Need Atom bomb input…

My understanding of that term comes from a book called “War” by Gwynne Dyer that I read something like 20 years ago.  It was a TV series too I think.  In that context it referred to complete mobilization of all resources for war, so that defeating the enemy meant obliterating all of the enemy’s resources.  That’s a phenomenon that emerged in the early 20th century once humanity actually developed the technology to potentially kill off whole races or nationalities of people, with no boundaries between civilian and military targets.  In the case of the Holocaust, Hitler waged war against a people who didn’t even have a state of their own or any military at all; nevertheless they were targeted for extermination in his racial war.  Stalin did stuff like that too, like instigating the famine in Ukraine.  British and American “strategic” bombing of civilians is consistent with that line of thinking.  Anyway, I’m not a military person.

Anyway, if you’re going to have nuclear weapons in the game you really do need to drop the pretense of them being some kind of surgical tool.  The A-bomb is an indiscriminate terror weapon that murders massive numbers of innocent civilians with really very little military usefulness beyond that threat.  A house rule for nukes should be couched in terms of genocide, which is their only real purpose.

Hey, y’know what would be fun?  An anti-dark matter H bomb technology that is so powerful that it blows up the entire WORLD!  Everybody dies but the first one to deploy it wins, sort of.

Hitler and Stalin did it on a much larger scale, but murder is murder.  It’s OK if I don’t understand it.

Anyway, if you’re going to have nuclear weapons in the game you really do need to drop the pretense of them being some kind of surgical tool.  The A-bomb is an indiscriminate terror weapon that murders massive numbers of innocent civilians with really very little military usefulness beyond that threat.  A house rule for nukes should be couched in terms of genocide, which is their only real purpose.

I agree with you that in WWII (and less so as the weapons became more sophisticated in the Cold War), nuclear bombs were more of a psychological (you used the word “terror”) weapon than a tactical one. After all, Japan didn’t surrender because their industrial facilities were irreparably crippled from the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was because they feared further attacks.

I do think that a house rule that implements atom bombs should account for this fear (perhaps an instant surrender mechanism?).

However I think you go too far in stating that the A-bomb is an “indiscriminate” weapon used for “genocide.” The bombs used on Japan had very specific targets, with very specific objectives. From atomicarchive.com:

Some of the important considerations [for target selection] were:

1. The range of the aircraft which would carry the bomb.
2. The desirability of visual bombing in order to insure the most effective use of the bomb.
3. Probable weather conditions in the target areas.
4. Importance of having one primary and two secondary targets for each mission, so that if weather conditions prohibited bombing the target there would be at least two alternates.
5. Selection of targets to produce the greatest military effect on the Japanese people and thereby most effectively shorten the war.
6. The morale effect upon the enemy.

These led in turn to the following:

1. Since the atomic bomb was expected to produce its greatest amount of damage by primary blast effect, and next greatest by fires, the targets should contain a large percentage of closely-built frame buildings and other construction that would be most susceptible to damage by blast and fire.
2. The maximum blast effect of the bomb was calculated to extend over an area of approximately 1 mile in radius; therefore the selected targets should contain a densely built-up area of at least this size.
3. The selected targets should have a high military strategic value.
4. The first target should be relatively untouched by previous bombing, in order that the effect of a single atomic bomb could be determined.

@ossel:

6. The morale effect upon the enemy.

shock and awe?

Because i think i understand it and you don’t.  But its ok if we disagree.  Anyway I’ll stop now.

Bla bla bla.

I didn’t read anything on this page because it had nothing to do with house rules.

@Gargantua:

Bla bla bla.

I didn’t read anything on this page because it had nothing to do with house rules.

LMAO!!! that would have been helpful had I read the conversation backward starting here and ending at the top of the page.

Atomic bomb rules is useless…that’s it that all…

Here’s an idea seeing as Berlin was captured and Japan was never captured (thus Axis and Allies game not over) why not let an Atomic only be able to had to VC and for the next round of play that VC counts has controlled by the attacker?

The effect of the A-bomb could be to permanently at 1 VC to the enemy and destroy all production capabilities ( no more IPC from the area) you can’t build a factory and any factory is destroyed.

Literally this is not a true effect of the A-bomb, but in terms of how it effects a nation in the larger scope of things would model it quite well.

@Imperious:

The effect of the A-bomb could be to permanently at 1 VC to the enemy and destroy all production capabilities ( no more IPC from the area) you can’t build a factory and any factory is destroyed.

Literally this is not a true effect of the A-bomb, but in terms of how it effects a nation in the larger scope of things would model it quite well.

I like this idea; however, instead of destroying the factory, I would just add <large number=“” here=“”>D6’s to the facility, so that it is extremely costly to repair it.

Definitely like the VC idea though.</large>

@ossel:

@Imperious:

The effect of the A-bomb could be to permanently at 1 VC to the enemy and destroy all production capabilities ( no more IPC from the area) you can’t build a factory and any factory is destroyed.

Literally this is not a true effect of the A-bomb, but in terms of how it effects a nation in the larger scope of things would model it quite well.

I like this idea; however, instead of destroying the factory, I would just add <large number=“” here=“”>D6’s to the facility, so that it is extremely costly to repair it.

Definitely like the VC idea though.</large>

I like the idea of an A-bomb taking a Victory City away from the enemy, but I would also complement it with my idea of putting all the facilities on the target territory at max damage, or zeroing the territories IPC value.

So you need heavy bombers tech before you can transport the bomb correct? You should only be able to drop the bomb on a victory city with limited restrictions. I think its too strong and only the US had it. If your Germany and your winning the game on your side and then Russia gets A-bomb and takes the territory of Germany ( Berlin) out of play with no value and no factory to produce pieces will change game way to much. Unless your Russia and all you have is Moscow left maybe. You could make getting heavybombers tech way later in rounds. But if you need to spice up your games so be it.

To drop the bomb you needed to be at high altitude or the plane might get caught in the blast, so flak will be out of range.

So effects, permanently lose 1 VC, and Add one to side that dropped the bomb.

Heavy Bomber tech required and cost in 15IPC and only one per turn can be made.

One or Two D6 reduces IPC (permanent) of area.

Well that’s what i mean but didn’t state. One side has to win by one extra VC, the other gets one VC even if the area is controlled by original player.

The Atomic bomb was in WWII - this is a WWII game. How is it useless? I’d say your comment is what is useless.

Yes but only at the end of WWII.
Japan already lost the war anyway…
That’s why is useless.
As an American player, you’re realy a bad player if you need an Atomic bomb…

The dropping of the Atomic bomb had the same effect on Japan as Berlin being taken by the Russians had on Germany. How is the military attack that ended a nations will to fight useless?