Unfortunately, I couldn’t find anything from Der Kuenstler. Here is the piece Gen Manstein was talking about:
https://www.historicalboardgaming.com/Atom-Bomb-3D-Printed-x5_p_3707.html
Nuclear weapons
-
Do you think the game should include the R&D and deployment of nuclear weapons? If so, what rules should we follow?
-
thats clearly a threshold that should not be crossed. It basically ends the game with some quick tech trick and soils the glory of an otherwise good romantic war that was WW2.
-
Heavy bombers are close enough, I’m glad it’s been toned down since A&A classic.
-
It basically ends the game with some quick tech trick and soils the glory of an otherwise good romantic war that was WW2.
nukes have to be powerful in order to be realistic. but there is a way to add them and improve the game. you can think of nukes as a way to end a stalemate, favoring the allies. this also solves the added problem of really long games.
make the rules of nuke development make it almost impossible of develop them before turns 7-10, depending on how long you want to make the game. since the allies will probably end up being favorites in the nuke race, you would have to modify other game rules to favor the axis. what you end up with is a quicker game on average with the axis blitzing to destroy the allies before they beat the axis through attrition and technology (behold, actual wwii realism).
i’ve already developed a set of rules that accomplish all this and makes the game a lot better while keeping it just as simple. the reason why it’s pointless for me to share my rules including nukes is that i had to revamp the entire set of AA rules also and i don’t really have the time to write out all those house rules. also, i doubt anyone wants to read something that long. i wouldn’t.
the point is that nukes can be included but i think many other rules have to be changed to compensate. it 's not going to be a quick fix.
-
Why was my post moved anyway? Can’t we adapt the rules to A&A revised?
The question came to my mind after I saw the modified rules from W@W. Since nukes were used in WWII, I thought it was possible to include them in A&A. But I think we would need very strict rules that would make them very hard to develop, like duke said.
-
and i don’t really have the time to write out all those house rules. also, i doubt anyone wants to read something that long. i wouldn’t.
I would :D
good romantic war that was WW2
Oh, Imperius, you’re gonna have to convince me of that one……badly
-
I would
thanks for the interest. if others seem interested as well then i’ll spend the time writing it all out. the bad news is i won’t have the time to write it out until early november. it will be a really, really long post but trust me, it will blow your mind!
-
I hope it will cover all the aspects you think are unrealistic about the game. (A&A revised forum)… :D
-
it certainly does. :P
-
I would Â
thanks for the interest. if others seem interested as well then i’ll spend the time writing it all out. the bad news is i won’t have the time to write it out until early november. it will be a really, really long post but trust me, it will blow your mind!
Hey Duke,
any chance you will be posting your rules for nukes soon? -
He has not been around since sept.
-
He hasn’t posted in awhile, but he’s still been reading the boards.
I bet he’s busy writing down “The Duke Nuke Rules” for the forum.
-
Game Over when a player develops nukes. Destroy all units in the province including AA guns and industrial complexes. That short and simple and grim. No need to roll dice for economic damage from SBR since the player cant place any new units without an IC. Hence the unconditional surrender of the opposing force.
-
Atomic Bomb: (USA only)
Available to the US player starting on turn 8, and carried by heavy bomber. Only two such weapons of this class are allowed to be dropped. Roll one 6 sided die results in permanent loss of IP in attacked territory. If the target is against enemy units then the die result is number of destroyed units. -
@Imperious:
Atomic Bomb: (USA only)
Available to the US player starting on turn 8, and carried by heavy bomber. Only two such weapons of this class are allowed to be dropped. Roll one 6 sided die results in permanent loss of IP in attacked territory. If the target is against enemy units then the die result is number of destroyed units.If you are going to allow it, sounds like a damn fine plan.
I would simply say that if the US gets to try for it in 8, then Germany should also be able to try in 10.
-
@ncscswitch:
@Imperious:
If you are going to allow it, sounds like a damn fine plan.
I would simply say that if the US gets to try for it in 8, then Germany should also be able to try in 10.
If US is allowed nukes in 8 then Germany in 10
Original idea. I like it. -
Guys, there’s already nukes in the game. I think most people would agree that each playing piece is representative of a larger group, rather than an individual. For instance, the infantry figurine is representative of possibly a division rather than one individual soldier, likewise a bomber would be representative of an airwing, not a single bomber.
There was nothing special about the nuclear bomb strategically. Incendiary bombings were found to be far more effective if used en mass on cities, especially Japanese cities as the structures were built fundamentally from wood and plaster (to save rebuilding costs following natural disasters such as earthquakes). While the nuke was clearly unique tactically, it was only for its efficiency and speed, to kill hundreds of thousands in an instant with one bomb.
However: That bomb was incredibly expensive. The Manhattan project used over 1% of America’s electrical power alone, and only three bombs were actually created through this project. Incendiary and impact bombings were just as, possibly more effective as a practical weapon throughout the war.
The conclusion I’m drawing here, is that the dropping of one nuclear bomb from one plane, is easily the alternative to dropping thousands of firebombs from a large heavy bomber airwing (represented as one bomber on the A&A board anyway), so isn’t it assumed we already have nuclear weapons in the game? What would change?
-
The conclusion I’m drawing here, is that the dropping of one nuclear bomb from one plane, is easily the alternative to dropping thousands of firebombs from a large heavy bomber airwing (represented as one bomber on the A&A board anyway), so isn’t it assumed we already have nuclear weapons in the game? What would change?
I totally agree. I think there a lot of changes that can be made for historical purposes, such as nuclear weapons, but yet many of those changes wouldn’t effect the game in a unique way. There are plenty of people who think that nuclear weapons must be added to preserve the historical integrity of the game. Why can’t those people just treat the heavy bomber tech as if it incorporates nukes already? Just because it’s labeled as “heavy bombers” and not “heavy bombers+nukes”?
-
I also think nuclear bomb shouldn’t be added to the game.
You’ll never model it properly.
It costs so much to research and produce. 60 IPCs?
Nukes are not primarily for destruction of military. We’ve mentioned permanent IPC loss but historic it was more for shock, destruction of civilian and morale.In the end I think the war is over when nukes were made.
If Japan didn’t get hammered down US wouldn’t have the time and resource to do it.
Otherwise continental America would have fallen to Japan’s conventional forces for a double KO as Japan retaled for American civilian. -
Yes A bombs are basically a game breaker… However historically you only had 2 such weapons with 2 additional weapons available in 6-9 months ( 1-2 turns latter).
Suggested Topics
