The Commander Series Forum

Hello,

I've been asked to run a hypothetical 1980's WWIII game at an upcoming convention here in California. The original idea was a series of four linked missions over the course of the long weekend, one per day. I was tasked with scenario #3, on Sunday. Also originally the organizer wanted to use the "Battlefront" miniatures rules with the Modern extension.

Well since then the other three scenarios have fallen by the wayside and I'm the only one left running a WWIII scenario that weekend, I've decided to run it using CWC rules instead. So I'm starting this thread to post my ideas and plans, and asking for feedback from the community.

Here's the SITREP I was handed and am supposed to build the scenario off of:

"By May 6th, the Soviet penetration into West Germany was deep, pointing like a crooked finger at the West German/Belgian border. NATO had to slow down the Soviet juggernaut in order to give the American's REFORDER units time to deploy. Capturing the Eisenback Bridge would constrict the Soviet supply artery, and slow their spearhead. The Frist Armored Cavalry Regiment was chosen for the task, and Alpha Troop was tabbed to lead the thrust through the Warsaw Pact lines."

Typos aside, ("REFORDER?" I like the scenario idea. It kind of turns the classic Fulda Gap scenario on its head, with the Soviets on the defensive for a change.

I've also decided to use West Germans as the attacking NATO
units instead of Americans, for three reasons: (1) It makes more sense that the W. Germans would take the initiative to kick the Soviets out of their country, (2) It's exotic, something different from the standard Abrams-and-Bradley mix you usually see, and (3) I've been looking for an opportunity to use my GHQ West German units.

So I'm currently building terrain and painting miniatures, but I need you folks' help with the scenario design. This is what I am thinking so far:


-Use the "Deliberate Attack" scenario. Give the Soviets 3000 points and the West Germans 6000. I'm supposed to be able to accommodate 6 players in the game, so I need a point level that's easily divisible by 3. I'm thinking of using a quarters-based setup, with the NATO forces entering from the SW and the bridge in question being near the NE corner of the map.

It's a convention game, so it needs to be flashy and visual without being too complex. I'm tempted to add in items that make these kind of scenarios more interesting, like recon, special munitions, and engineers, but I'm afraid that might make things too complex. I'd also like to throw in some interesting "dirty tricks" for both sides to employ that are exciting but not destabilizing. For example a Spetznaz ambush.

So, what do you folks think?

Hi Zephyr

I have read somewhere of an East German Bde using Western Equipment think the numv=ber was 150th something Bde you could use these as a spoiler unit in your counter strike.
have these controlled by the umpire or dice would really throw a spanner in the works.

Sean

Excellent idea, Sean. Viel Danke!

I think what I'll do is have a unit of obsolete American gear available, M48s and M113s, and give that to a latecomer who wants in halfway through the battle. Then I'll pull him aside and tell him one of these two things, depending on which side needs help the most at the moment. Either:

"Your unit is a Kansas National Guard unit airlifted to Europe in response to the emergency"

OR

"Your unit is a special East German brigade using American gear secretly bought from Vietnam. You are masquerading as a unit of the Kansas National Guard. Pretend to cooperate with the West Germans as long as possible before attacking."

Also I've drawn up a rough draft of what I want the map to look like. I'm thinking since it's a convention game and we'll have big tables available, I'll go with a 2-meter-square area. I experimented and it is possible to reach any point on a 2-meter-square tabletop at waist high, though you have to strain a bit to reach units in the middle. Anyway, here's the first draft of the map. Check it out and let me know what you think:

[URL=' target='_blank'>http://img31.imageshack.us/i/rollinghotmapv1.jp...

Uploaded with [URL=http://imageshack.us]ImageShack.us

Doh, that didn't work. OK, here's a direct link:

http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/6485/rollingho...

Its okay Zephyr

Im not German Im in British Forces Germany ---stationed in Gutersloh. willtry and find info on this unit but think it had M113's and Early leapards in West German configuration.

Regards

sean

Hi guys

According to the 'By Air Sea and Land' supplement for Corps Commander rules published by TTG in 1988 - Bruce Rea-Taylor listed the unit as follows:

150th Diversion Battalion
1x company with 3 model M48A3 (90mm) tanks (12 'real' tanks)
2x companies with 2 or 3 model M113 + inf (20 'real' APCs)
2x companies with 3 or 4 stands of 'Special forces' inf in 'jeeps' (no idea of 'real world' strength here - BRT gives probably 120 men or so per coy? Personally I'd have thought small 'pact' style companies more likely)

He also lists 40th 'Willi Sanger' Fallschirmjager Battalion as having West German uniforms for 'diversionary purposes.
He gives these guys as follows:
HQ in jeep
1x 82mm mortar stand in jeep
1x Heavy weapons stand in jeep (HMGs & AGLs)
3x companies each with 120 men so 3 or 4 stands rated as WP paras.

I've converted the TTG units into approximate 'CWC stand equivalents' - this is why the number of stands given above is variable. I would err towards the smaller sizes as WP unit TO&Es are consistently smaller than equivalent NATO ones. However if you're using just the diversionary guys the higher strengths might give you a better game?

Cheers

Jules

Hi

Pennsylvania National Guard would appear to be a better 'disguise' ID!! Lots of German still spoken in Pennsylvania according to a pal of mine!


Cheers

Jules

All right, here are prospective OOBs I've come up with for the battle.

I'm anticipating three players per side, and I wanted one of the big goals of the scenario was to highlight the

differences in command structure between NATO and the Soviets. So I've decided to have fixed formations for the

Soviets but not for the West Germans.

So here are the three battlegroups for the Soviets; each player will have total control over his battlegroup. Each BG

will be assigned a color; I avoided red and blue because of the political baggage those colors bring with them.


Soviet Battlegroup "Orange." (Motor-Rifles, reserve)

HQ x1
Recon BRDM x1
Inf (conscripts) x8
Inf Upgr (RPG-7) x2
Support (HMG) x2
Support (ATGW, Spigot) x1
Support unit (Mortar, 120mm) x1
BMP-1, no ATGW x3
BMP-1, ATGW x2
Artillery, 2S3 x3
FAO x1
SAM, SA-7 x1

Total points: 1345


Soviet Battlegroup "Green." (Motor-Rifles, regular)

HQ x1
Recon BRDM x1
Inf (conscripts) x8
Inf Upgr (RPG-7) x2
Support (HMG) x1
Support (ATGW, Spigot) x1
Support unit (Mortar, 120mm) x1
BMP-2, no ATGW x3
BMP-2, ATGW x2
Artillery, 2S7 x3
FAO x1
SAM, SA-7 x1

Total points: 1465


Soviet Battlegroup "Purple" (Tanks)

HQ x1
Recon BRDM x1
T-55, improved x5
T-62, Improved x5
FAC x1
SU-25 x1
Shilka ZSU-23-4 x1

Total Points: 1380

Total Soviet points: 4500


The FAO/FACs will be shared among the battlegroups, I just listed them that way for balance. Also will add the

following "specials" to be allocated to the Soviet side as needed for in-game balance:

- Spetznaz ambush, 3x units with RPG-7
- Mi-24 Hind D
- Special munitions: Artillery FASCAM x2
- Special munitions: Artillery Chemicals x2
- Special munitions: Aircraft Thermobaric x2


West German side: This will be a flexible, collectivist organization. Each player will have their own HQ, but they

will all share from the same pool of units.

HQ x3
Inf (regulars) x12
Inf Upgr (Carl Gustav) x4
Support (120mm SP mortar) x4
Marder 1A1 x12
Leopard 2A1 x8
Jagtpanzer Rakete x3
Gepard x3
F4 Phantom x2
BO-105 Helo x2
Alouette FAO/FAC x1
Recon Luchs x3
Artillery LARS x3
FAO x1
FAC x1

Total West German side: 5405

Also will add the following "specials" to be allocated to the West German side as needed for in-game balance:

- Chinook + 8x Elites w/ Carl Gustav for an air assault
- Pioneeren: 1x engineer vehicle + 2x Combat Engineers in Fuchs
- Special munitions: Artillery Smoke x3
- Special munitions: Aircraft Napalm x2
- Special munitions: Aircraft Cluster Bombs x2
- Special munitions: Aircraft PGM x2

And then of course there will be the "Americans," the unit of M48s and M113's rolling on late in the game. I'll decide which side they're really on based on how the game is going.


I'm a bit worried about the fact that the points are currently 55% attacker / 45% defender. I would have to shave down the Soviet side quite a bit to get the recommended "Attacker gets double the points of the defender" that the book calls for. I don't want to pump up the West German side any more, because I'm afraid it will get too confusing for the players.

So, what do you think? Viable? Or a big mess?

Zephyr,

My suggestions on the Soviets, for what they're worth:

First thing I'd say is that the terms "battle group" and "regular" don't really sit right with Cold War era Soviets.

Unless you're limited by the number of models available I'd try to stick with one type of BMP and one type of tank. It's both more realistic at this level of game and easier for players who may turn out not to be experts on Soviet AFVs.

For the same reasons I'd give all (or none) of the BMPs their ATGWs - ignore the limits in the army lists; they're wrong on this issue. Oh, and give all the Soviet infantry RPG-7 upgrades so your players don't have to keep track of which unit has them.

If you are limited by the amount of toys you have available, I suggest writing something into the back story to justify this as a scratch unit put together from remnants of other units.

I'd recommend preparing sheets for each player that give a brief background, a list of their force elements, the stat lines for any units in their force, and an outline of a few particular rules that are relevant to their units. For example I'd probably point out that BMPs can only use their ATGWs for one shot per turn and only as opportunity fire. If you can bare to do it, I'd do multiple versions of these sheets so you can cope with one, two or three players a side. I have some sheets like this prepared for past games and would be happy to share them if you let me have you email address.

Richard

Hi Richard,

Excellent advice. Exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for. Thanks! Below find some questions/comments:

"Unless you're limited by the number of models available I'd try to stick with one type of BMP and one type of tank. It's both more realistic at this level of game and easier for players who may turn out not to be experts on Soviet AFVs."

That's great, and I'd prefer that. I do have bags full of old Soviet micro-armor, the trouble is identifying all the different variants. But I agree with you about the KISS principle. I suppose I'll make the IFVs all BMP-1's, as that would be more likely to be the equipment for a motor rifle battalion that was not front-line. (i.e., assigned to guard a bridge)

(continued)

"For the same reasons I'd give all (or none) of the BMPs their ATGWs - ignore the limits in the army lists; they're wrong on this issue. "

I had wondered about that! The army lists seem to be extremely restrictive as to how many ATGM-armed BMPs you can field, but the old TO&E's and pictures I've seen seem to indicate that the ATGM BMPs were much more prevalent than the CWC lists indicate. I was not looking forward to clipping off the ATGMs from my BMP models.

(continued... apparently it is only allowing me to post very short messages)

"Oh, and give all the Soviet infantry RPG-7 upgrades so your players don't have to keep track of which unit has them. "

Hrm. Well I do have some squads modeled with RPGs and others without; I've also rigged up a "flag" system to indicate which units have upgraded loadouts. I'll platest this and see if it works, and if not I'll do as you suggest.

"I'd recommend preparing sheets for each player that give a brief background...."

Yes, I'm doing exactly that. I've got a few unit stat sheets prepared, I'll share a few with you. But also it would be great to take a look at yours; feel free to send me an e-mail. I think my address is visible on my profile.


Cheers!


-Michael B.

Here are images of some of the quick-reference sheets I'm working on. What do you think?

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/41/cwcshee...

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/802/cwcshe...

Wow- these look great,how many vehicles are you planning to cover?

I like them very much might have to steal this idea if its okay Zephyr where were you thinking of putting them on the base undeer the base or in a fact file (A5) for ease ?

sean

Sure you can steal these, I can get more electrons. I'm planning on doing all the units I'll use in this scenario.... see the posting above for a list. Not sure what you're referring to in regards to "on the base..." also not familiar with this fact file/A5 format. What is that?

Michael,

They are great; some ideas there I'll probably pinch.

What I try to do is to provide each player with a single sheet of A4 paper (the European standard slightly smaller than foolscap; A5 is half the size) with all of the units on. I tend to find I can never find the right sheet if I have to wade through several.

I think Sean is wondering if you can find a way of printing the individual unit details (tiny) on unit bases or alternatively putting them in an A5 size ringbinder from easy access. Personally I prefer my games to look as much as possible like dioramas rather than board games so try to avoid on-base data unless I'm trying out new rules (about to do this with Basic Impetus).

Richard

Sorry, should be "... for easy access." D'Oh!

OK, it is done! Too tired right now to do a proper AAR, but rest assured it is coming soon. For now, suffice it to say the event was a big success.

Zephyr would like to read your AAR and any photo's you took.

regards

sean