Chemical/Biological wepons

[The Lance]

Disclaimer:
I'm sure this topic has been beaten to death, but I'm newish and have never seen it so I'm going to throw it out their.

How does the give community feel about their being a conspicuous absence of chemical weapons in civ?
For a game that is inspired by history I wold think that chemical and biological weapons should be included. Historically speaking they have been used prolifically with varying degrees of success and outrage. Examples of this are; medieval armies launching diseased cows into fortified cities, mustard gas attacks in WWI, the Iran-Iraq war, even the use of small pox as a weapon by European settlers against North American native populations(famous but the intent of weapons use is ever so overstated).
I would propose they could be used as a one shot style weapon with an area affect(like a nuke) that would cause no structural damage, but would instead kill civilians (say remove 0-20% of a city population), and do collateral damage to military unites (25-50% seems reasonable). The obvious downside to the use of these weapons would be harsh diplomatic penalties such as those in civ II for planting nuclear devices in cities (maybe -3 from all civs and instant trade embargo form all civs). It could also be possible that the damage done by such a weapon, the area of effect, and the diplomatic outcry resulting from use to be adjustable based on tech level and weapon used (less effect and less outcry for diseased cows, with a large effect and diplomatically crippling penalty for an anthrax attack)

Thoughts?

 

[Strato]

Why not just have as a unit promotion. Like the catapult/treb/artillery unit, with promotion for causing increased collateral damage.

I'd much rather see conventional cruise missiles first.

 

[JIM G]

Call to Power had an 'Infector' unit - I think he only reduced city population, but the infection could spread along trade routes.
Like the Slaver it was a unit I didnt care for morally, so never tried it out. (plus I was always worried about that infection spreading back to me somehow)
IIRC the spy in CTP could do a poison gas attack?

 

[Dominico]

yeah there was that amazing eco terrorist unit too. Which entirely destroyed a city and replaced it with jungle or forest you got a cool animation too of him doing it!!

Call to Power really did rock!

 

[Rule Brittania]

IMO I think their are loads of really gd unit ideas that are missing in the game, now obviosly there is a limit to the amount of units there can be but a couple i think they should definitly put in is

1)chemical/biological weapons (to be on-topic)

2)Cruise Missile

3) Transport Helicoptor

4) Tactical Nuke (take less time to build than ICBM and perhaps can be built in secret after the UN Vote on Nuclear Prolifiration but then the enemy has a chance of finding out that you are building them with a sppy and vice versa with economic sanctions [trade embargo's] effective immidaitly if anyone is found building them)

5) Nuclear Sub (To carry the Tac. Nukes)

 

[LucyDuke]

I've thought it would make more sense to simply incorporate disease. Chemical weapons aren't dramatically different from conventional weapons in terms of geographic impact - in Civ, for example, what would be the difference between nuking and gassing a city? Not to suggest they'd be identical, but similar enough that it wouldn't (in my eyes) justify a distinction. As far as bioweapons, disease actually spreads. Disease also triggers immunity, mutates, and persists. More of that here.

So yes, I support the incorporation of bioweapons under the umbrella of disease, though not without the greater framework of disease. I don't see as much added gameplay from chemical weapons on their own.

 

[Sebiche]

i agree with Rule_Britannia.

and then with the disease bit. yeah

 

[The Lance]

... Chemical weapons aren't dramatically different from conventional weapons in terms of geographic impact - in Civ, for example, what would be the difference between nuking and gassing a city? Not to suggest they'd be identical, but similar enough that it wouldn't (in my eyes) justify a distinction. ...

I think the bigest differnce between chemical wepons and nuclear wepons, within the context of civ, would be that while nuclear wepons do a kill check on buildings and units chemical wepons would do no damage to structure and perhaps a more limited role on killing population and doing colateral damage to military units.

I do like the idea of fitting bio wepons with in the framework of disease. I've aways liked the idea of including disease in a game like civ because of the importat role disease has played in the shaping of culture, religion and the historical balance of power.

 

[LucyDuke]

I think the bigest differnce between chemical wepons and nuclear wepons, within the context of civ, would be that while nuclear wepons do a kill check on buildings and units chemical wepons would do no damage to structure and perhaps a more limited role on killing population and doing colateral damage to military units.

I do like the idea of fitting bio wepons with in the framework of disease. I've aways liked the idea of including disease in a game like civ because of the importat role disease has played in the shaping of culture, religion and the historical balance of power.

Regarding the difference, you're absolutely right. As far as that takes us, though, what's the point? Chemical attacks would have a negative influence on the environment, not to the same degree as nukes but still significant. The diplo modifier that comes out as a result of nuking would have to apply to a chemical attack. So we've got two options that both damage the environment, both upset your neighbors, and one is more powerful and knocks out infrastructure as well as life (chemical weapons could cause damage to nearby farms, as well). The weaker one doesn't require Uranium, and could be brought about earlier in the tech tree. Considering the frequency of nuke use in Civ, I just don't see it as necessary to bring the chemical element into the game. Just my opinion, of course.

I do think it's absurd, though, that the "health" system in Civ4 is as limited as it is. It's certainly neater than in Civ3, and thank someone that they got rid of that awful aqueduct/hospital population cap, but it's far too simplified in relation to the other game elements. Religion, culture, technology, and military elements have all been incredibly influential in the shaping of human history. Disease has had at least as much impact as any of those factors, and has influenced them directly, as well. Whether it's a natural somewhat-mysterious phenomenon that populations have to cope with, or deliberately manipulated as a weapon, well, that's just a matter of who's running the show, and has been throughout history. Biowarfare is not a product of modern technology, it's been around longer than anyone's been keeping track, and it's a shame that the game designers have omitted such an integral force in the shaping of historical societies. In short (!), I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who thinks it's been overlooked.

 

[Mercenary82]

Any chemical weapons that come before nukes in the tech tree should be ww1 style chlorine and mustard gas, which was used mostly on battlefields, not against cities. More advanced biological weapons like anthrax should come after or around same time as nukes, and be able to devestate population and military units while leaving buildings intact, the damage to enviroment isn't very significant compared to what nukes do.

 

[Heretic_Cata]

That would be unethical.

 

[Ankh-f-n-Khonsu]

I think it would be a nifty inclusion. Same horrible penalties from the use of either nukes or chems, the former to be used when you intend to raze a city, the latter when you intend to commandeer it. I'm sure I would see it used exactly as much as I see nukes used in my games; to wit, nil.

How about a spy fitted with a torso bomb? Costs a bit more than the standard spy and can only sabotage, but has a greater chance of success, with an additional bonus if your culture is represented in the city under attack (so that the spy could more easily navigate the throng).

 

[Sebiche]

im not saying its morally correct

but won't it be fun?

yeah edgy diplomacy!
(ive said that much too often)

 

[Infantry#14]

and how does chemical weapon work, if soldiers are blinded, how can they recover their sight?

 

[Domofuhrer]

One of the things that annoyed me was not being able to get rid of non-state religions. If there is anything that has been consistent in history, it's removing religions from cities (in a Civ 4 sense). I can see why it hasn't been implemented - somehow having a fictional digital German civ get rid of fictional digital Judaism from fictional digital German cities could be seen as "bad" somehow. But it's a real pain to have Isabell'a Buddhism in half of my cities, and knowing that she's watching them with an eagle eye.

For a real basic Civ2 Industrial mod I did (simply replaced Modern units, techs, buildings with an Industrial 19th century-WW1 analogy) I turned nuclear weapons into a form of chemical gas attack

 

[LucyDuke]

But it's a real pain to have Isabell'a Buddhism in half of my cities, and knowing that she's watching them with an eagle eye.

That's only because you made the terrible mistake of not killing her the day you met her.

Just kidding, of course. You can take that city from her and solve the problem. I also support the idea of an Inquisitor unit that's able to remove religions from cities, though the details are debatable. It should be possible to remove a religion in some way that doesn't include razing the city, but that's a discussion for another thread.

 

[Davidicus]

If bio weapons are to be included, there should be the medieval style as well (with weaker impacts of course), being the throwing of plague infected bodies over city walls with catapults.

 

[Ankh-f-n-Khonsu]

The animation will be awesome...

 

[The Lance]

.... It should be possible to remove a religion in some way that doesn't include razing the city...

Not sure if that's a can of worms that they want to open. Considering the half page "we're neutral" statement that went into the manual over religion I strongly doubt they are going to program in inquisitions. lol

 

[Rancid Sushi]

Not sure if that's a can of worms that they want to open. Considering the half page "we're neutral" statement that went into the manual over religion I strongly doubt they are going to program in inquisitions. lol

Only the Spanish should be allowed to perform inquisitions. If people get offended, Firaxis can just call it historical accuracy and say "nobody expects the Spanish inquisition."