I recollect that someone put a post on that said that the Soviet attitude toward "tactical" nuclear weapons was that their use was viewed as a military decision, another tool in the military toolbox.
I don't know the proximty of Nato airbaes in west Germany to towns and cities, but bear in mind lots of USAF and RAF airbases in the UK are close to cities and towns, the UK is a small and crowded Island, I feel confident to say drop a "tactical" nuclear weapon on Lakenheath or Manston , kills 10's or 100's thousands of UK citizens with tactical nukes, i think then that the game designers would find they had no game to play because the response would be NATO tactical srikes on Soviet military targets s far back as Kiev, Minsk, Leningrad, Archangel......
They may have "kill me" labels on them but I think the preferred weapon would be chemical, persistent , mixed conventional strikes on base facilities, all of which I think we expected and planned for.
The US had stockpiles of chemical weapons, once the Soviets open that particular pandora's box , would the US show restraint? would public pressure be to respond in kind ?
I think game designers have struck a nice balance of making strike aircraft a rarity on both sides.
( as an aside I think the soviet airforces in 1989 wold be playing the part of the Japanese in the air battles of the Phillipine sea.)
< Message edited by Zakalwe101 -- 1/26/2018 6:54:08 PM >