Lets Talk Atomic Bombs!

I think you should need four breakthroughs to get it.

you can build them for 5 IPCs and they can cause 4d6 damage to ICs

They can either be delivered by a Heavy bomber or Rockets

Also your super subs are now nuclear subs so they can travel under the north pole.

And your advanced artillery our now atomic cannons and attack at 4.

Atomic Bombs would have to be a technology, so if you’re playing with no techs, then no Atomic Bombs.

I see it as being the result of having a strong research program, so here’s a simple way to do it.

After having researched any 4 technologies, a player gains a new research chart called “Atomic Warfare” with 2 technologies in the chart.  The chart is below.

Chart 3 – Atomic Warfare

1. Atomic Bomb – You may now produce Atomic Bomb units.  These have the following stats.

Atomic Bomb
0    Attack
0    Defense
0    Movement points – may only be moved by bombers, destroyers, cruisers, and/or battleships during the non-combat move phase.
3    IPC cost

2. Atomic Bomber – If it started the turn in a territory containing an Atomic Bomb, then during its combat move phase 1 of your bombers may now perform an “Atomic Bombing Run” on a territory.  This may be a regular attack or a SBR attack.  Of course if the territory has aa, then aa fires fire as usual.

Regular attack (no other attacking units other than air units may be used when performing a regular Atomic Bombing Run – roll 4 dice which hit at “5”

Atomic SBR attack – roll 4 dice.  The total of the dice is the amount of damage which is dealt to the IC.  1 of the damage points dealt is a permanent damage token placed under the IC which permanently reduces the production capacity of the IC.  No IC may be reduced in this way to more than half (rounded down) of its original production capacity. (i.e. Japan could have 4 permanent damage tokens on its IC which would mean that it could only produce up to 4 units and could only be SBR’d for up to 8 damage.  An Indian IC, on the other hand, could have up to 2 permanent damage tokens on it which would reduce its production capacity to 1 and could only be SBR’d for up to 2 damage.

If the above mentioned Japan  with 4 permanent damage tokens on it had Increased Factory Production, then he could produce up to 6 units but could only be SBR’d for up to 8 damage.

Obviously, the above rule set would require one to have researched both atomic technologies before being able to actually drop atomic bombs.

This requirement coupled with the 4 research recuirement would esure that no one could actually drop an atomic bomb until at the very earliest, turn 6 and more likely not until after turn 10.

@Imperious:

I think you can buy only one per turn and they cost something like 15IPC. Also the damage caused is greater and permanent, so more than 1 IPC is reduced for the duration. Perhaps you roll 4 dice and one of these is the permanent reduction so you can reduce up to 6. This would simulate the loss of national will to fight against such weapons.

I like these, espeacailly that one die roll reduced production permenently.

I dont like a-bombs being used against military unit. countrary to popular beleif airbourne fission bombs would not have been very useful or cost effective against ground units. they might have had more effectivness against airfeilds or ships, but if you do use them in a ground battle you should not be able to capture the terriotory that turn.

Back in the “old” days when we all were playing Classic A&A, I had a rule that we would use sometimes to have an Atom Bomb in the game. What we did was, first you had to develope it by buying die rolls for 10 ipcs a die and had to roll a 6, and for each die that was a 6 you would roll to get another 6 to develope A-Bombs, we made it tough to get because it should be tough to get.
    If you developed them then you had to build a factory that cost $100 ipcs, once you did that then A-Bombs were 10 ipcs each and you could deliver them with a bomber.You would attack a territory and everything in that territory was gone- nuked.
    After a few games of this it got sort of gruesome and we quit using them.

IMO,

Atomic Bombs will be a powerful super weapon attainable outside the Breakthrough Chart System.  Therefore, it will be the only Tech that can be targeted.  However, it will be extremely difficult and expensive to attain and use.

Researching Atomic Bombs

During the Research and Development Phase of you turn, you may research Atomic Bombs.  It requires the purchasing of 2 tech dice for 10 IPCs (8 for Germany if you use the German Scientists NA as I do).  You must land on a 3 or less in order to get the breakthrough.  If you fail, you loose those dice and must purchase new ones. [You may purchase 1 dice for 5 one turn and another dice the next turn, then roll.  Likewise, you may purchase 2 rolls for 20].

Purchasing Atomic Bombs

Each Atomic Bomb will cost 10 IPCs.  You can only buy one per turn.  (I think the Nova rules said only one AB can be on the board at any one time. Some may use it, but I don’t like it).

Using an Atomic Bomb

Requirements
Even after getting Atomic Bombs, you require either High Altitude Bombers (from my 3rd Breakthrough Chart, though most will use Heavy Bombers) or Rockets

When an Atom Bomb is used on a territory, remove all units from that territory (including AA guns and factories).  Also, place a damage counter on that territory’s IPC value.  That territory now generates 1 less IPC.

Nuclear Fallout
If a territory is nuked and its IPC value is 0, place an upside-down damage counter (red X mark facing up) on that territory’s control marker.  That territory is now impassable.

I was thinking the bomb would effect only the physical landscape.  Japan was nuked twice, and they seemed to become even more determined to win.  Strategic Bombing also did nothing to discourage production other that physically destroying the factories.

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…