Battlefield: Europe MOD v2.4

[PeteMitchell]

BE_Turn_81_063_Lyon.jpg (285.32 KiB) Viewed 914 times

BE_Turn_90_139_Paris.jpg (295.53 KiB) Viewed 914 times

[PeteMitchell]

From my 1.9 AAR

[Locarnus]

Unfortunately there is an issue with the red font for the suppression number.
It works fine when playing the game yourself, but the youtube video compression turns it into an unreadable smudge (similar to the original dark blue font).

I'm going to change it to the yellow-ish color of the unit name. Since that is very well readable on that background, as seen two lines above the strength line.

Screenshot from the youtube video by HerzogSieg.
Recently started playthrough of BE + Addon.
The unreadable suppression number in red #FF0000 is supposed to be a "5", while eg the yellowish #E3DE8C unit name number "176th" is clearly readable:

statbase-red-suppression-youtube.png (92.31 KiB) Viewed 901 times

[JimmyC]

From my 1.9 AAR

I didnt know you could put minefields on airfields. Does it still allow you to refuel/repair/upgrade aircraft? I think i will refrain from doing this personally as it doesnt make any sense from a realism perspective. But its interesting to know.

Never really thought about putting them on rivers either. This makes more sense from a realism perspective as you could say you are mining the banks of the river.

[PeteMitchell]

So I have abandoned my current playthrough around turn 65 and started over from Poland. I didn’t want to reload at turn 30… plus, I think I am going back to an earlier Sealion than around turn 60.

My last full playthrough was in v1.9. What strategies and approaches have worked for total victory in v2.4?

[PeteMitchell]

What has worked for people here achieving a total victory?

[Uhu]

I started the preparations for 2.5 - I made the pre-scenarios as I think there will be no big changes and I can continue than with Barbarossa 2.5 (Almost finished the Kursk save - I will post later the results.)

As I will play with Double Rommel (25% prestige) and Field Marshall, Dice Chess custom settings I tried to collect the maximum prestige in the prelude. Of course with all the possible surrenders. That meant I did not let Dunkirk happen but systematically captured most of the troops.

While I could not take all the cities in France (3 remained, while the French retook Strasbourg but I already got the prestige for the capture), every else could be captured.
So while creating a core with 3x Panzer IV and 2x Bf 109, 1032 prestige remained after the tax (initial -2000 at end of the Mediterranean scn /4 so -500). That means if there are no modifiers theoretically about 4100 - 4200 prestige can be collected before Barbarossa.

prestige 2.JPG (408.78 KiB) Viewed 561 times

prestige.JPG (154.83 KiB) Viewed 564 times

[Locarnus]

My last full playthrough was in v1.9. What strategies and approaches have worked for total victory in v2.4?

What has worked for people here achieving a total victory?

Imho Baku and Soviet Union are the primary objectives for a total victory, regardless of BE version or variant (Addon).

If the difficulty is set too low, the Soviet Union can be finished off without having to play the upgrade mini-game beyond game-changers like the 3.7cm Pak and long barrel Panzer IV upgrades for ground units.


Without house rules, the game mechanics can be massively exploited for the Western bomber war.
Those exploits basically remove all challenge from that theater.

In versions up until recently (including BE 2.4), it was the consensus that U-Boats should be saved up for a later Sealion, instead of risking and spending them on the convoy routes.

Even a few more units redeployed to Africa as soon as possible can make all the difference over there. Instead of just being part of a traffic jam on the Eastern front.
But Basra oil fields can be taken coming from Baku or from Suez.


Preventing Western Ally mass unit spawns is highly recommended, but not strictly necessary (especially holding Tunis, but also taking UK victory hexes before Overlord trigger).


The singleplayer youtube total victories from a while ago by Goose_2 and Duedman show what is possible, playing non-blind with too low difficulty settings and not enough house rules for those players experience and capabilities.

Personally I now prefer a too high difficulty resulting in a hard fought draw, to a too low difficulty resulting in a too easy total victory. But maybe I'm just annoyed by eg the underwhelming recent entry of the Civilization game series?

[JimmyC]

I did Sealion before the naval mine changes, so dont really know how it would go now. I would guess you need destroyers to clear some of the mines and mass your artillery on the coast to bombard (and hopefully destroy) the fixed fortifications. Then, taking advantage of bad weather, launch your strongest invasion forces on the clear hexes.

Regarding the oilfields, i always found it better focusing on the Russian ones and then keeping on going to the British ones. But i guess it depends on how quickly you can bust through to the Suez.

[George_Parr]

A few Luftwaffe infantry units will appear in turn 31. Later these will be reorganized as standard infantry units.

Love that addition, I had thought about mentioning those before.

You mentioned the french artillery becoming available for Germany. Something I had done with my little editing to the mod, was to have some spoils of war from the Soviets as well, based on books I read about captured weapons at that time. I think I added
- the 85mm AA gun instead of an additional 88 for home defense (as the Germans didn't really used them at the front, but put them to use at home, can't find the book with the reported numbers right now though)
- ML-20 as 15,2cm Kanonenhaubitze 433/1(r). Germany put about 1000 of them to use and even produced new ammunition for it
- F-22 as 7,62cm PaK 36(r). They made significant changes to the gun and ammunition, and while many were used for the Marder II, they also had 560 of this type, and another 300 of the next version as regular AT-guns.

Maybe worth it as reinforcements in 1942?


On another note, would it be possible to have the Afrikakorps-style infantry available for refit, plus another version for the 44 infantry update?
I know there is no difference in stats, but it would be kind of nice to have all additional German infantry you send to Africa run around in desert-outfits instead of the general one.

Apologies if any part of that is already part of the mod, I think I'm a bit behind in terms of version I played.

[bondjamesbond]

I’ve been reading all your posts for quite some time now, as far as my online translator allows ) Many people wonder whether it was even possible to defeat the Third Reich in the Second World War, but a thought suddenly occurred to me: if the Germans had managed to hold out until 1 September 1945, they would have been hit by the very same atomic bombs that the US dropped on Japan to put an end to its resistance ) I believe that if the Reich hadn’t collapsed in the spring, atomic bombs would have been waiting for them in the summer. How will things turn out for you? Will we see B-29s with nuclear warheads over Berlin if we manage to resist the Reich for too long against all the advancing Allies!?

The first atomic bomb,known as “Gadget”, 1945

How little time Hitler lacked to build an atomic bomb

In March 1945, the Germans tested a rocket carrying a nuclear warhead in Thuringia. It was believed that Hitler was just a few months short of creating a superweapon capable of changing the course of the war and securing victory for Germany. However, recent research by historians suggests that, for a number of reasons, the Nazis would never have been able to create a fully-fledged nuclear weapon.

Insufficient knowledge

American historian Richard Rhodes is convinced that it was simple mistakes by scientists that prevented Germany from realising its nuclear programme. After the collapse of the Reich, the titan of theoretical physics, Werner Heisenberg, found himself in England, where he was asked how much uranium would be needed to create a warhead equivalent to the one the Americans dropped on Hiroshima.

The Nobel Prize winner in Physics replied that several tonnes would be needed, although in reality a couple of kilograms of uranium-235 would have sufficed. This suggests that German physicists, led by Heisenberg, were working towards the creation of a nuclear reactor rather than a weapon of mass destruction, and had made no real progress in this direction. A number of researchers believe that the German scientists were incompetent and lacked the expertise of the physicists of Jewish origin who had been expelled from the Reich.

The Germans made a number of miscalculations and chose heavy water, which was more difficult to work with, rather than graphite as the reaction moderator. There is a view that German physicists deliberately delayed the project, realising what would happen to the world if a fully-fledged nuclear warhead fell into Hitler’s hands.

Shortage of heavy water

By the early 1940s, Germany had overtaken the Allies in the production of all the ‘ingredients’ for the atomic bomb except for the heavy water required for the reaction. Norway produced sufficient quantities of this resource at a plant in the town of Vemork. After the Germans occupied Norway, heavy water began to be supplied directly to the Nazis, but the Norwegian resistance and British agents successfully prevented them from obtaining sufficient quantities.

The Scandinavians constantly carried out acts of sabotage at the plant, and on one occasion a batch of heavy water was contaminated with fish oil. The first attempt to destroy the plant was made in December 1942, but the glider carrying the saboteurs crashed, and the surviving fighters were shot. However, in the winter of 1943, a group of the Norwegian Resistance, with British support, managed to destroy the facility.

A year later, the Germans attempted to remove the remaining heavy water from Scandinavia by ferry, but resistance fighters managed to sink it too. The Norwegians’ successful sabotage operation finally put an end to the Nazis’ plans to create a nuclear warhead.

Funding problems

The creation of a nuclear warhead requires colossal financial expenditure, and for a successful outcome, the government must trust the scientists, and the scientists must trust the government. In Germany, such trust did not exist. Hitler constantly flitted between different projects and demanded that physicists create a superweapon as quickly as possible, although his true passion was rockets.

Initially, the plan was to build massive uranium enrichment facilities. Later, an alternative was devised: to produce weapons-grade plutonium using a nuclear reactor. In either case, it required massive investment, which might not have resulted in the creation of a nuclear warhead. Germany’s weakened economy could not sustain such a project. Even the US, with its unlimited funding, only managed to produce a nuclear warhead towards the end of the war.

The Hunt for Brains

Following the embrace on the Elbe and the complete rout of the Reich’s forces, the US and the USSR began hunting for German physicists. The Americans secured von Braun, whom they appointed head of their nuclear programme, whilst the Soviet side managed to recruit the aerodynamics specialist Werner Albring, who had worked on guided missiles, and Helmut Grettrup — a rocket engineer and developer of the detachable warhead for a ballistic missile. Working for the Soviet Union were Woldemar Wolf, head of the ballistics department at the Krupp concern, as well as the outstanding nuclear physicists Manfred von Ardenne and Gustav Hertz.

To recruit specialists to Germany, the future pioneers of rocket technology—Korolev, Mishin, Tikhonravov and others—were sent. Senior Lieutenant Vasily Kharchev led the group tasked with luring German scientists away from the American occupation zone. In total, over 7,000 German specialists and their families were brought to the USSR.

During the war, the US faced no direct military threat, and it took the Soviets several years after victory to develop nuclear weapons. It is hardly surprising that Germany had no chance of creating such weapons during the war

Some of the Luftwaffe’s bombs were filled with mustard gas and sarin.
https://dzen.ru/a/aFhBXv-skjgThXrW?utm_ ... martcamera



The first atomic bomb test in New Mexico on 16 July 1945 (photographs
taken from a distance of 6 miles). Top: The start of the explosion. This small cloud
then expanded to a height of 40,000 feet. Centre: The multicoloured cloud
formed as a result of the explosion. According to observers,
the dark patches were brighter than the sun. Bottom: A later stage in the cloud’s development.
https://oldgazette.org/

[McGuba]

I started the preparations for 2.5 - I made the pre-scenarios as I think there will be no big changes and I can continue than with Barbarossa 2.5 (Almost finished the Kursk save - I will post later the results.)

Apparently there are a few changes regarding the pre-Barbarossa scenarios, and mainly concerning the prestige situation. In particular I realized that in the France scenario the player got 75 prestige points in every turn, which in turn encouraged such a gameplay in which it was better to play until the last turn instead of going for an early victory. Which is quite silly because of course in reality the Germans wanted to finish these early campaigns as soon as possible (hence the emergence of the term "Blitzkrieg"). So now there is no prestige given in every turn here and in the following Mediterranean scenario, but there are more cities and airfields to capture, and the reward for an early victory is also higher. This should encourage a more historical gameplay aimed at an early victory.

Other than that, in general less prestige can be carried over to the main scenario than before. The aim is to make the two starting points more similar: while it is still possible to collect some more prestige if the player starts in 1939, only if the player plays quite well. If not, it may be better to start straight with the big scenario.

The other aim is to reduce the possibilities of exploiting the game mechanics in general in this release and this is part of that effort as well. Ideally, it should feel more like we are playing against the Allies and not against some flawed game mechanics trying to exploit them as much as possible.

I tried to collect the maximum prestige in the prelude. Of course with all the possible surrenders. That meant I did not let Dunkirk happen but systematically captured most of the troops.

The Allied units in Belgium are now also more heavily entrenched so while this tactic may still work, it may mean that the player is more likely to run out of time and thus miss the higher prestige reward given for the early major victory. So it may not worth it.

And there are a few other changes as well, so I think the early scenarios are a bit more interesting now, and what's more important, also more accurate historically.

Love that addition, I had thought about mentioning those before.

You mentioned the french artillery becoming available for Germany. Something I had done with my little editing to the mod, was to have some spoils of war from the Soviets as well, based on books I read about captured weapons at that time. I think I added
- the 85mm AA gun instead of an additional 88 for home defense (as the Germans didn't really used them at the front, but put them to use at home, can't find the book with the reported numbers right now though)
- ML-20 as 15,2cm Kanonenhaubitze 433/1(r). Germany put about 1000 of them to use and even produced new ammunition for it
- F-22 as 7,62cm PaK 36(r). They made significant changes to the gun and ammunition, and while many were used for the Marder II, they also had 560 of this type, and another 300 of the next version as regular AT-guns.

Maybe worth it as reinforcements in 1942?

The reason why I chose the French 155 mm howitzer was it looks like it was by far the most used foreign artillery piece, based on the expended ammunition in 1943-44. It looks like the ML-20 was mainly used in the Atlantic wall, so it is supposed to be included in the numerous stationary coastal battery units. These captured Soviet guns only fired significant number of shells in 1944, when the Normandy landing happened, and it appears that even in that year the captured French 155 mm guns fired four times more.

In the next version the German artillery will be significantly stronger anyway, so I think for now it will be enough. (While other changes make the Allied side stronger.) And then we will see if more can be added while keeping the existing balance.

As for the others, I don't know. Maybe later.

On another note, would it be possible to have the Afrikakorps-style infantry available for refit, plus another version for the 44 infantry update?
I know there is no difference in stats, but it would be kind of nice to have all additional German infantry you send to Africa run around in desert-outfits instead of the general one.

Desert type regular and Afrika Korps-style (motorized) infantry is already there in BE 2.4, and there is a '44 pattern desert Panzergrenadier unit as well, if I am right. And while these have the same stats, they use different ground transports with desert movement so it is really recommended to use these in Africa because regular infantry units with regular transports would move much slower in the desert terrain. While the new semi-arid terrain in Tunisia has a neutral effect on any of these meaning both "desert" and "non-desert" type units can be used there equally well.

I did Sealion before the naval mine changes, so dont really know how it would go now. I would guess you need destroyers to clear some of the mines and mass your artillery on the coast to bombard (and hopefully destroy) the fixed fortifications. Then, taking advantage of bad weather, launch your strongest invasion forces on the clear hexes.

Yes, I think this strategy should still work. But some luck may also be needed.

Regarding the oilfields, i always found it better focusing on the Russian ones and then keeping on going to the British ones. But i guess it depends on how quickly you can bust through to the Suez.

A huge change in this regard is the existence of the new railway lines in the Middle East. Earlier the oil fields of Abadan were mainly a dead end since the units that captured them were usually unable to return from there due to the long distance. But now they can make use of the railway lines for a relatively fast transfer home. So now it may worth investing more units into this adventure.

The same applies to the capture of Tobruk and Alexandria. While now it may be harder to capture them due to the stronger bottom mines, once they are captured the railway lines in the area makes it easier for the units to move around to get an upgrade. Even in the multiplayer match I made use of this new feature and in single player games it may be even more useful.

Imho Baku and Soviet Union are the primary objectives for a total victory, regardless of BE version or variant (Addon).

The Soviet Union can be defeated without capturing Baku first (or any of the Caucasus objectives really). So I don't know, it may even be better to go straight for objectives on the Volga river to achieve a quick victory in the east and only after turn south. I think there was some AAR like that earlier. But then the player has to wait longer for the prestige from the oil fields, so...

Without house rules, the game mechanics can be massively exploited for the Western bomber war.
Those exploits basically remove all challenge from that theater.

As I wrote earlier, one of the main aims of this release is to reduce possible exploits in general. Experience shows that if there is an exploit, players will use it, "'cos why not?" People are people and not everyone is thinking like you.

But in this particular case, I do not see a massive exploit. Mobile AAs can be used to chase air units all over Germany, all right, it is not very nice, but there are only a limited number of such units and I think those are better used in the eastern front in their job role i.e. to provide AA defense to the advancing/retreating units. If they are chasing bombers in Germany instead then the advance in the east will be slower and more costly.

Then the player can of course purchase some more of these or even upgrade some towed AAs early on, while there is no purchase option, but these are quite expensive and may not worth their price. As long as the Allies do not have long range escort fighters the existing bomber destroyer units and perhaps one or two Fw 190 are just as good to keep the bombers at bay, and these do not cost extra prestige since these are given by default. The problem only comes in the first half of 1944 with the arrival of the long range escort fighters, but that's just historical. Using mobile AAs against those may be a bit cheesy, but due to the large area affected - Allied air units can be active at that time just about all over Western Europe may also limit their effectiveness, unless there are many of them. And I think the player can only have many of them if he has already won in the east by that time. Which is already and alternative history line, so why not?

I’ve been reading all your posts for quite some time now, as far as my online translator allows ) Many people wonder whether it was even possible to defeat the Third Reich in the Second World War, but a thought suddenly occurred to me: if the Germans had managed to hold out until 1 September 1945, they would have been hit by the very same atomic bombs that the US dropped on Japan to put an end to its resistance )

Yes, and that's why the mod ends in July 1945 (turn 99) the latest. This mod is also a kind of alternative history. Just like the original game Panzer Corps is also like that. Because in real history I also believe that Germany did not really have a chance to win mainly because of the ideology. Too much effort was wasted on nasty things that did not contribute to victory on the frontline. And there were other missed opportunities like not mobilizing the nations of the occupied territories against the Bolshevik regime early enough. When they started to do that, it was too late and was only out of desperation. It was all the result of the ideology, of course. As far as I am aware Panzer Corps 2 is even more explicit in this regard, there is like an alternative history narrative or what, but I might be wrong about that, since I do not own that other game, I just read something like that.

And yes, in the alternative history line of this mod it is hinted that Germany is also able to develop such a devastating weapon by summer 1945 and with this it may be able to achieve a draw, if the other victory conditions are also met. In theory at least, I think Germany could have done the same. According to some estimates the German V2 rocket program was 50% more expensive than the U.S. Manhattan Project. So they might as well have spent that money differently.

[bondjamesbond]

I’ve been reading all your posts for quite some time now, as far as my online translator allows ) Many people wonder whether it was even possible to defeat the Third Reich in the Second World War, but a thought suddenly occurred to me: if the Germans had managed to hold out until 1 September 1945, they would have been hit by the very same atomic bombs that the US dropped on Japan to put an end to its resistance )

Yes, and that's why the mod ends in July 1945 (turn 99) the latest. This mod is also a kind of alternative history. Just like the original game Panzer Corps is also like that. Because in real history I also believe that Germany did not really have a chance to win mainly because of the ideology. Too much effort was wasted on nasty things that did not contribute to victory on the frontline. And there were other missed opportunities like not mobilizing the nations of the occupied territories against the Bolshevik regime early enough. When they started to do that, it was too late and was only out of desperation. It was all the result of the ideology, of course. As far as I am aware Panzer Corps 2 is even more explicit in this regard, there is like an alternative history narrative or what, but I might be wrong about that, since I do not own that other game, I just read something like that.

And yes, in the alternative history line of this mod it is hinted that Germany is also able to develop such a devastating weapon by summer 1945 and with this it may be able to achieve a draw, if the other victory conditions are also met. In theory at least, I think Germany could have done the same. According to some estimates the German V2 rocket program was 50% more expensive than the U.S. Manhattan Project. So they might as well have spent that money differently.

Thanks for your reply – I understand your point of view! But since we have alternative historical elements, perhaps we should introduce a few chemical and biological weapons? Or would that upset the balance of the game...?
https://history.milportal.ru/podgotovka ... otiv-sssr/

During the war, the Nazis used chemical weapons against Soviet citizens in temporarily occupied territories. For example, in May–June 1942, they used 0B against Soviet troops and the civilian population of Kerch, who had taken refuge in the Adzhimushkay quarries and were continuing to fight the enemy.

https://www.himza.ru/tree/tree.php?id=228

https://himza.ru/gallery/gallery.php?album_id=95


https://pikabu.ru/story/nemetskiy_kokte ... va_7968096

[Uhu]

Well in that regard I do not see the justification of Luftwaffe inf units as in the briefing for Barbarossa is stated that Hitler was moved out from power. That would mean all the national-socialists big heads would have been also ousted out. So Göring too. And so Göring could not have organize a different "army".

[JimmyC]

Thanks for your reply – I understand your point of view! But since we have alternative historical elements, perhaps we should introduce a few chemical and biological weapons? Or would that upset the balance of the game...?

During the war, the Nazis used chemical weapons against Soviet citizens in temporarily occupied territories. For example, in May–June 1942, they used 0B against Soviet troops and the civilian population of Kerch, who had taken refuge in the Adzhimushkay quarries and were continuing to fight the enemy.

I would be heavily against any chemical weapons in this mod from a moral perspective as it is a very slippery slope.

Interestingly, the Allies also had chemical weapons and brought them into the European theatre to be used "just in case". Interesting info about an Axis raid which resulted in chemical weapons being destroyed and injuring allied troops and the Allies cover up of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raid_on_Bari

[JimmyC]

Well in that regard I do not see the justification of Luftwaffe inf units as in the briefing for Barbarossa is stated that Hitler was moved out from power. That would mean all the national-socialists big heads would have been also ousted out. So Göring too. And so Göring could not have organize a different "army".

I actually like the idea of having Luftwaffe units as they were used historically. Apparently very well armed and supplied, but not particularly effective troops.

[bondjamesbond]

Thanks for your reply – I understand your point of view! But since we have alternative historical elements, perhaps we should introduce a few chemical and biological weapons? Or would that upset the balance of the game...?

During the war, the Nazis used chemical weapons against Soviet citizens in temporarily occupied territories. For example, in May–June 1942, they used 0B against Soviet troops and the civilian population of Kerch, who had taken refuge in the Adzhimushkay quarries and were continuing to fight the enemy.

I would be heavily against any chemical weapons in this mod from a moral perspective as it is a very slippery slope.

Interestingly, the Allies also had chemical weapons and brought them into the European theatre to be used "just in case". Interesting info about an Axis raid which resulted in chemical weapons being destroyed and injuring allied troops and the Allies cover up of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raid_on_Bari

It’s strange to even talk about morality when we’re suffocating Leningrad with a starvation blockade and could capture Moscow and London by slaughtering everyone there ))) The Germans used chemical weapons in local skirmishes; it wasn’t humanism or love for humanity that stopped them from using these weapons on a massive scale, but the fact that the Allies had many times more of these chemical weapons ) And if the Allies had carried out mass raids with chemical bombs, Berlin would have turned into Chernobyl. Italy, for example, gassed the Ethiopians, and the Japanese gassed the Chinese! And yes, I’ve read about the incident you linked to. But the question remains: why did the Allies drag so much chemical weaponry around if they had no intention of using it at all?
https://lenta.ru/news/2025/06/01/belash3/


After Germany’s surrender, the captured Luftwaffe commander Hermann Göring was asked about the herd. He replied that there were many horses in the rear units of the German divisions. However, the Wehrmacht had forgotten to order gas masks capable of protecting them from the herd. It turns out that German horses saved the lives of thousands of Allied soldiers.
https://xfile.ru/x-files/war/khimichesk ... y_mirovoy/

[Imeror]

But the question remains: why did the Allies drag so much chemical weaponry around if they had no intention of using it at all?

For the exact same reason everyone want nuclear weapon today : deterrence.

Chemical weapons are devastating, everyone saw that in 1914-1918 ; and nobody wanted to be hit by them again afterward.
There was a mutual fear, leading more or less to the logic : : "if we don't hit you with ours, you won't hit us with yours either."
Hence the need to have them readily available, so that the other side wouldn't think they could use them without facing the consequences the next day.

... and hence the fact that attackers in colonial wars (Italy in Ethiopia or Japan in China) could use chemical weapons without fear of retaliation
The opponents had no equivalent deterrent.


And there were also "minor" logistical problems, like "oh damn, it would be a shame if the wind picked up and blew the gas back onto my own troops."


A lot of reasons to keep them but not use them.

[bondjamesbond]

But the question remains: why did the Allies drag so much chemical weaponry around if they had no intention of using it at all?

For the exact same reason everyone want nuclear weapon today : deterrence.

Chemical weapons are devastating, everyone saw that in 1914-1918 ; and nobody wanted to be hit by them again afterward.
There was a mutual fear, leading more or less to the logic : : "if we don't hit you with ours, you won't hit us with yours either."
Hence the need to have them readily available, so that the other side wouldn't think they could use them without facing the consequences the next day.

... and hence the fact that attackers in colonial wars (Italy in Ethiopia or Japan in China) could use chemical weapons without fear of retaliation
The opponents had no equivalent deterrent.


And there were also "minor" logistical problems, like "oh damn, it would be a shame if the wind picked up and blew the gas back onto my own troops."


A lot of reasons to keep them but not use them.

It’s a shame there aren’t any scripts that can trigger chemical attacks by the AI if a player were to be tempted to use them themselves ))) That would be interesting, but I’m sure everyone would try to poison someone if they had that option and feature ) Because taking Moscow and Leningrad is tedious and takes ages with standard weapons ; )

https://en.topwar.ru/123384-pod-gradom- ... ast-1.html
https://en.topwar.ru/123385-pod-gradom- ... ast-2.html
https://him.1sept.ru/article.php?ID=200500204
http://levfedorov.ru/chemarmament-6-4/

In 1925, the world’s leading powers signed the Geneva Protocol, which prohibited the production and use of chemical and bacteriological weapons in warfare. A few years later, the Soviet Union acceded to the protocol. Later, upon coming to power, Adolf Hitler also confirmed Germany’s signature on this protocol.

But sometimes signatures on such international protocols are worth no more than the paper they are written on. It is no wonder, after all, that shortly after the end of the Second World War, Winston Churchill admitted: if Hitler’s forces had landed on the British Isles, he would have immediately ordered the use of chemical weapons... (A special warm greeting to fans of the Sea Lion DLC ))) This means that in the UK — despite the Geneva Protocol — such weapons did exist. And in sufficient quantities to allow for their mass deployment.
https://www.mk.ru/editions/daily/articl ... alina.html


And let’s not forget about the secret mining of Moscow, in case the city were to be captured by those fascist beasts!
https://dzen.ru/a/XUwtIkR0JgCtBMl7
https://tvzvezda.ru/news/201504171011-yxia.htm
https://bor-odin.livejournal.com/7101865.html
https://russian7.ru/post/kak-planiroval ... in-v-sluc/

Operation Cerberus
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Операция_«Цербер»