The Commander Series Forum

I'm putting together a "Fulda Gap" scenario for a future convention, and I'm thinking of having the potential for tactical nuclear weapons in there. I'm wondering how to model them in the game. Here's my most recent thought:

It's a Special Munition, that requires a successful order by BOTH a CO and a FAO/FAC in the same Command Phase to use. Can be deployed by either aircraft or off-board artillery.

It works like Thermobaric munitions, except with a 20cm range and 9 attacks against each unit in the zone. Also, all built-up (urban) areas within the zone are altered from High area terrain to Low area terrain. In addition, the lingering radiation is identical to that for Chemical weapons.

What do you folks think?

I have thought about this, and always get tripped up on how to work the effect zone. Are you saying that the nuke would have the same blast zone as conventional munitions, only with an upped damage rating? That would be a pretty low yield device wouldn't it?

I like the command latter that would need to be followed to deploy the device. But, I would suggest that that there be a min prep time, like 2 turns (about 1 hour) for air strikes, and 1 turn for Artillery.

Also, I believe that NATO had fairly strict procedures about using Nukes on German soil, like min distances from German urban centers, could be wrong on this point.

Lastly, I would impose a VP penalty to the side that escalated.

In the scale of game that CWC represents Tactical Nukes are pointless. Everything on the table would be wiped out even with a low yield weapon.

What might work is to consider that the troops are fighting over an area that has been nuked prior to the game and the whole battlefield is treated as if under chemical attack representing troops using Noddy Suits and other NBC equipment.

Trouble with that is that that you would get into very low CV's to do anything.

I'd suggest just using the chemical attack weapons within the rules - they can be a bit unpredictable if used as non-pre registered attacks and if you allow them to drift too it can be fun

Well, it may not actually DESTROY everything on the table, but it WOULD take out or render hors de combat about 1/6th of even a big gaming table (say 2 meters by 1.5 meters).

So my suggestiion is that you just adapt the old rule SPI gave for nukes in their old "NATO" game, to wit:

"To simulate a full nuclear exchange, soak the mapsheet in lighter fluid and hold a match to it."

Of coure, you could be a purist and only do it to 1/6th of the map, but I'm guessing that in RL, troops for miles around would be too busy screwing around with their NBC gear and going "Omigodomigodomigod..." to be very effective.

"To simulate a full nuclear exchange, soak the mapsheet in lighter fluid and hold a match to it."

I like it!

I remember Donald Featherstones rules

"Just remove everything thats not within 3" of he edge of the board"

I like the playing with fire option.

Hm... the consensus here seems to be strongly against tacnukes in CWC. Though I think it is feasible, albeit barely, and adds an element of "OMGOMG" to the game that might be good for a convention. If you go with the "larger" scale (1 cm = 20 meters), and small yield (1-5 kt) weapons, it could work...

There are plenty of online nuke effects calculators. Let's use this one:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Nuk...

(Yes, I know, it's a sci-fi website, but the calculator is based on the classis "Effects of Nuclear Weapons" book, which I read cover-to-cover as a kid just for fun.)

If you plug in 0.001 MT (1 kilotons), you get a lethal radius against exposed troops (via thermal radiation or blast) of about 700 meters. That translates into approximately 35cm radius on the table top. So that's a two-foot circle. Since convention events are usually large tables (say, 6' by 8'), that could work.

Plus, it'll give me an excuse to use this template:

http://www.litkoaero.com/page/LAI/PROD/TS/TS088...

"...which I read cover-to-cover as a kid just for fun."

Er, okay.

Your childhood fun was my childhood nightmare, mate! ;-)

I like that Litko nuke template! It would definitely have an interesting effect on a game to "go nuclear" at some point. May fit well into a campaign as well.

I seem to recall that the SPI "soak map in lighter fluid" comment got them into trouble with a Mayor, or would that be burgomeister, of a German town which was depicted on the map sheet in question.

"Plus, it'll give me an excuse to use this template:

http://www.litkoaero.com/page/LAI/PROD/TS/TS088...

Game over man......

You don't have to use a tac nuke, just buy the marker and sit it in a prominent spot next to the game table with a piece of paper under it. Let the players know what it is and that there are special rules which you will cover when, not if but when the nuke is used. Occasionally take the piece of paper from under the marker look at it and then put it back. With this suitably paranoid attitude instilled into the players watch them begin to take the sort of action commanders in the field would have taken by dispersing troops and relocating valuable units to ensure they weren't all lost in one strike.

Oooh!

I like, Chris, I like!

Very sneaky, very realistic and it gives you an excuse to set that luverly nuke marker on the table.

Nice!

You guys need to have a re-think about the fire-zone, the FROG-7 had an impact area measuring 2.8km by 1.8km wide That's 140cm by 90cm, just about the size of my table.

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/frog...

"the FROG-7 had an impact area measuring 2.8km by 1.8km wide That's 140cm by 90cm, just about the size of my table."

And your point is?

I'll deploy off-table then

Oh OK, thanks Mark

Cut out the middle man and have strategic nukes and instead of setting your table alight burn your house down. hope the mayor doesn`t read this.

Jim

I do think that the side that launches a nuke should lose the game.

FROG/SCUDs are accurate enough you just have to use afew of them rather than just the one

"I do think that the side that launches a nuke should lose the game."

Too bloody right: if you can't defeat your oppo with a nice combined-arms balanced battlegroup & have to call in this kind of stuff, you deserve to lose...

After all, even my 7 yr-old can do me with artillery & armour - she doesn't need nukes!

So after we have all played CWC and launched our nukes, will be there be a supplement come out for the ranges for 'thrown rocks' and how much damage a 'pointy stick' can do?

Nice, mate, nice...

Sure, Cave Man Commander

Sure, Cave Man Commander "

I think "Stoneage Commander" has a better ring to it.