Everything I have read and heard of the British Army, in this period and pretty much most others, is that at least at the battalion/regiment level and below (higher level commanders always vary, no matter the army) that the Soldiers were always very highly trained and motivated and extremely professional. I remember an article in an old S&T that I picked up comparing the BAOR with the US 7th corps, and the US author went on and on and on about how much better their troops were than ours, and this was from the 80's. I tended to make the British better quality with higher motivation, perhaps a bit less fanatic that I made the Germans. (Not fighting for their homes and all that) But of course I would not compare a standard line battalion to the Rangers, Spetsnaz, or the Paras.

Not knocking the British, I just wanted to use American troops. What I meant to say was that in the TO&E that I have, 1stAD(UK) has almost every formation prefaced by words like "composite" "amalgamated" or "ad hoc". Just kinda confused me a bit, whereas the US AD's had 3 armored brigades and their support troops. the simplicity of the US orgs does not bear to close scrutiny though, as I don't really know where the 3rd armored brigades came from and what happened to the Mech brigades… Also from what I have read, the 24th Infantry division was a bit of a mess too…

Dobber, no problem. I didn't think you were knocking the Brits. It certainly makes sense to use US as they were most of the coalition strength. I've got a force from the French and the Daguet Division was another that didn't adhere to the book TO&E. Back to the Brits, the force for Operation Corporate (The Falklands) completely at odds with the standard.
BTW, I remember reading that S&T.

The 'Battle of the Bridges', fought by Kuwaiti Chieftains against Iraqi Republican Guards during the initial invasion was pretty epic, as well as one-sided in the opposite direction! IIRC the Kuwaitis had an interesting mix of kit in the battle, including M901 ITVs and BMPs. I've got an article here somewhere…

RMD thank you very much for that one. I have not heard of it before, and it was interesting to look it up. Now I have to get some chieftains!

However, what I could find to read shows the Kuwaitis, losing the ground, but gave more than they got. If they had been even a little more prepared it might have gone the other way. i would really like to see the article you have, as I always want to see as many accounts as I can get. May just have to put this one on at a con this year.

Owen

I'll find that article – the Kuwaiti Chieftains certainly dished out a lot of damage before finally being overrun. I've got it saved somewhere on my computer at home.

Aha, after much Googling, here's that article: PDF link

In designing A Fistful of TOWs 3, we found that it is very challenging to design a game that can accurately show just how wretched the Iraqis were. Using a model derived from Trevor Dupuy's Quantified Judgement Model, the Iraqis have an effectiveness rating of 0.23 (on a scale that assigns the Desert Storm era US Army an effectiveness rating of 1.0). So 1 US Army stand will be more than 4 times as effective as an otherwise identical Iraqi stand. (Note that the QJM ratings were based on Iraqi performance in the 1967 War and the Iran-Iraq War).

Indeed, the Iraqis (along with the Palestinians) are the worse of the postwar Arab armies in terms of effectiveness. Examples -- 1967 Egyptians 0.42; 1973 Syrians 0.32; 1967 Jordanians 0.48.

And the 1991 era US Army is probably the most effective 20th century army the US had.

So yeah, it will be a challenge to come up with a playable scenario.

Perhaps a September 1990 scenario pitting elements of the 82nd airborne against an Iraqi armored force.

Or a November 1990 scenario pitting the Iraqis against the XVIII Airborne Corps, with (maybe) a couple of Marine Expeditionary Units (battalion task forces with a few M60s and LAV-25s).

Had the Iraqis attacked into Saudi Arabia, they would have seriously outnumbered the US forces in heavy armor (the 24th Mech division was the only heavy force in the XVIII AB Corps and it had 105mm armed M1s and IPM1s and early model Bradleys).

After January 1, 1991, the Iraqis had little hope of victory as much of VII Corps had arrived by January 15, 1991.

Dobber -- FYI, here are some 1990-era effectiveness ratings (again, derived from Trevor Dupuy's Quantified Judgement Model):

US -- 1.00
UK -- 1.00
Israel -- 0.80
Canada -- 1.00 (though this drops in the 1990s to 0.71)
Australia -- 1.00 (though this drops in the 1990s to 0.81)
Iraq -- 0.23
Egypt -- 0.40
Syria -- 0.29
Jordan -- 0.45
Saudi Arabia -- 0.30?

@Jemima: That's a really awesome scenario. Gotta find something other than Flames/Team Yankee to play it in, I can't really make the Iraqis suck enough!

Yes, I tried to work it into a scenario but thought I couldn't make them suck quite sufficiently enough… And these were the Republican Guard! :)

That's why you need to balance the scenario around the victory conditions HARSHLY.

If the scenario is simply "take the airport" (or whatever), there's no point playing, because a realistically rated Iraqi force has no chance.

Set extremely tight time frames for the coalition to win, or require them to do so with extrmeely minimal losses. Make them think about each move.

The Iraqi player will get trounced but may win if they perform better than expectation basically.

Highway of death scenario would be fun for the pilots…not somuch for the iraqis

With all this, I'm guessing that it might just be better for me to "make up" a country to oppose my American equipment. I really just wanted to do some conventional battles in the desert with modern equipment…

I guess no one would "buy it" if I said they were Iraqis and they stood on the table after the Americans rolled on?

Now I need a name for my Middle Eastern Threat country… The "Peoples Democratic Republic of Akkad" perhaps?

You could use the Twilight:2000 RDF Sourcebook back story to base your battles on. Close to the same era.

BTW, a huge THANK YOU to everyone here, this is a great conversation with lots of awesome ideas and research!

Or a November 1990 scenario pitting the Iraqis against the XVIII Airborne Corps, with (maybe) a couple of Marine Expeditionary Units (battalion task forces with a few M60s and LAV-25s).

We had our vehicles – M-60A1s, AAVs, and LAVs – offloaded by early September.

UK 7th Armoured Brigade was in Saudi Arabia by early November in support of 1MEF. USMC supported by Challengers is a unique force composition!

yeah that certainly is…