What new scenarios would you like to see?

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

As for Japan, she declared war on us because we placed an oil embargo on her, then promptly seized the Dutch East Indian oilfields for her use, and was ultimately crippled by attacks on her shipping. I think this proves my point quite nicely- not that I think that same fate would have befallen the North, but obviously this is a less than ideal situation to be in.

Right. a) the CSA is not going to be able to build a fleet the size of the 1940s USN b) the CSA has no bases for this fleet to operate from c) the USA is going to have a better fleet and larger merchant marine than Japan did.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

As for Japan, she declared war on us because we placed an oil embargo on her, then promptly seized the Dutch East Indian oilfields for her use, and was ultimately crippled by attacks on her shipping. I think this proves my point quite nicely- not that I think that same fate would have befallen the North, but obviously this is a less than ideal situation to be in.

Right. a) the CSA is not going to be able to build a fleet the size of the 1940s USN b) the CSA has no bases for this fleet to operate from c) the USA is going to have a better fleet and larger merchant marine than Japan did.

(d) even the truncated USA won't have the total reliance on overseas resources that Japan had. (e) they will presumably have more sophisticated convoying and anti-submarine practices than the Japanese did. (f) they'll certainly have more sophisticated anti-submarine technology.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

You can't seriously argue that transportation costs do not affect prices. If you're in Cleveland, it oil from the Dutch East Indies or Mexico(via California!) does indeed cost more than Texas oil.

Yeah- but not by much.

Take a look at matters today. It's cheaper to produce some consumer item in China and ship it over than it is to produce it domestically. Transportation does cost, but production and retail is where the real expenses are.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
September 5. In stormy session, USA Congress declares war.

There you go.

The American army was sort of exotic and interesting at this point in time, so it could be fun. You'd also need to figure out where the rest of the world is at this point- but that's a whole other argument.

[palmdogg]

My personal favorite scenarios are Attu, Kiska, Cuba, and Grenada. Any scenario that gives its generals as much latitude as possible and has a lot of random events is going to win major kudos from me. I guess if I had a wish list, the scenarios on it would be:

1904-1905 - The Russo-Japanese War (Manchuria & Port Arthur)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_war

1918 - Allenby's Conquest of Palestine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Megiddo_(1918)

1920 - Russo-Polish War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-Soviet_War

1942 - Stalingrad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad (WHY WAS THIS OMITTED?!?!)

1945 - Gotterdammerung: Conquest of Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin
(I know one already exists, but it's WAY too detailed; was thinking something a little more informal, like the Panzer General scenario)

One of the Indo-Pakistani Wars or the Sino-Indian War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War

1990-1991 - Gulf War (With options for Saddam to invade Saudi Arabia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War#Diplomacy

1998-2002 Something African. Either Congo or Ethiopia-Eritrea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrean-Ethiopian_War

I would also suggest modifying the Cuba 62 scenario so the US has more latitude in deploying its forces and the Cubans can actually use their tactical nukes and anti-ship weapons.

[JMS2]

I think you already have scenarios for most of this:

ORIGINAL: palmdogg

My personal favorite scenarios are Attu, Kiska, Cuba, and Grenada. Any scenario that gives its generals as much latitude as possible and has a lot of random events is going to win major kudos from me. I guess if I had a wish list, the scenarios on it would be:

1904-1905 - The Russo-Japanese War (Manchuria & Port Arthur)

http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenar ... php?Id=631

ORIGINAL: palmdogg
1918 - Allenby's Conquest of Palestine

http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenar ... php?Id=226 but it's TOAW-I

ORIGINAL: palmdogg
1920 - Russo-Polish War

http://media.miks.uj.edu.pl/~jflis/pasj ... awseng.htm

ORIGINAL: palmdogg
1942 - Stalingrad

http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenar ... php?Id=360

ORIGINAL: palmdogg
1945 - Gotterdammerung: Conquest of Germany

http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenar ... php?Id=168

ORIGINAL: palmdogg
One of the Indo-Pakistani Wars or the Sino-Indian War

There's several hypotheticals for 2002 and one for 1948, but none for 1965 or 1962

ORIGINAL: palmdogg
1990-1991 - Gulf War (With options for Saddam to invade Saudi Arabia)

I know there's one covering this but can't find it at the moment.

ORIGINAL: palmdogg

1998-2002 Something African. Either Congo or Ethiopia-Eritrea

I am pretty sure they haven't been done.

[bluermonkey]

ORIGINAL: palmdogg

1990-1991 - Gulf War (With options for Saddam to invade Saudi Arabia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War#Diplomacy

You should be able to find a scenario covering this at http://www.toaw.co.uk/. It's either John Gallion's 'Oil War' or Al Sandrik's 'Saddams War', I forget which.

I toyed with the idea of designing a scenario to cover this starting from the Iraqi player moving into Kuwait with the option of moving on Saudi Arabia. I got about 25% of the way through designing a map and then lost interest.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: bluermonkey
I toyed with the idea of designing a scenario to cover this starting from the Iraqi player moving into Kuwait with the option of moving on Saudi Arabia.

This could be sort of interesting. Naturally, Saddam eventually gets smacked down by the USA- but there'll probably be a half-decent fight while they struggle to deploy the army.

[bluermonkey]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: bluermonkey
I toyed with the idea of designing a scenario to cover this starting from the Iraqi player moving into Kuwait with the option of moving on Saudi Arabia.

This could be sort of interesting. Naturally, Saddam eventually gets smacked down by the USA- but there'll probably be a half-decent fight while they struggle to deploy the army.

That's what interested me as well. It's sort of a race against time for the Coalition to deploy before the Iraqi's capture Saudi ports and airfields.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: bluermonkey

That's what interested me as well. It's sort of a race against time for the Coalition to deploy before the Iraqi's capture Saudi ports and airfields.

Well, I don't think there's any danger of the coalition actually losing. Not at all. First off, Saudi must have had a fairly formidable army of their own at this point. Second, substantial coalition forces (paratroopers and marines) could be deployed and supplied without locally available ports or airfields. 82nd Airborne, for its part, was supposed to be capable of deploying in a few days anyway.

It's more a matter of seeing just how much a nuisance Saddam could make of himself in this time. Trouble is one gets into questions of how much force Iraq was capable of projecting beyond its borders, how far it was willing to risk denuding its interior, how far it was prepared to outrage the rest of the Islamic world (bin Laden was busy organising an Islamic army to resist the invasion at this point), etc.

[bluermonkey]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: bluermonkey

That's what interested me as well. It's sort of a race against time for the Coalition to deploy before the Iraqi's capture Saudi ports and airfields.

Well, I don't think there's any danger of the coalition actually losing. Not at all. First off, Saudi must have had a fairly formidable army of their own at this point. Second, substantial coalition forces (paratroopers and marines) could be deployed and supplied without locally available ports or airfields. 82nd Airborne, for its part, was supposed to be capable of deploying in a few days anyway.

It's more a matter of seeing just how much a nuisance Saddam could make of himself in this time. Trouble is one gets into questions of how much force Iraq was capable of projecting beyond its borders, how far it was willing to risk denuding its interior, how far it was prepared to outrage the rest of the Islamic world (bin Laden was busy organising an Islamic army to resist the invasion at this point), etc.

Well certainly it's difficult to envisage a situation where even a well executed advance into Saudi Arabia could actually win the war decisively for Iraq. As you rightly point out the US had many rapidly deployable units, the Saudi army can put up a fight, and US airpower would be devastating.

However, in TOAW terms, you could even things up by giving the Coalition player a strict timetable for pushing the Iraqis out of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. If they begin to fall behind you take points off them.

Interesting that you say Bin Laden was preparing an Islamic Army to repel anysuch invasion, I never knew that.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: bluermonkey
However, in TOAW terms, you could even things up by giving the Coalition player a strict timetable for pushing the Iraqis out of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. If they begin to fall behind you take points off them.

Yeah. I'd say this would make a pretty interesting scenario. Go make it....

Interesting that you say Bin Laden was preparing an Islamic Army to repel anysuch invasion, I never knew that.

Well, he certainly wanted to. I don't know if he actually got anywhere with it. But there's no reason that something similar to what was done in Afghanistan couldn't be repeated in Saudi Arabia.

This is actually at the root of things. Until 1990, al Qaeda was essentially an international support network for Islamic fighters in Afghanistan. Then, when Saudi Arabia invited the coalition in to fight Iraq, bin Laden began increasingly to see both the Saudi government and the USA (through it's 'occupation' of the land of the two holy cities) as the principal enemy. Even though American troops are now out of Saudi, the damage has already been done- radical Islam is not about to forgive the Saudi government any time soon.

[Pippin]

One thing that bugged me with the Kasserine map. How the hell do you prevent the allied airforce from getting obliterated?!

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Pippin

One thing that bugged me with the Kasserine map. How the hell do you prevent the allied airforce from getting obliterated?!

This from a disk scenario? Most of them are junk. I wouldn't get too worked up about it.

[palmdogg]

quote:

ORIGINAL: bluermonkey

That's what interested me as well. It's sort of a race against time for the Coalition to deploy before the Iraqi's capture Saudi ports and airfields.



Well, I don't think there's any danger of the coalition actually losing. Not at all. First off, Saudi must have had a fairly formidable army of their own at this point. Second, substantial coalition forces (paratroopers and marines) could be deployed and supplied without locally available ports or airfields. 82nd Airborne, for its part, was supposed to be capable of deploying in a few days anyway.

It's more a matter of seeing just how much a nuisance Saddam could make of himself in this time. Trouble is one gets into questions of how much force Iraq was capable of projecting beyond its borders, how far it was willing to risk denuding its interior, how far it was prepared to outrage the rest of the Islamic world (bin Laden was busy organising an Islamic army to resist the invasion at this point), etc.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. In the years after the Gulf War, Saddam always said his big mistake was not going for broke and invading Saudi Arabia. This scenario would take as a given that Saddam's offensive was actually to secure the Kuwaiti-Saudi Gulf Coast. (Where the bulk of their oil production was). At the very least, Iraq can raise havoc for a few weeks while the US gets its airpower and rapid deployment force into the theater. Regarding the Saudi Army, I've never heard anything good about it either in books or from the Army and Marine officers I've talked to who served in Desert Storm.

I know that US commanders, especially USAF General Chuck Horner were terrified about an Iraqi advance before US forces were deployed, and some people described the initial 82nd/Marine deployment as little more than a "speed bump". What would have happened if the Republican Guard had engaged or destroyed a US battalion, or even brigade? Historically, US forces have usually done poorly in defensive campaigns (Kasserine, Ardennes, Task Force Smith, Yalu River, Tet Offensive*), especially when unprepared.

Also, Operation Desert Shield (1990) was controversial enough without any shooting going on. How much more controversial would it have been if President Bush had to commit US troops to battle without a Congressional resolution or while debate was ongoing? The US had Midterm elections coming up in November and historically President Bush waited until they were over before deploying most of the US forces. These are just some of the issues a scenario could deal with. The possibilities are endless.

In other words, I was thinking a Grenada type scenario where you know the US will almost definitely win in the end, but Iraq can in theory gain a political victory if it plays its cards right. Anyone thinking of doing this should get their paws on "The Generals' War", which is a pretty good (though not perfect) study of the high level political and military issues in the Gulf War, especially the US contingency plans for an Iraqi invasion of Saudi.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... s&n=507846

JMS2, thanks for putting up the links to all the scenarios.

* Yes, I know we won, but with a victory like that God help us in defeat.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: palmdogg

In the years after the Gulf War, Saddam always said his big mistake was not going for broke and invading Saudi Arabia.

Hi!

Well, a fanciful scenario at best.

It's one thing to invade Kuwait, its quite another to invade Saudi Arabia. The difference is not tank battalions, or "speed bumps" in the way. The difference is logistics. The Iraqi forces have historically lacked sufficient logistical support for its army. I have seen various reports indicating that the tanks that invaded Kuwati had a full tank of petrol and nothing more. While that may allow you to beat up a small neighbor very close to your border, it places a scenario of attack Saudi Arabia in a completely fictional context.

Not a very interesting what if to me.

Ray (alias Lava)

[bluermonkey]

ORIGINAL: Lava

ORIGINAL: palmdogg

In the years after the Gulf War, Saddam always said his big mistake was not going for broke and invading Saudi Arabia.

Hi!

Well, a fanciful scenario at best.

It's one thing to invade Kuwait, its quite another to invade Saudi Arabia. The difference is not tank battalions, or "speed bumps" in the way. The difference is logistics. The Iraqi forces have historically lacked sufficient logistical support for its army. I have seen various reports indicating that the tanks that invaded Kuwati had a full tank of petrol and nothing more. While that may allow you to beat up a small neighbor very close to your border, it places a scenario of attack Saudi Arabia in a completely fictional context.

Not a very interesting what if to me.

Ray (alias Lava)

As a hypothetical I think it has some merit. There are lots of variables and 'what ifs' to play with using the event editor, and clever scenario design could even things up between the two forces without doing ahistorical things like making the Iraqi's fight harder than they would in real life, etc.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: palmdogg

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. In the years after the Gulf War, Saddam always said his big mistake was not going for broke and invading Saudi Arabia. This scenario would take as a given that Saddam's offensive was actually to secure the Kuwaiti-Saudi Gulf Coast. (Where the bulk of their oil production was). At the very least, Iraq can raise havoc for a few weeks while the US gets its airpower and rapid deployment force into the theater. Regarding the Saudi Army, I've never heard anything good about it either in books or from the Army and Marine officers I've talked to who served in Desert Storm.

I opened a discussion on that subject here;
http://www.tdg.nu/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1131468420

Although it's pretty clear the Saudis were bad soldiers, so too were the Iraqis. It's like comparing the Italians and the Yugoslavs as of 1941.

and some people described the initial 82nd/Marine deployment as little more than a "speed bump".

Mm. I'd say that 82nd Airborne, backed up by substantial air assets which would also have been available, would have about the same combat value as the entire force the Iraqis would be able to project into Saudi Arabia.

Historically, US forces have usually done poorly in defensive campaigns (Kasserine, Ardennes, Task Force Smith, Yalu River, Tet Offensive*), especially when unprepared.

With the exception of Tet (which whilst it precipitated the withdrawal, was itself quite a resounding military success for the US), those are all cases of poorly-prepared and inexperienced troops in action against confident and battle-hardened forces. If you want a comparison, look at the Ardennes- but look at 101st Airborne's performance. That's a pretty good analogy. They were thrown in at short notice to stop a flood, and they did damned well. Note that the 1990 Iraqi army was very much less competent than the 1944 German army.

How much more controversial would it have been if President Bush had to commit US troops to battle without a Congressional resolution or while debate was ongoing?

Well the pacifists in the USA were able to convince themselves that Iraq's cause was just over Kuwait. They would have a much harder time doing so over Saudi. There goes the debate.

but Iraq can in theory gain a political victory if it plays its cards right.

I dunno. By this action Iraq loses all sympathy from the Islamic world. She massively overstretches her forces, and leaves herself open to exactly the kind of Cannae-style defeat which she managed to avoid historically.

It may well be that Bush will be politically damaged by this war more than he was historically- but what difference does that make? As it was, he was immediately shunted out of office by the Democrats anyway.

[palmdogg]

Woah! I wasn't trying to make the case that Iraq should have done this, I was just suggesting the possibilites for a scenario. I think Ray (alias Lava) brings up the most interesting criticism, and I must confess I'm not a professional military officer, and while I know a little logistics I wouldn't even know how to set up those kinds of calculations.

However, just to keep things interesting, I found a 1994 paper from the National Defense University on Desert Storm that may still keep things plausible. I make no claim as to its accuracy, and it was written close enough to the event that it may reflect conventional wisdom more than the better research that's been done over the last decade.

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/McNair/mcnair32/mcnair32.pdf

Pages 33-34 actually use the phrase "speed bump" when describing the 82nd Airborne.

Page 37 says, and I quote "If Iraq had continued its attack in early August, prior to U.S. presence, Saudi Arabia would surely have been lost. Sufficient American forces could not have been brought to bear quickly enough to defend it"

In other words, if Iraq had serious logistical problems, so did the US. The author even says on several occasions that Iraq could have brushed aside the initial US deployment. He talks about a window of opportunity for an Iraqi attack closing in early October, so if this scenario is done, a good time frame might be from August 2 - November 3, with one day turns. Another site I found has this useful US timeline, which suggests that the Saudi Army would have faced Iraq alone for almost a week:

2 Aug - Iraq invades Kuwait.
7 Aug – Two squadrons of USAF F-15s are first US forces arrive in Saudi Arabia.
9 Aug – First elements of Ready Brigade of 82nd Abn arrive in Saudi Arabia.
25 Aug 1990 – UN authorizes use of force.
31 Oct – President Bush gives go ahead for two corps offensive and authorizes doubling of force.
29 Nov - UN Resolution 678 authorizes all force needed to expel Iraq if they are not out by 15 Jan 1991.
17 Jan 1991 - Air war begins
23 Feb - Ground war begins
28 Feb – Cease fire takes effect

I'm guessing the 82nd deployment is set in stone since the US tried to 'plant the flag' as fast as possible to dissuade Iraq from continuing South, but the US might have been able to get air forces into the region a day or two earlier.

[bluermonkey]

ORIGINAL: palmdogg

Woah! I wasn't trying to make the case that Iraq should have done this, I was just suggesting the possibilites for a scenario. I think Ray (alias Lava) brings up the most interesting criticism, and I must confess I'm not a professional military officer, and while I know a little logistics I wouldn't even know how to set up those kinds of calculations.

However, just to keep things interesting, I found a 1994 paper from the National Defense University on Desert Storm that may still keep things plausible. I make no claim as to its accuracy, and it was written close enough to the event that it may reflect conventional wisdom more than the better research that's been done over the last decade.

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/McNair/mcnair32/mcnair32.pdf

Pages 33-34 actually use the phrase "speed bump" when describing the 82nd Airborne.

Page 37 says, and I quote "If Iraq had continued its attack in early August, prior to U.S. presence, Saudi Arabia would surely have been lost. Sufficient American forces could not have been brought to bear quickly enough to defend it"

In other words, if Iraq had serious logistical problems, so did the US. The author even says on several occasions that Iraq could have brushed aside the initial US deployment. He talks about a window of opportunity for an Iraqi attack closing in early October, so if this scenario is done, a good time frame might be from August 2 - November 3, with one day turns. Another site I found has this useful US timeline, which suggests that the Saudi Army would have faced Iraq alone for almost a week:

2 Aug - Iraq invades Kuwait.
7 Aug – Two squadrons of USAF F-15s are first US forces arrive in Saudi Arabia.
9 Aug – First elements of Ready Brigade of 82nd Abn arrive in Saudi Arabia.
25 Aug 1990 – UN authorizes use of force.
31 Oct – President Bush gives go ahead for two corps offensive and authorizes doubling of force.
29 Nov - UN Resolution 678 authorizes all force needed to expel Iraq if they are not out by 15 Jan 1991.
17 Jan 1991 - Air war begins
23 Feb - Ground war begins
28 Feb – Cease fire takes effect

I'm guessing the 82nd deployment is set in stone since the US tried to 'plant the flag' as fast as possible to dissuade Iraq from continuing South, but the US might have been able to get air forces into the region a day or two earlier.

This is interesting stuff. Thanks for the link, it will come in handy if I ever decide to dive in and try and make this.