Lets Talk Atomic Bombs!

[Emperor_Taiki]

@Imperious:

The effect: remove any AA gun and factory, PLUS permanent damage of what was rolled on D6.

again, that is not realistic

and your previous atomic tech rules were a lot better, less random, more fun, and made more sence

what was wrong with those?

[Imperious Leader]

the new system makes more sense:

1. you can get the bomb if you invest alot of money, but it will take a while and under this your most likely not to see it used at all, but if it does at least player will know that its coming and can do something about it.

2. destroying the factory and aa gun is a perfect was in AA terms to symbolize the damage in terms of loss of national production. You cant hide an atomic bomb going off and no people working in large cities are going to produce the same level of production thinking that one bomb can totally wipe out the city and your nation has no defense for such a weapon.

Real Germans would not continue to follow if Hitler got taken out and the first place for an allied bomb is Germany

British most likely would not continue the war if London got it. At least they may continue, but at a slower pace.

3. the cost of the bomb is 10 ipc and it cant be less because of the cost of getting the material for making it. Also, your potentially destroying 20 ipc of pieces and if you do the " roll 3 dice thing" you can get a 3 result which sucks.

additionally, the destruction of the factory actually represents the time delay following the damage of the bomb where people are getting over the shock and government is trying to reestablish its organization.

Lastly, i now feel that one atomic bomb is actually: “the number of potential atomic bombs that can be dropped in a 6 month period”  it was a flaw to automatically say this is ONE BOMB, because it can be more. It can be like 1-10 bombs all used in a 4-6 month period. The flaw in our thinking was that it was one bomb and that is not realistic. IN the first 6 months of use we had 3 such weapons, not one.

4. i am now also against these being used against military forces. Yes they can potentially kill parts of deployed forces, but an army occupies a front that extends at least a 100 miles, and once such a weapon was used tactics would be developed to deliberately not create large masses of men to avoid further loses.

Industry cant be moved and do in this manner it gets the effects of the weapon.

the idea that naval targets can get it is ridiculous, because fleets don’t travel in huge packs and if they did the enemy would not really know where it was. Even at Midway the Americans didn’t know where the main japanese fleet was.

[Emperor_Taiki]

i am playing with the preivous rules

[Huffzilla]

@Emperor_Taiki:

@LuckyDay:

one city, quarter-million dead,

What?, less than 200,000 combined

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.

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.

that being said, 1d6 or permanent damage + 3d6 of temporary damage is a reasonable way to represent the the dropping of four a-bombs.

my main dispute is with a-bombs being used against infantry and armor, as they would not be a particularly effective weapon.

Hi guys, Im a member now yeehaa!!! Ok, thats just crazy talk. Nagasaki lost upwards of 70,000 immediate fatalities just from the bomb blast!!! A hole crapload died in the next week and months. They are still not even sure of the total number of deaths attributed to the bombs. Leukaemia deaths didnt peak until around 1953. Nagasaki was still inhabited but it was done for the war from that ONE bomb. They chose the airburst height to maximize the extent of the immediate effects and to minimize residual radiation (fallout). It could have been worse in the long run.

The bomb destroyed 90% of the city. Look it up, 90%. You guys are vastely underating the power of the A-bomb. The Japanese were tough bastards, there is a reason they quit the war 3 days later. They were gonna lose and they knew it but they were going to force the U.S. to invade anyway. The A-bomb changed all that. I heard someone else say it would take 31 fussion bombs to take out Moscow. Ha Ha, that might be the silliest thing I have ever heard, no offense. Guess how many it would have taken……give up, ok here is the answer…ONE. Yes, thats right, one. They werent quite as fanatical as the Japanese, they fought with more smarts I think. The Japanese needed 2, the Russians would need 1 A-Bomb to hit before realizing they cant win, providing Stalin is dead. He was sick so if he could have hid on some remote island he wouldnt have surrendered till Russia was a steaming molten mass.

Anyway, Your looking at sheer numbers and you cant do that with the A-bomb. Your math goes like this…since the A-bomb takes out 2 miles in all directions and moscow is 386 miles they would still have 378 miles of Moscow to fight the war. It doesnt work like that. Any city, and I mean any city would be completely paralized. All those survivors walking around blind didnt even count as casualties. Not to mention the terror effect is enormouse. In a conventional bombing when its over its usually over after you put the fires out. People would be horrified once that black burning rain starts to fall and is taken to all parts of Russia by wind currents. im not saying Moscow would be completely destroyed, just paralized for a good while. A real good while. What army could fight such a war without being simmarly armed? No one. If they have the bomb and you dont, do yourself a favor and dont fight.

There is no way to realistically put an A-Bomb in the game. Whoever gets it wins, bottom line. The Geo-political ramifications alone make it imposible. It was the biggest story EVER!! Oh ya, and before I forget, Sac couldnt hit a city covering 386 miles but hit Nagasaki and Hiroshema in one try each? If thats the case its a damn good thing the U.S never got into a major war after WW11 because they seemed to get worse at strategic bombing and were tottally incompetent if you are to be believed.

[Imperious Leader]

since the A-bomb takes out 2 miles in all directions and moscow is 386 miles they would still have 378 miles of Moscow to fight the war.

what does this mean? Moscow is NOT 386 miles either wide or square in 1941-45. At most its 10-18 miles circle, so one bomb will take out at least half the city and kill about 85% with radiation within 4 months. Besides without Stalin who would most likely be in this city the Soviets would not last much longer w/o a political head because of the centralization of its politics. This is the case with Germany as well.

The whole point of the A bomb is to make something that can potentially end a game because AA needs to end because it can extend into too many hours of play.

[Emperor_Taiki]

@Imperious:

At most its 10-18 miles circle, so one bomb will take out at least half the city and kill about 85% with radiation within 4 months.

Not so,

Moscow had a rough radius of about 10-12 miles, which is 286 square miles, each atomic bomb completely devistates everything in a 2 mile radius, which takes out 12.56 sqaure miles. This means that in order to completely destroy moscow you need just under 31 bombs.

And this is only one of the cities in the Russia territory, thats why i believe each bomb piece should represent 4-6 bombs and that the factories and AA guns should not be destoryed.

[Imperious Leader]

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/moscow_1893.jpg

using this map it shows that the size of Moscow was 24,500 feet roughly equal to both axis, which is about 4.6 miles from side to side

The effects of Hiroshima bomb had pronounced effects of killing if a radius of 1.6-3.1 miles, so at most two bombs would take out the city. I cannot find any map from 1940’s, but we are talking about 50 years latter, but the main part of the city would be destroyed and fires out of control could conceivably do more damage.

http://www.neilstravels.com/online/templatemedia/all_lang/resources/Moscow+Map.jpg

This map shows on bottm right that the scale is 1.65 miles= the line on lower left. I take the ‘actual city’ as also roughly 4-5 miles as indicated in this MODERN map.

Therefore the previous estimate is incorrect. One to two bombs would easily take out Moscow and destroy the factory and any AA defenses located to protect it.

[Huffzilla]

@Imperious:

since the A-bomb takes out 2 miles in all directions and moscow is 386 miles they would still have 378 miles of Moscow to fight the war.

what does this mean? Moscow is NOT 386 miles either wide or square in 1941-45. At most its 10-18 miles circle, so one bomb will take out at least half the city and kill about 85% with radiation within 4 months. Besides without Stalin who would most likely be in this city the Soviets would not last much longer w/o a political head because of the centralization of its politics. This is the case with Germany as well.

The whole point of the A bomb is to make something that can potentially end a game because AA needs to end because it can extend into too many hours of play.

I just took his word for how big Moscow was, I didnt look it up. I just thought it was kinda funny how he said it would take 31 A-bombs to take out Moscow. I totally agree with you. Your correct, the only way to have an A-bomb in the game realistically is it would have to be an end gamer. You cant allow someone to get it on turn 3 or something. It is a fun way to end a game though, dropping A-bombs on each other.

[Imperious Leader]

just click the links and measure the size of Moscow yourself. If Atomic bomb takes out the Kremlin thats all you really need because you cut off the head of the snake. If Hitler and his primary administrators were for the most part in Berlin and taken out at one time, the resistance of the General staff would have overcome the survivors as they would not let Atomic Bombs destroy the cradle of western Civilization and the German people. Just like when Hitler dies the Reich falls barely a week latter.  NO nation is going to take A-bomb after A-bomb and just say “hey its nothing and has no effect on us”

[Emperor_Taiki]

IL, your first map is from 1893, when moscow was a glorified fiefdom and not much of an industrial city. In the coming years it grew a great deal espeacaly since it was the new capital.

Your next map only shows a portion of modern moscow, you probably should have realised this after your estimates showed that one of the worlds major cities had not grown in over one hundred years.
Today, Moscow is accaully over 417 sqare miles

Even if we were bombing 1893 Moscow, which is over 25 square miles, you would need more that two bombs to comepletely destroy the city, seeing as the bombs blast effects are in the shape of circles that dont conform to the borders of the city and that they would most likly miss their targets and have overkill where the blast radius’s of the bombs overlap.

I am sorry to say i do not have a source, but i remember reading that 1948 Moscow was 386 square miles.
And due to overlapping blast radius, circular areas of damage, missing targets, and innacruate maps of Russia during the soveit era, completely destorying moscow would take well over 31 bombs.

If you are aruging that destorying the kremilin (which would take one bomb that hit its target) would have the effect of destroying commnication and political control which then should be simulated by all the factories being destroyed as well as the AA guns in the Russia territory , that a different argument  …

But my math is correct.

[Huffzilla]

@Emperor_Taiki:

IL, your first map is from 1893, when moscow was a glorified fiefdom and not much of an industrial city. In the coming years it grew a great deal espeacaly since it was the new capital.

Your next map only shows a portion of modern moscow, you probably should have realised this after your estimates showed that one of the worlds major cities had not grown in over one hundred years.
Today, Moscow is accaully over 417 sqare miles

Even if we were bombing 1893 Moscow, which is over 25 square miles, you would need more that two bombs to comepletely destroy the city, seeing as the bombs blast effects are in the shape of circles that dont conform to the borders of the city and that they would most likly miss their targets and have overkill where the blast radius’s of the bombs overlap.

I am sorry to say i do not have a source, but i remember reading that 1948 Moscow was 386 square miles.
And due to overlapping blast radius, circular areas of damage, missing targets, and innacruate maps of Russia during the soveit era, completely destorying moscow would take well over 31 bombs.

If you are aruging that destorying the kremilin (which would take one bomb that hit its target) would have the effect of destroying commnication and political control which then should be simulated by all the factories being destroyed as well as the AA guns in the Russia territory , that a different argument  …

But my math is correct.

Ok, I dont even want to get into what a bomb would do to Moscow right now, but why do you keep insisting they would miss Moscow? Hitler had bad maps and awful intelligence. The bombers in 1945 were so much more sophisticated compared to 1941. Even if you are correct about the size of Moscow you only make my point. There is no godam way they are going to miss a city the size of Moscow with the bombers of 1945, no dam way. Sure it is possible with one bomber maybe missing its target with cloud cover I guess, but the chances are so small. They would hit it no question.

[Imperious Leader]

Your next map only shows a portion of modern moscow, you probably should have realised this after your estimates showed that one of the worlds major cities had not grown in over one hundred years.
Today, Moscow is accaully over 417 sqare miles

The second map is today’s Moscow and not the Moscow of 1941-45. Just google and look at Moscow under google maps. Its not as large as you claim. Just look at the second picture. When we say Moscow we are saying the city of Moscow not outlaying suburbs.

http://www.friends-partners.org/oldfriends/mes/russia/moscow/description.html

Moscow covers an area of about 386 square miles (878,7 square kilometres), its outer limit being roughly delineated by the Moscow Ring Road.

The boundary of Moscow (since 1960) corresponds to the Moscow Ring Road distanced from 17 to 21 kilometres from a city centre.

now just measure the size of this ring road and subtract a bit because this is not Moscow of today, but 1941-45 Moscow.

now to blast radius:

1.6-3.1 miles was quoted as the most substantial damage and i place the Moscow diameter at 15 kilometers in 1941-45
I think this is very generous considering the population is over 8 million now and in 1941 it could not be more than 1-2 million.

so…2 bombs dropped would create two rings of 10 kilometers, which is most of the city gone. I guess that 3 bombs would have done the job very well enough.

conversion

Miles  Kilometers
1 1.6
2 3.2
3 4.8
4 6.4
5 8.0
6 9.6

[Emperor_Taiki]

according to wikipedia the modern city of Moscow is 417 square miles in area, i guess that includes suburbs, i didn’t know why you are not including those(i assume many people live in the suburbs)
The map you gave only showed a portion of the city so i was objecting to its lack of relevenace

Using your definition of the city WW2 Moscow, i guess it would  only take a few bombs.
I thought the suburbs would be important targets as many people live there as well as there being some important industries

Remember we are also only takling about one important city in a territroy that has many other important cities, so just hitting every important city in a terriotry would require many bombs

And when i say the bombers  might miss their target, i am not saying that they would lilkly miss the whole city, but tha they might drop a bomb where one was already dropped and cause overkill which would waste the effectiveness of the bombing.

And  IL, even  if you are right and the area of Moscow That Is Worth Bombing being only 15 kilometers in diamiter that converts to a 5 mile radius or a 78.5 square mile area, and with each bomb destroying 12.56 square miles that means that
If every bomb was dead on target and the areas of effect somehow were not circles and never overlapped and conformed to each others borders and the borders of the city, then it would still take 8 bombs to completely destroy the city.

My main question then is, why should 1-6 bombs( one atmoic bomb unit) destroy all the factories( and AA guns of all things) in a whole territory, when a four to sixth month bombing campagin by a 1000+ bombers( 1 bomber unit) does not accomplsih anything  any where near that?

[Imperious Leader]

The actual city of Moscow is delineated by that ring. You cant count the various farms and suburbs because it contains the balance of the 8 Million population. 1945 Moscow cant be more than that ring at the most and 4,137,000 million living as of 1941. I consider the size to be 1/2 of what it is today.

Also each turn is 4-6 months, and each bomber is 1,000 planes, so each Atomic Bomb can easily be the total built bombs in 6 months ( say 3+) . AS far as destroying the city, the cost of the bomb is 10 IPC due to the cost of obtaining heavy water and various materials and you must justify the cost of killing a few hundred thousand workers and various factories representing the various localities that got destroyed by this weapon. Whoever drops it will drop it with some degree of precision considering the costs of development. I discount the claim that they will just hope and prey that they drop it in the correct place. BY WW2 late war intelligence was very good and bombardiers had good practice. The Germans or whoever are not just going to spend huge investment and ‘miss’ London or Moscow or something ridiculous like that.

The removal of the factory is a great rule because it make the weapon into game changer as it should be. The loss of production is the loss of national morale and people moving and ‘disappearing’ from factory jobs thinking that they may be the next to get an Atomic attack.

After dropping 3-10 atomic bombs the people don’t want to fight a war. No hope exist. And Hitler and Stalin Dead means a regime in shambles. Production declines and people just try to go to the country side. Just think what you would do if all our cities started to vanish in mushroom clouds… production declines and exodus to the hills and open land. The bomb would undoubtedly get dropped in the heart of the industrial center. Nobody is going to work again in this place. forget it.

The only thing in game terms this can mean is factory gone. Losing 3D6 is a joke way because you can get as little as 3 IPC lost. The factory is 15 lost, plus the IPC permanent roll loss.  so the net is 18 on average vs 10 spent. That makes sence to me.

[Emperor_Taiki]

@Imperious:

After dropping 3-10 atomic bombs the people don’t want to fight a war.

says you.

I am just kidding, but remember i am not that interested in the moral of political effects of the bomb, as i dont think it fits into the game of A&A which does not have  morale or political limitations expressed to a large degree.

Just like how in A&A nations can experience absurd amounts of bloodshed, i would like the introduction of atomic weapons to include the possibility of all out atomic conflict and maybe even armagedon. i would not like them to have to be a game ender.

After all, and as i explained before, some Japanese leaders wanted to continue fighting and i am sure they could have convinced a substantial part of the population to do the same, all it takes is propaganda.
Trumman had the emperor on the radio simply to make sure all the Japanese new that the war was over and they should stop fighting, and even after that we were still picking up jap soldiers on remote inlands as late as the 1970s, or so i am told.

And just to clarify, in addition to the 3d6 of damgae that is done by a stratigic attack, I also believe there should be one D6 that does permenent damage, so it is still a very powerful weapon, I just dont think you should lose the ability to produce in whole regions for a turn just becasue a few Abombs were dropped, it should be harder but not impossible.

We just have two different aproaches, I want atomic warfare and you want a game ender

I also enjoy having artillery, rockets, and subs being able to deliver the weapon

[Bardoly]

IL, I have to go with Emperor Taki on this one.  IMHO, I think that most people who want to add Atomic Bombs to the game would want them to ADD to the gameplay, not END the gameplay.

[Imperious Leader]

well thats fine, but nobody can use any historical example to say “hey they would continue to fight” The record shows the opposite. Only 2 bombs forces that decision and the Allies correctly determined that it would. Japan was more determined of the three axis nations and they are the ones that folded. I see no argument that can allow the Germans to continue to war if Berlin, The Ruhr, Hamburg, Munich and various other cities all were wiped out by Atomic Bombs.

I also don’t like the idea that a bomb gets dropped and right away you continue to produce just as before. The other aspect is you can have a three result and the guy who spent all his money on this tech has wasted a turn and has to keep trying again and drop another 3-10 bombs ( which is what 1 bomb represents). This becomes a sad way to model how the weapon actually effects a nation in various aspects which are more complicated than just “roll 3D6, plus one permanent”

But i guess the idea of dropping 50 A- bombs every turn and nobody surrenders now becomes just another extension of SBR except more harsh. This too me totally misses the reality of Atomic Bombs.

So if you want just to keep the thing going, whats the point of having them? You might as well leave them out
because your just adding stuff and really has no effect on the outcome.

Its one thing to add new units because you can pursue new strategies, but You may even be better off just buying more heavy bombers at 12, than one disposable A bomb for 10 IPC

[Emperor_Taiki]

@Imperious:

well thats fine, but nobody can use any historical example to say “hey they would continue to fight” The record shows the opposite. Only 2 bombs forces that decision and the Allies correctly determined that it would. Japan was more determined of the three axis nations and they are the ones that folded. I see no argument that can allow the Germans to continue to war if Berlin, The Ruhr, Hamburg, Munich and various other cities all were wiped out by Atomic Bombs.

A&A gives the player control over whether his nation is willing to fight, so that should not change with the bomb.

And my a-bomb does add to the game play and is a very powerful peice. The permenent damage adds alot to the game and denenetly makes it better than a bomber for SB. The fun in atomic war is in destroying the whole world, not just one city and calling the game. If one purson gets the bomb before everyone else however, they have a big advantage and will likly quickly win the game for  there side which is historical. All my rules give is anothere possible alternative, and i think people like choice in a game

[Imperious Leader]

Thats fine but nobody can make any argument that is supported by historical evidence. That rule being my former rule regarding 3 D6 plus one d6 permanent is not as realistic as the symbolism included by removing the factory. And if both choices lead the game to a conclusion which ends the game, why then do you choose the one that helps end the game only not as harsh as the second proposal?

If you make the cost of getting such a weapon hard , then the payoff should be equally rewarding to that player.

If a bomb in each case is 10 IPC and you can only build one of these its better to even not go after it and instead just buy more bombers.

I think some analysis should demonstrate the validity of going after both to get a better picture of the ultimate costs and reward of each bomb. If you take the first option i feel the risk /reward is about the same.

[Emperor_Taiki]

Well, if they cost 10, perhaps you should be able to buy 2 a turn