@LuckyDay:
@Emperor_Taiki:
@LuckyDay:
one city, quarter-million dead,
What?, less than 200,000 combined
yes, and your point being…? the population density in Moscow was higher than in either of the 2 bombed cities
I beleive you were talking about the bombs dropped on Japan, so the point is that what you said was wrong, :wink:
@LuckyDay:
@Emperor_Taiki:
The complete devistation blast radius of a Fat Man fiisson bomb is 2 miles in all directions. In 1950, Moscow covered 386 square miles. So one bomb would have taken out the kremlin plus a good part of central moscow, but much of the population, industry and infrastucture would have remained intacted. Even after a few more bombs moscow would still be inhaitable and war production could still continue. On top of that there are many cities in an A&A region and so it requires a good amount of a-bombs to destroy all that.
2 miles in all directions is 16 sq miles (but we’ll take only 2 miles total for this instance). New York, which is larger than Moscow, had 2 buildings destroyed in 2001 and the entire city shut down in mass panic and hysteria for what about a week plus. Imagine that multiplied to 2 miles or (16-half the entire size of Manhattan), plus taking out the not only the leadership of the city, but of the nation itself, plus a radiative cloud orbiting the city, sweeping across it and depositing fallout on everyone and everything in it’s path. Now imagine the mass hysteria and panic that would ensue with the communication abilities and technology of that day with that kind of a disaster?
Exactly how much of that capacity to produce weapons and goods and services will really be able to continue when they have no leadership and their neighbors are dying from radiation burns all around them?
The US picked it’s bombing targets in large part to what hadn’t been firebombed, like Tokyo, to get a handle on the true magnitude of the bombs. The horrific devastation that was seen in those two target cities would only have been magnified in a larger urban setting .
terrorism is not modelled in A&A, you should compare A-bomb destruction to that of other bombing raids since they are very similar and show up in A&A. Also modern war econamies are very different from World War 2 era war econamies so the above point is just not relavent.
@LuckyDay:
@Emperor_Taiki:
and just to give you guys a little more perspective, the March 9/10 1945 fire bombing raid on Tokyo killed over three times as many people as the Nagasaki atomic bomb attack
that’s an apples to oranges thing–neither of the cities bombed was the size of Tokyo. The bombs took out half the population of those cities immediately, with much of the rest dying with months from radiation or days from fire/exposure. A bomb to Tokyo would have had a much larger toll simply based on the larger population.
sure, and the hills in nagasaki also reduced damage, but let me ask you this. How many people do you think would have been killed in a Tokyo attack, lets go crazy and say a quater-million would have been killed. But thats only one bomb? a group of bombers can attack repeatedly over the course of the 4-6 month turns, and in each night they firebomb a city the size of tokyo they kill half as many people as in the atomic attack
All i am saying is that regular stratigic bombing is not so different than atomic attacks
@LuckyDay:
@Emperor_Taiki:
In 1950, Moscow covered 386 square miles.
In addition SAC preformed drills on atomic bombers crews that revealed a number of promblems with delivering a-bombs accuartly
and in the case of moscow, the soveit union distorted maps of the country to confuse invaders, so it is not inprobable an a-bomb attack ordered on moscow would miss the target completely.
Just for kicks, how does one miss a city of 386 square miles completely…?
that is my point, you could miss a whole city, even one as big as moscow. crazy right. :-o
All it takes is one of the bombers to get lost and you have lost a fourth to a half your payload, depeding on whether it is 2-4 bombs in an attack.
@LuckyDay:
I would think that a atomic bomb should be used against industrial capacity and not in combat, who wants to send in troops to fight where you are nuking people? Like sending the cavalry in while continuing to fire with the archers.
12-15 ipcs per bomb, 1 per round. requires heavy bombers
roll 3d6, taking 2 highest as immediate loss to IPCs in hand and the third die being permanent damage to IC’s production
Example–roll 3d6= 2, 4, 6. 4+6 for 10 IPC damage immediately and 2 for permanent damage (-2 capacity each turn)
I think bomb units should represent 1 bomb, or if 2, i would change to 4d6 above. one bomb will allow bombs to be used, but not necessarily be an immediate game breaker, while 2 could have a devastating enough effect to possibly end the game, ie, 6 days for Japan to surrender. Given that a number of techs would have to be researched this would allow for later game development anyhow when it could have a scale-tipping effect anyhow.
my reasoning behind the 2+ number is that in the one an only nuclear campaign two bombs were used, and if we are limiting a bombs to one bein gbuilt every 4-6 months, and there was a game of A&A that had battles take place hisotrical, then there would have to be bombs built in what would be 1944
anyways we really dont have any differences in terms of the way we think stratigic attacks should be carried out
my main point is that although i think you should be able to use a-bombs against ground units, i just dont think is should be cost effective.
