Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Vanders wrote:


I would have thought so, but I also know that the Finns dont like the Swedes much either.

But we do (still) come along and its not the first time we have had thoughts about defece union. So if the sweden would be invaded/would been invaded by some random nation and they would ask help, Im quite confident that all necessary help would be given.

Btw, I double checked my listing, fails fixed.

OK, but if the points system is any good, then it really shouldnt matter what troops you have. That is never perfect of course, because there are so many factors that it is impossible to point units exactly right (composition of the enemy and type of terrain being two key ones). But, FOW has the finest points system I've ever seen, and I think that is a big part of why it is such a popular game, even if players are not very aware of it.

Vanders wrote:
OK, but if the points system is any good, then it really shouldnt matter what troops you have. That is never perfect of course, because there are so many factors that it is impossible to point units exactly right (composition of the enemy and type of terrain being two key ones). But, FOW has the finest points system I've ever seen, and I think that is a big part of why it is such a popular game, even if players are not very aware of it.

I completely Agree, FOW is extremely well Balanced as a Game. With my setup for COLD WAR supplement, the emphasis was on Mechanised and Armoured formations e.g Battlegroups. Infantry based units weren't really an option in the Rapid mechanised forces of the Mid- 1980's.

Troops do make a difference, if you have are fielding a Confident Veteran unit, they should cost more than a Reluctant Conscript unit. Leaving the whole Conscripts have the advantage of numbers etc, equally Fearless Veterans need to be even more expensive because of their increased resilience and dependability on the Battlefield.

I want to model the "Finns and Swedes" as accurately as possible but without breaking the existing rules balance, with Historical Accuracy.

We all know War isn't fair, Commanders don't have a meeting before a battle and say "Hey are we gonna fight evenly? Lets go for 20000 points". In reality every commander wrangles every advantage out of everything he can, although some incomptent Commanders struggle to understand what is happening and condemn their troops by being ill-suited and ill equipped for the task. It's one of those things in War Gaming we all just ignore because it's difficult to model and ruins a good game.

So I don't know how true this is (something may have been lost in translation/misunderstood), but it came from a reputable source (a Battlefront employee): Battlefront is working on an actual Cold War Gone Hot ruleset based on Flames of War, to be released following the rerelease of FoW: Vietnam.

chaos0xomega wrote:
So I don't know how true this is (something may have been lost in translation/misunderstood), but it came from a reputable source (a Battlefront employee): Battlefront is working on an actual Cold War Gone Hot ruleset based on Flames of War, to be released following the rerelease of FoW: Vietnam.

That would be rather interesting. I'm also looking forward to a rerelease of FoW:Vietnam. I must be one of the few people who actually liked it

I'm tempted to do something with WW1 myself. Massed Infantry formations with arty taking the stage with strong but limited tank support.

I want fow ww1 soooo bad....

 washout77 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
So I don't know how true this is (something may have been lost in translation/misunderstood), but it came from a reputable source (a Battlefront employee): Battlefront is working on an actual Cold War Gone Hot ruleset based on Flames of War, to be released following the rerelease of FoW: Vietnam.

That would be rather interesting. I'm also looking forward to a rerelease of FoW:Vietnam. I must be one of the few people who actually liked it

I'm tempted to do something with WW1 myself. Massed Infantry formations with arty taking the stage with strong but limited tank support.

Don't forget Cavalry, and then in 1916 you could have very basic Simple tanks, Unreliable and slow but still it would be a tank. Plus you could have lots of Artillery... Good idea.

I would like to see an Ancients version using FOW, so like 8 Roman Legionnaires per Base, you could have whole Cohorts and then artillery Ballista, Archers, Cavalry etc.

 mwnciboo wrote:

 washout77 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
So I don't know how true this is (something may have been lost in translation/misunderstood), but it came from a reputable source (a Battlefront employee): Battlefront is working on an actual Cold War Gone Hot ruleset based on Flames of War, to be released following the rerelease of FoW: Vietnam.

That would be rather interesting. I'm also looking forward to a rerelease of FoW:Vietnam. I must be one of the few people who actually liked it

I'm tempted to do something with WW1 myself. Massed Infantry formations with arty taking the stage with strong but limited tank support.

Don't forget Cavalry, and then in 1916 you could have very basic Simple tanks, Unreliable and slow but still it would be a tank. Plus you could have lots of Artillery... Good idea.

I would like to see an Ancients version using FOW, so like 8 Roman Legionnaires per Base, you could have whole Cohorts and then artillery Ballista, Archers, Cavalry etc.

Been working on that for years now (and it'll be years more before I'd ever be ready to release it, lol)

 washout77 wrote:

That would be rather interesting. I'm also looking forward to a rerelease of FoW:Vietnam. I must be one of the few people who actually liked it

Im waiting for the figs - even if the BFs models are a bit "super dolly parton" whatever the tank/vehicle is, theyre still quite high quality multi part models with decent technical accuracy. Especially Im waiting for T-54s (for my GDR NVA - just add bin left sed of the turret, model known as T-54Z) and maybe T-34/85Ms, tho I allready got one from Irish Serb and Im working with the new wheels atm. And for the west german, M109!
Also does the plastic M113 and OH-6 do come handy! Still shame that no soviet choppers were to be released..

 MaahisKuningas wrote:

 washout77 wrote:

That would be rather interesting. I'm also looking forward to a rerelease of FoW:Vietnam. I must be one of the few people who actually liked it

Im waiting for the figs - even if the BFs models are a bit "super dolly parton" whatever the tank/vehicle is, theyre still quite high quality multi part models with decent technical accuracy. Especially Im waiting for T-54s (for my GDR NVA - just add bin left sed of the turret, model known as T-54Z) and maybe T-34/85Ms, tho I allready got one from Irish Serb and Im working with the new wheels atm. And for the west german, M109!
Also does the plastic M113 and OH-6 do come handy! Still shame that no soviet choppers were to be released..

Agreed. While BF's stuff isn't my end-all model solution, they are still pretty good kits. I personally have never had a problem with them either, they're just expensive so I never bothered with them too much. And yeah, they may not pass inspection from a rivet counter, but they still have pretty good accuracy

And for the moment I have been using WW1 models to proxy as a Soviet Strelkovy battalion, but I think I may start working on my own force orgs. It's sad that no one around me likes WW1 era stuff

Okay, Ive done some research now. I couldnt find any more excat company organisation from 80s organisation (I keep trying, propably could get my hand on NCO-courses handbook model of 1980), but one of my older friends did some research "inside his head" and he was quite sure that the organisation was three infantry platoons and one fire support platoon (with 82mm mortars) and command element.

Here is a link to the painted Zvezda models. http://art-of-tactic.com/ru/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2162

Independents List now live on my Blog....For all of you with Swedish or Finnish input head over and critique it.

http://stoppingtheredtide.blogspot.co.uk/

 mwnciboo wrote:
Independents List now live on my Blog....For all of you with Swedish or Finnish input head over and critique it.

http://stoppingtheredtide.blogspot.co.uk/

Roger that, checked the list out what it comes to finns.

Few notes:

- "Panssarikomppania" not "Pantsertrupperna" later one being swedish translation

- The T-55s and T-72M1s were in different battallions, and its quite unlikely they would have been deployed together - not impossible though, especially when we take on account that T-72 units werent fully equipped in mid 80s, but I would recommend some sort of "3/4 of the platoons with same MBT than HQ"

- As far as I know, the FOO didnt use MT-LB. In 1990s there were experiments made to upgrade MT-LB into FO-vehicle, but BMP-1 hull was chosen instead and BMP-TJ (TJ=tulenjohto, artillery fire control, literaly) entered "production". In 1980s, they would have propably operated in trucks, jeeps or BTR-60s.

- As earlier mentioned, MT-LBs werent issued to troops in mid 80s. Main batch arrived in 1988. Also, the MT-LB was used as a general run-around of the armored brigade (in 1990s!), but as far as I know, the fighting elements of "panssarijääkäri" (armored infantry) would have fought from BMP-1s.

- Scouts would have been mounted on BTR-50s in mid 1980s.

- PT-76 was employed as a flanking capable scout, not light tank, role, and IIRC, they were brigade-level asset.

- All armored infantry would have been mounted in BMP-1s, but if you want to include reserve troop option in case this is some sort of "kampfgruppe" organisation, then mounted in trucks. But the actual fighting elements should be in BMP-1s. Armored brigade didnt (and till this day, dont) use XA-180/185/203 in any personel carrying role.

- I would recommend giving option for three platoons of (3x) infantry in BMP-1s as a regimental support and one mortar squad with 82mm mortars mounted in trucks. If you want give option to less-capable infantry, it could be in regimental support section in form of a reservists, mounted in trucks. Though, if you really wish to use APC, the BTR-60PB is still available, though mostly employed by south-karelian jägerbrigades mechanized infantry.

- No 2S1s in 1980s. The ones used by finnish military are from ex-DDR stocks, bought & brought from unified germany during 1991-93. And for second, we had learned our lesson from WW2, but in case of war, we would still been quite short on artillery support. Thats why mortars are (and were) highly appreciated by finnish military, as artillery assets are saved as long as possible.
So I would set option to be 122 H 63 (=D30) artillery battery, with trucks, or 152 ones with AT-S/ATS-59 tractor. I would also recommend droppind the rocket launcher option. They were available, but should be extremely rare.

- Sadly, SPAAG was ZSU-57-2, not ZSU-23-4. FDF never purschased shilkas, which is pity.

- Not sure about that Mi-8 option with airmobile. The helis were reserved for paratroopers, and they operated independently, mostly being employed as a special forces operations rather than traditional frontier fighting. Until recently only paras got trained in heliborn operations. Nowadays all specialised infantry formations got that training, at least partly.

Personal equipment:

- KvKK-62, not RPK. Also, LAW instead of RPG-22.


Hope these helped!

Yeah cool, will look to do some changes not all because not all of this can be done within the Limits of what I have done this far.

I try to be accurate so far as possible but not 100% due to constraints on balance and otherwise my units book will be 100's of pages, I simply cannot do every option or regiment.

Thanks for the advice, version 2 will be ready soon.

Anyone want to help with the Swedes?

 mwnciboo wrote:

 washout77 wrote:
I'm tempted to do something with WW1 myself. Massed Infantry formations with arty taking the stage with strong but limited tank support.

Don't forget Cavalry, and then in 1916 you could have very basic Simple tanks, Unreliable and slow but still it would be a tank. Plus you could have lots of Artillery... Good idea.

I started to stat up some of the WWI tanks for my Spanish Civil War FoW project. I'm also tempted to do some Russian Civil War for FoW using Peter Pig's WWI range.

This is what I came up with for the French Schneider tank.

Schneider Tank: Mobility: Very Slow Tank, Armour: 2/1/1, Notes: Unreliable, Hull* MGx2.
75mm Blockhaus Schneider: Range 24", RoF: 2, AT: 6**, Firepower: 3+, Hull* mounted.

* Note that the guns have some damned odd fire arcs that would need some additional rule.
** Gun is described as having a reduced propellant charge.

George if you need any help, let me know. I'll happily share my document templates and stuff to help you out.

 mwnciboo wrote:
Anyone want to help with the Swedes?

Some comments on the Swedish equipment and forces.

Centurion:
The most modern variant was designated Stridsvagn 104 (or Strv 104).
I'm rather curious why the Centurion only has 4+ FP (as do the NATO Centurion). As far as I know the L7 105 mm on the Centurion is the same gun as the L7A3 on the Leo 1 and the M68 105 mm on the M60 and M1 and used the same ammunition.
The engine was upgraded on the Strv 104 model so Standard Tank mobility seems reasonable.
Strv 104 had a co-ax MG and an AA MG. No .50 cals on Swedish tanks.

Stridsvagn 103:
It was most commonly known as Stridsvagn S (S for Sweden). It was one of the most... daring tank projects fully developed. There is still debate in Sweden as to whether it was a success or a failure. See (perhaps through google translate): http://www.forsvarsframjandet.org/fmf-03-2/Strv_103_-_ett_Ess_S_i_stridsvagnsleken.html

Estimating protection on the S is tricky, since it relied on low height and the extremely sloped armour, none of which is well simulated by FoW rules.
Im consulting this page: http://www.members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm and the protection against kinetic energy rounds should be equivalent to the T-62 and Chieftain at 13. However other sources (quoting Swedish tests in the 80's) say that while the protection was very good against normal AP and HEAT, the APFSDS of the early 80's would go right through the tank.

The S also had schürzen-like "fence" (which was top secret) on the front of the tank to defeat HEAT rounds. I recommend giving it a 5+ save against HEAT from the front.

The gun on the S is called L74. It's an autoloaded version of the L7 with a longer barrel, so it should have the same or higher AT. In the early 90's a new round was imported for the Centurion which would not fit the autoloader in the S, but in the 80's the Centurion and the S shot the same round.

The use of DU rounds is a topic of it's own. Sweden did not have them as standard, but if war broke out with the Soviet Union would probably manufacture or import them quickly. HESH rounds was not used on the S.

The S was built for defensive battles in hull down positions. It could go full speed backwards with the rearward driver, and then build a new fire position with the bulldozer blade. It might be warranted to use something like the Veteran Tank-Hunters rule for the S. If you need to balance it, lower the side armour.

IKV 91 (no dash):
Should probably be Light and Fast. AA MG and co-ax MG.

PBV 302:
Does not have FCC/Thermal. The gun is a 20 mm Hispano-Suiza type 804. Armour should be something like 3 2 1.

BV 206 (no dash):
Unarmoured for the basic version. The armoured version is unusual, and shouldn't have more than 0 0 0 in any case. ROF should be 3. Very high mobility, so Light tank and Wide Tracks.

Bandkanon 1:
Slow tank. Armour 2 1 0. AA MG instead of Cupola 0.50 cal. The cannon is called 15,5 cm kanon m/60. Due to the exceptionally high rate of fire should probably have some rule about one vehicle counts as two firing.

I'll have to get back to you about the exakt organization of infantry and specialist platoons.
What I can say with certainty is that Sweden has never had any airmobile infantry, and the HKP 9 wasn't delivered until 1987.

Cool, finding definitive information on certain forces for specific periods can be hard so your information and pointers are invaluable.

FP on Centurion should be 3+ I need to rectify this in this book and the Main one.

I believe the S 103 - had a L74 Swedish variant with a 62 calibre (6.51 m) barrel so maybe a tweak for this is in order. Maybe a +1 AT Rating. I like the Veteran Tank Hunters, but I've tried to steer clear of special rules as far as possible.

This is all really useful. I will be re-releasing the Independents with all the changes.

Big Questions....

What did Sweden use the UH-1's for?
What did Sweden use for Attack Helicopters in 1986 if any? What were they armed with?
What performed Armoured Reconnaissance?

 mwnciboo wrote:

Big Questions....

What did Sweden use the UH-1's for?
What did Sweden use for Attack Helicopters in 1986 if any? What were they armed with?
What performed Armoured Reconnaissance?

Sweden used the UH-1's (designated HKP 3) for general utility, medevac and search & rescue.
Sweden did not have any attack helicopters until HKP 9 from 1987.
Armoured reconnaissance was performed by a Pansarspaningspluton (armoured reconnaissance platoon) with 18 men, armed with 2x GPMG and 2x Carl Gustav, in 3x PBV 302 or 3x TGB 11.

Excellent, many thanks Ephemeer.

The new computer game called Wargame Airland Battle is set in 1985, and includes among other countries Swedish forces =)
http://wargame-series.wikia.com/wiki/Wargame_Wiki

Good reference...Is it accurate enough to be used?

 mwnciboo wrote:
Good reference...Is it accurate enough to be used?

Havent purschased the airland-battles yet, but at least the first part "European Escalation" was pretty much the most accurate completely commercial game (ok, Steel Panthers MBT, but its free to play so Im not counting that) Ive ever come up to - at least what it came to the soviets, though ofc there is some (IMO minor) compromises made to increase playability, fex. lacking some units like BMDs and support for amphibious capability. My largest concern what came to the first part was the large number of prototype-models included, even in fit-for-battle strenght, but if I got it right, this is is propably fixed in the airland-battles. If I got it right, its not based on NATO-WPACT deck, but rather into country specific deck with allied units vailable, or something like that.

I do like Wargame European Escalation, it can be insanely punishing if you make a mistake.

Thanks for all the help..

Okay for those of you not Aware.....

I'm working on some major changes of my Lists, I've now got an Artist on board who is making this stuff look amazing.

So before Christmas expect to see this and more.



In the meantime have a look at the Pilot book, that Dan made, it's not complete but it gives you a flavour! As ever suggestions welcome.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3E-DVIcsccBTU9fSW8tb2E2UkE/edit?usp=sharing