Chemical and Biological warfare.

[Col_Travis]

if chemcal and biolagical attacks are so weak why did i have go through NBCD training and get perper spraid
yes using chems or biolagical wepons during a battel is foolish but you could say the same for nukes shold we remove them to. Chemical/bilolgail wepons are a stratgic wepon same has a nuke.

The Soviet's "4-Days To The Rhein" was not a strategic battle plan, it was tactical and included the full array of their arsenal including NBC weapons and the Bundeswehr's counter also included everything they had including NBC weapons.

[SoB]

wether the red or the germans what to use there NBC wepons for tactical ressons does not change what they are any case your statment give even more suport for inclueding Chemical/biolagical wepons

[Lea]

The Soviet's "4-Days To The Rhein"

Seven days.

why did i have go through NBCD training

In order that opposite military forces will not have desire to use NBC weapons against you.

[Col_Travis]

The Soviet's "4-Days To The Rhein"

Seven days.

why did i have go through NBCD training

In order that opposite military forces will not have desire to use NBC weapons against you.

Sorry Lea, you are correct! It is Seven-Days.

[Col_Travis]

wether the red or the germans what to use there NBC wepons for tactical ressons does not change what they are any case your statment give even more suport for inclueding Chemical/biolagical wepons

South Africa planed on using there toss-bombs for tactical reasons to achieve a calculated strategic resault.

[way2co0l]

Either way, I still have to agree with tkobo in the fact that adding them into the game will require quite a few additions added on as well in order for their implementation to make sense. To be perfectly honest though I'm not really sure if the simple historical plausibility for their use is sufficient enough to account for the (I'd assume) tremendous amount of developer time and effort to properly implement it as I really don't see it being a major aspect of gameplay. I personally feel that developer focus would be better off on other core aspects to the game that would either be used more (interface and usability improvements) or allow more versatility through modability. Quite simply, outside of nukes, I really see the other aspects as being more "cute" or fluffy content without much actual bearing on the game so it's not really high up on my wishlist.

[Col_Travis]

Then BG might as well remove most recce units, after all many were built specificly for NBC warfare and they can reduce the cost of all Soviet, American and Western European Armoured/Mechanized units by delleting there NBC protection.

[dust off]

My 2 cents

Chemical weapons were standard Soviet doctrine for attack on Western Germany. Several flavours could be expeced including nerve and blister agent.
The mix could be varied to acheive longer or shorter persitency. Longer would likely be used as a limited area denial tool or to degrade troops. Short persistency to get the defenders to mask up before a Soviet attack just as it was cleared. A small slight increas in artillery or ground attack values and drop in effiency for the defenders would cover most of it.

Tactical Nukes. DAR effect definately needs to be reduced for NATO especially if W'Pact has used them or chemical weapons, or is breaking through the Fulda Gap.

Bilogical. No need to model thier combat use. Much more likely to be used by KGB either on VIP targets.

Overrall, IMO Chemical needs in and Tactical Nukes for Nato need the DAR and MAR tweaked to make their use viable.

[tkobo]

The whole nuke "defection" effect should be removed,it simply makes very little sense.And even less in that era.
And yes ,the rest of the nuke reaction system should be redone also.

[SoB]

i agree with tkobo the relashenships concerning nuks should change. But there should stil be a system in place. my sugestin is that if you launch a icbm every nation should know you have launched a icbm, they will not know the target only that you launched. The AI must responed to a WMD attake with WMD attakes of it own, meaning launching a icbm could mean all nation that few you has a threat will respond against you and your allies. Thus we would have recreat MAD.

The AI should see difrent levels of icbm and should not launch a icbm barrge because there enmay is droping agent orange.

[Lea]

In USSR chemical weapon was considered as operational-tactical weapon with prospect of next step forward.
When we talk about chemical weapon issues we should talk about Vietnam.

Chemical weapons were standard Soviet doctrine for attack on Western Germany.

Do you have sources of that information?

[dust off]

In USSR chemical weapon was considered as operational-tactical weapon with prospect of next step forward.
When we talk about chemical weapon issues we should talk about Vietnam.

Chemical weapons were standard Soviet doctrine for attack on Western Germany.

Do you have sources of that information?

Bloody good question because I had to have a good think about this. The thought of "hmm what are my sources...hmm.. have I been the victim of indoctrination." went through my head. There are sources, and good doses of inferring as was much of the intel on Soviet stuff was then. Can't put my finger on them now but wil have a dig.

Do you have a different idea or sources on it?

[Lea]

Do you have a different idea or sources on it?

I've never heard of it.

For example I describe Strategic Operational Staff Command Exercise 'Zapad-77'.

"Western" secretly deployed 85 divisions, 3700 warplanes and 450 battleships. They have achieved operational superiority because "Eastern" forces was dispersed. "Western" have planned the capture the East Germany, and also partially Czechoslovakia and Poland by means sudden powerful slicing strikes. In the future they were going to raise the forces, to crush "eastern" reserves and go to the USSR borders.
"Eastern" had identified the preparation to the invasion and began to deploy forces. They planned to repel attacks, to recapture the initiative and finally defeat the enemy on its territory with the application of nuclear weapon.
On the 8th day the "Eastern" repelled the attacks and began an offensive in the direction of Hamburg, Hanover, Frankfurt and Munich. "Western" decided to make a massive nuclear strike. Having discovered this, "Eastern" organized a preemptive nuclear strike. As a result both nuclear strikes were delivered almost simultaneously. Each side lost about a quarter of a million personnel, tens of divisions. Together was made over a thousand tactical/operative nuclear shots, extensive areas of destruction, contamination and fires were formed. However "Eastern" had intended to continue the offensive...

[Hundane]

http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_000028 ... 284028.pdf

[Lea]

http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_000028 ... 284028.pdf

Indeed CIA, pretty illusions...

We are agree that:
The Soviets have large chemical stockpile, at least several times as large as that of the Union States

Almost equal, in fact (31.5 and 30-40 kt in 1970-1987 years)

The Soviets... as demonstrated by their use of such weapons both in Afghanistan and Southeast Asia...

Blatant lie and propaganda during Afghan conflict. Look who's talking about use of chemical weapon in Southeast Asia!

And unhoped feasible conclusion:

In sum, we find little evidence during last decade of Soviet planning and training for the use of chemical weapon against NATO.

So there is no plans of chemical offense against Germany, only theoretical capability...