No mustard gas?

[Songbird]

During the german invasion of poland, polish defenders used gas bombs on german soldiers and killed quite a few. Now the german leadership decided against reatalition out of fear that the united kingdom would gas german cities.

Since this game is pretty ahistorical the second it starts why not use gas? All parties in WW2 had plans for it.

You could also create a whole mechanic around chemical warfare.

[NED STARK]

Incomming Chemical Warefare DLC

[pavig]

Mechanically chemical weapons and CAS are pretty similar. How is it different gameplay wise dropping gas bombs from a plane and dropping explosive bombs from a plane?

[Songbird]

Originally posted by pavig:

Mechanically chemical weapons and CAS are pretty similar. How is it different gameplay wise dropping gas bombs from a plane and dropping explosive bombs from a plane?

The first requires gas masks to counter them, the latter an extra pair of limbs. Gas is obviously deadlier. The standard bombs against infantry were 50-100lbs, enough to blast soldiers to pieces in a small radius and probably knock a couple others over. Gas would flat out kill everything, not only close to the impact and dissipate within minutes to make it safe again for the user. You also avoid huge bombing craters or the destruction of bridges.

[ProCynic]

I think Paradox have said there would be no Chemical and Biological weapons in the game

[pavig]

Originally posted by Songbird:

Originally posted by pavig:

Mechanically chemical weapons and CAS are pretty similar. How is it different gameplay wise dropping gas bombs from a plane and dropping explosive bombs from a plane?

The first requires gas masks to counter them, the latter an extra pair of limbs. Gas is obviously deadlier. The standard bombs against infantry were 50-100lbs, enough to blast soldiers to pieces in a small radius and probably knock a couple others over. Gas would flat out kill everything, not only close to the impact and dissipate within minutes to make it safe again for the user. You also avoid huge bombing craters or the destruction of bridges.

I understand the differences IRL, but in terms of gameplay mechanics there isn't a lot of difference. You don't choose what ordinance your commanders use, simply heir mission type. Infantry, support equipment etc are entirely abstracted, though into levels which provide survival or attack bonuses. CAS planes and bomber research doesn't go down to actual ordinance, and even artillery research trees steer clear of absolutely specifying what type of shells are used.

So yeah you could implement chemical weapons easily with a bit of flavor text and research tree tweaking, but it wouldn't add any meaningful changes to gameplay over the systems which are already in place.

[Unexpected]

italy also used chemical weapons when they invaded ethiopia, so chemical warfare was nothing new for that era

[comsubpac]

Originally posted by Songbird:

During the german invasion of poland, polish defenders used gas bombs on german soldiers and killed quite a few. Now the german leadership decided against reatalition out of fear that the united kingdom would gas german cities.

Since this game is pretty ahistorical the second it starts why not use gas? All parties in WW2 had plans for it.

You could also create a whole mechanic around chemical warfare.

Actually it as an accident when old grenades were used to blow up a bridge. As far as I know nobody was killed and the polish military apologized immediately.

The actual reason why both sides decided not to use gas was a misunderstanding and bad intelligence work. They thought the other side had much much more poison gas and would easily produce much more.
From a military point of view poison gas had lost much of it effectiveness once gas masks were available. Additionally WW2 didn't have stalemates with large trench systems. Against a mobile enemy who can just avoid the gas it's mostly ineffective.

The often claimed: "Hitler feared poison gas after WW1 and wanted to prevent civilian losses" is just wrong. He didn't really care how many people died and he was ready to use everything that promised an advantage.

[Unexpected]

Originally posted by comsubpac:

Originally posted by Songbird:

During the german invasion of poland, polish defenders used gas bombs on german soldiers and killed quite a few. Now the german leadership decided against reatalition out of fear that the united kingdom would gas german cities.

Since this game is pretty ahistorical the second it starts why not use gas? All parties in WW2 had plans for it.

You could also create a whole mechanic around chemical warfare.

Actually it as an accident when old grenades were used to blow up a bridge. As far as I know nobody was killed and the polish military apologized immediately.

The actual reason why both sides decided not to use gas was a misunderstanding and bad intelligence work. They thought the other side had much much more poison gas and would easily produce much more.
From a military point of view poison gas had lost much of it effectiveness once gas masks were available. Additionally WW2 didn't have stalemates with large trench systems. Against a mobile enemy who can just avoid the gas it's mostly ineffective.

The often claimed: "Hitler feared poison gas after WW1 and wanted to prevent civilian losses" is just wrong. He didn't really care how many people died and he was ready to use everything that promised an advantage.

if hitler was ready to use anything, why didn't he use chemical weapons against anybody?

[Znie]

Originally posted by James P:

I think Paradox have said there would be no Chemical and Biological weapons in the game

But genocide and the extermination of entire peoples is a'okay if you're a mongol.. and it's ckII

Originally posted by Unexpected Jihad:

Originally posted by comsubpac:

Actually it as an accident when old grenades were used to blow up a bridge. As far as I know nobody was killed and the polish military apologized immediately.

The actual reason why both sides decided not to use gas was a misunderstanding and bad intelligence work. They thought the other side had much much more poison gas and would easily produce much more.
From a military point of view poison gas had lost much of it effectiveness once gas masks were available. Additionally WW2 didn't have stalemates with large trench systems. Against a mobile enemy who can just avoid the gas it's mostly ineffective.

The often claimed: "Hitler feared poison gas after WW1 and wanted to prevent civilian losses" is just wrong. He didn't really care how many people died and he was ready to use everything that promised an advantage.

if hitler was ready to use anything, why didn't he use chemical weapons against anybody?

Cause Hitler wasn't prepared to use literally anything against anyone.

Hitler had lived through the war, he had been hospitialized because of a gas attack, there a plenty of international along with personal reasons why he'd be opposed to it.

Espcially since by the end of the war gas attacks were only ever so succesful.

I mean the guy was opposed to bombing British citites untill the British dropped bombs on Berlin. He was a man dominated by emotions, and it shines through even in his planning of the war.

[comsubpac]

Originally posted by Unexpected Jihad:

Originally posted by comsubpac:

Actually it as an accident when old grenades were used to blow up a bridge. As far as I know nobody was killed and the polish military apologized immediately.

The actual reason why both sides decided not to use gas was a misunderstanding and bad intelligence work. They thought the other side had much much more poison gas and would easily produce much more.
From a military point of view poison gas had lost much of it effectiveness once gas masks were available. Additionally WW2 didn't have stalemates with large trench systems. Against a mobile enemy who can just avoid the gas it's mostly ineffective.

The often claimed: "Hitler feared poison gas after WW1 and wanted to prevent civilian losses" is just wrong. He didn't really care how many people died and he was ready to use everything that promised an advantage.

if hitler was ready to use anything, why didn't he use chemical weapons against anybody?

Because his own inteligence service told him that the allies had several time more poison gas then germany.

[Znie]

Originally posted by comsubpac:

Originally posted by Unexpected Jihad:

if hitler was ready to use anything, why didn't he use chemical weapons against anybody?

Because his own inteligence service told him that the allies had several time more poison gas then germany.

People were very hesitant about it too. Many of the generals didn't even see a purpose for it on both sides.

When Churchill pushed for the use of posion gas he was more or less told to ♥♥♥♥ off by the American high command.

[Aedile]

Originally posted by Unexpected Jihad:

italy also used chemical weapons when they invaded ethiopia, so chemical warfare was nothing new for that era

Well, CW was quite a common thing in WWI so yeah hardly new.
Nerve agents on the other hand were pretty new for the era. (mustard gas was nothing special for the time)

[mastaflex]

Originally posted by pavig:

I understand the differences IRL, but in terms of gameplay mechanics there isn't a lot of difference. You don't choose what ordinance your commanders use, simply heir mission type. Infantry, support equipment etc are entirely abstracted, though into levels which provide survival or attack bonuses. CAS planes and bomber research doesn't go down to actual ordinance, and even artillery research trees steer clear of absolutely specifying what type of shells are used.

So yeah you could implement chemical weapons easily with a bit of flavor text and research tree tweaking, but it wouldn't add any meaningful changes to gameplay over the systems which are already in place.

This and you can consider the production of support equipment includes gas masks, etc.

[Aedile]

Originally posted by mastaflex:

This and you can consider the production of support equipment includes gas masks, etc.

There is a gas mask focus in UK tree, and IG Farben is actually in game. So there is a little bit of vague references and stuff. I suppose should be pretty clear why IG Farben role has been left as vague as possible...

Originally posted by mastaflex:

The often claimed: "Hitler feared poison gas after WW1 and wanted to prevent civilian losses" is just wrong. He didn't really care how many people died and he was ready to use everything that promised an advantage.

It isn't. He wanted to prevent civilian losses on his side ;)
And well, the horses...

Both sides thought the other had had 'more' gas (or more like Germans thought allies also have nerve agents). Germany was a little challenged in the rubber department, so they supposedly didn't want to start a trend.

[A Bat From Wuhan]

Gas weapons were pretty much the "Nukes" of their days, in the sense that everyone had a huge stockpile of them, but for the most part they were only there to keep the other side from using their stockpiles, pretty much an early form of "Mutually Assured Destruction" (except a lot less destructive compared to Nuclear MAD).

The only country that used Chemical weapons regularly (and even then, not too often) where the Japanese, and that was only against the Chinese who could not retaliate, they never planned on using them against any Western Power (except maybe on Wake Island, but thats iffy).

So gas was either kept for a retaliatory strike if the enemy used gas first, or as a last ditch effort. The British were fully prepared and planned on using Chemical Weapons against an invading German force, and it's possible the Japanese would have used Chemical weapons if the Allies were forced to invade the Home Islands (even then they might not have, cause they had such a small ammount, its use wouldnt be worth the retaliation of American gas Attacks).