09-06-2001 19:40									#1
	Scenario Preview: Red Storm Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

The folowing screenshots are a taster of Red Strom, the scenario I`m working on. I apologise in advance for the poor quality, but it seemed to be the only way I could get the file size down below 150K.

Attachment: screenshot.jpg
This has been downloaded 307 time(s).

	09-06-2001 20:05									#2
	Another preview: Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Warsaw Pact forces catch West German and Danish forces off guard. French and British troops rush to help, but will it be enough to save either country?

Attachment: screenshot2.jpg
This has been downloaded 296 time(s).

	09-06-2001 23:56									#3
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

the preview of two good scn at the same time!!!!!!!!!!!
when are you going to release it??

	10-06-2001 02:08									#4
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Paul i thought you wernt doing this scen any more? glad to see im wrong. just make syre it isnt 5 months before you finnish it

	10-06-2001 06:17									#5
	Put an end to popups!

Is this scenario going to be FW, or MGE? I think it would make for a fun email game personally...

JP

	10-06-2001 14:52									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

It`s going to be an MGE scenario, since that`s what I use. And as for e-mail games, it`s intended to be played as NATO only, so don`t hold your breath. If there`s enough demand for a multiplayer version, then I`d be happy to tweak a few things.

	10-06-2001 18:50									#7
	Inflate your Upload Space

NATO only!!! you know i like to play the bad guys. Oh well ill have to stem my evil this time. I for one am adding my vote for a multiplayer version!

	10-06-2001 18:50									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

But really paul this looks like a really good scenario!

	11-06-2001 08:38									#9
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

It's very impressive looking, Paul.

I would look foward to playing it, and yes, if you do make a MP version, it will get more play, so make that happen.

	11-06-2001 11:37									#10
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Grothga, you'll be happy to know what I have of my scenario has been saved from my computer in the short time I was able to get it to work. It's playable as the Soviets only. No previews of it for a while though.

	11-06-2001 15:06									#11
	Another preview: Inflate your Upload Space

Here we have a "tank park" of all the tanks featured in the game. From top to bottom, they go like this:

NATO:
Leopard
Chieftain
AMX-30
Centurion
M48 Patton
M60 Patton
M1 Abrams

Soviet:
T-62
T-72
T-64
T-55
T-34

I am aware that some of these tank graphics are are incorrect (the Leopard, I believe, is actually a Challenger, but I`m not sure, and the T-55 is obviously just a recoloured T-62) but they are the best I could find for tanks of the era Red Storm is set (mid 1970`s). If anyone can suggest any better unit graphics, or possible additions to this tank park, I`d be happy to hear from you.

Anyway:

Attachment: screenshot3.gif
This has been downloaded 207 time(s).

	11-06-2001 18:05									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Paul i hope that you have made the NATO tanks better than the Soviet ones. Because the NATO tanks had better night vision equipment and better range targeting and frankly some bette tanks. The only thing that the Soviets had on their side was overwhelming numbers.
Also this might tie in especially well with just being able to play as NATO.
The armys are totally different. The russian army is based around a big plan which they plan for far in advance and they keep to the plan until they either succeed or the unit becomes combat inefficient. (40%)
The Nato armies however are based around flexibility with only a broad plan and then its up to the platton leaders etc to make it up as they go along which makes the NATO armies a lot more flexible and unpredictable.
The AI acts like the russians and thus us people will be nato.
Some of you might think im talking absolute rubbish but its something to bear in mind. also does anyone know if the Su-27 flanker or the MiG-29 Fulcrum was in service in June 1988?

	11-06-2001 19:27									#13
	Put an end to popups!

I take it you got that from Red Storm Rising or one of those other cheesy books you`ve got lying around?

What I had planned to do was make the Soviet tanks more powerful, for several reasons:

1. The AI is crap. It can`t attempt a co-ordinated attack and succeed without losing half it`s army. If I make the Soviet tanks more powerful (at least to begin with, since this is a multi-part scenario) it`ll allow them to take Europe more effectively and provide a greater challenge to the player.

2. Soviet tanks, from what I gather, were more powerful. Thicker armour, bigger guns etc. Run a few tests on Steel Panthers 3 (not the most accurate game on the planet for this sort of thing, but good enough for me) and you`ll see what I mean. Try April 1975, W.Germany versus Soviet Union. The only tanks on the scenario that have a fighting chance against the stronger Soviet tanks (T-64, T-72) are the British Chieftain and the American M1 Abrams, which doesn`t come in until later on.

And in answer to your question Gary, both planes were in service at that time, or had at least been developed several years previously.

	11-06-2001 19:44									#14
	Suffering from ads?

And speaking of planes, here are the few that I have. Once again, I would appreciate suggestions of which ones I should drop, what others I should include, where I can find better graphics for the Jaguar and F-14 etc.

NATO:
B-52 Stratofortress
F-14 Tomcat
F-4 Phantom
F-15 Eagle
Mirage III
Harrier
Jaguar (yes, I know it`s actually a Tornado)

Soviets:
MiG-21 Fishbed
MiG-23 Flogger
MiG-27 Flogger (I know it looks identical to the MiG-23)
Tu-16 Badger

Attachment: screenshot4.gif
This has been downloaded 193 time(s).

	12-06-2001 01:24									#15
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Paul Hanson Soviet tanks, from what I gather, were more powerful. Thicker armour, bigger guns etc.

On a stat sheet, it may appear so, but in reality, this is simply not the case.
Nato armor of the period included much better optics, higher rates of fire, and early reactive armor, to say nothing of increased crew survivability, as well as much increased crew comfort.
Soviet designs are extremly cramped, with low range and carry a much smaller amount of ammunition.
But the problem, it seems, is the lame AI would stand no chance with inferior equipment...

I offer a compromise. In civ, no mention is made of what sized formation the icon represent, so why not say in the readme that the soviet armor represents divisions, and the Nato forces brigades, so that is why the soviet units are stronger, because there are a lot more tanks in them!

To go the other way is to invite criticism that the design is inaccurate.
Soviet equipment was shown to be inferior in operation in the middle east, as well as on trials conducted at Ft.Hood with caputred equipment provided by the Israelis against nato armor.

This way, you have the best of both worlds.

	12-06-2001 02:03									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Red Storm Rising was set in 1984, but a 70s scenario is cool too -it won't have all the same units as mine... Except the M1 Abrams was not produced until 1984, was it?

I'm also thinking of modifying the scenario I have to a late 1950s version. I'm also thinking of making a scenario set in a alternate reality where the USSR suvived to 1994 or so. That way they'll have a Tbsili aircraft carrier, plenty of MiG-31s and Tu-160 Blackjacks

	12-06-2001 02:21									#17
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

cpoulos, I knew I could rely on you to set me straight. Your compromise of division vs. brigade strength seems like a good one.

Eternal, with regards to the M1 Abrams: Steel Panthers 3 (it`s my primary source of knowledge on all things military) puts the M1 as being avaliable to the US in 1980. I figured that with an urgent need for new armour on the battlefield, they could rush the project and have it completed a few years ahead of schedule. Possibly with one or two design faults to make it less effective, because of the rush-job.

	12-06-2001 03:06									#18
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I do believe it is the M1A1 Abrams tank you are talking about Eternal which first saw "action" in september 1984. so yes it is an M1 tank but just a better one.
Thanx for the plane information paul now i can include them in my scenario Also can i have that WW3 thing you have?

	12-06-2001 03:18									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Oh yeah, sure. Hang on a minute.

	12-06-2001 04:04									#20
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Paul, I belive that in the early 1970s the US and West Germany co-operated on a project to replace thier M-60's and Leopards. While the United States declined to produce the resulting tank, the West Germans developed it into the Leopard 2, which entered service several years before the M-1. I guess that in an emergancy, the United States would have adopted the Leopard 2 rather then wait for the M-1 to enter production.

Also, I'd recomend that you include the MiG-25. This aircraft was introduced in the 70's (I think) and at the time was at least as good as anything NATO had.

Last edited by Case on 12-06-2001 at 04:12

	12-06-2001 10:23									#21
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Soviet tanks had larger guns and thicker armour than comparative western designs until the 80's rolled around.

To be blunt, an M1 could hardly stand up to a T-80. It's gun is too small (that POS 105) and it's engines were unreliable. It also took 4 crew members as opposed to the Soviet tank which had three thanks to an auto-loader (been that way since the T-62 IIRC).

Anyone saying Sovet tanks in the 70s were worse than Western tanks is full of total crap.

The Cheiftan and M1 were both equiped with chobham armour, but the Soviets had equiped their tanks with special ceramics and composites since the T-62. Just as good as the original Chobham design. M60A3s had the RA....no chobham.

Western guns were too small (until the 120 Rheinmetal came out) and unless they used specific SABOT and HEAT ammo (I think there are only 120 rounds though...) there wasn't a way they'd get through the Soviet tanks with ceramics and reactive armour (fairly sure they invented it...but I dunno).

Just to point this out...in the Middle East there was never a definitive armour operation. Isreali aircraft usually harrassed Arab tank columns before the two met. In the Gulf War, M1A1s took on T-72s. That's no contest!!!!

Give T-64s better ratings than the M60s...just to make it tougher on the human player.

-=-=-=

Edit -


THe MiG-25 was created to defeat the B-70 Valkyrie. Hardly a manueverable plane...it just went fast and shot 4 missiles. Just a big interceptor. NATO couldn't intercept it, and the Israelis were only able to shoot it down after luring it with F-15s and F-4s.

	12-06-2001 12:55									#22
	I beg to differ... Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

As far as my memory goes, the first M1s I saw operational was in 81.
But remember, this is just a personal observation.
It may have been introduced earlier.

quote: Originally posted by master on high Soviet tanks had larger guns and thicker armour than comparative western designs until the 80's rolled around.

The gun was not accurate, due to poor optics..
Also, the soviets used a convoluted auto reload system that required the gun to elavate after every shot, and caused the weapon to miss if the gun was not relayed, as the auto-setting was always off.

quote: To be blunt, an M1 could hardly stand up to a T-80. It's gun is too small (that POS 105) and it's engines were unreliable. It also took 4 crew members as opposed to the Soviet tank which had three thanks to an auto-loader (been that way since the T-62 IIRC).

See the above comment on the auto-loader for an understanding of why it's not an advantage, but an extreme disadvantage.
Soviet armor is extremly cramped, and their armor was not air-conditioned, leading to crew fatague. Also, the auto-loader was prone to break down!
The 105 could gun kill a T-80 at anything up to 600 yards.
Source: 2nd Arored div, Ft. Hood, Texas.
The early engines on the M-1 prototype were unreliable, but the production engine ironed out many of the problems.

quote: Anyone saying Sovet tanks in the 70s were worse than Western tanks is full of total crap.

I assure you sir, I'm am not.
I served from 80-86, and it was my buisness to know what could blow my b*lls off, so don't try to tell me!

quote: The Cheiftan and M1 were both equiped with chobham armour, but the Soviets had equiped their tanks with special ceramics and composites since the T-62. Just as good as the original Chobham design. M60A3s had the RA....no chobham.

The Soviets only started with the ceramics in the mid 80s, out of the time frame of this scenario.

quote: Western guns were too small (until the 120 Rheinmetal came out) and unless they used specific SABOT and HEAT ammo (I think there are only 120 rounds though...) there wasn't a way they'd get through the Soviet tanks with ceramics and reactive armour (fairly sure they invented it...but I dunno).

Soviet armor was not resistant to solid shot tungsten cored rounds.
I saw a test round blow the turrent off a T-72 in a live fire excercise at 800 yards, so I know it can be done with a 105mm.

quote: Just to point this out...in the Middle East there was never a definitive armour operation. Isreali aircraft usually harrassed Arab tank columns before the two met. In the Gulf War, M1A1s took on T-72s. That's no contest!!!!

Huh???
Tel Maschara 1973
El Al 1973
Kuneitra 1973
Botzer 1973
Ras Sudar 1973
Chinese farm 1973
Deversoir 1973
Fayid 1973

All of the listed engagments are from the Yom Kippur war.
Everyone from Tel Maschara through Ras Sudar were fought while Israel was on the defensive, and IAF was not available, as it was involved in flak suppression, and was unavailable for fire support.
Of all the engagements listed, only Chinese Farm was an arab victory.

quote: Give T-64s better ratings than the M60s...just to make it tougher on the human player.

I would agree for playability, or if you use my force size idea, but otherwise, no way.

quote: THe MiG-25 was created to defeat the B-70 Valkyrie. Hardly a manueverable plane...it just went fast and shot 4 missiles. Just a big interceptor. NATO couldn't intercept it, and the Israelis were only able to shoot it down after luring it with F-15s and F-4s.

Nato forces no, but Sac Norad could.
So could an F-15 if it had a height advantage.
The Mig-25 was junk.
The USAF admitted this when they eximened the M-25 that defector V. Balenko flew to Japan in 1975.
It's avionics were so primative as to be laughable, and it was poorly constructed from substandard materials, as compared to western aircraft.

	12-06-2001 16:54									#23
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

The intention was to make the Soviet tanks more powerful anyway, especially on the attack, so as to give the AI a fighting chance against a human opponent. Defensive strengths are lower to simulate the advantage the attacker would probably gain: being able to attack from the side or back, where I believe the armour is generally weaker.

I had hoped to include the MiG-25, if only for historical accuracy, and to give the Soviets more of a broad range of aircraft (as you probably noticed, they only have 4 at the moment, compared to NATO`s 7).

And with regards to the Leopard 2: are you sure? I have the Leopard 2 as being available to West Germany (once again thanks to Steel Panthers 3) from 1981 onwards. The M1 is avaliable to the US from 1980.

	12-06-2001 18:39									#24
	Support Apolyton

On another note, does anyone know of any websites with information regarding NATO troop placements in 1975? Grothgar told me how the various nations had placed their forces in West Germany, but I forgot what he said. Does anyone have any useful links?

	12-06-2001 23:42									#25
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Dont quote me on this because its kind of second hand information ask cpolous he seems to be the wizz on this sort of stuff . However from my sources i believe that the Dutch and West German forces were based between Hamburg and Hannover with the British and Belgian forces Between Kassel and Hannover. Between Kassel and Frankfurt was mostly American troops with a few French divisions among them. Above Hamburg Was a collection of nationalitys that im not sure of the composition. cpolous????? any help lol.

	13-06-2001 02:13									#26
	Tired of ads?

Ack! My god...how wrong I was....

After reading through several articles on Soviet Tank design for the T-62 through T-80 models I'm willing to concede just about every point I attempted to make.

*runs and hides head in shame*

	13-06-2001 02:17									#27
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Thanks Gary.

Oh, and cpoulos is the wizz on this kind of stuff because he`s ex-military: 82nd Airborne "All-Americans" if I remember correctly.

	13-06-2001 03:50									#28
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Ahhh that would explain it then
Thanx for the WW3 thing paul im about 3/4 of the way through it. what a story. someone must do scenario based on it
Cpolous what was your main area of expertise in the military? And if you know could you tell me how the Mig 29 and the Su 27 hold up against the f-15 and the f-16. maybe the f-14 even. or could anyone because im trying to calibrate the stats of my aircraft right. I do believe that the Su 27 is a fine piece of hardware though?

	13-06-2001 04:25									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Don't sweat it, Master on High!
I'm just glad I didn't have to find out the hard way about Soviet armor!

quote: Originally posted by Paul Hanson Oh, and cpoulos is the wizz on this kind of stuff because he`s ex-military: 82nd Airborne "All-Americans" if I remember correctly.

505PIR, 3rd Birgade, "The Panthers", 82nd ABD, "the All Americans".

OK, now for Nato dispositions:

BOR (British Army of the Rhine)

HQS:Bielefeld (north German Plain)
1st Armored Hamburg
3rd Armored Bieleleld
4th Armored Bielefeld

United States

US V Corp HQs Frankfurt (Hof Gap, Southern Germany)
3rd Aromored Frankfurt
8th Infantry(mortorized) Darmstadt
4th bgd, 4th IF Div, Weisbaden

US VII Corp HQS Stuttgart (Southern Germany-Austria)
1st Armored Stuttgart
3rd Infantry(motorized) Wurzburg
1st Infantry(motorized) Stuttgart
3rd bgd, 1st IF Div, Ulm

Berlin Bgd, Berlin

West German forces

I Corp Munster (Northern Germany)
3rd Panzer Luneburg
7th Panzer Dortmund
1st PanzerGrn Hannover
11th PanzerGrn Bremen
6th PanzerGrn Hamburg
27AB Bdg Bielfeld

II Corp Ulm (Southern Germany)
10th Panzer Ulm
4th PaqnzerGrn Nurnburg
25th AB Bdg Stuttgart

III Corp Koblenz (Central Germany)
12th Panzer Wurzburg
2nd PanzerGrn Kassel
5th Panzer Frankfurt
26th AB Bdg Saarbrucken

This was the disposition in 1981, but the corp HQs are consistant over time, so it should be correct for the 70s also.

Now for Soviet Aircraft.

You could add the Su-11, an a/c that is often mis-identified as as a Mig-21. The Soviets had 2,500 of them on strength in 1976.

Also the Su-15 interceptor, with some 600 in service in 1975, as it was being phased out by the Mig-25.

How about the Tu-22 "Blinder" Medium Bomber? This was the fastest bomber in the soviet inventory before the "Backfire" series.

All three of these where heavily used by the Soviets and the Warsaw pact airforces.

I hope this helps.

	13-06-2001 04:35									#30
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Grothgar Cpolous what was your main area of expertise in the military?

I was a Paratrooper, so ground units and small arms, but I also write, and have conducted extensive interviews with many veterans from many eras.

quote: And if you know could you tell me how the Mig 29 and the Su 27 hold up against the f-15 and the f-16. maybe the f-14 even. or could anyone because im trying to calibrate the stats of my aircraft right. I do believe that the Su 27 is a fine piece of hardware though?

From what several pilots have told me, rather well.
In performance, the Mig-29 and the F-15 are very similar, with an avionics (and if you believe jet jockeys, training and skill level ) edge to the US plane.
It also appears that the F-16 and F-14 Tomcat can out turn the Soviet A/C, but that the Su-27 is flat out faster at altitude.

I would say that it would be fairly close, but that US A/C have an electronics edge that would give them the edge over Soviet numbers, but it would be costly(Assuming that the pilots are equal, another can of worms).