Biological and Chemical Weapons

[Patroklos]

Hey Everybody,

I am not sure if anyone else has addressed this (actually I am sure someone has I am just to lazy to find the thread), but it seems to me that two of the WMD are missing. While Chem and Bio weapons don't have the reputation for destruction that Nucs do, they are in reality a very important element of the balace of power between nations.

Chem and Bio weapons are the poor man's WMD. Simply put, they create massive devastation without the cost of a nuc. This would make an interesting concept for game play, as a low cost WMD would allow lower ranked players to deter the top players who have the ability to stockpile Nucs. Of course the destructive power of these units should not equal that of a Nuc, as it would make a Nuc unessassary. Here is my idea.

The Chem and Bio units would be tactical missiles, like the Tactical Nuc. This is accurate since these weapons are normally delivered by medium range missiles (i.e. scuds). As for the Bio Missile, it should kill half a target cities population. The Chem Missile should polute the eight squares around the target city. In effect this allows you to effect a "half-ass" nuclear strike on an opponant as the Nuc does both of these things already. Also, since these weapons only inflict a third of the damage of a Tac Nuc, they shoud only take half as much effort to build.

This doesn't negate the Nuc as a single Nuc strike has both these effects plus unit/building damage/destruction. It just gives underdeveloped civs an ability to offset somewhat the awsome nuclear might that the top civs poccess. Plus, the top civs could find these weapons useful alternatives to a nuclear strike. If you weaken a city with Bio/Chem weapons before an invasion, you can conquer the actual working city instead of the empty shell that is left after a Nuc strike.

What do you think?

[Sheik]

Good Idea! Though I think that they should be a little less powerful then what you suggest.

[vmxa1]

Well I am not so sure about them being important in any historical wars. The were used so seldom and with limited impact. Even in WW1 the wind blew the chemicals back upon the host. They seem to have potential for great damage, but have not been used to any real degree. Not to mention it would be a huge negitive for the games public relations.

[Skeeve]

Didn't Civ 2 have the Spy ability "Poison City Water supply" or something? That in effect was chemical warfare. I suppose that this could have been added into Civ3 as one of the espionage functions.

One thing I liked about CTP2 (and there isn't much else) was the eco-terrorist guy riding the Tron motorcycle into the city and obliterating the whole city radius back into a nature preserve.

- Skeeve

[IthacaMike]

Originally posted by Patroklos

The Chem and Bio units would be tactical missiles, like the Tactical Nuc. This is accurate since these weapons are normally delivered by medium range missiles (i.e. scuds). As for the Bio Missile, it should kill half a target cities population. The Chem Missile should polute the eight squares around the target city. In effect this allows you to effect a "half-ass" nuclear strike on an opponant as the Nuc does both of these things already. Also, since these weapons only inflict a third of the damage of a Tac Nuc, they shoud only take half as much effort to build.


What do you think?

Traditionally Chem weapons were delivered by ground spray up-wind of the target (WW I), artillery shells (WW I to now), sprayed from aircraft ("yellow rain" in SE Asia), or sprayed from helos (Saddam). Also Chem weapons have little effect on well equipped modern soldiers other than slowing down operations (its hard to work in the Chem suits and masks). They are rough on the ill equiped. Still, when you pound a city with artillery or aircraft you get population reduction. I'd guess that a Chem attack would only hit population.

It turns out that it is tricky to get Chem weapons to work with ballistic missles. Pop the warhead too high and the agent is too dilute by the time it reaches the Earth's surface. Pop it too low and you have an easily avoided toxic patch.

To the best of my knowledge the only known delivery method of a Bio weapon in modern times has been the US Mail (no smiley). A highly contagous Bio weapon (something like the current Nile Fever outbreak, but worse) would not hit just one city, it would be like every city in the target civ being hit by disease and perhaps also any city in a civ with which it was trading. Disease has traditionaly followed trade routes. Non-contagous Bio weapons (like Anthax) could be seen as a form of Chem weapon.

Nasty things.


Mike G

[Anaximander]

Actually, Chemical weapons were quite devestating in WW1, they just wern't used all that often. No, a better example of chemical weapons usage would be the War between Iran and Iraq during the 80's. Iraq used Chemical weapons against the Iranian army with great success.

For more references we can look back to medieval times when rotting corpses were hurled into citys with the hope of starting epidemics.

Of course we also can't forget Small Pox. It's introduction to the Americas might have been accidential at first, but it's no accident when you start giving infected blankets to local tribes... Call it what you will, this was Bioloical warfare.

Biological and chemical warfare have been around for a long time so IMHO they should probably be included as WMD's.

[Patroklos]

Hey everyone,

You all have some good historical perspectives, I enjoy them and hope you have more.

As far as making them work in the real game, they would obviously be modern as before WW1, while they did exist, they were more of a novelty weapon. The Chem and Bio weapons of today are the only ones of a magnitute able to be used on the game's scale (i.e. a single square represents 50 to a 100 miles squared). Everyone likes to bring up Iran and Iraq, but as far as the potiential destruction of Chem weapons that usage was minimal, with what are considered mild agents. To put that "mild" usage in perspective, when the Soviets contemplaited using Chem weapons in Germany in a European conventional war, they estimated the area would be uninhabitable for 100 to 150 years. Also, for those who think Chem/Bio stats I gave are too strong, remember the attacks don't effect units or buildings, just population and enviroment to make sure nucs are still more destructive.

True, in real war most Chem/Bio weapons are not delivered by missiles, (though I will point out that the really nasty ones have not been used and they would be bomb or missile delivered, and as far as the game playing public are concerned the "scud chem attack" senario is what everyone knows) as far as the technicalities of the video game are concerend a missile unit is the easiest. The effects I mentioned, population reduction by half and polution of all the squares surrounding a city, already occue on a Tac Nuc hit thus all you would have to do is modify that unit to create the Bio or Chem missiles. This is more practical and a hell of alot easier that making, lets say, a germ spreading plane unit or something that relies on the "wind." As far as the fact that there has never been a true chemical and biological exchange on a global scale, there hasn't been a global nuclear exchange either and that is included in the game.

I apologize for any typos.

[vmxa1]

I am not so sure that IRAQ use was so sucessful, it killed civilians and I do not think IRAN cared about them that much. It did not do much to the troops. Also 5000 is not much of an impact really in countries of tens of millions.

[Kingof the Apes]

If it is implemented , it should be in Industrial age. with medicine as a prequisite mb?

[Nubclear]

I thought this was at least in the manual, but was taken out because of political correctness....

[Carver]

Chems and Bios should definently be in the game. I like the idea of them being carried on tactical missles. But I think there should also be an earlier option (as posters have noted these weapons have been around for centuries). Maybe we don't go back centuries since even one game tile is a large piece of land. Perhaps bio and chem artillery would do. They should be a little weaker and could only be fired once and then dissapear.

[Patroklos]

Hello all,

I have been tinkering with the game to try and bring my concept to fruition, but I have run into a problem. Creating new tactical missiles is not hard, all you need to do is copy the Tac Nuc, change the art slightly (like the color to designate type or maybe a little biohazard symbol, who knows) and there you go.

However, creating the effect is where I run into trouble. I can flag it as a Nuc, but that means it has all the effects of a Nuc. Do you all know of any way to pick and choose which characteristics of a Nuc you want? Can the code be changed to, lets say, only give the weapon the polution of the population reduction of a nnuclear weapon. I am out of my element on this, am hoping some of you more experianced mod-makers might know how to accomplish this.

[Sheik]

Patroklos, the simple answer is no.

[Nimrod]

In Call to Power 1, there is an infector that can spread disease between cities via trade routes. It causes either 5 unhappiness or the lose of 1 citizen in the city, it might be both too. I never used it, the nano attack of and ecoterrorist was better.

[Patroklos]

Hey all,

Befor I get hit for "shamlessly bringing back to life one of my own threads," my real reason is I am lazy and don't want to type all the information again.

Anyways, now that PTW is out with its much more robust editor, do any of you think these ideas might be brought to fruition? Like I said before any modifications out side the editor are beyond my expertise.

[ruby_maser]

Retaliation for chemical and biological attacks would be too much for me to want these added to the game (no matter how cheap). There is no way to assure the destruction of an enemies ability to retaliate because you are not targeting their infrastructure but their population. If they have these weapons or nukes too, you are essentially asking for it. And this begs the question: why not just have a coordinated strike with nukes in the first place and get a better degree of protection from a counterstrike?

[ChaotikVisions]

I say make it the same cost/range of a Tac Nuke, but have it kill off 1/5th population, pollute 4 squares, and damage some enemy units inside it, but no chance of killing. Its not a replacement for nukes, but a slightly more subtle weapon you could use to soften up a city or for when you have no uranium but still want some method of threatening your enemys. They will of course result in either automatic war or automatic embargos against your Civilization when used. I like the idea of it, but maybe we should mention this in the PtW forums so Firaxis will maybe include it. Though I doubt they'll make a whole new unit off a suggestion, maybe at least give us the option in the editor.

[Patroklos]

Ruby_maser, you make a good point, a point the warhawks in the US and Soviet Union tried to make for forty years. The Chem Bio weapons are not meant to replace nukes, just provide cheap alternatives (none uranium alteratives). Both effects, either the 1/2 population reduction or the polution of surrounding squares, have no where near the destructive capacity of a nuke. Also, remember that these will be tactical missiles, so they will never have the stategic value of a ICBM. It would also make the point that nuks contribute to global warming, while these would not, just as in real life (before you all have a hissy fit, yes I know about defoliants, these weapons would be the people killing kind )

[Patroklos]

If a moderator happens to read this, could you please move the thread to the PTW forum, since the question now refers to the PTW editor.

Thanks

[Trifna]

Originally posted by Patroklos
If a moderator happens to read this, could you please move the thread to the PTW forum, since the question now refers to the PTW editor.

Thanks

I think it's not about PtW but really as a general issue of Civ3, something to be added (perhaps Civ4).


And about chem/bio, I guess there should be some impact on relationship with your people (public relations) and foreign relations. You have to show it as legitim and it's not that easy.... or you have to hide it in some way... The Irak case wasn't known everywhere before quite soem time. I mean, they got no real consequences before they attacked American interest (Koweit).