Danube Front'85 Opponentes wanted

[burroughs]

Here are the optional rules that I'd promote as the most realistic ones to model a high intensity cold war open hostilities . I have been using those in the Fulda Gap '81 custom campaign game for NGP '85 I am fighting against Rune the JDR Dragoon. Have a look.

[MARDER1986]

How about this scenario "The Bolt out of the Blue.scn" he was not much longer and imasshtabnee, but there's a wide variety of troops, and they are more historically correct, I suggest it.

[CarnageINC]

I'm in, either side only if its "Bolt out of the Blue". As Marder said, its just more historically correct in OoB and equipment available.

[Gunther Sheepdog]

I'm in, either side only if its "Bolt out of the Blue". As Marder said, its just more historically correct in OoB and equipment available.

All the campaign games are good for me

[burroughs]

I might be up for the Bolt, but then only on the WP side. The length is indeed unimportant, but the size differs to a high degree - neither of the stock DF '85 campaign scenarios covers the entire would-be frontline from Austria to Denmark with both NORTHAG and CENTAG AoRs and assorted formations - six up to seven people would be a must and that greatly enlarges the human friction factor. Talking about hitorical acuracy in terms of hypothetical conflicts and the engine which is obviously only a certain level of approximation of what happens and would happen is a particular kind of mere rhetorics.

[goomohn]

I rather think the more simple a team game's scope the faster we'll receive turns. The stock DF'85 campaign seems perfect for 3 member teams. The Warsaw Pact would have NGF, GSFG, and Czech AG players. NATO would have LANDJUT, NORTHAG, and CENTAG players. Reinforcements and Stategic options would be decided by the player who has the most forces on a particular side.

I'm willing to play BOTB because others will only play that one due to realism. Fine by me. Apparently the player list is now:
Gunther Sheepdog
goomohn [NATO]
MARDER1986
burroughs [WP]
narkpaul
CarnageINC

I'm leaning towards the lesser role of NATO's defense. Gunther Sheepdog should be the game master. I suggest you edit the original post Gunther to reflect players, and formations. Also, the optional rule settings. I second burroughs choice of optional rules. Except for limited air recon. Air strikes and fire support missions have been the primary purpose of air recon since the airplane has been used for war.

[raizer]

limited air recon is a good rule to enable. You have a ton of x units that are fixed in a scenario. I know they are fixed and I know where they are because I know the scenario. Therefore, I fly recon over them, spot them and then send in the air. This can be bad on the first turn of a big game because some units start in T mode, column, on the road. The first player, if he has air recon can fly to their locations, spot them and then nuke them with air.

[goomohn]

limited air recon is a good rule to enable. You have a ton of x units that are fixed in a scenario. I know they are fixed and I know where they are because I know the scenario.

A) Air reconnoitering is realistic
B] If the scenario is billed as 'more realistic' there wouldn't be fixed units (i notice there are alot of them in BOTB wtf)
C) I suppose it would be an honor system of not bombarding known fixed formations.

I don't study the scenarios and play as if blind. Units should not be fixed for HTH games, if they're not reinforcements they should start off without glue on their boots. If I knew of a fixed formation I wouldn't strike it unless it was within the area of operations of my troops whom I would be reconnoitering for.

D) are you in this match? :p
It is up to Gunther Sheepdog. I'm just suggesting air recon. raizer has posted a valid reason for using limited air recon

[Gunther Sheepdog]

The players are;

Gunther Sheepdog (WP)
goomohn [NATO]
MARDER1986 (WP)
burroughs [WP]
narkpaul (NATO)
CarnageINC (NATO)

If Raizer wish to play he's wellcome in any side (the game is a juggernaut).

The optional rules if you agree will be:
Recon Spotting
Virtual Supply trucks
Night Fatige
Explicit supply
Programmed Weather
Blocked Helicopters elimination
Low visibility air effects
Indirect fire and air strikes by the map
Counterbattery fire
Limited Air Recon
Quality FAtigue Modifier
Delayed Disruption Report

It´s forbidden fire shells of arty against fixed units
If you agree this distribution, each team will elect their team leader

[goomohn]

I agree to those optional rules. If the other players agree to the force enlistment I suggest the most experienced player as a NATO commander in BOTB step up as supreme commander. I'd back him with my vote. I have suggestions for this supreme NATO commander on force divisions.

I would also suggest the designer's note of not using surface to surface missile launchers to deploy artillery mines as a house rule.