Lets Talk Atomic Bombs!

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:

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

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:

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

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

@Imperious:

slippery slope will follow that kind of rule. it should be one and if you do with 2-3 or even 4 it turns into WW3 ICBM game. Thats not really AA. It could be fun once, but a trick to be exploited. In all house rules you have to get away with the idea of allowing players to buy tons of items that can break a game. This would be the case with the old discussion on paratroopers and that “buck Rodgers exploit”.

I willl try to play a game soon with my a-bomb rules( which is really yours) , and tell you how it goes