Matrix Games Forums

As the game has nuclear weapons. Will you ever bring in biological and chemical into the game?

I'm thinking about nations that don't have nuclear but do have biological and chemical weapons.

Well, as the game doesn't really model human targets as such really well, it wouldn't be easy to implement that. Chemical weapons could however also be simulated in their effects. Drop some ballistic missiles with persistent nerve agents on an airbase to reduce sortie rates and ready times, for example.[:D]

Interesting thought. I forgot about the human issue but until that ìs improved your idea about reduced times etc is good.

Why drop chemicals in order to delay ready times if one could destroy hard targets instead?

I get the idea, but focus on facilities, vessels and aircrafts make these kind of weapons obsolete. This would rather make sense in an operational/strategic game with a focus on humans and where committing atrocities could have severe political consequences. Like the current situation in Syria.

Yes I see. I was thinking a country that didn't have nuclear weapons would respond with chemical instead.

ORIGINAL: Lützow

Why drop chemicals in order to delay ready times if one could destroy hard targets instead?

I get the idea, but focus on facilities, vessels and aircrafts make these kind of weapons obsolete. This would rather make sense in an operational/strategic game with a focus on humans and where committing atrocities could have severe political consequences. Like the current situation in Syria.

During the Cold War, one of the major applications of persistent chemical agents could have been attacks on fixed facilities behind the front line. Before the wider proliferation of precision guided munitions, shutting down an airfield wasn't as easy as it is today. Using ballistic missiles with chemical agents to contaminate an airfield would have forced the entire operation, ground crews, pilots, everyone, into protective gear. That's why decontaminating airplanes and equipment was so widely trained on NATO airbases. Sortie rates would obviously have dropped with that.

This is explained pretty well in "The Third World War" by Gen. John Hackett. He describes chemical attacks primarily against airbases, seaports of debarkation for NATO reinforcements, and POMCUS sites, to shut NATO's logistics down.

Interesting.

IMHO the dynamic weather system has to be implemented first.

(then fallout from the nukes also work like wanted/unwanted interdiction too, and i would like to see more of the side-effects of a nuke blast modeled -especially on sensors /electronics - )

To reduce the load on computing it should be switchable on/off in options, so on a short time covering scenario or a small area, to assume the weather is static is no hindrance.

Good point.

ORIGINAL: Lützow

Why drop chemicals in order to delay ready times if one could destroy hard targets instead?

I get the idea, but focus on facilities, vessels and aircrafts make these kind of weapons obsolete. This would rather make sense in an operational/strategic game with a focus on humans and where committing atrocities could have severe political consequences. Like the current situation in Syria.

Remember, CMANO covers the decades before hard target strikes were truly feasible. Think Europe circa 1950's…

It would be a realistic scenario to simulate chem-reduced sortie rates in many 1950/60's NATO/WP battles..

So are there plans to include them then?

One day we'd like to. Challenge is figure out the model as the kills aren't kinetic and the counters are numerous from simple proofing to systems that wash down entire warships. Think we're willing to tackle it though although it will land further down the line after a few bigger things.

Thats ok I appreciate you have your hands full at the moment. Thanks for your response though.

A naïve implementation would be to increase reloading times by x%. The effect would end after Y hours.

However, that would require some coding and perhaps event editor tie - ins.