Lets Talk Atomic Bombs!

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

If the A-bomb in A&A was to reflect reality as much as possible, then it should also be included in the rules that permanent damage to a TT also applies for ALL GAMES played on the boardgame map that the A-bomb rules are used. So next time you start a game, there will be permanent damage on i.e. Germany, Germany will be reduced to (i.e.) 5 ipc instead of 10 ipc.
So after a few games with A-bomb rules you will have to buy a new boardgame… :lol:

This is the real effect nuclear weapons have on the TTs they are used against.

@Imperious:

Something has to model this reality. It cant be a situation that your dropping 10 A-bombs and the Russians DON’T surrender?

Why Not?

first off, after dropping 10 of the a-bomb units on russia they might have surrendered, plus politics and popular support for the war is not modelled in detail in the game, so if you have dropped 10 a-bombs in strategic attacks and a 1 is never rolled, that just means the Russian people are very dedicated which is a factor that is left up to chance

Maybe

OK.
For effects, how about each bomb:
1. makes any VC in the target territory count towards the attacker’s possessions
2. destroys any IC and AA
3. kills d6 units (owner’s choice)
4. reduces the IPC of the target territory by d6
5. makes the owner hand over d6 IPCs to the bank (emergency relief $$ out of your war production economy)

With regards to 1, I was originally tempted to suggest just stripping the city of VC status but then you’d have to re-calculate what is required to maintain the 15/18 victory conditions etc.

Anyway, this leaves the politics of surrender within the player’s call but really makes continuing the war unfeasible.

Beyond this I can only suggest, after the second bomb, subsequent bombs will:
6.  permit opposing players to descend on the resisting defender and give him a wedgie and devour his beer / snacks until he agrees the game is over.