Scroll to the bottom of the page for the most recent additions.......

Paul Morrison asks.....

What programs are you going to use to simulate various aspects of the campaigns?

The two primary programs handling the entire Europe-88 battleset are Harpoon 3 for the air, naval and theater/strategic intelligence components, and The Operational Art Of War for land operations and tactical intelligence components. These two programs form two battle "arenas", with results in one affecting dynamically the next-turn circumstances in the other: For example, if one of your airbases is overrun by enemy ground forces (or taken with an airborne assault) in TOAW, then on the next turn in Harpoon, the enemy will be able to use it against you. If you let the enemy CAS aircraft pound your proud armored divisions in Harpoon, you'll return to TOAW only to find them as ghostly remnants of their former glory. Typically, one game "turn" in Harpoon is followed by the equivalent turn in TOAW. The length of the turns will vary according to the circumstances: Early turns may be only a few hours of scenario time (as there are A LOT of things happening upon commencement of hostilities), while subsequent turns could elongate in duration. As things tend to move faster in air and naval warfare, each new day is resolved firstly in the Harpoon part. Therefore, actions of naval-air warfare (plus of selected ground-based assets) may be reflected on the ground arena of the same day/turn, but the reverse is not true: Results of ground operations will be reflected in the Harpoon environment only in the next turn. Both programs support logistics accounting on their scope. Furthermore, a number of external tools are used for things like strategic-level book-keeping, covert operations etc. Steel Panthers-MBT, a wargame of tactical ground combat, is used for the resolution of CAS/BAI air attacks.

How are you going to handle tactical nuclear strikes?

I assume that the question addresses the use of NBC weapons in general. TOAW models effectively the military effects of chemical and biological weapons by introducing slow reactions and generally increased disorder in the units affected. As for nuclear weapons, both Harpoon and TOAW model their use at all levels effectively.

Nuke mirroring from Harpoon to TOAW : Any of the nuclear-capable air or missile units can perform the mirror-strike, although the actual type employed will depend on the yield of the weapon employed in Harpoon. Where possible, the same exact unit will be used (only if the unit is present on both arenas, like for instance a Scud-B TEL). If not, then a unit of equal or similar yield capacity will be used.

Nuke mirroring from TOAW to Harpoon : A custom-made weapon that is impossible to intercept (like, for instance a Mach-400 ICBM) is employed to ensure that the strike will happen near-instantly after the turn begins.

A thorny aspect in the nuclear strikes is the modelling of footprint limations on MIRVed weapons (Harpoon does not currently model MIRVs). The solution I've come up with is clumsy, but it works: The player initiating the strike (for instance, a single triple-warhead SS-20 against a bunker) informs the GM who, in turn, briefs him on the radius at which he can allocate targets for the remaining two warheads (alternatively, the GM may provide the players with radius charts for the various MIRV systems beforehand). The player launches the SS-20 unit to the primary target. If, and only if, this primary bird impacts normally (indicating no malfunctions to the complete launch-fly-impact sequence), he then launches additionally two "fake" missiles (the Mach-400 units mentioned before) at the other two targets, to simulate the impact of the other two warheads. The fake missiles are replenished at the end of the turn by the GM. Like I said, not very elegant but it works. Alternative suggestions would be welcome.

Will intelligence be accurately determined?

To answer that, one must first consider the different forms of intelligence:

IMINT: The bread-and-butter of strategic recon aircraft (SR-71/MiG-25R) and photo-recon satellites. These assets are employed in Harpoon and are capable of detecting and providing fairly detailed information on all objects in this arena, depending on their visual/EO signature (including IR). They are NOT capable of detecting in-theater ground units because of their random dispersion patterns, but they can detect, monitor and provide targetting data for reinforcement units rushing to the theater.

SIGINT: Which in turn is further broken down to ELINT and COMINT. Tactical ELINT/COMINT capability is inherently included in the unit modifiers in TOAW. Theater/Strategic-level ELINT is handled with the approprate assets in the Harpoon arena (anything from RC-135s/Il-20s to NSA/KGB listening ground-stations to ferret satellites to a single EW pod hung under a fighter). A special subdivision of SIGINT, sound surveillance (SOSUS, SURTASS, Caesar etc), is also handled in the Harpoon arena.

HUMINT: That's one of the trickiest design decisions. How does one model the efforts of thousands of covert human assets to exploit first-hand intel on both the enemy's OOB and intentions? Some units are to be modelled in the H4 arena (as invisible) and some more could be included in the TOAW set for use on the tactical level. For the rest, their inclusion into SOF operations (themselves somewhat ambigous in implementation) is strongly being considered.

How can one be sure that the other party is playing by the rules?

It is the GM's duty to ensure that the proper procedures are followed flawlessly. With that in mind, it must be understood that, while gross unauthorised modifications are usually easy to spot, it is quite easy for one of the participants to hide a number of smaller tweaks that altogether contribute to an unfair advantage. When all is said and done, the matter comes down to self-respect. If one would cheat in chess (given the chance), then one will also cheat here.

Zero1 asks......

How do CAS aircraft from the Harpoon arena interact with enemy ground forces from TOAW?

This is best illustrated with an example. Let us assume that the WP player wants a 4-ship Su-25 flight to do some pounding against a W.German motorised regiment. The ground unit exists on the Harpoon arena and has been detected, and so he directs the flight there. (Ed: Actually, that is not absolutely necessary - he can send the flight on a S&D/killzone patrol on a general area, while simply assuming/suspecting that the target lies somewhere there. But would he really want them looking left and right searching for ground units while dodging SAMs, AAA and fighter sweeps?).

When (if) the flight reaches its intended target and strikes the ground unit, the effect of the airstrike is resolved in a custom battle scenario in SP-MBT which involves the attacked ground force (faithfully reconstructed, down to the last squad) and the attacking air units. Losses from both sides are recorded, and any air units shot down are immediately removed from the Harpoon environment (non-lethal damage to aircraft that survive the operation is also recorded).

When the surviving aircraft return to base, those that are damaged receive extra hours of maintenance downtime, according to the severity of their damage (light, medium or heavy). For example, if one of the four Su-25s was shot down during the attack and another received medium damage, then the three surviving aircraft will return to base. From these, two will re-arm e.g. for CAS and will be ready to fly again in 30 mins, but the damaged aircraft will be down for another 6 hrs due to repair.

The ground units destroyed in the SP-MBT airstrike scenario are removed from the regiment by using the TOAW scenario editor. The TOAW engine then recalculates the effect of these losses with regards to mobility, reconnaisance, proficiency, supply, C2, morale and overall fighting capability of the attacked regiment.

Which countries' armed forces are to be modelled?

For the H3 arena: The two superpowers, plus every single European country's air, naval, and strategic (if applicable) forces, plus selected ground units and facilities (replenishment/supply, intelligence, air defence, general warfighting infastructure). Also several countries of importance around Europe (northern Africa and Middle east, for instance), and selected installations on global scale (intel posts and support facilities in allied countries, plus forward-deployed outposts/bases). The scale of modelling will be dependent on the battleset format, which is yet unclear.

For the TOAW arena: Complete and detailed representation of ground forces in Central Europe, plus reinforcements which are earmarked for this theater. Also campaign-related infastructure in the same area (bridges, storage facilities etc)...

BlackHawk-57VTFW asks.....

How are you going to model the imperative need for both pre-strike recon and post-strike BDA? Or are the target area details simply known beforehand?

Mobile targets are, quite naturally, up to you to locate them (only their starting locations are known. Now, if you manage to stick a recon asset to them from Day One until you bag them.....). The locations of static targets remains a known fact throughout the campaign. Their status and composition is known only at the beginning, and increasingly loses validity afterwards. It is the player's duty to keep an eye on them with recon missions or satellite overflights or any other means.

The knowledge of the "status" of an immobile target can be of tremendous importance during the planning of a strike. Let's get down and dirty with a practical example:

Having parked a US carrier group off the Syrian coast on the second week of the war, you prepare for a strike on the Dumyar airfield. Day One stats for the target report that it has a Flat Face EW radar and a Fan Song tracking radar (but no SA-2 missiles), a SA-3 site for close-in defence and 23, 37 & 57mm guns for terminal defence, plus a squadron of MiG-23MS fighters. Easy meat, huh? Well, maybe. Your adversary may have moved his SA-5 batteries from Damascus, or SA-6/8s from other posts to this airfield to ambush your force. Or a few of his MiG-29s. Or even outside reinforcements from mother Russia. (Ed: The heavy lift capabilities of transport aircraft are fully taken into account. A flight of An-22s, for instance, can transport a complete SA-4/12 brigade anywhere in the world on short notice. You'd better guard them like hell, though). He may even be preparing a strike at your carrier to coincide with your air wing's absence or re-arming/preparation (Midway taught many things to many people). You can, of course, ignore all those considerations and get in the action in true gung-ho style, all barrels blazing (and maybe get your ass kicked). Or, you can play it smart and patient: do some ELINT sweeps with your ES-3A, or even better, call up an RC-135 or EP-3A from Crete for better coverage. See if you can sniff anything that "the book" doesn't mention. Call up an SR-71 pass to see what's in the base, or wait for the next satellite pass. Slide-in some SEALs with a sub if you need some first-hand recon or some equipment blown up before you go ahead. Bring on reinforcements from elsewhere, if you're convinced that things are serious (or withdraw, if you judge that the target is not worth the extra effort). It pays up to follow real-world caution and thinking.

The need for BDA will depend on the type of weaponry used. PC-Harpoon has the limitation of enabling any platform within visual/acoustic range of the target to assess damage regardless of its mission. So, for instance, a flight of F-16Cs that strike a target with LGBs (and thus are within eyeball range) will automatically perform BDA before returning. On the other hand, an attack with stand-off weponry (guided bombs, cruise missiles etc) will definitely require additional assets to "have a look".

_ALEX_ asks.....

How are you going to balance the whole scenario with conventional weapons superiority of Warsaw Pact (if)?

Easy answer on this one: There is no pre-fab balance at all. The real world does not allow for such niceties so prevalent in sim missions or wargame scenarios. If you're outgunned hopelessly somewhere, tough luck for you. Make up for it any way you can (and there are ways). In any case, you'll be luckier than the real soldiers/sailors/airmen who were _really_ outgunned in that predicament.

As the campaign progresses, the force imbalance at local conflicts becomes increasingly the result of the commanders' decisions and priorities. If your large convoy is savaged by sub attacks because only two frigates are on station (possibly because you allocated some other assets into another group), don't point fingers anywhere else: it was your gamble, and your loss.

Where are THE NUKES??? Not just tactical warheads, but strategic nukes? They kinda "balanced the scenario" in reallife (tm).

Have no fear, the nukes are there :-). In my response to Paul Morrison re: tac nukes (see above), I deliberately used an example (the SS-20) that involves the thorniest aspect of modern ICBMs to model: multiple warhead employment and footprint limitations. From the moment this is taken care of, the rest is reasonably simple. The current plans call for complete modelling of nuclear forces accross the spectrum, tactical, theater and strategic assets.

As an aside note........only military targets appropriate for nuclear forces may be modelled. I don't want players nuking each other's homecities from Day One just for the heck of it :-) I'm actually thinking of attaching considerable "penalty points" for the first-use of nuclear weapons separately at every level of escalation.

Zed asks....

How is the front line modelled? Will it be fluid?...How often will it be updated?

TOAW handles the front line entirely, together with everything else that has "army" written over it. The maps employed are adaptations of the 5km/hex sets initially created by SPI for their CentFront boardgame series and then faithfully transferred to the TOAW format by Trey Marshall. The update cycle is the same with the turn duration, i.e. 6 hrs initially, longer afterwards.

How will the inventory database work? Will it be viewable to the user (his own side)? If so, how? (as we will be looking at cross platform inventory)

TOAW handles logistics internally, based on values provided by the scenario creator. Since the scenario can be modified half-way, additional parameters can be inserted as appropriate. H3 does a good job as far as weapons and fuel inventory is concerned (separate fuel - ammo depot, calculation of sorties possible with stores remaining for given loadouts, remaining endurance for ships etc) including the modelling of at-sea replenishment. In both cases, the inventories are immediately accessible from the player's point of view.

How many chickens does it take to change a light bulb?

Only one, and that was human - the others chickened out ;-)