Lets Talk Atomic Bombs!

you guys are vastly overestimating the power of atomic weapons.

i think it is reasonable to assume that each A-bomb unit represents 2-4 accual atomic bombs

With 2 a-bombs you would be very hard pressed to completely destroy even one infantry or armor division(particularly if they are dug in), and each piece usually represents more than that.

A-bombs should only be used against naval and air units aswell as for IPC damage. air and naval targets are not very well disperced and easy targets for an a-bomb, ground units cover many square miles and have better cover.

and a-bombs should not destory ICs, Japan had other cities where it could produce stuff, it just had less resources to produce with.

I agree.

Atomic Bombs should be difficult to get, but they should not be a game-ender in and of themselves.  I mean, what if the Axis side and the Allies side both get Atomic Bombs?  They should still be able to play out the game.  Now I don’t want Atomic Bombs coming out until at least turn 5 or later, but I would like to think that if they had been researched as little as 2-3 years earlier in the war, then what would have happened?

@Bardoly:

.  Now I don’t want Atomic Bombs coming out until at least turn 5 or later, but I would like to think that if they had been researched as little as 2-3 years earlier in the war, then what would have happened?

nice point

@Emperor_Taiki:

@Bardoly:

.  Now I don’t want Atomic Bombs coming out until at least turn 5 or later, but I would like to think that if they had been researched as little as 2-3 years earlier in the war, then what would have happened?

nice point

Thanks.

This world has never had a nuclear war, but if the atomic bomb had been developed by Germany in '41-'42 (entirely possible), then I’m sure that Adolf would have been dropping them like crazy.

One think to remember though, is that the WWII atomic bombs were much less powerful than today’s nuclear weapons, so even thoughthey were very powerful and demoralizing, they were not the only war-ending factor.  Think, if Germany had developed the atomic and used it, and the US developed it soon after and used it on Japan, would Japan have surrendered quite so fast if they had already heard that their ally already had this technology, and remember, that if Germany had still been in the war up till August 1945 with atomic bombs, then I believe that the US would NOT have been in position to drop atomic bombs on Japan’s main island.

This said, I believe that atomic bombs SHOULD be in the game as a tech, but the tech should both be more difficult to get than other techs, and should not come into play in the first 4-5 rounds of play, and the tech should be powerful but not game-endingly so.

If Germany had still been in the war in August '45, then it would have been Berlin burnt to a crisp…

@Bardoly:

.  Now I don’t want Atomic Bombs coming out until at least turn 5 or later, but I would like to think that if they had been researched as little as 2-3 years earlier in the war, then what would have happened?

Would have changed the shape of the war, after all, Japan had 2 nuke programs going, one was only months, maybe weeks from giving them their first bomb when Hiroshima was hit.  Then when the Russians came through Manchuria, they swept up all this info and their program was given a huge step forward.

@Emperor_Taiki:

you guys are vastly overestimating the power of atomic weapons.
i think it is reasonable to assume that each A-bomb unit represents 2-4 accual atomic bombs
With 2 a-bombs you would be very hard pressed to completely destroy even one infantry or armor division(particularly if they are dug in), and each piece usually represents more than that.
A-bombs should only be used against naval and air units aswell as for IPC damage. air and naval targets are not very well disperced and easy targets for an a-bomb, ground units cover many square miles and have better cover.

when talking about 1 bomb, maybe it’s considered over-powered, but if talking about 4 taking out 4 cities then you are talking about alot of damage to industry.  What a bomb unit represents needs to be determined first to give proper scale to destructive capabilities.
  170,000 dead in 6 months in Hiroshima is nothing to scoff at, wood houses or not.  Imagine if Germany had one and targeted Stalingrad?!  While they may have preferred Moscow as the first target, the practical implications of a nuke to Stal. is huge, Save a whole army, destroy the city, irradiate the troops within, blocks off the oil fields, allows focus on Moscow.  It doesn’t destroy the complete IPC value of the territory, just the tank factories in Stalingrad, but logistically it does cut of the Russians.

As for hitting air/sea units, if the sea units were in port this would have a better chance, but just as the INF divisions will be spread out, when dealing with AA, planes tend to be considered in the air and during combat/defense moves, so I think targeting ‘airfields’ will go against the grain of the established game mechanics.

@LuckyDay:

As for hitting air/sea units, if the sea units were in port this would have a better chance, but just as the INF divisions will be spread out, when dealing with AA, planes tend to be considered in the air and during combat/defense moves, so I think targeting ‘airfields’ will go against the grain of the established game mechanics.

com’on, air units have to return to airbases where they are consentrated targets, a-bombs would work pretty well against air feilds as well as ship units which only represent a few ships each.

ground units would have much more servivability.

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).

@Emperor_Taiki:

@LuckyDay:

As for hitting air/sea units, if the sea units were in port this would have a better chance, but just as the INF divisions will be spread out, when dealing with AA, planes tend to be considered in the air and during combat/defense moves, so I think targeting ‘airfields’ will go against the grain of the established game mechanics.

com’on, air units have to return to airbases where they are consentrated targets, a-bombs would work pretty well against air feilds as well as ship units which only represent a few ships each.

The point is not that planes have to land.  The point is that the game mechanics are such that planes are in the air for combat, so by designating that you are attacking planes on the ground you have COMPLETELY changed the game mechanics.  That is not to say that it could not work, however realistically when considering changes to gameplay it is wise to look at how the game already works before you start meddling.
  It’s like changing how transports relate to other units.  They no longer shoot at all and cannot defend themselves and cannot be taken as casualties–once they are all that’s left, they are toast.
  But this changed the basic game mechanic of how they interact.  It can certainly be done, but you have to understand the dramatic changes that that brought with it in AA50.

@Emperor_Taiki:

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…

I was thinking the same thing about the Germans and the A-bomb.  I was wondering also, if we had bombed Berlin, would Japan have surrendered also?

@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.

@LuckyDay:

If Germany had still been in the war in August '45, then it would have been Berlin burnt to a crisp…

Agreed, but London would have been toasted first if Germany had gotten the A-bomb first, and then where would the US have based its A-bomb bombers?

OK, if you think A-bombs are too powerful, how about this: Splitting A bombs between tactical and strategic use.

Personally, I don’t like this idea, since there really is no difference between tactical and strategic nukes.  There is no way you can avoid civilian casualties.  Still, here it is.

Strategic Atomic Bomb Drop

Works like SBR, only the entire IC and AA is removed.  All other effects still apply.

Tactical Atomic Bomb Drop

Remove all combat units.  All other effects still apply.  
*If you still think this is too powerful, roll 3 dice and remove number on the dice.  
**Still not satisfied?  2 or 1 die, d10, whatever floats your boat.

Yes, atomic bombs should NOT be used in naval battles, and their main use should be against ICs, but I think that there could have a tactical use, so here are my thoughts.

Against ICs:  roll 3 d6 - that many damage counters are applied to the IC of which 1 is a Permanent Damage Counter which reduces the maximum production value of the territory by 1.  (The territory may never have more than half (rounded up) as many Permanent Damage Counters as the IPC value of the country.

Against units:  Roll 1d6 - that many units are destroyed.  {More than half (rounded up) of the units in the territory may NOT be destroyed by 1 Atomic bomb in this way.}  This use can only be used in straffing attacks.  i.e. You can’t do this along with land units attacking a territory.

Upside-down_Turtle
 there really is no difference between tactical and strategic nukes.  There is no way you can avoid civilian casualties.

First of all that is not ture in the least, tactical nukes have a yeild anywhere from 1-100 kilotons of TNT, and stratigic can be over 10 megatons. In a war today tac nukes could be used in certain situations with out directly causing civilian cauaslaties.

but for our purposes that does not really matter, because a-bombs were not going to get much more poweful than 20-kilotons and ones dropped on Japan were 14 kilotons, so in world war 2 there would be no difference between tactical and stratgic nuclear weapons

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

These are the rules i suggest after you research the a-bomb

they cost 12 IPCs and you can only build one a turn.

they can be used in a stratigic bombing raid and dropped by a heavy bomber, they cause 1d6 of permenent damge and 3 D6 of temporary damage.

A heavy bomber can also use it in a regular  battle(land or naval) where it rolls 3 dice and each die hits on a 4 or less. however if an atomic bomb is used in a land battle the combat round after the bomb is used the attacker must retreat unless he has destoryed all of the defenders.

@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

@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 .

@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.

@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…?

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.

@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.

@LuckyDay:

2 miles in all directions is 16 sq miles (but we’ll take only 2 miles total for this instance).

no, it is 12.56 square miles. so that means it would take just under 31 A-bombs to compeletly destroy Moscow(I said almost fifty earleir so I correct myself), of course that is assuming none of the bombs miss or land on same spot. But even then you have only destroyed one of the cities in the Russia region.

Personally, I see no reason why A-bombs can’t be used in naval battles.  Yes, ships can split up, but so can land units.  That’s why a dice roll and not a complete wipe is probably better in both cases.

On the not of civilian casualties, there is this little thing called the Jet Stream.  Nuclear fallout is going to kill and poison people way outside the blast radius, no matter how “small” in kilometers it may be.