Nuclear Weapons

[Foggy]

I've just gone thru the instructions that came from Take2
w/ the cd. I can only find limited info on nukes, wondering
how you employ them:argh:

[JMS]

You blow things apart with them.

See: http://www.tdg.nu/cgi-bin/YaBB/YaBB.pl?board=TOAW;action=display;num=1057410663

[Siberian HEAT]

The best use of nukes is to create a mess for the attacking side and slow down his movement to a crawl. While direct hits with nukes usually yield minimal loss of equipment (a lot less than you would hope)...the fallout rains all over the place and acts as molasses which is very difficult to penetrate. Sometimes it slows them down to one hex per turn!

See my prior thread re: Netherlands to see what I am talking about :D

Using Nukes (http://www.warfarehq.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2836)

[MikeJ]

In addition to the aforementioned benfeits of slowing down movement and supply in an area they also have a readiness (and maybe supply.. I forget) hit associated with them.

Or maybe that's chemical weapons... not sure since the manual says chemical weapons cause major drops in readiness yet I've never been able to figure out how to deploy them.

[Mantis]

I believe certain arty (and arty capable) units just start having the extra carnage added in. I've yet to use any of the toys...

Hey, speaking of WMDs... The following link is the result of typing Weapons of mass destruction into google.ca and hitting the "I'm feeling Lucky" button.

WMD (http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/)

[Foggy]

Continuing on WMD, are chemical weapons modeled the same
as nuclear weapons? In certain scenarios, chemicals would seem to the choice per climate/target density. Does ACOW allow
either nuclear weapons or chemicals first, treating them both as
WMD?:hog:

[Foggy]

Has anyone used chemical weapons in a scen before? I'm
asking if anyone has used Nato's chemical response in any
scenario? US GR 3 is considered vastly superior and easier to
deliver than the SSR's sarin etc. Would damage modeling be
similar to nukes?:dead:

[a white rabbit]

Originally posted by Foggy
Has anyone used chemical weapons in a scen before? I'm
asking if anyone has used Nato's chemical response in any
scenario?

..nope, they're always too heavy on vp loss, and no-one's given us a "Nuclear Winter" scen yet..,

[Dan Neely]

Tried them in a hotseat test once, they made a noticable difference, but that version of the scenario was too imbalanced for any meaningful gains. It was set 1988 and it felt like I got a 10-15% combat edge as a result.

[MikeJ]

If mantis is correct in that certain artillery pieces will just employ them automatically, then I have used them in a few scenarios. Korea 50-51 and Fulda 55 for example. Of course, if I was using them I never knew it :).

[Foggy]

Any modeling been done on the difference in the two types of
chemical weapons? I'm assuming that persistant weapons would be treated like fallout, but what about non persistant agents
like the US GR 3 that are designed to permeate SSR chemical suits?:dead:

[Fading Captain]

I think that the game could model nukes better. The main problem that I see is that they are not powerful enough!

That aside, in my experience they create the most casualities on soft targets. So I look for nonarmored units when I want to do a wee bit of atom splittin'.

:gas:

[JeremyMacDonald]

Originally posted by Foggy
Any modeling been done on the difference in the two types of
chemical weapons? I'm assuming that persistant weapons would be treated like fallout, but what about non persistant agents
like the US GR 3 that are designed to permeate SSR chemical suits?:dead:
I had experience with them in a hypothetical at one point. Units...especially artillery just seem to start using them and its kind of like a 15% or so increase to damage but it wears off quite a bit as time goes on. So far as I know there is no modeling of different kinds of chemicals.

In fact this system seems to more or less presume that 1914 chemical attacks are the same as 1999 ones.

Though I get the impression that its well done in a general sort of way and am not at all sure that I would want complicated chemical weapon effects. Seems like more detail then really neccisary.

[Foggy]

Sorry about the delayed response, Braunschweig attack planning is taking it's toll. Can a grognard please tell me the weapon effects are not the same ie 1914/1990's? There's a big!
difference between persistant/non persistant chemical weapons
depending on choice of target. Airborne & airmobile targets are
extremely vunerable to non/p weapons, while ports/supply points
can be at the least slowed down to a crawl. If you have ever
been in a MOPP 4/NATO eval, you'd understand:D

[JeremyMacDonald]

Originally posted by Foggy
Sorry about the delayed response, Braunschweig attack planning is taking it's toll. Can a grognard please tell me the weapon effects are not the same ie 1914/1990's? There's a big!
difference between persistant/non persistant chemical weapons
depending on choice of target. Airborne & airmobile targets are
extremely vunerable to non/p weapons, while ports/supply points
can be at the least slowed down to a crawl. If you have ever
been in a MOPP 4/NATO eval, you'd understand:D
There is no difference between persistant and non persistant. Its mostly just like a shock bonus that kind of wears off as time goes on.

There is no difference between 1914 and 1999 chemical weapons except that in 1914 your only going to have the limited range of their artillery to employ the chemical weapons while in 1999 you will have SSMs.

So far as I can tell besides some increase in something like a shock effect the big hit to the defenders is in readiness levels.

[Foggy]

I can see my point is not getting across! NATO to my best knowledge has never put chemical weapons in SSM's. Persistant
weapons are delivered via spray tanks onto specific targets:argh:
ie supply points, bridge crossings! etc. Non/p weapons are chosen for troops w/little equipment or cover (ie airborne/airmobile!) I'm now guessing that a lot of the modeling done for at least modern chemical weapons is inaccurate. Tube
artillery in a modern battlefield would be the last choice of delivery!
:hurt:

[JeremyMacDonald]

Originally posted by Foggy
I can see my point is not getting across! NATO to my best knowledge has never put chemical weapons in SSM's. Persistant
weapons are delivered via spray tanks onto specific targets:argh:
ie supply points, bridge crossings! etc. Non/p weapons are chosen for troops w/little equipment or cover (ie airborne/airmobile!) I'm now guessing that a lot of the modeling done for at least modern chemical weapons is inaccurate. Tube
artillery in a modern battlefield would be the last choice of delivery!
:hurt:
Well what is really the issue is whether the difference is significant at the operational level. Nonetheless keep in mind that you can combo this stuff with other effects in the editor. Hence historical chemical weapons have some effect on the frontline forces, especially in regards to their readyness levels and this is probably roughly true with modern usage as well. However modern chemical warfare will also probably play havoc with each sides supply system. That can be modelled by throwing in a hit to each sides supply stockpile. After all its not really otherwise possible to model hits on rear area choke points in TOAW except possibly with nukes...but thats a bit drastic.

[Foggy]

Last time I was allowed to look at this subject in the 8th AF,
the German government expected a factor of 2x-4x, civilian deaths
from chemical weapons vs point SSR (I know misnomer!) nuclear
attacks. The refugee factor alone would stop any current scen I 've seen so far. Even if you allow the Russians to advance over
civilians, NATO expected the local German reserve units not only to hold, but counterattack & advance! (Easy to do when your
neighbors are cold & blue! sorry grunt humor at the time) I'm
afraid the ACOW models don't take into account, not only
the supply options, but the fact that persistant weapons affect
not only operational, but strategic options in dense urban areas!
:dead:

[Alain-James]

Take a look at this, found on the Parallel History Project (thanks Jaugusto!)

Predictions on the results of first WP nuclear strike during a 1965 WP war-game.

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/php/documents/collection_4/docs/14_part6.htm

As you can see it, expected military losses inflicted to NATO units were not much higher than the TOAW engine's own simulating...

AJ

[sstevens]

Originally posted by Siberian HEAT
The best use of nukes is to create a mess for the attacking side and slow down his movement to a crawl. While direct hits with nukes usually yield minimal loss of equipment (a lot less than you would hope)...the fallout rains all over the place and acts as molasses which is very difficult to penetrate. Sometimes it slows them down to one hex per turn!

See my prior thread re: Netherlands to see what I am talking about :D

Using Nukes (http://www.warfarehq.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2836)


Thank you for pointing me to that very informative thread. The screenshot is a dramatic case in point that ACoW may overdo the effects of nuclear weapons a bit, particularly high-yield weapons.

You might have had a chance to read the thread on TDG that JMS referred to above. I posted some calculations on the effects of nuclear weapons that seem to bolster my hypothesis. For those reasons & to account for the fact that some nuclear attacks in ACoW will be air-bursts (with little or no fallout), I have decided to attenuate the yields of the more powerful (> 1MT) nuclear weapons in my upcoming Berlin Crisis 1961 scenario (am using the BioEd freeware utility to do this). Much of this is pure speculation of course, but it may make the scenario more playable if once the nukes go off (and they will) the fallout zones aren't quite as extensive as depicted in the screenshot in Siberian HEAT's post.

Opinions, reactions...

[sstevens]

Originally posted by Alain-James
Take a look at this, found on the Parallel History Project (thanks Jaugusto!)

Predictions on the results of first WP nuclear strike during a 1965 WP war-game.

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/php/documents/collection_4/docs/14_part6.htm

As you can see it, expected military losses inflicted to NATO units were not much higher than the TOAW engine's own simulating...

AJ


That site is an excellent resource for de-classified documents about the Cold War - thank you for posting it Alain-James.

I've looked into this issue in some detail. You can see the results of my research & experimentation with ACoW in the TDG thread JMS posted above. My conclusion was that ACoW somewhat overstates the thermal, blast, and prompt radiation effects of high-yield (> 1MT) nuclear weapons. Effects at lower yields (particularly in the 10-100kT range) do seem to correspond to what is documented in the open literature.

[Alain-James]

You're welcome Steven :)