The following is part 2 of an after action review of my most recent test game of Red Storm with my good friend and playtest team member Chris Baer. This scenario is titled “Offensive Counter Air” and features two big NATO deep strike raids going over the front and into southwestern East Germany. In Part 1 Chris and I both provided our thoughts as we went through the pre-game planning phases. Here in Part 2 we’ll discuss some of the action in the scenario itself.
The following is an After Action Review of my most recent test game of Red Storm on a long Friday morning and afternoon with my good friend and playtest team member Chris Baer. This was a test of one of the bigger scenarios in Red Storm, “Offensive Counter Air”, which features two big NATO deep strike raids going over the front and into southwestern East Germany to hit Warsaw Pact airfields. I wanted to test one of the bigger scenarios to see how certain rules “scale up” to a very large scenario. In particular, I wanted to fully work out the SAM and Electronic Warfare rules, areas where the rules for Red Storm make some significant changes from earlier games in the series. Here in Part 1 of the AAR I’ll go through my pre-game planning from the NATO side of things, with Chris providing some insights into Warsaw Pact planning. In Part 2 I’ll show some images of the game with a bit of commentary on how things went.
Surface to Air Missiles (SAMs) and Antiaircraft Artillery (AAA) are well known threats to players of Downtown and Elusive Victory. They appear again in Red Storm: The Air War Over Central Germany, 1987 and with a vengeance. This article will discuss the SAM and AAA forces of NATO and the Warsaw Pact in Red Storm and how they may affect both defensive and offensive planning in the game.
In the late 1980s battlefield imagined in the upcoming game Red Storm: The Air War Over Central Germany, 1987, beyond visual range (BVR) combat changes significantly from earlier games in the series. BVR missiles by the late 1980s were both more numerous and more deadly than ever before, and both sides were expected to use them in large quantities. This article will discuss some of the potential changes in BVR combat in Red Storm and the thinking behind them.
Doug Bush finishes his Next War: India-Pakistan strategy series with this look at the India player’s strategic options. See Part 1 and Part 2 for a discussion of the strategic choices faced by the Pakistan player. See Part 3 for the first look at strategy from the Indian perspective.
In the first two articles of this series, I focused on the war depicted in NWIP from the Pakistan player’s side. In the third article I switched to the Indian player’s perspective on the defense. Here, I examine the choices facing an Indian player in the four scenarios where they are on the offense (“Lahore”, “Enough!”, “Unification”, and “Loose Nukes”).
Doug Bush continues his Next War: India-Pakistan strategy series with this look at the India player’s strategic options. See Part 1 and Part 2 for a discussion of the strategic choices faced by the Pakistan player.
In the first two articles of this series, I focused on the war depicted in NWIP from the Pakistan player’s side. In this article I’ll switch to the Indian player’s perspective. India is the strategic attacker in four of the six scenarios in NWIP, including two standard game scenarios (“Lahore” and “Enough!”) and two advanced game scenarios (“Unification” and “Loose Nukes”). In the other two scenarios (“Kashmir” and “Border War”) India is on the defense.
Doug Bush continues his Next War: India-Pakistan strategy series with this examination of the Pakistani Order of Battle and the various options they provide. See Part 1 of this series for a discussion of the overall strategic choices faced by the Pakistan player.
Pakistan starts with six front line Army Corps with three more that enter as reinforcements. Each provides the player with different challenges and opportunities on the attack. In this article, I’ll go into some of the choices available to a Pakistan player for each one.
Next War: India-Pakistan (NWIP) is unusual in the Next War series in that it involves scenarios where both of the main nations (India and Pakistan) are on the offense. As a result, there isn’t one “playbook” for the each side since, depending on the scenario in question, they must look at the map, their armies, and potential allies from a different perspective. In this series of articles, I’ll take a look at the situation for both sides from both angles (offense and defense) to try to help players think through some of the early decisions they are confronted with in the scenarios of NWIP.
In this article, Doug continues the air force orders of battle discussion by focusing on the air forces for the secondary or intervention nations and discusses the why of some of the decisions which were made. This is part two of a two part series. – Mitchell Land
The Air Forces of NWIP, Part 2
In Part 1 of “The Air Forces of NWIP” we covered the two main protagonists, the Indian Air Force (IAF) and the Pakistan Air Force (PAF). Here we cover the outside nations that we assume may intervene in the air war: the PRC People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF), the United States Air Force (USAF), the Russian Air Force, the Royal Air Force, the Royal Canadian Air Force, and the French Air Force.
In this article, Doug continues the orders of battle discussion by focusing on the air forces for the primary opponents and discusses the why of some of the decisions which were made. This is part one which details the air forces of the two protagonists, India and Pakistan. – Mitchell Land
The Air Forces of NWIP, Part 1
The advanced air system in the Next War series consists of individual aircraft units of approximately squadron size. So, generating a baseline order of battle simply requires knowing approximately how many of a given type of aircraft a country has in its inventory. However, most militaries only consider about 70% of any given type of aircraft in their inventory as “combat coded” and fully capable for combat, with the other 30% being used for training, backup inventory, or testing activities.