Has there been any sort of confirmation that they will be in ? I did a quick search on the forum and turned up with nothing.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Hope so... But these cemical weapons should be used only 20th century, bacause...
1. Think about it! American civil war with gas ammunition!
2. It is too complicated to guess how would gas react...
3. If part 1. will happen: What about international laws???
Historically it is my that chemical weapons will be in game.
1. Think about it! American civil war with gas ammunition!
2. It is too complicated to guess how would gas react...
3. If part 1. will happen: What about international laws???
Historically it is my that chemical weapons will be in game.
I think that chemichal weapons are part of human history, but only since 20th century, and that is what i think paradox will do 
I don't know whether chemical weapons had all that great an effect on warfare. They could be left out really.
They didn't really have too great of an effect to be implemented into the game mechanics.
Chemical weapons had no effect on warfare?
Chemical weapons accounted for close to 1 300 000 casualties in ww1. That is about 15% of total casualties.
If you want examples on its impact on warfare at the time, take a look at 2nd Ypres (April 1915) where the Germans used chlorine gas for the first time. The two defending divisions (French Colonial troops) left their positions and ran, leaving a 5 mile gap in the allied lines. Due to some very questionable leadership desicions on the German side, the German did not exploit this gap, instead a halt order was issued after 2 miles of advance. During the night British and Canadian troops from neighbouring units filled the hole in the line and the German attack was contained.
Chemical weapons accounted for close to 1 300 000 casualties in ww1. That is about 15% of total casualties.
If you want examples on its impact on warfare at the time, take a look at 2nd Ypres (April 1915) where the Germans used chlorine gas for the first time. The two defending divisions (French Colonial troops) left their positions and ran, leaving a 5 mile gap in the allied lines. Due to some very questionable leadership desicions on the German side, the German did not exploit this gap, instead a halt order was issued after 2 miles of advance. During the night British and Canadian troops from neighbouring units filled the hole in the line and the German attack was contained.
Last edited:
Then they didn't have that much of an effect did they.
Seriously, yes, they caused casualties, but did they really affect the stategic situation at all? I suspect that massed artillery and the new fangled maching gun had greater effects.
Of cource the use of gas affected warfare at the time, and thus changed/influenced the strategic situation. If you want we can argue what was more important, artillery or machine guns, but I think that would be beside the point.
Actually near the end of the ACW some trench warfare was starting, if troops start digging in earlier I'm sure somebody would start thinking of ways to get them out.
What was the chemistry of the time like? Even if they couldn't do modern gas some ancient recipes were quite effective and might have been rediscovered.
There are few published studies of chemical warfare in WWI, and most of them focus on the early experiments.
CW actually had little to very little real influence on the war until mid-1917 - although the British Gas Brigade accounted for a substantial proportion of German losses during the Somme battle, the night cloud gas attacks it conducted were never coordinated with regular operations.
The reason for this was it took a long time for the Germans to realize that the concentrations required to get measurable effects were MUCH higher than they thought initially, the British took a long time to realize how effective their attacks were, and before they developped the Livens projector those attacks took a lot of effort to conduct and disrupted operations in the sectors they were conducted in. As to the French, they similarly took a long time to realize prussic acid, as lethal as it theoretically was, was much too volatile to bring results in the field.
By the end of 1917 however, the Germans had the very effective mustard persistent, which while not as lethal as phosgene was much more effective at causing casualties.
During the German 1918 spring offensive and therafter, more than half of the shells fired by the Germans were chemical shells.
Gas was used extensively - and efficiently - by both sides in 1918 for battlefield interdiction and artillery suppression.
Chemical warfare made such an impression on the new US Army that after the war it created a chemical warfare branch that was on an equal footing with infantry, artillery, etc...
The best book I've yet to read on CW during WWI is Lefebure's Riddle of the Rhine
It can be downloaded for free on Guttemberg there
CW actually had little to very little real influence on the war until mid-1917 - although the British Gas Brigade accounted for a substantial proportion of German losses during the Somme battle, the night cloud gas attacks it conducted were never coordinated with regular operations.
The reason for this was it took a long time for the Germans to realize that the concentrations required to get measurable effects were MUCH higher than they thought initially, the British took a long time to realize how effective their attacks were, and before they developped the Livens projector those attacks took a lot of effort to conduct and disrupted operations in the sectors they were conducted in. As to the French, they similarly took a long time to realize prussic acid, as lethal as it theoretically was, was much too volatile to bring results in the field.
By the end of 1917 however, the Germans had the very effective mustard persistent, which while not as lethal as phosgene was much more effective at causing casualties.
During the German 1918 spring offensive and therafter, more than half of the shells fired by the Germans were chemical shells.
Gas was used extensively - and efficiently - by both sides in 1918 for battlefield interdiction and artillery suppression.
Chemical warfare made such an impression on the new US Army that after the war it created a chemical warfare branch that was on an equal footing with infantry, artillery, etc...
The best book I've yet to read on CW during WWI is Lefebure's Riddle of the Rhine
It can be downloaded for free on Guttemberg there
Ask yourselves what would a game without chemical weapons look like - probably much like a game with chemical weapons. What would be added by including them?
While Gassing was a weapon feared more than others, the introduction of the Gas mask, which while not effective against the Mustard Gas, but effective against both Chlorine and Phosgene. Meant that only 3% of the soldiers gassed actually died, and vast majority returened to service.
Still I would like them to be in, if the opposite army lacked gas mask they would take serious casualities from it, and it would probably be very devastating on the morale.
But these are tactical considerations, not operational or strategic, and therefore outside the scope of the player's actions.
On a strategic level, chemical weapons had three distinct effects:
1) first use on an unprepared opponent gives a strong temporary advantage. Allied resistance simply evaporated in the early stages of 2nd Ypres, and it was only the Germans' unpreparedness and lack of reserves that prevented them from breaking through.
2) I don't have a detailed KIA/WIA/returned breakdown but CW accounted for 32% of the AEF's WIA, so gas (mostly mustard) probably increased overall casualties by about 20%. Gas increases the pace of attrition.
3) If a side enjoys a marked lead in CW, it gains a tactical advantage (this requires tech lead + doctrine lead).
But still, there's a reason to have them then, as a brigade perhaps, or as a tech tree.