Need consultation

Soviet bureaucracy. The fact that the majority of the Soviet army were conscripts. The motivation and fighting spirit could easily be called into question

Right, but you understand you have nuclear weapons that are comparable to conventional weapons in the scale of explosion?

I mean...if the truth can be biased then yea.
Don't Poles hate commies?
Although I suppose I understand that you are trying to be as apolitical as possible.

Reason i came here for advise and not Jow Forums or /his/ is because our main shtick of the game is that there will be zero politics and zero plot in the game. We want to war thise sterile operation table mathematic feel. There will be no main characters of voice overs. Just top table view of frontline.
At the same time we want to give both nato and warsaw pact thier destinct look and national feel
Experienced developzrs in our team say that players love to play as thier countries so we are trying to shove every single european country in. Including not one but two germanies
Thats our working motto:
Two germanies are better than one

Attached: IMG_1436.jpg (1000x668, 227K)

Yes. But team decided no nukes.
For now atleast. We are working with cold war documents where both sides planned a what if scenario about the escalation in europe. In both doctrines poland gets nuked. Thats where we are located. We dont want to see our country nuked

Its hard subject. How can i hate commies when my parents and grandparents were citizenzs of a communist country, went to communist schools, worked at communist factories and mines. It devides our society till this day with debades what system was better so to avoid a shitshow we decided to get rid of that shit entierly. How americans say, political corectness sells better

Attached: IMG_2005.jpg (240x199, 10K)

Something that is never addressed which is odd considering how fast communism fell when people were given the chance, is that in a war the soviet boot on the necks those trapped behind the curtain, would have to pivot and with that I'm sure all hell would have broken loose.

Shouldn't you know this kind of stuff if you're making a game about this scenario? Kind of retarted to ask shit like this on a Mongolian falcon milking board

For reference these are games we were "inspired" by

Attached: IMG_2050.jpg (640x481, 75K)

I am not asking of your personal views on any system or country
Just physical capabilities of weapons of the time. What in your opinion is the most iconic and interesting weapons from 1980 arsenal
Maybe you know something interesting about the T-72 tank or you can tell me something about american jet planes

>How can i hate commies when my parents and grandparents were citizenzs of a communist country, went to communist schools, worked at communist factories and mines.
But that's why.
Communists raped and destroyed the countries they ruled over. Your family is the victim of it.
The most anti-communist areas of Europe are the former communist areas. Eastern Germany is a great example of that. Same with Romania, Finland, and Hungary.

What does that have to do with our subject. Lets meet at Jow Forums. I will gladly tell you all about it. I am here to talk about rockets, guns and tanks

No. Not in the slightest user.

1- it was assumed that most USSR troops were akin to their east german counterparts in terms of quality, who themselves were comparable to NATO forces. This in retrospect seems to not be the case

2- the euro forces were not nearly as numerous. There were capitalist countries elsewhere, but say South Africa and Saudi Arabia didnt have divisions at the Fulda Gap. The Warsaw Pact had definite numerical superiority between them and even China if possible.

3- gear was assumed to be much more equivalent than it wound up being, based on post-Cold War assessments of eastern europe stockpiles after many turned away from communism during the color revolution. This gave western analysts a much greater assessment of Soviet bloc gear and capabilities.

Okey this leads to question like which faction was more centralised. Now i understand there were many different clubtries byt its acceptable if you generalse a bit

>dat pic
oh how times have changed... US is now more communist than Russia.

Attached: 1534599801295.png (499x423, 9K)

Lets say east german paratroopers. How would they perform in combat against british paratroopers in the 80's?

Attached: IMG_2051.jpg (439x720, 76K)

A major weakness of Soviet battle doctrine was an extreme reliance on upper command issuing orders as opposed to NATO doctrine, which was more about encouraging officers to achieve their goals with whatever they had on hand, and even invent new goals as necessary. This was a key point of AirLand battle (US doctrine), where it heavily relied on the idea of disabling enemy command and control to leave USSR forces deaf.

Now, even in the 80s it was relatively apparent that the soviets lagged somewhat technologically, albeit the gap was percieved to be narrow. to close the sensor gap (NATO mbts had more advanced optics), the Communists relied heavily on obscuring smoke and even infrared smoke in an attempt to reduce the effectiveness of thermal and IR scopes. Americans and NATO then doubled down and wound up being REALLY good at sensors tech and guided weapons.

Speaking of. NATO relied heavily on precision guided munitions while the Communists relied on ballistic calculators. The US was using these as early as Vietnam, but it was paying real dividends by the 80s. This gave US/NATO planes and helicopters and even rocket artillery a level of accuracy the Communists couldnt match. To make up for that, communist forces relied extremely heavily on massed artillery and rocket arty.

In quality? Britain has famously good spec ops and a god tier officer corps. They'd also have access to gear like superior nightvision and armor. simple by modern standards, but an edge is an edge.

This isnt to say E. German paras are slouches. They certainly were respected by their peers. But Britain is known for having some fantastic commandos and troops in general, and enough cash to keep them geared up with all the extras you could want.

Some pointers

>Add tactical nukes,they go from the 1-10 kt range and wuld have been a defining factor in overall tactics even if strategic ones are not concsidered
>The soviet union would have crumbled in the 1980s as hungary and Romania were just waiting to turn sides at the slightest oportunity and the closest thing to a competent army was in the GDR and Russia, also Russia is big and China would have probablu eanted its piece,and China could only be stopped by nukes
>In the 1980s Russia played on the numeric and relative advantage in NBQ tactics and organization, but the strategy was reaching as far as possible before the US sent its forces to Europe which was calculated at 5 days from the start
>Read the fm100-1,2 and 3 for old but far more concrete information about the soviet army capabilitirs
>Also OPFOR-red team army by Christopher E. Larsen which is suposedly more up to date but havent been able to check
>Overall soviets had a land advantage through artillery and numbers in mechanized forces, allies had the edge on the air and the overall idea of the pact forces to counter it was SAMs and forcing air superiority through numbers(no matter how many planes are destroyed in a zone they will keep sending more to keep air superiority)(also every unit had manpads or other short range mobile anti air with orders to shoot as soon as the objective is in sight not at effective range)
>Soviets focused on centraliced structures NAT9 on more distributed hierarchies , for example, soviet soldierd were trained on discipline while NATO soldiers were expected to have more iniciative
>The soviet fleet was submarine based, arou d the 80s they started to have more surface combatants on very big and versatile shipz but for defensive roles, although they were expected to be able to destroy carrier groups
>Soviets were insanely prepared for degraded enviroments, they were trained to rely on cable coms, flares, flags and used electronics sparingly to avoid detection

Thanks very. Interesting.
What can yo tell me in ATGM's?
I could find very few battle tanks in nato arsenal to have them. Did americans have an equivalent to the rpgnf7 grande launcher in thier army?
Also do you think of something like this thing would look too archaic on a 80's battle feilds. We talked to ceterans and they say they were using them as late as 1985 but even then it looks like something from ww2

Attached: IMG_2053.jpg (250x162, 13K)

Very interesting. What do you think of war in irradiated enviroments. For examples how long could soldiers in gas masks run around with thier rifles before strting to die from radiation. I tried putting on one of military enviromental protection suit needless to say after ten minutes in i felt like in a sauna

Attached: IMG_1269.png (832x457, 522K)

If west berlin was attacked from all sides how long could it hold?
Could a relief force ever hope on punching through to help it. Or the other war around. Could a force from west belin punch through into west germany. So far many of the battles that our writers/tacticians are drawing on paper are too similar in my opinion to ww2 battles just with rockets and helicopters

Attached: IMG_1654.jpg (306x409, 78K)

O kurwa. Poszukaj pdf książki "Red Army", ktoś to nawet linkował wcześniej na chanie.
Also I recommend taking nukes off the table by a plot device, say - a successful assassination of Reagan and Soviet dupe taking the place of second in command. Kind of similar, what Clancy did with Soviet nukes in Red Storm Rising if my memory serves me well.
There is also open air museum in Warsaw, in old fort at Czerniaków where You may take a look at everything, from SU- 100 through MiG15 to T55 Merida and T72.
Last advice, hit Mauzer channel for soundtrack
youtu.be/-42nWjoZHLQ

>Could a relief force ever hope on punching through to help it
Probably not before the troops in the city are killed or captured, assuming the Soviets don't just nuke West Berlin like they planned to do to every city that put up stiff resistance.

Our bread and butter ATGM was the TOW fiber-guided missile. We didnt put them on tanks, preferring to use armor-piercing tank rounds. The idea of putting TOWs on humvees and bradley APCs was considered experimental; as the gulf war showed us it was actually way more effective than expected. Part of it was that our ballistic calculators in our tanks were advanced enough that laser-guided tank rounds werent really necessary. As seen in iraq, we were easily sniping iraqi tanks well outside the iraqi soviet tank engagement ranges.

During the Vietnam era we had considered rocket-munitions for tanks (Sheleighlah missile or whatever for the Sheridan tank) but the performance wasnt very great so it was ignored. We briefly considered rocket-boosted nuclear tank rounds.

Also, to this day the US uses towed artillery. It may seem old, but if it works it works. Heck, if i remember the DoD found at least 1 M2 .50 caliber machine gun in use that was made before ww2.

Our main RPG-7 equivalent during the cold war was the
LAW (Light Antitank Weapon). it was a disposable fiberglass tube with a missile packed in. It wasnt uncommon to see them issued in vietnam even when NVA tank run ins were extremely rare. It was replaced later with things like the AT4 and Javelin.

Aside for reagan being assassinated what would you want to see in a cold war game that in your opinion wasnt done in other cold war games or wasnt done enough. What themes or aspects of the cold war do you think the public should know about?

According to an old vet stationed there, their main goal was to hold back the USSR long enough to destroy sensitive intel. it was never a question--they'd be overrun.

Thats going to depend on absorbed dose. Its plausible they'd absorb a large dose but not immediately die, but get cancer later. However, full kit will degrade fighting performance. Overheat faster, have to slow down for decon, cant see or breathe as well, need to keep nbc gear supplied, etc. Its like adding a whole logistical burden equivalent to food and water on top of your existing needs, because if their gas mask goes in an NBC environment they may be incapacitated quickly.

Now i know the singleshot one like the panzerfaust but the javalin seems to be very big and heavy. Dont you need a tripod to fire it. Or americans are so big you can shot it from a shoulder

in 1980 i doubt ussr had a chance
more interseting would be a longer ww2 where allies divide over turning on the soviets

What you mean like er twilight 2000?

NATO equipment favored volume of fire, defensive things like turret depression and reverse speed on tanks, and integrated support forces.

A NATO tank should be able to hide behind a hill and shoot over it, while Soviet tanks cannot, then speed away backwards. But there should be two to three times as many Soviet tanks. But those tanks also can't or shouldn't be separated from each other, and act more like armored cavalry going off and doing their own thing separate from the other Soviet forces, which is how Soviet doctrine treated them, while NATO tanks can be spread out amongst other forces. So give NATO tanks a small buff to allied infantry around them, while massed Soviet tanks buff one another.

Another detail is that integrated support companies allowed NATO forces to repair equipment and get specialists where they were needed quickly. You can give Soviets engineers and repair companies that are twice as big as NATO's, but NATO's costs half and can easily tag along with other forces to bolster their stats at risk of also being destroyed by anything particularly devastating.

In general, NATO forces should like mixing all of their ground forces together, while the USSR likes big clumps of the same unit type.

youtu.be/uB0M180L9-Y

You generally brace it, but you can shoot it sitting down too. vid related is a javelin used during Iraq. Early in vid they seem to be having trouble with 1 but get it back to functioning.

Its bulky due to its sensors and big beefy missile though, yeah.

We talked interviewed a veteran of the polish poeople's army. They were guarding an airforce base. Command insteucted them that if war starts thier airfeild will get nuked imidiatly. Even if they survived buny hidding in the underground bunker they would be imidiatly thrown to the front so they could kill as many enemies as possible before dying from radiation. This idea of your units being used until they die interested us. Now this is an interesting subject what is more important combat efficiency or survivability. Could western command allow itself to lose its battle units. When it comes to the warsaw pact would you use that bmp to sheilf your t80 from that abrams shell

More like blitzkrieg 1
Twilight was too heavily story driven

I once saw a caricature saying that a person who doesnt make the coast of that rocket in a year shoots it at somebody who doesnt make it in his lifetime. Are they realy that expensive?
An RPG or even Vampyr granade is very cheap

Soviet union would collapse into another revolution during a war the only way they could stand a chance is if its in a scenario where china allies with them

Javelin rockets are down to about 80k USD each if I remember right, which is well above the average.

For reference, some of the most well-paid doctors in the US with decades of experience and who spent 10+ years in school only make about 330k a year.

Lately there's been a big push in the US military towards getting recurring costs like that down, thus the push for upgrades to dumb bombs instead of building new multimillion dollar ultra-accurate ordinance from scratch. Years of nearly limitless budgets are really hurting the US military in the current climate of cutting costs. They can't just have their budget slashed, it'd kill them, but they can't keep it where it is, either.

Javelins are about $50k iirc and the launcher is $150k. so idk, 35k euros and 125k euros. Its worth noting that the Javelin has some high-end features. it had thermal in an era where that was expensive and rare, and it can attack in direct-fire mode or top-down mode. Direct-fire is standard "rocket flies at target". Top-down makes the rocket go then come down. This is important, since top-down bypasses most tank armor and lets it avoid any cover. Tanks generally are heavily armed at front, moderate at the back, and very weak at the top and rear.

So if a T-72 costs $3,000,000, and a javelin missile costs $50,000 then its kinda a bargain.

You sound just like another ukranian on our team who insists we put china in our game because the chinese love playing as china.
So far best he could come up with is a chinese expeditionary corps in europe

Oh we fully expected to die. We expected to nuke and be nuked. A-10s were referred to as "speed bumps" but it was assumed they'd be shot down fast. Everyone knew the first 72 hours of ww3 would probably be more destructive than the ww2 was in a year. Thats why there's so much apocalyptic imagery surrounding it even now, even with Russia being a shadow of the USSR.

Eh doctors can make more than that. Electrophysiologists and neurosurgeons make around $500k where i live. Radiooncologists make about 1 mil allegedly

Differnce between active, passive and thermal optics. Large view range in front of turret, small to none from sides and back. Allow commander to unbutton and recon with binocs, gives large all around FoV. When turret moves sideways, view range moves accordingly. Different sights and FoV for commander and driver.
Example: night time spotting devices
Lvl 0 headlights (using alerts the enemy)
Lvl 1 active IR illuminator (using alerts the enemy with lvl 1 and lvl 2 optics)
Lvl 2 passive NVG
Lvl 3 thermal sight (may be used at day, sees through smoke)

Russian tanks are able to put engine into overdrive, obfuscating the battlefield as they move. Also smoke grenades (IR smoke grenades) with limited charges.
Russian tanks may be equipped with drop tanks, increasing the amount of carried fuel.
NATO tanks have limited amount of smoke grenades. Also, better targeting i.e laser rangefinders and ballistic computer. I am no veteran, just a simple world of tanks player.
Jarosław "militarysta" Wolniewicz sporo i dużo pisze w temacie, zwłaszcza na portalach typu mil mag, dziennik zbrojny etc.

One of the features i am proud of introducing is i want the corpses of dead soldiers to stay on the battlefeild for as long as the vattle goes. We want th player to see what we gnhave to say not through text but through the backgroung scenary he himself creates. Your oun dead soldiers will be squashed under the threads of your passing tanks. They will look like a tomato you stepped on

Attached: IMG_0578.jpg (700x970, 71K)

Yes we are deffinitly going less into the typical hollywood aesthetic of war and more into the style of war litterature.
But main debate stays do players want a more arcade like gale like company of heroes with level up's, resources, cooldown suport powers
Or a more realistic one like wargame red dragon where it borders with unplayable autism.
A third radical minority proposes to make a turn based grid system "homage" to older games but i am afraid the market for that is too small.
One thing for sure we dont want war to be presented like in call of duty. No offense americans but war is generaly speaking a bad thing.

Attached: IMG_2055.jpg (1111x1623, 176K)

It's worth noting that CoD was originally much more respectful about the "average people doing war" thing, that all changed when Modern Warfare switched hard into the "Spec Ops doing extreme things", which happened to occur right as the spec ops community started to get some stories out into the world. It really wasn't supposed to be like that, but hey when the business suits see that you sold more copies than all your other games combined, you're going to have to double down cuz that's whats profitable.

Movies like Saving Private Ryan and Full Metal Jacket and even dramas like Pearl Harbor are not explicitly "rah rah" feel good movies, they generally are more solemn. Not hopeless, exactly, but much more "oh god this is fucked" than videogames.

Team red

Attached: IMG_2057.jpg (1024x600, 92K)

Hello Gonxo

Team blue

Attached: IMG_2058.jpg (900x667, 157K)

Also, certain satellite states would be susceptible to uprising or mutiny in the event of a prolonged conflict, especially if the soviet ability to invade them was compromised. Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Poland are top contenders for this, while the DDR was the absolute least likely to do so. Hungary's equipment was seriously gimped for this reason, but who's to say how it would fare if the soviets were unable to control their outer territories effectively

Attached: 1551249952978.jpg (480x360, 18K)

Attached: shillidf2.png (420x728, 57K)

by this point in the cold war China would have been more likely to dogpile the USSR along with NATO than support them.

From a gameplay perspective the victor would literally just be the person to press the button the quickest
The average game would last 5 seconds

if you're going to do that you have to go both ways and the only nations in the west that would have flipped (France to this day has a sizeable minority of communists in their assembly, not "commies" like we call liberals but actual card-carrying members of the Communist Party of France) are too important to NATO strategy for it to be balanced at all. The Pact could afford to lose any single state and keep chugging but without say FR or W. Germany NATO is going to have big problems.

Eh maybe not ukraine. No ukraine = no black sea port or naval dockyard services

I would say make it about in the middle, but lean towards wargame. Make the player have to think out their actions, but not to the point where one little mistake permanently fucks them.

To add to that, maybe consider having Yugoslavia go with whoever first starts to win, since they were probably as close to neutral towards both sides as a Eastern European country could be and would go with whoever they thought was going to come out on top.

You really want to mention this shithole in your game?

Kek. It's your funeral.

Name one of Soviet political officers Artyom Matardovich. He'd be giving to commander the most ridiculous advices, always overestimating Red Army capabilities in both quantity and quality. He'd be wrong every single fucking time.Listening to him would lead to horrible, irrecoverable casualties. And when confronted with reality, he would break down mentally, crying and pissing himself while blaming commander and cursing NATO simultaneously in a inane string of feces related insults.
This is Your chance to honor Jow Forums

Soviet/Warsaw pact military was fully mechanized and relied heavily on breakthrough and massed fires from artillery and MLRS to suppress and overwhelm defenders.

NATO used the AirLand battle concept of more maneuverable ground forces paired with NATOs generally superior air forces, as well as spec ops and arty striking behind the enemy front to deny support and supplies to the massed Soviet invasion forces in order to halt the advance and allow more forces to reach Europe. Basically advanced delaying tactics.

We all understand that nato had the uper hand in the air. Are we talking interceptors or bomber planes? Or both
How would they hair againt rhe socialist anti air rockets like Grom or Newa?

Attached: IMG_1586.jpg (513x1024, 187K)

Irregardless the point is moot per se, the deciding battles of the war will take place in Hawaii.

Attached: Screenshot_2019-06-21-08-08-14.png (1440x2720, 2.99M)

nobody referencing the masterpiece 'World in Conflict' here makes me sad. The tactical support system in that game was a lot of fun. graphics still hold up.

Attached: vrZgsN.gif (320x180, 2.89M)

Ah yes the game woth 10 units for each side where ruusians invade seattle before finishing thier conquest of europe

As much as I love WiC, Company of Heroes was already mentioned, and WiC is essentially Company of Heroes: Cold War Crisis.

actually it's 21 per side. have fun with your MSpaint game

Fighters across the board, both in training and technical ability. Bombers may not have had a real tech advantage until the F-117 stealth fighter/light attack bomber in practice was another thing. Stealth was and largely is to this day an American technology. But the US and UK (when UK had bombers) had electronic decoys that mimic bombers on radar. The US also flew bombers in contested Vietnam airspace somewhat regularly. The supersonic B-1 took advantage of a specific limitation of early soviet SAMs, but that was obsolete not long after introduction. Basically, by flying low and fast, early communist SAMs couldnt get a lock-on fast enough to get to the B-1.