Lets Talk Atomic Bombs!

@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.

@Imperious:

It should remove the VC and give it permanent control of the nation that dropped the bomb. It cant be retaken and change hands once the bomb takes it out.

yah thats better than rolling the dice for surrender

its stupid though for the IC and AA to be destory as thats not what a-bombs did. It should just cause lots of damage

for causlaties i guess 1 d6 could determine numbe of hits

i dont like these political rules though, i think it would be fun to have a long drawn out nuclaer war where all the IPCs are destroyed

@Imperious:

The effect: remove any AA gun and factory, PLUS permanent damage of what was rolled on D6.

again, that is not realistic

and your previous atomic tech rules were a lot better, less random, more fun, and made more sence

what was wrong with those?

i am playing with the preivous rules

@Emperor_Taiki:

@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.

Hi guys, Im a member now yeehaa!!! Ok, thats just crazy talk. Nagasaki lost upwards of 70,000 immediate fatalities just from the bomb blast!!! A hole crapload died in the next week and months. They are still not even sure of the total number of deaths attributed to the bombs. Leukaemia deaths didnt peak until around 1953. Nagasaki was still inhabited but it was done for the war from that ONE bomb. They chose the airburst height to maximize the extent of the immediate effects and to minimize residual radiation (fallout). It could have been worse in the long run.

The bomb destroyed 90% of the city. Look it up, 90%. You guys are vastely underating the power of the A-bomb. The Japanese were tough bastards, there is a reason they quit the war 3 days later. They were gonna lose and they knew it but they were going to force the U.S. to invade anyway. The A-bomb changed all that. I heard someone else say it would take 31 fussion bombs to take out Moscow. Ha Ha, that might be the silliest thing I have ever heard, no offense. Guess how many it would have taken……give up, ok here is the answer…ONE. Yes, thats right, one. They werent quite as fanatical as the Japanese, they fought with more smarts I think. The Japanese needed 2, the Russians would need 1 A-Bomb to hit before realizing they cant win, providing Stalin is dead. He was sick so if he could have hid on some remote island he wouldnt have surrendered till Russia was a steaming molten mass.

Anyway, Your looking at sheer numbers and you cant do that with the A-bomb. Your math goes like this…since the A-bomb takes out 2 miles in all directions and moscow is 386 miles they would still have 378 miles of Moscow to fight the war. It doesnt work like that. Any city, and I mean any city would be completely paralized. All those survivors walking around blind didnt even count as casualties. Not to mention the terror effect is enormouse. In a conventional bombing when its over its usually over after you put the fires out. People would be horrified once that black burning rain starts to fall and is taken to all parts of Russia by wind currents. im not saying Moscow would be completely destroyed, just paralized for a good while. A real good while. What army could fight such a war without being simmarly armed? No one. If they have the bomb and you dont, do yourself a favor and dont fight.

There is no way to realistically put an A-Bomb in the game. Whoever gets it wins, bottom line. The Geo-political ramifications alone make it imposible. It was the biggest story EVER!! Oh ya, and before I forget, Sac couldnt hit a city covering 386 miles but hit Nagasaki and Hiroshema in one try each? If thats the case its a damn good thing the U.S never got into a major war after WW11 because they seemed to get worse at strategic bombing and were tottally incompetent if you are to be believed.

@Imperious:

At most its 10-18 miles circle, so one bomb will take out at least half the city and kill about 85% with radiation within 4 months.

Not so,

Moscow had a rough radius of about 10-12 miles, which is 286 square miles, each atomic bomb completely devistates everything in a 2 mile radius, which takes out 12.56 sqaure miles. This means that in order to completely destroy moscow you need just under 31 bombs.

And this is only one of the cities in the Russia territory, thats why i believe each bomb piece should represent 4-6 bombs and that the factories and AA guns should not be destoryed.