Persistant Chemical Agents anywhere?

[Akmatov]

As far as I can tell, chemical agents only cause a decrease in readiness. However in reality, persistent chemical agents can be used to contaminate areas to prevent their use, like airfields and supply depots. Is this modeled and I'm missing it?

[Oberst_Klink]

Duplicate post? The massive use of WMD in TOAW, like in the real world, would simply make playing any scenario pointless, no? Just my two Cypriot toxic bonds

Klink, Oberst

[shunwick]

Akmatov,

You could use the nuclear contamination tile to get those effects. Militarily, the main effect of chemical, biological, or nuclear contamination is forcing the enemy into the noddy suits. Highly debilitating.

Best wishes,
Steve

[Akmatov]

You could use the nuclear contamination tile to get those effects.

Would that be possible in game after a successful missile or air strike?

Militarily, the main effect of chemical, biological, or nuclear contamination is forcing the enemy into the noddy suits. Highly debilitating.

Been there, done that and think we were sold a load of moral boosting nonsense. Yes, full MOPP4, or its equivalent in other forces, could be quite effective, if:
- one actually had one's sealed non-stale dated suit package within reach,
- one got into it before the chemicals arrived,
- one got into it properly, not a given especially in a panic,
- one was able to avoid activity that would rip or puncture the suit, like getting shot for example
- one didn't have to change the filters
- based on info from the 1980s (no idea what has changed since my training)
- blood agents degraded the filters used in US Army masks within 30 minutes
- the criminally incompetent design of the masks used by the US Army from roughly the 1970s - 1990s required one to remove the entire mask to change the filters.
- the Russians knew the above information and their chemical plans included using a wave of blood agent followed by nerve gas - hence a properly executed Russian chemical attack on troop not able to leave the contaminated zone to change their filters would equal a lot of dead troops, not a decrease in their readiness.

All in all, in my view, the idea that chemical attacks would just be a bother is incorrect and probably based on a deliberate policy of lying to the troops to improve moral.

[Akmatov]

Duplicate post?

Not really, though related. Here I am wondering how to replicate the real world tactic of using persistent agents to render critical facilities unusable, not questioning the related issue of a general downgrading of the potentials for chemical weapons.

The massive use of WMD in TOAW, like in the real world, would simply make playing any scenario pointless, no?

Well, first of all WMD is a large catch all category which include separate and quite different elements, each of which should militarily be considered on its own capacities. Really WMD is far more a political expression than a military one.

And yes, the use of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons could have an enormous impact on any military operation. But to take the attitude expressed once by SPI that to simulate the use of nuclear weapons one should soak the game map with lighter fluid and then ignite it is just silly and totally Western. The Warsaw Pact fully intended to use nuclear weapons from the very beginning. Here are a couple of quotes from the 1964 Warsaw Pact war plan discovered in the Czech Republic in 2007:

"To disorganize the leadership of the state and to undermine mobilization of armed forces by surprise nuclear strikes against the main political and economic centers of the country."

"Nuclear strikes against the troops of the enemy should be targeted to the depth up to the line Würzburg, Erlangen, Regensburg, Landshut."

"In the first massive nuclear strike by the troops of the Missile Forces of the Czechoslovak Front, the front aviation and long-range aviation added to the front must destroy the main group of troops of the first operations echelon of the 7th US Army, its means of nuclear attack, and the centers of command and control of the aviation."

"Altogether the operation will require the use of 131 nuclear missiles and nuclear bombs; specifically 96 missiles and 35 nuclear bombs. The first nuclear strike will use 41 missiles and nuclear bombs. The immediate task will require using 29 missiles and nuclear bombs. The subsequent task could use 49 missiles and nuclear bombs. 12 missiles and nuclear bombs should remain in the reserve of the Front."

And it goes on, the document quote is available in English, Czech and Russian at the Parallel History Project at http://www.php.isn.ethz.ch/collections/ ... info=25996

My point would be that to ignore the use of chemical, and nuclear weapons, in modern warfare is to ignore reality. In Gulf War I Saddam had at least one artillery unit with chemical ammunition in place in position for use against Coalition forces. It could have been used, that is reality and it would be nice if TOAW reflected that a little bit better.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Akmatov

My point would be that to ignore the use of chemical, and nuclear weapons, in modern warfare is to ignore reality. In Gulf War I Saddam had at least one artillery unit with chemical ammunition in place in position for use against Coalition forces. It could have been used, that is reality and it would be nice if TOAW reflected that a little bit better.

Nuclear weapons are definitely modeled in TOAW - do you have an issue with that? And I'm still not sure TOAW doesn't model that Gulf War issue adequately.

[Akmatov]

Happy with the modeling of nuclear weapons in TOAW. In fact, pleased that it is one of the few wargames to address nuclear weapons so well. I'm just reacting to the very common idea expressed in the statement "The massive use of WMD in TOAW, like in the real world, would simply make playing any scenario pointless". This would only be valid in the case of wide spread use of strategic weapons, not limited use of battlefield or theater weapons.

I'm coming to suspect that to best model modern chemical weapons one would need to tweak at the scenario level to equate chemical to nuclear and use them as interchangeable in terms of effects. As a novice, I don't know if that could be done.

[shunwick]

ORIGINAL: Akmatov

You could use the nuclear contamination tile to get those effects.

Would that be possible in game after a successful missile or air strike?

Militarily, the main effect of chemical, biological, or nuclear contamination is forcing the enemy into the noddy suits. Highly debilitating.

Been there, done that and think we were sold a load of moral boosting nonsense. Yes, full MOPP4, or its equivalent in other forces, could be quite effective, if:
- one actually had one's sealed non-stale dated suit package within reach,
- one got into it before the chemicals arrived,
- one got into it properly, not a given especially in a panic,
- one was able to avoid activity that would rip or puncture the suit, like getting shot for example
- one didn't have to change the filters
- based on info from the 1980s (no idea what has changed since my training)
- blood agents degraded the filters used in US Army masks within 30 minutes
- the criminally incompetent design of the masks used by the US Army from roughly the 1970s - 1990s required one to remove the entire mask to change the filters.
- the Russians knew the above information and their chemical plans included using a wave of blood agent followed by nerve gas - hence a properly executed Russian chemical attack on troop not able to leave the contaminated zone to change their filters would equal a lot of dead troops, not a decrease in their readiness.

All in all, in my view, the idea that chemical attacks would just be a bother is incorrect and probably based on a deliberate policy of lying to the troops to improve moral.

Akmatov,

a) There is no reason why you could not model nuclear strikes as chemical strikes if you require persistent effects. But this must be done in the editor.

As for b) I was talking about contamination effects not troops under direct chemical attack but if you require chemical weapons to be more lethal then make them more lethal.

Sort of combining two threads into one:

This is what the manual says about Force NBC Proficiency:

Force NBC Proficiency
Losses to chemical and atomic attacks are reduced if this value
is greater than zero. At the maximum level of 100%, losses for all
equipment are reduced as though they had an inherent NBC defense
capability (see 8.4, Equipment). This characteristic is only
directly visible in the Editor.

Adding contaminated tiles and adjusting Force NBC Proficiency are done through the editor. Modelling nuclear attacks as chemical attacks requires the use of an equipment editor. As far as I know, everything you require is available from the editors.

Note also that you could model persistent effects as pestilence.

Best wishes,
Steve

[Akmatov]

Some very useful advise, thx. I've added figuring out the Editor to my to-do list.