Has there been any mention of chemical weapon development? I have seen that the Nuclear option may become available at some point in the tech tree, but are chemical weapons there as well. Please, someone help me out.
-
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.
Chemical weapons aren't in because of the controversy surrounding them, I believe.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go nuke hiroshima and nagasaki.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go nuke hiroshima and nagasaki.
Originally posted by Detroit Rock
Has there been any mention of chemical weapon development? I have seen that the Nuclear option may become available at some point in the tech tree, but are chemical weapons there as well. Please, someone help me out.
Even though the Italians used gas in Africa....it won't be used because of certain associations I am sure...plus that was the only time it was used on a Military scale.
Re: Re: Nuclear, chemical weapons.
I just watched a show on the History Channel about Japanese chemical development in China and its use against the Chinese. I think it would be an important, if somewhat disturbing, development in the game.
I just watched a show on the History Channel about Japanese chemical development in China and its use against the Chinese. I think it would be an important, if somewhat disturbing, development in the game.
Too contoversial, I'm sure. I think all forms of WMD should cause outcry along with their military effects, as the Japanese widespread use of chemical and biological agents caused it to be isolated from all the world powers minus the Axis nations.
edit: the stickied thread says talking bout chems is a no-no. Better get this closed.
edit: the stickied thread says talking bout chems is a no-no. Better get this closed.
Last edited:
I think I just drowned in your sarcasm :-D
Speaking of which - is fire (napalm) bombing in the game?
I try. It's not. But you can use strategic bombers, so you're basically doing the same thing.
I thought I saw something about firebombs and Napalm in one of the FAQ's... lemme look.
Found it. (Under heavy aircraft tech FAQ.)
Incendiary Bombs
type = strategic_attack which = strategic_bomber when = now value = 2
Napalm Bombs
type = tactical_attack which = tactical_bomber when = now value = 1
Found it. (Under heavy aircraft tech FAQ.)
Incendiary Bombs
type = strategic_attack which = strategic_bomber when = now value = 2
Napalm Bombs
type = tactical_attack which = tactical_bomber when = now value = 1
There are a number of reasons why they aren't in the game - I'm just guessing, but... - even if they were used in Ethiopia by the Italians, in China by the Japanese and the British planned to use them against the Germans should they invade Britain.
Apart from PC motives, the main reasons must be they don't have much of an impact at HOI's scale and they weren't used in WWII.
The main effect of CW is to slow down operations and increase casualties. CW is effective only against poorly protected troops and WWII armies took the threat very seriously and were well prepared. The troops who waded ashore in Normandy on D-Day wore gas-proofed uniforms, for instance.
Against protected troops, non-persistent agents have always proved disappointing, and their extreme sensitivity to weather conditions makes their use difficult to coordinate with other operations. Beyond the first surprise at Ypres in 1915, the only successes in their use were limited to isolated attacks conducted by the British Special Brigade which were made possible only by the fact that the front was extremely static and had zero impact on operations anyway.
The only really useful agent is the (unbelievably) persistent mustard and its derivatives. It isn't extremely lethal but can cause lots of casualties for a LONG time - some heavily dosed areas of the Western Front were still contaminated when WWII broke out.
But, again, against protected troops the actual effects aren't dramatic and protection at the time of WWII had evolved to the stage of protective clothing so even mustard wouldn't have had a great impact.
Balance this against a whole new research tree branch with complex rules to specify the conditions under which first use would be allowed, all this to bump up everybody's casualties by, say, 5% and (maybe) slightly decrease infrastructure in contaminated provinces.
Consider also that even WWI strategic games very seldom have gas rules for the very same reasons.
So why bother in a WWII game?
Apart from PC motives, the main reasons must be they don't have much of an impact at HOI's scale and they weren't used in WWII.
The main effect of CW is to slow down operations and increase casualties. CW is effective only against poorly protected troops and WWII armies took the threat very seriously and were well prepared. The troops who waded ashore in Normandy on D-Day wore gas-proofed uniforms, for instance.
Against protected troops, non-persistent agents have always proved disappointing, and their extreme sensitivity to weather conditions makes their use difficult to coordinate with other operations. Beyond the first surprise at Ypres in 1915, the only successes in their use were limited to isolated attacks conducted by the British Special Brigade which were made possible only by the fact that the front was extremely static and had zero impact on operations anyway.
The only really useful agent is the (unbelievably) persistent mustard and its derivatives. It isn't extremely lethal but can cause lots of casualties for a LONG time - some heavily dosed areas of the Western Front were still contaminated when WWII broke out.
But, again, against protected troops the actual effects aren't dramatic and protection at the time of WWII had evolved to the stage of protective clothing so even mustard wouldn't have had a great impact.
Balance this against a whole new research tree branch with complex rules to specify the conditions under which first use would be allowed, all this to bump up everybody's casualties by, say, 5% and (maybe) slightly decrease infrastructure in contaminated provinces.
Consider also that even WWI strategic games very seldom have gas rules for the very same reasons.
So why bother in a WWII game?
I was under the impression that Hitler was opposed to the use of chemical agents because he feared the use of it against the German popluation, also I imagine his own experinces in WWI made a lasting impression. The newer developed chemical weapon, nerve, would have possibly produced interesting results. On the allied side the use of chemical would have slowed the german advances in 1939, 1940.