I want to know what else keeps the game exciting the first few rounds besides the sino-japanese war.
Like what kind of options do the allies have to interfere with Japanese expansion early in the game?
Lets Talk Atomic Bombs!
-
look at the bikini atomic test results. Thats the only time they bombed a navy of sitting ships, and these were closely packed in. IN normal fleet movements they sail in different groups and not one big happy target of 50 warships packed in a 5 mile radius.
-
Yes, but land units would be much more spread out as well. Once that first tactical nuke gets dropped on a tank formation, unless the generals are stupid, you want everyone spread out and in heavy camouflage. Concentrations would be no larger than a battalion. A company would be ideal. Gone are the days when whole divisions are given a single strategic objective.
-
IN AA the pieces are ARMY level which is 3-5 corps, which is 3-5 divisions each, which is ect…
These are spread out like 20-100 miles and A bombs don’t have a kill zone of 100 miles.
IN AA naval ships are 4-25 warships depending on type.
Look at Midway and show how one bomb is gonna effect all the ships in these various task forces.
-
@Imperious:
IN AA the pieces are ARMY level which is 3-5 corps, which is 3-5 divisions each, which is ect…
These are spread out like 20-100 miles and A bombs don’t have a kill zone of 100 miles.
IN AA naval ships are 4-25 warships depending on type.
Look at Midway and show how one bomb is gonna effect all the ships in these various task forces.
You make your points very well, and I can’t argue with them. Still, based on what you said about land units, shouldn’t A-bombs then be unable to affect land units as well, or should it simply be an instant kill of 1 unit of your choice?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Nova edition A-Bomb wiped out all units in any territory. I like this idea. Yes, it is devastating, almost to the point of being unrealistic (depending on how many actual A-bombs are represented by 1 A-bomb piece). But I think that’s how an A bomb ought to be in an AA game. Yes, it’s kind of a game ender, but it ought to be.
Besides, with my rules, I could imagine myself as Germany, US gets a nuke, and thinking of ways to deal with it. I can still shoot bombers down with fighter intercept and AA. Yes, I’m still effectively screwed, but that’s OK. It’s kind of fun that way, and very challenging as well.
Which brings me to another point. If a game does have nukes, wouldn’t the optimal US strategy be to “Turtle Up” and simply research nukes? Heck, that’s what I would do.
-
For this reason i dont see the A bomb as a ‘tactical nuke’ I do like the NOVA games idea because its a cool thing to just blow up all the stack with one bomb.
I view these weapons as production killers which wipe out the IPC ( one die is permanent loss)
and 3 dice or 3 dice is one turns loss.
I prefer this:
1 dice normal bomber
2 dice heavy bomber
3 dice heavy bomber dropping a bomb and 4th die is permanent damage.
cost is 15 IPC carried by HB.
If you have to make a rule that these weapons can attack land targets then you do this:
roll 4 dice total = ipc in pieces lost.
example: you roll 18 total on 4 dice, and 6 infantry are gone.
This makes it more value to use against production targets, because you get one die that has lasting effects.
-
For me, it’s just simpler to blow up the whole stack :-D
-
For me, it’s just simpler to blow up the whole stack :-D
thats not history and thats not strategy, so for me it would not be fun
-
@Imperious:
If you have to make a rule that these weapons can attack land targets then you do this:
roll 4 dice total = ipc in pieces lost.
example: you roll 18 total on 4 dice, and 6 infantry are gone.
This makes it more value to use against production targets, because you get one die that has lasting effects.
I like the strategic bombing rules
but although atomic weapons are not the perfect ship killer, they would be much better against ships than ground units, if each ground unit represents an army then even four atomic weapons are going to have a pretty hard time of even destorying one of them.
What i suggest is a heavy bombers can choose to drop it in any combat round. The bomber rolls four dice and they hit on a four up. However after you drop a bomb in a land territory the battle has to immeditly stop and after the defender returns fire, the attacker must retreat unless he has killed all the defenders.
This is close to history and add strategy, what more do you want?
-
This is close to history and add strategy, what more do you want?
:roll:…I want to blow up the whole stack :-D
-
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.
-
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.
Suggested Topics
