1985 Red Storm - Beta ready to download

[The Land]

20 July 1985... Soviet leaders know that they are losing the Cold War to the USA and their allies. Their only remaining option is to break NATO by defeating it.

This is a mod inspired by Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising", and General Sir John Hackett's "The Third World War". It models a conventional attack on NATO in the mid-1980s using historical OOBs and plausible assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of both sides.

Beta version ready to download!

Here is a new beta version to download:
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AuSHQqW_FnE85RVGZiP ... 5?e=ogr6Wt

Last update: 13 June 2023

Note that it needs to go in a different folder to that in which the default campaigns are saved. For me, it's as follows:

C:\Users\me\Documents\My Games\Strategic Command WWII - War in Europe\Campaigns

I'm calling this a beta as it's OOB-complete and thoroughly playable, though there is much balancing, finishing and polishing still do to

What's in?
* Complete Cold War scenario encompassing the German, Baltic Approaches, Norway, Atlantic, Southern Europe and Turkish Straits fronts
* Reworked nations, units and tech to work for the Cold War era
* Minor map changes e.g. making southern Germany more hilly, making north Norway more approachable
* Decision event about the Soviets seizing Iceland and pressuring Yugoslavia to join the war
* Events for the North Sea, Channel and North Atlantic to affect morale/supply with Soviet submarines
* Neutral minors - Sweden and Austria

What's not in?
* Production will be screwy. The intention is that no new units can be built, though destroyed units can be rebuilt. This will be implemented by giving everywhere a force limit less than or equal to the number of starting units. But this is work in progress still. MPP values will be weird for NATO countries (some will be too high some will be too low).
* Victory conditions. (If the USSR can get West German morale down to 10%, consider that a win! But it's not scripted yet)
* Additional decision and flavour events e.g. to help Soviets attack Sweden rather than Norway
* AI. The 'native' AI (IE without any further scripting) may play OK in the short term but will have odd production behaviour. Recommended to play hotseat only for now.
* Graphics: Counter graphics are mainly updated but there are points where this is incomplete. The sprite graphics are not at all updated.


Here is a screenshot of the very opening. You can see the entire Soviet Group of Forces in Germany ready to strike, together with the Polish First Combined Arms Army deployed along the Baltic Coast, and the entire East Germany army. In the rear are their supporting air units and short-range ballistic missile formations.

Largely they are facing NATO's Northern Army Group whose forward-deployed troops are British and German. However at the very bottom of the shot you can see the US 11th Armoured Cavalry defending the Fulda Gap.

As you will see the Warsaw Pact forces are division and corps strength, while the NATO units are a mixture of divisions and brigades.

[The Land]

A few thoughts around the concept for this mod.

Originally I'd wanted to do this on a larger-scale map, but now I've come back to it, it turns out to be possible to get a really different feel on the original map.

It will however have 3-day turns and a total maximum duration of about 2 months.

Concept

Unopposed maneuver should be fast, opposed maneuver should be slow and difficult.

In Gulf War I, US and allied mechanized formations managed to advance something like 30 miles a day on average, and up to 60 miles a day on some occasions. That's not unlike the pace of advance that both sides anticipated in their Cold War planning.

However, this scenario works on the basis that this would have been very difficult to achieve against an opposing force - I don't know who else remembers the line in Red Storm Rising where one of the Russians is complaining that to stop a tank column all NATO needs is to do is put some missiles in a jeep - but it's basically that, the proliferation of ATGMs and helicopters means that any enemy unit is an obstacle.

So the overall effect should be that both sides are perpetually trying to probe to create space for a breakthrough. If there is ever a large hole in the front, then it will be ruthlessly exploited.

To this end, mechanised formations end up with 6 AP (=180 miles in 3 days!) but also create Zones of Control that require 2AP to enter.

The defense has the advantage, but mobile defense is superior to static defense

In this era, being dug in is only a marginal advantage. There are so many powerful munitions available that a bunker or pillbox will not last long against enemy artillery or air. The main way to survive is for the enemy to not know your position. Of course, 'entrenchment' reflects this to an extent - concealment and preparation of redundant positions as well as physical hardening.

Further, Cold War doctrine de-emphasised the role of cities as defensive positions (in part because with fully-mechanised supply trains cities are easier to bypass, in part because on the NATO side it was considered easier for noncombatant citizens to stay put and be captured than to become a mass of refugees - which implied not turning their homes into battlegrounds). So city entrenchment values are significantly lower.

The aim here is that the defending player shouldn't benefit from entrenching the whole of their force in the front line. The scenario setup should encourage the front line to be held relatively lightly with strong forces available to counter-attack. Max entrenchment numbers are much lower in this mod than in the core game.

NATO units are stronger, division for division
In line with the approach of Red Storm Rising and The Third World War, the mod does build in an assumption that Western Bloc units are more competent than Eastern Bloc units.

This is reflected in several ways:

- NATO units have techs that give higher Morale, and also better leadership from HQs.
- NATO units are more likely to be split into brigades and some USSR units are condensed into Corps - a brigade has lower stats and Corps higher (in particular a Corps has 2 strikes), but I reckon one brigade counter has ~65% the combat power of a Division counter, while a Corps counter is more like ~150% the power of a Division.

Central Europe is not the only way the war can be won

Of course the central European theatre will be vital. But it shouldn't always be decisive. The Northern (and, in time, Southern) theatres will create strategic options for creative play, as well as the North Atlantic campaign.

WMDs are not included
Nuclear weapons aren't included in the mod, both because they're impossible to model and to stay true to the source material. It's assumed that the losing side is faced with a decision to either surrender or 'go nuclear' - either way, they have lost. (I may model this with some actual events, at some point.)

Chemical weapons aren't specifically included. There are no chemical weapons units or techs, for instance. However if you want to believe they are being used, you can see them in the De-Moralization and Resource Attack values in some of the units (e.g. strike aircraft). (They don't appear in Red Storm Rising, probably because Clancy didn't want to write about how grim they'd be. They do appear in The Third World War. Their effect would be a roughly symmetrical decline in combat effectiveness, so there isn't a huge point including them in a game.)

Units list

Land

Land units are Corps, Division or Brigade scale (though there is only one kind of Corps counter).

Mechanized formations

Mechanized formations are all-mechanized units with tanks, armoured personnel carrier, and integral mobile artillery and helicopters. They have the highest number of Action Points reflecting their exceptional ability to maneuver. They come in two flavours:

Armoured units have more tank subunits than infantry subunits. They have the highest Attack rating, particularly against other mechanized units. The Eastern Bloc also has access to Armoured Corps counters which represent several tank and motor rifle units working in close concert. These Corps are the only land units that have two strikes.

Mechanized units have more infantry subunits than tank subunits. They also tend to have lower amounts of integral helicopters and artillery. Accordingly, they have lower Attack values. However they still have good defence ratings.

Non-mechanized formations

Infantry Divisions and Brigades reflect non-mechanized or part-mechanized infantry - often reserve units. They have less effectiveness than mechanized formations, particularly on the offensive.

Special Forces are brigade-strength groups of amphibious specialists. They gain inherent supply after conducting an amphibious landing.

Air Assault brigades are airmobile infantry. They are equipped with plentiful helicopters and transport aircraft but few armoured vehicles. They can make an airborne move after preparing for it, though be careful to avoid enemy fighters or SAMs when doing so.

Engineers are infantry brigades capable of creating field formations. Only NATO have these units, and they are tasked with creating last-ditch obstacles to the oncoming advance.

Missile

All missile units are rear-area units. They are highly vulnerable if attacked by a land unit and have no zones of control.

Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAMs) are capable of intercepting enemy air attacks up to 3 hexes away.

Anti-Shipping Missiles represent mobile missile batteries and radars designed to attack surface ships from the shore. Their range is 3 hexes.

Short-Ranged Ballistic Missiles (SRBM) represent non-nuclear, operational-level missiles. They deal Resource damage, but only minor damage to units. They are not subject to interception by enemy fighters. Their best use is to interdict enemy supply.

Air

All air units have 2 strikes.

Fighters are capable of intercepting enemy air attacks.

Close Air Support represent fighter-bomber and attack aircraft aimed at close support of land units - e.g. the A-10, Su-17, Su-25, Harrier GR, and Alphajet. They are most effective against armoured and mechanized formations.

Strike Aircraft represent heavier fighter-bomber aircraft more suited to the interdiction role - e.g. the F-111, Tornado IDS, Mig-27, Su-24. They are most effective against rear-area units, though still have some ability against mechanized and armoured formations. They also have the highest effectiveness against enemy SAM units, reflecting the existence of specialist "Wild Weasel" squadrons.

NB that one unit of US Strike Aircraft is upgraded with the Stealth Bombers technology, giving it very high (though not perfect) damage evasion.

Strategic Bombers reflect long-range strategic bombers e.g. B-1, B-52, Backfire tasked with a conventional (rather than strategic nuclear deterrent) role.

Maritime Bombers are mainly of patrol aircraft e.g. P-3 Orion, Nimrod, Tu-142 Bear with perhaps a smaller number of maritime strike aircraft e.g. Buccaneer mixed in. They are most effective against submarines and also capable against surface ships. They are highly vulnerable to enemy fighters or SAMs.

[BillRunacre]

It looks interesting, and I really do pity that US Garrison unit sitting in Berlin!

[The Land]

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

It looks interesting, and I really do pity that US Garrison unit sitting in Berlin!

Thank you!

And ... yeah... poor guys Actually this is one of the places where I'm not sure how to interpret history. In fact there was a pretty much division-strength garrison in West Berlin (one brigade each from USA, UK and France). However because of their very poor position and their concern for the civilian population, their actual effectiveness would be a lot less. Using a brigade-sized unit (let alone a division) makes West Berlin a more serious distraction, and I'm not sure whether that's right or not. I don't *think* NATO intended to stand and fight there, but I might be wrong...

Also I'm planning a Decision Event where the USSR offers the Berlin garrison the chance to evacuate - which, if taken by the USA, gives the Warsaw Pact side a National Morale advantage, though the troops then re-form later on as a more effective formation.

[The Land]

OK here's some more in-game footage, so to speak.

Starting with the Baltic sector. The Soviet Baltic Fleet has come out in force and supported an amphibious landing near Copenhagen. Aided by maritime bombers, they've cleared out the German submarines from the Baltic. The Russian ships are in quite a vulnerable position - they are likely to be struck by the Danish shore-based missile batteries, the American patrol aircraft as Esbjerg, and the West German surface fleet. However... there are very likely more Eastern Bloc forces en route. While Poland and East Germany have no appreciable navies, they *do* have amphibious lift capacity.

Airborne Spetsnaz troops have also captured the west end of the Kiel canal, and Polish and Soviet mechanised forces are worryingly close to them.

NATO will have to decide whether to make any serious attempt to hold Denmark and/or the Kiel Canal. And if they don't, how to stop the Russian Baltic fleet pouring out the Baltic and into the NATO lines of communication in the North Sea and the English Channel. (NATO will have plenty of naval units from the UK and Holland they can use... but they will also be required elsewhere).

[The Land]

And here's the North German front. The situation for NATO is not great. The West German division (two brigades) in front of Hanover has been destroyed, leaving the British 1st Armoured Division stuck out on its own and the British I Corps HQ has also been badly damaged. The position further north around Hamburg isn't much better - a number of weak brigade counters are facing off against at least one Russian and one Polish army, probably more. Withdrawing to the Weser River might be the best course of action. Hamburg also suffered several strikes from Russian short-range ballistic missiles, aimed at reducing supply in this area.

There are some reserves, including the whole Belgian and Dutch armies - which should be enough to stabilise the front for now. There is also one further British division still in the UK, and US and Canadian troops waiting to cross the Atlantic.

Further south, the Russians have made less progress - the US 11th Armoured Cavalry was destroyed near Fulda, but the Russians haven't pressed the advantage. The Czech army has also crossed the border, but not achieved anything yet.

[nnason]

Are you playing both sides? I would have thought the USSR would have made more progress with all that armor and Mech. Did you consider what we now know that the pack Div were less then able and that the USSR Div were in pretty poor shape (which is why I think this never came to pass.)

[The Land]

ORIGINAL: nnason

Are you playing both sides? I would have thought the USSR would have made more progress with all that armor and Mech. Did you consider what we now know that the pack Div were less then able and that the USSR Div were in pretty poor shape (which is why I think this never came to pass.)

Yes, this is hotseat. And it's only turn 1...

So the mod does build in an assumption that Western Bloc units are more competent than Eastern Bloc units, division against division. This is reflected in several ways:

- NATO units have techs that give higher Morale, and also better leadership from HQs.
- NATO units are more likely to be split into brigades and some USSR units are condensed into Corps - obviously a brigade has lower stats and Corps higher (in particular a Corps has 2 strikes), but I reckon one brigade counter has ~65% the combat power of a Division counter, while a Corps counter is more like ~150% the power of a Division

This reflects a whole bunch of historical factors that probably existed - NATO having better C3I and better small-unit leadership, Eastern Bloc divisions being smaller, and so on...

[Raptor341]

This is the SC game that I have been waiting for - watching this mod. If you need any help on this let me know - I can help with document resources and testing if need be.

[The Land]

ORIGINAL: Raptor341

This is the SC game that I have been waiting for - watching this mod. If you need any help on this let me know - I can help with document resources and testing if need be.

Thank you! Very motivational to hear

I should have an alpha version in the next few days - I just need to make a decision about a point where it's useful to put one up.

[The Land]

OK, I did some more work on it today and have something I'm happy to share. Take a look if you're interested!

[maitrebongo]

Hi,
Very interested on your mod. Keep on going.

[The Land]

So this is the position 7 turns in... with the Soviets poised to drive on the Ruhr. Looking good for them, right?

Except - no - by the final turn NATO was back in Hamburg and there was scarcely a Soviet unit still standing in Northern Germany.

A few conclusions from this test:
- the land warfare works quite well. I've now given mechanized/armoured formations 8 Action Points, which has the effect I want - if they are facing a net of enemy units then 8 AP doesn't go very far at all, but if the enemy units are scarce or have lost their ZOCs then 8 Action Points takes you very far indeed. On several occasions in this game the Eastern Bloc made dramatic penetrations and on several others the West made counter-penetrations (you can see what's left of one of them near Erfurt, at one point almost the whole French army was committed to an attack with the objective of Leipzig...)
- air power is devastating. Which is ... largely right, it's meant to be devastating, but I'm wondering if it's slightly too powerful. Might tune it down a notch. (It didn't help that I had missed the need to give some of the Soviet units SAM tech, e.g. the HQ at Bremen).
- supply is important and using strategic assets to interdict supply is a good move - there may be slightly too much Scorched Earth at present though.
- need to do more work on victory and National Morale. Basically the idea is that the Eastern Bloc win if any Western nation surrenders - realistically this means West Germany. For my next test version I'm dramatically increasing the NM values of resources, so in this scenario West Germany would have much lower morale - though not such a low NM that they'd actually have surrendered even while they were in a winnable position!

[The Land]

In the last week or so I've been thinking about victory, and how to make it meaningful in the context of the 1985 scenario.

Victory here is essentially a political thing. Unlike WW2 where there was a great deal of willingness to fight to the bitter end, in WW3 the threat of widespread nuclear war made this impossible. If one side was losing the conventional war, then it would be forced to either think the unthinkable and start a nuclear exchange, or to seek an unfavourable peace. Which is a question of political nerve, not just positions on a map.

This means that victory will mainly be best handled by National Morale than objectives.

If one of the Western major powers has National Morale under 10%, then NATO will lose the game - so long as the Warsaw Pact hold Berlin and Leipzig.

If the Soviet Union has National Morale under 10%, then NATO will win the game - so long as West Germany holds Bonn.

Otherwise, on the last turn, if West Germany has National Morale under 30%, the Eastern Bloc will win. If West Germany has higher NM than that and holds Bonn and Mannheim, NATO will win. If West Germany has >30% NM but does not hold both Bonn and Mannheim, then there is a stalemate.

Of course, if one side actually surrenders then the other side will win. The only plausible way of this happening is if the Eastern Bloc manage to take West Germany's capitals (Bonn, Mannheim and Munich), prompting a West German surrender. But it's very likely that a NM trigger will be hit first. I'll also need to take care not to allow shonky moves like Russian paratroops landing in Paris prompting a French surrender...

What impact does all of this have on the rest of the design?

So this thinking has an impact on both the land and naval wars. Luckily the game has a number of inbuilt National Morale mechanics that reflect what I want to achieve quite well - there are NM losses from casualties, gains and losses from taking territory, losses from raiding convoys, and also of course events.

In testing so far I'm finding that the NM impact of casualties is immense - particularly on the Soviets. Which is fine, it's a very bloody war.

In my current test versions I am also increasing the impact of resources and convoy raiding. This is particularly true of resources - the vanilla values are set for a game of perhaps 100 turns (and where NM isn't decisive), this game will probably go up to 12. So I have increased the NM values by a factor of several - e.g. a City is now worth 100 NM per turn.

This leads me on to the next topic, which is the War at Sea....

[The Land]

(I'll update this with screenshots in a bit)

The North Atlantic is a crucial theatre in this WW3 scenario, for two main reasons: lines of communication and strategic nuclear assets.

I'll start with the Soviets' perspective. The Soviets' main concern was to safeguard their own nuclear capabilities - particularly the SSBNs which were based mainly near Murmansk in the Kola Peninsula and then cruised around the Arctic Ocean. They were worried, to the point of being terrified, of US carriers and shore-based aircraft penetrating the Barents Sea and hunting down their SSBNs using their much superior ASW technology.

So the Soviets wanted to keep the naval battle happening as far as possible away from their own SSBN bastions. It's for this reason that they would almost inevitably have invaded northern Norway, for NATO had built many large airbases there that would have been used to support naval operations.

To this end, there are two areas (Kola Peninsula and White Sea) where the presence of NATO naval forces will give the Soviet Union a significant NM penalty. Further, the Soviets are required to make progress to seize airbases at Banak, Tromso, Narvik and Bodo progressively during the game, or suffer further NM penalties.

The Soviets' next priority was to interdict the NATO sea lanes of control - preventing the flow of reinforcements, equipment and resources across the Atlantic. If you've read Red Storm Rising, then you will be expecting tense submarine engagements in the mid-Atlantic. Which will definitely be part of it! There are a number of land units that start off in the USA and Canada, and need to be shipped across to the European theatre. There is also a significant convoy from the USA to West Germany. So there is plenty of work for Soviet submarines, and in countering them.

However, there is more than that!

First, to further illustrate the impact of the mid-Atlantic battle, I'm planning on including some National Morale events which trigger when there are Soviet subs (or even ships) in the Central Atlantic.

Second, I'm going to add additional events for the North Sea and English Channel. By the 1980s, North Sea Oil was a crucial resource (and important to the likely Central European war effort). However it's also very vulnerable to naval attack. So I have added Oil resources to western Norway and eastern Scotland, and also target hexes in the North Sea. If the Soviet Union can put ships or subs on these hexes, then the Oil resources are markedly reduced (and also there is an effect on UK and West German National Morale). Of course, this is a hazardous area for the Soviet Navy, with many NATO naval units and maritime patrol aircraft in the area...

The English Channel is another area where the Soviet navy, if it can get there, can cause immense havoc. This isn't a 1940s scenario where the German economy is largely self-sufficient. It's a time where supply chains are already starting to be integrated worldwide, and immense co-dependence. There was (and still is now) massive international traffic into ports like Antwerp, Rotterdam and Felixstowe. In wartime, civilian traffic of things like Datsun cars and Amstrad microcomputers would largely have been replaced with war-essential shipping... but all of that would have had to go into the same ports. So I've added some Soviet objective hexes to the English Channel as well. If they can put naval units on any one of those hexes, there will be noticeable disruption to supply in West Germany and Denmark. If they can somehow sustain a force in the Channel then West German supply will grind to a halt within a turn or two. Of course, that would be very challenging indeed given the environment... but this mechanic means there is a real purpose to (say) the Soviet player seizing the Kiel Canal and charging into the Channel with disposable missile boats.

And finally, there is also an opportunity for the Soviets to wreak havoc on the East Coast of the USA. If they are able to get submarines within 12 hexes of New York City, there will be panic in the USA and a one-off -10,000 National Morale Hit as US leaders become concerned about the possibility of Russian SSBNs getting that close and making a low-trajectory, zero-warning first strike...

[The Land]

A couple of pictures:

Here is the North Cape. On the left hand side the red-hatched hex is the airbase at Banak, which the Warsaw Pact must take by the end of turn 2. This is not terribly challenging as it's not defended except by the weak garrison at Kirkenes - but there is nothing to the rear of that. The Soviet 6th Army has both an air assault formation and 2 amphibious brigades, any of which can take Banak.

You can also see the Soviet Navy's surface action group - including the 'battlecruiser' Kirov, cruiser Slava and light carrier Kiev - ready to support any amphibious landings. They are also supported by two SSN counters. While the amphibious action group has a Kynda-class cruiser and some frigates supporting it.

[The Land]

And here is the northern North Sea and the Scottish Islands. You can see a line of NATO submarines attempting to blockade the entrance to the North Sea, and the GIUK gap. Diesel submarines are deployed in the North Sea and Norwegian coast, while the GIUK gap has British and American SSNs. There is also a NATO ASW battlegroup focused on the British light carrier Invincible supporting this operation.

You can see some of the North Sea oil hexes, as well as the Norway-UK convoy (reflecting some of the flow of North Sea oil).

[The Land]

More Norway front action! This time it's NATO turn 1.

The Russians successfully took Banak. They have used their amphibious troops to try to take Tromso, which is next on their objective list. They were unable to do so on the first turn - just - and the reserve brigade there has been reinforced, but it has very low readiness and will not last.

Soviet mechanised troops are also approaching through Finland with an attack towards Skibotn.

The Norwegian Army had deployed one of its two mechanized brigades at Skibotn, and that could have held out longer. However out of concern for its very weak flank at Tromso, that brigade has retreated towards Narvik.

Norwegian and British submarines have arrived in and off the Vestfjord (entrance to Narvik and Bodo) anticipating more Russian moves there. A US submarine that was lurking off the North Cape has shadowed the Russian surface group southwards and took a shot at the Kirov battlecruiser.

[The Land]

Quick update - the last few days I have been looking at balancing on the Atlantic Front. The German Front and Northern Front are playing quite well but the naval war needs better balance.

Essentially on land the asymmetrical quality vs quantity nature of the war is now working quite well - the USSR has a tonne of units but on the whole those units are less effective. The first-line Soviet divisions are just as good as Western divisions, but the Eastern Front has fewer top-quality fighters and bombers, and the Soviet reserve formations are often poor-quality.

At sea however my first drafts of the OOBs had too many NATO ASW units, which combined with their tech advantage meant that every Russian sub could be sunk within 10 days - not what I had in mind Part of the issue is that NATO has so many navies (USA, Britain, France, Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, West Germany) and giving all the minor ones one or two counters of navy adds up quickly.

So I am now trying again with a more limited NATO OOB and some tweaks to the balance of ASW techs. A Soviet submarine should be able to dive sometimes, right?

[The Land]

This actually leads on to saying something about technology!

Roughly, the techs in this mod work on a 0-3 level. 3 represents cutting-edge 1980s technology. 2 reflects 1970s technology, 1 reflects 1960s, 0 reflects 1950s or WW2-vintage equipment. A few techs (e.g. SAMs and ASW) are capped at level 2 for balance purposes.

Broadly speaking, I'm trying to give specific units the 'right' level of tech. However it's impossible to get into too much detail on this. Online you can find huge debates about the relative merits of a Chieftain tank vs a German Leopard 1 vs a Russian T-64. Reality doesn't fit neatly into this tech progression, but it has to be made to fit in a satisfying way.

The only level-3 techs that the Eastern Bloc have are for land units. Soviet tank divisions with T-80s, BMP-2s and the latest helicopters are this level of tech. Indeed, the Eastern Bloc has more level-3 mechanized units than the West does - where the only tanks this good are the M1s of the US Army.

However, in the air, the picture is reversed. NATO air units have level 3 tech by default - reflecting equipment like F-15, F-16 and the Tornado on the fighter side and F-111, A-10 and the Tornado again on the bomber side. The USSR has some level-3 fighter units - reflecting the Mig-29 and Su-27. But the bulk of its airforce is older - level 2 tech being a mixture of Mig-23s or Mig-27s and the lastest marks of Mig-21s, level 1 tech being older Mig-21s.

Under the sea, NATO submarines mainly have tech 3 e.g. Los Angeles and Trafalgar classes (sometimes 2 for Sturgeons or older diesel boats)/ While the USSR's maximum sub tech is 2, and there are plenty of tech 0 and 1 Russian submarines around - reflecting the range from highly capable Alfa and Oscar class through to some real noisy junk from the 1950s still in service.

There are also a couple of 'special' techs. Stealth Technology is an on-or-off tech, and only one unit of US strike aircraft has it. It markedly increases damage evasion. Nuclear Propulsion is another on-or-off tech, which considerably increases the range of submarines - reflecting the different roles of SSNs/SSGNs vs SS/SSGs. And finally, Anti-Shipping Missiles is the mod's version of Naval Weaponry. When assigned to some kinds of units (e.g cruisers, submarines) it increases the unit's strike range as well as its attack value, reflecting the capabilities of standoff weaponry.

Given the short duration of the war, research is turned off. Upgrades are also turned off, to prevent an ahistoric situation where the USSR upgrades its entire army to T-80s within a week, or the whole US Air Force becomes stealth fighters on turn 1. So the only way to improve a unit is to allow it to be destroyed, and then rebuild it with improved tech (though there is a risk that this becomes an exploit).

Got any questions? Let me know!