A General Question about ORBATs

[Snipey]

I am just wondering, would it be possible to switch countries during campaigns? The reason I am asking, is say for instance I am playing as either Ukraine, or Croatia, or South Yemen. Let's say that I want my campaign to be from the 1970 until 2020. I would not be able to do so, under the current set up, because I wouldn't be able to switch from the USSR to Ukraine, or from Yugoslavia to Croatia, or from South Yemen to Yemen, in a campaign. Is there a way that one could do it? If not, can it be added in the next patch, perhaps using a system similar to the "allies" one?

[Imp]

The "50 Years War" takes on a whole new meaning with constant fighting

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by Snipey

I am just wondering, would it be possible to switch countries during campaigns? The reason I am asking, is say for instance I am playing as either Ukraine, or Croatia, or South Yemen. Let's say that I want my campaign to be from the 1970 until 2020. I would not be able to do so, under the current set up, because I wouldn't be able to switch from the USSR to Ukraine, or from Yugoslavia to Croatia, or from South Yemen to Yemen, in a campaign. Is there a way that one could do it? If not, can it be added in the next patch, perhaps using a system similar to the "allies" one?

There is no way to switch country, nor would there ever be one.

The MBT campaign system is only meant to cover one nation for a brief period of time. 1970 to 2020 is simply ridiculous, it is a longer time even than WW2!.

WW2 has the Historical long campaign, since WW2 was actual history and so is documented.

The MBT long campaign is simply there to cover a sensible period of time for a what-if situation, such as WW3. In which case a time frame of perhaps 2-3 months would be reasonable, if you posited no use of nukes. 2-3 days if they were used, and no actions worth playing as a "game".

Andy

[Snipey]

Hey, I was just curious, so thank you for satisfying my curiosity. Those who don't believe in the 50 year war thing, should check out Albanian and Serbian relations, where Albanians were trying to get into Kosovo since WWII ended. Similar example can be British vs. IRA. However, since Mobhack said that this isn't what the campaign system was invented for, (and considering that he helped invent it - he knows best,) I'm dropping the argument.

[Wdll]

Snipey, the thing is, they weren't/aren't a single war. With the same logic I should ask for a thousand year campaign options (greeks vs turks).

I have played long campaigns, The problem is that to make any sense in a single campaign, you will have to play many battles. It's one thing to still have old equipment in "modern" times, but to have the crew carry over is a bit...

[Marcello]

1970 to 2020 is simply ridiculous, it is a longer time even than WW2!

Not so ridicolous. Although the counter examples offered by Snipey don't serve well his point there is no shortage of wars which have lasted for decades. Think Angola 1975-1991/2002 (depending how you define the timeline) or Sri Lanka 1983-2009 (again depending how you define the timeline) for example.
The Iran Iraq war lasted eight years, two years longer than WW2. Generally however long wars are low intensity (unless you are in the middle of it). Nukes are one of the limits.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

All well stated. I personally like to play over the period of a year in the range of 17-21 battles in the campaign. I like to go through the change of seasons since to some degree it forces changes to tactics to acommadate the conditions you're playing under.
Fight On!

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by Marcello

Not so ridicolous. Although the counter examples offered by Snipey don't serve well his point there is no shortage of wars which have lasted for decades. Think Angola 1975-1991/2002 (depending how you define the timeline) or Sri Lanka 1983-2009 (again depending how you define the timeline) for example.
The Iran Iraq war lasted eight years, two years longer than WW2. Generally however long wars are low intensity (unless you are in the middle of it). Nukes are one of the limits.

The Iran-Iraq war is already covered by the appropriate batlocs, as is the USSR in Afghanistan, SA vs the Angolans/Cubans and Korea already "hot swaps" the Chinese for N Koreans in the early period till post-Yalu river. But none of these really fit the mould of the same set of core troops fighting the entire war.

In that case, you should sell off at least a third or 2/3 of your experienced core troops every year or 2 and replace with new purchases to represent the conscript rotation, perhaps?.

Andy

[gila]

Also,you could always use support pt.s to buy allies and use them as the main force and your core as support.
Not the same as switching but close as i think you'll get.

[Marcello]

Originally Posted by Mobhack

In that case, you should sell off at least a third or 2/3 of your experienced core troops every year or 2 and replace with new purchases to represent the conscript rotation, perhaps?.
Andy

According to the sources which touch iraqi personnel management practices, such as "(FMFRP) 3-203, Lessons Learned: The Iran-Iraq War, Vol . I" it was hardly unusual that soldiers who had taken part in the initial battles in 1980 would still be fighting in 1988 (there was a somewhat generous leaves policy to compensate for that, up to one week per month when possible), the iraqis were short on manpower.
How the personnel management system worked in detail it is not stated but it seems that service was "for the duration".
The bulk of the troops of course would have served for less than 8 years, either because they had become casualties or because had been called upon years into the war.

As far as I am concerned however the game campaign system is fine as it is.