as promised, the exclusive overview and compare between the next war and under an iron sky, highlighting the key differences. I trust you will enjoy this read from the designer.

Overall

Being researched and produced during one of the darkest period for US Armed Forces, The Next War is in my opinion heavily unbalanced in Warsaw Pact’s favour.

In most campaigns I’ve played, official victory conditions were never used and NATO player considered a good result not having the Communist hordes on the West bank of river Rhine after 20 days of war. Of course, this makes TNW not particularly fun for NATO.

During 1985 development, we had at our disposal a whole array of previously undisclosed documents, plus the hindsight about what was really happening in Soviet Union during the 1979 – 1985 period.

A complete revision of the Order of Battle and of the overall capabilities of the two blocs has resulted in a much more balanced strategic situation, where NATO stands a chance of resisting and even counter-attacking a Warsaw Pact aggression.

It’s worth mentioning beforehand that all the tables have been redesigned and modified, including the much criticized Combat Result Table.

Differences Step-by-Step

1985 Sequence of Play is similar to The Next War one, but several new phases have been added and even the already existing ones have often completely different mechanisms.

Mobilization Phase

In The Next War, Warsaw Pact allies started the game more or less already mobilized, as in 1976 it was supposed that Soviet satellite countries would have executed orders from Moscow without relevant objections.

In 1985, Warsaw Pact must decide which allied countries will mobilize, if any. Starting the mobilization process is a risky decision as it could trigger a revolt in the satellite country and in the worst cases a domino effect inside the Soviet bloc.

Unrest / Revolt Phase

In The Next War, revolts inside Warsaw Pact were handled in an abstract way and were optional.

In 1985, revolts are actually played on the map and NATO may support rebels with air strikes and ground troops. Moreover, Soviet control over satellite nations is becoming precarious and several events could start a popular revolt: mobilization (see above), high losses, NATO occupation of key objectives, and absence of Soviet troops.

Rebellions that are not promptly quelled by Warsaw Pact will go out of control quite quickly and could lead to the pro-Soviet government being overthrown.

Weather Phase

Well not much changed here, except for a slight revision of the Weather Table.

External Events Phase

In The Next War, most reinforcements had a fixed arrival turn, a foresight few commanders ever have during a real war.

In 1985, arrival of NATO oversea reinforcements depends heavily on the decisions taken in the Battle of North Atlantic. Each player must choose if he wishes to commit part of his early reinforcements to the North Atlantic air naval battle, or if he prefers to have them available in Europe as soon as possible. Each single decision will influence the probability of winning the battle for the GIUK Gap and could lead to a catastrophic delay for NATO reinforcements departing from North America.

An extract of the North Atlantic Battle Chart

WMD Release Phase

In The Next War, use of Weapons of Mass Destruction was quite liberal for Warsaw Pact, and had little consequences, particularly for chemical weapons.

In 1985, both players must obtain permission from the political leadership before being able to use them, with probabilities depending by the current situation and by the side requesting their release.

Moreover, once the red line has been crossed, both players will have little control on what happens next. Use of chemical weapons by Warsaw Pact could lead to NATO using tactical nuclear weapons against Soviet troops, NATO player willing or not. This could lead to Soviet Union launching a strategic nuclear attack against US, WP player willing or not, and that’s all folks.

In case you’re wondering, should the nuclear Armageddon happen the first player who used weapons of mass destruction loses the game, and no one wins.

Of course, players may decide to complete ignore this rule and freely unleash the nuclear apocalypse, but despite all the battle plans made public during the years my opinion is that the use of WMD in a WP – NATO conflict would have been improbable. After 1945, no nuclear power ever used nuclear weapons, not even in problematic conflicts against enemies with no direct retaliation capability (Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan are some examples). Chemical weapons have been used several times (Vietnam, Afghanistan, several Middle East conflicts), but always with a clandestine approach followed by denial of responsibility and reciprocal accusations.

Obviously, utilization of these weapons brings on the table considerations and consequences far beyond a mere military point of view, particularly when the enemy has several hundreds of similar weapons ready to be used.

SSM Attacks Phase

In The Next War, surface-to-Surface Missile attacks had several problems as they weren’t at the right place in the Sequence of Play.

In 1985, Warsaw Pact may execute SSM Attacks against installations (typically airfields) during this phase, hampering the use of NATO air squadrons during the subsequent Air Superiority Phase.

Air Superiority Phase

I’ll use this phase to describe air war differences in general.

In The Next War, air war was practically condensed in a gigantic dogfight resolved during this phase. Once the dust settled, surviving air squadrons were available for ground strike / support mission and were not even considered in a specific airfield for the rest of the game turn. Moreover, low value squadrons were often used as nothing more than cannon fodder.

In 1985, air war has been completely redesigned and integrated with other activities.

During Air Superiority Phase, both players may try to gain air superiority over specific portions of the map (subdivided in 61-hex “mega hex”). Air squadrons winning air superiority execute CAP over the area for the whole turn, presenting a deadly threat to enemy air and helicopter squadrons flying into their patrol zone.

During the Action Phase, both players conduct air missions, assign strike and escort squadrons to them and intercept enemy missions. Air combat ensues and surviving strike squadrons execute their mission. Even low rating air squadron may be effective when used in the correct role and at the right time.

Air Combat is not resolved between air groups but between single air squadrons, and the Air Combat Table has been revised completely. Air squadrons values are changed too, as they now represent Air Combat, Evasion and Strike.

Last but not least, Offensive ECM squadrons (NATO EF-111 and WP Yak28 PP) may be used to support key air missions, giving an advantage in air combat and against enemy air defences.

Two NATO air squadrons intercept an escorted Soviet strike mission

Nuclear Strike Phase

Resolution of nuclear attacks in 1985 is similar to The Next War, with two notable exceptions: the attack is declared against a hex and not against single units, and losses on target units depend by their tactical formation. A dug in unit will be harder to destroy, while a brigade caught in Road Mode will be an easy victim.

Action Phase

Land movement, ZOC and Supply didn’t change much in 1985, except for some tweaks.

Ground combat has been streamlined, the Combat Result Table has been completely revised, and several new tactical options are available to both sides: Airmobile Battalions, Active Defence, Corps Reserves and Assault from March are some of them.

The final result is that, even with the new linear CRT, a ground attack will rarely have a 100% assured outcome, as enemy could influence combat in several ways that cannot be predicted beforehand.

End Phase

The End-of-Turn administrations steps are similar to The Next War, but a clear sequence of actions has been defined.