Matrix Games Forums

I have to ask so here it is. I had the SPI NATO vs Warsaw Pact game, hard to get opponents so this is very cool. The NATO game had the option for chem warfare, not very sophisticated but basically you could gas sectors and affect troops at some political cost. Any attempt to include chem munitions here? and BTW the US had chemical weapons in theater for retaliatory capability, so it should be an option for both sides. Appreciate any insights.

Chem, Bio, Tac Nukes, it´s all there [;)]

Very cool, I'm in![8D]

Because Bugs n' Gas Makes the Grass Grow Green...

ORIGINAL: AnimalAl

Very cool, I'm in![8D]

Because Bugs n' Gas Makes the Grass Grow Green...

Chemical munitions are an option in this game for any artillery unit historically capable of firing them. The effect on target units that are not NBC rated is pretty catastrophic - 50% of all unprotected subunits will be rendered hors de combat immediately and lost to the player. For protected subunits there is a residual 5% chance of loss. Survivors (whether they are protected or not) will also take a nasty hit to both morale and fatigue levels.

By subunits I mean the individual tanks, vehicles, guns, etc of the defending unit. Units can have a mixture of protected and unprotected subunits and each one is evaluated and attacked separately.

By 1989 though a surprising number of subunits were NBC rated and so the impact of gas can be quite muted in certain cases - you have to know what you are doing or else spend a little time in the 'unit hardware browser' to form an estimate if it will be worth it or not. HE is pretty darn good too - far better than in WW2 - and good old HE (laced with ICM if you are NATO) is a pretty reliable choice in most circumstances, although again it pays to know something about your intended targets.

Oh yes, gas can persist for a short while and any other unit moving into that location (other than helicopters) will be subject to an immediate impromptu gas attack. Once created, each gas cloud has a 10% chance of dispersing every 5 minutes of game turn resolution time. If you want it to persist for a longer period guaranteed then you need to plan your artillery missions accordingly and keep topping it up.

Gas creates a pretty but evil looking little animation as it is laid and then a yellowish cloud hangs over the location until it disperses.

Lotsa fun, cheers, Rob

I was an Army chemical officer from 1985-92, so this sounds very close to what I would expect in a realistic simulation. No question that HE always works well, but gas is always good for creating temporary obstacles and forcing the enemy into certain directions, in addition to attritting arty and log support.

Our NBC defense protection in Europe was pretty good, logistically all the equipment was there but our forces didn't train that well (thus the impact on morale and fatigue but not protection). I am glad to see one wargame incorporate this feature, there are so many that do not, not because it wasn't possible but because they didn't know how to simulate it correctly...

Good to hear from the professionals that things seem accurate - coming from an enthusiastic amatuer. From everything I've read this looks to be a real gem, can't wait to get my paws on it.

Holy doodle! That is an endorsement indeed! Thank you for your kind words.

Do you know if the WP forces had standing orders to ignore chemical barriers and drive through regardless if directly ordered? I always assumed so but now I am not so sure.... Human nature is still human nature and soldiers might easily find a compelling reason why they just cannot drive through a visibly contaminated area.

When units move in this game I try to work out a 'current stress level' based on recent losses and whether the next location is particularly toxic. If the stress goes too high the unit may fail a morale check and become pinned. Setting weights for calculating this requires a lot of guestimates. I add 10 for a minefield, 15 for nuclear contamination and 20 for chemical contamination. This plus the number of mission kills suffered in the last 10 minutes minus a rating based on unit quality gives me the Stress Score. A score of say 15 has a 15% chance of obtaining a pin. In your professional experience, does this sound approximately reasonable? Just curious as there is still a chance to change the weights. Maybe I should be doubling or tripling them.

Cheers, Rob.

ORIGINAL: AnimalAl

I was an Army chemical officer from 1985-92, so this sounds very close to what I would expect in a realistic simulation. No question that HE always works well, but gas is always good for creating temporary obstacles and forcing the enemy into certain directions, in addition to attritting arty and log support.

Our NBC defense protection in Europe was pretty good, logistically all the equipment was there but our forces didn't train that well (thus the impact on morale and fatigue but not protection). I am glad to see one wargame incorporate this feature, there are so many that do not, not because it wasn't possible but because they didn't know how to simulate it correctly...

[X(]Sounds like Flashpoint Germany is going to be a real "gas"[:D][;)]

Robert:

Re: the WP forces, yeah we were told the Sovs trained with low-level chem agents in tactical/operational exercises for realism, and they also had much better collective protection in their vehicles than the US (M113s had none, BMPs do). Besides since they were the ones expected to shoot CW, they knew where the contaminated areas were, what was in them, and how long they had to stay in protective status before they could drop the suits and attack the dumb US forces still in MOPP gear. OTOH, their protective masks had very poor commo, so they had to rely on pre-planned instructions and could not easily modify the march orders on the move.

I like your idea about units failing a morale check and getting "pinned", just not sure that I can contribute to the numbers game (being kinda unfamiliar in the wargaming design community). If I had to guess at your methodology, I might even increase the numbers. They definitely should be cumulative, that is to say, lots of doctrine about having chemical minefields or laying chem on top of conventional minefields. In my experience in training exercises, US troops freeze up when they see the "chem contaminated area" signs put out in the field. Takes em 15-25 minutes to figure out if there is contamination, what it is, and to move out while maintaining tactical status. Rad contamination should be less of a "pin" than chem since they got dosimeters and rad meters, as long as they don't ping too high, you just walk through and dust off the suits later. Of course Bio you just don't know what's there and it won't kill/disable you for a few days anyway.

The biggest factor in crossing a chem contaminated area is the unit's experience. Some of them have it down cold and breeze through, have good plans and equipment and practice it. Others figger the commander will never test them on NBC defense and ignore the training, then when they get tested they just are really horrible. I had this one squad, they were in full protective gear and ran into some concertina, they were just about helpless getting past it. I laughed myself sick.

Thanks for the reply. Higher training levels in Flashpoint do indeed mitigate the effect described here, and yes the deterants are cumulative. I'll leave it as is for now and see how it goes over.

Thanks, Rob.