Lets Talk Atomic Bombs!

@LuckyDay:

So Bardoly, question about the rules, i want to make sure I understand the timeline for it…

–if from turn 1 you can research labs, you could potentially get them turn 1–
–turn 1 then you potentially build a lab during buy units phase?
–turn 2 you could research the bomb?, and potentially buy one if successful
–turn 3 you could research atomic bombers to deliver, build them and
–turn 4 drop a bomb…

–i don’t think it’s too long or short, because it’s a very best case scenario for 4 turns to have all that happen.  just want to make i was on the same page.

i think it puts some nice legs to the 1-2-3 levels, the placement of actual lab pieces could be optional i suppose, i could also see the capture giving them the lab tech, but maybe not all associated techs.

Well, theoretically speaking, you could even do it by turn 3, but the odds against it would be quite high.

Turn 1 - Purchase researchers, get a breakthrough, research Nuclear Labs, purchase and build a lab.

Turn 2 - Purchase researchers, get a breakthrough, research Atomic Bomb, purchase and build an Atomic Bomb.

Turn 3 - Purchase researchers, get a breakthrough, research Atomic Bombers, do an Atomic Bombing Run with a bomber which you already control.  Of course, probably not many territories would be in range for either Japan or the US this early.

I think that you are right about the capture of a Nuclear Research Lab giving them the Nuclear Research Lab tech instead of all of their Nuclear techs to date.

Has anyone thought of having A-bombs destroy IC and aa guns (scorched earth)?  These are the only indestructible units (unless aa gun is on trn and is sunk).

I think having A-bomb destroy IC and aa gun, and having the territory no longer provide IPC and be unable to build a IC or units for X rounds/turns (I use rounds/turns interchangeably, meaning full cycle of countries) would be a great idea but the tech would have to be hard to obtain with a max of one or two per game (sort of like an arms race, the country that gets it first has access to it).

And to stay with OOB rules, we could do a tech tree as some people suggested, needing all three techs: 1) rockets, 2)LRA, 3) Heavy bombers and then unlocking A-bomb tech, requires a roll (cost 10 but not cumulative (one shot), limited to 1 per round) of three dice with all three being the same number (111, 222, 333, 444, 555, 666).

The #'s will determine the cost and length of time needed to build it.

111= 2 rounds, cost of 20, limit of 1 attempt to build it per game, takes up 1 production capacity
222= 2 rounds, cost of 18, limit of 1 attempt to build it per game, takes up 2 production capacity
333= 2 rounds, cost of 16, limit of 1 attempt to build it per game, takes up 3 production capacity
444= 3 rounds, cost of 14, limit of 2 attempt to build it per game, takes up 4 production capacity
555= 3 rounds, cost of 12, limit of 2 attempt to build it per game, takes up 5 production capacity
666= 3 rounds, cost of 10, limit of 2 attempt to build it per game, takes up 6 production capacity

Research and breakthroughs have some luck involved so that’s included in reflected on dice rolls.

So if you are the first to obtain the A-bomb tech, and you roll 111 through 333, only one country gets an attempt at building it.

444-666 means that until there are two attempts to build A-bombs, other countries can try to obtain the tech and build it.

The A-bomb build attempt can be disrupted if the capital of the country falls or the place where the A-bomb is being built falls

• Limitation being, A-bombs can’t be built on any territory with less than 3 IPC value, requires an IC, and a new bomber has to be built from the same place as the A-bomb is being built.
  Also, it takes one extra round to load the A-bomb onto the bomber.  And it has to A-bomb a territory with an IC on it, and in a single run (no stop overs) but is able to expend 8 movement points to get to the target (kamikazi).

@gnasape:

Has anyone thought of having A-bombs destroy IC and aa guns (scorched earth)?  These are the only indestructible units (unless aa gun is on trn and is sunk).

I think having A-bomb destroy IC and aa gun, and having the territory no longer provide IPC and be unable to build a IC or units for X rounds/turns (I use

this idea has come up,
but it is not refelctive of what atomic weapons were historically.
Even if each bomb piece represented 6 bombs, it would not permenently take out all of a countries industrial production and capacity for six months.

IL,

I added the one about extra round just in case people deemed it too powerful.

@Imperious:

ok this a very complicated but it seems your saying:

1. get the prerequisite techs as previously outlined.

2. spend 10 IPC for a one time roll ( it does not continue every turn) and you need to roll 3 dice getting all the same number ( like a combination to a lock…kinda)

3. once you obtain the required pips, you pay the additional IPC and you will get the bomb in X turns.

Also, it takes one extra round to load the A-bomb onto the bomber.

also why is this a rule? Where do you see the need for such a rule? Each turn is 6 months, so how does it take that long to put the a-bomb under the fuselage of a bomber?

@Emperor_Taiki:

@gnasape:

Has anyone thought of having A-bombs destroy IC and aa guns (scorched earth)?  These are the only indestructible units (unless aa gun is on trn and is sunk).

I think having A-bomb destroy IC and aa gun, and having the territory no longer provide IPC and be unable to build a IC or units for X rounds/turns (I use

this idea has come up,
but it is not refelctive of what atomic weapons were historically.
Even if each bomb piece represented 6 bombs, it would not permenently take out all of a countries industrial production and capacity for six months.

It did end the war for Japan.  It did sap the will to fight seeing mass destruction caused by the A-bomb, you can rebuild factories but can you easily rebuild the will of the people?  IC and IPC’s to me represents the war commitment of the whole country.  I think this has enough hoops that by the time when you get it it’s games over for Axis or Allies.

@gnasape:

It did end the war for Japan.  It did sap the will to fight seeing mass destruction caused by the A-bomb, you can rebuild factories but can you easily rebuild the will of the people?  IC and IPC’s to me represents the war commitment of the whole country.  I think this has enough hoops that by the time when you get it it’s games over for Axis or Allies.

thats a great point, and brings up the question of what does the IPC accually represents. Because Axis and Allies does have really have any political rules, I prefer IPCs to simiply represent industrial production and the player to represent the countires leadership as well as the will of its people.

One of my main supports for the IPC just representing indutrial production is that if each infantry represents an army, then the US player would lose many hundreds of thousands of lives in the game. This would have definently sapped the US’s will to fight, but that does not show up in reduced IPCs.

I also think it is fun for a player to have total control over his people and not be bothered by politics.

@Emperor_Taiki:

I also think it is fun for a player to have total control over his people and not be bothered by politics.

@Imperious:

I would say perhaps a nation must roll a d6 and surrender on a 1…

Irreconciliable differences?

Perhaps, if a Victory Point system is in play it could provide the incentive: “I can quit now with more VPs or keep on fighting until every last territory glows in the dark”

So in effect you win (amongst the losers) if you don’t drag out the inevitable.

@allboxcars:

@Imperious:

I would say perhaps a nation must roll a d6 and surrender on a 1…

I could go for something like this, although I dont see why national resovle would weaken exponentialy with the increased atom bombs.

And allboxcars, I do like the victory point idea and individual victory, could you elaborate on exactly what you have been thinking about, so that people might not decided to fight to the death or still have reason to fight when they are outnumbered.

You should make a new topic about it

@Bardoly:

Well, theoretically speaking, you could even do it by turn 3, but the odds against it would be quite high.

cool, thanks Bardoly.

IL’s idea about the 1 d6 with a one to surrender could give the political aspects in a very simplified model, while Bardoly’s tech tree gives a simple flow to research and the 4d6/1d6 bombings of ICs/units gives a simple picture into the damage it produces.  this balance between over-complicating either side could give both aspects of the war and still be fun to use and stick close to LH’s ideas. 
  and if we keep atomic bombers at a range of 6 for normal (without LRA), then it would only be Europe that could glow in the dark potentially by round 3.

I dont really like the research labs and it does not realy makes sence that atomic bomers is its own tech when heavy bombers is a tech.

It would be stupid If there were bunch of A bombs on the board but could not be used becasue there were no bombers for them.

I like IL’s research rules better as they are pretty straight forward and even include atomic artillery, which also makes adavnced artillery a better tech and makes both breakthrough charts more balanced.

@Imperious:

Also, if you have super subs you may include a new delivery system for the Atomic Bomb. Germans had considered this because they wanted to get a V-2 to Washington by launching it from a sub.

Really? thats awesome! i would say the subs have a range of one on delivering those and atomic artillery have to be attacking the territory  it launches it in.

I dont like that the liklyhood of surrendering increases for each A-bomb dropped,

a population could potentionally endure it indefinently or become use to  a-bombs as part of conventional warfare, so i think that should show up in the game.

I would think do to the shock value of the new weapon the likely hood of surrendering should be the highest the very first time the bomb is used. And also the surrender roll should only aply if the bomb is used in a stratigic attack, and you cannot stratigic attack a territory that now has a IPC value 0.

One example would to support this would be that
If Japan had not surrendered after the first two bombs were dropped it would problably have been a sign that the Japanes leadership and many Japanese citizens were prepared to fight to the death even if it meant the destruction of their whole country.

@Emperor_Taiki:

I dont really like the research labs and it does not realy makes sence that atomic bomers is its own tech when heavy bombers is a tech.

It would be stupid If there were bunch of A bombs on the board but could not be used becasue there were no bombers for them.

The whole idea is to ensure that Atomic Bombs are not used too early.  I mean, come on now, it would be quite silly to roll tech on turn 1, get Atomic Bombs, use them and win the game all before the end of round 1 or 2.  Why not play yatzee instead?  The Nuclear Research Lab and the other techs are just one way to make sure that if you want to research nuclear bombs, then you will have to invest heavily in it.  I just don’t like the idea of saying that Atomic Bomb researchers cost more than regular researchers.  Remember, we are trying to stay as simple and as close to the OOB rules as possible, while adding a historical weapon to the game.

@Imperious:

OK when bomb dropped:

1= surrender
2= IPC reduced permanently by 2 D6
3-4= IPC reduced permanently by 1 D6
5-6= no builds for one turn in territory hit by bomb, IPC not reduced permanently.

how bout this rolled each turn the bomb is dropped?

I dont lie that because the reason your rolling the dice is for the political effect,

I dont like politics effecting your IPCs, since no where else in the game does politics effect IPCs