new scenario for testing NF#43 Red Devils

[Gunner98]

Thanks Andrew,

The group at Kunes were there simply as a trip-wire representing another unit. Initially they were there to prevent player units from heading east but I ended up putting the LOE No-Nav zone instead. I could remove them or just leave them as targets.

SEAD push was meant to be 1/3 to give a longer duration.

I'll fix up the rest. Good idea on the air base side.

Cheers.

[Sardaukar]

Just have to wonder when we Finns ended up on Soviet side [:'(]

[Gunner98]

Just have to wonder when we Finns ended up on Soviet side

They were given an option that they couldn't refuse on day 2 (Feb 14) of the war. We're not portraying it as a comfortable relationship. The Air Force flew a few missions in the first days of the fight but the navy remains on coastal defense and did not get involved in the Baltic campaign while the Army has been de-fanged.

For the Soviets to pull off this much of a push in the north they need space and particularly routes for logistics.

Joel and I are talking about a novella following a Finish Army officer from the Sodankylä area and a Soviet Anti-Tank Regt Comd who is garrisoning that area.

However we have a few books we need to write first.

B

[Gunner98]

OK here is the update. This should address the points raised above and made things a little more challenging.

Enjoy

[Gunner98]

Anything else on this one guys?

[CHM]

There aren't enough hours in the day, Gunner! [:(] I must ask, did you ever consider lumping all the amphib/air assault scenarios into one? Not saying it would be a good idea, just curious. All the marines and paratroopers in a single massive scenario, a NATO version of MF 1.

[Gunner98]

I did.

Opted not to for several reasons.

-US & UK Amphib/Abn operations are much more complex than Soviet ones, just the shear number of ship types & AC etc + distance
-It was 'sort of' already done in Iceland. That is not really true as it was only 2x RLTs that went ashore but it was big
-I wanted to feature specific units, for story purposes and also for the game
-Norway is a very complex bit of terrain, not easy to get the ground units to work properly
-This size of scenario is much more manageable by a much larger number of players
-At this stage in the war it is tricky to make the Soviets a challenging opponents, smaller works better
-NF 41 Tour de Force showed me how much combat power is sitting off of Norway, and I'm not good enough to give a player a good challenge when they have that many toys

So yes it would have been kinda cool to see the blue carpet descend upon northern Norway, but I'm afraid it would turn into a bit of a management nightmare that would scare off most players, leach the fun out of it and remove the challenge.

Good for laying out the toy set though [:D]

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

Just have to wonder when we Finns ended up on Soviet side

They were given an option that they couldn't refuse on day 2 (Feb 14) of the war. We're not portraying it as a comfortable relationship. The Air Force flew a few missions in the first days of the fight but the navy remains on coastal defense and did not get involved in the Baltic campaign while the Army has been de-fanged.

For the Soviets to pull off this much of a push in the north they need space and particularly routes for logistics.

Joel and I are talking about a novella following a Finish Army officer from the Sodankylä area and a Soviet Anti-Tank Regt Comd who is garrisoning that area.

However we have a few books we need to write first.

B

Seriously?

Considering relations even back then between Finland and SU, we'd never have allowed Soviet troops in Finnish soil. Had (and still) have one of the largest land forces in Europe to ensure that. Might not been able to stop overflights by Red AF, but SU land forces would have quite a fight.

900 000 reservists say so. [:'(]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Defence_Forces

During the peak of the Cold War, the Finnish government made a conscious effort to increase defence capability. This resulted in the commissioning of several new weapons systems and the strengthening of the defence of Finnish Lapland by the establishment of new garrisons in the area. From 1968 onwards, the Finnish government adopted the doctrine of territorial defence, which requires the use of large land areas to delay and wear out a potential aggressor. The doctrine was complemented by the concept of total defence which calls for the use of all resources of society for national defence in case of a crisis. From the mid-1960s onwards the Finnish Defence Forces also began to specifically prepare to defeat a strategic strike, the kind which the Soviet Union employed successfully to topple the government of Czechoslovakia in 1968. In an all-out confrontation between the two major blocs, Finnish objective would have been to prevent any military incursions to Finnish territory and thereby keep Finland outside the war.

[Gunner98]

Seriously?

Well, you’ll remember that this story was framed out in the late ‘80s, early ‘90s when I certainly didn’t know a lot about Finnish defence or political leanings; except that they used a lot of Soviet kit and were in a difficult position. I still don’t know enough about it obviously.

What I do know (and did back then as well) is that if the Soviets had any hope whatsoever of achieving what I needed them to achieve in Norway, they needed a land LOC through Finnish Lapland.

So, in a similar way that the Medvedev Govt laid the groundwork around the world: terrorist type acts in many US cities, bombing the Norwegian Storting, coup in Ankara, trouble in Greece & Italy, the rather topical attempt to close the Suez Canal etc, they applied pressure in Finland.

I acknowledge your point but counter with situational realization. Having that many reservists is one thing, using them is another. Finland’s history of fighting the Soviets is undeniable, but neither is their geo-political position in the late Cold War. Given a proposition of allowing use of roads, facilities and airspace in Lapland, or an all-out war with the Soviets, considering what Medvedev has just done to their Baltic neighbors, I think acquiescence is at least plausible. Remember that the US had just snubbed Helsinki on the deal for F/A-18s and other arms deals with the west had fallen through as well.

I certainty had no intention of offending Finnish sensibilities. That is one of reasons Joel and I are discussing a novella centered on the Sodankylä area, to feature the torn loyalties of a Finish Army officer and his troops forced to endure an occupation, while the rest of the country carries on as if there were no war at all.

There are many other implausible pieces, like the WP holding together for another 5 years, Syria and Libya willing to sacrifice themselves for the Soviets etc. One of the key things when I set out to make tell this story is that I wanted to remove all the military ‘Silver Bullets’ that many books and certainly movies tend to throw in, like - of course they can get fuel, sure that flock of A-10s can fly out to the middle of the Atlantic to drop flairs on the Soviet carriers etc. So, I suppose by doing that I need to sacrifice some political realities.

Hope that helps explain out take on the story.

[Gunner98]

OK this one is going to the Community Pack guys. Thanks for the testing.