What about chemical weapons?

SPWaW is a tactical squad-level World War II game on single platoon or up to an entire battalion through Europe and the Pacific (1939 to 1945).

Moderator: MOD_SPWaW

Post Reply
Cicero
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

What about chemical weapons?

Post by Cicero »

I think most countries had them during WW2 and, although they were never used, it would be interesting to see them in spw@w ver 7.

would this be possible?
I would be interested to hear peoples views on the subject.

....I will resist the opportunity to suggest nuclear weapons available in the late war. Even in spw@w we need some arms control ;)

[ July 10, 2001: Message edited by: Cicero ]

[ July 10, 2001: Message edited by: Cicero ]
Colonel von Blitz
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Espoo, Finland

Post by Colonel von Blitz »

How about units that "prevent" retreating or boost morale? Russian politruks or highlander bagpipes-units would be cool... :D :D :D just kiddin'

Colonel von Blitz
--Light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear bright until you hear them speak--
Gordon_freeman
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon May 14, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Deutschland

Post by Gordon_freeman »

I think using mass destruction weapons like gas, Atom bomb's (even so there were'nt many) and massive bomber formations destroy the game! First of all the map is to small for gving the appropriate impact of such weapons (heh, what about using the map size of SP:WW2, hehehehehe). Second: It will surly destroy the fun of the game. I like to see u play the German side getting hammered by a maasive bombing raid of the "mighty" eigth like it happened to the Panzer Lehr in the Normandy. What is left will be a couple of tanks and few infantry units. But if u want to play a game u should play Western Front or Second Front, these are the stratigical games where such a weapon would influence the outcome.
So, conclusion is: Because this weapons are used for a stratigical use (or planed for, as it was with gas) the impact on the game would be devastating. Imagine your core units steaming away on turn 2 while the opposit player has called an atomic airstrike (not mentioning that his own units are also in the Nirvana).
Gas is a slightly different matter, so I doubt that it would have that hard impact. Assuming that all units carry their gasmasks (as they should and I do not discuss wether there were enough or not, like the Soviet forces) what would happen appart from reduced visability? Not much I simply assume.
So, on the game itself these weapons wouldnt really work (appart that a lot of countries would'nt either have the possebility to use them, like gas, or would use biological weapons like UK or Japan) and the outcome also apllies later, for instance with gas or biological weapons.
Dedas
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Ucklum, Sweden
Contact:

Post by Dedas »

Well spoken George!

You cant just add massdestruction weapons just like that, It wouldn't be right.
You mentioned that the scale is to small and I totally agree. What is the fun of seeing all your units blow up and you can't do anything about it?
Glory to the brave
Mai Thai
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Post by Mai Thai »

to: Cicero

afaik chemical weapons were used by Japaneese army against Chineese before or at the beginning of wwII.
If you really want to use it i suggest to play the wwI mod for civilization II, you have plenty of chemical warfare and fancy units (like zeppelin) to play with.
bye
--

occupy it, administer it, exploit it
User avatar
KG Erwin
Posts: 8366
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cross Lanes WV USA

Post by KG Erwin »

I'm with you guys. No chemical weapons for SPWaW. Who wants clouds of yellowish mustard gas and phosgene obscuring the battlefield? Even Hitler was opposed to their use. Can you imagine how much worse the eastern front could've been with Katyushas and Nebelwefers delivering these things? I shudder at the thought. :eek:
Image
RolandRahn_MatrixForum
Posts: 433
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Beloit, USA

Post by RolandRahn_MatrixForum »

Originally posted by George aka 2f:

Gas is a slightly different matter, so I doubt that it would have that hard impact. Assuming that all units carry their gasmasks (as they should and I do not discuss wether there were enough or not, like the Soviet forces) what would happen appart from reduced visability? Not much I simply assume.
I agree with you that chemical warfare in SPWAW would most likely a be a disadvantage for the Game.
However, there would be some more effects than reduced visibility:
Protective clothing is cumbersome, and infantry wearing it would exhaust more quickly than without it.
Even if you wear only a gas mask, you won't be able to run as fast as without mask (apart from maybe the first seconds after sarting running).
And the effects depend on the place you are fighting in.
Wearing a protective suit in winter isn't as troublesome as wearing it in the desert.
So it would be necessary to give foot troops in the desert wearing protective suits serious penalties in form of severvely reduced mobility.
Another interesting point would be the use of smoke: Drop one or two rounds of smoke on the enemy to force them putting on their masks and possibly create a panic....

The easiest way to simulate the use of gas would (in my opinion) be achieved by giving the troops a reduced mobility.

Historically, the use of gas was (according to
Wright, Derrick:
The battle for Iwo Jima, p.22;
another hint can be found in
Dunnigan, James F. and Nofi, Albert S.:
The pacific war encyclopedia, p. 297)
considered by the US for the battle of Iwo Jima. They thought about the possibility to use gas shells during the pre-invasion bombardment.
This could be simulated by placing less foot troops during the scenario design.

For the invasion of Japan, the US considered the tactical use of gas or mustard against caves and bunkers. Some tests were done by the chemical warfare service at dugway proving ground in Utah (Skates, John Ray: The Invasion of Japan, p.94).
For SPWAW, this could be simulated by a new kind of ammo (chemical round?) fired by a CS-Tank at short distance into a cave. If the mouth of the cave would be hit, there should be a high likelyhood that the cave is destroyed).

However, I think that the efforts to realise these things in SPWAW are simply to big and the results would affect only a few possible scenarios, so it is (in my opinon) not worth to realize these things.

And there is one final point related to the possible use of gas in WWII:
The Wehrmacht (and the red army) were only partial motorized, i.e. most of the non-rail land transportation was done by horse or by foot, while the western allies were mostly motorized. Therefore, the german forces would be much more vulnerable to chemical warfare than the western allies (Try to put a horse into a protective suit: I think (but I am not sure) that there were such suits, but it is simply inpractical).

Kind regards,
Roland
monsternav
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon May 21, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Patuxent River MD, USA
Contact:

Post by monsternav »

I have seen film with horse and rider in full MOPP gear, or whatever they called it back then. Very bizarre. I have worn the stuff. Anything over 75F (24C) and you become useless very quickly if you try to do everyday activities outside, much less run around and shoot at people. You would also have to make any type of infantry weapon fire useless past about 100m. It is very hard to shoot anything with that damn mask on.
Craig Homer<br />Semper Fidelis
Jasper
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 8:00 am
Location: I am from Mars
Contact:

Post by Jasper »

Luckily, Matrix works on SP1 if they works on SP3, we did not even play the game.....

"Ok, first I will deploy my 203mm tatical nuclear artillery....hmmm....fire 3 rounds at here and here and her .........Yeah ......Game over".. ???? A.....I win a waste land.........Hmmmm why did I fire my nuclear....."

conclusion of one game, end at first round for the new version of Martix SP3WAW.... :D :D
User avatar
Paul Vebber
Posts: 5342
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Portsmouth RI
Contact:

Post by Paul Vebber »

The fundation is being laid in Combat Leader for the use and defense against gas, and chemical weapons. But not Nukes...
panda124c
Posts: 1517
Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Houston, TX, USA

Post by panda124c »

To simulate the use of Nukes in SPWaW all you need to do is to strike your hard drive with a 10 lb sledge hammer while running the game.
:D

There was an old board game called (I believe) Red Star White Star a US vs USSR tactical game where the author suggested soaking the board in lighter fluid and lighting it to simulate the use of Nukes. :D

The use of gas could be simulated by reducing visibility, reducing movement to one hex every other turn, and having both sides broken. Due the area that would need to be covered to make gas effective you would cover the entire map. :rolleyes:
dfsrusa
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2001 10:00 am
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Contact:

Post by dfsrusa »

There is a fairly indepth side discussion on the use of gas going on in the later pages (6-8) of the thread "Has Nationalism gone out of style" in the Art of Wargaming forum. It specifically mentions that the Germans decided against using gas because they knew that the British would retaliate massively and the Germans had no protection for their essential horses.

I would like to see the option for tactical use of gas in Combat Leader. That game is going to be really Nasty! Can't wait.

Scot Stephenson
Carpe Diem
Cicero
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Post by Cicero »

Well thats a resounding NO then!...But, I will push my point a little further.I can see your points about the scale of the game possibly making it inapropriate thats a very persuasive argument.

Though I was thinking more of the effects of encumbering troops with the difficulties of moving and fighting in gas masks and the effect on morale and suppression, rather than on massive death.

.. The gas shells land and for a couple of turns the enemy is heavily supressed and then both sides suffer reduced movement and spotting for the remainder of the game...something along those lines?

wouldnt that represent the reality of a gas attack? confusion, delay, and then difficulty in fighting effectively?

...I have been bottling up the idea of this since sp1 came out and I want to get it off my chest so I can move on...you are all helping in my therapy :D

[ July 10, 2001: Message edited by: Cicero ]
cward
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2000 8:00 am

Post by cward »

Willie pete, willie pete! I vote for that.. use it as a ranged flamethrower. minmal rounds.. great for smoking out those bunkers..
Grumble
Posts: 413
Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Omaha, NE, USA

Post by Grumble »

wouldnt that represent the reality of a gas attack? confusion, delay, and then difficulty in fighting effectively?
That's essentially it. Despite all the hooplah in Western military circles and the media lately, Chems are in fact the ONLY weapon that there is a 100% defense against. That's by properly using the mask/suit.
As others have said, and I can also testify to, the "ensemble" is tiring to wear and difficult to move around in. If this is true in 2001, then the WW2 stuff must have been awful-and probably not overly effective. In game terms, defending against chems results in suppression-without proper equipment one would expect suppression, casualties, and routing away from the contaminated area.
"...these go up to eleven."
Nigel Tufnel
Post Reply

Return to “Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns”