I’m looking forward to seeing the Osnaz minis in particular… :wink:
Lets Talk Atomic Bombs!
-
LOL. I like to blow up the stack too, but its so unrealistic that it makes the whole game look totally ridiculous.
If you do four roll hitting at 4 or less, you will have very few combat loses ( 4 infantry=12 ipc vs. 15 ipc cost)
What was wrong with total dice = enemy unit IPC value destroyed?
-
This is close to history and add strategy, what more do you want?
:roll:…I want to blow up the whole stack :-D
i understand :lol:, but you should understand that that these weapons were not capable of that.
Alright, how about a new tech:
Accidental Dice Throw
A giant die falls from the heavens and wipes out all units in a territory. -
@Imperious:
What was wrong with total dice = enemy unit IPC value destroyed?
It does not make nukes more effective against ships than ground units
-
Accidental Dice Throw
A giant die falls from the heavens and wipes out all units in a territory.I play with people who are serioursly challenged when rolling dice, this happens to me to much already.
-
:-D
-
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:
you brought up moscow, my comparison was to the density of people, whether in moscow or tokyo. people were more closely packed together in Moscow or Tokyo, so the casualty rate would have been higher there than in the actual 2 bombings. so…i’m right. :wink:
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.
you miss the big point by arguing details. the point was not in destructive power of a terrorist attack or in atomic bombs–it was in the response. destroy the center of a city and a country (USSR, in your example) and you will cripple far more than what happened in the US from terrorism and nuclear fallout to boot–that’s so relevant to an abstract game it’s crazy.
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.
no one is going to miss a city that size and just drop an atomic bomb anywhere “Oh, here looks good!” and they didn’t carry 2-4 bombs in an attack, just the one. The first bombs dropped on Berlin did miss their target and hit the zoo, killing the only elephant, but it did hit Berlin.
-
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
i think fallout on a much larger population would have had much larger casualty numbers as well as secondary fires, shockwave and the other effects of the bomb, but the psychological effect of miles of city being vaporized in an instance was the kicker that firebombing didn’t have, and what pushed them beyond the edge of fighting. That mushroom cloud isn’t something that
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.2 is fine, if we dealing with roughly 6 months of time. for me, i just don’t want having it in the game to be a breaker to everything, so i like the ability to use it, but still keep on fighting. As for use against ground units not be cost effective, i say limit it to ICs just to keep it simple.
-
2 is fine, if we dealing with roughly 6 months of time. for me, i just don’t want having it in the game to be a breaker to everything, so i like the ability to use it, but still keep on fighting. As for use against ground units not be cost effective, i say limit it to ICs just to keep it simple.
To my knowledge, the game turns have never been exactly specified as to how long they are because remember, AA is an asbtrast of WWII, so trying to fit it into an exact time frame doesn’t work well.
-
Getting back on-topic.
I think that what we have here are 2 groups of people.
Group 1 wants the Atomic Bomb to be a powerful-but-not-game-ending tech.
Group 2 wants the Atomic Bomb to basically end the game in-and-of-itself within a few turns.
I belong to Group 1. So from a Group 1 point-of-view, in trying to implement the Atomic Bomb in AA50, we need to have a few principles.
1. The Atomic Bomb must be a technology.
2. As a technology, it should be more difficult and/or more expensive to research than the other technologies.
3. Atomic Bombs should not be able to be used in the opening stages of the game. (i.e. Rounds 1-4)
4. It should be able to affect an opponent’s production ability and/or IPCs.
5. It should be able to affect land units in some way, but not in a overwhelming way.
6. After researching the Atomic Bomb, one should be able to use it at least once per turn if one wishes to…
7. Remember. We want this technology to add to the fun factor of the game.
These are the principles which I have come up with . Are there others? After deciding on which principles to follow, perhaps we can come up with an effective way to implement the Atomic Bomb.
-
In the real WW2, if Germany or Japan invented the nuke before the US they would most certainly win, unless the US managed to produce the bomb maybe a week after one of the axis powers got it.
But if any other country then the US invented the bomb and other powers didn’t, the first country (with the bomb) would win WW2.
-
@Subotai:
In the real WW2, if Germany or Japan invented the nuke before the US they would most certainly win, unless the US managed to produce the bomb maybe a week after one of the axis powers got it.
You means the US would sue for peace,
but you see nations in Axis and Allies never sue for peace they fight to the death. -
have you seen pics of hiroshima or nagasaki (like the one I attached)? those were one bomb, one city, quarter-million dead, several kilometers in all directions from ground zero obliterated…
LuckyDay, this is clearly a false statemen and that is fine, everyone on this fourm misspeeks all the time, but to continue to say it ins’t or that it means something else is just stupid
Anyways we should be discusing the rules and it seems like you and me agree on them, I just want some option for attacking military targets even if it is not normally cost effective
-
@Subotai:
In the real WW2, if Germany or Japan invented the nuke before the US they would most certainly win, unless the US managed to produce the bomb maybe a week after one of the axis powers got it.
But if any other country then the US invented the bomb and other powers didn’t, the first country (with the bomb) would win WW2.
japan did historically test their own bomb, i forget if it was a week before or after hiroshima, but needed more than the time before nagasaki to get on ready to drop on the US, so they couldn’t mount their own campaign before surrender.
-
Anyways we should be discusing the rules and it seems like you and me agree on them, I just want some option for attacking military targets even if it is not normally cost effective
i think rules for in-combat nukes can be included, but i don’t think in the 40s anyone would have charged their troops into a battle with-in range of their own nuke going off, so it would, imo, need either be a first strike weapon used before combat in a battle or in the 2nd round of combat, if it survives the first and the rest pull back. Despite the abstraction level of the game, to me there is something very unsatisfying about using a nuke in a battle where your troops are too. it wasn’t until after the war that countries thought in terms of fighting in a nuclear battlefield… i don’t know, that’s my rant for the day.
Bardoly’s right on the one hand that there’s no time set for the game–Germany takes several turns to make it to moscow when it only took them the summer of '41 to get there, like turn 1, while it took 3 years for the US to get to France, like 5-6 turns, but that’s the abstraction level, so a turn in AA is often considered a number of months, like the roughly 6 I mentioned. several months is probably as decent place to start with it as anything else…
have you seen pics of hiroshima or nagasaki (like the one I attached)? those were one bomb, one city, quarter-million dead, several kilometers in all directions from ground zero obliterated…
LuckyDay, this is clearly a false statemen and that is fine, everyone on this fourm misspeeks all the time, but to continue to say it ins’t or that it means something else is just stupid
dude, you gotta look at the context…
@LuckyDay:I dont think we are overestamating the econamic damage, but just so you know one a-bomb is not going to take out a whole city.
In 1948 the US had fiftry fission bombs, and it would have taken almost all of them to completely level moscow(given moscow is a big city).wow…. you were the one who said everyone else, myself included was overestimating the economic damage.
have you seen pics of hiroshima or nagasaki (like the one I attached)? those were one bomb, one city, quarter-million dead, several kilometers in all directions from ground zero obliterated…
as for moscow, what exactly would have to be hit to make the effect known? kremlin, stalin’s residence. it wouldn’t take 50 to make the city uninhabitable… -
you got to be kidding me LuckyDay,
I understand we were also talking about Moscow and Tokyo, but in that paragraph you wrote it clearly reads that the bomb dropped on hiroshama killed 250,000 and the bomb dropped on nagasaki killed 250,000 people. That is a false statement and its not right to say that I am taking anything out of context or that what you said meant something else
I understand that is not what you meant, but it is not my fault that what you wrote was wrong.
-
Getting back on-topic.
I think that what we have here are 2 groups of people.
Group 1 wants the Atomic Bomb to be a powerful-but-not-game-ending tech.
Group 2 wants the Atomic Bomb to basically end the game in-and-of-itself within a few turns.
I belong to Group 1. So from a Group 1 point-of-view, in trying to implement the Atomic Bomb in AA50, we need to have a few principles.
1. The Atomic Bomb must be a technology.
2. As a technology, it should be more difficult and/or more expensive to research than the other technologies.
3. Atomic Bombs should not be able to be used in the opening stages of the game. (i.e. Rounds 1-4)
4. It should be able to affect an opponent’s production ability and/or IPCs.
5. It should be able to affect land units in some way, but not in a overwhelming way.
6. After researching the Atomic Bomb, one should be able to use it at least once per turn if one wishes to…
7. Remember. We want this technology to add to the fun factor of the game.
These are the principles which I have come up with . Are there others? After deciding on which principles to follow, perhaps we can come up with an effective way to implement the Atomic Bomb.
Let’s look at how to implement having Atomic Bombs in AA50 rather than discussing history please.
I’m still waiting for some comments for this post.
-
A new tech tree is generated:
in order to be able to access it you need to develop:
Heavy Bombers
Long Range Aircraft
Rockets
If you have all three of these then you follow the usual procedure to develop this technology ( A bombs replace the 6 result)
Then you can build one for 15 IPC and only one per turn…
for production attack: roll 4 dice 3 of which are IPC losses, the 4th is permanent damage to the territory where its dropped.
for tactical attack: roll 4 dice and remove units whose IPC is equal to this amount. Fractions are destroyed.
-
Bardoly I agree with everyone of your points except i would add that even though the a-bombs attack against military units is not that effective, it should be mor epowerful against land units
And I IL, I like your Tech tree Idea, but why do you need stratgic rockets for atomic weapons? the US did not have stratigic rockets to my knowledge.
I also do not like removing units equal to to the IPC value, it does not imporve atomic weapons ability against more concentrated units and it seems to much like the stratgic attack, they are to similiar for them to be both in the game.
-
you got to be kidding me LuckyDay,
I understand we were also talking about Moscow and Tokyo, but in that paragraph you wrote it clearly reads that the bomb dropped on hiroshama killed 250,000 and the bomb dropped on nagasaki killed 250,000 people. That is a false statement and its not right to say that I am taking anything out of context or that what you said meant something else
I understand that is not what you meant, but it is not my fault that what you wrote was wrong.
if you are going to try the “read exactly what I wrote and not understand what I said” routine to try and divert attention away from the topic or even the points of contention, then what it actually would have said was that there was one bomb that hit both hiroshima and nagasaki, though they apparently were the same city, killing a total of 250,000. :-D
-
@Imperious:
A new tech tree is generated:
in order to be able to access it you need to develop:
Heavy Bombers
Long Range Aircraft
Rockets
If you have all three of these then you follow the usual procedure to develop this technology ( A bombs replace the 6 result)
Then you can build one for 15 IPC and only one per turn…
for production attack: roll 4 dice 3 of which are IPC losses, the 4th is permanent damage to the territory where its dropped.
for tactical attack: roll 4 dice and remove units whose IPC is equal to this amount. Fractions are destroyed.
Once again IL, i think you have summed it up and knocked it out of the park. Lock the doors and turn the lights off, this one is solved. Nice work, one and all.
Suggested Topics
