Armageddon 2015

[Mark Stevens]

For those of you who enjoy ultra-modern scenarios I've updated Patrick Feyret's excellent Armageddon 2000, as there have been a lot of changes since then. I have tried to contact him to get his blessing but no joy so Patrick, if you're reading this, do think of it as a tribute. I've called it Armageddon 2015 and have tried to use existing or planned ORBATS (hence no British carriers, etc.)

Two versions: 'Europe', which uses his original map and is a fairly straightforward sixty one day per turn scenario with Russia and its presumed allies trying to overwhelm NATO, with parts of Syria, Iraq and Iran on the periphery: and a more ambitious 'Europe & North Africa', which includes the northern Mediterranean coast through to Egypt, Israel and Basra. Because of the larger scale I've made this forty half-week turns. This makes the whole scenario far more complex as NATO can't simply shift the Spanish, French and Italians to the east.

Thanks to Bob Rook for playtesting and suggestions, but any remaining mistakes are my own.

To be honest I'm not sure of the play balance and, should anyone decide to give it a crack, I'd welcome comments on this or any other aspect.

A few TOs for both sides, including the possibility of escalating to chemical or tactical nuclear weapons. There are a few house rules, but they're all included in the integral Scenario Briefing.

PO both sides, both versions, but far better with a friend if you have any.

I'll wait a while before sticking them on the Rugged Defence and Matrix sites in case anyone does spot a tremendous bug, although I honestly think both are good to go.

 

[L`zard]

Good job, Mark!

I'll give it a run, eh? Notes later.....

:clown:

 

[Silvanski]

Cool beans Marc!

 

[sgtsnell]

Hey, Mark, your updated scenario has caught the eyes of Larry Fulkerson and me. We're finishing two PBEMs now, but look forward to a full test of this complete with AARs, details, etc. It might be another couple of weeks, but it has risen to the top of our crowded list of so many wars, so many options, where to go next. Look forward to tackling this. I'm a rookie, but Larry has really helped me get up to speed in a hurry by sharing his expertise.

Thanks again.

 

[Mark Stevens]

Cheers, look forward to any comments. I would like a completely independent view before I think of releasing this, even if you don't get a cahance to play it from start to finish.

Two minor annoyances in the larger version: the railway line from Baghdad to Mosul has a couple of unintended breaks, and the unnamed Rumanian 'Attack Helos' is a rogue and should be deleted. You might want to correct both in the Editor, or I can send you a corrected version.

 

[sgtsnell]

We're going to play the smaller Europe version so sounds like we'll be OK. Thanks.

 

[L`zard]

Mark,

I'd like the 'updated' version of the 'large one', lol! My e-addy is lzard (at) comcast (dot) net

Speaking of Rumanians, was it intentional to have a HQ with 'fixed' AAmissles? This is supposed to be a modern scenario, eh?

Kurt

 

[Mark Stevens]

Those HQs represent a multitude of sins. They're a sort of dumping ground for support and other assets that don't justify brigades of their own. They shouldn't really be moving around as combat units, in which case I suppose that I should give their fighting assets to the individual units, or alternatively separate out the missiles and stick them in the 'proper' AA units. I don't think it affects the great scheme of things, but I know it's heartbreaking when the message 'Abandon fixed weapons to move?' keeps popping up.

Sending the corrected biggie.

 

[L`zard]

Mark,

Do you wish the notes, etc, here or in email?

Kurt

 

[sgtsnell]

Hey, Mark, how would you describe the intended balance of this scenario?

 

[Mark Stevens]

It's entirely speculative of course, but it isn't intended to be 'can the Russians reach the Channel?' like an old Warsaw Pact vs NATO scenario. My own opinion is that if the Russians and their allies/satellites can occupy the surrounding countries in the teeth of NATO's attempts to defend them it should count as a marginal Russian victory, and I've tried to juggle the VPs accordingly. NATO has deliberately chosen to expand to include even former Soviet-controlled areas like the Baltic States, Poland, Georgia, Rumania and Hungary, to demonstrate that Europe has changed for good. If the Russians (and their...etc) can reoccupy those countries it will show to the world that NATO has overreached itself and is incapable of making good on its promises. I'd therefore expect most of the combat to take place in Central Europe. Assuming that Turkey sticks with the NATO alliance, you would also expect to see heavy fighting in Asia Minor. In the smaller scenario, forces from northern Syria and western Iran will be involved, aiming at the least to take the two main northern Iraqi cities of Mosul and Kirkuk. Partly as a distraction, it would also be likely that Russian units would attack Norway, looking to break out into the North Sea and perhaps threaten the UK, Denmark and the north coast of Europe. They also retain, on paper at least, considerable airborne/airmobile capacity, so deep penetrations as far as Germany, Slovakia and the Czech Republic are an option. I've assumed that Serbia and Montenegro would support the Russians, so the latter (or their Ukrainian and Moldavian allies) need to link up with the Serbs in the Balkans, otherwise the reverse holds true, i.e. NATO would demonstrate that Russia cannot support its remaining allies in the Balkans.

In the larger scenario the Arab states are involved, principally aiming to eliminate the state of Israel, and the Lebanon, although Morocco would doubtless like to regain the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, and it is likely that Jordan and Syria, if not Egypt, will also attack Iraq. Presumably NATO would respond with attacks along the North African coast.

I haven't really answered your question, but a successful Russian offensive, limited to defeating NATO in central Europe, should give them a marginal victory. The deeper they can penetrate to the west, and maybe the occupation of Norway and the strategically important Iceland, the better. The seizure of Istanbul has been an age-old dream since Tsarist times, and would allow Russian naval forces into the Mediterranean and a link-up with their North African allies. No point in doing all this if it leaves the bulk of their forces utterly crippled with NATO's largely intact, although the programme takes that into account by including losses in the Victory Point calculation.

This is more a collection of thoughts than a definitive answer, which is why I'd welcome any feedback at all before I post this for the wider TOAW community (is there still one?)

I can beat the PO as either side, but that's the case with most scenarios. I've done a bit of playtesting with Bob Rook and it does seem quite difficult, certainly in the smaller scenario, for the Russians to make a lot of progress, partly because NATO can switch nearly all of the Spanish, French and Italians to the east. It was trying to balance that out that encouraged me to include an Arab-Israeli conflict in the larger scenario, to expand the war into the Mediterranean.

The most important thing is to make an interesting and challenging game, updating Patrick's original design.

Happy to discuss if you've any thoughts on these ideas.

 

[samba_liten]

This might be biased based on the part of Ukraine i am in, but here in western Ukraine people do not like Russia any more than the Chinese like the Japanese. Hence i would question if Ukraine would back Russia. I realize it's very much a hypothetical scenario though.

 

[sgtsnell]

Thanks, Mark, for the great response. I look forward to playing this.

 

[Mark Stevens]

This might be biased based on the part of Ukraine i am in, but here in western Ukraine people do not like Russia any more than the Chinese like the Japanese. Hence i would question if Ukraine would back Russia. I realize it's very much a hypothetical scenario though.

Fair enough, but if President Yanukovych's party tightens it's control over the next few years would the western region have any choice, apart from civil war? I've largely ignored internal politics, apart from guerillas in Iraq and the Lebanon. I was thinking of a wave of guerilla effects in NATO countries representing at least part of their sizeable Muslim minorities forcefully objecting to fighting the Arab states, but I decided to steer clear of politics as far as possible and just have a wargame.

 

[samba_liten]

Fair enough, but if President Yanukovych's party tightens it's control over the next few years would the western region have any choice, apart from civil war? I've largely ignored internal politics, apart from guerillas in Iraq and the Lebanon. I was thinking of a wave of guerilla effects in NATO countries representing at least part of their sizeable Muslim minorities forcefully objecting to fighting the Arab states, but I decided to steer clear of politics as far as possible and just have a wargame.

That's fair enough.
For what it's worth, at the moment it doesn't look as though Yanukovich will get a second term. The nationalists in the west never liked him, and he has pissed off a lot of people all over Ukraine with his proposed tax increases. Currently downtown Kiev is blocked up with demonstrators, and all over Ukraine markets and shops are closed in protest. While im at it, analysts here and in Russia have been predicting civil war in the near future for some time now. The regional differences are enormous. Here in the west i see statues of UPA heroes like Stepan Bandera, and young men walking proudly in t-shirts with SS-Galizia logos on the front. In the east (Odessa to be specific) there are still monuments to the fallen in the Great Patriotic War, featuring busts of Lenin etc.
Just a few days ago people in the village where i live celebrated a memorial of the Holodomor, that is the mass starvation precipitated by Stalin in the '30s.
On the other hand, as much as people here dislike Russia, they dislike Poland more. Aparently, the Poles were none too friendly to the ethnic Ukranians between the wars. In the end, i suppose, Ukraine might go either way.

It is a very entertaining scenario though. The many small nations in the Balkans make for some interesting choices as well.

 

[larryfulkerson]

Hey there Mark:
I gotta say......I really love this new scenario. I'm finishing up my first turn moves as the Warsaw Pact player and so far I'm astounded by how "real" this feels. You must have included just about everything. It's got political, economic, AND military ramificatons. I love that. The WP player probably shouldn't attack ALL his enemies simultaneously but I'm going to try it. I'm frustrated by the lack of a recon capability for the Russian long-range bombers stationed in the north by Norway but that's a TOAW game engine issue. In real life, sometimes the Russians use those bombers to try to "find" the Allied ships in the Atlantic and I can't do that. Oh well. Minor qwibble. I'd love to adjust the scenario to delete the rogue chopper and so on but we ( Roger Snell and I ) have already started our game. I'll just fly it to Casablanca and leave it there for the balance of the game. That defensive unit that the NATO player has at Gibralter, is it really that weak? I'm pushing it north and soon it'll be in Spain and I'll have bottled in those two NATO carriers ( and their planes ) to the Med only. That's gonna decrease NATO's options. And speaking of the Atlantic.....did you plan on having any "naval wars" in those waters? I don't see but a handfull of ships for NATO when in reality they probably have a couple hundred ships in the Atlantic. I'm just guessing though. Maybe they're all on vacation in Bermuda when the war breaks out. Or are they handled as reinforcements?

Have you thought about maybe having some domestic terriorism happen from time to time. Like partisans in FITE you could have some splinter cell do some kind of railroad damage thing or maybe a blown bridge at a random location in Spain, or England, or ...... ( fill in the blank ). Just a thought. These are just my first impressions. More notes to follow.

 

[sgtsnell]

Mark and others: Larry and my AAR has begun over at the Matrix forum if you'd like to follow along.

 

[Mark Stevens]

Cheers chaps: I've answered you separately Larry, and will be watching the AAR with interest.

On Larry's specific points: all I can see that NATO has permanently stationed at Gibraltar is a semi-territorial 'regiment' of about battalion strength. Any reinforcement will have to come from the UK or another NATO country (Spain and Portugal can't afford to let it go). NATO does dominate the North Sea, as you'll find out if either the Russian 'Kuznetzov' Group sorties out from Murmansk or the Baltic Fleet breaks out. I don't think they'll last a turn or two. I dunno about a few hundred ships: maybe if you count all the small corvettes, patrol boats, minesweepers and etc, but the numbers for missile frigates and above are right. A lot depends on how much the US Navy could spare for Europe, given the underlying premise of the scenario that there's trouble in Korea and possibly Taiwan, both of which would demand a heavy naval commitment.

 

[sgtsnell]

Hey, Mark, take a look at Turn 1. See if you think that Air Superiority should be a little more balanced at the start. NATO losses are extraordinary before they even get to make their first move.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2637162&mpage=1&key=&#2637533

 

[sgtsnell]

Hey, Mark, I'm playing as the Russians vs. Elmer in the smaller European version. On Turn 7, I chose the Theater Option to invade Finland. It's now Turn 9 and still has not activated to allow me access to attack Finland. Are there some other hidden conditions for this to trigger or is there a bug?

Now on Turn 10. Going to have to abandon all of my troop movement preparing to attack Finland and go elsewhere. Bug. Locked out of Finland. Invade and DOW Theater Option did not work.