Persia in the Twilight War

[Raellus]

Have any of you ever played in or run a T2K campaign set in Iran How'd it go

I was looking through the King's Ransom module and it looks like a pretty fun campaign setting. Like Poland, the military situation is pretty dynamic. There are lots of "factions" vying for control- Americans, Soviets, pro-western and pro-Soviet Iranians, Islamic Fundamentalists, Royalists, marauders. Unlike Poland, there's a more centralized American military command (not necessarily a good thing) and relatively ample supplies of real gasoline. So, add more AFVs and a handful of aircraft to the mix.

I understand that both superpowers want the oilfields for their strategic military and domestic reconstruction efforts. The Soviets can pipe the oil into the USSR overland. How is the U.S. getting it back to the U.S. and/or its forces in Europe It seems like the Soviets would be concentrating their remaining air and sea assets to make sure as few tankers got out of the Persian Gulf as possible. What good is all that gas if you can't move it anywhere (the Road Warrior's quandry ).

What role does Iraq play Seems like it could go a couple of ways depending on whether your T2K Universe had a Gulf War I or not. Are the other oilfields and refineries of the Persian Gulf nuked I should probably look it up in the v1 strategic background. On the other hand, King's Ransom and the v1 U.S. Vehicle Guide make multiple mention of American units being sent to Saudi Arabia for refitting or R&R.

If the Middle East's other oil-producing regions have been nuked to hell, that would explain why both sides are committed to Iran.

What are the regional nuke targets There's probably a list in the v2.2 rulebook. Are there others I should know about

Last question, what other NATO forces (if any) are in Iran. None are mentioned in KR, but it does specifically refer to NATO a couple of times, implying that more than just American troops are operating there. I'd hate for there not to be any other substantial NATO forces in Iran. I like how you can have characters from just about any European country in Polish campaigns. I wouldn't want to be limited in that regard in a Persian Gulf campaign.

Anyway, I'm eager to read your Twilight experiences in the Persian Gulf.

[Rainbow Six]

I played in an Iran campaign twenty or so years ago right after our group got a copy of the RDF sourcebook; PC's were a group of Special Forces types who linked up with a pro US group of Iranian fighters. (And yes, I openly admit we were were munchkins - it was a long time ago! The idea was to give the European GM (me) a chance to be a player, whilst one of the players GM'd an Iran campaign)

It went OK, but it was more structured than the Polish campaign we were used to...there was an chain of command that the group were supposed to observe, things were much more organised...we gave it a shot for a little while, but consenus was that everyone in the group preferred the more fluid style of campaign that we had going in Poland so we drifted back to that after a while. You said that a centralisec hain of command wasn't neccessarily a good thing and I'd abolutely agree with that....I'd say that we found working within the confines of an organised chain of command a little too stifling.

Iraq if I recall correctly was split into three factions, one backed by the US, one by the USSR, and one by France. From memory I don't think the RDF Sourcebook mentioned specific nuke targets.

Besides the US there was a brigade sized group of British forces present in theatre - one Battalion from the Parachute Regiment, two Ghurka Battalions, plus an Infantry Battalion (the King's Own Scottish Borderers). The French also had a large presence in the area, which included elements of the Foreign Legion. If you can get a hold of a copy of the RDF sourcebook it has a full order of battle for most of the forces in the area (I don't think it covers all of the Gulf Cooperative Council States' armies).

One thing I did have a hard time accepting at the time though was the presence of an Israeli Brigade in theatre. I always thought it was stretching credibility to have the Iranians accepting the US as allies, but having Israeli troops in the region allied with the Arab armies was pushing it too far for me.

As an aside, if you're thinking about running anything in that region, I'd recommend reading Sword Point, Harold Coyle's second novel; it's set against a Soviet invasion of Iran and the US response, and as well as being a good read has a couple of good ideas for scenarios in it.

[Raellus]

Thanks for the insight, Rainbow. That's exactly what I'm looking for.

One thing I did have a hard time accepting at the time though was the presence of an Israeli Brigade in theatre. I always thought it was stretching credibility to have the Iranians accepting the US as allies, but having Israeli troops in the region allied with the Arab armies was pushing it too far for me.

I agree. Very few self-respecting Pan-Arabists or Ilsamic Fundamentalists would ever work alongside the Israelis. Saddam was counting on that in '91 when he used Scud attacks against Israel to try and draw them into the war, thus alienating the coalition's Arab contingents. The U.S. had to bend over backwards to keep the Israelis from defending themselves (or retaliate) with airstrikes and/or commando raids on northern Iraq. They knew the Saudis, Syrians, and Egyptians would likely bolt if they felt they were providing de facto assistance to Israel. The enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that. Unfortunately, being Jewish/Israeli trumps all other enmities where most Muslims are concerend

Really it makes no sense for Israel to send troops that far afield in a Twilight War scenario. My guess is the game developers wanted to offer the players the opportunity to play as IDF/Israeli characters.

In my Twilight Universe, the Israelis would stay home and mind their own affairs. I'm sure the Syrians and PLO types (at the very least) would give them plenty to do.

I guess it would be reasonable for an undercover IDF SOF detachment and/or a few Mossad types to be operating in Iran, probably with the approval of CENTCOM and "disguised" as American troops. That's as far as I'd go. But an entire IDF formation operating under the Israeli Star of David banner Not bloody likely.

As an aside, if you're thinking about running anything in that region, I'd recommend reading Sword Point, Harold Coyle's second novel; it's set against a Soviet invasion of Iran and the US response, and as well as being a good read has a couple of good ideas for scenarios in it.

Good recommendation. I read it probably twenty or so years ago when I was a teenager. I just acquired a copy of Team Yankee and one by a different author called Red Army, which is pretty highly rated. When I finish those, I'll try to get a good used copy of Sword Point.

[natehale1971]

In my campaign, the Baghdad Pact was the Soviet allied Arabic power bloc fighting in the middle east. Unfortunately, the majority of the Middle Eastern nations where forced into accepting the fact they where fighting on the same side of the Israeli governmnet when they had to ally with the United States. While the bulk (80%) of the Israeli Defense Forces where confined to the Israeli territorial gains. The near collapse of Lebannon thanks to Syrian and Soviet-backed Iraqi forces pushed Isreal into a position sa the liberators as the Lebanese, and turned alot of the Muslim people in the Middle East against the Palestinians when a group of extremists had gotten their hands on a tactical nuke and ended up setting it off near Jeurselem destroying the Temple Mound. The fact that the mosque wasn't destroyed because of IDF troops pushing the SADM far enough away that it didn't completely destroy the area...

It was the Jordanians who first responded with support for the Isrealis to make the first move to crush the fledgling Soviet Equipped Palestinian People's Liberation Army that had been assembling in the area along the Syria-Jordan border. Islamic fundamenalism turned the middle east in my campaign to be the bloodest and most brutal fighting outside of Africa... and the regon that contained the highest casulty rates of the entire war from direct combat (80% or more of the pre-war population died due to fighting, if counting non-combat related deaths Africa was the highest percentage of deaths from rampant diease).

the Middle Eastern campaign for us was really, really brutal. actually put about eighty 'really, really' in front of brutal and you'll hit the tip of the iceberg... The fighting was HORRIBLE. street-to-street fighting and insurgency like we're seeing there right now... that's what happened AFTER the major land battles when the frontlines stablised. Bright Star is a damn good description of an idea of the kind of fighting.. but our campaign was even worse.

after the war was over, the State of Israel ended up growing to inculde Jordan, Lebannon and the Golan Heights. Peace was due to the fact that Isrealis where governed by Isreali laws, Arabic Muslims by their own laws, and the Christians by their own laws. Of course, the redraw of the map of the middle east was massive. almost unrecognizeable by some... one day i'll post the post war world maps i had drew up...

[kato13]

one day i'll post the post war world maps i had drew up...

Already looking forward to it.

[Raellus]

After skimming through King's Ransom, I'm wondering if maybe the guys that wrote the movie Three Kings might not have played a little T2K.

Are they any other Persian Gulf-based modules I don't think so but it doesn't to ask.

Used copies of the RDF Sourcebook start at $22. A little steep for me. I can get a legit electronic copy for $6 but I much prefer the ol' fashioned paper and ink. Reading on even a dimmed down computer screen for just a few minutes hurts my eyes.

[Rainbow Six]

Are they any other Persian Gulf-based modules I don't think so but it doesn't to ask.

Nope, King's Ransom was the only one, although there was at least one adventure published in Challenge...my memory is hazy but I think it was something to do with intercepting a Soviet unit that was equipped with a backpack nuke.

[Targan]

Nope, King's Ransom was the only one, although there was at least one adventure published in Challenge...my memory is hazy but I think it was something to do with intercepting a Soviet unit that was equipped with a backpack nuke.

Correct.

[Abbott Shaull]

I played in an Iran campaign twenty or so years ago right after our group got a copy of the RDF sourcebook; PC's were a group of Special Forces types who linked up with a pro US group of Iranian fighters. (And yes, I openly admit we were were munchkins - it was a long time ago! The idea was to give the European GM (me) a chance to be a player, whilst one of the players GM'd an Iran campaign)

It went OK, but it was more structured than the Polish campaign we were used to...there was an chain of command that the group were supposed to observe, things were much more organised...we gave it a shot for a little while, but consenus was that everyone in the group preferred the more fluid style of campaign that we had going in Poland so we drifted back to that after a while. You said that a centralisec hain of command wasn't neccessarily a good thing and I'd abolutely agree with that....I'd say that we found working within the confines of an organised chain of command a little too stifling.

Iraq if I recall correctly was split into three factions, one backed by the US, one by the USSR, and one by France. From memory I don't think the RDF Sourcebook mentioned specific nuke targets.

Besides the US there was a brigade sized group of British forces present in theatre - one Battalion from the Parachute Regiment, two Ghurka Battalions, plus an Infantry Battalion (the King's Own Scottish Borderers). The French also had a large presence in the area, which included elements of the Foreign Legion. If you can get a hold of a copy of the RDF sourcebook it has a full order of battle for most of the forces in the area (I don't think it covers all of the Gulf Cooperative Council States' armies).

One thing I did have a hard time accepting at the time though was the presence of an Israeli Brigade in theatre. I always thought it was stretching credibility to have the Iranians accepting the US as allies, but having Israeli troops in the region allied with the Arab armies was pushing it too far for me.

As an aside, if you're thinking about running anything in that region, I'd recommend reading Sword Point, Harold Coyle's second novel; it's set against a Soviet invasion of Iran and the US response, and as well as being a good read has a couple of good ideas for scenarios in it.

Ah, Sword Point is a great read for anyone who want to run campaigned in the middle east region. Much like Team Yankee would be nice to read too, for nothing else for back ground.

Yes the Isreali Brigades were stretch for me too, especially since many of the countries they were serving in, had supported many of the military campaigns against them, if not active in them.

As for UK and French troops. The French troops were moved there from units they had sent to former Colonies in Africa to help them out. For the UK, the Brigade was an accident, not planned. They sent one or two of the Battalions into the region due to their legacy of sending seconds to the region. The rest of them were deployed after the US deployed there, and were the extent they could send in.

[Abbott Shaull]

One of the great things about the lack of material, is that it does give a GM a lot of room to play with. One of the things, is in this region, the recruitment of locals would be very limited. Many of the excess of the personnel from the US Navy and US Air Force would have been directly absorbed into the Marine Corps and 3rd Army, or their service security forces.

On the other hand you had a very active chain of command. Yet, creative thinking would be required to loosen the strings. Think Kelley's Heroes where the Officer only military connection is his Uncle is a General, and he rather leave the senior NCO in charge. Or think of Lt Dyke of Band of Brothers, who is there, but would spend his time at Higher HQs. With the size of the military it would be likely to find a Platoon/Company in such a state. Also many Platoons would be commanded by NCOs.

Just some thoughts.

[Raellus]

Good points, Abbot.

Since I don't have the RDF SOurcebook, I'm trying to reconstruct the campaign history and theater OOBs using the sources I do have access too. First off, I'm shocked that the v1.0 timeline (as presented in the v1.0 Core Rulebook, at least) makes no mention of the campaign in Iran. The v1.0 U.S. and Soviet Vehicle guides, however, present skeleton OOBs for the theater and feature several color plates of U.S. and Soviet vehicles operating in Iran.

Balance of Forces

One thing that struck me is the disparity of forces. A quick and dirty tally gives the Soviets 30,750 troops, 171 tanks, and 33 attack helicopters in Iran, as of 2000. This does not include 4000 men and 8 tanks fighting mutineers in "Turkestan" as of 2000 (nor does it include any of the 2-3 mutineer/marauder divisions in the breakaway republic).

The U.S. on the other hand, fields 18,100 troops, 39 tanks, and 16 attack helicopters. This does not include the Ranger regiment, for which no strength is listed, nor does it include the British or French units in Iran (I can't find the unit designations or strengths for said anywhere).

Aside from the indifferent 24th ID and the 9th Motorized division, the U.S. units in Iran of a historically high quality (Airborne, Airmobile, and Marine divisions, plus the Rangers, Paras, and FFL[]). Almost all of the Soviet divisions in Iran are listed as Category III or Mobilization Only, though several of these are noted to have performed "surprisingly well".

Regardless, in Iran, the Soviets have a near two-to-one advantage in men and attack helicopters and a near four-to-one advantage in tanks. Based on the respective unit types, I think its also safe to assume that the Soviets have at least a four-to-one advantage in artillery as well.

Both sides apparently have a handful of operational combat aircraft as well.

Considering that the Iranian forces are split at least three ways in loyalty (pro-Soviet, pro-NATO, and anti-foreigner/infidel), their strength wouldn't really make up for the difference. Also, King's Ranson mentions that anti-Soviet Iranian conventional forces suffered massive casualties, especially from Soviet chem-warfare.

So, in 2000, the Soviets have a clear operational advantage in Iran. It looks like Iran could be the site of the Twilight War's last major conventional battles (and quite possibly nuclear ones...).

[Targan]

Are you interested in getting the RDF Sourcebook (in dead tree or electronic format) Raellus Surely having a copy would make your job much easier.

[Rainbow Six]

The U.S. on the other hand, fields 18,100 troops, 39 tanks, and 16 attack helicopters. This does not include the Ranger regiment, for which no strength is listed, nor does it include the British or French units in Iran (I can't find the unit designations or strengths for said anywhere).

There's a French orbat online.

http://www.reocities.com/littlegreenmen.geo/T2K_France.htm

(Note f you read the section on industry and economy you may find it a little optimistic and non canon)

For the British, you might want to check here:

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dheb/2300/Historical/BritA2K.htm#Middle%20East

Hope this helps.

Cheers

[Raellus]

Are you interested in getting the RDF Sourcebook (in dead tree or electronic format) Raellus Surely having a copy would make your job much easier.

Yes. Unfortunately, the cheapest dead tree version I can find is $22. I can get a watermarked PDF for $6 but I'm an ol' fashioned kind of guy and reading PDFs makes my eyes burn.

[Raellus]

Hope this helps.

Thanks R6, it does. Unfortunately, neither site gives numerical strengths for the units listed.

Interestingly, it looks like all of the French forces in the Gulf region are based outside of Iran, in places like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait.

Maybe this explains the Russian's reluctance to make use of their superior numbers in Iran- they don't want to get the French involved there and, by extension, in Europe as well.

If T2K were a game of strategic diplomacy, it would be interesting to play a scenario where NATO characters tried to convince the French to support them in Iran, especially in light of an impending Soviet offensive there. Soviet players could try to convince the French not to get involved. Could make for some interesting Realpolitik wheeling and dealing.