The Commander Series Forum

Forum Home Forum Home
ImageCurrent Forum Category Cold War Commander, 1946+
ImageImageCurrent Forum CWC Rule Queries
ImageImageImageCurrent Topic Chemical Delivery
Post Reply
Post Reply
Author Page 1 
redvark
United Kingdom
Joined 07/02/10
Last Visit 21/09/10
16 Posts
Posted on 21 March 2010 at 21:23:06 GMT
The special munitions rule states that they cannot be requested by a CO or HQ.

However if you attach the regimental artillery batteries to a Soviet HQ which acts effectively as an FAO does this rule still apply

It would seem non-sensical to allow the batteries to fire chemicals if controlled by an FAO and not when directed by an FAO attached to an HQ - which is where TOE's place them anyway
Mickel
Australia
Joined 05/05/06
Last Visit 31/07/12
15 Posts
Posted on 25 March 2010 at 08:44:44 GMT
Because HQs don't have sufficient authority to release anything other than 'normal' artillery? Otherwise all of the specialist stuff would be gone in the first 5 minutes since everyone will think their situation deserves it. Just stick the FAO with the HQ on the table. As you say, that's where the TOE has them.

Mike
redvark
United Kingdom
Joined 07/02/10
Last Visit 21/09/10
16 Posts
Posted on 11 April 2010 at 09:08:16 GMT
The release of special munitions in the Red Army would be at a level of HQ not depicted on the game table (certainly not by the FAO) - once released they would be available for the mission wouldn't they - regardless of who calls down fire
Mickel
Australia
Joined 05/05/06
Last Visit 31/07/12
15 Posts
Posted on 18 April 2010 at 07:36:53 GMT
That could be said for everyone, yet everyone needs an FAO to use them. I don't see how the Soviets are being singled out for harsh treatment here.
julesav
United Kingdom
Joined 03/07/07
Last Visit 27/10/15
523 Posts
Posted on 18 April 2010 at 15:12:59 GMT
I guess the same applies to NATO HQ stands too - personally I'd just ignore it!

I suppose you are hoping to save a few points by having no FAO?
redvark
United Kingdom
Joined 07/02/10
Last Visit 21/09/10
16 Posts
Posted on 30 April 2010 at 11:33:13 GMT
nope, I'm trying to get a decent FAO !!!!!!!!!
Mickel
Australia
Joined 05/05/06
Last Visit 31/07/12
15 Posts
Posted on 01 May 2010 at 01:04:56 GMT
Just a thought... How likely would it be to use chemical weapons for an impromptu strike? Scheduled chem doesn't rely on the FAO. My reasoning behind it is that any unplanned fire could distrupt the Soviet advance almost as badly as it affects the guys on the receiving end. The tanks have to close down, the infantry are stuck in suits. These are not good things if you have to advance.

There is no decent Soviet FAO. Sad
redvark
United Kingdom
Joined 07/02/10
Last Visit 21/09/10
16 Posts
Posted on 01 May 2010 at 09:39:02 GMT
I agree - I've made the point in another post about assets - the rules for which are a bit unclear

I've always used pre-prog with russians but now I have to pay for it, someone else said that pre-prog is SOP for all nations - which is true, but not to the extent that the red army used it

Everything I've read however points to use of chemical and bio agents by the Red Army for all the reasons you say, once everyone is in a noddy suit and everyones tank is buttoned up then everything becomes so much more of a level playing field. I suspect that once released a unit could have used them to deal with a particularly difficult Capitalist position !!!!
Page 1