Why can't we have a campaign scenario about a NATO attack?

Alex18762
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 532
Joined: Wed 25 Apr 2012 19:14
Location: Narodna Republika Bulgaria
Contact:

Why can't we have a campaign scenario about a NATO attack?

Postby Alex18762 » Thu 28 Feb 2013 15:43

I'm sick and tired of the cliche of evil commies invading the west. It would be more interesting if NATO, hoping to achieve a barbarossa style quick victory starts multiple amphibious and land invasions of the USSR. An interesting alternate campaign would be NATO carrier gruops launching an invasion of the port of Murmansk and hoping to capture leningrad and then the rest of the USSR.

Pandalisk
Corporal
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed 27 Feb 2013 14:44
Contact:

Re: Why can't we have a campaign scenario about a NATO attac

Postby Pandalisk » Thu 28 Feb 2013 15:59

Because the west invading the east would be just as cliche.

Besides the scenario in WarGame is that they both put their first foot in the at the same time not just "evil commies be invadin' muh merca fredum".
Last edited by OpusTheFowl on Thu 28 Feb 2013 16:38, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Language

User avatar
orcbuster
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12362
Joined: Fri 7 Sep 2012 21:04
Contact:

Re: Why can't we have a campaign scenario about a NATO attac

Postby orcbuster » Thu 28 Feb 2013 16:00

Alex18762 wrote:I'm sick and tired of the cliche of evil commies invading the west. It would be more interesting if NATO, hoping to achieve a barbarossa style quick victory starts multiple amphibious and land invasions of the USSR. An interesting alternate campaign would be NATO carrier gruops launching an invasion of the port of Murmansk and hoping to capture leningrad and then the rest of the USSR.


See, the scenarios have to be somewhat plausible, and a NATO assault on the USSR is simply not feasible, both from a political and military standpoint.

I think W:EE did a pretty good job with the scenarios in this regard. First was a DDR/FRD conflict that escalated with NATO getting involved before the warzaw pact.

Second one was the closest we got to a NATO invasion and third was the only fullblown soviet invasion scenario. With the predictable outcome that the USSR steamrolled NATO and NATO launched their missiles ending the world. Actually, now that you mention it, 5th scenario was a NATO assault.

and the ALB scenario is more a result of both sides agression. Only reason why the pact is invading is that they are the ones with troops to do it.
Image
Viker for ingen!

stratmania
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2068
Joined: Thu 1 Nov 2012 17:27
Contact:

Re: Why can't we have a campaign scenario about a NATO attac

Postby stratmania » Thu 28 Feb 2013 16:05

I have seen the russia invading america scenario so many times its almost as boring as ww2. In W:EE, however, the scenarios are much less cliche, with focus on poland, germany, and even france. Heck, even the way that the scenario plays out is more like 'you shoot me, i shoot you back', but with some twists, such as the entire czech army being rebellious, and encircling an entire soviet army.

I think that wargame ALB, with its new scenario in scandinavia, should offer a more interesting storyline than the normal 'communists invade NATO' scenario.

User avatar
FFR.Tarask
Captain
Posts: 1500
Joined: Thu 30 Jun 2011 14:56
Location: France
Contact:

Re: Why can't we have a campaign scenario about a NATO attac

Postby FFR.Tarask » Thu 28 Feb 2013 16:10

If you are looking well, all scenarios are actual conflict that come really close to a fight. If you look close to the operation ABLE ARCHER, USSR was a order close to fire Intercontinental missiles over europe and USA because of a bug. And because NATO was doing a training near the border.

The actual reason why NATO and Pact didn't fight i our history is because both was thinking that the other will pull the trigger first. Thanks for everyone, nobody pull that trigger.

In W:EE, it's "NATO move for training, USSR fire thinking of an attack".
Image

User avatar
[EUG]MadMat
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 15368
Joined: Thu 30 Jun 2011 13:31
Location: Paris, France.
Contact:

Re: Why can't we have a campaign scenario about a NATO attac

Postby [EUG]MadMat » Thu 28 Feb 2013 16:25

Alex18762 wrote:I'm sick and tired of the cliche of evil commies invading the west. It would be more interesting if NATO, hoping to achieve a barbarossa style quick victory starts multiple amphibious and land invasions of the USSR. An interesting alternate campaign would be NATO carrier gruops launching an invasion of the port of Murmansk and hoping to capture leningrad and then the rest of the USSR.

A NATO invasion would never have occured.
NATO was a defensive alliance, and could not have been commited to attack without the approval of all the governement of its members. While on the other side, USSR could force its allies to commit their troops even if they were reluctant too.

User avatar
trotskygrad
General
Posts: 6444
Joined: Mon 17 Sep 2012 16:09
Location: две тысячи лет война
Contact:

Re: Why can't we have a campaign scenario about a NATO attac

Postby trotskygrad » Thu 28 Feb 2013 16:34

[EUG]MadMat wrote:
Alex18762 wrote:I'm sick and tired of the cliche of evil commies invading the west. It would be more interesting if NATO, hoping to achieve a barbarossa style quick victory starts multiple amphibious and land invasions of the USSR. An interesting alternate campaign would be NATO carrier gruops launching an invasion of the port of Murmansk and hoping to capture leningrad and then the rest of the USSR.

A NATO invasion would never have occured.
NATO was a defensive alliance, and could not have been commited to attack without the approval of all the governement of its members. While on the other side, USSR could force its allies to commit their troops even if they were reluctant too.

qft, a nato attack in europe simply isn't realistic.
NEXT TIME I SEE A DAMN FLAMEWAR INVOLVING DARTH-LAMPSHADE, FROSTPOOKY, LONERIFLE, FADE2GRAY, TROTSKYGRAD AND/OR ANYONE INVOLVED IN A DISCUSSION BETWEEN THEM I'M GOING TO HAND OUT BANS TO ANYONE USING ANYTHING LOOKING REMOTELY LIKE AN AD-HOMINEM

User avatar
REDDQ
General
Posts: 6906
Joined: Thu 12 Apr 2012 03:13
Location: przy stole.
Contact:

Re: Why can't we have a campaign scenario about a NATO attac

Postby REDDQ » Thu 28 Feb 2013 16:48

What a coincidence! Warsaw Pact was defense alliance as well! :D

tiago
Captain
Posts: 1667
Joined: Wed 22 Feb 2012 16:14
Contact:

Re: Why can't we have a campaign scenario about a NATO attac

Postby tiago » Thu 28 Feb 2013 16:51

Yet, NATO members did many more invasions on their history than Pact ones...

There is a technical problem on invading a country that is half the world size. Infinitely harder than invading norway :P

2wheels
Corporal
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu 28 Feb 2013 16:31
Contact:

Re: Why can't we have a campaign scenario about a NATO attac

Postby 2wheels » Thu 28 Feb 2013 16:53

Probably cause that's a really far fetched scenario... Like a REALLY far fetched scenario! No NATO General in their right minds would want to mount a total invasion of the USSR and their allies.

That's even assuming they could convince their democratically elected civilian leadership that it'd be a good idea to waste an unknown amount of lives in a war of aggression that would be almost guaranteed to become long and drawn out, that is unless... The Soviets feel too threatened and exercise their nuclear option...

BTW, you'll notice how well that Barbarossa style invasion worked for the Germans in WW2... Why would we think an invasion would work any better when during the Cold War they're more powerful and prepared than they were in 1941?

Return to “Wargame : AirLand Battle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests